People misunderstand Marx when it comes to judging whether communism can work or not.

According to Marx, communism would develop as the existing capitalist systems crumbled because the fundamental flaws inherent in capitalism could not support the 'superstructures' or social and economic systems which are built on those fundamental assumptions. Communism, according to Marx, is only possible in the most highly developed capitalist nations.

Marx was completely wrong about how much development capitalism could sustain. He thought the revolutions of 1848 in Europe were the beginning of the end for capitalism. the end of capitalism will probably come as a result of India and China attempting to live like people do in the US. Capitalism is predicated on the assumption of never-ending growth and, as India and China develop we'll see the limits to global economic growth pretty quickly.

I'd like to think that we've reached a point in our social development where global war is no longer an option but who knows? In the past, each time the prevailing system has crumbled it has lead to a series of conflicts to determine what the new system will look like. We'll see.

The economic situation needs to be a lot worse in order for people to see capitalism as the cause of the world's economic plight. An international communist party could focus the blame on the capitalist class as the culprit.

is that there is a limit on the growth of capitalist development...  wrong in that - as technology changes, markets change, with some basic exceptions.  I do not see the growth of china and india as the "end" of global economic growth or even in some fashion "limiting" economic growth, rather a restriction on the "direction of economic growth" - and two examples...

First, energy - to sustain economic growth in china and India (CI) a shift of energy sources is necessary.  That shift may be easier for them to move away from petroleum (as they have minimal petroleum distribution and refinement infrastructure)... towards electric or other portable energy system...  That would mean a restructuring of who the early adopter for energy would be - and not a good sign for the US.

Second....  entertainment market.  Sure - hollywood does well... and we see a lot of foreign attention to american production values... but - there are other countries now competing in this market... and for what it is worth, they offer a more interesting fare to the local markets.... but consider - if china were to go into a free maket entertainment mode.... would Hollywood loose large chuncks of its market... I suspect so.... again - not good for the us.

as we move to a more and more service oriented market, we will see some fundamental shifts on how the US conducts business - and what is offered.... Marxism???  well, no matter how you slice it - it requires a fundamental change in how folks are motivated....  China IS in fact, a pure socialist/communist society's best hope.

As a society goes, it teaches self sacrifice for the good of the society... we have that???  I think not. Many cultures do not have that....  

The present condition America and the world is in cannot be solely placed on the shoulders of capitalism, sorry Charlie...lol

Not sure how much study you have done into past Communist regimes but outside of economics we live in a Communist society as it is. You don't think that Communism in America just kinda faded away after the 70's do you?? Two main priciples of Communism for those who look past economics are universal equality of all people and political correctness. Do we not live in a society rotten to the core due in large part to these two false doctrines.  


Wake up call, they now rule but have thrown of the "communism" hat. Do you know how many universities in this country are stocked with former Commie revolutionaries that were chanting "Ho Chi Minh the Viet Cong's gonna win." back in the 70's? And some still wonder why patriotism in this country has declined, I encourage you to wake up right now.

They had elections in Communist countries as well so don't think your free because you have a say in who the leaders are. The real manipulators choose the people in which you choose from at the national levels.

An economic system is only as benevolent as the people who are in control of it.

The problem is that Communism has, and probably always will be, a swindle. You can't give things to one group without taking it away from another. Whenever the system has been implemented it has resulted it tens of millions dead and the living population living under tyranny. And these have often been the best and hardest working of the population. The Kulak farmers in the Ukraine were targeted with special fury by the Soviets.

Look at who ran the Communist Revolution in Russia. Lazar Kagonvich, Ehrenburg, Trotsky (real last name Braunstien)and hundreds of other commisionars. Outside of Russia you had Rosa Luxembourg, Emma Goldman, Bela Kun, and so on. All of these people had one common characteristic and this characteristic should shed some light on why "atheistic" Communist regimes allowed synagogues to stand while they demolished Churches and massacred the clergy.

The kind of economic hardship that is here and is yet to come is much like the conditions in Europe in the 20's and 30's. Many fell for the swindle of Communism and found living to be much more of a struggle.

Gotta do something to protect ourselves from those at the levers of power. We have to become radicals ourselves to take our destiny back. But to hell with their systems of trickery that make us believe we are free, let us focus not on economics but on dealing with the group of people most prominently at the head of tyranny.

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 2:36:41 PM

Communism is believed in like religion.

No matter how many times some country tries it, it ends up in misery seldom equalled any where else in the world.

Then the next generation of communists say, "Well, X didn't really have communism. We will do it right with Y."  

Then they screw up and cause endless misery.

Then the next generation of communists say, "Well, Y didn't really have communism. We will do it right with Z."  

Then then next generation sees the failure of the two prior communist governments and tries again. Then another.

Each one has been hell on earth. The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba.

Doesn't it tell you something that every time try communism, people would rather die than remain there and face horrific danger to leave?  Inner tubes over shark filled waters. Walk across the frozen snow of Siberia. Face Asian pirates in the China sea.  And how many are begging to get in?  

One hell after another.

Well, let's try it again.

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 2:49:17 PM

which means that there is a limit to global economic growth.

Energy is probably going to be easier to address than things like concrete, steel, and food.

I agree that one big mistake that people have made in the past is to underestimate the level and impact of technological change, but the greatest technology in the world can't overcome the fact that resources are finite.

Motivation will have to change if Marx was correct and communism follow capitalism. That's not too strange, though, as motivation changed a great deal when capitalism replaced feudalism.

All you folks who keep bringing up Viet Nam and Cuba haven't read your Marx.

The Global warming Religion


 Those Vikings were quite the ingenious lot, with those wind powered ice boats..

Yes, the Global Warming. The more there is evidence that it is not as definate as previously explained, the more there is evidence that it may not be happening, the more the Global Warming People are willing to spend to prevent it.

My one hope is that the spend at least 100 billion before it is debunked and every one then asks, "And what was the money for?"

Why do anything at all?

BTW, an international communist party has been tried before. It ended in widespread calamity: the death of hundreds of millions and then total failure. I'd say don't try that again.

Their variation like Leninism and Stalinism were religions as well.

Marx simply made a detailed analysis of capitalism. Really, as I said to Charlie, Marx argued that it was inevitable that capitalism would spread throughout the world, and then collapse, or at least undergo a complete change. Communism is what he foresaw.

So far Marx is right. Capitalism has spread through out the world converting every country it has spread to, sweeping so-called communist countries away. (Now he didn't predict Bolshevism.) He predicted what it would look like, with the same companies reiterated and copied in every municipality (like McDonald's).  

I think his analysis had some serious mistakes, (nothing is inevitable) and the people who formed parties based on it were psychopathic killers, simply because the idea of brazenly taking away somebody's property is so appealing to psychopathic killers.  

I think the purported communists of the 70s (purported because they were hardly with it about Maoism) lost their faith. I mean, in general, how could they keep it? They took up reading Neitszhe, or Kirkagaard  they  read other things which diluted their whatever Marxist blood was in their bodies. They are no longer radicals, though a few are very luke-warm communists. Hardly Lenin material now. As academics in an anti-intellectual society, those people have no power and little influence, Ayers aside.  

Your association of communism with Judaism is false, mistaken and neo-Nazi. Lenin and Stalin weren't Jews. Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot weren't Jews. Stalin told anti-Semitic jokes, and the one man in his inner circle who was Jewish (Kagonivich) was unusual. Kagonivich used to look so stricken when Stalin would tell anti-semitic jokes, that Stalin actually forbade telling them in Kagonivich's presence. What a guy!

And then later, Stalin called for a purge of the Jews.

Now, there were probably more Jews in radical movements than in the general population. Many Jews took to Marxism because they were generally outcasts in European society, and most, (such as in Russia) were an underclass. It's easy to see why, once they became secular and still couldn't get over the stigma of being Jewish, that they became radical.

You are insane to call this a communist society "outside of economics." Insane.

Equality is not communist, it's Jeffersonian (". . . all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," remember?) "Political correctness" is a simple matter of etiquette. Marx was all about economics. He didn't predict equality until the very last stage of revolution.

They had elections in communist countries, but by that time the populations had been brutalized and pacified, and in general, the phoniness of the elections was clear to anyone who wasn't terrorized.

Your statement that any economic system is only as benevolent as the people in control of it is unstudied to say the least.

I say go and spew your neo-Nazi poison somewhere else, tallslime. It's possible to be against AIPAC and Israel's undue influence on our government without turning your soul over to the neo-Nazi delusions of Judaic-communist control. They were tragic when Germany was contaminated with them, they are just as false and poisonous now.

I am sure some on this board will find some way of trying to minimize this but I think you will have a hard time saying that Winston Churchill was some right wing racist crank, after all he helped to destroy Germany and Hitler, so how could he be an "ignorant Jew hater".

Read Churchill's article linked below and maybe it will shed some light on things.

http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

You are spot on. In present day England, the Brits are becoming ever more disatisfied with the taxation, and spending on global warming causes, and seeing no significant results. The EU continually wants more taxes and more fees from it's members to be spent on what, cap and trade? They now have a 'fee' on airline passenger tickets, the amount of which depends on the length of the flight, size of the plane, and the carbon footprint the trip generates. The average bloke in the street is pissed. Be forewarned, the EU along with the ICAO, which is mainly run by the French, is pressuring Congress and the FAA to implement that practice here.

While trying to make sense of what was happening with all the confusion then. The key to it was not Judaism. Churchill was misinformed. It wasn't true that Synagogues weren't targets of the Bolsheviks, and later, the Soviets. And why would Atheists respect Synagogues? Just asking.

Bolshevism wasn't a Judaic conspiracy. Many Jews were involved with it, but it wasn't an organized outgrowth of Judaism. Those who rose through the ranks to run the party, Lenin and Stalin, were not Jewish. Stalin was actually anti-Semitic.

Arguing that it's a religion is just bullshit based on exaggeration. It's a single prediction.

There have been atheist religion, but that's not one of them.

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 9:04:24 PM

NO deaths or billions of dead?

I honestly don't know.

When one of the Greastest---The Bravest---The Most Lion Hearted--the almost God fearing God loving human being to almost ever walk the earth---YES WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. Has a son---Christopher Buckley who votes for Barack Hussein Obama AKA Dirty Rotten Bastard Communist Revolutionary---I don't know what's going on.

EVERYBODY---PLEASE READ-- Up From Liberalism by William F. Buckley, 1959.
Willie really rips those totalitarian shitheads good!!!!

Here's what they'd do to us in a commie country--They'd line us all up against a wall and---BLAM BLAM BLAM.

WE'D ALL BE DEAD!!!!  You too Wormiebutt.

I am going to counter this so to correct some misinformation for the benefit of other readers. I would not go to this trouble if I was trying to change your mind, your loyalties to the PC alter are clear. Of course you say below that Churchill was an idiot as well so it shows that you will remain PC to the grave.


I do believe that Stalin married Kagonovich's sister. Stalin,Churchill,everyone, lived in a time not governed by political correctness. People did not fear talking openly about reality, hence the anti-semitic jokes.

Do all of the figureheads have to be Jewish for you and your ilk to see the truth? Stalin was a pawn just as Bush and a long sucession of US presidents have been. Does it strike you as strange at just why Stalin was poisoned when he was, when the purges of Jews began. That was simply a result of a pawn turning on them. Had he and not they controlled affairs, then he would have not been poisoned.

Jews would have never been outcasts if not for their behavior, if not for their indifference on the issue of how their actions affected the rest of the peoples in the nations in which they were guests.

Jefferson was quoted many times on his opinion that the races were not equal. Look them up. So was Lincoln and almost all presidents of the era.

The first thing the Communists do when they take control of affairs is either replace the former orders heroes with their own or they distort the ideals of the old era's heroes. They now have milions of simpletons like yourself thinking that because Lincoln freed the slaves that he believed in equality and advocated multiculuralism. The fact is that Lincoln advocated sending all freed slaves back to Africa as did many of his fellow presidents before him. The capital of Liberia is Monrovia, after James Monroe who established the country as a homeland for freed black slaves.  Jefferson did not father a baby with a slave, as the destoyers like to lie about.

That was not meant to set off another PC fire but it is ridiculous to say that Jefferson believed in equality. He helped to author a document, the Constitution, that didn't even offer up citizenship to blacks.



I was watching an A&E program on the Chicago riots during the Dems national convention during the Communist revolution in this country. The prominent rabble rousers were all Jews. Abbie Hoffman,Jerry Rubin,Lee Weiner, I can say for certain. Almost every one of these subversive slimeballs went on to teach at universities and one ,Tom Hayden is an elected official in California. They have written the history books that instruct simpletons like yourself how to counter people like myself.

Anyway the prosecutor made an excellent point during the trial, he said that this "youth revolution, was being led by adults. The youngest of the "Chicago 7" was 28.

Perhaps your simplicity has fooled you into thinking that all the foolish youth who were taken in by the Commies have, "lost their faith". The fact is that these people for the most part were taken in by all the excess the revolutionaries were promoting and after they had served their purpose,removing the old order, they were cast of to do whatever they would choose. The manipulators haven't lost their faith,I would contend that they have successfully made their faith a religion that most in this country follow.

There used to be standards and values in this country,before my time. It was these standards the Commies in the 70's called repression. They destroyed the old order. Anyone who says there should be standards now is deemed as intolerant,am I right? Well then tell me now, who rules this country, obviously something changed there. So much for them "fading away".

They have little power now?? Again look at the bios of any of the "Chicago 7", they all went on to very successful and very influencial lives due to their fellow comrades in places of power behind the scenes. They no longer have to be radical as the American public is tolerant enough to accept anything from homosexual marriage to huge bailouts for private companies.

And I will stay right here, thank you very much.

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 9:52:10 PM

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 9:58:50 PM

or a political system? If your discussing an economic system then you must define what is value.

On page 207 of Das Kapital, Karl Marx writes:

"Our capitalist has two objects in view: in the first place, he wants to produce a use value
that has a value in exchange...;and secondly he desires to produce a commodity whose value shall be greater than the sum of the values of the commodities used in its production".

John Maynard Keynes said flatly:

"An entrepreneur is interested, not in the amount of product, but in the sums of money which will fall to his share... The firm is dealing throughout in terms of money. It has no object in the world except to end up with more money than it started with".

In other words in Keynes' world the captialist is only interested in money. That is how we define value in terms of money. Marx's world is about the exchange of value and in his world labor is shortchanged.

Admittedly, communism is better in providing certain necessities i.e. shelter and even full employment. Where it fails, because Communism has a murky way of defining value is in producing consumer goods that have value. That is why the Soviet Union was famous for producing cars that broke down etc. Capitalism is great in producing computers, I-phones, and Cadillacs.

Now where capitalism may fail is due to a fundamental Law in Economics called the: "Law of the Diminishing Marginal Utility of Value". I tell you more, but my show is on TV.

...by the way wormwood, excellent choice for a topic. I respect thoughtful posts.

Again, according to their source, it's inevitable. They could get it all wrong, and communism is still eventually the result. Eventually.

I'd say if they are going to try anyway, there should be zero deaths. Human effort shouldn't be put into mass production of corpses, and otherwise making misery.

The man was totally wrong before and during World War I. Gallipolli being his creation.

There are few that I admire more than Churchill, and that's the truth.  



-- Modified on 11/19/2008 12:26:27 AM

You may have noticed that I put the word atheists in parenthesis. I don't think that the Soviets were atheistic. They were viruently anti-Christian. I am not going to say that no synagogues were attacked but far fewer than Christian churches.

You know not everyone in the mafia was or is Italian. But people make, without virulent opposition from twits like you, that the mafia is an Italian organization. Of course not all gangsters are Italian and not all Italians are gangsters, but the above statement is still not a false one because of this. Making these generalizations was once known as common sense, not hate or prejudice as it is now descibed as. Of course the Italians also don't control the media either.

All of the Communist revoulutionaries in Russia and in Europe and in the US were not Jews. All Jews of course are not Communists. But only a fool would deny the overwhelming influence that Jews had in the movement. They bragged about it in their publications during the time period.

The lack of the ability of the American public in all its staggering stupidity and cowardice to be able to generalize will be the one thing that ensures the nation's demise. People like you will not recognize reality unless every prominent position in governmentwas staffed by Jews. This will never happen and even if it did I am sure people like yourself would justify it somehow,as you did with Churchill's article.  

These cowards, you included, deserve nothing more than the slavery that is to come.

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 10:26:45 PM

-- Modified on 11/18/2008 10:28:06 PM

Stalin did not marry Kagonovich's sister. He married first time to Ekaterina Svanidze, who was Georgian, and whose brother was a Seminarian at Tiflis. Not suggestive of Jewish blood.

The second time he married Nadya Alliluyeva, also from Georgia, whose family had no detectable line of Judaism, anywhere.

From that error, you step into a laugher: If anything is clear about Stalin's life, it's that he wasn't ANYBODY'S pawn after Lenin. Just the opposite.  

Stalin wasn't poisoned. It's extremely well documented: he died of a stroke, and the fact that Lavrenti Beria, (Stalin's chief murderer, gentile, and rebellious pawn,) wouldn't let him get treatment immediately afterward, and that when he finally could have been treated doctors, were too terrified of treating him to do anything effective. It was also complicated by the fact that Stalin had the best doctors arrested and under torture at the time. Stalin lingered in a coma-semi-conscious state for more than two weeks. It's consistent with the guy's medical history and health habits since 1945. He had a previous stroke immediately after the war, and that changed his personality: he then became a Nazi. Funny, but it seems to be true: Hitler was Stalin with half a brain.

And you're wrong again. Thomas Jefferson DID NOT author the Constitution in any part. THEY DIDN'T INVITE HIM TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Him, or Thomas Paine. The only way Jefferson wrote anything in the Constitution was by having his writing plagiarized-- after being mangled. You see a few words here and there.

For such a simpleton, it seems I pay more attention to the facts of history than you do.

I know all about Liberia and the attitudes people including Lincoln had about Blacks and other races. I consider that to be backward and benighted. You don't tell me anything I didn't know.  

Listen: Even though to you Jefferson purportedly didn't mean it, he chose to put "all men are created equal" into his greatest work, whatever it meant to him when he wrote it. Was it just sophistry, then? If it was, I assure you, when it was read in Britain, the anti-slavery movement got started, and by the late 19th century, slavery which had been considered moral for thousands of years, was abolished and was considered very barbaric. More than anything else, it was Jefferson's words that did it. Are those the good ol' days before your time that you're talking about?

"The foolish youth taken in by the Commies removed the old order." You've got to be fucking kidding! Those people were a flea bite on the order. You can't compare their actions with anything that happened in Europe between 1914 and 1933. Now THAT was a destruction of the Old Order. Nothing nearly like that happened in the '60s, and the so-called change was a dud, ending in disillusion and alienation for both sides. The stoppage of the Vietnam War was its only significant result. Divisions over that, and the Nixon administration, have been troubling this country ever since. But it's cosmic-size exaggeration and joke to say it swept away the old order.

If there was one thing culturally different about the 60s generation: they were the first ones raised by the television. Once they actually began to read anything substantial, at a late age, and take drugs, let's not forget, they went crazy with it. It was a matter of a little knowledge being harmful. I think Soviet agents must have considered them to be useless idiots.

The Chicago 7 had their 15 minutes and nothing else. It goes without saying, the guys involved in it didn't just disappear. Abby Hoffman committed suicide a couple of years after turning himself in, so I know HE didn't go on to have a successful, influential life. That belies your statement that all of them did. No, I think their influence behind the scenes is terribly exaggerated, it's a bugbear for conservatives, and now the fascists like you who have crawled out of the woodwork now that a Black man has been elected president. Makes your quasi-religious racism just crawl all over you, doesn't it?    

No, I don't think they have the influence that you presume. Obama isn't holding out jobs for them. From the people Obama has appointed, I don't think they would listen to 60s radicals 40 years after they mattered.  

So, you want to go back to the good ol' days before your time, when the country had standards and values, or you imagine it did. Must be horrible to carry a sense of loss for something you've imagined was there. I would verify that by reading a couple of history books before I went on to try to establish it, but that's just me. Join the History Book club. Yes, I'll admit, I've been making these posts just because I get a commission from the HBC. Does that make you paranoid?

-- Modified on 11/19/2008 12:16:51 AM

The problem with communism as an economic system, at least as it became establish, it had to have terror from the very top to keep it disciplined. Once Stalin died, that's when the Soviet system began to slowly unravel economically. It was put together so tight, it took two generations.

Communism was a matter of the political system dominating the economic system. I'm not certain that was Marx's view of what should have happened.

. .  .you said that they were dupes, pawns of the Jews. That was your answer. You said that about Stalin without having read a single biography about him. You used as evidence that Stalin had married Kagonovich's daughter. A false rumor, in other words. Where did you get that?

So, you're not arguing about my inability to make generalizations. You are arguing that the Jews were actually in control of the gentiles, even of the gentiles who were beyond a shadow of a doubt in control. That's not a generalization.

The proportion of Jews in Bolshevism was far higher than the general population of Russia. I told you why I believed that was the case, (I'll add that they were treated as equals within the revolution, forgot that) and I happened to agree with Churchill on that point. What I found to be unbelievable about Churchill, reading it in 2008, was what looked true to him at the time: the horrors going on in 1920 came down to a matter of struggles among the Jews, with the gentiles either caught in the crossfire, or being manipulated for the struggle. That part, the very basis of his piece, is unbelievable.

Untrue, but I know in 1920, searching for some common thread, it looked to Churchill like it was happening. In WW2, he switched his enemies from Jews to Hitler, who apparently proved to Churchill that the Jews weren't really all that in control, but Hitler and Churchill would have been in agreement in 1920, and that's frightening.

You're making predictions based on generalizations. The people who make a living of that are meteorologists, and you know how right they are. And they make more educated generalizations than you do.

In slavery? As I told Charlie, nothing is inevitable.  

-- Modified on 11/19/2008 1:19:48 AM

Yes, the Soviets had some good military.  THE PEOPLE'S LIVES SUCKED.

I was a Soviet Studies major, spoke fluent Russian, and visited there for 8 weeks in '76.

They had good tanks, but the average person on the street didn't have a decent pair of shoes.  

They had some good subs, but the average person on the street had a hard time getting ball point pens.

This is not an exageration. These were all items in great demand on the black market.

And obviously that is the start of a long list.  Try coffee.  Try sugar - even though their greatest partner was Cuba.  Try shirts. Try an apartment that had hot water 7 days a week.

You cannot imagin how bad life was for the worker.

There are two types of people who like communists:  Intellectuals living in the west and the leaders in communist countries.

The people living there hate it the most.

which a people adopt. Capitalism necessitates that wealth be much more widely distributed than does feudalism. Political power follows economic power and, as the developed nations have become more capitalist, they have become more democratic. It's impossible to separate economic systems from political systems and vice versa.

One of Marx's more insightful insights about the structural flaws of capitalism centers around the role of profit. According to Marx, the value of a good or service can only be equal to the value of the labor necessary to produce it. He realized that land and capital had costs also, but you can't pay land or capital, only people. IF a product is only as valuable as the labor necessary to produce it and if that product is sold at a profit, then the producer/capitalist is constantly gaining and the workers are constantly falling behind.

Once workers are sufficiently educated and organized, they take steps to prevent being taken advantage of and form labor unions. These unions become strong enough to prevent the capitalists from exploiting labor and the only profit possible then is what's called a normal rate of profit or just enough to keep the firm operating. Keep in mind, he's talking about profit here and not funds used for reinvestment.

Once excess profits are no longer possible, and this can only happen once enough of the world becomes sufficiently developed that labor can no longer be exploited, then capitalism can no longer grow, the capitalists can no longer live like kings, and the system will begin to collapse.

That's why I tend to think that the development of India and China will actually bring about the end of capitalism. That's not a bad thing since the system which replaces the previous one is always better. Anyone want to live under feudalism? Not me!

I really appreciate the comment about my OP.

To say that all systems are replaced by a better system is silly.  Like the Khamer Rouge in Cambodia improved the system when the took over.

Like N. Korea improved the former system.  Was it 2 million dead in their last famine? No one knows for sure because exact details are hard to get from the Prison Nation.  And they have another famine coming.  

And those millions are just the tip of the ice berg.

Weimar Republic was a moderate nation. Hitler replaced it.  Sooooo much better.

Even feudal China, which I know was bad, gave way to worse with Mao.  What was that? 20,000,000 dead?

Czarist Russia - admittedly bad.  5 million starved to death in the Ukraine alone after the Revolution. Not much of an improvment.

To say that one system gives way to a better one ignores every communist system that ever took power.

or even a fair system-- only that it could and did produce some very good products-- as long as it had brutal discipline from the very top down.

BTW, and the main point was, it unraveled slowly  after the death of Stalin. So, the 70s were what? After Stalin right? And no, I don't think Brezhnev was an example of the brutal discipline necessary. Stalin was. Brezhnev re-Stalinized, but they never could replace jolly old Koba.

So, you see, I'm making the point that the system was no good because that was the only way it "worked." And it could never be a good consumer system, for about the same reason.

Man, for a lawyer, you sure have some significant reading comprehension problems.

It should be evident to anyone who can read beyond a middle school level that-

1- I don't consider, and neither would Marx, any communist regime that has come to power so far to be Marxist in nature because IT DIDN'T COME TO POWER AS A RESULT OF THE COLLAPSE OF CAPITALISM. I don't know how to say that any clearer but if you want to continue to insist that those regimes are evidence of Marx being wrong, you can just continue being wrong yourself.

2- When I was referring to new systems replacing former systems I was referring to dominant, worldwide systems such as feudalism and capitalism, not whatever system one individual nation chooses to use or the conditions which may exist in one nation.

You must have studied history at some point. Do you disagree that capitalism, which is inarguably the dominant system which has replace feudalism, is superior to feudalism?

It always tested rather high, thank you.

I was responding specifically to one thing you said, which was, "since the system which replaces the previous one is always better."

All of my post was addressed to that contention - that the successor system is always better. It was all geared to showing that the successor system is not ALWAYS better.  

Thus, it was a rather specific answer, and it does not demonstrate a flaw in comprehension.

Yes, sometimes it is better, so I don't have a problem agreeing that capitalism is better than fuedalism. However, that is not a "law of history."  To say that when capitalism replaced feudalism it is some how evidence of the sucessor system "always" being better is a gap in logic.

I am not even concerned with whether Marx was wrong.  He was a nice political science theorist who could sit in the library at the British Museum and write about how society would, should, and could develop.  Why he is regarded as a source is a mystery.  It is not as if his writings ever proved true or useful.  

The only relevance that he has to the modern world is through the societies that have attempted to become utopias through their understanding - or misunderstanding, if you prefer - of his works, even if they strayed a little from the specific path he predicted.

If you are talking about the replacement of a dominant world-wide system, I don't think that there ever was one. Different sections of the world had different systems at different times.  Capitalism did dominate in the U.S. between certain years, and still does, but it was never a "dominant" world-wide system, as the majority of the world was never capitalist.  

Feudalism dominated in different countries at different times and never in some countries and societies.  

No, they had a brutal disregard, or you might even say, a gleefulness, about the human misery they inflicted for their cause. They loved finding enemies and killing them. In fact under Lenin and Stalin, that was practically the national sport.

First of all I never once said I agree slavery is in any way acceptable and don't appreciate you insinuating that. I do have a problem with the fact that Euros, the only group who has made an effort to abolish slavery, gets every bit of the blame and guilt trip for its dubious history. This despite the fact that blacks still today sell their own into slavery as they have for hundreds of years. Also many of those slave ships that shipped blacks from Africa to the new world were jewish owned.

Laughable that you label Beria as a non-Jew. I mean do you have to look at the guy for more than a second and not be able to tell. Reputable author Micheal Hoffmann is just one who has correctly idenified him as what he is,and the documentation is linked below.

http://www.russians.org/communist.html

Arguing with you about Communism and the Jews is futile. You are educated obviously --- by the enemies of the West. I would rather believe those US military men who reported on the Jewish role in Communism in documented military briefs. I believe one man's report went something like this, "the Communist revolution in Russia is being carried out by Russian jews of the greasiest type". Imagine if an official was that blunt today...lol Other intelligence agencies in England, the Netherlands, and so on reported on this as well.

The days of the past I was talking about was when their were certain things considered as abhorrent that are today seen as normal or lifestyle choices. A massive amount of social disorder, like that of Weimar. No discipline in anything, art, the youth, and so on.

I am not foolish enough to really give a damn who the President is, they are just a prostitute for the stringpullers behind the scenes. I have been calling a spade a spade for over 6 years so nothing has just recently brought me out of the woodwork.

If nothing has changed in this country then why all this celebration from the media and their flocks about the glories of the civil rights movement and other similar hi-jinks. I don't see what is wrong with peoples contolling their own destiny,making choices on the basis of what's best for their unique people's future. Every place on this earth that has a Euro majority is undergoing a massive population replacement as immigration from the third world spirals out of control. The places where blacks,asians,arabs,and other groups live are not being invaded,their unique peoples fate is safe. Of course the jews have Israel, the jewish state, that has citizenship laws that would be deemed as the worst kind of "racism" if they were applied to a Euro nation.

I am tired of the hypocrisy and I am not the only one. And more and more people are getting sick of being nice as they see themselves coming closer to the abyss.

Bottom line, discussing Communism,opposing it that is, without mentioning the Jews is like saying you love to go swimming but you hate to get wet, YOU CAN'T DO IT. Buckley,Welch, and all those other cowards tried to fight communism in the 60's and 70's while saying that they loved jews and they hated communism. They were easily beaten and laughed at by the destroyers.

Great post.

Laughable that you think Churchill's opinion about the Jews changed just because he directed England into war against Germany. He simply chose status and personal glory over the truth. Ego might have had something to do with it as well, not wanting to be upstaged by Germany.

Churchill, like Roosevelt, chose to serve the West's enemy, and were handsomely rewarded by their masters. This part of history is so thoroughly distorted by the victors, the enemies of the West, that it is a thorough waste of time to discuss it with people who insist on using establishment sources. I personally hope, if the West cannot be saved, to live to see all of the doubters faces when the writing is finally on the wall for all to see.

before later realizing the error of his way.
Churchill also had been a leftist before moving to the right.
Churchill did and said a lot of things he later disavowed.

Unlike tallslim who continues to believe in the international conspiracy of Jews because he once read it on a website somewhere and has been a simple sheep ever since accepting without any thought whatever any negative statement anyone makes toward Israel or Jews in general.

-- Modified on 11/19/2008 6:36:07 PM

but you analysis does not make sense. I suggest you take a course in Linear Alegbra and you will begin to understand why a centralized economy which is what communism is, will fail. For example how do you distribute a commodity such as "steel". Many products use steel in their factors of production; tanks, cars, knifes, refrigerators etc. So the big question becomes how to you efficiently extract the iron to produce the steel to produce the tanks, submarines etc.

How much labor are you going to use to extract the iron, the coal? What happens if there is a cold spell and power companies have to use coal for fuel and warmth? How do you decide what gets produced; fuel or cars?

In a centralized economy, inefficiences are inherent. As 9-Man stated that is why a totalarian government is needed for a centralized economy such as communism in order for it to work. For example; what if you take one unit labor to produce tanks but that unit of labor call him Joe the Plumber wants to make pipe instead or better yet he wants to be a writer? Only by force, can you make him produce tanks. Do you see the problem, do you see the infinite amount of permutations that must be accounted for?

I know what you were addressing and you didn't consider the obvious context which that statement was within. Context matters.

You don't think capitalism has been the world's dominant economic and political system for the last 250 years? That's just ludacris. You don't think the feudal system was the world's dominant system for a thousand years or so? That's even more lucacris.

You're so intent on proving me wrong you make some really goofy arguments.

That's one big problem that Marx never addressed well. One of the primary roles of profit is to provide information to both producers and consumers and it's difficult to imagine how that same info could be gathered and transmitted as well through any other means.

Of course, doing away with profit also removes things like commodities speculation which may cause significant market inefficiencies.

futures market actually allows for the market to act efficiently. When a farmer needs to access capital to buy seeds, equipment etc. to grow corn he needs to borrow money.

Damn, there is that word again, money. Now the problem becomes how can the banker lend the farmer the money if he does not know the value of the crop? How can the farmer know what money to borrow and more importantly how can repay it back if he does not the price of corn in the future.

So the capitalist has come up with the great idea of a futures market. In the futures market the banker can lend the money the farmer needs by having a commodities broker buy the crop in the future for a set price. The farmer makes a little money so does the banker and yes so does the commodity broker who put his money on the line. Without the futures market the ground would remain fallow.

You excuse yourself from the logic of that.

No, Beria was not Jewish! They just have him on the page because they thought the same thing you do: he looked so much like it. So much so that they don't bother to look at his parentage. He was Georgian, like Stalin, and like Stalin had a pious, Christian mother-- strange but true.

Let me ask something I just touched upon before: does a Jew ever become a non-Jew? I mean, by the standards you have, Stalin isn't thought of as Christian. He left that behind. Trotsky was an atheist as well. Shouldn't that make have made him a non-Jew?

You're website goes reference goes through great pains to prove that Lenin was actually a Jew. No, he was an atheist Bolshevik. But Judaism is treated as a ethnic group, too. For no real reason.

"The days of the past I was talking about was when their were certain things considered as abhorrent that are today seen as normal or lifestyle choices. A massive amount of social disorder, like that of Weimar. No discipline in anything, art, the youth, and so on."

It's peculiar that you would be on THE EROTIC REVIEW writing THAT. Unless you're just slumming it among the degenerates. Or is it just that this is site is orderly and disciplined but homosexuals aren't? I think the rest of society would disagree.

BTW, a lot would have to go wrong before this nation would resemble the Weimer Republic, with or without "discipline." I'm one of those who think that homosexuality isn't a matter of discipline. What is discipline supposed to accomplish.

Nationalities aren't as unique as you think. Nations exist only in the minds of human beings. Americans were once British, until Britain adopted some very short-sighted tax policies. Then in about 15 years there were Americans.  

About opposing communism apart from the Jews: communism is a theory set in writing, it's an ideology that any person or people could adopt. It's main appeal now is in the far east, where there are no Jews. So, yes, you could oppose it without hating somebody's lineage.

BTW, the Bolsheviks went after Christianity so much because they saw it as being too powerful and influential.

Both Lenin and Stalin said that the Russians, not the Jews were the cement holding the Soviet Union together.  



-- Modified on 11/20/2008 8:55:42 AM

You were doing quite well for a bit. It's a shame you tumbled back into dumbassness.

If you'll try to struggle past your reading comprehension issues, you'll see that I wrote that commodity speculation MAY cause inefficiencies.

Kind of like the speculation which drove the price of oil past 120/bbl. That's efficient?