Civics Your thoughts on Congress for my college paper

communism is freedom.

thats not the point of a communist revolution. sure, the "big" onesturned out that way, but there have been others that surly did not. the paris commune(shot up bu the french) and the anarchists in Spain(shot up by stalin's boys) both managed to breifly be non-totalitarian socialist states.

furthermore, the protests that eventualy led to the fall of the berlen wall were largely led by communists and i would definatly call that a revolution, or at least the beginings of one. regretably, when it came plebiscite capitalist money and national unity carried the day and... well the rest of this story is history, no?




P.S. what is the average flight speed of an unladen swollow?

 

African or European???

" Mr.Gorbachev; tear down this wall!(crowd roars!!!) President Ronald Reagan in berlin ..."post dating the Berlin airlift by 30years or so.Something mean old opressive America did to keep the soviets from deliberately starving their "comrades" to death.
(bloodpressure: "here we go ag'in").
(perhaps I can better marshall my errant gut reactions and be allowed out in public again...)...
Just so I don't "put words in your mouth"..
You seem to acknowledge:" Any time its been tried on a reasonably large enough scale to perform as a form of national government it ends in party corruption, murder and citizen oppression on a GLOBAL scale. BUT,,BUT it works in a commune or two of reasonably like minded people?communism maybe fine on paper; but the nature of the human animal is not taken into account..Communists would destroy the incorrigible human animal rather than provide individual freedom. Being a rather incorrigible sort I find that threatening...

( I'll grant you a selfless good- hearted person in a position of power wearing a fine hat; could conceiveably lessen suffering among his subjects, but those people are few and far between. Its easierto slap somebody with a rubber hose than ask them politely to willingly provide funds from their purse...so that's what happens.


And I really liked that previous avatar(added: but I've got a millon of 'em...)..maybe the frenchman at the parapet will be back.

"I fart in your general direction:
silly english people"....

<!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________

 

yeah, they were authoritarian douchebags. i cede this point gladly.


i reject government tyranny just as i reject the tyranny of capital. why is it you insist that i must bow to one or the other?

 

Ranting post deleted; way too much personal info whipped out in an unthinking moment...

 

hmmm. i think the elite are smarter then that. why create an ideology utter opposed to your own existence?

kinda reminds me of that theory that the roman's created christianity to make the jews easier to control...

 

I an not well read in communist philosophy. If the above is true;( and I can't really believe this was a master "elitist" plan) but just for discussion:

Perhaps hedging their bets while assuring themselves a seat on top of the heap no matter which theory took hold.. in capitalism they
could buy themselves a seat at the table; Wield power through money that's their "bread and butter.
Capitalism is not perfect. Perhaps they sought to establish the "anti-capitalism",Wield power through altruism and ideology. a dichotomy is useful; it provides a long lever to adjust society. red/blue, repub/dem, us/them, fox/msnbc. They might as well establish themselves as the leaders of that side too. The populace would fall into one of those two camps willingly?

 

not so much objecting to the argument as wondering about the motivation. commies hang bankers. thats their shtick. why play with fire like that when there's all sorts of safe-bet proto-fascists and nationalists hard up for a buck and ready to make a deal?

well the (stated) goal of communism is to create a classless society. Preaching/teaching that goal seems like a counter productive thing for the ruling class to do.

funding communist revolutions is not likely to endear them to communists either. the money is, after all, stolen from the workers in the first place.

 

You repeatedly fail to acknowledge:" in practice there certainly is a ruling class fat on the spoils of the country in the politburo,no beet collective farmers get state owned dachas outside the city limits. There are two classes the haves and the slaves. The ruling class has no incentive to create a "classless society "when they are on top.

quite so. that is why democratic centralism needs be democratic. If those who control the means of production are not accountable to those who labor at those same means, then we are right back at the shittier points of capitalism and no progress has been made.

and i disagree that all historical attempts have ended that way. the spanish anarchists did a fair job of organizing a socialist economy without getting all dictator-y. as did the paris commune.(though, those soft hearts saw fit to pay the ousted bourgeoisie for the buisnesses that they claimed. french cant do anything right)

quite right. what is a local banker? just a worker by my estimation. sure hes not doing anything useful, but that's the systems fault not his. the ones who matter are the ones who own the banks.

and so? we will smile as we take their money, and stun the world with our ingratitude.