Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001

[Xavier_Onassis]

Communists do not beleive in elections , they don't even beleive in changeing the head man untill the crowd is shouting "Timişoara!"



Every Communist nation has or had regular elections. The concept is not alien to them. The general idea is that the most hard-working and honest citizens are invited to become party members, and they make the decisions. Then they ask the public to ratify those decisions, which also include the choice of leaders.

Of course, this encourages the same ideas and the same officials to stay in power long after they have run out of any creative thought, and in the worst cases, the people get really pissed as they did in Romania.

Not coincidentally, this model is almost exactly the process used for elections of officers and approval of changes in US corporations. The Board of Directors recommends that the new candidates when the old ones die, usually due to age, death or ill health. They also recommend amendments to the corporate charter. It is very rare that alternative candidates or proposals are given as an option.

The recommendations of the Board, like the recommendations of the Politburos and central and district committees, and nearly always approved.

Strangely, no one ever protests that the way corporations are organized leads to a lack of innovation and poor management. They tend to mumble something about how the possibility of going broke or losing market share will provide enough impetus to make management more responsive to shareholders. If one studies, say AT&T over the years, it seems to resemble Stalin's USSR a lot more than Southwest Airlines or Microsoft.

One thing that is a constant with AT&T: they always have the highest rates, no matter what they are selling.
If you are a customer, they also have the greatest number of restrictions and fees. If you find their service sucks, they will be glad to let you discontinue service for a huge penalty. Like Uncle Joe, they prefer compulsion to satisfaction.

It's not like you get more: they allowed the administration to spy on their customers at will.
If Stalin were a US corporation, he would strongly resemble AT&T.

[Michael Tee]

<<Communists do not beleive in elections , they don't even beleive in changeing the head man untill the crowd is shouting "Timişoara!">>

That is just totally non-factual.  I see that XO has already given the lie to that statement, so I needn't bother with more examples, but I would like to point out that communist leaders who DO cling to power are no more remarkable for that than many right-wing leaders and U.S. puppets bought and paid for with U.S. dollars.  A very silly comment fueled by nothing more than knee-jerk anticommunism which unfortunately is characteristic of the massive brainwashing of the U.S. public that goes on non-stop from cradle to grave.

[Plane]

<<How would they know?>>

How would who know what?

Quote from: Michael Tee on June 17, 2008, 05:18:53 PM
"...of the Communist guerrillas, who almost certainly represented the will of the Greek people, ...."



How would they know?

How would they know that they represented the will of the Greek people?

I don't think they would have had a referendum that early. There was still some opposition alive.

Dear XO and MT , the Communists do not hold elections .

Elections held after the opposition has been shot or imprisoned do not deserve the name "election" , "fraud " would be more accurate.

Us Business can write their own bylaws and enforce themn as strictly or as lax as the US law will allow them , generally competition is not from within the company but is from other companys.

However when ever a company is run poorly enough to loose the confidence of its stockholders , it must change or it will become cheap stock , then it is prone to hostile takeover.

Does that have a parrellel in International relations?

[sirs]

Dear XO and MT , the Communists do not hold elections .  Elections held after the opposition has been shot or imprisoned do not deserve the name "election" , "fraud " would be more accurate.

Kinda like Saddam's 100% "election wins"

[Xavier_Onassis]

But they DO hold elections. You may disagree with the way they hold them, just as I disagree with the way AT&T holds its elections. These vary greatly with the country, by the way, which you would know if you actually read up on it, which you haven't, and I suspect, won't.

Why not go after corporations for their equally bogus elections?

[Michael Tee]

How would the Greek communist guerrillas know that they represented the will of the Greek people?  By a number of things - - the popular support they received from the people during the war against the fascists and the relatively tepid support given to the Royalist guerrillas; the fact that Greece was a very poor country and the Metaxas dictatorship was a direct response to the demands of the Greek working class for higher wages and better conditions.  I think it's just common sense that if a dictatorship seizes power on behalf of the propertied classes to suppress workers' and peasants' demands, in a poor country where the rich are very few and the poor are very many, that a fighting Communist guerrilla movement will have the support of the masses. 

The Greeks are very tough and experienced fighters and if the people had wanted a Royalist regime after the overthrow of the Nazi occupation, a Royalist guerrilla force would have easily prevailed, with popular support, against a Communist minority.  The very fact that the Royalists had to call in British army support to me is the strongest indication that the people were on the side of the Communists, and that without foreign military intervention, the Communists would have won.

As far as elections go, I think it's extremely silly to claim that Communists don't have elections or don't "believe in" elections.  They obviously have elections and the people can and do vote in them.  The candidates may be selected a little differently than in the U.S.A. but the U.S. candidate selection process that produces Tweedledum and Tweedledee candidates who basically promise the same things to the country and vie with each other for the support of the Israel Lobby is just as skewed as any Communist election ever was.   

[Plane]

I just held an election , then I flushed it.

Does the word mean nothing or everything ?

Define "election " or "Referendum" in terms that are meaningfull or loose the power of speech.

In a country that outlaws all opposition partys there is no election , There is an earstaz sham foux election like product , but this is like an election the way that Wax is like cheese.
 

[Michael Tee]

I don't think the typical Communist election is as phony as you think it is and I don't think the American elections are as democratic as you think they are.  Both systems manipulate the elections in various ways so that the ruling class continues to enjoy the status quo.  Frankly, I think you're wasting an enormous amount of intellectual energy putting down Communist elections when your own aren't all that much better.  You are fulminating over truly marginal differences and distinctions.

[Plane]

I don't think the typical Communist election is as phony as you think it is and I don't think the American elections are as democratic as you think they are.  Both systems manipulate the elections in various ways so that the ruling class continues to enjoy the status quo.  Frankly, I think you're wasting an enormous amount of intellectual energy putting down Communist elections when your own aren't all that much better.  You are fulminating over truly marginal differences and distinctions.

Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?

I am not aware of it , if there ever was , haveing elections is incompatable with Communism ,but haveing something that is not an election and calling it an election is perfectly Orwellian.

[Michael Tee]

<<Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?>>

Typically, there is one party, but within that party there are different "strains" - - in Hungary, for example, the "communism" of Imre Nagy, Matyas Rakosi and/or Janos Kadar were of very different kinds.  Elections held to ratify Party leadership can often promote one strain of communism over another, hard-liners over soft-liners, for example

Your own country has devolved a "two-party" system in which the candidates of both parties will try to out-do each other in swearing fealty to the State of Israel, or continuing the fight for "freedom" of the "Cuban People," and even in war vs peace, it seems the "peace" candidate of 1964 invaded Viet Nam shortly after his "election" and this year's "peace candidate" seems to be in favour of peace in Iraq so that more troops can be transferred to fight Afghanistan or even possibly Pakistan.  Your elections mimic the APPEARANCE of "two parties" which "fight" each other for the right to make "changes" but all the changes are purely illusory:  "universal" health-care in any form, so long as it's not single-payer, government-run; war in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but not in Iraq, or war in Iraq; the essence of the American Empire is not threatened by either candidate.

And yet you cling to ridiculous and arbitrary distinctions to "prove" that your phony "Tweedledum vs. Tweedle" elections are somehow vastly superior to their more clumsily contrived and poorly presented little farces.  The differences between YOUR one-Party state and THEIR one-Party state are marginal.

[Plane]

<<Is there in history , a Communist run country that ran the risk of allowing another party to debate and campaign and appear on the ballot?>>

Typically, there is one party, but ...

That is enough.

Within the party there may be factions that can assinate each other , but forbidding all the other partys is the same sin as cornering the market in a vital resorce.Monopoly is corrupt , andy monopoly that is not corrupt will soon be. Monopoly itself is corrupt.


There is no requirement to the USA that there be only two partys , in fact there are several partys but only two are strong at present .

The Wigg party went defunct the same way the Communist are and after a few decades of single party politics we held our worst war.

Single party means there are no "elections" , there is no debate or fight outside the party itself , this is no less than a fatal error.

[Michael Tee]

plane, you're just making up your own rules as you go along.  There is no reason, no rhyme and no rule that an election must be between "Parties."  The U.S. Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, does not even mention political parties.  Elections can be for individuals or they can be between parties.  The defining element of an election is that the electorate is presented with a choice between proponents of one policy and proponents of a different policy and asked to choose by voting, the votes to be counted and the majority to rule.  THAT is an election as I understand it.

Your system is fake through and through because your two "parties" are beholden to the same special interests and offer remarkably little to choose between in their programs.  Undying support of Israel, check, endless war, check (choose between Iraq and Pakistan for the site,) no single-payer health insurance, check, Cuban embargo continued, check . . .   it goes on.  IF the system gave the people a serious choice between candidates - - Bush against Chomsky, Kucinich against McCain - - then the elections would mean something other than the shams that they actually are.  Talk about monopoly and corruption - - you've got 'em both, in spades.

Your vision of communism as a system without debate and without factions is laughable, it is just not based in reality.  They have some debate, obviously there are no McCain-type candidates in their Party, but in your system, there are never any Kucinich-type candidates ever being allowed on the national stage for anything other than cosmetic ("See?  He can run!") purposes.

[Plane]

plane, you're just making up your own rules as you go along.  There is no reason, no rhyme and no rule that an election must be between "Parties."  The U.S. Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, does not even mention political parties.  Elections can be for individuals or they can be between parties.  The defining element of an election is that the electorate is presented with a choice between proponents of one policy and proponents of a different policy and asked to choose by voting, the votes to be counted and the majority to rule.  THAT is an election as I understand it.

Your system is fake through and through because your two "parties" are beholden to the same special interests and offer remarkably little to choose between in their programs.  Undying support of Israel, check, endless war, check (choose between Iraq and Pakistan for the site,) no single-payer health insurance, check, Cuban embargo continued, check . . .   it goes on.  IF the system gave the people a serious choice between candidates - - Bush against Chomsky, Kucinich against McCain - - then the elections would mean something other than the shams that they actually are.  Talk about monopoly and corruption - - you've got 'em both, in spades.

Your vision of communism as a system without debate and without factions is laughable, it is just not based in reality.  They have some debate, obviously there are no McCain-type candidates in their Party, but in your system, there are never any Kucinich-type candidates ever being allowed on the national stage for anything other than cosmetic ("See?  He can run!") purposes.

Your imaginings of a Communist nation hoasting debates that are between serious rivals is laughable and based on no reality. I am trying to remember who the cheif rival for power against Ho Chi Minh was in North Viet Nam , I wonder what his manner of exicution was.

The US does not quash political opposition the way that All Communist governments have.

Kuchinich , if the people wanted him , would have been President , why not?

There is no rule against a person running as an individual , about a dozen do this every election.
But how do they persuede the people to vote ?

http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm

[Plane]

Typically, there is one party, but within that party there are different "strains" - - in Hungary, for example, the "communism" of Imre Nagy, Matyas Rakosi and/or Janos Kadar were of very different kinds.  Elections held to ratify Party leadership can often promote one strain of communism over another, hard-liners over soft-liners, for example

In the USA there is no Republicanism or Democratism that can monopolise the public debate with the power of the police.

Imagine the Democrats locking up all of the Republicans , shooting half of the leaders , and shooting all the smaller partys 100%.

Then telling the people that they should choose between the diffrent Democrats , do you want Kerry or Kuchinich?

[Michael Tee]

<<Imagine the Democrats locking up all of the Republicans , shooting half of the leaders , and shooting all the smaller partys 100%.>>

I guess what you're really saying is that the military-industrial complex, the War Party, the Power Elite, the Secret Government or whatever anyone wants to call it has found a less brutal way of ensuring its perpetual grip on power than the Communists did.   Not that I accept your analogy, it's shot full of holes reality-wise in that it probably never happened, but even if that is the distinction you wish to draw between Communism and the U.S. system - - it's pretty meaningless.

What you'd be left with - - accepting your bizarre premises as fact - - would be equally farcical and bogus "elections" on both sides of the divide, one being more brutally achieved than the other, but farces nevertheless.