Does Czech Repoblic for Dictatorship rather then Democracy?

[Tonci87 163]

There is no country where gay rights are being forced on the population. Gay rights only advance when the majority of the population begins to favor them, because there is zero economic or political benefit in catering to the tiny gay contingent in any country.

People who don't live in free countries sound like climate change deniers nowadays. The existence of something disturbs them, so they deny that it exists. Most of Russia seems to think that the US is just as repressive as their own country because there's this fairytale idea that saying the N-word will get you arrested.

And then the homophobes get confused, assuming that no one could want equality because they personally don't. Newsflash for everyone, gay rights are being demanded by the majority of many countries. If not... well, then nothing happens. Because democracy.

Not entirely true. Let´s take Croatia for example. Just like Poland it is a very catholic country and people are generally against gay rights, or public gayness. Still gay rights get forced on the population because of EU standarts and gay people can celebrate the christopher street day parade even when literally almost nobody wants to see it and the people think that it is disgusting. Democracy? I fear it´s not that great in the EU.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Equality, equal rights.....lets think about that for a minute. You either have it or you don't. Partial equality doesn't make sense.

If you have equal rights for ethnic minorities, religions, women etc. and then restrict the rights of gay people, how is that logical or workable?

Regarding the gay marriage thing in the UK, when ever I heard opposition, I postulated the fallacy of partial equality and no one ever had a counter argument.

Besides, think of the benefits, it's stops protests, whinging and complaining, campaigns, policing costs and it gives left wing politicians the opportunity to do some real work for a change rather than campaigning and looking busy and thinking of catchy ideological statements for the press. I'm also sure there is less extrovert campness around which was the #1 annoyance for me.

I'm not sure what the Catholic Church has against gay rights as a high proportion of the priesthood are gay. There is a memo that was made public from a seminary in Scotland that expressly forbids trainee priests from giving each other girls names as visitors had overheard the common practice and were not pleased. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests#Estimating_numbers

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests,[12][not in citation given] although the John Jay Report reported that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s",[13] and available figures for homosexual priests in the United States range from 15–58%.[12][14] A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that 9 percent of priests identified themselves as homosexual, and 6 percent as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side." Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order, 17 percent of the priests said "definitely," and 27 percent said "probably." 53 percent of priests who were ordained in the last 20 years (1982-2002) affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[14]

One report suggested that since the mid-1980s Roman Catholic priests in the United States were dying from AIDS-related illnesses at a rate four times higher than that of the general population; with most of the cases contracted through same-sex relations, and the cause often concealed on their death certificates. A follow up study done the next year by the Kansas City Star found AIDS-related death rate among priests was "more than six times" the rate among the general population in the 14 states studied.

The historic argument also falls flat as before St. Paul, gay relationships were widely accepted across Europe.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Mattar_Tharkari

[maturin 12]

Still gay rights get forced on the population because of EU standarts and gay people can celebrate the christopher street day parade even when literally almost nobody wants to see it and the people think that it is disgusting.

Holding a march isn't an exercise of gay rights. That's the right to political expression and assembly. Your example is defunct and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole conception of civil and political rights.

The right to demonstrate your opinions and beliefs is something you have, regardless of what those opinions and beliefs are.* So to hold a gay march, you don't need to have homosexuality accepted by society and codified into the laws of privileges and rights in order to march. You just go and march. About whatever.

*Again, there's that nazism example and some religious issues in Europe. Restrictions that I would generally oppose.

[lesscubes 1]

Reading this thread kind of bums me out.

I get to watch the negatives of Democracy and Liberty every day. Political deadlock, failed projects, stalled laws, criminals getting off on technicalities, people abusing their rights. All of it. And yet, I'll take it any day over totalitarianism. Without reservation. I'll take a damaged, imperfect, nearly broken liberty over anything else.

[Beagle 684]

Frustration with democracy is somewhat common in most European countries...

The frustration with our so called democracies in europe is more like that it is stalled by EU commisars and EU rules ruling out national decissions...you can vote for what you like...the EU dictatorship will simply notz allow for national separate path...just look at how the EU is now putting pressure on switzerland that is not even a EU member. Another problem with "democracy" is that the politicians are often just puppets...the real rulers stay unseen and their ruling is 100 undemocratic and rarely in any favor to the public.

only a hanffull of countries worldwide can be really descibed as democratic and two of them beeing Switzerland and Iceland...the rest including Germany, france UK are just bureaucracies controlled by the neocons.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Beagle

[vilas 477]

yes, exactly Beagle, we can vote for something as nation, but EU will not allow it,

example visible for me as public servant: when we prepare legal regulation, lets say "order of minister of ... on issue of... "it must go to EU commision and EU commision agrees or not agrees on our law, wtf?

when we voted/or not for EU join, NOONE said that our law , our industry, our lifestyle will be controlled by EU, they said that EU=free travel, no customs on border, ability to look for job in other country, no passports to be abroad, NOONE was saying other things, now....

my girlfriend is farmer, she has pigs, she had cows and chickens, but EU tell her how much milk she can produce, wtf?

EU is in fact EUSSR, it is not border-free economical zone, it is thing that orders or forbid all things and it touches lifestyle /culture etc.

people now feel cheated cause they voted for economical union of independent states, not for multiculti one state in which someone says what should be shape of banana, shape of cucumber or what meat i can eat, now EU forbid to produce smoked sausage ? wtf ? cause there was too much smoke in our traditional food , what the hell, they will be telling me in Brussels what i must eat and what i cannot eat

[maturin 12]

EU is in fact EUSSR, it is not border-free economical zone, it is thing that orders or forbid all things and it touches lifestyle /culture etc.

people now feel cheated cause they voted for economical union of independent states, not for multiculti one state in which someone says what should be shape of banana, shape of cucumber or what meat i can eat, now EU forbid to produce smoked sausage ? wtf ? cause there was too much smoke in our traditional food , what the hell, they will be telling me in Brussels what i must eat and what i cannot eat

And yet you are so nostalgic for socialism where all that was actually true and regulation was 800% more restrictive. Because less punks.

[vilas 477]

And yet you are so nostalgic for socialism where all that was actually true and regulation was 800% more restrictive. Because less punks.

USSR in meaning of control citizen, not in mean of socialism (social care) , do not confuse socialism with control, control is not economical term,

cause EU is not so social as it paints itself (especially in our post-commie countries which in fact are more liberal than old-EU members ),

(at least befor 1989 you could get flat for free without taking 30 years loan in bank, long term bank loan also makes us slaves, economical slaves, cause you must work all life for ... roof over your head)

so when i was saying about USSR i was meant to say about "one law area under central control" , not about "socialism in economical meaning"

so i can compare EU to USA , you live in state, state has state law, but federal law is above, but when you vote everyone say "yes, it is just no-border agreement"

now better comparision for you?

Edited February 21, 2014 by vilas

[maturin 12]

The USSR and Eastern Bloc countries were all referred to as socialist. Specifically, the system was called Actually Existing Socialism.

I don't think you want to use the USA as an example, because I'm an American and I like our federal system, which grants autonomy but lets the central government intervene when our stupider and more backward states get out of hand. And the EU was in part conceived to allow a united Europe to counterbalance the superpower USA, while removing the possibility of Europe starting more World Wars. Which is worth it, if you ask me. I don't really care if your Polish grandmothers are told how much milk to produce if it means Germany and France will stop making the Worst Thing Ever to Happen to Mankind happen.

[Tonci87 163]

The USSR and Eastern Bloc countries were all referred to as socialist. Specifically, the system was called Actually Existing Socialism.

I don't think you want to use the USA as an example, because I'm an American and I like our federal system, which grants autonomy but lets the central government intervene when our stupider and more backward states get out of hand. And the EU was in part conceived to allow a united Europe to counterbalance the superpower USA, while removing the possibility of Europe starting more World Wars. Which is worth it, if you ask me. I don't really care if your Polish grandmothers are told how much milk to produce if it means Germany and France will stop making the Worst Thing Ever to Happen to Mankind happen.

The USSR wasn´t a socialist system. I wonder that americans simply don´t get the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe it is because your whole system is very conservative.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

The USSR wasn´t a socialist system. I wonder that americans simply don´t get the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe it is because your whole system is very conservative.

I thought it was a socialist state run by a communist party that was anything but communist? (or is the wikipedia entry wrong, please enlighten us further)

(at least befor 1989 you could get flat for free without taking 30 years loan in bank, long term bank loan also makes us slaves, economical slaves, cause you must work all life for ... roof over your head)

Yes you had to wait years to get it and you had to work too. Also:

Martial law

Martial law in Poland (Polish: stan wojenny w Polsce) refers to the period of time from December 13, 1981 to July 22, 1983, when the authoritarian government of the People's Republic of Poland drastically restricted normal life by introducing martial law in an attempt to crush political opposition. Thousands of opposition activists were interned without charge and as many as 100 people were killed.[1] Although martial law was lifted in 1983, many of the political prisoners were not released until the general amnesty in 1986.

Oppression

Food Rationing

Total Economic Collapse

No right to strike (until 1980)

No Free Trade Unions

No freedom of speech

Political prisoners

Students expelled from school for differing political views

Initially, the government suppressed all news about riots, and after a few days, they were described as “insignificant hooligan actionsâ€.[1] Pacification of the demonstrations was very brutal, with hundreds of beaten workers, several of whom were later hospitalized. In Radom, 42 persons were sent to prison, with sentences ranging from 2 to 10 years. In Ursus, 7 persons were sentenced to up to 5 years, and, in PÅ‚ock, 18 persons.[8] The rule used by the police in Radom was simple — all those persons whose hands were dirty, were treated as demonstrators and detained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_1976_protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk_Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Movement_for_National_Rebirth

Oh yes life in the People's Republic of Poland was a genuine utopia lol. What happened to that 'Life under Communism' board game I recommended Vilas? Still standing in a queue?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mattar_Tharkari

[maturin 12]

The USSR wasn´t a socialist system. I wonder that americans simply don´t get the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe it is because your whole system is very conservative.

No, it's because you don't know the various definitions of the words.

The Soviets conceived of Communism as the end goal of socialism. It was a society that would be built by socialism, and they were communists because they wanted to achieve it... with socialism. To outsiders, there wasn't much difference between the goal, the means of achieving it, the political system, the economic system, and the political party that ran the show. And there really isn't much distance. Saying that communism is an economic system is an asinine statement, since communism has never and never will exist without the corresponding political system.

There are more precise terms that can be used, like Leninism, but the above nomenclature is fair and correct. You just don't like it because it helps American conservatives to try and discredit Swedish, Venezuelan or Bolivian socialism.

[Tonci87 163]

No, it's because you don't know the various definitions of the words.

The Soviets conceived of Communism as the end goal of socialism. It was a society that would be built by socialism, and they were communists because they wanted to achieve it... with socialism. To outsiders, there wasn't much difference between the goal, the means of achieving it, the political system, the economic system, and the political party that ran the show. And there really isn't much distance. Saying that communism is an economic system is an asinine statement, since communism has never and never will exist without the corresponding political system.

There are more precise terms that can be used, like Leninism, but the above nomenclature is fair and correct. You just don't like it because it helps American conservatives to try and discredit Swedish, Venezuelan or Bolivian socialism.

0= ammount of fucks I give about the Swedish, Venezuelan or Bolivian Socialism.

You are partly right, except that the soviets never had true socialism, and they didn´t really try to achieve it.

[Degman 73]

The USSR wasn´t a socialist system. I wonder that americans simply don´t get the difference between communism and socialism. Maybe it is because your whole system is very conservative.

As well as they never had a Communism. Communism is actually not a dictatorship at all, but an "Uthopia" idea which removes the money, government and all kind of stuff which could work, ruined by former "communists" (ironic) from Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc. and now every fuck thinks that Communism is bad dictatorship system which kills people and blah, blah, blah, which isn't true. (...) What I am trying to say is that Communism and Socialism actually never existed, but fakes, so you shouldn't mix it with dictatorship shits.

[Tonci87 163]

As well as they never had a Communism. Communism is actually not a dictatorship at all, but an "Uthopia" idea which removes the money, government and all kind of stuff which could work, ruined by former "communists" (ironic) from Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc. and now every fuck thinks that Communism is bad dictatorship system which kills people and blah, blah, blah, which isn't true. (...) What I am trying to say is that Communism and Socialism actually never existed, but fakes, so you shouldn't mix it with dictatorship shits.

Precisely what I wanted to say.

[scrim 1]

If we are to start determining the definition of political ideas based on how they have actually been implemented in real life since the dawn of mankind, we will soon find that not one single political idea has ever existed in real life. So, could Communists and/or socialists stop acting like only their ideas have turned out to be something else than what it is in theory? Countries like the USSR, the PRC, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are/where Communist. Saying they're not is like saying that no Christian person or group has ever done anything bad, because if they have they're not Christians due to them doing things that are not in line with the Bible. In other words, if the Communism can't be blamed for the USSR, then Christianity can't be blamed for the Crusades.

[Tonci87 163]

If we are to start determining the definition of political ideas based on how they have actually been implemented in real life since the dawn of mankind, we will soon find that not one single political idea has ever existed in real life. So, could Communists and/or socialists stop acting like only their ideas have turned out to be something else than what it is in theory? Countries like the USSR, the PRC, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are/where Communist. Saying they're not is like saying that no Christian person or group has ever done anything bad, because if they have they're not Christians due to them doing things that are not in line with the Bible. In other words, if the Communism can't be blamed for the USSR, then Christianity can't be blamed for the Crusades.

So if a criminal says that he isn´t a criminal, then he isn´t one? What you call communist where in fact dictatorships.

[scrim 1]

I see my point went right above your head there.

[Tonci87 163]

No, you just used a really bad analogy that has come around to bite you in the ass. Have a nice day

[Degman 73]

If we are to start determining the definition of political ideas based on how they have actually been implemented in real life since the dawn of mankind, we will soon find that not one single political idea has ever existed in real life. So, could Communists and/or socialists stop acting like only their ideas have turned out to be something else than what it is in theory? Countries like the USSR, the PRC, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. are/where Communist. Saying they're not is like saying that no Christian person or group has ever done anything bad, because if they have they're not Christians due to them doing things that are not in line with the Bible. In other words, if the Communism can't be blamed for the USSR, then Christianity can't be blamed for the Crusades.

Your analogy is just stupid and nothing else. I mean, what the fuck ? It's like I believe in God, go in church every day, pray every day, etc., but calling myself an atheist. (...) Communism and Socialism never existed. If they did, then people wouldn't throw it. In Communism and Socialism there is no government (we had DICTATORS), no money - everything is based on people's work and resources (EVERYTHING was depending on money and it still is), technology is used in a right way (not GMO food, viruses, poisons, weapons, etc.) ... and so on. Write whatever you want, but it is a fact that we never had Communism or Socialism.

[scrim 1]

Do you realize how incredibly offensive you are? Millions of people around the world have been killed because of Communism, yet you try to downplay it by saying "no, Stalin wasn't a Communist. Mao wasn't a Communist. Pol Pot wasn't a Communist, etc."

Please explain to me why that isn't exactly the same as saying that religion has never caused a war in Europe or the Middle East. "No, bin Laden wasn't a Muslim. Urban II wasn't a Christian, etc."

By taking very small, in practice completely insignificant parts out of context, you try to act like some highly enlightened scholars who just like that can completely rewrite the history of the 20th century. Outright despicable...

[vilas 477]

Do you realize how incredibly offensive you are? Millions of people around the world have been killed because of Communism, yet you try to downplay it by saying "no, Stalin wasn't a Communist. Mao wasn't a Communist. Pol Pot wasn't a Communist, etc."

eh, you live in USA and seem not to understand what is communism because during cold war and in hollywood everyone was using words like "communism" etc.

so let me explain:

- capitalism - private property with free market,

- socialism - social care, many things in state hands along with state as employer, there is private property,

- communism - lack of money, lack of private property, all belong to state

thing that was in our part of the world was not communism, in communism are are equal and there is no for example officers with better cars etc. we were calling it communism but of course it not fullfills definition of communism for real

i will try to explain it with metaphore:

- Audi A8, VW Golf - car

- HMMVW with TOW launcher on roof - car

those are cars, right?

but if civilian says that he drives car he for sure not have in mind HMMVW with TOW launcher

M109 - howitzer

M1A1 - tank

what civilian say seeing metal big vehicle with big barrel and tracks ? "tank"

my girl call M109 "tank" , but is it tank ? no it is howitzer

so when civilian do not see difference between howitzer and tank, than you do not see difference and call him offensive,

do now you understand ? thats why he said it was not communism, in communism there would be no money, no private property, it was "communism" but not real communism with technical definition,

so he is not offensive, he says about definition of economical systems

those guys who were ruling us were not believing in comunism, if they were, they would NOT be living like nobles, they were red nobles cause they had villas, good cars or even servants (really Honcker had servant)

those guys had as much with real communism (which is utopic idea which will not work) as EU with free market , Polish party leaders had good western limousines, in 70s they had for example Peugeot 604 , Mercedes etc. this is not communism when "communist" want to have car better than his neigbor, in communism they both would have the same car hired from state because it is property of state,

party leaders were living in luxury, real guys believing in comunism were living in block of flats and driving Trabant not living in villa having Mercedes and Peugeot 604 and ordering cavior via jet transport from middle of Russia,

"communism" is metaphore used by west (and east) for something which in real was not communism but socialism with dictatorship and red nobles (for example army officers had better flats, more salary, better cars, better holidays) which is agains "equality" in such system, they were "red nobles"

than why should not use word "capitalist" when we say about Pinochet ?

after 1989 all "communists" became businessmen and liberals - suddenly mind changed ?

if they were communists not "communists" they were not be becoming businessmen, industry owners, bank managers in 1989 (correct my spelling mistakes in tenses if it is wrong in English gramma)

guys who were in power were not believing in any system, they believed in good limousine, big mansion, good sport car, power and possibility to sleep with beauty secretary

Edited February 22, 2014 by vilas

[scrim 1]

eh, you live in USA and seem not to understand what is communism because during cold war and in hollywood everyone was using words like "communism" etc.

No I don't. And I wasn't even born until after the Cold war was over, so really just a mute point.

There is very little in your post that I can actually make sense out of, the only thing I can say something about is Pinochet: He wasn't a capitalist dictator due to the fact that capitalism isn't a political idea, it's an economical idea. Fascism on the other hand is a political idea, and it is what Pinochet was. The difference between Fascism and Communism in regards to capitalism is that the latter is especially vocal about declaring war upon it, claiming it's for the benefit of the people, but in reality only for the purpose of allowing the regime and it's brutes to live a life of luxury, like a Russian Czar.

[Tonci87 163]

Don´t bother vilas, you can see in other threads that he doesn´t really bother to understand what other people write.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Any chance of anyone refering to Wikipedia or a dictionary on this. So far none of you were 100% correct.

@scrim it is actually incorrect to describe them as communist. It's what they were supposedly aiming for but never got half way there. They are all socialist states which fail miserably due to flawed economic ideology and corruption.

I find it odd that TV is filled with WW2 documentaries but you hardly ever see anything on the USSR. Why is it the bear in the room is overlooked and airbrushed from history. Perhaps the left don't want the vast catalogue of flawed socialist states and collapses exposed?