Is it the state?

[Post_Morpheus_I]

Is it the state that you guys really have a problem with? I say that because the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam etc. etc., were examples of how the state can dominate and interfere with people's lives. These regimes were surely the opposite of what all anarchists stand for. Yet, you never even bother discussing them, in fact you will find more defence of state socialism than of liberal democracies. So why, when liberal democracies have less state control than socialists countries, are you so, so, angry towards liberal democracies?

Is it the case that it is inequality that drives you, and you couldn't really give a shit whether the state exists or it dosen't? Come on, you just want equality, and you'd be happy if it was forced upon people. Its ok, you can admit it here, you are amongst friends. I mean, there is hardly any criticism about what is wrong with communism, socialist states and state control or how horrible the Soviet Union was and how nightmarish it all turned out to be. These should be anarchist nightmares, but it is America and the western democracies that are the nighmares!! It is the history of America and capitalism that drives you wild with anger, no concern about the history of the all bearing Soviet State. You see, this sort of bias makes one think that you either don't understand anarchism, or that you are just spotty college-drop out types who like, hate the world and shit and want to like destroy all that capitalism stuff and shit.

So, would you rather live in a communist state than America as it is today? And if not, why do you spend more time criticising the UK than say Cuba, if the UK has less state control?

[tsihcrana laicos]

America is where i would live.

[Guest]

yup.. cuba is fucked up.. fidel is no friend to anarchists ... i'd most likely be dead or in jail as an anarchist in cuba.

but comparing cuba to the US is pretty stupid - one is a small island nation and the other is a mighty (well for now) empire.

a comparison between cuba and comparible states is therefore in order. say, perhaps, a comparison between cuba and other latin american states.

and when you make that comparison, you find cubans on top in terms of the basic standards of living - whether you talk about pre- or post- soviet cuba.

it's worth noting of course that most of the other latin american states follow the models imposed on them by the great empire to the north.

you act as if this has not been discussed (and beaten to death) here before, but the numbers are in - by sen's calculations, 100 million dead due to communism worldwide and 100 million dead from capitalism in india alone.

so when you ask 'where would you live' you give the option of being a citizen of the empires (about 1/6th of the world population) or in the non -empire states which fall into capitalist/authcomm situation (about 5/6th of the worlds population).

the fact is only a small portion of people get to be citizens of empire - the majority has to live in cap or authcomm states. and when that is the choice - the best option is clear - food, housing, med care - or lying in a ditch.

[Morpheus]

Three threads in which we criticized state socialism:
http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72095
http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72281
http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71869

We don't focus on it as much as other kinds of states because most of us live in other kinds of states and because there aren't that many "socialist" states left anymore.

[Post_Morpheus_I]

a comparison between cuba and comparible states is therefore in order. say, perhaps, a comparison between cuba and other latin american states.

and when you make that comparison, you find cubans on top in terms of the basic standards of living - whether you talk about pre- or post- soviet cuba.

Thanks guest, another example of an anarchist defending a socialist state. Thats all the answer I expected. So, Cuba has more state control than other latin American countries, yet you say it has a better standard of living. What does that tell you about the state?

[|Y|]

Cuba is actually capitalist with a nice welfare state run by the people, in other words, it functions capitalistically, but the people have a bigger say in how general hygenic functions of their society work. Food, clothing, education, basically the civil services.

Cuba is a bad example of the state because it shows a "friendly" capitalism. Indeed, Cuba, though it has a relative police state (which was significantly more barbaric during the USSR years, it is far nicer these days, you can actually be gay, although discretion is still needed), would be a GOOD example of capitalism.

Capitalism hurts the people when it doesn't seperate how society functions from how economy functions.

[collectiveindividualist]

a comparison between cuba and comparible states is therefore in order. say, perhaps, a comparison between cuba and other latin american states.

and when you make that comparison, you find cubans on top in terms of the basic standards of living - whether you talk about pre- or post- soviet cuba.

Thanks guest, another example of an anarchist defending a socialist state. Thats all the answer I expected. So, Cuba has more state control than other latin American countries, yet you say it has a better standard of living. What does that tell you about the state?

there is one, and only one, reason why cuba is an authoritarian state - it is under a constant and unrelenting attack by a huge empire.

the historical record is pretty clear - castro did not want to align himself with the soviet union precisely because of its authoritarian nature. he wanted to be non-aligned but the USA made that impossible.

cuba does not have more "state control" than other latin american countries. the other countries enforce capitalism, cuba enforces communism. both are authoritarian states - it's just that the people fare better under one than the other.

if you would like cubans to be free, destroy america and its partners.

[|Y|]

collectiveindividualist, all states are authoritarian, if the US empire did not sanction Cuba, I assure you that it would merely be a tourist despot like it was before, with better living conditions for those in Cuba. There would be no communist utopia.

If anything the sanctions are being used to exploit the Cuban people by the Cuban state, because Castro's nice speeches tend to place the blame for Cuban depotism on the US. It may be true, but it's wrong to use that to make the people more sympathetic to the state.

Dissent was, and still is in large part, quelled in Cuba. Certainly it is one of the most depotistic places in the southern hemisphere of the Americas which disallows free expression of ideas. Even to this day.

Cuba did not have to be aligned with the USSR, and when the USSR fell, it was made quite clear that Cuba could survive without it. If fact, if it weren't for the falling of the USSR, Cuba never would've become the largely decentralized nation (from a resource perspective) that it currently is. Before the fall of the USSR, Cuba was a cane producing country, after, it diversified its products, began growing its own food, actually started going in a more sustainable, less dependent, direction.

If the US and Cuba were partners Cuba would merely be a baby US. It would resemble Canada in many ways, only with Cuba's superior decentralized welfare system in place. Really, it would.

[collectiveindividualist]

as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

[|Y|]

Actually, that's the first time I knew definitively that you are the stalker Guest. Welcome to flag under an actual nick!

Feel free to read my post, however, as I have been to Cuba and have Cuba friends, and even at one point was "all for the Cuban state" but I learned my ways. Basically, if it's about Cuba, I do know what I'm talking about.

[Nexonic]

Suggestion noted and ignored

[|Y|]

http://www.ruralaction.org/readjan2002.html <- about what happened when the USSR collapsed and Cuba actually had to start becoming self-sufficient

edit: btw, one cannot consider the decentralized growing communities "the state."

It's the people. That's why Cuba can be anarchist a lot easier than some states. Get rid of the authoritarian, looming, status quo, you have anarchism.

[Post_Morpheus_I]

as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

[huntergatherer]

as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

No, he meant Y. Duh.

[collectiveindividualist]

as everyone knows by now, i do not respond to postings from the poster above because:

- he openly admits he's a troll who is here to disrupt the board
- he violently threatens posters with whom he disagrees

i noticed that the post was addressed to me, but i did not even read the rest of it. i encourage the rest of you also to ignore this person, as he has proven time and again that he is only here to disrupt, not debate.

I presume you are addressing those comments at me. Please tell me where I have violently threatened any poster on this forum. Don't throw acqusations like that around if you can't back it up. You are a LIAR.

ahem.... though i could have perhaps worded it better (".. the poster directly above" ??), i think you've just exposed yourself as extremely self-obsessed and self-centered.

you keep losing debate after debate and all you've got is ad hominem, and now, paranoid delusion.

for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the troll PIM has never threatened anyone with violence. he does seem to think everything is about him, but that's another story entirely.

(p.s. does this mean PIM is admitting "he's a troll who is here to disrupt this board" ???)