Thanks. But I've seen all that.
(1) Article 40
(2) Article 43
(3) and (4) Articles 44, 10 and 11
(5) Article 131
http://www.constitut...g/cons/ussr77.txt
And I've seen how Western Capitalists react when anyone tries to implement such a system. I'm not saying this cannot be done (indeed, Engels himself suggested Communists should look to the United States to see how well self-government can work), but I am saying that these reforms cannot be implemented without a lot of gunfire. Shortly after McVeigh was arrested, I met a man from the UP who had grown up around the so-called militia men with whom McVeigh had become involved. He said he didn't believe McVeigh was guilty and "neither does anyone I know up there." The popular theory up there, he told me, was that the government itself had committed this crime in order to ram the assault rifle ban through the Congress. We had a lenghty chat and I told him that his hostility was misplaced and so, too, was McVeigh's if we entertained the idea that he was actually responsible for the bombing. I explained that the federal workers who were attacked were merely useful idiots of the ruling corporate elite and that there would always be replacements. If men of McVeigh's persuasion were actually interested in effecting real change, they'd be better served attacking not federal buildings and federal workers, but corporate board rooms. Blow up a building in which a Chase, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Standard Oil, Exxon-Mobil or any of about 200 multi-national corporation's shareholder meetings were being held. That, I said, was the path to meaningful change. Apparently, they didn't listen. Either that (or as I suspect) federal protection of shareholder meetings is vastly superior to the protection provided poor working stiffs like those in Oklahoma.
