Revisionists Call to Arms Was: Happy brithday, Mr. President!
CSSC
2-24-97 J Vincent wrote:
Look what diversity of opinion virginia.edu has to offer!
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Gregory Dandulakis wrote:
> And lets set the record straight, once and for all.
>
> If someone thinks that the recent demise of the Soviet system
> "proved" that capitalism beat communism, then he needs a thorough
> immersion into how modern science works, and how it establishes
> its assertions with a positive and unequivocal way.
Sure, almost total collapse of USSR, its satelites blocks and pupets
around the world proves nothing. Especially when there was no other
communist regimes taking place anywhere else. You need to be scientist
(inzheneer) not to conclude that Communism lost badly.
Look what confusing gobleygook Gregory learned (in Russia? Greece?
Virginia?):
> No more and no less, inform any medical doctor that you will be able
> to publish work in any scientific journal, about the relative effi-
> cacy of two different medical treatments of a disease, by just
> relying on a single experimental point (two people compared), and
> the doctor will certainly laugh loudly at your face. Particularly
> if your experiments started with one patient being at an immensely
> advantageous situation relative to the other patient, and it was
> allowed during the experimentation the stronger patient to beat
> as hard as possible the other one. It is a joke!
Marx's feeling that Communism will - like other progressive systems -
start in the West did not happend. First misreading of human nature for
Mr. Marx. Instead it took place in backward plains of Mother Russia.
Numerican boost came from post-feudal China.
> Besides the necessary condition for establishing a true scientific
> assertion of having a multitude of experimentals points (such as to
> establish the relative reliability), you need also to have esta-
> blished that all the experiments are _randomized_. That is, that
> you have started your experiments with an unbiased set of subjects.
Hey. How many randomized, statistically significant number of countries
with confusing elements to affect the study excluded, you would need?
> A strong indication that the current demise of the Soviet system was
> not just a usual geopolitical cannibalism (for example, in the way
> that the US expelled (and substituted) Spain from Latin America),
Example of early start and subsequent collapse of Portugal and Spanish
empires gave me an idea that Catholicism (and nations that adopted it)
vs. Protestantism (and nations that found it more fitting their nature
then Catholicism) has something to do with lasting economic / global
power success. Might that be that Protestant countries and their religions
are less hierarchical, more idividualistic, more individual opportunities.
Less central planning, thus more vigorous and sustainible?
> would be the realization in few decades of the situation where
the > states which emerged from the Soviet system have indeed narrowed
> their average relative gap in economic output when compared with
> the states which the Soviets were compared. If this is not realized,
> then the whole demise of the Soviet system will be proven to be just
> another time-buying dreaming of lands bound by their very geography
> (and history) to be underdogs. And in this case, the question of the
> relative merits between capitalism and communism will come back in full
> force and with the same vengeance that it had in the past.
What are you saying here so eloquently? I can assure you, Czech Republic
and other countries in Central Europe will be better off w/o initially
convenient, mediocrity encouraging economic orientation on the USSR.
> All the currently available theoretical "explanations"/interpretations
> about why the Soviet system "failed", (e.g., Marx realistically analyzed
> the capitalist system, but he non-pragmatically predicted the human na-
> ture under different conditions;
When I started to understand human nature, it's individualistic,
self-presering drives, I realized how naive, utopian, unnatural,
counterproductive, damaging idea of Communism is. Sure, one can argue that
with existence of Communism, horrors of post WWI and WWII poverty in
Europe, capitalism everywhere has to adopt more "socially responsive"
attitudes than say in 19th century go-go coal baron era. But capitalism
adopted those necessary features w/o undermining its very core. You might
like to know that numerous communist attempt to introduce "stimuli" into
disincentive system were total fiasco and when the first real reforms (to
improve communism, to strengthen its bargaining position on global scene)
were seriously put in place under Gorby (thus not only in crushable
satelites), Pandora box opened up.
> or, bureaucracy duped the system;
or > non-freedom duped the system (like any capitalist and not successful
> system all over the world does not rely on repression...); or free-
> markets are fast and eficient; or whatever mental representation you
> prefer), will be shown, in this case, to be as valid as the famous
> "proofs" of Thomas Aquinas about the "existence of God". That is
> pure crap with no relevance to the _physically real_ world.
> That's enough. Propagandists, unscientific philosophers, journalists,
> uninitiated folks, and UFOs: don't get a heart attack from the lines
> expressed above. We value you (but for other matters)!:-)
>
> Gregory
Gregory: fiasco of utopian communism, collapse of Soviet Empire in a such
a short time and on such a vast scale is enough proof for me. I do not
know if Manolis Glezos is on you mind or if you are so seriously into
science. A bit of social intelligence, gut feelings isevery so often a
good remedy.
Mcleod Patrick M
My question in this discussion is this:
Examining the conceptual basis of socialism and communism found in the
thought of Marx, Lenin, and Trosky, were the USSR, any of its satellites,
or any other "socialist" or "communist" countries *TRULY* socialist or
communist as per the original conceptual intent? I would argue no, that
they were not.
Socialism and communism, as originally intended, are not totalitarian in
nature. The USSR and other so-called "socialist" and "communist" countries
were totalitarian bastardizations of the original concept. Examples I
would offer for this theory are Ceaucescu in Romania, Hoxha in Albania,
Stalin et al in the USSR, Kim-Il Sung and Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, and
to a certain extent Tito in Yugoslavia. All of these countries claimed
some degree or idealogical foundation of either socialism or communism,
but in reality these ideas were little more than poorly contrived vehicles
for personal and totalitarian power.
I would argue that the world has not yet seen a truly socialist OR
communist society yet, and that we will continue to see more
bastardizations of these concepts before we will see the real thing.
Regards,
Patrick
Michael Stan
I think that we'll never see the "real thing", that is, the thing according
to theory, because the real thing, we have seen it. The theory remains just
a theory and it can never be implemented. Because it's wrong in
assumptions, in its premises.
Consider the question:
Wouldn't it be nice for everybody to be young, rich and healthy?
The answer of any well-intended (but naive) human being would be:
Sure, let's do it.
After all, nobody can be against such a goal!
But how could such a goal be achieved?
It's the same with socialism, as seen by Marx and Comp. Let's abolish
private property, let's banish political parties, let's do this, let's do that.
The result: all hell brakes loose. The predators seize power, in aliance
with the drag of society. And instead of gaining perpetual youth, fortunes,
and perpetual health, 99.9% of the people become some sort of modern
slaves.
Therefore, forget socialism. I hope that we witnessed for the last time
an attempt to implement it. I've seen (and not only seen, but I lived)
the result of this attempt and I don't want to see or live it again.
I would advice people without direct experience to be more cautious.
When you hear the siren song of socialism, think at my proposal:
Wouldn't it be nice for everybody to be young, rich and healthy?
Yeah, sure. But how?
That's how: vote for me, support me. And I'll make you all young,
healthy and rich.
Through such an approach you can easily see the diceiving intent.
How come that you cannot see through the communist scheme?
Michael
---
G. Dumitrescu
In article <5euauu$c...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>
iy...@jove.acs.unt.edu "Mcleod Patrick M" writes:
...I would argue that the world has not yet seen a truly socialist OR
...communist society yet, and that we will continue to see more
...bastardizations of these concepts before we will see the real thing.
...
...Regards,
...Patrick
This is the argument I hear from many genuine, convinced, hardcore socialists
or communists, and it's as if to say: "you don't understand real socialism or
communism; in fact, it's really just a great concept that has yet to be put
properly into practise, unlike Ceausescu did, for example".
4 questions at this point:
1) Which country HAS put it properly into practise?
2) Considering how many people have been murdered in this century by
communists, is it at all "politically correct" or in any way justifiable
whatsoever to continue apologising for communism in this way ?
3) If the answer to 2) is "NO", then why are people still doing it ?
(perhaps the answer to this one is: we allow far right organisations
to exist, so we have to allow the far left, or is it
vice-versa?)
4) Just as victims of nazism deserve and get compensation, is it not high time
that the issue of compensation for the victims of communism be brought to the
discussion table ?
Regards,
--
G. Dumitrescu
Gregory Dandulakis
In article CSSC <czec...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
...
>Example of early start and subsequent collapse of Portugal and Spanish
>empires gave me an idea that Catholicism (and nations that adopted it)
>vs. Protestantism (and nations that found it more fitting their nature
>then Catholicism) has something to do with lasting economic / global
>power success. Might that be that Protestant countries and their religions
>are less hierarchical, more idividualistic, more individual opportunities.
>Less central planning, thus more vigorous and sustainible?
You read too much science fiction, or maybe Weber. What more
"individualistic" countries you have when 45% of the GDP in the
US is taxes, and in Denmark is 65%?
The only _thing_ which turned the balance around was the creation
of the US _from France_. She spent 2.5 of her whole state budgets
to create the US. Even if Spain and Portugal went down, France
substituted them. Britain was a late comer. Other than that,
Netherlands and Germany are half and half.
Don't confuse correlations obtained with _retrospective observations_
with correlations obtained with _randomized controlled experiments_.
The first establish nothing more than a syndrom, the second establish
indeed _causation_.
E.g., buildings which have many fire-extinquishers have also higher
frequency of getting fires too. Only a scientifically illiterate
would conclude that the fire-extinquishers _cause_ fires.
But that's enough. Tutoring is expensive!:-)
Gregory
Gregory Dandulakis
And a significant clarifying point needed for someone who wants
to grasp how the modern political globe is structured:
There are three, _and only three_, _independent power centers_
on the earth today.
Before I proceed to say which ones, there is a need for clarifying
the semantics surrounding the term "independent": A power center
(state) is independent _if and only if_ it is capable to _initiate_
_any_ change in its domestic and/or foreign policy without being
completely destabililized (and the changes muted) from any other
power center which _might_ happen to seriously dislike the changes.
(Fake/rhetorical/propagandistic appearances to the opposite do not,
of course, count; no matter how widespread these appearances are in
the cases of all the rest vassal states).
In this sense, independent states are only the following:
US, Russia, China. All the rest are simply puppets/vassals.
Gregory
PS: Indeed, my political understanding was formed in lands which had
the unique opportunity to be exposed to the _direct_ airwaves
emanating from all three independent power states. Hint: There
is a state in Europe which was till relatively recently called
the "little China"...!:-)
John Walker
======================
John Walker responds below:
======================
Gregory Dandulakis <gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote in article
<E66Cp...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>
> And a significant clarifying point needed for someone who wants
> to grasp how the modern political globe is structured:
>
> There are three, _and only three_, _independent power centers_
[snip]
> In this sense, independent states are only the following:
> US, Russia, China. All the rest are simply puppets/vassals.
You need to update your library. Russia is having trouble
controlling itself let alone any other country.
Using your terms and definitions we would have to conclude that
there are only two independent states : USA and Red China.
Red China, however, is much more influenced by the USA .
The USA is very little influenced by Red China. So (by your
definitions) there is only one independent state: USA.
========================== JohnWalker ==========
John Walker
Gregory Dandulakis <gd...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote in article
<E66A6...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
> In article CSSC <czec...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
> ...
> >Example of early start and subsequent collapse of Portugal and Spanish
> >empires gave me an idea that Catholicism (and nations that adopted it)
> >vs. Protestantism (and nations that found it more fitting their nature
> >then Catholicism) has something to do with lasting economic / global
> >power success. Might that be that Protestant countries and their
religions
> >are less hierarchical, more idividualistic, more individual
opportunities.
=======================================================
History has shown Catholic countries have enjoyed great power and success.
The British Empire is very hierachical and the throne even rules the Ch. of
England.
Individual Catholics in the USA do very well in areas of taking advantage
of opportunity.
The notion that protestantism leads to individualism, wealth and success
is deeply
faulted considering that the USA has very many poor protestants and that
wealth
with success is found throughout the non-protestant world.
Example is USA Afro-Americans who certainly don't fit your claims of wealth
and individuality.
Further, I believe you will find that Black Catholics are typically better
educated and
more well to do than their protestant brothers.
=========================================== John Walker =====
Gregory Dandulakis
In article John Walker <jhn...@flash.net> wrote:
...
>You need to update your library. Russia is having trouble
>controlling itself let alone any other country.
>Using your terms and definitions we would have to conclude that
>there are only two independent states : USA and Red China.
>Red China, however, is much more influenced by the USA .
>The USA is very little influenced by Red China. So (by your
>definitions) there is only one independent state: USA.
I wouldn't say that. All these three power centers are virtually
independent from each other (and essentially from anyone else) as
far as economic systems is concerned (again the term "independent"
applies in the sense previously defined). Furtheromore, the US and
Russia have the capacity to annihilate each other with nuclear war-
heads, while China's role enters the picture as the potential anni-
hilator of Russia (so far).
What makes the US special is its military domination of the open seas.
Open seas can not be buffered/divided by mountains (etc other land-
type barriers), so only one independent open-seas-power can exist
stabely in our times. This indeed gives her a lot of freedom for
tactical (but not strategic) manouvers.
Gregory
John Walker
John Walkers response below:
=====================<E66tK...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>>======= In article John Walker <jhn...@flash.net> wrote:====
> >You need to update your library. Russia is having trouble
> >controlling itself let alone any other country.
> >Using your terms and definitions we would have to conclude that
> >there are only two independent states : USA and Red China.
> >Red China, however, is ever more influenced by the USA .
> >The USA is very little influenced by Red China accept as a means
[snip]
==============================================
Gregory replied:
>I wouldn't say that.<
===============
How can anybody argue with what you wouldn't say?
===============
> All these three power centers are virtually
> independent from each other (and essentially from anyone else) as
> far as economic systems is concerned (again the term "independent"
> applies in the sense previously defined).
===============
Russia's economy is already a basket case and would have been
even worse had it not been for USA and world bank aid. That hardly
makes (still communist) Russia an independent power. It would be
suicide for the Russians to use any of their super weapons because
they are outdated and unproven and because their army is a shambles
and could not meet the ensuing counter attack. Given a struggle between
ground troops, Polands army today would probably win; Chenin's included.
Poland, by the way, is the only power ever to win any war against Russia
and it
has done so at least twice. Russia's ability to influence her former
satellites is
quickly diminishing to nothing.
Nope, Russia qualifies as a pain in the political butt but it's butt
kicking days are over.
============
> Furtheromore, the US and Russia have the capacity to annihilate each
other
with nuclear war- heads, while China's role enters the picture as the
potential
anni-hilator of Russia (so far).<
============
Nobody is afraid of the big bad bomb because it has become the ultimate
weapon of suicide. When no one can win, why bother?
============
> What makes the US special is its military domination of the open seas.
> Open seas can not be buffered/divided by mountains (etc other land-
> type barriers), so only one independent open-seas-power can exist
> stabely in our times. This indeed gives her a lot of freedom for
> tactical (but not strategic) manouvers.
============
Again, Gregory, update your library. Even Saddam Hussein now
realizes that warfare and geopolitics has changed. The last effective
strike
against Saddam was entirely with air power. He heard (the guided missles)
and obeyed. His traditional allies, Red Russia and Red China were impotent
rather than important. In today's world there is only really only one
influencial
global military power . That power is the USA and it has kept the peace.
======================= John Walker =======
CSSC
2-26-97 J Vincent wrote:
W/o being ironical...where is your college degree from, sir?
On 25 Feb 1997, Mcleod Patrick M wrote:
> My question in this discussion is this:
>
> Examining the conceptual basis of socialism and communism found in the
> thought of Marx, Lenin, and Trosky, were the USSR, any of its satellites,
> or any other "socialist" or "communist" countries *TRULY* socialist or
> communist as per the original conceptual intent? I would argue no, that
> they were not.
It does not take so much of "examination", just a few years of
observations and a common sense. Loosing well too many years under Central
European (Czechoslovak) form of communism I believe that as far as
implementation of this unnatural Marx-Lenin scheme was quite authentic and
thorough, Marx-leninism university in each Soviet satelite country
occupied themselves with efforts to interpret, imlement and make a
coherent sense of Marx & Lenin thesis. OF COURSE Russian expansionism,
using comunism to promote its intersts affected profoundly what the
Internationala and Moscow=the power base of Communism was doing for
decades to prop up communist regimes around the world.
One can easily argue that say Christianity was never trully, fully,
correctly adopted in any country throughout the ages. That no country
trully lived by Christian principles and thet the Book was never fully and
correctly interpreted and implemented. But mankind's experience with
Christianity is - despite imperfect implementation - quite a different
than with communism.
> Socialism and communism, as originally intended, are not totalitarian in
> nature.
I do not want to be nasty, but...where is your college degree from?
If you live under system that, yes, systematically confiscates property
and achievements of people, that forces in myriad ways people back and
back again back to step one, killing any sense of plurality, would not you
feel unhappy, enslaved, oppressed, raped? One can argue that communism
(temporarily) lifs the unfortunate at the expense of the rest. But as
disincentives to individuals, rigidity of central planning, profound
restriction on freedom of idea and people flow has been taking their toll,
shortcommings, falling behind in numerous vital signs of communist
societies were increasingly apparent. Communism not totalitarian in
nature? How you can say that?
> The USSR and other so-called "socialist" and "communist" countries
> were totalitarian bastardizations of the original concept. Examples I
> would offer for this theory are Ceaucescu in Romania, Hoxha in Albania,
> Stalin et al in the USSR, Kim-Il Sung and Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, and
> to a certain extent Tito in Yugoslavia. All of these countries claimed
> some degree or idealogical foundation of either socialism or communism,
> but in reality these ideas were little more than poorly contrived vehicles
> for personal and totalitarian power.
See above on implementation of Christianity. Everyone had enough of
omplementation of communism.. Of Soviet, Chinesse, Albania, Hungarian
gulash type, Cuban, etc. Even "socialism w human face" in Czechoslovakia.
And freedom, democracy, free enterprise loving people on both sides had
enough of communism experiements as well.
> I would argue that the world has not yet seen a truly socialist OR
> communist society yet, and that we will continue to see more
> bastardizations of these concepts before we will see the real thing.
Stop dreaming. You will never see His Kingdom here and you will never see
"truly" communist and socialist society. But people seem still prefer the
first or what's the earthy approximation of it.
> Regards,
> Patrick
So did you try to pull a joke here or are you so naive?
Jan
Mcleod Patrick M
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, CSSC wrote:
> 2-26-97 J Vincent wrote:
>
> W/o being ironical...where is your college degree from, sir?
Working on my first as we argue. Granted, UNT is not Harvard and certainly
not University of Heidelberg or University of Prague, but I feel it is a
good starting point, especially given some of the options here in the
States.
> It does not take so much of "examination", just a few years of
> observations and a common sense. Loosing well too many years under Central
> European (Czechoslovak) form of communism I believe that as far as
> implementation of this unnatural Marx-Lenin scheme was quite authentic and
> thorough, Marx-leninism university in each Soviet satelite country
> occupied themselves with efforts to interpret, imlement and make a
> coherent sense of Marx & Lenin thesis. OF COURSE Russian expansionism,
> using comunism to promote its intersts affected profoundly what the
> Internationala and Moscow=the power base of Communism was doing for
> decades to prop up communist regimes around the world.
First, I don't want to seem like I am trying in any way, shape, or form to
degrade your experience under the Warsaw Pact. I do not agree with what
the Warsaw Pact stood for nor the corrupted versions of socialism and
communism that they peddled to the world as utopias on earth.
In terms of Russian expansionism using communism as a cover to hide their
imperialism, I agree with you. The cobbled version of "socialist unity"
that the USSR forced on Central and Eastern Europe was nothing more than a
sham of the theory used to cover up their establishing a "sphere of
influence." Since you seem to believe by fiat that capitalism doesn't do
such things, I'd like to enlighten you to the ignorance of this belief.
Just as the USSR shoved dictatorial socialism and communism down the
throats of Central and Eastern European countries after WWII, and then
proceeded to decide all important aspects of policy for these countries,
the US has done this for as long as the USSR did (that period known as the
Cold War) and my country still does this TODAY. Look no further than the
Persian Gulf War to see what I mean. That war was about shameless
capitalist exploitation of oil. My government tried to pass this war off
as a "fight for democracy". PLEASE! Since when was Kuwait or any other of
the Persian Gulf Emirates democratic? We fought for our own capitalist
profit margins, plain and simple. Please do not fall into the trap of
believing that totalitarianism is the only form of covert imperial
agression. We were taught that here in the Cold War, when operatives of
our government were murdering others in our satellite countries for their
beliefs, just like the Russians were doing.
> One can easily argue that say Christianity was never trully, fully,
> correctly adopted in any country throughout the ages. That no country
> trully lived by Christian principles and thet the Book was never fully and
> correctly interpreted and implemented. But mankind's experience with
> Christianity is - despite imperfect implementation - quite a different
> than with communism.
I'd say that you are once again right. Christianity, as I know it here in
the USA is, for the most part, about nothing more than power,
manipulation, and narrow-mindedness. And of course mankind's experience
with Christianity is different from our experiences with socialism and
communism...one is a religous structure, that as it exists in most
countries, tries to act as a power structure, and the others are power
structures that, as they were implemented by despots, sought to be a form
of state religon. It is no wonder that they failed.
> I do not want to be nasty, but...where is your college degree from?
> If you live under system that, yes, systematically confiscates property
> and achievements of people, that forces in myriad ways people back and
> back again back to step one, killing any sense of plurality, would not you
> feel unhappy, enslaved, oppressed, raped?
Kind of reminds me of some of the extreme left and right criticisms of the
USA. Yes, I would feel all of these things if I lived in a system that did
this, as the Czechoslovakian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Russian,
Polish, and Hungarian systems did. My point is that all the things that
you mention are not part of *TRUE* socialism or communism, but rather are
part of what we have known of systems erroneously labeled socialism and
communism, but that were really poorly veiled imperialist (on the part
of the USSR) totalitarian governances.
One can argue that communism
> (temporarily) lifs the unfortunate at the expense of the rest. But as
> disincentives to individuals, rigidity of central planning, profound
> restriction on freedom of idea and people flow has been taking their toll,
> shortcommings, falling behind in numerous vital signs of communist
> societies were increasingly apparent. Communism not totalitarian in
> nature? How you can say that?
The cause of arguement between you and I seems to be one of historical
implementation vs. original intent. I *AGREE* with you that what we have
seen in the last 50 years of "socialism" and "communism" is bad. It is bad
because it was *NOT* socialism or communism. Can you show me that any of
the communist systems in the last 50 years were planned with the welfare
of the worker in mind? Hell no they weren't! They were planned to keep the
power monopolies in the hands of the Ceaucescus, Hoxhas, Kims, and Stalins
who ruled these misnamed "communist" systems with a totalitarian iron
grip. Communism is about shared control of economic outcome and social
welfare by all. That did not come close to happening in the last 50 years.
> And freedom, democracy, free enterprise loving people on both sides had
> enough of communism experiements as well.
And what about all the unannounced negatives that go along with such
concepts as freedom, decmocracy, and especially free enterprise? Freedom
being a basic desire of people everywhere, I believe in freedom through
some degree of submission to a fundamental moral law...a fundamental
reason, much like Kant argued for. When there is no such underlying
commonality of moral or rational basis, you wind up with individualism and
post modernism run amok, the best example being my country today. When I
read the domestic headlines, I am angered to think that I might one
day have to go to war and die for some of the uneducated, mindless,
selfish cretins who call themselves citizens.
Much like the way that the USSR was, on paper, a "socialist republic"
while in reality it was a totalitarian regime, the USA today ahs become a
paper democracy that hides a timocracy. Let's face the music: The US is
not democratic. Our system, much like that of the USSR or communist
Romania, props up those with power at the expense of everyone else.
> You will never see His Kingdom here and you will never see
> "truly" communist and socialist society. But people seem still prefer the
> first or what's the earthy approximation of it.
"His" who? Marx or God? I do distinguish the two.
I'll be willing to bet that the future generations of humanity will see
one, more likely later than sooner, unfortunately. There will have to be a
few more evolutionary failures at this concept before we will see the best
possible way to organize for social and economic welfare.
> So did you try to pull a joke here or are you so naive?
Definitely not joking, and I'd like to think I'm not too terribly naive.
Evil things have happened in the name of "socialism" and "communism", the
evil was perpetrated by *MEN*, by *HUMANS*, not by socialism or communism.
That, to me, is the basic distinction that we are argueing about here, and
one that I think is lost on many people all over the world.
Regards,
Patrick
CSSC
2-27-97 J Vincent wrote:
Now we are talki'n!
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Mcleod Patrick M wrote:
> > 2-26-97 J Vincent wrote:
> >
> > W/o being ironical...where is your college degree from, sir?
>
> Working on my first as we argue. Granted, UNT is not Harvard and certainly
> not University of Heidelberg or University of Prague, but I feel it is a
> good starting point, especially given some of the options here in the
> States.
Naivite of your question promted me to my inquiry. Otherwise I feel that
any community college worth its $$$ should produce qualified enough grad
to be able to orient him/herself in such fundamental issues.
Well intended naivitee of certain part of Western college population was
demonstrated sadly too many times since 1917 as far a application of
Communism is concerned. One small point: after Velvet Revolution there has
been a small flood of official, professional and other visitors in the US.
Artsy group sponsored sculptor from Cz. Top blue chip company guys were
involved, excited what calibre of artist they are giving scholarship too.
Cultivated, well presented objections from exiles, documenting what kind
of guy this artist is and was (officialdom contract celebrating Communists
ideology, while "non-conforming" colleagues were forced to do menial jobs;
more then brownoser of the Central Committee) met well intended US arts
sponsors with (not so pleasant) surprise. Everything was already lined up.
Communist opportunist spent few moths in Connecticut, doing even a small
tour. What kind of head start he thereby had against those, who did not
learned Russian and Soviet ways in a first place is obvious.
The point was: Yale educated and superb lawyer went on record saying:
Unless it will be clearly established (probably in an independent court of
law) that this is a bad man, I have no reason to support him.
Your academically justified, but amount of evidence ignoring suggestion
that communism/socialism was not ment to be totalitarian and that no real
and accurate impementation was achieved yet, thereby no proof exist that
these are bad or unwokable...that reminds me of such innocent naivite.
> > It does not take so much of "examination", just a few years of
> > observations and a common sense. Loosing well too many years under Central
> > European (Czechoslovak) form of communism I believe that as far as
> > implementation of this unnatural Marx-Lenin scheme was quite authentic and
> > thorough, Marx-leninism university in each Soviet satelite country
> > occupied themselves with efforts to interpret, imlement and make a
> > coherent sense of Marx & Lenin thesis. OF COURSE Russian expansionism,
> > using comunism to promote its intersts affected profoundly what the
> > Internationala and Moscow=the power base of Communism was doing for
> > decades to prop up communist regimes around the world.
>
> First, I don't want to seem like I am trying in any way, shape, or form to
> degrade your experience under the Warsaw Pact.
I am not touchy about my experience or anything like that, so plse do not
feel bad.
> I do not agree with what
> the Warsaw Pact stood for nor the corrupted versions of socialism and
> communism that they peddled to the world as utopias on earth.
Every system is corrupted. Countries that proffessed Christianity, Islam,
and in socioeconomic contract any form that was here, in everysingle case
there was - and usually large - degree of disparity between what they say
they are or belief or arrangement they supposed to represent. Issue with
communism, unlike say Christianity (because Communism was ideology, worked
out to religious degree) or capitalism, pluralistic democracy, etc. are.
> In terms of Russian expansionism using communism as a cover to hide their
> imperialism, I agree with you. The cobbled version of "socialist unity"
> that the USSR forced on Central and Eastern Europe was nothing more than a
> sham of the theory used to cover up their establishing a "sphere of
> influence." Since you seem to believe by fiat that capitalism doesn't do
> such things, I'd like to enlighten you to the ignorance of this belief.
Dear friend. I do not believe that capitalism or anyone in the world does
anything just for the pure love of his/her fellow human being. It would be
clinically unhealthy, diagnostic problem. But differences in people, in
systems are often dramatic and we should look not only what they are
saying (how things ought to work), but also how they actually work.
In that sense, a grand expereiment of communism did not deliver and justly
experienced (perhaps fatal) setback.
I do not believe and I hope that it was not only an altruism that say
prompted US to marshall Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe (and save
France, Italy, Germany, etc.) before risk of communism or too eager
socialism.
> Just as the USSR shoved dictatorial socialism and communism down the
> throats of Central and Eastern European countries after WWII, and then
> proceeded to decide all important aspects of policy for these countries,
> the US has done this for as long as the USSR did (that period known as the
> Cold War) and my country still does this TODAY. Look no further than the
> Persian Gulf War to see what I mean. That war was about shameless
> capitalist exploitation of oil. My government tried to pass this war off
> as a "fight for democracy". PLEASE! Since when was Kuwait or any other of
> the Persian Gulf Emirates democratic? We fought for our own capitalist
> profit margins, plain and simple. Please do not fall into the trap of
> believing that totalitarianism is the only form of covert imperial
> agression.
Do you want me to call you arrogant sissie liberal elitist? Or are you
geniuenly so slow. Your well intended fuzzy enligtnening on actual working
of the world is...well intended and probably strongly felt with a mission
to save those wulnerable potential victims of predatory capitalism. Do not
worry and look for other line of work or mission in life. What's you
major?
To make it simple. Top 1% of US population is said to keep 34% of welath.
This figure did not change, as I understand for some time. If I would be
in that club, it would come quite NATURALLY and as something NORMAL &
HEALTHY that we (upper 1% or as I say, the upper deck) will use reasonable
effort to make sure tha OUR objectives are met. Sometimes these objectives
match objectives of fellow Americans on lower decks and even objectives of
other good people in other countries. Sometimes this interest lineup will
not be so clear and sometimes it might go opposite way. BUT, coming back
to your wide-open eagerness to do only good and "honstly examining"
communism while feeling so brave, so intellectually astute by ":demasking"
or briliantly pointing out to some not PC aspects of our country
capitalism. So, please do not feel SO important and so worry. The world is
not resting on your shoulder as some (mostly liberal?) profs might make
you believe.
Even common folks, even in less developed countries that Munich
appeasement left behind can make OK decision when GIVEN the opportunity.
And that's the name of game. That's what totalitarion communism never
could and what pluraristic democracy of capitalism - although by
definition imperfect - seems to demonstrate quite well can deliver.
> We were taught that here in the Cold War, when operatives of
> our government were murdering others in our satellite countries for their
> beliefs, just like the Russians were doing.
See liberal professors cozily endulging in their irresponsible dreams,
despicing corporate managers, who earn "much more" than those briliant
tenured dreamers. They should have told you that those two things (say KGB
and CIA practices) are not the same. A-bombs with CCCP and US-ARMY are not
the same, as person's life under totality and pluralistic democracy are
not the same. If you did not get full scholarship, ask them for refund.
Precious few of those poli-sci and USSR "specialists" did see in 1989 that
the bottom is falling off. Sue 'em for malpractice, because if they would
be physicians or lawyers, such gross lack of knowledge would be criminal.
> > One can easily argue that say Christianity was never trully, fully,
> > correctly adopted in any country throughout the ages. That no country
> > trully lived by Christian principles and thet the Book was never fully and
> > correctly interpreted and implemented. But mankind's experience with
> > Christianity is - despite imperfect implementation - quite a different
> > than with communism.
>
> I'd say that you are once again right. Christianity, as I know it here in
> the USA is, for the most part, about nothing more than power,
> manipulation, and narrow-mindedness.
But is bar FAR, FAR better than the same human impulses under totality
incl. communism.
> And of course mankind's experience
> with Christianity is different from our experiences with socialism and
> communism...one is a religous structure, that as it exists in most
> countries, tries to act as a power structure, and the others are power
> structures that, as they were implemented by despots, sought to be a form
> of state religon. It is no wonder that they failed.
Let me repeat again: communism failed because it's unnatural to a human
specie. As long as 2 people will have different skills and abilities, one
would resent (and fight in various ways) to be put back and back again on
the level of his less able/less fortunate fellow citizen. What's even
worst for egalitarian system like communism: incentives to produce are
virtually absent and therefore there is less to distribute (justly or
less justly).
> > I do not want to be nasty, but...where is your college degree from?
> > If you live under system that, yes, systematically confiscates property
> > and achievements of people, that forces in myriad ways people back and
> > back again back to step one, killing any sense of plurality, would not you
> > feel unhappy, enslaved, oppressed, raped?
>
> Kind of reminds me of some of the extreme left and right criticisms of the
> USA. Yes, I would feel all of these things if I lived in a system that did
> this, as the Czechoslovakian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Russian,
> Polish, and Hungarian systems did. My point is that all the things that
> you mention are not part of *TRUE* socialism or communism, but rather are
> part of what we have known of systems erroneously labeled socialism and
> communism, but that were really poorly veiled imperialist (on the part
> of the USSR) totalitarian governances.
You know what, let's spend our brains to building "true" "real" "ideal"
"according to ..." capitalism. OK. It seems to be more productive way of
using talents and education.
> One can argue that communism
> > (temporarily) lifs the unfortunate at the expense of the rest. But as
> > disincentives to individuals, rigidity of central planning, profound
> > restriction on freedom of idea and people flow has been taking their toll,
> > shortcommings, falling behind in numerous vital signs of communist
> > societies were increasingly apparent. Communism not totalitarian in
> > nature? How you can say that?
>
> The cause of arguement between you and I seems to be one of historical
> implementation vs. original intent. I *AGREE* with you that what we have
> seen in the last 50 years of "socialism" and "communism" is bad. It is bad
> because it was *NOT* socialism or communism. Can you show me that any of
> the communist systems in the last 50 years were planned with the welfare
> of the worker in mind?
I would argue that. Systematic confiscation of property, means of
production and its distribution (right to affordable housing, health care,
education, work) resulted in mediocrity and shrinking of the pie in all of
these areas. But in hey-days of communism, when lack of freedom and vulgar
egalitarism among other things did not have a time to show its pricey side
, oh yeah, welfare of masses was attempted with earnest. There comes the
popular support for communism and socialism: an initial lure of the system
that is not "so bad" when "fat cats" are skinned, milked, exiled, etc.
Masses are for some time content or even happy. And commie confiscators do
have a popular support.
> Hell no they weren't! They were planned to keep the
> power monopolies in the hands of the Ceaucescus, Hoxhas, Kims, and Stalins
> who ruled these misnamed "communist" systems with a totalitarian iron
> grip. Communism is about shared control of economic outcome and social
> welfare by all. That did not come close to happening in the last 50 years.
Go back to above notes. Or are you suggesting, when some demagogue will
call for young, idealistic helpers, you might give him/her a chance and
perhaps a few years of your life? Do you like, believe in, find much to
admire on communal life? Are you so irresponsibly "idelistic" or you
believe that for your physical or mental comfort you would be better off
under such experiment? There have been numerous attempts to establish
egalitarian societies, although only of marginal importance. You would
need a lot of brainwashing - and an ongoing not pretty enforcement - to
keep such communal dream afloat.
> > And freedom, democracy, free enterprise loving people on both sides had
> > enough of communism experiements as well.
>
> And what about all the unannounced negatives that go along with such
> concepts as freedom, decmocracy, and especially free enterprise? Freedom
> being a basic desire of people everywhere, I believe in freedom through
> some degree of submission to a fundamental moral law...a fundamental
> reason, much like Kant argued for. When there is no such underlying
> commonality of moral or rational basis, you wind up with individualism and
> post modernism run amok, the best example being my country today.
It's not so bad here. One thing is for sure, victory in Cold War, paid
disproportionally by the middle class, sometimes with military draft duty
on a top of that, migh not bring expected "peace dividends" to those who
thus sacrifised the most. And get this: suprisingly too many Americans
will (over the time) realize that victory in Cold War actually moved
further and faster away their American dream. As capital is not
threathened by confiscation and" excessive regulation and taxation" and as
it's invited everywhere, China, India, Russia included, American and other
Western workers (manufacturing and increasingly anything else whatever is
labor "intensive" and can be shipped abroad or via internet/telecom) will
live less desirable standard of living. And as manufacturing, coupon
processing, airline reservation, some research, etc. jobs will
increasingly migrate, communities in US will get poorer, which will be
felt by housing and other people, incl. lawyers and health care.
My explanation for DJIA spectakular growth is precisely here, not just
that corporate earnings are so great or will be great or that
restructuring is such marvel. I believe that smart $$$ read recent at
least 7-8 yrs (actually since Reagan) as increasingly safe world for
capital. And in clearly emerging global economy, with one effective
superpower (with mobile arm forces to take care of things) multinational
corporations are in much more advantageous position to grab those new
markets, line-up financing for faraway ventures, take care of distribution
and beat any competition. So if you are not heavily in stocks/bonds or
your retirement account in the same is not so fat, you should think twice
about your ability to provide expected standard of living for those who
you love.
> When
I > read the domestic headlines, I am angered to think that I might one
> day have to go to war and die for some of the uneducated, mindless,
> selfish cretins who call themselves citizens.
Yes, there is little mercy with churned out college grads, workers who are
"outdated" and anyone else. You should rethink your intl'rels or many
liberal majors, too many Ivy Leaguers are temping/waiting tables here and
elsewhere. WHAT WOULD YOU DO, when you will be a rich man? What would your
wife allow you to do? You know, according to Money magazine (and real
life) women are more conservative in letting $$$ go. Why would you not
maximize your portfolio return? What makes you think that you would do
better job, when you criticize them from a high moral ground. I and too
many others know damn well that people at top here do much better job -
for all of us, including Mother Earth - than people at communist
leadership. And that's enough for me to start with.
> Much like the way that the USSR was, on paper, a "socialist republic"
> while in reality it was a totalitarian regime, the USA today ahs become a
> paper democracy that hides a timocracy. Let's face the music: The US is
> not democratic. Our system, much like that of the USSR or communist
> Romania, props up those with power at the expense of everyone else.
For that one does not need to study at Ivy League. Sure this is far from
perfect democracy by any means. But the SHOW and all ins and outs are done
much more professionally and they deliver better results for much more
people than communists or other vulgar communal systems ever did.
Q: At your diversity issue classes at HU: did you talked about all these
issues with such insight? Why is here diversity, multiculturalism, wimin
rights, etc. rights, as long as the top 1% keeps the stake (over there it
does not matter if its a boy or girl who inherits the stuff). Do you
think that diversity etc. is result of "oppressed people" strugle or
management issue served by people from the upper deck? How did you
managed to get to an elite place like this with your insight?
> > You will never see His Kingdom here and you will never see
> > "truly" communist and socialist society. But people seem still prefer the
> > first or what's the earthy approximation of it.
>
> "His" who? Marx or God? I do distinguish the two.
You should pay more attention. I was refering to the One who talks about
sharing and taking interest in fellow humans, not the one who calls for
confiscation and vulgar equality of decay.
> I'll be willing to bet that the future generations of humanity will see
> one, more likely later than sooner, unfortunately. There will have to be a
> few more evolutionary failures at this concept before we will see the best
> possible way to organize for social and economic welfare.
You smartie. Today is the best possible way we have. Unless you will
convince enough people rather quickly that it's in their interest and
that's doable to do it any other way.
> > So did you try to pull a joke here or are you so naive?
> Definitely not joking, and I'd like to think I'm not too terribly naive.
> Evil things have happened in the name of "socialism" and "communism", the
> evil was perpetrated by *MEN*, by *HUMANS*, not by socialism or communism.
> That, to me, is the basic distinction that we are argueing about here, and
> one that I think is lost on many people all over the world.
>
> Regards,
> Patrick
You are lost, after all. With appologists like you, one has to give some
weight to saying that now there are more communists at Harvard Yard than
in Central Europe. System that nations adopt and live with is both
reflection of their sum of abilities and way how they conduct themselves
as majority of individuals is concerned. People (the brighter ones for
sure and less astute in sufficient numbers) around the world have been
voting already. Communism lost. Western type of democracy & free market
seems to be a clear winner.
And don't worry. Get your practical degree, wife and think what practical
workable life wisdom you will cultivate in your family.
Jan
Jacek Strzelczyk
On 25 Feb 1997 09:21:34 GMT, Mcleod Patrick M (iy...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
>I would argue that the world has not yet seen a truly socialist OR
>communist society yet, and that we will continue to see more
>bastardizations of these concepts before we will see the real thing.
I have heard this argument from Western Communists. They claim that
what was going on in any communist country was different from the proletarian
paradise that they offer. It is odd however, that all communist revolutions end
up the same way. Marx advocated a violent revolution to "raise the proletariat
to the position of ruling class." Somehow this approach did not work quite as
well as he expected.
Jacek Strzelczyk.
--
I am just a simple Pole in a complex plane.