My nationality has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I could just as well be an American. If I ask certain things of America, it's because I'm posting in a thread on Obama, because I'm on a predominantly American board and I enjoy discussing things with the people on this board, because I recognise the influence and power America has over the Western World.
God bless America.
Err, I mean...Bruce Campbell bless America.
I'm not anti-American, nor am I a nationalist; I'm a socialist - I oppose capitalism and all that goes with it - imperialism, territorialism, racism, sexism, militarism; all injustice.
- Gloria Steinem
With that logical paradigm, then why would you be upset when I tried to use your nationality against you? Its like if we went overseas, and the foreigners called us "Brown Tooth." We don't know what it means, good or bad, so instead of being happy or upset, we're just fucking confused or just shrug it off and forget it.
Better yet, why did you call yourself British if you reject nationalism? Wouldn't such purging include such labels? I'm confused now.
The notion that a "nation" can "betray" itself is absurd. And it's a common tendency of anti-socialist propaganda to portray it as such - that socialists outdo themselves and come undone, that they somehow betray themselves because of socialism's inherent capacity to fail. That's a lie.
Then what of the great socialist superpowers in Russia and China, and Cuba, selling out to capitalism ultimately? What does that say?
Stalinism betrayed socialism, if you want a poetic simplification. But it's never as simple as that. It's a gross misconception that the Soviet Union failed at socialism; it never achieved it fully, thanks to unique and specific historical and social factors;
Well dictatorships tend to do that.
And no, they didn't "fail" at socialism, but they still tapped out. Also, how would you explain Gorbachev's well-meaning-if-ultimately-fatal reforms in the 1980s?
likewise with Cuba, whose revolution was an amazing achievement, but whose dependence on further social revolution made certain compromises inevitable - add to that the Bolivian disaster, the Bolshevik disillusionment, Stalinism's betrayal and all anti-Red propaganda that was quick to throw Stalin and communism in (or under) the same bed.
The only true achievement of that regime, toward their ideological goals, was Cuba freed to be independent from the American sphere of influence...and only escaped Russia's in the 1990s. Though now its a whore of your much despised capitalist Western Europe/Canada/Japan and soon America* inevitably
The revolution must be permanent.
Yes Yes Yes
And I end my posting with this quote from the very good actioneer UNDER SIEGE. Take away Mr. Tommy Lee Jones!
"Yes, of course! Hence the name: movement. It moves a certain distance, then it stops, you see? A revolution gets its name by always coming back around in your face. You tried to kill me you son of a bitch... so welcome to the revolution. "*=Obama just gave permission to American telecom corporations to apply for licenses to do business in Cuba.
