who is actually going to fall for obama care

[myrnova]

Infact in a real democracy death penalty is banned, people have free national health care, you cannot buy guns and weapons as if they were candies, racism is banned, the term "socialism" is not a taboo word, war is called "war", not "exporting democracy", torture and crimes against humanity are banned.

Where did you get this definition from, myra? I don't understand where your 'real' democracy comes from, where it could exist, what it's purpose is. It sounds about as meaningful as labelling the USA a 'military dictatorship'. It's not helpful to keep churning out so much inaccurate stuff, myra. Where are you getting it all from? I don't think even anarchists talk like that.

Infacts anarchists are for REAL democracy (direct), don't consider "constitutional monarchies" (like the one in which you live in) "democracies".

Let's say if a real democracy does not exist, at least the ones in which fascism and death penalty are banned are less fake than the one built in U.S. (which in my opinion remains a military dictatorship, as I explained).

"constituional republic" does not mean "democracy". Not even "rapresentative democracy" etc.

[myrnova]

Infact anarchists are for REAL democracy (direct), don't consider "constitutional monarchies" (like the one in which you live in) "democracies".

Let's say if a real democracy does not exist, at least the ones in which fascism and death penalty are banned are less fake than the one built in U.S. (which in my opinion remains a military dictatorship, as I explained).

"constituional republic" does not mean "democracy". Not even "rapresentative democracy" etc.

[myrnova]

Infact in a real democracy death penalty is banned, people have free national health care, you cannot buy guns and weapons as if they were candies, racism is banned, the term "socialism" is not a taboo word, war is called "war", not "exporting democracy", torture and crimes against humanity are banned.

Where did you get this definition from, myra? I don't understand where your 'real' democracy comes from, where it could exist, what it's purpose is. It sounds about as meaningful as labelling the USA a 'military dictatorship'. It's not helpful to keep churning out so much inaccurate stuff, myra. Where are you getting it all from? I don't think even anarchists talk like that.

http://www.anarchy.no/realdemocracy.html

[Machinesworking]

Myra, it's all very well making up formulae, but despite looking quite complicated, and despite my little joke, what you have there is actually a gross over-simplification. It also bears a striking resemblance to the Political Compass test many people will be familiar with.

The goal of anarchists and Marxists is exactly the same - communism. Communism is the only form of 'real democracy'. However there is no way to go from capitalism to communism directly, except in one's imagination.

Lol at you for saying someone has a gross over simplification then stating that communism is to goal of both marxists and anarchists!

IMO not really true, anarchists want as little steering committees and as little government as possible, in fact opposition to such things.
Marxists seem to have no aversion at all to appeals to authority, especially if it's the word of Marx. This alone creates a totally different path, whether the stated goal is the same or not.

[Machinesworking]

For instance, your chart places what I assume to be Stalinism and fascism next to each other. However they are almost opposite phenomena. Fascism is a tool of capitalism and Stalinism is a political counter-revolution, the result of the impossibility of socialism in an isolated backward country.

Economically yeah, totally different. The end product of both though is a military dictatorship. For the common man the violence that the state is capable of is the same,
Although with Fascism the threat to foreign states is much worse. I think history proved that succinctly.

[Galt]

Economically yeah, totally different. The end product of both though is a military dictatorship.

And thus economically ("yeah, totally") indistinguishable. The existence of a military dictatorship precludes even the possibility of a free market. The clue was in the word "free".

[myrnova]

Actually, the formulas just prove what I mean for "real democracy" (anarchy) and why I consider the U.S. a military dictatorship. Nothing else. Most of the people are content enough in so called "constitutional republics" or "constitutional monarchies". People can be happy enough in Russia and China, too. This does not not mean they are real democracies. Infact they aren't. U.S. neither. U.S. can be called a "constitutional military dictatorship" or such, based on "white race supremacy" ideology, imperialism and expansionism. This does not exclude "individual rights" and "justice" granted by a supposed "upper authority" (for what it means). Ancient romans granted "individual rights" to the citizens, too. Italian fascism, too.

As explained before, "real democracy" does not exist. However, the "democracies" in which death penalty and torture are banned, the term "socialism" is not a taboo word, racism on documents ("please indicate yourh ethnicity" and such) is a racist nonsense and everyone has free health cures... these fake democracies are at least less fake than the fake "U.S. democracy" (the most dangerous and criminal military dictatorship in human history ever).

http://www.anarchy.no/realdemocracy.html

I think FnF is surprised about this "military dictatorship" definition of mine, because he thinks of "classic" military dictatorships, with the puppet dictator on the balcony, the tanks down the road, fake elections ("yes or yes, otherwise yes: let's count the yes"), curfew etc. Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile were dictators, both supported by the U.S. of course (... guess why), yet in the last years of their regime, Chile and Spain resembled a "democracy" (in the U.S. meaning: "panem et circenses", "free" opposition, "freedom of speech", "individual rights" etc.).

80-90% of american citizens are not aware they live in a military dictatorship. They are content enough because they can travel, dance, sing, watch movies, TV, fuck, drink, buy guns, play with iphone etc. For the rest, the military tell them: "let us work and mind your free business, don't complain and see how many rights you have". This is not democracy, this is "the dictatorship of unawareness". For instance, 80-90% people in America don't feel guilty at all for all the millions deaths commited by U.S. in these years. The utmost they claim is "well, not my fault", "they menaced us, they are terrorists, hate U.S., so fuck yeah", "god bless America", etc. The 10-20% of americans aware of what U.S. really are have no power at all. They are allowed to "protest" by the military dictatorship, of course. Because:

(1) they count for nothing, so they will never change the status quo.
(2) the fact they are "free to protest" gives the illusion to the 80-90% of americans that they live in a democracy ("see: even the opposers can protest", "our land is based on freedom of speech" and such bullshit: meanwhile real opposers get killled by the CIA, are in prison or banished).

[lowshelf]

I was reading the comments on Kevin Barrett's blog regarding Noam Chomsky, and thought of you (Myrnova) and your suffocating diatribes:

Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America's premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit- hungry transnational corporations. He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned. However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite. His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass, which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction.

Original comment here, quoting Daniel Abrahamson

Don't bother replying for my sake, or re-stirring the same god-awful porridge of a perspective. I don't really care. Chill out, put some sound on.

[myrnova]

[myrnova]

[rote fahne]

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism."

kibbutz.

[myrnova]

This is rather OT, by the way. FnF asked me what I mean for "real democracy" and I answered. He claims calling the U.S. "a military dictatorship" is absurd, I explained why the U.S. actually are a military dictatorship. That's all.

So, back on topic: why the U.S. have no free national health care system? Because if they had it, they would become a less fake "democracy" (as in social-democracies). It will NEVER happen, of course. If Obama was a socialist, he would have been already killed

[myrnova]

This is rather OT, by the way. FnF asked me what I mean for "real democracy" and I answered. He claims calling the U.S. "a military dictatorship" is absurd, I explained why the U.S. actually are a military dictatorship. That's all.

Myra, your repeated claim that America is a military dictatorship is still absurd. Nazi Germany was a military dictatorship. Stalinist Russia was. Chile under Pinochet was. Indonesia under Suharto was. The USA is not. There are no tanks on the street, no elections cancelled by generals. A military dictatorship is something which could happen in the future, but it does not exist. America is a bourgeois dictatorship, which is also a bourgeois democracy.

I think FnF is surprised about this "military dictatorship" definition of mine, because he thinks of "classic" military dictatorships, with the puppet dictator on the balcony, the tanks down the road, fake elections ("yes or yes, otherwise yes: let's count the yes"), curfew etc. Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile were dictators, both supported by the U.S. of course (... guess why), yet in the last years of their regime, Chile and Spain resembled a "democracy" (in the U.S. meaning: "panem et circenses", "free" opposition, "freedom of speech", "individual rights" etc.).

80-90% of american citizens are not aware they live in a military dictatorship. They are content enough because they can travel, dance, sing, watch movies, TV, fuck, drink, buy guns, play with iphone etc. For the rest, the military tell them: "let us work and mind your free business, don't complain and see how many rights you have". This is not democracy, this is "the dictatorship of unawareness". For instance, 80-90% people in America don't feel guilty at all for all the millions deaths commited by U.S. in these years. The utmost they claim is "well, not my fault", "they menaced us, they are terrorists, hate U.S., so fuck yeah", "god bless America", etc. The 10-20% of americans aware of what U.S. really are have no power at all. They are allowed to "protest" by the military dictatorship, of course. Because:

(1) they count for nothing, so they will never change the status quo.
(2) the fact they are "free to protest" gives the illusion to the 80-90% of americans that they live in a democracy ("see: even the opposers can protest", "our land is based on freedom of speech" and such bullshit: meanwhile real opposers get killled by the CIA, are in prison or banished).

Conclusion: U.S. are de facto a military dictatorship.

[andydes]

You're all just debating genres.

There's two very similar parties both bought out by companies with fucking great piles of cash. Does it really matter what you call the system? The important thing is to realise the system is shit.

I think one of the big problems (especially true in the US) is the way parties use the left/right thing to divide the people into 2 camps. The fear of letting the other side in means everyone votes for what they think is the least worse. And so they maintain the status quo.

In the case of "obamacare", the debate shouldn't be about whether it's a "socialist" policy that takes the US one step closer to the USSR. It should simply be about whether it's a good thing, or at least better than what they had.

[rote fahne]

Nah, Obama has been voted. fact. He is the president of the military industrial complex of the usa. If he would have been put there directly by the military industrial complex, then he would have been a dictator. Little difference. But makes a difference: if the people had voted for the other guy (sorry, forgot his name) then the president would have been a republican, and then they would not have gotten obama care. So again, it makes a difference.