>> All this is fine, but it in no way invalidates protest.  What's the
>> alternative?
>Don't protest.  As in the Chomsky quote reported by Milutin, you are
responsible for the consequences of your actions.  If the consequences
of your actions are that your protests validate the system you are
protesting against, then you should stop protesting, or, as in the
antibiotic example, finish the course of medication, ie do whatever it
takes to stop whatever you are protesting against.

You rationale is unique but can't say that I, nor anyone concerned about the
future of humanity, should adopted it.  The thinking is: if you can't change
the world right now, give up.

>Don't protest.  Instead, go in the opposite direction (I'm not talking
about bombing).  Assist the process of spreading western style
capitalism and "democracy" so that it covers the world.  Then it will
fail as Marx predicted it would.

LOL.  HAHAHAHA.  oooohhhhh Martin.  You never cease to amaze me.  "Why try
to bother to improve the world, just work harder to make it worse." --
Martin William Smith

>It will not fail while there is something for it to be against.  I don't
think Marx understood that.

Your going to have to explain this to me.  I don't get it and your examples
didn't help.

>The cold war is a good example.  As long as the the evil empire was
out there to rally the domestic population against, the government and
capitalist elite could keep the people under control

Yes, America has found the new enemies, to justify the large military
spending.  But I don't see how your example applies to your point.

>they would have made an evil empire out of China, if China had not started
moving toward capitalism.

That is a terrible example.  China's move towards Capitalism was in the
early 80s, prior to the fall of the USSR.

Milutin -- just trying to understand it all

--
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells