You're confused there..

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!