Please do not forget the Soviet Union's communism.

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."

Welcome to IWETHEY!