Re: Again, you've lost me.

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?

Welcome to IWETHEY!