The Neocons Were Right, After All

[Comrade]

Comrad - sorry if you took offense, but I have to assume from your 20 years of Lenin rule statement that your knowledge of this period of Russian history is rather poor. I had two semesters of Russian History from a Russian teacher - she hated communism so much she would start foaming at the mouth and spitting when she discussed stalins reign - pretty soon no one would sit in the front two rows of the class.

I have to assume since you are proven wrong on the key assumption regarding the Whites, you would again point out an irrelevent fact regarding the time communism 'ran out' on Russia. It wasn't the day Stalin came in power. Not that that time was a key point in the entire argument at all.


I noted before how, you when faced with parapraphs of issues to address, you instead chose to disparage the entire argument by disparaging me. It's your ego and your instrasigence, and dare I say your rudeness, which allows you to feel logically consistent in doing so.

 

[Zhukov]

This is not a humor board. And as RWA pointed out, humor and sarcasm don't generally come through well in print. And of course there was nothing humorous about what you did. Cutting and pasting someone elses comments to intentionally put them out of context is deceptive, rude, and and a very small thing to do.

There is some sort of deficit on your part.

I asked you a question which you referred to as a ridiculous comment and then in the same post took two positions with regards to. I pose a question asking for a clarification of your ridiculous position(s), and in the next post, after reading your comment to K concerning me, make a humurous observation concerning your previously mentioned ridiculousness. If you can't see the humour in that, I fault you. Of course, it was an excellent oppourtunity to avoid answering the previously asked question wasn't it?

In this current instance, the discussion at hand in this thread, there is no humour on my part. You were just wrong. You cannot say for a fact what 'would' have happened in some alternate past, and yet you did so.

You wrote:

The Whites wanted to reinstall the Czar and uphold the pre-existing economic structure of inequity.


Had the whites won, the same oppresive political regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have re-estabilished itself.

when you should have written:

Some of the Whites wanted to reinstall the Czar (who was of course dead by the summer of '18) and restore the pre-existing economic structure of inequity. Had the Whites won, it is quite likely the same oppresive politial regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have been re-established, or one similar to it.

I would have taken issue with that comment as well, but at least it would have been a conversation concerning people's opinions as opposed to one involving mystical knowledge of alternate realities.

 

[wade]

Except that you imply there was some chance the whites would not have setup a regime based upon the pre-revolution regime, and this is contrary to all evidence - the Whites specifically were out to re-estabilish the previous regime to whatever degree possible. The contention that only the officer corp wanted to do so and they somehow would have lacked the power denies the huge foriegn backing for just this purpose. That some of their forces were not ideologically inclined means little - they were being paid both in currency and promises for their support.

Just where do you provide anything to support your contention that the Whites would have setup anything other than a regime supporting the old status quo?

Wade.

 

[wade]

I have to assume since you are proven wrong on the key assumption regarding the Whites, you would again point out an irrelevent fact regarding the time communism 'ran out' on Russia. It wasn't the day Stalin came in power. Not that that time was a key point in the entire argument at all.

You seem to think I've been proven wrong about the Whites. I have not. They were about reinstalling the status quo. That is a historical fact.

As for when Communism converted to Authoritarianism, that is a point of contention, but it is clear that it occured sometime between 1918 and 1922. Lenin had something between 1 and 3 years of power, not the 20 you claimed. This is no small error as you would make it out to be.

The issue I have with your representation of history is that I think you have been more educated with anti-lenin/stalin propoganda than historical fact. There are pleanty of historical arguments against both, but when you start mis-representing history so significantly it leaves little room for discussion.

I noted before how, you when faced with parapraphs of issues to address, you instead chose to disparage the entire argument by disparaging me. It's your ego and your instrasigence, and dare I say your rudeness, which allows you to feel logically consistent in doing so.

I'm sorry if you take it that way. I will try to be softer in my wording in the future. As for not addressing your points... did you not recieve my PM?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=161639&postcount=1

I've been waiting for your reply. Just how many debates do you wish to conduct at one time?

Wade.

 

[Zhukov]

So you're just going to ignore the bulk of my post? Just going to trundle on ahead?



The only link I referred to was your own, which stated that the white faction was composed of both loyalists and revolutionaries, that the white faction could more accurately be described as an anti-communist coalition than a pro-czar movement.

The fact that the czar was dead in '18 is common knowledge.

The fact that the French (a republic), the English (a constitutional monarchy), and the U.S. (a representative democracy) were assisting the whites is common knowledge.

The fact that the czar was deposed by a popular revolution which had been gathering for a century is common knowledge.

The fact that the czar's brother refused the throne after Nicholas' abdication because he knew it was futile is common knowledge.

The civil war between the Bolsheviks (Reds) and the anti-Bolsheviks (Whites) ravaged Russia until 1920. The Whites represented all shades of anti-Communist groups, including members of the constituent assembly. Several of their leaders favored setting up a military dictatorship, but few were outspoken czarists.

The Bolshevik military victory was due partly to the lack of cooperation among the various White commanders

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/macquekl/History/morerusrevinfohtm.htm

Your contention is a group of old generals who couldn't even agree with each other were going to hand over the reigns of government to the dead czar after their victory and the millions of disatisfied Russians, who had just overthrown a dynasty which recently celebrated it's 300th birthday, would have been just fine with that.

I disagree. I doubt they would have had the political power to do so. Whichever general had proved the most capable would likely have been made figure-head President of a centralized parliamentary government. With the communists out of the way, some right-wing nationalist/fascist would have probably come to power shortly there after.

 

[Comrade]

You seem to think I've been proven wrong about the Whites. I have not. They were about reinstalling the status quo. That is a historical fact.
:chains:

No it is NOT A FACT, because the Whites did not win. Remember I said:

"I'd bet if they tried Liberal Democracy, which the 'Whites' would have eventually have had a chance to usher in between unbearable serfdom and violent revolution, the foolish dreams of Marx would be no more than an unrealized fantasy."

It is you who is inconsistent in denying that the Democratic liberals involved alongside supporting the Whites against the reds would not eventually have given voice to a White victory in making reforms.

If we're tied on being wrong about the facts now, maybe now you can get back to the argument... what was it, something like Communism never had a chance in Russia, right? And how about in Cuba, North Korea, China, etc... when have those had a chance to become liberal democracies as you hold to be self-evident in the progression of true communism?

 

[wade]

Well, we are at an impass here. You deny what the Whites stood for, but have given no proof for your position. I have shown they were about restoring the status quo. I will agree they may or may not have reinstalled the monarchy (since it was eliminated fairly early on) but the key point is that they were about sustaining the existing aristocracy. There would have been little land reform or wealth redistribution had the Whites won. The fact that the Whites did not win does not make this any less true. The Democratic liberals were not the ones recieving financial aid either from the coffers of the TCzar or from the West - and that was what would have decided who prevailed after the fighting was over had the Whites won.

My point was that if not forced to defend themselves from outside threats, both military and subversive, Communism will eventually succumb to capitalism. And this is indeed being seen in China, Vietnam, and has already come to pass in the former Soviet Union. Eventually, after the land reform and wealth redistribution has occured, the advantages of a market economy compel such change, either in small steps or radical ones.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Well, we are at an impass here. You deny what the Whites stood for, but have given no proof for your position. I have shown they were about restoring the status quo. I will agree they may or may not have reinstalled the monarchy (since it was eliminated fairly early on) but the key point is that they were about sustaining the existing aristocracy. There would have been little land reform or wealth redistribution had the Whites won. The fact that the Whites did not win does not make this any less true. The Democratic liberals were not the ones recieving financial aid either from the coffers of the TCzar or from the West - and that was what would have decided who prevailed after the fighting was over had the Whites won.

Why should Russia be any different after a White victory than any other European transition into Liberal Democracies following WWI among the rest? Zhukov is right, the Reds hijacked the Russian revolution.

My point was that if not forced to defend themselves from outside threats, both military and subversive, Communism will eventually succumb to capitalism.

So if the purpose of communism in the 20th century was to kill 100 million of it's people, and then eventually become capitalist.... what good was it?

And this is indeed being seen in China, Vietnam, and has already come to pass in the former Soviet Union. Eventually, after the land reform and wealth redistribution has occured, the advantages of a market economy compel such change, either in small steps or radical ones.

It all came to pass because of the efforts of the USA and our Democratic Western allies. We all fought against the nightmare of Communism in the 20th Century.

The 'natural progression' from communism to a market economy is because we, specifically the steadfast USA, forced the USSR, China, and even Vietnam to relinquish thier party stranglehold on all means of production and eventually soften their ideology to compete with our society.


It took no encouragement from the West to open up Eastern Europe to the same ideals after the fall of the USSR. And steadfast communist states may not have admitted their ultimate failure but have indeed willingly released ownership of assets back to the people and begun reform to survive as states.

Communism failed no matter which state it was tried in, and no matter under what conditions it arose from. This failed based upon all relative comparisons to Liberal Democracies. History over the late 20th century should have proven that as fact to you, based on the preponderance of evidence.

 

[wade]

Why should Russia be any different after a White victory than any other European transition into Liberal Democracies following WWI among the rest? Zhukov is right, the Reds hijacked the Russian revolution.

The "Liberal democractics" in the White movement were a realatively small, and largely ineffective sub group. The main force were the Kossacks and the old gaurd. What other European country transitioned from Authoritarian rule of the nature of the TCzar to democracy in the 20th century (or the immeadiately preceeding period)? If you want to go back another hundred or more years, you can find examples - most of them involving a lot of bloodshed and land-reform and wealth redistribution. I suppose perhaps you might consider Germany an example?

So if the purpose of communism in the 20th century was to kill 100 million of it's people, and then eventually become capitalist.... what good was it?

Hmmm... 100 million... where do you come up with that figure? About 20-30 million died in the early 20's of fammine and pestilance - and that was going to happen no matter what form of government was in place. Another 20-30 million or so died under Stalin's dekulakization program - but that was after the Soviet Union had become an Authoritarian regime, not a Communist one. Most of the remainder died in WWII, and again this would have happend no matter what type of government was in charge of Russia - unless they capitulated.

It all came to pass because of the efforts of the USA and our Democratic Western allies. We all fought against the nightmare of Communism in the 20th Century.

Again, my position is that because of this outside "effort", communist countries were ripe for digression into authoritarian regimes. So we really do not know what would have happened in the absense of such external pressure.

The 'natural progression' from communism to a market economy is because we, specifically the steadfast USA, forced the USSR, China, and even Vietnam to relinquish thier party stranglehold on all means of production and eventually soften their ideology to compete with our society.

There is no proof of this statement. Furthermore, if you study post-war Vietnam you will see that even before the USA had any influence whatsover on their economy they were transitioning to an internal market economy.

It took no encouragement from the West to open up Eastern Europe to the same ideals after the fall of the USSR. And steadfast communist states may not have admitted their ultimate failure but have indeed willingly released ownership of assets back to the people and begun reform to survive as states.

Communism failed no matter which state it was tried in, and no matter under what conditions it arose from. This failed based upon all relative comparisons to Liberal Democracies. History over the late 20th century should have proven that as fact to you, based on the preponderance of evidence.

Again, my point is we really don't know how they would have progressed in the absense of external pressures.

What we do know is that an immeadiate step to democracy invariably means sustaining the existing status quo. It means the same people who were rich and powerful under the previous dictatorship (or colonial rule) will continue to be rich and powerful in the "democracy".

Democracy cannot flourish when too much of the wealth and power is held by too few of the people. These people will pervert democracy to their own ends. You have only to look at the failure of democracy in South America to see how true this is.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade, under communism people are not rewarded proportionately for their efforts and skills, and people, being basically motivated by personal reward, therefore do not use their skills to their fullest, because it will give them no benefit. Society, consequently, degrades. The economy contracts, and people turn against each other along ethnic lines. It's ugly. Tell me where this model is wrong and maybe you will garner some respect on the board, which you seem so desperate to need, as evidenced by your bragadoccio.


"Look at me, I'm wade, I'm rich, and I'm smarter than all of you".

 

[wade]

Wade, under communism people are not rewarded proportionately for their efforts and skills, and people, being basically motivated by personal reward, therefore do not use their skills to their fullest, because it will give them no benefit. Society, consequently, degrades. The economy contracts, and people turn against each other along ethnic lines. It's ugly. Tell me where this model is wrong and maybe you will garner some respect on the board, which you seem so desperate to need, as evidenced by your bragadoccio.

"Look at me, I'm wade, I'm rich, and I'm smarter than all of you".

Oh... I'm not rich. I just have a modest lifestyle and a reliable income that is more than sufficent for my needs. If I were rich, I'd not be driving a Honda! LOL

What makes you think that under communism people do not use their skills to the fullest? Or that people with skills are not compensated better than those with lesser skills (or no skills)? This is a falacious belief.

If what you are saying was true, the Mig 29 and SU 27 would not have been the superior fighter of the late 80's and early 90's over the F-15. While US missile systems were superior, there is no question these Soviet jets were superior in most other aspects. Soviet medical advances also rivaled those of the west, and in several sciences they were actually superior.

Again, I have to point out that in getting people to excel, communism has shown no lack of ability. It is in getting the average worker to be productive that communism fails. This is espeically true in management positions, and at the lower levels of (what we call) civil servant positions.

The truth is that any really skilled individual, espeically in technical fields, will excel no matter the political system, as long as the resources needed are provided to allow advancement of the technology.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

The "Liberal democractics" in the White movement were a realatively small, and largely ineffective sub group. The main force were the Kossacks and the old gaurd. What other European country transitioned from Authoritarian rule of the nature of the TCzar to democracy in the 20th century (or the immeadiately preceeding period)? If you want to go back another hundred or more years, you can find examples - most of them involving a lot of bloodshed and land-reform and wealth redistribution. I suppose perhaps you might consider Germany an example?

No, Germany was never a Communist state then. Whatever.

Hmmm... 100 million... where do you come up with that figure? About 20-30 million died in the early 20's of fammine and pestilance - and that was going to happen no matter what form of government was in place. Another 20-30 million or so died under Stalin's dekulakization program - but that was after the Soviet Union had become an Authoritarian regime, not a Communist one. Most of the remainder died in WWII, and again this would have happend no matter what type of government was in charge of Russia - unless they capitulated.

I said Communism killed 100 million. The USSR chalked up most but not all the dead.

Again, my position is that because of this outside "effort", communist countries were ripe for digression into authoritarian regimes. So we really do not know what would have happened in the absense of such external pressure.

Your position sounds like an excuse for the multitude of Communist countries still ruled by tyranny worldwide. Pressure? You bet we pressure the totalitarian assholes.

The 'natural progression' from communism to a market economy is because we, specifically the steadfast USA, forced the USSR, China, and even Vietnam to relinquish thier party stranglehold on all means of production and eventually soften their ideology to compete with our society.
....................................................
There is no proof of this statement. Furthermore, if you study post-war Vietnam you will see that even before the USA had any influence whatsover on their economy they were transitioning to an internal market economy.

So we didn't win the cold war? It's still just Communism taking its own sweet time to blossom?

Again, my point is we really don't know how they would have progressed in the absense of external pressures.

We'd all be Communist drones, thats what. We wouldn't be talking about the government we sure as hell wouldn't have a computer or internet to do it on.

What we do know is that an immeadiate step to democracy invariably means sustaining the existing status quo. It means the same people who were rich and powerful under the previous dictatorship (or colonial rule) will continue to be rich and powerful in the "democracy".

Why not just become a real Democracy then?

Democracy cannot flourish when too much of the wealth and power is held by too few of the people. These people will pervert democracy to their own ends. You have only to look at the failure of democracy in South America to see how true this is.

Communism never solved anything, and never gave a damn for Democracy.

 

[Zhukov]

I said Communism killed 100 million. The USSR chalked up most but not all the dead.

Actually, Mao probably takes the cake.

About 20-30 million died in the early 20's of fammine and pestilance - and that was going to happen no matter what form of government was in place.

A ridiculous statement based on nothing.

Another 20-30 million or so died under Stalin's dekulakization program - but that was after the Soviet Union had become an Authoritarian regime, not a Communist one.

Whether you like it or not, the Soviet Union was what the rest of humanity refers to as a 'communist regime'. The concepts upon which the organization of the Soviet Union was initially based were most certainly communist ones. Stalin most definitely considered himself a communist. If you take exception with the fact that every attempted communist experiment has resulted in a totalitarian government that hardly changes the cause of the fact or the reality of historical events. That cause is 'communism'.

Most of the remainder died in WWII, and again this would have happend no matter what type of government was in charge of Russia - unless they capitulated.

Another ridiculous statment based on nothing. This one is in fact the reverse of reality.

Stalin's actions and policies led to the deaths of more Soviet citizens than those caused by the Nazis.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM




The Soviet Union, under Stalin and his succesors, and it's aggression against eastern European satellites, in addition to Mao, his succesors, the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese communists, the North Koreans, Castro, and any and all other communists have probably led to the deaths of more than a billion people since 1917.

Atheistic communism has accomplished, in a mere 75 years no less, the ignoble honor of murdering more people than probably every single idea, ambition, religion, or act of revenge combined in over 5,000 years of human history. So keep on defending it.

 

[wade]

Zhukov,

Stalinist Russia was not communist. It was a totalitarian regime utilizing an communist economic model. There is a huge difference.

Natzi Germany was a capitalist regime, do we consider it to have been a Democracy?

However, I am tired of trying to make this distinction. The fact is I do not particularly like communism as an economic system. I was just arguing the point to try to distinguish the difference. It is clear that point is never going to be made here.

The numbers of lost lives have to do, more than anything else, with the numbers of people involved and the economic conditions that existed at the time. Russia was going to suffer heavy losses in the early 20th century no matter what economic system prevailed. The same is true of China. This was going to happen either through regional war or famine - both these countries had bloated populations for their level of technology. But I agree that communism significantly magnified the losses, especially in Russia.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Zhukov,

Stalinist Russia was not communist. It was a totalitarian regime utilizing an communist economic model.

Wade, what definition of communism are you talking about?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:Communism

Definitions of Communism on the Web:

A totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production with the professed aim of establishing a stateless society

There's Stalinist Russia, Castro's Cuba, Ho's Nam, Kim's land, etc.. all communist states.

Ideology centered on eliminating class inequality via collective ownership of means of production; form of one-party government controlling economy and society in name of such ideology. Rooted in work of Karl Marx and other nineteenth-century critics of industrial capitalism. After heyday in mid-twentieth century, influence declined with demise of Soviet Union and other Communist regimes (1989-91).

a totalitarian system preventing amassing of privately owned goods; a goal of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"; a major control of the economic, social and cultural life of a society.
www.stormy.org/defin.htm

And leaving each to shut up and like it.

as expressed by Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels, a social, economic, political system; classless society. According tot his philosophy, all means of production should be owned by society rather than individuals and government is supposed to wither away.

And communism is not, as you said, supposed to herald Democracy.

a society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production, distribution and exchange belong to the community

Owned by the top officials, actually. Semantics.

an economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole; the final stage of socialism as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others characterized by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods; achieved by revolutionary and dictatorial means.

It requires dictator rule, don't you see that? Each communist state in history started out and remained that way.

Everyone shares everything. No one has more or less money than anyone else. The idea is that everyone deserves to have an equal part of wealth because everyone's work is equally important.

If only the world was more like kindergarden.

– the final state of social evolution according to Marx, in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed according to need.

By who wonder? The nice and happy people?

You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with some milk.

Communism to me is the failed reality, and not the idealized fantasy. You seem to insist that pure communism was never carried out, is it because it would never fail if done correctly in the imagination of Marx?

There is a huge difference.

Natzi Germany was a capitalist regime, do we consider it to have been a Democracy?

Actually, Nazi Germany was more socialist, and definately totalitarian.

Russia was indeed communist and definately totalitarian.

Both were not Democracies. Did I answer that right?

However, I am tired of trying to make this distinction. The fact is I do not particularly like communism as an economic system. I was just arguing the point to try to distinguish the difference. It is clear that point is never going to be made here.

I think this is your point:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Prior to 1871, Karl Marx said little about what in practice would characterize a "dictatorship of the proletariat", believing that planning in advance the details of a future socialist system constituted the fallacy of "utopian socialism." Marx used the term "dictatorship" to describe control by an entire class (rather than a single sovereign individual) over another class. Thus Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat), which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism. He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as only an intermediate stage, believing that governments, that is to say the use of state power of one class over another, would disappear once the classes themselves had disappeared.

However, although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he did point to the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of a society in his own lifetime that put his ideas into practice.

Well it just had to be the French who inspired the communist ideal, didnt it?

Only in a Paris commune could Marx dream this up.... and say, where are they now, the French hippies? All kicked out on their asses, the losers, that's what.

The numbers of lost lives have to do, more than anything else, with the numbers of people involved and the economic conditions that existed at the time. Russia was going to suffer heavy losses in the early 20th century no matter what economic system prevailed.

But well into the 20th century was still buying US grain to make up for a failed agricultural industry based on central planning. Communism always really sucked.

The same is true of China. This was going to happen either through regional war or famine - both these countries had bloated populations for their level of technology. But I agree that communism significantly magnified the losses, especially in Russia.

No freedom, opportunity, religion, or rights for the rest too, don't forget all the suffering among the living too. Communism is a 20th disease America is still curing, and this whole infection is from Marx and the slutty French commune chicks he hung out with.

Marx had a theory, and many leaders seized power from revolution to try it out, and it never worked. Quit trying to insist what was tried was never the real deal, after 100 million lives to prove it failed what else do you need?

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, Nazi Germany was more socialist, and definately totalitarian.

Ding Ding Ding. There was a reason that the Nazi party was named the National Socialist German Workers Party. Its amazing how many people over look this.

Marx had a theory, and many leaders seized power from revolution to try it out, and it never worked. Quit trying to insist what was tried was never the real deal, after 100 million lives to prove it failed what else do you need?

Its always amazed me how communism caught on like it did. He had a theory. There was no real basis for that theory. He ignored the entire concept on how wealth is created and how goods and services are even provided to people. He ignored addressing what would motivate people to work hard when people who hardly worked would receive the same compensation. And many other basic economic questions.

I think what marx did was give a type of religion to the intellectuals who were beginning to turn from God at the time. Here was the "Ideal" "Perfect" society that mankind can eventually create because we are so smart etc. Problem is marx didnt account for the natural man. While capitalists used the understanding of human nature, that man is naturally self serving, to structure their economic system marx ignored human nature all together. When you fail to address evil you have no checks against it. Marx proposed no way to overcome nature. Marx provided a moral vaccuum in his new religion. A Vaccuum where the ends justify the means. it doesnt matter if we rebel and kill lots of people, even all people. we will see our utopia someday. Hence why communism so quickly leads to totalitarian regimes. Because they are trying to force people to go against human nature.

 

[Comrade]

Ding Ding Ding. There was a reason that the Nazi party was named the National Socialist German Workers Party. Its amazing how many people over look this.

Its always amazed me how communism caught on like it did. He had a theory. There was no real basis for that theory. He ignored the entire concept on how wealth is created and how goods and services are even provided to people. He ignored addressing what would motivate people to work hard when people who hardly worked would receive the same compensation. And many other basic economic questions.

I can't agree more. This is exactly what fails each time in his theory.

I think what marx did was give a type of religion to the intellectuals who were beginning to turn from God at the time. Here was the "Ideal" "Perfect" society that mankind can eventually create because we are so smart etc.
Problem is marx didnt account for the natural man.

Marx betrays the ideal by immediately appealing to the greed of the masses to rise up and make it happen. This he had to know.

He belies all logic by enstrusting massive power to the government to run the whole show with motives beyond reproach. That is indeed the aspect of 'religious faith' you mention.

And granting the state such complete power only blind faith will bizzarely promise that such a massive machine of the state will make itself redundant and eventually dissappear!

That's really just nuts. *Poof* goes the state and who runs what and who delivers the goods? It would be massive anarchy. Marx cannot be that ignorant.

I could even imagine Marx was possessed, and Satan channeled Communism through him, knowing it would herald the death of God and cause untold human suffering on much of humanity.

Now that's a thought!

While capitalists used the understanding of human nature, that man is naturally self serving, to structure their economic system marx ignored human nature all together. When you fail to address evil you have no checks against it. Marx proposed no way to overcome nature. Marx provided a moral vaccuum in his new religion. A Vaccuum where the ends justify the means. it doesnt matter if we rebel and kill lots of people, even all people. we will see our utopia someday. Hence why communism so quickly leads to totalitarian regimes. Because they are trying to force people to go against human nature.

Very well put!

 

[William Joyce]

Absolutely.

Now, follow my finger:

If equality of material wealth for individuals is an unattainable goal, why are so many so-called conservatives just as commited to the equality of material wealth for RACES? The current demand is that blacks and whites have the same standard of living. How is this different from the demand that all people have the same standard of living?

 

[dilloduck]

Absolutely.

Now, follow my finger:

If equality of material wealth for individuals is an unattainable goal, why are so many so-called conservatives just as commited to the equality of material wealth for RACES? The current demand is that blacks and whites have the same standard of living. How is this different from the demand that all people have the same standard of living?

I think at the so-called conservatives are at least on the end of the spectrum which is more for giving races equal chances at obtaining wealth as opposed to just giving it too them. Excellant comparison though ! You gotta remember that the right has a lot of Christians who are wrestling with the idea of "being nice" to everyone . Thier own version of PC, if you will.

 

[Zhukov]

If equality of material wealth for individuals is an unattainable goal, why are so many so-called conservatives just as commited to the equality of material wealth for RACES? The current demand is that blacks and whites have the same standard of living.

And who, exactly, is currently demanding that? I don't believe I've ever read a post from a conservative on this board 'demand' that black people and white people must have the same standard of living and the same amount of material wealth.

What mainstream conservative anywhere in this country has made these 'demands'?