Hey! my aunt was a 'communist in the '30s' too.

Post #25,359 by Ashton 1/23/02 7:47:56 PM Reply	Hey! my aunt was a 'communist in the '30s' too. Robber Baron Capitalism had imploded, Hoover had been masturbating in do-nothing paralysis and FDR's programs - while welcome and beginning to be effective: had far from cancelled out 1929. She was a school teacher, a Wise lady IMh and experienced Opinion - and no zealot. And those US 'communists' who fled to UK were as likely just trying to survive.. Remember: Union membership in the then only-recently sorta slave-free US was often a death sentence: especially if you were an organizer. That mindset re Unions [must be Commyunists!] is even present here at IWE, amongst those insouciant about just Who got 'US': Nominal 8 hr days / 40 hr. weeks, over their dead bodies. 'Course too, as Corporate has regained power via purchase of all governing power that actually matters: betcha few here actually Really work only 8/40 today [??] (We also managed to collect the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, to try to counter the fascist Franco: Germany's trial test site for Stukas, etc. Wanna call those folk 'Left' too ?) {sheesh} Besides - lumping all that together and making didactic pronouncements re 'The Left' being unilaterally guilty of sloppy thinking and terminal mopery... why that's almost as silly a slogan as.. say, In All Things... Leave it to the Holy Market\ufffd ! to automagically Correct <> Itself (and other Randian fantasies) Unbecoming to sentient beings. C'mon Doug: no tales of the Brit 'Right' and their love affair with All Things German? (as Hitler showed them Jews they couldn't push around His Boys! any more). Yes and.. the US counterpart with Swastikas and jack-boots too = with \ufffdber Hero Lindbergh carrying a guidon in that march.. Pace pace O Mio Dio PS But yeah: from Klaus Fuchs through all those dastardly Eton Boys - the Brits manufactured the most damaging spies of all. Mata Hari was a piker, but fed sexual fantasies; a necessity in all that 007 stuff.. Too bad they lacked a real Smiley though at least they gave the world a real Alec Guinness. RIP oh Man in the White Suit
Post #25,391 by a6l6e6x 1/23/02 10:19:51 PM Reply	Please do not forget the Soviet Union's communism. How convenient of you to not mention it. Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago". By the 1940s 12 to 15 million prisoners in the penal system at any time. IIRC an estimated 60 million folks were killed over the years. That, my friend, is communism in action. Don't tell me about communism. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #25,397 by Brandioch 1/23/02 10:41:06 PM Reply	Not pure Communism. The "Communism" of the Soviets was actually a totalitarian Socialist oligarchy.
Post #25,398 by a6l6e6x 1/23/02 10:49:30 PM Reply	Was the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia purer? "Pol Pot's murderous Khmer Rouge regime resulted in the massacre of at least 1.7 million people between 1975 and 1979, annihilating roughly 25 percent of the country's population." [link\|http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvi/12.4.98/news/genocide!.html\|Ref.] Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #25,426 by Brandioch 1/24/02 4:39:58 AM Reply	You tell me. Was there a ruling elite or not? You are aware of what Communism is, right?
Post #25,449 by a6l6e6x 1/24/02 9:58:32 AM Reply	Re: You tell me. Does reading Marx and Engels and The Communist Manifesto count. I've read about the Blessed Virgin and nirvana as well. Following Marx's ideas, there never has been a communist state. Communism, in practice, is the oppression and enslavement of 97% by the ruling 3% and death to those who can see the truth. You and Ashton will tell us it's worse than that here. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #25,457 by Brandioch 1/24/02 11:16:12 AM Reply	sigh "Does reading Marx and Engels and The Communist Manifesto count." Reading it? Well, that is the prerequisite for UNDERSTANDING it. So, no. Just reading it doesn't count. "Following Marx's ideas, there never has been a communist state." So, why do you ask questions to which you already seem to know the answer? "Communism, in practice, is the oppression and enslavement of 97% by the ruling 3% and death to those who can see the truth." No, that is totalitarian socialism. "Communism" is just the name given so that people can be fooled into thinking the reality is not what it is. "You and Ashton will tell us it's worse than that here." Worse than that? Not yet. You see, over 200 years ago, we had a group of very intelligent individuals who understood that certain people would try to drag this country down to a totalitarian state. So, this group crafted a government that had checks and balances to ensure that there would be 2 segments to oppose any totalitarian move by the other. Unfortunately, they couldn't account for all contingencies. They didn't realize the true extent of human stupidity over time. Particularly with regards to language and the slow erosion of rights.
Post #25,491 by Ashton 1/24/02 1:09:05 PM Reply	Seconded. No need to add much to the above.
Post #25,438 by marlowe 1/24/02 9:05:21 AM Reply	No true Scotsmen here. Nope. No real commies either. Here or anywhere else. Every ideological label has to disown some of those who would wear the label, at some time or another, to preserve the credibility of the brand name. Some labels have to disown all of them. But not all at the same time, or else people will notice. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,462 by Brandioch 1/24/02 11:44:37 AM Reply	Sometimes it would be nice........ if people would understand the terms they use before they commit them to a discussion. The "true Scotsman" falacy is such that a claim is made about something or someone ("all Scotsmen wear kilts") which is disproven by an example ("My father is Scottish and he doesn't wear a kilt") whereupon the person making the original claim retreats to "Well, he's not a TRUE Scotsman". Now, what I have done is called "dictionary definition". Kind of like if you claimed that cats were in the same family as wolves and I posted cats belong to the Felidae family and wolves belong to the Canidae family. Now, I have used a dictionary to define the old Soviet regime as a totalitarian socialist oligarchy. You claim they are communist. Communism requires common ownership and so on. Do they have that? No. They didn't have ANY of the requirements for a Communistic society. But their leaders CALLED themselves "Communists". Just like "legitimate businessmen" is a term used by various crime syndicates. Only a complete and utter idiot would fail to see that what someone calls themselves is not necessarily what they are.
Post #25,475 by Another Scott 1/24/02 12:32:35 PM Reply	On the other hand.... It's common in discussions to use short-hand to identify political beliefs. E.g. a person who is a member of the Republican party would likely call him/herself a Republican. Similarly, Mao or Stalin, who were members of the Communist Party of their respective countries, would call themselves Communists. Would they follow the "true" political philosophy of Marx? No. Does that mean that they aren't Communists? I don't think so, in the commonly understood meaning of the term (as a way to distinguish membership/belief in a political system). But arguing semantics like this is pointless. Just as it's pointless to say that, as a hypothetical example, members of the Southern Baptist Convention aren't "true" Baptists because they don't exclusively follow the complete teachings of John the Baptist. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #25,489 by Brandioch 1/24/02 1:02:16 PM Reply	Semantics - Stewart Chase - The Tyranny of Words "It's common in discussions to use short-hand to identify political beliefs." And such a practice is fine, as long as all participants understand the terms used. "Would they follow the "true" political philosophy of Marx? No." I agree. "Does that mean that they aren't Communists? I don't think so, in the commonly understood meaning of the term (as a way to distinguish membership/belief in a political system)." I disagree. If we're going to have a discussion, why don't we use the correct terms? How many people here get bent out of shape if I mix up hacker/cracker? But in the public's mind, they're the same. Or if I point out that Internet Explorer is Free Software? Or that Bill Gates helped start the Free Software movement? You see, correct usage of terms can be vitally important to discussions.
Post #25,496 by Another Scott 1/24/02 1:22:45 PM Reply	"Correct" is a matter of consensus. Both sides are expressing what I regard to be defensible views of communism. You and Ashton are addressing the political philosophy, Alex and others are talking about the actual expression of what is claimed, by name by the participants, to be a communist party. You're both right. But you're using the term to mean two different things and trying to show that the other is wrong. Discussion doesn't depend upon "correct" usage. It depends on the participants agreeing on what the terms mean - whether a dictionary or encyclopedia agrees or not. Yes, things are simpler if we agree on an unbiased reference. You're not going to convince Alex that he's wrong, and vice versa, until you come to a consensus about the terms you're using. Just as one has to come to a consensus about the use of the word free in "free software", "free lunch", "free electron", "free energy", etc. Discussions about terminology aren't very interesting, IMO.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #25,509 by Brandioch 1/24/02 1:48:08 PM Reply	Tyranny of the majority? "...Alex and others are talking about the actual expression of what is claimed, by name by the participants, to be a communist party." And I believe I have explained why "common usage" is not the correct way to discuss the matters. Unless you are willing to also say that hackers and crackers are both acceptable and that Internet Explorer is Free Software. If you repeat the same lies often enough and loud enough, they become "truth". I understand that concept. I understand its application. I do not have any respect for the intelligence of anyone who thinks that this "truth" is a fact.
Post #25,497 by marlowe 1/24/02 1:23:53 PM Reply	Does anyone follow the pure philosophy of Marx? Did even Marx follow it? From what I've read on his personal life, he didn't. Brandioch is an expert on who is not a true Marxist. He has a simple formula. For any given X, X is not a true disciple of Marx. Hell, anybody can apply that formula. A trained monkey could do it. Maybe even un untrained one. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,442 by boxley 1/24/02 9:11:31 AM Reply	It was a facist dictatorship, not communist. My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #25,400 by Ashton 1/23/02 11:00:26 PM Reply	Read more than once. When it had to be smuggled out. And with comprehension. USSR had nothing to do with 'communism' - nor my aunt's discontents from experience, right here in River City. And no I don't forget the clash of a few good ideas (still, at least re current Vulture Capitalism) + the vast underground fascism of that system: which had pretty much Zippo to do with even socialism .. let alone a 'communism' which could only ever 'work'.. at a higher level of species enlightenment than we have ever achieved. But don't You forget: the degree of feckless incompetence of the US 'governing's of those years; the war on any organized labor representation; the DC Bonus Marchers massacre earlier, suppressed by one Douglas Mac Arthur -- the utter hegemony of the Rich -- then maybe <1%? compared with today's 3-5% [est] and getting smaller every day. HUAC attempted to make 'communist thought'! illegal (whatever that was supposed to mean) even before succeeding in creating the AG's List of "unAmerican Orgs" -- intended to prevent even discussion of any of these ideas by say, academics. I recall well, Bill Mandel's opening remarks to the HUAC, as they were nearing being booed out of town - Honorable Senators and beaters of children.. (This in ref to head bashing of our earliest demonstrators against the existence of a "committee on 'UnAmericanism'"). IMhO some of Marx's essays on the plight of the average worker VS the Plutocrats are as applicable in 2002 as at any time before. How one might make use of his often clear exposure - to begin to create a more sane distribution of power? Ah There's the Rub Always, as always there are the Entrenched and - we have lost our taste for Tom Paine and actual revolution: as called for in the Constitution, when our governance has deviated too far from those principles. Engels too had some variants. So while Adam Smith is what many would substitute (because it's so neatly logical as Econ ever purports to be). But 'oppression' is not logical - as humans are not. There's more worthy of honest application to actual living conditions in Marx, than in the bloodless spread-sheet world of Smith, at least as imagined by the modern MBA-type. IMO. 'Market Forces self-correcting'.. Indeed! Just look around at the temps, cubicles and HMOs/prisons and next schools! "for Profit". And the now accelerating gap between the Very Rich and - the 20-25% of all living US children <'poverty level' (and even those numbers which define That - have been made highly unrealistic). Just like 'min wage' VS 'living wage' - Econ BS with numbers is everywhere. (We can't blame that on Adam Smith - just on the greed which props itself up with recompiled scripture.) Distribution of wealth has gone backwards in <20 years. And heading further that direction. That makes Marx relevant but only marginally and selectively. His was never a blueprint. Ayn Rand made blueprints :-\ufffd Ashton
Post #25,500 by marlowe 1/24/02 1:35:07 PM Reply	There is no Communism! Only many individual "communisms" in all the colors of the rainbow! Each as valid as any other! And anybody who doesn't agree with this is a fascist poopoo head! There. Now that's all sorted out, we can talk about something else. Standard deviation of a thousand identical data points, anyone? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,658 by Ashton 1/25/02 12:02:45 AM Reply	"Travel, for the silly person - merely adds to his impertinence and enables him to abound in absurdities."
Post #25,394 by Arkadiy 1/23/02 10:35:14 PM Reply	A real communist... swears upon entry into the party that the Party's orders are above all for him. No matter what orders. I've got to look up the oath. It's ok to lie, kill, rape - whatever Party tells him to do. And he happens to enjoy it - even better.
Post #25,402 by Ashton 1/23/02 11:06:28 PM Reply	You're confused there.. that's what a Fundamentalist agrees to -- of whatever religion including 'communism as belief system'. You're describing that - and not the mrer noticing of some of Marx's prescient observations about the misuse of power / the concentration of wealth in a few. Like today, say? Make Marx (or any thing) your God? You get what follows from fantasizing. A.
Post #25,498 by marlowe 1/24/02 1:26:30 PM Reply	A real Communist is a fundamentalist. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #25,511 by Arkadiy 1/24/02 1:51:40 PM Reply	I am afraid Marx was confused... Every attempt to use his theory led to huge ugly toalitarian regime. Or a small one. But just as ugly. Could it be that something is wrong with theory?
Post #25,518 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:02:27 PM Reply	DUH! He failed to take into consideration that not everyone will willingly surrender their property. Nor did he account for human greed, laziness and desire for control. With limited resources, Communism (pure) is impossible (so far). I've seen it argued that you can construct a false Communistic society (unlimited resources for the group) and raise the next generations to follow the Communistic principles and thereafter, the state would be self supporting. Of course, this is impossible to try so it remains a mental exercise. I think the important thing is to watch how governments change over time.That is why correct terminology is so important. Rather than focusing on how the Czars were replaced with "communism", look at how the autocratic government was replaced by a totalitarian socialist oligarchy. They are VERY similar in structure. A different process can be seen in England where it became a constituational monarchy. Or in Germany where a democracy became a fascist state.
Post #25,527 by Arkadiy 1/24/02 2:21:07 PM Reply	This thread was in responce... ..to Ashton using "commyunist" as a witch hunt equivalent. While it's true that America wasted a few years prosecuting her own good people as "communists", one should not lose track of the kind of danger a _real_ communist presents. Not all communists are harmless. And those who _proclaim_ themself communists are more likely to be very dangerous.
Post #25,537 by Brandioch 1/24/02 2:45:00 PM Reply	Perhaps you could explain? "...one should not lose track of the kind of danger a _real_ communist presents." And what danger DOES a _reaL communist present? "And those who _proclaim_ themself communists are more likely to be very dangerous." Likewise, we should not lose track of the kind of danger a _real_ legitimate businessman presents.
Post #25,615 by Arkadiy 1/24/02 6:40:58 PM Reply	Re: Perhaps you could explain? Is real legitimate businessman (why, evan a biznesman!) going to keep 1/3 of population in concentration camps? I don't think so, they need "consumers" for their stuff. People who compare dangers of buisiness and communism definitely don't understand communism and possibly don't understand buisiness.
Post #25,626 by Brandioch 1/24/02 7:27:22 PM Reply	And you're off on what tangent? Allow me to quote my previous post: --------------------------------------------- "...one should not lose track of the kind of danger a _real_ communist presents." And what danger DOES a _reaL communist present? "And those who _proclaim_ themself communists are more likely to be very dangerous." Likewise, we should not lose track of the kind of danger a _real_ legitimate businessman presents. ---------------------------------------------- You replied: "Is real legitimate businessman (why, evan a biznesman!) going to keep 1/3 of population in concentration camps?" Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by _real_ Communist? I had thought you meant pure communism. The non-real Communists are those who claim communism, but actualy practice totalitarian socialism. Which is why I used the example of "legitimate business men" which is the title claimed by members of the mafia which have killed people and such before. Could you clarify?
Post #25,650 by Arkadiy 1/24/02 10:58:40 PM Reply	Meanings By "real communist" I meant people who called themselves "real communists" all over the place in 30th and later. I am yet to see a "real communinst" in the sence of "follower of pure altruistic doctrine the implementation of which depends on limitless resources avialability". Pfthft. When I see that specimen, I will call it "ideal communist"
Post #25,742 by Brandioch 1/25/02 2:55:02 PM Reply	Again, you've lost me. "real communist" means (to you) someone who calls themselves a "real communist". "I am yet to see a "real communinst" in the sence of "follower of pure altruistic doctrine the implementation of which depends on limitless resources avialability"." "When I see that specimen, I will call it "ideal communist"" Okay, that's where I was lost. You see, to me "real" implies that there is a "false" somewhere. And you haven't met any "ideal communists". Okay. So a "real legitimate business man" who runs protection rackets, deals dope, launders money and kills people is a "real legitimate business man" to you. But someone who works for a legal business and pays taxes and so on would be an "ideal legitimate businessman"? Terminology is oh so important in these discussions.
Post #25,791 by Arkadiy 1/25/02 6:47:09 PM Reply	Re: Again, you've lost me. >>>>>>>>>>>> So a "real legitimate business man" who runs protection rackets, deals dope, launders money and kills people is a "real legitimate business man" to you. But someone who works for a legal business and pays taxes and so on would be an "ideal legitimate businessman"? <<<<<<<<<<<< How the hell does that follow from what I said? Does a gangster call himself a real legitimate businessman? To his associates? In a bragging fit? Does the community around him agree? The police? All of that was true abour "real communists". I guess I see where we are getting confused. Here:[link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=real\|real]. I use meaning 1, you use meaning 2. Meaning 2 is compatible with [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ideal\|ideal].
Post #25,796 by Brandioch 1/25/02 7:44:46 PM Reply	It follows the logic that you laid out. "Does a gangster call himself a real legitimate businessman?" No, he calls himself a "legitimate businessman". Just as, in your example, a member of the ruling oligarchy of a totalitarian socialist state would refer to himslef as a "Communist". Neither are correct usages. Both are used to hide their true affiliations. Which was my point. "To his associates?" No. He doesn't have to identify his business to his associates. They are in the same business. "In a bragging fit?" Sorry, I don't watch "The Sopranos". I'm unfamiliar with "bragging" fits of Mafia dons. Likewise I am wondering if such happened with the Soviet leadership. Somehow I don't see them bragging to each other "I am a Communist!". Whatever. "Does the community around him agree?" No, the community around them call them "thugs". But not to their face. To their face, they're called "sir". "The police?" In Soviet Russia, the police were under the control of the Party. "All of that was true abour "real communists"." I don't think it was. "I guess I see where we are getting confused." Okay, so you link to dictionary pages. Strangely enough, I don't see any of your criteria in those definitions. Answer me this: Can someone be a "_real_ Communist" and an "ideal totalitarian Socialist"?
Post #25,797 by Arkadiy 1/25/02 8:02:26 PM Reply	Re: It follows the logic that you laid out. >>>>>>>>>>>>> "To his associates?" No. He doesn't have to identify his business to his associates. They are in the same business. "In a bragging fit?" Sorry, I don't watch "The Sopranos". I'm unfamiliar with "bragging" fits of Mafia dons. Likewise I am wondering if such happened with the Soviet leadership. Somehow I don't see them bragging to each other "I am a Communist!". <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Not in 70s. Definitely in 30s. COmmunists arrested, in camps, would say to others, like them, prisoners: I am a communist. Not even mentioning ones still free. They were all building "Radiant Future". Your "not seeing" this happening simply confirms that you don't know Communism as it existed in 30s >>>>>>>>>>>> "Does the community around him agree?" No, the community around them call them "thugs". But not to their face. To their face, they're called "sir". <<<<<<<<<<<< In 30s, the community was still soomehow convinced that those thugs were, somehow, legitimate communists. Again, it decreased in 50, faded in 70s and died in 80s. But when McCarthy crap was happening here, it was still strong >>>>>>>> Answer me this: Can someone be a "_real_ Communist" and an "ideal totalitarian Socialist"? <<<<<<<< Yes. You just need to truly believe in The Radiant Future. The end justifies means. Again, when people were afraid of "communists", they were not afraid of some followers of a nice tuchy-feely cult of unlimited labor productivity. They were afraid of the existing, clear and present danger that was Soviet Union. That's what we need to remember. (Note that I did not use a single "real" or "ideal" :) in this post.)
Post #25,804 by Brandioch 1/25/02 9:00:37 PM Reply	What was that? "Not in 70s. Definitely in 30s." I and going to >ASSUME< that you're refering to the 1930's. "COmmunists arrested, in camps, would say to others, like them, prisoners: I am a communist. " Arrest by whom? In camps where? "Your "not seeing" this happening simply confirms that you don't know Communism as it existed in 30s" I'm going to wait to comment on that until AFTER you tell me who arrested them and where the camps were. "In 30s, the community was still soomehow convinced that those thugs were, somehow, legitimate communists." Again, I'm going to wait on further clarification. I ask: Can someone be a "_real_ Communist" and an "ideal totalitarian Socialist"? You answer: "Yes. You just need to truly believe in The Radiant Future. The end justifies means." You've lost me again. I thought "The Radiant Future" was the belief of the IDEAL COMMUNISTS. Now you're assigning that belief to the totalitarian socialists. Can you tell me what the specific groups mentioned believe in? "Again, when people were afraid of "communists", they were not afraid of some followers of a nice tuchy-feely cult of unlimited labor productivity." Okay, which "communists" are the "nice tuchy-feely cult of unlimited labor productivity"? "They were afraid of the existing, clear and present danger that was Soviet Union." And tell me which group was in charge of the Soviet Union? "(Note that I did not use a single "real" or "ideal" :) in this post.)" I noticed that. Right after we went to such pains to clearly identify what you meant by each, also.
Post #25,979 by Arkadiy 1/27/02 8:41:26 PM Reply	The famous last post. If you need explanation as to who arrested whom and sent to what camps, you really need to do some reading before continuing this discussion. [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060007761/qid=1012181731/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_27_2/103-0314185-6729473\|Gulag Archipelago] is well known. A bit less known (around here), by the same author, [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374511993/qid=1012181797/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_11_4/103-0314185-6729473\|"Cancer Ward"]. For even better literature, check this book out (I haven't read the English translation, can't wouch for the quality of that) [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/5280004774/qid=1012182036/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/103-0314185-6729473\|Andrey Platonov, "Chevengur"]. For the situation in 70s and beyond, look at this book: [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385176570/qid=1012181616/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/103-0314185-6729473\|M. Voslensky, "Nomenklatura : The Soviet Ruling Class"]. >>>>>>>>> I thought "The Radiant Future" was the belief of the IDEAL COMMUNISTS. <<<<<<<<< Yes. And to achieve it, any means were OK. From bank robbing (before the Revolution) to mass murder after. It's amazing what people do when they believe in heaven, even if it's heaven on Earth.
Post #25,805 by Ashton 1/25/02 9:11:52 PM Reply	No. Possessing some common view of a Utopia is not tantamount to membership in the club of the sociopathic Fundamentalist. 'Sociopathic' I mean advisedly: Those who believe they possess [A God's] ear and mouth: disdain such pedestrian ideas common to most people as, ~ "concern about survival of the species, country, people therein". No sacrifice [for God] can be conceived as Too Large for: obvious reasons. Remember: these.. Know God! (Or Marx, whatever). We don't know what a "communist" is/believes any more than there is meaning to the phrase, The Murican Peepul IMhO. Surely there those with this affliction, having deified Marx? Engels, Trotsky, Lenin (their personal caricature of any 1 or 3.. as with the other kinds of Deists - and their personal and individual fantasy icons). Lumping all together as modern day Thuggees is simply the method of every propaganda ministry looking to preserve the power status quo: propagandize, agitate, demonize.. then exterminate one way or another. Works for M$ too - notice? My aunt was neither zealot nor Deist - simply an intelligent observer of her times: and of the utter failure of US leadership to even begin policies as could well have commenced... sans the rubric of war [a popular myth, that one - that only WW-II did/could! "save us" from ourselves]. McCarthy era hysteria went vastly beyond putative 'membership' in some [perfectly legal!] cabal retroactively. He/it defined such a hydra-headed monster as Americanism and proceeded to decree that even thinking of / reading about 'communism' was er unMurican. Ostrichitis. This to the extent of subsequently leading to the firing of (most of) the Russ/East experts in the State Department.. who had read or studied much beyond Dick and Jane. These must have been" comsymps: why, that was intuitively obvious! About as wise as Stalin's assassination of his best Generals. Thus we return: whatever elements of the ideas of Marx et al - as might? apply within some group earnestly willing to attempt great attitudinal changes (esp. about ownership of stuff*): are moot in the present developmental stage of our species anyway. (I say this is evident by inspection). If many were unaware of the thug-like events in USSR then (and many were, we see) - how is this degree of insouciance greatly different from those who 'had faith' in a Dick Nixon (or a Bill Clinton) or.. The Easter Bunny? Ashton semantics infests so many topics, y'know?
Post #25,571 by Simon_Jester 1/24/02 4:33:55 PM Reply	Actually, I disagree From what I've read, I think he's principle desire was to point out the 'waste' spent on the 'brains' of an organization. He felt (I think) that the workers actually adding value would realize their contribution and rise up and demand a more equitible accounting. Frankly, top management often does waste tremendious resources...particularly in a dying company. However, I think he failed to take into account the value that top management brings to the table, particularly in a small growing company.
Post #25,585 by Brandioch 1/24/02 5:09:03 PM Reply	Possibly. I hadn't looked at it like that. Thanks.
Post #25,414 by dmarker2 1/24/02 12:22:10 AM Reply	Re: Yeah was being a bit general But I do find so many of those left wing British journalists to seem rabid in their aanti-US attitudes. Communism like many ideals was fine, in most cases it was the way it was implemented that caused particular sets of problems. I always enjoyed Wllhelm Reich's comments about Russian communism after he flirted with it in the 30s 'Red Facists' was his conclusion. Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!