BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on October 12, 2013, 05:04:01 PM
That said, Communism was, by far, the most deadly ideology ever concocted by man. The 20th century's biggest murderer was not Hitler, as bad as he was. It was Stalin. Pol Pot, Mao, also both mass murderers. Yet communism gets a pass, for some reason, as though none of that happened. By all rights it should be up there with Nazism on the list of distasteful condemnable ideologies.

Communism was a populist blanket for zealot revolution, much like "National Socialism".  "Communist" idealogues spoke against the institutional oppressors, be they Czars, gangster generalissimos, or whatever.  The idea of equality so appealed to people that they fought and died for it around the world.  Of course, much like the Muslim Brotherhood usurpation of the "Arab Spring" uprising in Tahrir Square, a group of well organized reactionaries seized upon the leadership of these "communist" movements for their own cycnical power grab (see: "Castro, Fidel")  Others used Communism as a uniter against colonial power (see: "Minh, Ho-Chi") and were forced to defend their nationalism by our "cowboy up" escapades on the behalf of western colonialism. 
"Communism" gets a "pass" (if it really does) because we have yet to see actual communist government on this planet.  As a philosphy, it underrates the need for individuals to compete against each other to proove dominance (see: "Party, Grand Ole") nor does it truly weigh the value of certain skills and disciplines versus others.  That is why it cannot work.  But to blame "communism" as some deadly scourge is to wholesale ignore the motivations of the most fundamentally power driven in many societies who used it to appeal to socio-economically unsecure people who felt like the elite in their country were ignoring their plight. (see: "Boy, Paper)

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 09:21:01 AM
NWIT, can you say Bernanke, Geithner, Lew, Paulson, Blankfein... I could go on, probably for a few hours...

You forgot Richard Rubin.  The "who's who" of Goldman Sachs employees and allies who've been "bankering" our nation throughout the years.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 12, 2013, 11:22:21 AM
You ask an intriguing (and loaded) question, Nowhere...  I know that research suggests that the voting block members of the Republican and Democratic parties are roughly equally well-educated.  (I suspect different studies reveal different results.)  The careers you mention (journalism, academia, acting) are more-or-less humanities-based fields.  My understanding is that engineering and finance tend to attract conservatives in larger measure. 

Give that man a CEEGAR!
The very fields Sardondi and Paper Boy condemn are rife with people who's profession requires them to examine the whole of the human experience, not just their balance sheets.  The practice of connecting with humanity on a regular basis causes one to begin to see people in their various forms, challenges, and triumphs and to realize that we cannot reduce them to simple code like "us" and "them". And no, being a Federal Prosecutor does not count as examining the whole of human experience.
I respect the skill it takes to be a successful prosecutor, but it seems like a misanthropic life experience, whereas journalists, academics, and actors get to really live the whole of someobody's life.

Name one society wherein communism works as advertised and hasn't been corrupted by totalitarian zealots, and to which the poor of the world are clamoring to get in to.

I dare you.

Everywhere Communism has existed it has served one purpose - a tool to enflame the envy of underachievers (every society has underachievers) to empower totalitarian despots.

Much like wishing for world peace - if everyone was just nice to each other, the world would be wonderful, except for one fatal flaw - it will never happen - so the proponents get to wax indefinitely that its never been given a fair chance to succeed because some Big Bad Wolf always ruins it.

I want a fair chance to sleep with Scarlett Johansson to show her just how good I really am and how much I could love her, no matter how many times I have to try...

“Peace, Jobs, and Democracy.”

The official slogan of the Communist Party under Stalin...

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. Here is his take on things:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-horowitz/the-threat-we-face-2/#.UllS8HBBX0c.email

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 07:02:07 PM
Name one society wherein communism works as advertised and hasn't been corrupted by totalitarian zealots, and to which the poor of the world are clamoring to get in to.

I dare you.

re-read my post.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 07:57:16 PM
“Peace, Jobs, and Democracy.”

The official slogan of the Communist Party under Stalin...

You seem to have all the quotes and slogans memorized,  Comrade. ..

I have a passion for knowledge that I use to thwart tyrants.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 12, 2013, 11:31:18 PM
You seem to have all the quotes and slogans memorized,  Comrade. ..

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 12, 2013, 06:51:15 PM
Communism was a populist blanket for zealot revolution, much like "National Socialism".  "Communist" idealogues spoke against the institutional oppressors, be they Czars, gangster generalissimos, or whatever.  The idea of equality so appealed to people that they fought and died for it around the world.  Of course, much like the Muslim Brotherhood usurpation of the "Arab Spring" uprising in Tahrir Square, a group of well organized reactionaries seized upon the leadership of these "communist" movements for their own cycnical power grab (see: "Castro, Fidel")  Others used Communism as a uniter against colonial power (see: "Minh, Ho-Chi") and were forced to defend their nationalism by our "cowboy up" escapades on the behalf of western colonialism. 
"Communism" gets a "pass" (if it really does) because we have yet to see actual communist government on this planet.  As a philosphy, it underrates the need for individuals to compete against each other to proove dominance (see: "Party, Grand Ole") nor does it truly weigh the value of certain skills and disciplines versus others.  That is why it cannot work.  But to blame "communism" as some deadly scourge is to wholesale ignore the motivations of the most fundamentally power driven in many societies who used it to appeal to socio-economically unsecure people who felt like the elite in their country were ignoring their plight. (see: "Boy, Paper)

All revolutions are zealous. Actually, ALL political change is done through that means of claims of institutional oppression. The American revolution was propagated through claims of institutional oppression, as was the French revolution. Today it's institutional oppression by the banking system, or the healthcare system, or whatever institutional system you wish to condemn in order to change it. That's how it's done, no matter what you're pushing.

Yes, yes, the old real communism has never been tried argument. It's actually that real communism, no matter what adjustment of Marxism you wish to try, always begins to fail because you simply cannot get everyone on the same page ideologically. As one starts putting their finger in the ideological dike to hold the idea together, the leaks quickly require drastic measures. It all comes down to the fact that people aren't robots; they have different ideas about what should be done. Whether one must go with coercion such as Mao did, or just killing anyone that didn't agree as Pol Pot did, or offing Che because his vision was .01 percent different but had a lot of listeners, it all stems from a fundamental failure of the original concept.

That numerous authoritarian dictators rise from communism, in fact it happens more often than not, is simply icing on the cake and highlights yet another failure of that system: it's overwhelmingly prone to dictatorship. There's a reason for that: human societies do not function well, especially in crisis, under a committee. You must have a head of state with sufficient power to deal with a crisis. That is the basis of having a president, a king, an emperor, a fuhrer or a dear leader. Well, heads of state always do their best to usurp and consolidate power to their office.

In short, how many times does a guy need to crash his car into a wall to realize that it's a bad idea? In this case, that idea killed tens of millions over the course of just a few decades. Religion can't even compete with that level of efficiency of ideological slaughter. About all you can do with it is evolve it into a quasi-capitalistic system like China did, but that defeats the entire original purpose. If there's one person on earth spinning in the grave it's Mao Zedong. The Chinese, very obviously, are no longer equal.

Like a car with a badly designed gas tank, communism is going explode the same way over and over because, well, its gas tank sucks. You can try communism another hundred times and the same things will happen for the same reasons.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 12, 2013, 07:02:07 PM
Name one society wherein communism works as advertised and hasn't been corrupted by totalitarian zealots, and to which the poor of the world are clamoring to get in to.

I dare you.

As N in T said and Sc-Fi mentioned too; Communism as 'advertised' (Stalin, et al) isn't. It's a totalitarian dictatorship. It served the USSR (and China) well because their own people knew no better so as far as they were concerned. That they were mainly un educated and lived in abject poverty working their asses off for jack, still gave the elites within to propagandise the myth they were at least so much better than the Imperialistic scum; Meanwhile the west relished it; because the politicians could always say 'See what communism is?', knowing full well it was mendacious crap. They knew as well as Stalin did, that the battle wasn't with ICBM's against 'Imperialists/Communists', it was the battle to keep feeding the paranoia of their respective populations. The Russians (or rather Gorbachev) , had an epiphany and realised the unproductive, inefficient and  frankly moribund methods had to go; he was brave I think to voice it and get the backing-and it should be said encouragement and help form the respective Western administrations. However, whatever vision he had, was well and truly shafted by the rise and rise of the Mafia within Russia, and is now so endemic, I can't see a way through it.

SciFiAuthor wrote:  "Yes, yes, the old real communism has never been tried argument. It's actually that real communism, no matter what adjustment of Marxism you wish to try, always begins to fail because you simply cannot get everyone on the same page ideologically."

Of course, getting everyone on the same page ideologically-speaking is the challenge for any and all systems of government.  Witness what's been going on here in the states for a while.  We hold elections, the losing side for the last 13 years wonders if maybe there was tampering/election fraud, but life goes on.  Other voices clamor for secession because they did not get their way and "want their country back".  It's not like even in a free and fair democracy there are no substantial differences of opinion.  To what degree the discontented are willing to try to wrest control to get their way is difficult to predict.  We have largely-peaceful protests (most of the participants of TeaParty gatherings, most of the OWS crowd)...  We have others who spike trees, occupy university administration buildings or blow up federal buildings and abortion clinics. 

Anyway, as always, beware the easy answers.  Oh, and TANSTAAFL.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on October 13, 2013, 10:30:16 AM
SciFiAuthor wrote:  "Yes, yes, the old real communism has never been tried argument. It's actually that real communism, no matter what adjustment of Marxism you wish to try, always begins to fail because you simply cannot get everyone on the same page ideologically."

Of course, getting everyone on the same page ideologically-speaking is the challenge for any and all systems of government.  Witness what's been going on here in the states for a while.  We hold elections, the losing side for the last 13 years wonders if maybe there was tampering/election fraud, but life goes on.  Other voices clamor for secession because they did not get their way and "want their country back".  It's not like even in a free and fair democracy there are no substantial differences of opinion.  To what degree the discontented are willing to try to wrest control to get their way is difficult to predict.  We have largely-peaceful protests (most of the participants of TeaParty gatherings, most of the OWS crowd)...  We have others who spike trees, occupy university administration buildings or blow up federal buildings and abortion clinics. 

Anyway, as always, beware the easy answers.  Oh, and TANSTAAFL.

With communism, it simply won't work unless everyone holds the identical ideology. That's why communists have universally gone to great lengths to force, coerce and eliminate in hopes of unifying everyone. If they don't, the system stops working and they are removed from power before their vision can be enacted.

I think the key is in a democratic republic that operates openly and honestly. We used to have that, though I'm not sure we do anymore. As long as you can keep the corruption down, people will live with the results of an honest election. Since we didn't keep the corruption down--I doubt there are ten honest men in Congress--we suffer the consequences.

The corruption is actually institutional now; when you see politicians getting elected on promises of providing free stuff at what works out to be at the expense of the political opposition, then you've got institutional corruption running from the voter to the politician they're electing. Corrupt from the common man to the top. It's no wonder that such a thing ultimately leads to severe division and resentment, as we have now.

On the right the institutional corruption is the good old boys network of defense contractors and oil men that somehow ended up at the top of the Republican Party and ran it into the ground. What good is anything if the people at the top are so seedy that they've disqualified themselves from winning anything? Yet rank and file republicans will still, by and large, blindly defend free trade, which has failed and gutted the US economy permanently and was born from George Bush I's corruption, and up until recently take a hawkish stance on anything (McCain still does) despite the Iraq war, apparently, having been based on a huge lie. That too is ideological corruption on the part of the voter.

As long as we have that culture of corruption, the US will eventually turn itself into a third world country.

I do see one critical difference though - a multitude of Republican voters are SICK of the corruption and collusion of their Representatives (and I suspect will make that emphatically clear in the 2014 Election) while the same appears non-existent on the left. This leads one to conclude that left voters, in fact, revel in the dishonesty of their Representative. To me, this is far and above, the most disturbing issue I find with proponents of the left - the refusal to hold themselves and their own Representative to the same level of scrutiny to which they bombard anyone opposed to their dogmas.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on October 13, 2013, 03:23:23 PM
With communism, it simply won't work unless everyone holds the identical ideology. That's why communists have universally gone to great lengths to force, coerce and eliminate in hopes of unifying everyone. If they don't, the system stops working and they are removed from power before their vision can be enacted.

I think the key is in a democratic republic that operates openly and honestly. We used to have that, though I'm not sure we do anymore. As long as you can keep the corruption down, people will live with the results of an honest election. Since we didn't keep the corruption down--I doubt there are ten honest men in Congress--we suffer the consequences.

The corruption is actually institutional now; when you see politicians getting elected on promises of providing free stuff at what works out to be at the expense of the political opposition, then you've got institutional corruption running from the voter to the politician they're electing. Corrupt from the common man to the top. It's no wonder that such a thing ultimately leads to severe division and resentment, as we have now.

On the right the institutional corruption is the good old boys network of defense contractors and oil men that somehow ended up at the top of the Republican Party and ran it into the ground. What good is anything if the people at the top are so seedy that they've disqualified themselves from winning anything? Yet rank and file republicans will still, by and large, blindly defend free trade, which has failed and gutted the US economy permanently and was born from George Bush I's corruption, and up until recently take a hawkish stance on anything (McCain still does) despite the Iraq war, apparently, having been based on a huge lie. That too is ideological corruption on the part of the voter.

As long as we have that culture of corruption, the US will eventually turn itself into a third world country.

Most of the republicans i know aren't particularly religious .
So im thinking the tea party isnt going to last too long mainly because theres going to be a split between the real republicans and the nutjobs. And hopefully most conservatives are sane.
There has always been the crazy ass holy roller conservatives ..always. Just nowdays instead of riding around in trucks covered in jesus graffiti , they get online and pick fights with all the normal people.

I feel the same way about those emotionally unstable liberals that spend their time online venting their hysterical vitriol at people that do not prostrate themselves to the incomprehensible wisdom of liberal thought and hate-speak...

Quote from: Cynnie on October 13, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
Most of the republicans i know aren't particularly religious .
So im thinking the tea party isnt going to last too long mainly because theres going to be a split between the real republicans and the nutjobs. And hopefully most conservatives are sane.
There has always been the crazy ass holy roller conservatives ..always. Just nowdays instead of riding around in trucks covered in jesus graffiti , they get online and pick fights with all the normal people.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 13, 2013, 03:51:44 PM
I feel the same way about those emotionally unstable liberals that spend their time online venting their hysterical vitriol at people that do not prostrate themselves to the incomprehensible wisdom of liberal thought and hate-speak...

This is America baby! You get to be a dinosaur allll day long.

Or an idiot...

Quote from: Cynnie on October 13, 2013, 03:53:51 PM
This is America baby! You get to be a dinosaur allll day long.

Funny , that was my original word choice 

Quote from: Cynnie on October 13, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
...the real republicans and the nutjobs...

Tough to tell them apart these days.

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on October 13, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
Tough to tell them apart these days.

Cynnie got it right: idiots.

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on October 13, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
Tough to tell them apart these days.

So true. Thanks to unmitigated intolerance the party is turning into a septic tank.

I have seen statements deriding Goldwater. Hell Dole and Kemp would be tarred and feathered in today's republican party.

Good for them, I hope the current members choke on their vitriol.

Your intellect is mind-boggling.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 13, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Cynnie got it right: idiots.

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 13, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
Your intellect is mind-boggling.

Thank you ! 

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 13, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
Your intellect is mind-boggling.

Thank you! Gosh after the "traitor" comment I'm glad you still had a little love in your heart!

Quote from: NowhereInTime on October 13, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Thank you! Gosh after the "traitor" comment I'm glad you still had a little love in your heart!

this is such a love-fest

If I didn't know better, I would swear you were my 14-yr old niece - yours and her retorts are so similar it's amazing.

Quote from: Cynnie on October 13, 2013, 04:23:50 PM
this is such a love-fest

Quote from: Quick Karl on October 13, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
I do see one critical difference though - a multitude of Republican voters are SICK of the corruption and collusion of their Representatives (and I suspect will make that emphatically clear in the 2014 Election) while the same appears non-existent on the left. This leads one to conclude that left voters, in fact, revel in the dishonesty of their Representative. To me, this is far and above, the most disturbing issue I find with proponents of the left - the refusal to hold themselves and their own Representative to the same level of scrutiny to which they bombard anyone opposed to their dogmas.

That certainly seems true about the republicans, but there's a problem: it hasn't shown in the primaries so far. It's the same old McCains, Bush family, Romneys and the like. The chance for change was very present in the last primary, but it didn't happen. In the end, it was Romney's turn for a shot, he was the ordained one that had been sitting in line for a while, just like it had been McCain's and the republican voter simply fell in line. Sick the republican voter may be of corruption but they always seem to vote for that same old cabal at the end of the day.

The left, on the other hand, is completely united. Actually they do sort of revel in the dishonesty of their leadership, and that's not normally something I would extend so far as to say. After I saw Pelosi come out and give her "We have to pass it before you can find out what's in it" gem, I knew then that something had gone very wrong on the left. You never, under any circumstances, EVER accept such a statement from a politician (or anyone in authority, for that matter). That's an inherently dangerous methodology that CANNOT be logically supported, it is always tyrannical. Yet, they didn't even challenge her on it. I guess they've lost their anti-authoritarian streak from the 60's and have become "the establishment".

I don't know how they're going to keep their youth vote with that kind of flaunting of authority.

Well, let's just see how 2014 goes, and we'll call 2012 the final chance we gave em... In fact, I am hopeful that Establishment schmucks will cut a deal with the Dems, because that will seal their fate.

That is why they had to go along with Lee and Cruz - the voters ARE speaking, like it or not.

I have personally pledged to McCain and Flake, via letter, that I will write-in Vladimir Putin's name if either of them ever runs for anything I can vote on, ever again, and have written to the RNC promising to do precisely the same if they nominate another Establishment tool.

A storm is coming...

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on October 13, 2013, 07:24:43 PM
That certainly seems true about the republicans, but there's a problem: it hasn't shown in the primaries so far. It's the same old McCains, Bush family, Romneys and the like. The chance for change was very present in the last primary, but it didn't happen. In the end, it was Romney's turn for a shot, he was the ordained one that had been sitting in line for a while, just like it had been McCain's and the republican voter simply fell in line. Sick the republican voter may be of corruption but they always seem to vote for that same old cabal at the end of the day.

The left, on the other hand, is completely united. Actually they do sort of revel in the dishonesty of their leadership, and that's not normally something I would extend so far as to say. After I saw Pelosi come out and give her "We have to pass it before you can find out what's in it" gem, I knew then that something had gone very wrong on the left. You never, under any circumstances, EVER accept such a statement from a politician (or anyone in authority, for that matter). That's an inherently dangerous methodology that CANNOT be logically supported, it is always tyrannical. Yet, they didn't even challenge her on it. I guess they've lost their anti-authoritarian streak from the 60's and have become "the establishment".

I don't know how they're going to keep their youth vote with that kind of flaunting of authority.