good point and excellant thought process. i do not
think people like stalin would have let it go to
another level.
--- Scott Sands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
> <P>For those who may be interested:</P>
> <P>Marxist communism isn't what occurred in the USSR
> or China. Marx's idea wasn't that the
> government become the benevolent ruler of all--he in
> fact didn't have much faith in government as we'd
> conceptualize it, and advocated a sort of
> self-government that didn't require a bureaucratic
> apparatus. In short, there would BE no top
> level in true Marxist communism.</P>
> <P>The USSR and China might be examples of an
> intermediate stage Marx envisioned between
> capitalism and communism in which the
> government would teach people how to rule themselves
> before abdicating its power and dissolving.
> Marx would probably say that the USSR, China and the
> United States all have governments who have allied
> themselves with the bourgeois (the wealthy class)
> against the proleteriat (the working class).</P>
> <P>Thus Kat, I'd say that Marx at least would defend
> his theory--the people put it into practice wrong,
> he'd argue. I'm inclined to agree at least
> insofar as communist ideals aren't in and of
> themselves any more flawed than capitalist ones are,
> and people just don't execute according to the
> objectivity, or benevolence, or what-have-you that's
> necessary for success in either case.</P></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV>Scott Sands</DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows----
> <DIV></DIV>From: Kat <[log in to unmask]>
> <DIV></DIV>Reply-To: "St. John's University Cerebral
> Palsy List" <[log in to unmask]>
> <DIV></DIV>To: [log in to unmask]
> <DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: Mag's whip; was RE: Am I the
> only one online?
> <DIV></DIV>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:15:48 -0400
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>I agree: we *don't* need communism or
> socialism!
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>Mag, have you thought it through? How
> much a mixture? It can't be half-and-half, that
> would be silly. This country rules by the majority
> and there's no majority in communism except at the
> very top level. Do you really want a system like
> that? I'd think not!
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>The ideal of communsim is equality for
> all. But can you say that ideal was achieved in the
> USSR and China and other Communist countries? Of
> course not. They had the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'
> same as anywhere else. Communism does not protect
> its denizens from the inequality of wealth.
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>Kat
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>-------Original Message-------
> <DIV></DIV>From: "BG Greer, PhD"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> <DIV></DIV>Sent: 06/10/03 11:05 AM
> <DIV></DIV>To: [log in to unmask]
> <DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: Mag's whip; was RE: Am I the
> only one online?
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>> Mag,
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>We have the best life style in the world,
> and it wasn't brought
> <DIV></DIV>about
> <DIV></DIV>by government bureaucrats. Sadly, people
> need profits for motivation.
> <DIV></DIV>Corporations have brought about this easy
> lifestyle. Yes, the rich get
> <DIV></DIV>rich, but they
> <DIV></DIV>took the risks, we did not.
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>Bobby
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>> don't know what the solution
> <DIV></DIV>> is but I think we need a combination
> of things.
> <DIV></DIV>> not just corporations, not just
> communism, not just socialism.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Protect your PC -
> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMOENUS/2755??PS=">Click
> here</a> for McAfee.com VirusScan Online </html>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
|
