This song isn't about the "horrors of communism" or anything like that.
This song was aimed at uncultured well-to-do self-righteous liberals who lived in an upper class white bubble, displaying a false sense of compassion and humanitarianism while blissfully unaware of the atrocities being supported by the US government in South East Asia.It isn't an attack on people who criticize America at all, if you think Jello would have written some dumb fucking hick "You dont like America? GO LIVE IN NORTH KOREA YOU COMMIE!!!" conservative argument like that, you don't know the Dead Kennedy's.
deathtokoalas
+Franklin Jones
anarchists have always been critical of marxists.
Aleesb
+Franklin Jones Pol Pot was not supported by the US; the Left like Noam Chomsky turned a blind eye to Pol Pot, the US government didn't like him, but after Vietnam it stopped messing with trying to deal with that nonsense. Pol Pot was a friend of the Chinese Communists, Vietnam friend to the Russian Communists, when they clashed and the Vietnamese communists one, Chinese communists tried to punish Vietnamese communists and realized just how outdated their military doctrine was.
Johnny
+Aleesb Alees...the left closed an eye..yeah..but Pol Pot was supported by the US. We have undeniable proof of that. Ddeal with it....i think that the CIA operations and the financial support is agreed upon by all historians but Im not very informed about it..I think they did it to contrast VIetnam...yeha they ONCE were allied with vietnam..but politics are politics man...
deathtokoalas
+Johnny
it's sort of complicated.
the so-called left (by which i mean influential writers, rather than workers movements) didn't turn a blind eye to pol pot, so much as they (correctly) argued that the media reports were exaggerated - either to make the enemy seem more diabolical than they actually were, or just to increase ratings.
in the 70s, something called the sino-soviet split happened. it's not an event, it's a process. this wasn't merely a break between the russians and chinese over communism, it was also an attempt for the americans to reassert control over china. this led to the united states supporting chinese-backed forces in an anti-soviet pseudo-alliance. american tolerance and aid of the khmer rouge is rooted in this policy of propping up chinese forces to defeat russian interests, but it only happened after the khmer rouge had been defeated by the vietnamese.
Johnny
+deathtokoalas "the media reports were exaggerated" nope..chomsky was fuckign wrong. Stop worshipping that old twat. EH was wrong. The genocide happened. End of the discussion. Journals exagerate EVERYTHING but its not an excuse to speak as chomsky did. I'm referring specifically to him and other leftists denyign the wrongs of communist led countries.
" it was also an attempt for the americans to reassert control over china" WHAT? AHAHAH NO! The US had nothing to do with internal communist problems ahahha are you crazy? During the cold war?
Look, the US indeed were at better relation with china after the end of the korean and vietnamese wars..but they jsut lived and let lived..the sino-urss break up after ww2 was caused by the opposing interests in the same area: Asia. The US had nothign to do with it. If you think the opposite provide me proofs of this alleged plan of the US to separate the URSS and china LOL
"the so-called left didn't turn a blind eye to pol pot" Firstly I mean the writers too..secondly it's obvious that you don't know what we are talkign about..doid you read chomsky opinions in those days? He admitte dot be wrong himself after years..still he was wrong..you need to deal with it..Ill quote him:"the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury"
Johnny
+Aleesb chomsky is a moron..he's always against-US..he doesn't care who he sides with...hes politicized..
Im neutral here...but I read stuff..the US asked for a UN seat for the khmer rouges even after their fall...and there's lots of people providing "proof" about US or CIA funding to the khmers...I didn't looked into it alot..but there's seems to be some connection...
Its politics in the end...its logical for the US to support the khmer since they were anti-vietnam.
Johnny
+deathtokoalas btw..chomsky is a loon.. you know what he said also?
deathtokoalas
+Johnny nobody ever argued that the genocide didn't happen. rather, several public intellectuals correctly pointed out that the reports were unreliable and that stated death tolls were grossly inflated over what actually existed on the ground.
i'm not going to get into details; none of the evidence from either side is very convincing, and it's all severely tainted by the vietnamese invasion. i'm aware of at least one author that has assigned the mass graves to the vietnamese.
we will never know the truth of what happened, but we can state with certainty that the media reports at the time were greatly exaggerated and should have been interpreted with skepticism. the lesson is that we should continue to take reports of the sort - such as the ones in syria - skeptically, as they are no doubt also exaggerated to argue for american foreign policy goals.
nor am i arguing that the sino-soviet split was engineered by the americans, so much as i am pointing out that the americans attempted to use the resulting anti-soviet alliance to further contain the soviets. the united states was weakly aligned with china against the soviet union from about 1980 to about 1995.
the americans never cared about vietnam. the point was to control the staging ground into indonesia, which is where the resources were.
nor was the cold war about communism, if you want to call what existed in asia communism. the anglo-russian conflict goes back to napoleon, and the anglo-sino conflict to the opium wars. it was all the same issues throughout the 19th century that it was throughout the 20th century: access to markets, control of strategic regions and transportation lines, control of resources...
the reason it makes sense for the americans to support the khmer rouge is that they were aligned with china, and china was in conflict with russia. my enemy's enemy is a friend.
Johnny
"nobody ever argued that the genocide didn't happen"
CHOMSKY ARGUED THAT! ALONG WITHA BUNCH OF POLITICIZED JOURNALISTS ahahahah
He said it..check it..there's sources, youa r e a bloody fanboy denying reality!
"correctly pointed out that the reports were unreliable" NO NONONO! HE reviewed a book that PRAISED the khmer rouges..and wich used thier propaganda as a source..and while doing this he also negated another book from an author who interviewed genocide's survivors and chomsky said it was basically bullshit. you want me to find the sources or you can use google by yourself?
"we will never know the truth of what happened" oh god...you act like a holocaust denier..I don't care if its 100.000 or 1 million..its still too much and its still genocide. Its still an abominatio..but you are desperately trying to justify it..you ar esickening...
"we can state with certainty that the media reports at the time were greatly exaggerated" how can we say it "certainly" if you just said "we will never know"...you ar ebeeing intellectually dishonest..you are pushing your anti-media propaganda and you are denying an holocaust to do so..sickening...
"such as the ones in syria" let me guess.. "the US DID IT!" The US started syria too? And they made 9/11? And Lybia? Its always the US fault right? Such a smart naarrative you ahve HAHAHAHA
ok...now I know who you are..you are another politicized irrational conspiracy theorist moron
" i am pointing out that the americans attempted to use the resulting anti-soviet alliance to further contain the soviets" WHAT? I will repeat the question..show me a PROOF of this supposed US influence on a communist governament during the cold war..Im waiting...what did they ACTUALLY DO to influence cina? And in what direction? Let's be honest...you are speaking out of your ass..China's politics were not influenced by the US...China was autonomous..and it still is..its the party that decides...
"from about 1980 to about 1995." now you are randomly skipping to another era...still intellectually dishonest
deathtokoalas
i'll let you go ahead and find the sources for me.
Johnny
+deathtokoalas "if you want to call what existed in asia communism" classical no-true-scotsman fallacy...still intellectually dishonest...theya re communsit only if they follow YOUR particular flavour of communism, right? HAHAHAHA
Opium wars have NOTHIGN to do with the cold war ahahah you are going full retard!
"access to markets, control of strategic regions and transportation lines, control of resources" this is the dumbest analysis of the cold war ever..the US didn't gave a fuck about indocina's "resources"..tell that to ANY historian..he would LAUGH in your face....
" china was in conflict with russia" china was not in "conflict"...
The US just wanted the enemies fractioned..indeed they supported the khmers...
we were not talking about that..we were talking about moronic comments from leftist intellectuals in those days, politicized journalists, idolatry towards chomsky, you still denying a genocide (even if you don't openly say it),
deathtokoalas
the us influence on the khmer rouge did not happen in the 70s. it happened in the 80s, as a consequence of the sino-american alliance against the soviet union [which is what ended the "cold war"]. that's what i'm trying to correct you on. you're confusing periods.
Johnny
wtf ar eyou rambling about? i'm tlaking about the SUPPOSED US INFLUENCE ON CHINA! Not the khmers...the US supported the khmers..thats a FACT we both agree on.
"sino-american alliance against the soviet union" wtf is this crap looney thign you tlak about?
"which is what ended the "cold war"" eh? No...there was no such thing as a sino-US alliance..you are going full retard...
deathtokoalas
i'm still waiting for your sources, btw.
i will state this again: american tolerance and aid to the khmer rouge does not date to the period of the khmer rouge regime, but rather to the period where they were exiled and existed as guerillas and paramilitaries in the depths of the jungle. this was during the 80s, not during the 70s. it was a consequence of a shift of alliances that happened about 1980, that saw the chinese and americans working together to contain russian interests. this shift in alliances was a primary factor in the russians' decision to choose to stand down.
the khmer were fighting against a russian backed army. they were the enemy of their enemy (russia), and therefore their friend.
i am not presenting obscure history. you can learn about this in any introductory text to the topic.
Johnny
And he also says that 9/11 was an act from "freedom fighters" "oppressed" by the "evil westerners", that the NATO Kosovo intervention was evil and there was no genocide there too..that the holocaust never existed..that jews are evil...do i need to go on? Seriously..youa re such a fanboy that you can't see the reality...he's a moron...
deathtokoalas
+Johnny can you provide a source for that claim, too?
Marc Mielke
Communism fails because people are greedy shots. Just like Capitalism and Socialism, really.
Johnny
+Marc Mielke communsim fails because its a dumb collective religion with dogmas.
I didn't left religion to jump into an ideology.
Im an individual. Communism is about the welfare of the COLLECCTIVE over the welfare of the INDIVIDUAl.
Fuck that.
Private property is a GOOD thing. I want my house and my things without owing anything to the state.
You ar ento going to control me.
Extreme left is as shitty as extreme right. both authoritarian and both against all these songs stand for.
deathtokoalas
+Johnny presuming that you mean marxism rather than communism, i think the first part of this is correct.
but, communism actually takes the position that the separation between the individual and the society is a false dichotomy, and seeks to expose it as a contradiction. it argues that the best way to achieve individual freedom is to hold property collectively.
you claim you want a house without owing anything to the state and cannot be controlled. but, how many years of slave labour are you willing to put in to pay the bank for the deed on the parcel of land?
Johnny
it has so many shades...let's call it extreme marxism ok? Because everyone has his toughts on marxism, I do appreciate some aprts of it, but it depends...
"separation between the individual and the society is a false dichotomy" exactly..because its a collective movement...
Its an utopia, it aims for a "greater good" disregarding the consequences of actions.. the aim doesn't justify the means.
Thats why there's moderate socialists. Those that want to achieve BETTER solution (not ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE utopian ones) throught reforms and not silly revolutions and economical failing plans...
"it argues that" yeah, they argue that..but I don't aggree with them..private property is a core value of individual freedom.
I do understand the importance of owning the means of production, but if those pass from the Rich industrialist to the "party", the collective..how am I free? i jsut changed my liege..from one single man to a collective who basically owns me....
"how many years of slave labour" that's another matter..that's about small governament vs big one...
I mean, what you mean with "years of slavery"
You don't pay the bank to build the house, you pay the CONSTRUCTION WORKERS! They need a COMPENSATION for their work...I don't see what you mean..either you build the house yourself or you need to give somethign for it...and that somethign is your work-hours
then the sick bank loan system is another matter but from your words it seems like you are against paying for a service or a job ehheeh (the land too..its not the "state's land"..its another individual's land...
We all have the right to a home, but not for free, at RESONABLE PRICES yeah, but not for free..thats why we got socialist policies about "popular homes" in EU...we get homes at calmiered prices...
then there's many extreme left (and even right in these last years lol) guys who "occupy" homes as an excuse to live off someone's else work -_-
deathtokoalas
see, this idea of the party taking over is conflating marxism with communism again. some of the strongest opposition to marxism came from communists, and the marxists slaughtered them as a consequence. we're not talking about a few dead rebels. we're talking about massacres of tens of thousands of people.
communists would oppose any centralized party committee taking over anything. the fundamental idea at the core of communism is the elimination of all rulers, to be replaced with institutions that operate on the principles of direct democracy. communism is not the pre-eminence of the state, but the abolition of it.
i wouldn't be able to build my own home, but you're creating another false dilemma in pitting the necessity of compensation for builders against the necessity of forced labour. you're articulating the mindset of a slave, as you repeat your master's propaganda.
Johnny
I never wante dto imply that marxism=communism, sorry if I passed that message.
"communism is the elimination of all rulers, to be replaced with institutions" yep, I agree 100%..but those new institution WILL BECOME basically the new governament, and they will have to IMPOSE collectivisation..so denying individualism...plus direct democracy its UTOPIA and the mere act of IMPOSIGN it as they would havr to resot to, would be a CONTRADICTION to it! ehhehe
" you're articulating the mindset of a slave, as you repeat your master's propaganda." I think you picked the wrong person here, my child...Im far from beeing a conformist or a hard worker, I despise work, I despise consumism, I despise capitalism..btu I despise collectivism and communist dogma too...
LEt's talk real please, in a communist system who will do what the state is doing now?
Who's gonna decide?
Direct democrayc is fantasy..we are too many for it but most importantly there's NO ONE to enforce decisions.
It would be mob thinking.
Who will substitute the police?
Who would decide laws? WHo would enforce it?
THats why real utopistic communism was NEVER achieved...thats why it always DEGENERATES into dictatorships (of the party or of the individual dictator)..because direct democracy cnanot be achieved and someone needs to always take decisions...
deathtokoalas
again: communism doesn't operate on the principle of a centralized power imposing it's will on the population. it operates on the principle of free association. this is not currently realistic, because it is not what people desire. this is why communists speak of something called the social revolution, which must precede the political revolution.
there will always be people that disagree, at first. but, they should not be forced into compliance. rather, they should be excluded from participation - boycotted. this process might end up very harsh, but the idea is that it is a means of justice relative to a different concept of property.
today, we punish people for stealing objects or ideas. in a communist society, we would punish people for stealing surplus value. if you think about this, you can see that they are equivalent reactions to different social norms about property. the difference is that theft in our society is often driven by need, whereas stealing surplus value is never anything more than greed. that both means it should happen less often and should be punishable by greater sanctions - such as total expulsion from social interaction.
regarding decision making, the truth is that there are only limited circumstances where it is required to make collective decisions at all: the threat of violence by outside forces, scarcity and, in today's world, the reality of climate change. we would suffer no harm if the vast majority of decisions we entrust into the care of the state were simply not made at all.
Johnny
YOu keep tlaking with philosophical hot air and theories..like marx did..and thats why communism always fails.
I asked for the PRACTICAL THING.
"there will always be people that disagree, at first. " no, there WILL ALWAYS BE. full stop. Unless you control thought. We don't want to control thought, right? ;-)
"it is a means of justice" you are scary...you sound alot like acultist..thats what I dont like about communism..ever read machiavelli? DO the end justify the means? i don't think that it always does...
"in a communist society, we would punish people" WHO will ENFORCE THAT?
If someone does there you have a establishment institution and laws, practically a governament...so my point stands..total communism is jsut utopia and hot air...
"total expulsion from social interaction" enforcer beeing?
"there are only limited circumstances" not at all..who decides what do the community needs or doesn? Who decide when its time to build a road? And the location? And the cost? And the number of workers? etc etc etc...
Plus this communist comunity would work only in a defined space. Thats the break up between internationalist and URSS communists..those who wanted world revoltion vs those who wante dto build it up only in the URSS and maek a "national-communism".
How are you going to PRACTICALLY take decisions for ALL THE WORLD with DIRECT democracy, without institutions, both local, regional and continental decisions? How?
deathtokoalas
on a global scale, nobody actually makes those decisions on behalf of anybody else or enforces them on anybody else. local, autonomous groups would be moving in all kinds of different directions. you're laying down premises that aren't meaningful, because you can't see beyond hierarchical organizing structures.
ostracism as justice under communism would not be decided by or enforced by an authoritative body either, it would be carried out spontaneously by people that believe in the underlying moral fabric. this may sound absurd, but it's why the social revolution is necessary first.
i don't think it's absurd as it might appear, either. when social norms become engrained, they become dominant in colouring how we perceive things. the idea of property itself is this kind of norm - a social construct. if we can construct a social norm around upholding property, we can create one around abolishing it.
this isn't a philosophical theory, so much as it's setting down preconditions that lead to desirable results as clear inferences. but, the crux of what you're saying is correct, and i've stated this on several occasions: communism is absolutely an unattainable impossibility unless the precondition of a change in social attitudes is set in place first.
Johnny
"nobody actually makes those decisions on behalf of anybody" an exempel? I don't follow you..for exempel a gasdoct..how's that not an international decision? And gas is a NECESSITY.
"ostracism" someone still needs to enforce it...
" this may sound absurd" this IS absurd since evil people will ALWAYS exist and cooperate against your perfect fairy land paradise eheheh
"social norms become engrained" what does that MEAN? How are you going to reach that stage? Is IMPOSSIBLE unless you control minds...
"the idea of property itself is this kind of norm - a social construct" I don't aggree...your view is religious-like..you BELIVE in this things without actual proofs..you substituted religion with anarcho-communism or the fuck you belive in...
You ar edisgusting
You are actually talking abotu ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATING SOCIETY AND MINDS!
Thats sick...that's orwellian...
"the precondition of a change in social attitudes is set in place first." WHo si going to set that? HOW? Who will guard the guards?
Its jsut hot air..you are nto speakign any PRACTICAL plan..
deathtokoalas
i don't know what a "gasdoct" is.
the question of whether this is practical is open. but, the other option is nihilism, and you'll have to excuse me for being unsatisfied with that.
we can either hope that social attitudes can slowly change - not by force but by choice through education and example - or we can give up, accept that life is pointless and sit around and get drunk. there's no use in pretending there's some acceptable middle point in some "moderate" form of slavery.
it's the famous line - socialism or barbarism. it's very much true.
Johnny
ops..pipeline I meant
"the other option is nihilism" no its not..there's not just capitalism or communism ahhaha false dichotomy.
"pretending there's some acceptable middle point" ahahah DUDE! There's shades. Nothign is as absolute as you say.
And if you think that if communism is not achievable then life is not worth living Im sorry tot ell you, but you are MENTAL! You are seriously DEPRESSED and DELUDED by communism. Its like a christian that says "without god there's no meaning". NO! Fuck that ahahah
YOU are beeing nihilist.
And cultist.
You basically said: either I have an irrational HOPE in this PERFECT communist plan or I GIVE UP.
Go see a doctor please.
"socialism or barbarism" so you think that NOW we are barabrians LOL
And there's no difference for exemple between 1800's England and Modern England? LOL All barbarian slaves? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
deathtokoalas
i'm not constructing a choice between capitalism or communism in terms of what we have in front of us right now. rather, i think i've been rather explicit that communism is not feasible at any time in the near future. if such a choice were to be put on the table, the only possible option at this point would be capitalism.
rather, i am telling you that i will refuse to participate in a society that is not moving in the direction of establishing real freedom. and, yes - this is a binary choice, but it is not between capitalism and communism. it is between hope and hopelessness.
there is not a compromise, in the long run. if you agree in the idea of progress, then you accept that it is a process of increasing approximations to utopia. you don't have to be hegelian about it. you just have to look at the idea of things getting better, at some rate of change, over time.
yet, if you reject the concept of progress - if you accept the end of history - then there is no longer a purpose in bothering, and there is no reason to care. if this is the best we can do, it's pretty fucking piss poor. it simply isn't worth fighting for or participating in.
the difference between modern england and nineteenth century england is the exportation of slavery. the fundamental economic facts are not at all different.
DuckieMcduck
+Franklin Jones That's your interpretation of it. To me it's clearly about taking the piss at leftists who actually benefit from right-wing policies while supporting communism by suggesting them to spend a holiday over in an actual communist country.
Kill the Poor is the polar opposite making fun of simple minded right wingers who would probably also be taken out in a cleansing.
To state TDKs is taking one side or the other with their songs is idiotic. They sparked controversy for fun, and both conservatives/liberals have things to poke fun at.
deathtokoalas
+DuckieMcduck
the discussion has kind of been lost in the flood of posts, so allow me to take the opportunity to change the topic in reiterating this.
what jello is expressing here is a very common perspective on the libertarian (anarchist) left about authoritarian communism. that is, he's attacking what is called right-wing communism from the left, in terms that leftists understand very well.
the key to understanding it is in realizing that real leftists - anarchists - consider marxism and other forms of authoritarian communism to be philosophies that exist on the right of the spectrum, because they construct their spectrum on centralization versus decentralization.
anarchists would broadly conceive of liberals and conservatives as basically being the same thing.
DuckieMcduck
+deathtokoalas Quite, analyzing thoughts from both the extremes of the spectrum it is noticeable that they sometimes go so far right/so far left they end up meeting at one point.
Johnny
+deathtokoalas Its not binary, its not abotu absolutes and middle ways exist. You simply CANNOT deny it. There's no "total freedom" as there's no "total slavery". You ar ejust putting out hot air..it means nothign PRACTICALLY.
" if you reject the concept of progress" progress is not necessarily always positive, nor coninuus, its not an absolute constant as you paint it.
"the fundamental economic facts are not at all different."
Factually wrong. I could go on for hours quoting things that are better now than then.
that real leftists - anarchists -" good old no true scotsman fallacy. i hate when people DECLARE who is what and what they should belive in order to get a certain label...
deathtokoalas
+Johnny marxists believe in centralized government. that is not left-wing, by definition.
again: the binary choice is one between hoping for something better and giving up. and, it is binary. by definition.