The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Is Communism Really Dead?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_730664305

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the longest experiment in Communism in recent history. Many saw this event as the proof that Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, I use these interchangeably here) was not a viable ideology. After all, if in Russia Communism was formally ended in 1991, the Chinese quietly shifted away from it too, replacing it with a uniquely Chinese brand of capitalism. Finally, none of the ex-Soviet “allies” chose to stick to the Communist ideology as soon as they recovered their freedom. Even Chavez’ brand of Communism resulted in a completely bankrupt Venezuela. So what’s there to argue about?

Actually, a great deal, beginning with every single word in the paragraph above.

Communism – the past:

For one thing, the Soviet Union never collapsed. It was dismantled from above by the CPSU party leaders who decided that the Soviet nomenklatura would split up the Soviet “pie” into 15 smaller slices. What happened after that was nothing more than the result of in infighting between these factions. Since nobody ever empowered these gangs of Party apparatchiks to dissolve the USSR or, in fact, to reform it in any way, their actions can only be qualified as a totally illegal coup. All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country. As for the people, they were only given the right to speak their opinion once, on March 17, 1991, when a whopping 77.85% voted to preserve the “the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed” (see here for a good discussion of this now long-forgotten vote). There was no collapse. There was a coup or, even more accurately, a series of coups, all executed by traitors from the Party apparatus in total illegality and against the will of the people. Some will object that the fact that the Communist Party was full of traitors. But unless one can explain and prove that Communism systematically and somehow uniquely breeds traitors this accusation has no merit (as of Christians did not betray Christianity, democrats democracy or Fascists Fascism).

Second, is Communism a viable ideology? Well, for one thing, there are two schools of thought on that topic inside Marxist ideology. One says that Communism can be achieved in one country, the other says that no, for Communism to become possible a world revolution is necessary. Let’s first set aside the first school of thought for a while and just look at the second one. This will be tricky anyway since all we have to judge its empirical correctness is a relatively short list of countries. I already hear the objection “what? Ain’t Soviet Russia, Maoist China, PolPot’s Kampuchea and, say, Kim Il-sung’s DPRK not enough?”. Actually, no. For one thing, according to the official Soviet ideology, Communism as such was never achieved in the USSR, only Socialism. This is why the country was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism was seen as a goal, Socialism as an unavoidable, intermediate, transitional phase. To say that Communism failed in the USSR is just about as logical as to say that a half-built building failed to provide a comfortable shelter. China, of course, has not “failed” to begin with, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea as probably a (horrific) attempt at building a truly Communist society almost overnight, but that by itself contradicts the Historical/Dialectical Materialist Theory of Marxism which states the need for a transitional Socialist phase. As for the DPRK, it’s ideology is not Marxism or Communism, but Juche, at most a distant relative. So no, these few examples are hardly representative of anything, if only because the form a sample too small to be relevant and because none of them qualify as “test case”.

Now coming back to “Communism cannot be achieved in one country” argument, let’s look at it from a pure red-white-n-blue kind of Merican ideological position and remember that the proponents of US-style capitalism like to remind us that Reagan’s arms race is what bankrupted the Soviet Union, which could not keep up with it. Other proud American patriots also like to say that, well, the USA brought down the price of oil, making it impossible for the Soviets to continue spending and that this fall in prices is what made the Soviet economy collapse. Personally, I find these arguments both stupid and ignorant, but let’s accept them as self-evidently true. Does that not show that the USSR collapsed due to external factors and not due to some inherent internal flaw?

Modern training (I don’t call it “education”) does not really emphasize logic, so I will rhetorically ask the following question: if we accept that Capitalism defeated Communism proves that Communism was not viable or that Capitalism is superior? To the many (alas) who will answer “yes” I would suggest that if you lock a hyena and a human being in a cage and force them to fight for resources, the human is most unlikely to win. Does that prove that the human is not viable or the hyena “superior”?

ORDER IT NOW

Marxism-Leninism clearly states that Capitalism is built on the oppression of the weak and that imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism. We don’t have to agree with this argument (though I personally very much do), but neither can it be dismissed simply because we don’t like it. In fact, I would argue that disproving it should be a key element of any serious refutation of Communism. But to keep things short, all I will say is this: any person who has actually traveled in Asia, Africa or South America will attest that the Communists (USSR, China, Cuba) actually sent immense amounts of aid including raw materials, technologies, specialists, doctors, military advisors, agronomists, water-sanitation engineers, etc. In contrast, ask anybody in these continents what Capitalism brings, and you will get the same answer: violence, exploitation and the support for a local Comprador ruling gang. To anybody arguing with this I could only recommend one thing: begin traveling the world.

[Sidebar: So yes, using the hyena as a symbol of Capitalism in my allegory above is fair. As for the 'cage' – it is simply our planet. What I do think is wrong is equating Communism with a human being. But that at this point of our conversation is my own private opinion and not an argument at all. I have been an anti-Communist my entire life, and I still remain one, but that is hardly a reason for me to accept logically flawed and counter-factual anti-Communist arguments].

At this point in the conversation my typical Capitalist interlocutor would bombard me with a fully or short slogans like “dude, in every Communist society people vote with their feet, have you forgotten the Boat-People, the Marielitos or the folks jumping over the Berlin Wall?” or “every single country in Eastern Europe rejected Communism as soon as the Soviet tanks left – does that not tell you something about Communism?”. Usually the person delivering these slogans gets a special glee in the eye, a sense of inevitable triumph so it is especially rewarding to observe these before debunking all this nonsense.

Let’s begin with the feet-voting argument. It is utter nonsense. Yes, true, some people did run away from Communist societies. The vast majority did not. And please don’t give me the “their families were held hostage” or “the secret police was everywhere to prevent that”. The truth is much simpler:

On the “push side”: All the famous waves of people emigrating from Communist societies are linked to profound crises inside these countries, crises which have had many causes, including mostly external ones.

On the “pull side”: In each case, a powerful Western propaganda system was used to convince these people to emigrate promising them “milk and honey” if they ran.

I am sorry if I have to burst somebody’s naïve illusions but as somebody who worked for several years as a interpreter-translator interviewing applicants for the status of political refugee I can attest that the vast majority of political refugees are nothing of the sort: they mostly are economic refugees and a few are social refugees, meaning that some personal circumstances made them decide that emigrating is better than staying. I have interviewed hundreds of refugees from the Soviet Union and all their stories of political repression were laughable, especially to a person like me who knew how (the very real) political repression in the Soviet Union actually worked. To those who would claim that, well, Communism inevitably results in economic crises I would just refer to the discussion above about what, if anything, we can conclude from the few examples of Marxist societies in history.

[Sidebar: Unlike 99.99% of the folks reading these words, I actually spent many years of my life as an well-known anti-Soviet activist. I traveled to various ports where Soviet ships were anchored to distribute anti-Soviet literature, I made a list of buildings where Soviet diplomats used to live to deliver anti-Soviet documents into their mailboxes, I helped send money to the families of Orthodox Christians jailed in Soviet prisons and labor camps, I arranged illegal contacts with Soviet citizens traveling abroad (truckers, artists, naval engineers, clergy, circuses – you name it). And there are things that I did which I still cannot publicly discuss. And while I never took part in any violent action, but I sure did everything I could in the domain of ideological warfare to bring down Communism in Russia.

As a result, the (now-defunct) KGB had me listed as a dangerous provocateur and posted my photo in the offices of specific Soviet offices abroad (like the Sovhispan in Spain) to warn them about me. And let me tell you the truth – most of those Soviet citizens who disliked the Soviet system never even tried to emigrate. The issue here is not hostage families or the “almighty KGB' but the fact that you love your country even when you hate the regime in power. Worse, most of those who did defect (and I personally helped quite a few of them) were mostly miserable once they came to the West, their illusions shattered in less than a year, and all they were left with was a ever-present nostalgia. For that reason, I personally always advised them not to emigrate. If they insisted, some did, I would help. But I always advised against it. Now, many years later, I still think that I did the right thing].

Finally, as to the Soviet “allies” in Eastern Europe their rejection of Communism is as logical and predictable as their embrace of Capitalism, NATO, the EU and the rest of it. For decades they were told that the West was living in peace and prosperity while they were living in oppression and misery, and that the evil Russians were the cause of all their unhappiness. The fact that, when given the chance, they then rushed to embrace the American Empire was as predictable as it was naïve. Remember, history is written by victors and only time will really tell us what legacy Communism and Capitalism will leave in Eastern Europe.

What we do know is that even though the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan resulted in a horrible and vicious war, and even though the people of Afghanistan also appeared to fully embrace the “kind patronage” of the USA and its allies, things are now already beginning to change and that the years of secular rule and even the Soviet occupation are now being re-visited by an increasing number of historians and Afghan commentators who now see it in a much more nuanced way than they would have in the past. Just a simple comparison of the daily life of Afghans before and after the Soviet invasion or a comparative list of what the Soviets and the Americans actually built in the country tells a very different story (even the Americans today are still using Soviet-built facilities, including the now infamous Bagram air base).

Careful for the logically-challenged here: I am not making an apology for the Soviet invasion here, all I am saying that the wisdom of “embracing the other side” cannot be judged in the immediate aftermath of a “switch” in allegiance – sometimes several decades or more are needed to make an balanced assessment of what really took place.

My point in all of the above is simple: the official imperial propaganda machine (aka “the media” and “the educational system”) has tried to present a simple narrative about Communism when, in reality, even a small dig a tad deeper than the superficial slogans immediately shows that things are much, much, more complicated than the crude and comprehensibly false narrative we are being presented with.

Communism – the future:

Here I will immediately lay my cards on the table and state that I believe, and even hope, that Communism is not dead and that, in fact, I think that it still have a long and most interesting future. Here are a few reasons why.

First, the Communist ideology, as such, has never been comprehensibly defeated, if only because no other ideology comparable in scope and depth has emerged to challenge, nevermind refute or replace, Communism. For one thing, Communism is a *huge* intellectual building and just destroying some of its “top floors” hardly bring the entire edifice down. Let’s take a simple example: the Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Marx did not really invent it, he just popularized it. Some sources say that the original author was August Becker in 1844, Louis Blanc in 1851 or Étienne-Gabriel Morelly 1775. Other say that it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon but with slightly different version “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. This was the version accepted in the USSR as being applicable to the socialist transitional phase on the path to the full realization of Communism.

Then, of course, there is the famous New Testament quote by Saint Paul “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (Thess 3:10) and the words of Christ Himself about “to every man according to his ability” (Matt 25:15). This all gets very complex very fast, but yet this is hardly an excuse to ignore what is one of the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism. And there are many such key tenets because Communism cannot be understood, nevermind evaluated, outside a much broader discussion of Dialectical Materialism, itself an adaptation of Hegelian dialectics to historiography, all of which serve as a foundation for Historical Materialism which, in turn, offers a comprehensive critique of the nature of Capitalism. There is a reason why a good library on Marxism-Leninism could easily include a full floor dedicated solely to the teaching and criticism of Marxism-Leninism: this body of teaching is huge, and incorporates history, sociology, economics, philosophy and many other disciplines.

Just Materialism itself includes a huge corpus of writings ranging from the Pre-Socratic philosophers to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” to, alas, Dawkins sophomoric writings. If we honestly look carefully inside Marxism-Leninism we will see that there are such philosophical pearls (or challenges, depending on how you look at them) on most levels of the Marxist-Leninist building. Before we can declare that “Communism is dead” we have to deal with every “floor” of the Marxist-Leninist building and bring down at the very least all the crucial ones least we be (justly) accused of willful ignorance.

Second, the Communist ideology offers us the most comprehensive critique of the globalist-capitalist society we live in today. Considering that by now only the most deliberately blind person could still continue to deny that our society is undergoing a deep crisis, possibly leading to what is often referred to as “TEOTWAWKI” (The end of the world as we know it) I would question the wisdom of declaring Communism dead and forgetting about it. After all, informing ourselves about the Communist critique of Capitalism does not imply the adoption of the Communist solutions to the ills of Capitalism any more than pay attention to a doctor’s diagnosis implies a consent to one single course of treatment. And yet what our society has done is to completely reject the diagnosis on the basis that the treatment has failed in several cases. How stupid is that?

Third, the corpus of Communist and Marxist-Leninist teachings is not only immense, it is also very diverse. Leninism itself is, by the way, a further development of Marxist ideas. It would be simply illogical to only focus on the founding fathers of this ideology and ignore or, worse, dismiss their modern followers. Let’s take a simple example: religion.

It is a well-known fact that Marx declared that “r eligion is the opium of the people”. And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic run amok against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power. For decades rabid atheism was a cornerstone of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. And yet, if you look at the various Marxist regimes in Latin America (including Cuba and Venezuela) you rapidly see that they replaced that rabid atheism with an endorsement of a specific type of Christianity one could loosely describe as “Liberation Theology”. Now, for a hardcore Orthodox traditionalist like myself, Liberation Theology is not exactly my cup of tea (full disclosure: politically, I would describe myself as an “People’s Monarchist” (народный монархист) in the tradition of Lev Tikhomirov, Feodor Dostoevsky, Ivan Solonevich and Ivan Ilyin).

ORDER IT NOW

But the point here are not the inherent qualities of the Liberation Theology (or lack thereof) but the fact that Latin American Marxists have clearly ditched atheism. And whether they did that out of a deep sense of spiritual rebirth and renewal or out of cynical power politics consideratons is irrelevant: even if they had to cave under pressure, they still did something which their predecessors would never have done under any circumstances. So now instead of denouncing religion as reactionary, we have leaders like Hugo Chavez declaring that “Jesus Christ was an authentic Communist, anti-imperialist and enemy of the oligarchy”. Sincere? Possibly. Important? Most definitely. I submit that if such a central, crucial, tenet as militant atheism could be dropped by modern Marxists they are probably willing to drop any other of its part they would conclude are wrong (for whatever reason). To conflate 21st century Communists with their 19th century predecessors is unforgivably stupid and ignorant.

Fourth, modern Communism comes in many original and even surprising flavors. One of the most interesting one would be the in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, modern Iran is hardly a copy of the old German Democratic Republic. Ramin Mazaheri, the Paris correspondent for Press TV put it best when he wrote “Europe came to socialism through industrialization, theory and war, but Iran came to socialism through its religious and moral beliefs”. And make no mistake, when Mazaheri compliments Iran on its “socialist” achievements, he does not oppose the notion of socialism to the one of communism (Mazaheri is a proud and self-avowed Communist) nor does he refer to the “caviar Socialism” of the French Left. Instead he refers to “socialism” as a set of underlying values and principles common the the Marxist and Islamic worldviews. It is often forgotten that one of the main ideologues of the Iranian Revolution, Ali Shariati, was clearly influenced by Socialist and even Marxist ideas.

Iran, by the way, is not unique in the Muslim world. For example, the writings of Sayyid Qutb 1906-1966 contain plenty of ideas which one could describe as Marxist. I would even argue that Islam, Christianity and Confucianism all include strong elements of both universalism and collectivism which are typically associated with Marxist idea, especially in contrast to the kind of bloated hyper-individualism underlying the Capitalist worldview (which I personally call “the worldview of me, myself and I”). Sure, the modern doxa wants to label all forms of Islam as retrograde, medieval and otherwise reactionary, but in truth it would be far more fair to describe Islam as revolutionary, social and progressive. But let’s not confuse the nonsense spewed by the Zionist propaganda machine at those poor folks still paying attention to it with reality, shall we? Surely we can agree that the worst possible way to try to learn anything about Islam would be to pay attention to the US Ziomedia!

Communism – the challenge:

It is not really surprising that the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time, might be strongly inclined to adopt the notion of having won the Cold War and/or having defeated Communism. In a country where adult and presumably educated people can declare with a serious face that Obama is a Socialist (or even a Communist) such nonsense will very rarely be challenged. This is a reflection of the poor state of education of a nation which fancies itself as “indispensable”, but which has no real interest in understanding the rest of the world, never mind its history.

We can now make fun of the punitively dumb Commies, their “scientific Communism” and their university chairs of Marxism and Leninism, but it remains undeniable that in order to understand the Communist propaganda you needed to have a minimal level of education and that this propaganda exposes you to topics which are now practically dead in western societies (such as philosophy or history). When I see the kind of nonsense nowadays which passes for political science or philosophy I can only conclude that the once proud western world now lacks the basic level of education needed to understand, nevermind refute, Marxist ideologues. And that is a crying shame because I also believe that Marxism and Communism are inherently both very attractive and very toxic ideologies which must be challenged and refuted.

[Sidebar: What I personally think about Marxism is not really the topic today, so I will limit myself to saying that like all utopian ideologies, Marxism promises a future which cannot ever happen. True, this is hardly a sin unique to Marxism. Amongst modern ideologues Hitler should be commended for his relative modesty – he “only” promised a 1000 year long Reich. In contrast Francis Fukuyama promised a communism-like “end of history”. This is all par for the course coming from atheists who are trying to simultaneously reject God while (unsuccessfully) imitating Him: a utopian society is what Satan offered to Christ during the temptation of Christ in the desert (Matt 4:1-11) and also the reason why some Jews rejected Him for offering them a spiritual kingdom rather than then worldly kingdom they were hoping for. Right there there is plenty enough, at least for me, to reject this and any other ideology promising some kind of “heaven on earth”. In my opinion all utopian ideologies are inherently and by definition Satanic].

Can the huge corpus of the Marxist/Communist ideological building be convincingly refuted? I think that it can and, assuming mankind does not destroy itself in the near future, that it eventually will. But that will require an effort of a completely different nature and magnitude then the collection of primitive slogans which are currently hurled at Marxism today. In fact, I also believe that Orthodox Christianity already has refuted Marxism by preemption, many centuries before the birth of Karl Marx, by denouncing all its underlying assumptions in the Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Lives of the Saints, its liturgical texts and icons, but in our post-Chrstian society that refutation is accessible only to the tiny minority of those who are exposed to it and who are educated enough to understand it (a good example of such a person would be Fedor Dostoevskii).

For the foreseeable future Communism has a very bright and long future, especially with the ongoing collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire and the subsequent debate on the causes of this collapse. Living in the United States one might be forgiven for not seeing much of a future for Communism, but from Southeast Asia to the Indian subcontinent and from Africa to Latin America the ideals, values and arguments of Communism continue to have an immense appeal for millions of people. When Donald Trump, during his recent UN speech, presumed to have the authority to lecture the world on Socialism he really only showed that ignorance is no impediment to arrogance and that they really usually go hand in hand. If his intention was to speak to the domestic audience, then he probably made a few folks feel good about themselves and the political system they live in. If he truly was addressing a foreign audience, then the only thing he achieved was to reinforce the worst anti-American clichés.

For the time being, the spectre of Communism will continue to haunt much of our planet, especially in those parts were education and poverty are high. In the basically illiterate but wealthy world Communism will remain pretty much as it is today: universally ignored and therefore unknown. But when the grand edifice of Capitalism finally comes tumbling down and its victims rediscover the difference between propaganda and education – then a credible modern challenge to the Communist ideology will possibly arise. But for the time being and the foreseeable future Communism will remain not only alive, but also quite undefeated.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Communism, Marxism, Soviet Union 
Hide 233 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.
     
    But that's nothing like refutation of marxism (which, after all, is only a tool-set for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena from a certain angle). That's just you declaring yourself anti-marxist.
    , @yeah
    "No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient."

    Now that is what is called a nice knock-down argument! I don't like "x", I condemn it, case closed. No facts, logic or reasoning needed.

    The Saker is neither defending communism here, nor touting its glories. With significant reasoning he is arguing that the urge towards communism has in common with most religions a desire for human equality and mitigation of the horrors of poverty. As to whether communism can deliver that objective is a different matter. But if the suffering caused by globalized capitalism of the crony and corrupt kind continues - as it is in our times - expect some more thrusts in the direction of socialism or communism.

    Nor is there any evidence to show that everything touched by communism turns to shit. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism. The USSR, for all its warts and troubles, cannot be dismissed as a case of shit. Communism may not be compatible with human nature, but that does not knock down its appeal in certain moments of human history. Communism will likely never succeed, for reasons that need some serious thinking and not an ignorant dismissal if we are to understand politics, history, and such.
    , @anon
    You haven't understood a thing.
    , @animalogic
    Thus demonstrating that you failed to comprehend ANYTHING in the Saker's article, Anatoly. A nuanced article, that asks no more than you move beyond cliches etc to actually think , but what can you give us ? It's "Shit"....
    , @jacques sheete

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.
     
    I'd like to know what doesn't turn to shit eventually.

    You can call it the JSist theory of everything. And in the 'Merkin vernacular, in the end ain't nobody knows JS.

    Ain't dat de sheetz?

    The End.

    , @Wally
    "No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient."

    Well said. The landscape of history is littered with example after example.

    There has never been a more historically unsuccessful system of governance.

    Anatoly, we finally agree on something.

    Cheers.

    , @FB

    '...No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient...'
     
    And there is the definitive answer from the Philistine camp of humanity...

    In fact, why even bother with education at all...indoctrination seems to work well enough...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2040301
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Giuseppe says:

    Worse, most of those who did defect (and I personally helped quite a few of them) were mostly miserable once they came to the West, their illusions shattered in less than a year, and all they were left with was a ever-present nostalgia. For that reason, I personally always advised them not to emigrate.

    So, how would you counsel me, a Westerner who loves his country but hates the empire that stole its place. I toy with the idea of emigrating to Russia to escape the tyranny of the national security state, perhaps to take advantage of the free land being offered to homesteaders in the East.

    Do you think my illusions would also be shattered in less than a year? Keep in mind that that I fully agree with you regarding…

    …the ongoing collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    An interesting concept - moving to Russia. Let me share a few thoughts about it, my pros and cons list.

    To begin with, the current Russia is in predatory capitalism, not in socialism. But the Russian Orthodox Christianity is also more humane than the Western quasi-Christianity, aka the lukewarm opium for the masses. This means that the ordinary Russian people are much more Christian and humane than ordinary Western people: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/l-reichard-white/the-banksters-vs-my-babushka/. Move to Russia for its Christianity, not for its (past) communism.

    Furthermore, the average Russian is significantly better educated than the average Westerner, your mind would expand if you were exposed to the right intellectual micro-environment in Russia.

    Finally, since the West, that is the Anglo-Zionist empire, is slipping into totalitarianism and war, then things can only be better in Russia which has some clear ideas about its future (The New Silk Road). It is a bit like moving from a diseased society into a still healthy one.

    On the opposite side, against moving to Russia are:
    1) do you know the language
    2) how do you cope with foreign cultures
    3) are you expectations too high
    4) how do you cope with disappointments.

    I have also been thinking of leaving the sick West, but going to the more risky South America instead of Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. peterAUS says:

    You know what I think, Saker?
    I don’t buy for a milisecond that you really believe in most, almost all actually, what you wrote here.

    I have to give it to you.
    You have skills…… for the game here.
    Smart…

    Just be careful not to overdo it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic run amok against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power.

    I don’t think they did that. The alternative theory is that Russian peasants hated the priests — not Orthodox Christianity as such, but the priests and the official church, essential part of the ruling class — so much that they happily killed a whole bunch of ‘blood-sucking priests’. Personally, I find this theory more plausible.

    Now, Khrushchev, on the other hand, really did hit the church hard. Still, I don’t think it was particularly genocidal or satanic. Just politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    '' I don’t think they did that.''

    But they did....do more learning before you think. Lenin and Trotsky were bloody psychopaths.

    British reports in 1919 from British officials on the ground

    https://www.scribd.com/document/118630594/Overman-Report-AKA-Bolshevik-Propaganda-Hearings


    US Senate Hearings
    1919
    https://www.archive.org/stream/collectionofrepo00greaiala/collectionofrepo00greaiala_djvu.txt

    Go down to testimony of Dr. George Simons
    , @Thirdeye
    The Russian Orthodox hierarchy was part of a church-state combine resembling that of the Catholic hierarchy and the Feudal aristocracies of western Europe during Medieval times. It taught that the Tsar's place in Holy Russia was ordained, and that notion had considerable authority among Russian peasants. The Bolsheviks gained allies among national minorities who chafed under that ideology and there was considerable brutality directed against Russian peasants who embraced it. Communist atheism lasted only until late 1941 when Stalin, who had been trained as an Orthodox priest, revived Holy Russia as a national ideology. Best indications are that his re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity was genuine.
    , @Bro Methylene
    It is frightening to realize there are people like you around, eager to resume the mass slaughter of Christians. A bloody persecution can erupt at any minute.

    It is also discouraging to realize there are many people like you who - people who can be whipped into a murderous frenzy by propaganda, mostly from television.

    Finally, if you actually believe that Stalin didn't persecute and kill Christians, especially Orthodox and Catholic priests, you will believe anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    But that’s nothing like refutation of marxism (which, after all, is only a tool-set for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena from a certain angle). That’s just you declaring yourself anti-marxist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.L.Seagull
    Indeed, Mao Cheng Ji, there seem to be a lot of people who think saying "XYZ sucks" automatically makes it true... this must be some instant gratification culture at work.
    , @Quartermaster
    You clearly have no idea what the term ""Observe" means. It means Marxism is self refuting because of its results. We see the same thing in so called mixed economies, which are also a mess and will eventually collapse, and for the same reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. All “isms” are theoretically attractive, but no society can exist long without a valuing virtue.

    Neither can any economy can use fiat money without a commitment to technological progress (ie improved physical landscape as opposed to racketeering).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @Mao Cheng Ji

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.
     
    But that's nothing like refutation of marxism (which, after all, is only a tool-set for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena from a certain angle). That's just you declaring yourself anti-marxist.

    Indeed, Mao Cheng Ji, there seem to be a lot of people who think saying “XYZ sucks” automatically makes it true… this must be some instant gratification culture at work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    It is called American Exceptionalism, American's words must be taken as given truth, only the American can invent and only the American can succeed, or the USA owns the world, therefore whatever USA does is necessary with the best intention including bombing and killing on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    A very wordy article. A couple of (logical) questions:

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
    2) Is the abolition of private property compatible with human nature?

    The answer to the second is no, which is why when attempted has to be imposed tyrannically. It is an utopia that disregards, even hates, the human person. It can no more be achieved than the current gender ideology espoused by totalitarian politicians. But it will be tried, and cause like communism, incalculable suffering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
     
    Yes, in general. In Soviet version through, especially, 1977 Constitution a "personal property" was legitimized but, of course, more important than just "private property" was the issue of "using it for exploitation"--that was never settled, despite the fact that by 1977 USSR already had a vast market of the real estate (rent, exchange and sale) and other forms of markets were being formed: from agricultural, to other. In some sense you make a very good point. On the other, what goes in the West under the title of "Marxism" has very little to do with Marxism per se. All that is still good ol' liberalism dressed into the "Marxian" clothes. The issue of alienation--be it property, profits, standard of living, not getting the girl one wants, or committing suicide because not getting the newest iPhone--all that is completely in human nature and Marxism gave a good analytical tool for viewing it. Using Marxist "solutions" (albeit Marx realistically never called for revolution but mostly for overcoming capitalism in evolutionary manner through developing productive forces and relations), of course, is not the answer. Per "totalitarian politicians"--get a pop-corn and observe American "democracy" turning into totalitarian state.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    1) All political isms possess the ability to eliminate private property. Some are more forthright about doing it.

    2) Abolition of private property is compatible with man's nature. Abolition is not compatible with human nature.

    3) There are oh so very few humans.
    , @shortchanged
    Has anyone heard of 'compulsory aquisition' , that is the forced sale of private property to a local or state goverment, in Australia and England and ?? Surely this is a form communism, but cannot be called that because conservative governments do this as well. Or is it that any colour of goverment will do whatever it wants no matter the reason.
    , @Greg Schofield
    The abolitionism of private property was postulated as a historical process and not a political decision; the point being made is that it had no long term future and was not an expression of our species being, but a weight upon our necks. Private property in the means of production, is not the same as various forms of personal property, there is an important distinction there which is often missed.

    Private property has almost completely been abolished by capital accumulation, not Marxism.

    Ironically, it has been financial capital that abolished it not to free humanity, but further enslave it. In such circumstances a revival of small capital; individually or collectively held private property in the means of production as solution to dissolving large financially based corporatism.

    Marxism if you actually try to understand it is all about human freedom, is anti-utopian and liberation, it is essentially a method of history that in understanding historical processes seeks to direct them to the benefit of humanity.

    What you are opposed to is the rise of managerialism, which Stalin was an excellent representative, for that is a social class of enslavers that were produced by the abolition of private property that began in the 1860s and took off in the 1880s.

    To truly oppose something, which the Saker is arguing, you must know the strongest parts, from my perspective anti-c0mmunism strongest parts are not intellectual, but thuggery under safe havens.

    Conservatives and right reaction are not the same thing there is common ground on some vital things, imperialism, corporatism and managerialism hurt us all. The Saker was not wasting his words, and there has been an intellectual shift towards Marxism (without a party organisation) of which I would count myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Darin says:

    OK, Mr. Saker: What is your solution of the economic calculation problem?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Soviet “version” of Communism was dead pretty much by the end of Stalin’s tenure economically (his famous “We need new theory”). Ideologically and culturally it died by the end of 1960s. At this stage what is at stake is merely a scale of the role the state should play in the life of the society, admittedly larger one in economic field and only certain one in ideological (and cultural) fields.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " Ideologically and culturally it died by the end of the sixties"

    Wrong, it was born dead and legions of idiots, who were/are trying to make themselves appear important ( this sounds rediculous, but it is right on the money) have been and are trying to breathe life into it's corpse for a hundred and fifty plus years.
    There is not, and never was any humanistic motivation harbored by the advocates of this idiocy.

    Academics with their inherent lunacy and inadequacy complexes are the main champions of this barbaric cult, as they see themselves as the honchos and ruling cadre' after the "Revolution" succeeds.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Anon
    A very wordy article. A couple of (logical) questions:

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
    2) Is the abolition of private property compatible with human nature?

    The answer to the second is no, which is why when attempted has to be imposed tyrannically. It is an utopia that disregards, even hates, the human person. It can no more be achieved than the current gender ideology espoused by totalitarian politicians. But it will be tried, and cause like communism, incalculable suffering.

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?

    Yes, in general. In Soviet version through, especially, 1977 Constitution a “personal property” was legitimized but, of course, more important than just “private property” was the issue of “using it for exploitation”–that was never settled, despite the fact that by 1977 USSR already had a vast market of the real estate (rent, exchange and sale) and other forms of markets were being formed: from agricultural, to other. In some sense you make a very good point. On the other, what goes in the West under the title of “Marxism” has very little to do with Marxism per se. All that is still good ol’ liberalism dressed into the “Marxian” clothes. The issue of alienation–be it property, profits, standard of living, not getting the girl one wants, or committing suicide because not getting the newest iPhone–all that is completely in human nature and Marxism gave a good analytical tool for viewing it. Using Marxist “solutions” (albeit Marx realistically never called for revolution but mostly for overcoming capitalism in evolutionary manner through developing productive forces and relations), of course, is not the answer. Per “totalitarian politicians”–get a pop-corn and observe American “democracy” turning into totalitarian state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country.

    Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members. What was it? A lot of former communists seem to have been able to make a complete turnabout and morph into greedy opportunists in post-communist countries.
    Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully. The communists theorized they could skip over stages of development and were in a hurry to do so, creating reigns of terror. This inevitably deformed the nature of this so-called ‘communism’. Would Marx approve of the ‘communism’ of the Pol Pot regime or DPRK? The term ‘Marxism-Leninism’ is used frequently. Perhaps it would be best to drop the second name and go back to the original writings to see what the actual intent was. There’s always a gap between the theory and the practice whether discussing communism or any other ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members
     
    Excellent point. Now, apart from actual traitors, which did exist, such as Yakovlev, among few of them, consider this fact: 1985 you have a society which is a very affluent one--yes, yes, USSR was extremely developed country and while uneven, most people lived in 1985 way better than they lived in 1965, not to mention 1939. In fact, the progress was starling. Moreover, consider this--you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care. So, what are you going to do? Soviet population also had a shitload of savings. This was a perfect mixture for a desire to live even better, the existing system, which still retained a lot of mobilizational element in it, was simply incapable to provide this. Just one example--the retail mafia was a real mafia and played a crucial role in creating deficits. As paradoxical as it sounds, but Soviet "communism" sentenced itself by creating a very good level of consumption and having the most educated country in the world. As Nobel Peace Prize nominee Johan Galtung noted: "This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world." It was a perfect storm in many respects which DID include the issue of actual treason among many other factors. But what is not understood in the West is the fact that Soviets at that time viewed desired "capitalism" through the prism of a very "communist" privileges they had. As for the Party and Komsomol--first serious businesses (cooperatives etc.) were promoted through regional Obkoms of Komsomol and often went under the title of Centers of NTTM (Scientific-Technical Creativity of Youth). Now, what is happening today in Russia is steady separation of the "communism" and of the Soviet State and this separation is legitimate. Soviet system not always was "communist" per se.
    , @animalogic
    "Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members."
    Let's assume that the above is correct ... regardless, this corruption at the heart business, treason etc reminds me of the 1% elites of tthatvother superpower....And -- coincidentally - ? that 1% corruption became turbo-charged in response to the collapse of the other superpower...
    , @Parfois
    "Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully."

    It is not hard to guess why communist parties have a go at political power when societies are sent to dire straits by capitalism, as the Russians did 100 years ago when the country was on its knees and could not feed the troops in the fronts and the masses in the rear.

    Honestly, how can it be otherwise? Communism is simply banned in capitalsit societies, either by hook or by crook. Even mild socialism is proscribed: see what happened to Greece and Italy after WWII. See what happened in Chile 1973, Portugal and Australia 1975.

    The only way left for socialism/communism to succeed is to storm the barricades and free humanity from the shackles of slavery to the money barons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Saker
    In 1920 Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises published a short treatise “The Impossibility of Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”. This proves communism is impossible because without free markets there is no way to allocate resources efficiently.
    This little essay prompted all kinds of attempts by communists to refute its thesis until the fall of USSR .
    The arrow should point not to communism but to pure free markets with minimal or no government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "but to pure free markets with minimal or no government."
    Pure, free markets...I had no idea that delusion of such depth still existed.
    Communism is a goal - possibly unattainable. However, socialism is a means -- a means not incompatible with markets.
    Pure, free markets are more fantastic than communism itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. yeah says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    “No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.”

    Now that is what is called a nice knock-down argument! I don’t like “x”, I condemn it, case closed. No facts, logic or reasoning needed.

    The Saker is neither defending communism here, nor touting its glories. With significant reasoning he is arguing that the urge towards communism has in common with most religions a desire for human equality and mitigation of the horrors of poverty. As to whether communism can deliver that objective is a different matter. But if the suffering caused by globalized capitalism of the crony and corrupt kind continues – as it is in our times – expect some more thrusts in the direction of socialism or communism.

    Nor is there any evidence to show that everything touched by communism turns to shit. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism. The USSR, for all its warts and troubles, cannot be dismissed as a case of shit. Communism may not be compatible with human nature, but that does not knock down its appeal in certain moments of human history. Communism will likely never succeed, for reasons that need some serious thinking and not an ignorant dismissal if we are to understand politics, history, and such.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Well said, yeah.
    , @Wally
    "China would not be what it is today without its history of communism"

    Certainly true, but that doesn't speak well for communism.

    After all, 'what China is today' is an utter rejection of their communist history.
    , @Quartermaster
    Red China is where it is because of the extent of its denial of Marxist orthodoxy. The government is now a garden variety Fascist regime. It will allow the gathering of wealth only so long as the gatherer toes the regime's line, just as was the case in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Issac says:

    Communism is the evisceration of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. It is alive and well. The only thing that’s dead is the myth that Communism is a worker’s movement or that it was meant to liberate anyone from servitude. Their goal is a borderless world with a powerless underclass to be ruled by racially superlative academics and political technocrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Bravo! Brilliant synopsis in just a few words.

    And a point always omitted or missed is the "German" worship of academics which has permeated all of US society, leading the viewpoint of them, academics, being God-like and infallible.

    In Italy a common greeting amongst friends is a jovial "Bob Giorno Dottore", or "Bon Giorno Professore", utterances which would never occur in Germany as they would constitute a desecretion of these "Hallowed" titles.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @anonymous

    All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country.
     
    Isn't it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members. What was it? A lot of former communists seem to have been able to make a complete turnabout and morph into greedy opportunists in post-communist countries.
    Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully. The communists theorized they could skip over stages of development and were in a hurry to do so, creating reigns of terror. This inevitably deformed the nature of this so-called 'communism'. Would Marx approve of the 'communism' of the Pol Pot regime or DPRK? The term 'Marxism-Leninism' is used frequently. Perhaps it would be best to drop the second name and go back to the original writings to see what the actual intent was. There's always a gap between the theory and the practice whether discussing communism or any other ideology.

    Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members

    Excellent point. Now, apart from actual traitors, which did exist, such as Yakovlev, among few of them, consider this fact: 1985 you have a society which is a very affluent one–yes, yes, USSR was extremely developed country and while uneven, most people lived in 1985 way better than they lived in 1965, not to mention 1939. In fact, the progress was starling. Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care. So, what are you going to do? Soviet population also had a shitload of savings. This was a perfect mixture for a desire to live even better, the existing system, which still retained a lot of mobilizational element in it, was simply incapable to provide this. Just one example–the retail mafia was a real mafia and played a crucial role in creating deficits. As paradoxical as it sounds, but Soviet “communism” sentenced itself by creating a very good level of consumption and having the most educated country in the world. As Nobel Peace Prize nominee Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.” It was a perfect storm in many respects which DID include the issue of actual treason among many other factors. But what is not understood in the West is the fact that Soviets at that time viewed desired “capitalism” through the prism of a very “communist” privileges they had. As for the Party and Komsomol–first serious businesses (cooperatives etc.) were promoted through regional Obkoms of Komsomol and often went under the title of Centers of NTTM (Scientific-Technical Creativity of Youth). Now, what is happening today in Russia is steady separation of the “communism” and of the Soviet State and this separation is legitimate. Soviet system not always was “communist” per se.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    I had exactly same thought about high level of education and the rest. We should not forget that we are dealing with human nature which is extremely faulty and considering numbers of us it is mind boggling how to achieve sort of decent conditions for preferably all. I find it disturbing that in 21st century there is so many and increasing numbers of poor and needy. Regarding communism end in ussr after Stalin death. I think dialectic dropped from equation. And lack of outstanding personalities who could make further development in theory which would then get translated into practise was obvious. You mentioned Suslov not once. This is what we had. We calcified and pressure was growing. Anyway, I am strong believer in far more communal future and if anything in my opinion capitalism is utopia. How cannot be utopia anythi g that states that personal greed will be good for society as a whole, trickle down and that limited planet can be used for unlimited growth. Here we come to space exploration and development and considering deep capitalism flaws I see it is as unlikely we can do it under current system. It is do or die for humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism.

    This is a meaningless statement.

    First, we have no idea whether that would be the case. Second, it is a truism. Of course it wouldn’t be what it is – it would be a fantasy, counterfactual, alternative history. Third, had the Nationalists won the civil war and EVERYTHING else remained the same in 1949, the ENTIRE history of all nations from 1949-2017 would still have played out completely differently.

    China might be in 10 times better shape and the oceans might all be made of lemonade were it not for its history of communism.

    And also, you provide no facts, logic, or reasoning. Good Job.

    No, I’ll agree with Anatoly Karlin’s original statement. Lighten up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    '' China would not be what it is today without its history of communism''

    Correction.,,,...China wouldnt be what it is today if Britain hadn't taken over Hong Kong 160 some years ago (they turned it over in 1997. )
    Hong Kong because of what the Brits set up for trade and commerce became the financial heart of China.
    Although it is not officially 'part of' China but a stand alone territory with its own governance it is where China's business is done.
    It is also where the mainland coolie Chinese try to get into because it has advanced benefits like medical care, some welfare benefits...things they don't have in mainland China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. If the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that Communism “does not work” then I suppose that the collapse of the Anglo/Zio Empire will prove that Capitalism does not work. Maybe then we will accept that all national economies are mixed economies with private financing of private needs and public financing of public needs. How we do the mixing will lean left or right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silent_bob
    "If the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that Communism “does not work” then I suppose that the collapse of the Anglo/Zio Empire will prove that Capitalism does not work." - the difference is that regardless of empire fate, capitalism is around and it works, while in Soviet Union it collapsed, regardless of this bunch of monstrous lies presented in the piece that does not deserve being called an article.

    The tendency to deliberately mix up imperialism with economic system is a Marxist-Leninist concrete-head (as we called dumb Party officials here during Soviet times) practice designed for idiotic propaganda: that capitalism is you know, evel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Andrei Martyanov

    Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members
     
    Excellent point. Now, apart from actual traitors, which did exist, such as Yakovlev, among few of them, consider this fact: 1985 you have a society which is a very affluent one--yes, yes, USSR was extremely developed country and while uneven, most people lived in 1985 way better than they lived in 1965, not to mention 1939. In fact, the progress was starling. Moreover, consider this--you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care. So, what are you going to do? Soviet population also had a shitload of savings. This was a perfect mixture for a desire to live even better, the existing system, which still retained a lot of mobilizational element in it, was simply incapable to provide this. Just one example--the retail mafia was a real mafia and played a crucial role in creating deficits. As paradoxical as it sounds, but Soviet "communism" sentenced itself by creating a very good level of consumption and having the most educated country in the world. As Nobel Peace Prize nominee Johan Galtung noted: "This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world." It was a perfect storm in many respects which DID include the issue of actual treason among many other factors. But what is not understood in the West is the fact that Soviets at that time viewed desired "capitalism" through the prism of a very "communist" privileges they had. As for the Party and Komsomol--first serious businesses (cooperatives etc.) were promoted through regional Obkoms of Komsomol and often went under the title of Centers of NTTM (Scientific-Technical Creativity of Youth). Now, what is happening today in Russia is steady separation of the "communism" and of the Soviet State and this separation is legitimate. Soviet system not always was "communist" per se.

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.

    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with… cars, of all things.

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”

    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet “engineers” would be “technicians” and most Soviet “doctors” would be “nurses” or “medical orderlies” in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Thank you for saying something. This 35 million-strong intelligentsia struck me as outrageous. I've been lucky to have been given one of the best educations in the United States. I've never been under the impression that intelligentsia included community-college graduates ANYWHERE. I've always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc. But, whatever. We aren't that into classifying everything, I guess.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!
     
    Tsk. We can endlessly argue about what it was and what it wasn't, and compare it to what it is now, but empirical evidence demonstrates that 35 years after, a large majority of people in post-communist countries - 75% or so - claim, consistently, that the communist system was better.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would've voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    It doesn't mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system. And, unlike Westerners, they know that there is an alternative.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet “engineers” would be “technicians” and most Soviet “doctors” would be “nurses” or “medical orderlies” in the West.
     
    Anatoly, I already answered you in your blog, I will repeat--do not express opinion on things, you have no clue about.
    , @Authenticjazzman
    Nobody suffering from a grave illness and in their right mind, would have during the reign of the communists, chosen to be treated by Russian or Cuban educated "doctors", if they had other choices.

    I was married to a German MD, surgeon, late seventies, early eighties, and she had a east-German trained MD as a co-worker : He was clueless.

    And as far as "Cars" go : the Russians had all of the resources for a complete automobile industry, they, the honchos, however were insanely paranoid regarding a "mobile" citizenry, with visions of pitchforks and torches flashing through their demented minds and they purposely denied their subjects the possibility of mobility, of car ownership.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    , @FKA Max
    "Quantity has a quality all its own" - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin#Quantity_is_quality seems to generally be the rallying cry and leitmotif of Communism.

    The is an interesting recent article from the NY Times:


    Fraud Scandals Sap China’s Dream of Becoming a Science Superpower

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-fraud-scandals.html

    [As in the West, career advancement can often seem to be based more on the quantity of research papers published rather than the quality. However, in China, scientists there say, this obsession with numerical goal posts can reach extremes. Compounding the problem, they say, is the fact that Chinese universities and research institutes suffer from a lack of oversight, and mete out weak punishments for those who are caught cheating. ]
    [...]
    [Some scientists say China’s overemphasis on numerical measures of success can be seen in its almost single-minded focus on the Science Citation Index, or S.C.I. This index is used to assign an “impact factor” score to scientific journals, which ranks their importance in part by counting how many times their articles are cited in other papers.]
    [...]
    [“Everything revolves around the S.C.I.,” said Chen Li, a professor in the medical school at Fudan University in Shanghai. He and other scientists compared Chinese academia’s obsession with this numerical index to the government’s fixation on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success.]
     

    - http://www.unz.com/suggestion/suggestion-thread-for-forum-articles/#comment-2044582 (Comment is still in moderation)

    This is why I am also skeptical, in particular, of IQ test scores/results coming out of China:

    https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/average.jpg

    Source: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    This is also interesting in this context:

    So why are we so into algebra? Baker points out that many of today’s math requirements are relics of the Cold War. In 1950, only 25 percent of students in the U.S. were taking algebra. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was churning out mathematicians, partially because compared to lab sciences, teaching math is cheap–pen and paper are the only required materials. And so, seeing the influx of young mathematicians in Russia, Congress passed 1958′s National Defense Education Act, re-upping the American math curriculum requirements - http://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1914253

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    You haven’t understood a thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Neo-Fascism is the only answer.

    It is fusion of nationalism, humanism, traditionalism, modernism, capitalism, and socialism.

    Only Neo-Fascism can balance all the -isms. Without the neo-fascist hand to play coach and referee, the various -isms will just fight each other like stupid children.

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Darin

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.
     
    So neo fascism is fascism without all things that make fascism fascist? Works for me.
    , @5371
    Nah, we need old-school fascism, the original and best.
    , @Parfois
    "Neo-fascism is the only answer"

    Thank you for your honesty and candour, straight from the horse's mouth.

    All one needs to attach respectability to fascism (a theory of corporate political power) is to append the prefix Neo. Fascism knows many disguises (e.g. "national socialism", "capitalist democracy") to fool the ignorant sheeple such as yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. There seem to be two different things: small-c communism and cap-C Communism. When FDR famously said, “True communism is divine,” he was talking about the small-c thing. Presumably FDR meant that everyone was happy and everyone shared and no one exploited anyone. Small-c communism. Not today’s subject.

    Today we discuss cap-C Communism, like what they have in China. Some say no, that China has changed and it is now capitalism there … or maybe it’s “state capitalism” or “a uniquely Chinese form of capitalism.” That’s all BS because cap-C Communism means government run by the Communist Party. That’s why the C is capitalized!

    Cap-C Communism, however, does have certain characteristics: it is government of, by and for members of the Communist Party. It is autocratic. It is never democratic. It may present itself under the name of a Republic (as in the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”), but it has none of the checks and balances that we usually associate with the word ‘Republic’. Even when it morphs into something like capitalism, it has nothing to do with the kind of economy or state envisaged by Adam Smith or any of the classical liberals, such as J. S. Mill. And, by the way, contrary to promises made by such as the Mises Institute, regardless of whether China is considered to be ‘good’ now that it has become a member in good standing in the WTO, it has not and probably will never gradually develop into a democratic nation that allows its citizens to exercise civil liberties. That just doesn’t happen according to some law of political economics that capitalism = civil liberty.

    Can you think of another such government from the 20th Century? Check out the Third Reich: one-party, autocratic, no civil liberty, no trial by jury, lawyers jailed for practicing law as we would understand it, economy dominated by large transnational corporations, including branches of IBM and GM – all of them integrated into the tightly one-party controlled state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.

    Thank you for saying something. This 35 million-strong intelligentsia struck me as outrageous. I’ve been lucky to have been given one of the best educations in the United States. I’ve never been under the impression that intelligentsia included community-college graduates ANYWHERE. I’ve always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc. But, whatever. We aren’t that into classifying everything, I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "I’ve always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc."
     
    Maybe in the old days .... the new breed of college-professor-types are mind-numbed robots programmed to indoctrinate successive waves of SJWs. Authors nowadays are largely Ghost-writer-supported darlings like HRC or Bill O'Reilly. Researchers have learned to write research that gets money, which is why we have the religion of AGW. Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Yee says:

    I heard that American Indian Reservations are pretty communism — the means of production owned by every member, profit from it shared by every member. If it’s ture, then it sure is communism.

    If the US was run in the Indian Reservations way, with the most lucrative assets — banks, military industry, oil fields, owned by the people, then they probably wouldn’t have a debt problem. And no need to bomb the Iraqis and Libyans too, since profit from selling bombs don’t go to private pockets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " The means of production owned by every member, profit from it shared by every member"

    Yeah this is how the gambling casinos, the most lukrative businesses owned and operated by the tribes work.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Karl Marx famously said they would hang the last capitalist with the rope he sold them; he was not far off the mark.

    Communism isn’t dead, it is merely dormant. It has been an appealing and enduring system for the ages, as it promises something for essentially nothing other than ordinary effort. That appeals to at least half the bell curve even in the best of times, but to the point about the rope, by driving the mass of the Western populations into penury, the elites have sowed the seeds that may very well re-awake Communism from nearly thirty years of mouldering sleep.

    Yeah, people had it tough in the east bloc in the 70s and 80s, but I remember my first trip to Portugal in the 80s, and it felt like I had been transported back 30 years in time. Germany, by contrast, only felt twenty years behind the US.

    I think I sensed the East Bloc was on its last legs when in 1985 I saw a large ad on the side of a building in Budapest featuring J.R. Ewing. I also heard Dallas had hit the air in Romania, ostensibly to show the people a fine example of the decadent West, though it was more likely owing to Ceacescu being a big fanboy (Hagman even flew there to collect royalties for his likeness on adverts there).

    Here’s a blast from the socialist past, showing people being people; even behind the Iron Curtain, they had some use for advertising:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. renfro says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic run amok against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power.
     
    I don't think they did that. The alternative theory is that Russian peasants hated the priests -- not Orthodox Christianity as such, but the priests and the official church, essential part of the ruling class -- so much that they happily killed a whole bunch of 'blood-sucking priests'. Personally, I find this theory more plausible.

    Now, Khrushchev, on the other hand, really did hit the church hard. Still, I don't think it was particularly genocidal or satanic. Just politics.

    ” I don’t think they did that.”

    But they did….do more learning before you think. Lenin and Trotsky were bloody psychopaths.

    British reports in 1919 from British officials on the ground

    https://www.scribd.com/document/118630594/Overman-Report-AKA-Bolshevik-Propaganda-Hearings

    US Senate Hearings
    1919

    https://www.archive.org/stream/collectionofrepo00greaiala/collectionofrepo00greaiala_djvu.txt

    Go down to testimony of Dr. George Simons

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Donald Troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. renfro says:
    @Johnny Rico

    China would not be what it is today without its history of communism.
     
    This is a meaningless statement.

    First, we have no idea whether that would be the case. Second, it is a truism. Of course it wouldn't be what it is - it would be a fantasy, counterfactual, alternative history. Third, had the Nationalists won the civil war and EVERYTHING else remained the same in 1949, the ENTIRE history of all nations from 1949-2017 would still have played out completely differently.

    China might be in 10 times better shape and the oceans might all be made of lemonade were it not for its history of communism.

    And also, you provide no facts, logic, or reasoning. Good Job.

    No, I'll agree with Anatoly Karlin's original statement. Lighten up.

    ” China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Correction.,,,…China wouldnt be what it is today if Britain hadn’t taken over Hong Kong 160 some years ago (they turned it over in 1997. )
    Hong Kong because of what the Brits set up for trade and commerce became the financial heart of China.
    Although it is not officially ‘part of’ China but a stand alone territory with its own governance it is where China’s business is done.
    It is also where the mainland coolie Chinese try to get into because it has advanced benefits like medical care, some welfare benefits…things they don’t have in mainland China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @britishbrainsize1325cc
    A race whose brains are more than a third smaller cannot teach anything to a race whose brains are a more than a third larger, the inferior degenerate pleasure loving british race didnt teach the chinese anything,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Tsk. We can endlessly argue about what it was and what it wasn’t, and compare it to what it is now, but empirical evidence demonstrates that 35 years after, a large majority of people in post-communist countries – 75% or so – claim, consistently, that the communist system was better.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would’ve voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    It doesn’t mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system. And, unlike Westerners, they know that there is an alternative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Romania? Seriously?

    I have Albanian friends who live in Boston. They still have family and property in Albania. Every year they go back for extended visits.

    I have a dozen Russian friends who grew up in Moscow. I have an Estonian friend. I have a good Moldovan friend.

    I've known literally hundreds of Chinese from the mainland.

    I wouldn't take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.

    How do they poll the people that died?

    , @Johnny Rico
    Shalamov in Kolyma Tales talks about selective memory as a survival mechanism. Humans tend to have stronger memories of the good.

    I'm probably misremembering what he said and misquoting him or something like that :)
    , @Tyrion

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would’ve voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.
     
    You did not see such a survey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Thirdeye says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic run amok against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power.
     
    I don't think they did that. The alternative theory is that Russian peasants hated the priests -- not Orthodox Christianity as such, but the priests and the official church, essential part of the ruling class -- so much that they happily killed a whole bunch of 'blood-sucking priests'. Personally, I find this theory more plausible.

    Now, Khrushchev, on the other hand, really did hit the church hard. Still, I don't think it was particularly genocidal or satanic. Just politics.

    The Russian Orthodox hierarchy was part of a church-state combine resembling that of the Catholic hierarchy and the Feudal aristocracies of western Europe during Medieval times. It taught that the Tsar’s place in Holy Russia was ordained, and that notion had considerable authority among Russian peasants. The Bolsheviks gained allies among national minorities who chafed under that ideology and there was considerable brutality directed against Russian peasants who embraced it. Communist atheism lasted only until late 1941 when Stalin, who had been trained as an Orthodox priest, revived Holy Russia as a national ideology. Best indications are that his re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity was genuine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tomasrose
    " Communist atheism lasted only until late 1941 when Stalin, who had been trained as an Orthodox priest, revived Holy Russia as a national ideology. Best indications are that his re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity was genuine."
    Ridiculous. Stalin temporarily embraced Orthodoxy for the purpose of rousing the populace against the German assault. The other appeals to patriotism were not working.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Thirdeye says:

    Marx had good insights on the contradictions of liberal capitalism that would force profound changes. He was correct that they would force the rise of a post-liberal epoch. He went off the rails on just what the forms of social organization in the post-liberal epoch would be, and the process that would lead to liberal capitalism’s displacement. Interestingly, the societies that embraced Communist ideology were never fully liberal to begin with, tending to have more communitarian traditions. The moves to eradicate spiritual traditions in the Soviet Union and China were, ironically, moves against social ethos that made a foundation for Communist social organization. The experiments with liberal economics in the Soviet Union and China follow logically from the moves against traditional ethos by the ruling hierarchies in those countries. But those same two societies are still able to confront the contradictions of liberal capitalism without the baggage of liberal ideology that renders the West’s efforts to mitigate them so ineffective.

    In the whole discussion of paths of economic and social development, we tend to overlook the successful quantum leap from feudalism to a unique form of post-liberal capitalism executed by Imperial Japan. It was successful because it was a national project in which everyone was made to feel they were a stakeholder, and large enterprises were directed to develop in a manner that supported that national project. Social welfare was integrated into the economic model rather than being added as an afterthought. Of course it happened in a society where individualism was a dirty word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Mao Cheng Ji

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!
     
    Tsk. We can endlessly argue about what it was and what it wasn't, and compare it to what it is now, but empirical evidence demonstrates that 35 years after, a large majority of people in post-communist countries - 75% or so - claim, consistently, that the communist system was better.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would've voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    It doesn't mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system. And, unlike Westerners, they know that there is an alternative.

    Romania? Seriously?

    I have Albanian friends who live in Boston. They still have family and property in Albania. Every year they go back for extended visits.

    I have a dozen Russian friends who grew up in Moscow. I have an Estonian friend. I have a good Moldovan friend.

    I’ve known literally hundreds of Chinese from the mainland.

    I wouldn’t take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.

    How do they poll the people that died?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I wouldn’t take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.
     
    Funny comment, I'll give you that. "Efficacy" is in the eye of the beholder, you know. Besides, I specifically clarified, in the comment you're responding to: "It doesn’t mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system.". That's ~75% of people living in Romania, Hungary, and similar places (unlike you friends living in Boston). And I'll admit I'm not familiar with the situation specifically in Albania.

    This is an inconvenient fact for the anti-communists of the world, and I'm aware of the typical responses. I'm suggesting that you might want to open your mind a little bit, and consider the possibility that your friends and acquaintances in Boston might not be a representative sampling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Andrei Martyanov
    Soviet "version" of Communism was dead pretty much by the end of Stalin's tenure economically (his famous "We need new theory"). Ideologically and culturally it died by the end of 1960s. At this stage what is at stake is merely a scale of the role the state should play in the life of the society, admittedly larger one in economic field and only certain one in ideological (and cultural) fields.

    ” Ideologically and culturally it died by the end of the sixties”

    Wrong, it was born dead and legions of idiots, who were/are trying to make themselves appear important ( this sounds rediculous, but it is right on the money) have been and are trying to breathe life into it’s corpse for a hundred and fifty plus years.
    There is not, and never was any humanistic motivation harbored by the advocates of this idiocy.

    Academics with their inherent lunacy and inadequacy complexes are the main champions of this barbaric cult, as they see themselves as the honchos and ruling cadre’ after the “Revolution” succeeds.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Mao Cheng Ji

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!
     
    Tsk. We can endlessly argue about what it was and what it wasn't, and compare it to what it is now, but empirical evidence demonstrates that 35 years after, a large majority of people in post-communist countries - 75% or so - claim, consistently, that the communist system was better.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would've voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    It doesn't mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system. And, unlike Westerners, they know that there is an alternative.

    Shalamov in Kolyma Tales talks about selective memory as a survival mechanism. Humans tend to have stronger memories of the good.

    I’m probably misremembering what he said and misquoting him or something like that :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Issac
    Communism is the evisceration of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. It is alive and well. The only thing that's dead is the myth that Communism is a worker's movement or that it was meant to liberate anyone from servitude. Their goal is a borderless world with a powerless underclass to be ruled by racially superlative academics and political technocrats.

    Bravo! Brilliant synopsis in just a few words.

    And a point always omitted or missed is the “German” worship of academics which has permeated all of US society, leading the viewpoint of them, academics, being God-like and infallible.

    In Italy a common greeting amongst friends is a jovial “Bob Giorno Dottore”, or “Bon Giorno Professore”, utterances which would never occur in Germany as they would constitute a desecretion of these “Hallowed” titles.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Johnny Rico
    Romania? Seriously?

    I have Albanian friends who live in Boston. They still have family and property in Albania. Every year they go back for extended visits.

    I have a dozen Russian friends who grew up in Moscow. I have an Estonian friend. I have a good Moldovan friend.

    I've known literally hundreds of Chinese from the mainland.

    I wouldn't take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.

    How do they poll the people that died?

    I wouldn’t take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.

    Funny comment, I’ll give you that. “Efficacy” is in the eye of the beholder, you know. Besides, I specifically clarified, in the comment you’re responding to: “It doesn’t mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system.“. That’s ~75% of people living in Romania, Hungary, and similar places (unlike you friends living in Boston). And I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the situation specifically in Albania.

    This is an inconvenient fact for the anti-communists of the world, and I’m aware of the typical responses. I’m suggesting that you might want to open your mind a little bit, and consider the possibility that your friends and acquaintances in Boston might not be a representative sampling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    ...here's Albania, December 2016:

    According to a survey report on the Understanding and Perception of Citizens of the Communist Past in Albania, almost half of the population of Albania sees Enver Hoxha’s role in the history of the country as positive.

    The study found that 55 percent of citizens in the regions of southern and southwestern Albania that were interviewed, had the most positive view of Albania’s former communist dictator.
     
    ...

    Almost half of the people surveyed think that Communism in Albania was “a good idea, poorly implemented.” Over a third of respondents think that Communism was simply “a bad idea.”
     
    http://www.tiranatimes.com/?p=130276
    , @Johnny Rico
    I totally agree. I was born in Europe and lived for a year when I was much younger in Saudi Arabia. I've also lived in Mexico.

    A couple of things. People tend not to be "communist" or "anti-communist" but rather a whole range of things and shades of sympathies at different times and under different conditions.

    Identifying as something, especially as an "-ist" of some type has always seemed a little weird to me. Humans usually act in their immediate self-interest and don't really ever pay attention to anything that doesn't affect them personally. Being an "-ist" seems to satisfy some need to belong to a group. Strength in numbers or something like that. Gives you an alibi for killing the "others."

    Disappointment is as much a product of high expectations based on the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence as it is on any objective, rational view of reality. Poll data, like statistics, usually show a very incomplete snapshot and are frequently cherry-picked to support some point.

    I'm always completely open-minded and highly skeptical.

    And then there is that whole Holodomor-denial thing.

    I thought Romania was doing well. I'll have to look more into that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Mao Cheng Ji

    I wouldn’t take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.
     
    Funny comment, I'll give you that. "Efficacy" is in the eye of the beholder, you know. Besides, I specifically clarified, in the comment you're responding to: "It doesn’t mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system.". That's ~75% of people living in Romania, Hungary, and similar places (unlike you friends living in Boston). And I'll admit I'm not familiar with the situation specifically in Albania.

    This is an inconvenient fact for the anti-communists of the world, and I'm aware of the typical responses. I'm suggesting that you might want to open your mind a little bit, and consider the possibility that your friends and acquaintances in Boston might not be a representative sampling.

    …here’s Albania, December 2016:

    According to a survey report on the Understanding and Perception of Citizens of the Communist Past in Albania, almost half of the population of Albania sees Enver Hoxha’s role in the history of the country as positive.

    The study found that 55 percent of citizens in the regions of southern and southwestern Albania that were interviewed, had the most positive view of Albania’s former communist dictator.

    Almost half of the people surveyed think that Communism in Albania was “a good idea, poorly implemented.” Over a third of respondents think that Communism was simply “a bad idea.”

    http://www.tiranatimes.com/?p=130276

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.

    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet “engineers” would be “technicians” and most Soviet “doctors” would be “nurses” or “medical orderlies” in the West.

    Anatoly, I already answered you in your blog, I will repeat–do not express opinion on things, you have no clue about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Mao Cheng Ji

    I wouldn’t take anything any of these people say, good or bad, as evidence of the efficacy of the larger ideological/economic systems involved.
     
    Funny comment, I'll give you that. "Efficacy" is in the eye of the beholder, you know. Besides, I specifically clarified, in the comment you're responding to: "It doesn’t mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system.". That's ~75% of people living in Romania, Hungary, and similar places (unlike you friends living in Boston). And I'll admit I'm not familiar with the situation specifically in Albania.

    This is an inconvenient fact for the anti-communists of the world, and I'm aware of the typical responses. I'm suggesting that you might want to open your mind a little bit, and consider the possibility that your friends and acquaintances in Boston might not be a representative sampling.

    I totally agree. I was born in Europe and lived for a year when I was much younger in Saudi Arabia. I’ve also lived in Mexico.

    A couple of things. People tend not to be “communist” or “anti-communist” but rather a whole range of things and shades of sympathies at different times and under different conditions.

    Identifying as something, especially as an “-ist” of some type has always seemed a little weird to me. Humans usually act in their immediate self-interest and don’t really ever pay attention to anything that doesn’t affect them personally. Being an “-ist” seems to satisfy some need to belong to a group. Strength in numbers or something like that. Gives you an alibi for killing the “others.”

    Disappointment is as much a product of high expectations based on the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence as it is on any objective, rational view of reality. Poll data, like statistics, usually show a very incomplete snapshot and are frequently cherry-picked to support some point.

    I’m always completely open-minded and highly skeptical.

    And then there is that whole Holodomor-denial thing.

    I thought Romania was doing well. I’ll have to look more into that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Darin says:
    @Priss Factor
    Neo-Fascism is the only answer.

    It is fusion of nationalism, humanism, traditionalism, modernism, capitalism, and socialism.

    Only Neo-Fascism can balance all the -isms. Without the neo-fascist hand to play coach and referee, the various -isms will just fight each other like stupid children.

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.

    So neo fascism is fascism without all things that make fascism fascist? Works for me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Yee
    I heard that American Indian Reservations are pretty communism --- the means of production owned by every member, profit from it shared by every member. If it's ture, then it sure is communism.

    If the US was run in the Indian Reservations way, with the most lucrative assets --- banks, military industry, oil fields, owned by the people, then they probably wouldn't have a debt problem. And no need to bomb the Iraqis and Libyans too, since profit from selling bombs don't go to private pockets.

    ” The means of production owned by every member, profit from it shared by every member”

    Yeah this is how the gambling casinos, the most lukrative businesses owned and operated by the tribes work.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.

    Nobody suffering from a grave illness and in their right mind, would have during the reign of the communists, chosen to be treated by Russian or Cuban educated “doctors”, if they had other choices.

    I was married to a German MD, surgeon, late seventies, early eighties, and she had a east-German trained MD as a co-worker : He was clueless.

    And as far as “Cars” go : the Russians had all of the resources for a complete automobile industry, they, the honchos, however were insanely paranoid regarding a “mobile” citizenry, with visions of pitchforks and torches flashing through their demented minds and they purposely denied their subjects the possibility of mobility, of car ownership.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    It is believed by many that the Soviet Space program faltered and failed due to Soviet medicine, when the "Chief Designer", one of those great natural leaders who can positively motivate people and get things done even in a Communist system with all of it's contradictions (first satellite, first man in space, first spacewalk, etc.) went in for a routine hernia operation and never came out, dying on the operating table due to medical incompetence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. MarkinPNW says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    Nobody suffering from a grave illness and in their right mind, would have during the reign of the communists, chosen to be treated by Russian or Cuban educated "doctors", if they had other choices.

    I was married to a German MD, surgeon, late seventies, early eighties, and she had a east-German trained MD as a co-worker : He was clueless.

    And as far as "Cars" go : the Russians had all of the resources for a complete automobile industry, they, the honchos, however were insanely paranoid regarding a "mobile" citizenry, with visions of pitchforks and torches flashing through their demented minds and they purposely denied their subjects the possibility of mobility, of car ownership.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    It is believed by many that the Soviet Space program faltered and failed due to Soviet medicine, when the “Chief Designer”, one of those great natural leaders who can positively motivate people and get things done even in a Communist system with all of it’s contradictions (first satellite, first man in space, first spacewalk, etc.) went in for a routine hernia operation and never came out, dying on the operating table due to medical incompetence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Perhaps Stalin was right about the doctors' plot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Johnny Rico
    Thank you for saying something. This 35 million-strong intelligentsia struck me as outrageous. I've been lucky to have been given one of the best educations in the United States. I've never been under the impression that intelligentsia included community-college graduates ANYWHERE. I've always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc. But, whatever. We aren't that into classifying everything, I guess.

    “I’ve always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc.”

    Maybe in the old days …. the new breed of college-professor-types are mind-numbed robots programmed to indoctrinate successive waves of SJWs. Authors nowadays are largely Ghost-writer-supported darlings like HRC or Bill O’Reilly. Researchers have learned to write research that gets money, which is why we have the religion of AGW. Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.

    No, i;s is not. It is as it always was just obrazovanshchina, i.e, people who are merely educated.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as "intelligentsia" solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl's dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, "external gloss".
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.

    Thank you. Well said. Now I can get back to watching Anatoly toy with Andrei.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. 5371 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Neo-Fascism is the only answer.

    It is fusion of nationalism, humanism, traditionalism, modernism, capitalism, and socialism.

    Only Neo-Fascism can balance all the -isms. Without the neo-fascist hand to play coach and referee, the various -isms will just fight each other like stupid children.

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.

    Nah, we need old-school fascism, the original and best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    No, we need a world approximate to the world of "Roger Rabbit". Now that would be "cool".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. The full “opium” quote is worth a look, as it is sympathetic to the religious response of the masses to an unjust world:

    “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, it is the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Anon
    A very wordy article. A couple of (logical) questions:

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
    2) Is the abolition of private property compatible with human nature?

    The answer to the second is no, which is why when attempted has to be imposed tyrannically. It is an utopia that disregards, even hates, the human person. It can no more be achieved than the current gender ideology espoused by totalitarian politicians. But it will be tried, and cause like communism, incalculable suffering.

    1) All political isms possess the ability to eliminate private property. Some are more forthright about doing it.

    2) Abolition of private property is compatible with man’s nature. Abolition is not compatible with human nature.

    3) There are oh so very few humans.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Beckow says:

    “…the ongoing collapse…finally comes tumbling down…”

    I would be more careful. I agree with Saker that utopianism, and ideologues in general, are evil. We can even compare them to Satanism if we are spiritually inclined.

    But predictions of doom, end-of-world prophecies, etc… are not far behind. They are also quasi-satanic. It will not end, it will go on. Time is just one damn thing after another. No end is in sight. And changes when they happen are much more minor and gradual. Living in eastern Europe in 1985 and in 1995, or even 2015, was not that dramatically different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. nickels says:

    Communism = arguing about whether shutting the door when you go to the bathroom is bourgeois.

    Capitalism —— Communism
    All part of the same deceptive dialectic designed to keep people from reaching practical solutions that work.

    I finally gave up arguing these things when my understanding of the fallen world helped me realize the impossibility of any scheme proposed by mankind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I finally gave up arguing these things when my understanding of the fallen world helped me realize the impossibility of any scheme proposed by mankind.
     
    You could be onto something here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. peterAUS says:
    @nickels
    Communism = arguing about whether shutting the door when you go to the bathroom is bourgeois.

    Capitalism ------ Communism
    All part of the same deceptive dialectic designed to keep people from reaching practical solutions that work.

    I finally gave up arguing these things when my understanding of the fallen world helped me realize the impossibility of any scheme proposed by mankind.

    I finally gave up arguing these things when my understanding of the fallen world helped me realize the impossibility of any scheme proposed by mankind.

    You could be onto something here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Stogumber says:

    I am rather unhappy with the fact that most readers here reduce Communism to an attack against private property.
    But Communism was at first and at last an attack against the civil liberties (freedom of thought and speech, assembly,association). And this constant attack against civil liberties was the most persistent and influential activity of the Western Communists – and as it was completely compatible with the interests of the Capitalist oligarchy, it has conquered the Western world on broad scale. “Anti-discrimination” for example was a very good instrument by which the Western Communists destroyed traditional civil liberties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Anon
    A very wordy article. A couple of (logical) questions:

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
    2) Is the abolition of private property compatible with human nature?

    The answer to the second is no, which is why when attempted has to be imposed tyrannically. It is an utopia that disregards, even hates, the human person. It can no more be achieved than the current gender ideology espoused by totalitarian politicians. But it will be tried, and cause like communism, incalculable suffering.

    Has anyone heard of ‘compulsory aquisition’ , that is the forced sale of private property to a local or state goverment, in Australia and England and ?? Surely this is a form communism, but cannot be called that because conservative governments do this as well. Or is it that any colour of goverment will do whatever it wants no matter the reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Is ‘compulsory acquisition’ the equivalent of 'eminent domain' in the US?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See my reply to RobinG's #107
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Seraphim says:

    Paraphrasing Baudelaire:

    “The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he died”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Of course communism is not dead, no religion ever really died.
    What a centrally directed economy is unable of is producing those consumer goods the consumer wants.
    Only the profit motive can accomplish this.
    When USSR citizens began to see, literally, tv, how people in the west lived, far better than they did, it was the end of communism in practice.
    When Chrustjow visited the USA he was flabbergasted on how ordinary USA citizens lived.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Sure, the population where increasingly frustrated about the lack of consumer goods, but the USSR wasn't a democracy where the people voted to replace the government, and there was no bloody revolution, so the USSR must have fell for some other reason. The answer as to why the USSR collapsed was because, unlike the communist government in China, it lost control of the reform process it initiated in the 1980s. However, answering that question only begs another question - why did it lose control of the reform process?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Tyrion says:

    But to keep things short, all I will say is this: any person who has actually traveled in Asia, Africa or South America will attest that the Communists (USSR, China, Cuba) actually sent immense amounts of aid including raw materials, technologies, specialists, doctors, military advisors, agronomists, water-sanitation engineers, etc. In contrast, ask anybody in these continents what Capitalism brings, and you will get the same answer: violence, exploitation and the support for a local Comprador ruling gang. To anybody arguing with this I could only recommend one thing: begin traveling the world.

    They are telling a particularly stupid Russian what they think a particularly stupid Russian wants to hear. People can be polite like that.

    I mean starting your article with the two silliest, most cliched and most sophmoric arguments about Communism there are.

    “Hur dur dummy, but Communism has never really been tried”

    “Hur dur, to really be tried everyone must do it”

    …Emperor’s New Clothes level con-man nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. Tyrion says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    If there’s one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!
     
    Tsk. We can endlessly argue about what it was and what it wasn't, and compare it to what it is now, but empirical evidence demonstrates that 35 years after, a large majority of people in post-communist countries - 75% or so - claim, consistently, that the communist system was better.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would've voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    It doesn't mean, obviously, that everything was great, but it does mean, most definitely imo, that people are bitterly disappointed the new system. And, unlike Westerners, they know that there is an alternative.

    And this attitude is getting stronger. Last year I saw a Romanian survey where 66% said that if they could they would’ve voted for Ceausescu. In 2010 it was 41%.

    You did not see such a survey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. utu says:
    @MarkinPNW
    It is believed by many that the Soviet Space program faltered and failed due to Soviet medicine, when the "Chief Designer", one of those great natural leaders who can positively motivate people and get things done even in a Communist system with all of it's contradictions (first satellite, first man in space, first spacewalk, etc.) went in for a routine hernia operation and never came out, dying on the operating table due to medical incompetence.

    Perhaps Stalin was right about the doctors’ plot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You will be completely right if you remove the 'perhaps'. The Doctors Plot had nothing to do with Stalin's anti-semitic 'paranoia', but very much to do with the 'Crimean Affair'*

    *Name used to refer to the closed antisemitic trial of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) held in Moscow from May to July 1952. One of the pretexts may have been a memorandum presented in the summer of 1944 by members of the Committee to the Soviet leadership containing a proposal to create a Jewish Soviet republic in the Crimea (the Tatar population of which was exiled by Stalin by May 1944) on the territory of the former German republic of the Volga. Noting the successes of the Jewish national regions in the Crimea and in the Kerson region, the authors of the memorandum based their proposal on the lack of a geographical base of a significant part of the Jewish population of the Soviet Union and on the need to grant the Jews equality in governmental-legal terms with the other nationalities of the Soviet Union. They also expressed the hope that "the Jewish masses of all countries, in particular the United States would give substantial aid" to building up such a republic. Despite the rumors that some members of the Politburo of the Central Committee (Lazar Kaganovich and Vyacheslav Molotov) were favorably disposed toward the idea of the "Crimean Plan," it was rejected in 1944.
    The proposals of the memorandum contained nothing radically new. Projects for establishing a Jewish republic in the southern Ukraine or in the Crimea had been suggested earlier. For example, in 1923 the social leader A. Bragin had proposed that one be established on the Black Sea coast from Bessarabia to Abkhaz with its capital in Odessa, while Yuri Larin supported, in opposition to the Birobidzhan plan, a Jewish autonomous area in the southern Crimean and Azov region centered in Kerch..
    At a secret trial the defendants were accused of espionage, anti-Soviet activity, and plotting the secession of the Crimea from the Soviet Union and establishing there a bourgeois Zionist republic which was supposed to become a base for American imperialism...
    A number of additional trials involving other Jewish cultural figures and employees of the JAC were soon thereafter linked to the charges in the Crimean Affair. The Crimean Affair was the culminating act in the total liquidation of Jewish cultural and social life in the Soviet Union. It was followed by the accusations of "cosmopolitanism," which resulted in the dismissal of thousands of Jews in senior positions in almost all walks of Soviet life. It also served as a prelude to the antisemitic Doctor's Plot (1952–53)"
    @http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/crim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. utu says:
    @The Alarmist

    "I’ve always understood intelligentsia to be made up more of colleges-professor types, authors, researchers, etc."
     
    Maybe in the old days .... the new breed of college-professor-types are mind-numbed robots programmed to indoctrinate successive waves of SJWs. Authors nowadays are largely Ghost-writer-supported darlings like HRC or Bill O'Reilly. Researchers have learned to write research that gets money, which is why we have the religion of AGW. Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.

    Intelligentsia is an oxymoron in the twenty-first century.

    No, i;s is not. It is as it always was just obrazovanshchina, i.e, people who are merely educated.

    Solzhenitsyn defines obrazovanshchina as the category of people who self-refer to themselves as “intelligentsia” solely on the basis of having a higher than middle education. Solzhenitsyn explains the selection of the term by reference to Vladimir Dahl’s dictionary, which distinguished the terms образовать (to educate) and просвещать (to enlighten), the former concept having a superficial character, “external gloss”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Communism is dead.

    Only Neo-fascism will work.

    Someone said, ‘nationalism is the socialism of fools’. He couldn’t be more wrong.

    Socialism can only work on the national-racial level since you are more likely to feel a blood-and-guts connection to your own kind in your own territory. Also, it’s doable for a people to take care of their own in their own borders. It’s impossible for a people to save the entire world. USSR ran out of money trying to prop up leech-states like Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia. Russia would do better to take care of Russians, not save humanity. Same with Sweden. Swedes had a good thing going with national social-democracy. But they got filled with self-righteous hubris and decided to be a moral superpower and welcome the entire world… and it’s destroying the very fabric of Swedish society.

    Neo-Fascism sees the value of every kind of -ism. Every -ism has some degree of validity and a useful limit. It’s like cooking requires several ingredients, not just ONE. This is why left vs right dichotomy is stupid. There are essential ideas on both the left and right. They need to be combined instead of confronted at all times.

    Israel is proof that nationalism is the best socialism. In Israel, the national covenant is that ALL Jews must care for one another. So, a Jew, no matter how rich, has to feel a sense of brotherhood with poor Jews. Jewish Covenant is the fusion of biology, history, and spirituality(and territory if possible). It’s about unity of Jewish blood, Jewish narrative, and Jewish sense of destiny in relation to the cosmic. Such mindset creates a strong bond so that even the richest Jews look upon poorest Jews as fellow kin and brother or sister.

    The reason why Jews hate blood-and-soil mentality among gentiles is not because they hate the idea per se. Paradoxically, Jews hate to see blood-and-soil conviction in others precisely because it’s such a powerful idea, the one that serves as the foundation of Israel(and even when Israel didn’t exist, Jewish sense of covenant had an ethno-state-mindset of blood and soil).

    Jews hate blood-and-soil in gentiles for the same reason that US and Israel hate the idea of nuclear weapons among other nations. If US and Israel hate nukes per se, why don’t they get rid of theirs? Of course, they LOVE their own nukes cuz it gives them super duper power. They hate nukes in other nations because nukes make the OTHER nations powerful in turn. Nukes are the great equalizer. A man with a gun doesn’t want others to have the gun.

    So, when Jews defame whites for being ‘supremacist’, what they really fear is gentile parity and equality with Jews. Jews want blood-and-soil mindset ONLY FOR THEMSELVES. If whites want equality of blood-and-soil self-determination, Jews(who steadfastly hold onto their own blood and soil) denounce them as ‘supremacist’. Jews deny blood-and-soil parity between Jews and gentiles. They know it is a great source of power.
    Modernity has led to all sorts of advances for all peoples, but it also has an uprooting, alienating, and diluting effect. So, even as modernity empowers us with science and technology, it weakens us in terms of identity, history, and solidarity(with own kin). This is why modernity has to be rooted in something of meaningful ethnic and cultural depth. And with Jews, it is the sense of Covenant that unifies spirituality, history, biology, and territory. It unites ALL Jews around the world to think about one another and it brings all their energies to support the Holy Land.

    For any people to survive as race and culture in our modernized world, they need their own sense of covenant that makes them feel a sacred bond with their blood, land, and history.
    That is Neo-Fascism. And once a people are instilled with it, it can co-exist with democracy… as in Israel and Ataturk’s Modern Turkey.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Communism was a huge failure.

    Now, it’s true that many ‘capitalist’ allies of the US did poorly, but it had more to do with race and diversity. Some races aren’t good at economics. And some new Third World nations were too diverse for cohesion and unity. They would failed under ANY system.

    But look at Asia. Compare China under communism to China under free markets. Which did better?
    Compare Japan and Taiwan with commie China and commie Vietnam. Compare North Korea and South Korea.

    If a people have basic ability and unity, they do better under capitalism. Still, excessive capitalism invariably leads to huge problems. Main problem is that capitalism creates a globalist elite neo-aristo class that feels closer to one another than with their own people. As such, the national elites become cosmo-deracinated and useless as leaders of their own people. Worse, they try to replace their own people with foreigners to (1) to use divide-and-rule among the masses and (2) feel morally superior to the masses. Rich people are often blamed for having too much by the masses. So, an effective counter-moral-weapon of the rich is to increase diversity and then blame the masses for ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’. UK and French elites pull this shi* all the time. British working classes used to have the moral advantage against the Rich. But now, the British uppercrust turn up their noses as the working class white masses as ‘racists’ who aren’t welcoming of Muslims and Africans.

    Communism, miserable as it was, had one positive feature in stressing that the elites must feel a strong kinship with the masses. Since there was a cap on how much wealth one could accumulate under communism, it was less likely to lead to a rise of Elysium Elite Club. But Communism is too stifling and repressive.

    The solution is Neo-Fascism that allows free markets and enterprise but also emphasizes the needs of the masses in terms of social security, identity, history, and pride. Best qualities of post-Maoist China and post-Yeltsin Russia is their elements of Neo-Fascism… though the power of capital are such that both nations are lurching toward globalist deracination if current trends continue.

    PS. The Soviet Revolution was, in a way, the Revolt of the Imperial Periphery against the Russian Core. Russian Empire led to blowback. Russia came to control so many peoples, and the radical elites of these regions — Georgia, Poland, Latvia, Armenia, Pale of Settlement, etc — exploited the crisis of WWI to gain power. Russian masses were vulnerable once the Russian elites fell in the Revolution. On average, Russians were far less educated and intellectual than many other groups under Imperial Russian rule. So, when Imperial Rule fell apart, Russian masses were lost, and the non-Russian alien radicals filled the vacuum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " Stressing that the ( communist) elites must feel a strong kinship with the masses"

    HA HA HA HA HA

    Yeah strong kinship with the masses expressed through their covert ownership of vacation houses, stuffed with western merchandise, and other such perversities as F Castro's Alfa Romeo collection and his private roads, which were on display in one of the photo mags of the sixties, and then suddenly disappeared after the honchos realized that they made a mistake in publishing such " conterrevolutionary" information.

    There never, ever, was any humanitarian, or altrustic motivations behind the drivers of the revolutions, they were ALL in it for the power and oppression of those they feared : "The masses"

    I visited several east-block countries long before the fall of the wall and I will never forget the morgue-like atmosphere of the cities and the dead eyes of the downtrodden, dispaired populations.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. I’ve traveled the world and you are wrong and I won’t bother arguing against a bullshitter since bullshitters have no regard for facts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    Thus demonstrating that you failed to comprehend ANYTHING in the Saker’s article, Anatoly. A nuanced article, that asks no more than you move beyond cliches etc to actually think , but what can you give us ? It’s “Shit”….

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I agree that it's one damned fine article. It's apparent that the author is a true genius and well educated too, with an amazing genius/talent for writing.

    The author is a true asset to humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @anonymous

    All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country.
     
    Isn't it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members. What was it? A lot of former communists seem to have been able to make a complete turnabout and morph into greedy opportunists in post-communist countries.
    Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully. The communists theorized they could skip over stages of development and were in a hurry to do so, creating reigns of terror. This inevitably deformed the nature of this so-called 'communism'. Would Marx approve of the 'communism' of the Pol Pot regime or DPRK? The term 'Marxism-Leninism' is used frequently. Perhaps it would be best to drop the second name and go back to the original writings to see what the actual intent was. There's always a gap between the theory and the practice whether discussing communism or any other ideology.

    “Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members.”
    Let’s assume that the above is correct … regardless, this corruption at the heart business, treason etc reminds me of the 1% elites of tthatvother superpower….And — coincidentally – ? that 1% corruption became turbo-charged in response to the collapse of the other superpower…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anon
    Saker
    In 1920 Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises published a short treatise “The Impossibility of Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”. This proves communism is impossible because without free markets there is no way to allocate resources efficiently.
    This little essay prompted all kinds of attempts by communists to refute its thesis until the fall of USSR .
    The arrow should point not to communism but to pure free markets with minimal or no government.

    “but to pure free markets with minimal or no government.”
    Pure, free markets…I had no idea that delusion of such depth still existed.
    Communism is a goal – possibly unattainable. However, socialism is a means — a means not incompatible with markets.
    Pure, free markets are more fantastic than communism itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @yeah
    "No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient."

    Now that is what is called a nice knock-down argument! I don't like "x", I condemn it, case closed. No facts, logic or reasoning needed.

    The Saker is neither defending communism here, nor touting its glories. With significant reasoning he is arguing that the urge towards communism has in common with most religions a desire for human equality and mitigation of the horrors of poverty. As to whether communism can deliver that objective is a different matter. But if the suffering caused by globalized capitalism of the crony and corrupt kind continues - as it is in our times - expect some more thrusts in the direction of socialism or communism.

    Nor is there any evidence to show that everything touched by communism turns to shit. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism. The USSR, for all its warts and troubles, cannot be dismissed as a case of shit. Communism may not be compatible with human nature, but that does not knock down its appeal in certain moments of human history. Communism will likely never succeed, for reasons that need some serious thinking and not an ignorant dismissal if we are to understand politics, history, and such.

    Well said, yeah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Saker, not every thinker in the West holds the simplistic ideas Capitalism=Good, Communism=Bad that you ascribe to us. True, many mainstream thinkers do. But they are not serious thinkers. They are neither particularly well read nor do they think deeply about what they have read. Any thinking person knows that in every economy there are socialist, communistic and capitalist forces.

    In supposedly capitalist America, the roads are publicly owned. Pure socialism. Most, if not all water and sewage treatment plants are publicly owned, as are (or were) most schools. Only a shallow-minded Milton Friedman type would argue that this is bad or needs correction. Such apostles of the pure “free” market aren’t really taken seriously by any American thinker.

    I understand “communism” to mean direct worker ownership and management of factories and infrastructure. All to be administered by worker’s communes.

    To understand why this failed in the West, we have to look at how capitalism short circuited this process. Capitalism undermined direct worker ownership by buying off the elite managers/engineers who were to be the brains of the workers communes. They bribed them with good wages and nice retirement plans. Without brains, the workers were left powerless.

    American capitalism justifies this bribery by arguing that brain-power is a scarce commodity and that the market distributes rewards for any scarce commodity according to the rules of supply and demand. No one bothered to prove this empirically. No one has ever made a rigorous mathematical study that establishes a strict correlation between levels of IQ, market forces and annual salary. In America today professionals are vastly overpaid (e.g. Doctors) while the average laborer struggles with his rent and is literally broken on the rack by his health care expenses. In this respect, Communism is more fair, as was Socialist Europe.

    I say “was” Socialist Europe because today the push by our “elites” is to undermine wages for all workers, managers/engineers/scientists included. We have entered a new phase, the International bankers phase. Former bastions of equality, Denmark et al. are under siege by international capital to dismantle the welfare state by making it unaffordable for its citizens due to free rider effects caused by forced immigration, putting local workers in direct competition with workers halfway around the globe and so on, and so on. We all know the litany.

    I have not read “Das Capital” (though I have read other of Marx’s writings) but I understand it to have said that international finance is the ultimate stage of capitalism. If what has happened in the world in the last fifty years is any indication, this seems to be true. This dominance is (dialectically, to use Marxist terminology) driving the emergence of the new populism.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp. A reformer such as Roosevelt will be elected and he will trim the wings of finance. Nationalistic socialism will reassert itself and a rising standard of living will once again become more widespread. Once everyone is prosperous again, spokespersons will emerge who will lay claim to all the prosperity by attributing it to the miracle of the “free markets”, which will give rise to concentration of capital and so the process will repeat itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I agree with the bulk of what you say, but am wondering which Roosevelt you are referring to. Teddy was billed as a reformer, but was as phony in that as he was in most other things. Any reforms were used as clubs against his opponents, but most of it consisted of the usual publicity and self aggrandizing showtime stunts.

    FDR, on the other hand, probably wasn't offered so much as a reformer, but as a populist. While preaching support for the people he was busy consolidating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. He successfully pulled off the populist schtick while reinforcing the ruling plut-oligarchy.


    Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp.
     
    I agree that very intelligent people can, and will be seduced into just about any self satisfying Utopian daydream, and it's well described in Dodd's "School of Darkness" as well as in many other places.

    Almost overnight and seemingly from nowhere organization arose. Groups of the Young Communist League and the League for Industrial Democracy — an organization originating in England among Fabians — appeared in our midst, small dedicated bands of young people. This soon led to mass groups of students who began clamoring for the right to meet on the campus; if permission was not granted, they met outside and protested very loudly.

    I was very conscious of one thing: these organizations were not springing up spontaneously; some creating group was behind them. But it was true that the student answer was spontaneous and very immediate. Suddenly there had appeared on the indifferent campus a student group who seemed to care, to believe in things, to be willing to work and suffer for what they believed in and cared for. Before long they had infected the entire student body.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6
     

    I could not at that time know, as I did later, how men of wealth use the communist movement to bend workers to their will. So I quite willingly adopted the clichés about secrecy being necessary because of the brutality and savagery of the working-class enemies. I soon learned that the members exposed to the public were not the important Communists.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6
     

    , @edNels
    Real good comment, could be the thesis of an article.

    Agree with the points made, but not the predictions for another cyclical repeat of history.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp
     
    I don't know what Fukyama meant by ''History is Dead', but somethings have changed in the last 100plus years that make it unlikely that meaningful populist reforms will ever again make any headway against consolidated capital. IE: Automated mass warfare and now ubiquitous surveillance state and developing Artificial Intelligence and a host of other niceties from applied psych and pharma and information/perception management through cognitive dissonance generation and...herding techniques will pretty much put the cap on it.

    I mean sad to say, but the only possible way mankind will ever be free again, after this coming distopia, will be the failure of the main plan, through human limitation as has always occurred in repeated boom and bust, or Collapse. But now bringing in Artificial Intelligence, mechanized thought and volitional capabilities beyond what elites own in their mediocre biological selves, and some of the heavy thinkers are nervous about how that may play out, (or be a wild card.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Hupa says:

    Of course it’s not. Take a look at liberal vocabulary: equality, inclusion, non-discrimination. Then liberals are also strongly anti-christian. This is communism, but they’re trying to achieve it through different means. While bolsheviks went for a strong, definite push, the neo-communists went for the trench warfare with slow, gradual progress

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Mimo says:

    Capitalism is the natural tendency of people to trade with each other, This has nothing to do with with any flawed theoretical framework which can necessarily only be imposed by force on a society. And this compulsion achieves what? The natural state of humanity is poverty. All formal political systems of which Marxism is one, have shown mediocre to zero and even negative (given time) propensity (Venezuela) for alleviating this misery as indeed the Chinese have latterly admitted, in their actions at least. Along with other instances. hundreds of millions of Chinese have joined the middle classes in the past 20 years, an achievement met by leaving individuals pretty much free to make micro decisions to benefit themselves by benefiting others with whom they trade in free exchange. Rather like Molière’s M. Jourdain, who discovered he’d been speaking in prose without knowing it all his life, humans are also natural capitalists in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...humans are also natural capitalists in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory.
     
    I'm not trying to split hairs here, but I'd say that humans are also natural traders and negotiators in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory, while capitalism is a convenient tool toward those ends. As a tool it can be used for good or evil.

    I believe you are correct that coercion, while it often provides short term gain for a few, means long term pain for the many.

    If there's a way or ways for our societal immune systems to deal with such situations when they become problems, I'd like to know what it or they would be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Recent events in Spain, Britain, Ukraine, Turkey and the Visegrad countries indicate that Fascism is alive and well, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. E says:

    If communism is not quite as dead as the Third Reich, it is probably because it has not been conclusively defeated in battle in the same way. In the places where it WAS defeated in battle (and which some think helped precipitate its collapse), this was done not by capitalism but by religious extremism (Islamic takfirism, to be precise). This leads me to think that when the time comes, if there’s a similar coup among the “capitalist” elites, people won’t rush to fight for the capitalist ideology any more than they did for the communist system (except for a few thousand Russian parliament supporters in 1993).

    I guess it’s possible that elements of communism will be part of whatever comes next. You already see related ideas being proposed under different names such as “universal basic income”. In Russia itself, about two-thirds of the economy is back to being state-owned, whereas the number was around one-third a decade or so ago, around half of the public prefer central planning, and they’re talking about re-introducing the 5-year plans…

    But I think you’re putting too much focus on “how rich the theory is”. That’s also true of Neoplatonism, and where is that today? Will anyone read it, and will they be willing to fight for it? For the moment, “communism” retains has the aura of a “loser ideology” defeated by capitalism and Islamic takfirism.

    I’m reminded of the lyrics of the English folk song “Dominion of the Sword”:

    — (I’m omitting a few period-specific verses)

    [MORE]

    Lay by your pleading, law lies a-bleeding
    Burn all your studies down, and throw away your reading
    Small power the word has, and can afford us
    Not half so much privilege as the sword does

    It’ll the foster the master, plaster disaster
    This’ll make a servant quickly greater than the master
    Ventures, enters, seeks and it centres
    Ever the upper hand, never a dissenter

    Talks of small things, it sets up all things
    This’ll master money, though money masters all things
    It is not season to talk of reason
    Never call it loyal when the sword says treason

    Subtle deceiver, turns calm to fever
    See the pilgrim flay the unbeliever
    It’ll make a lay man, preach and to pray man
    It’ll make a Lord of him that was but a drayman

    Conquers the crown too, grave and the gown too
    Set you up a province, but it’ll pull it down too
    No gospel can guide it, no law decide it
    In church or state, till the sword sanctified it

    Take books, rent ‘em, who can invent ‘em?
    When that the sword says there’ll be no argumentum
    Blood that is spilt, sir, has gained all the guilt, sir
    Thus have you seen me run my sword up to the hilt, sir

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Superb comments!

    If communism is not quite as dead as the Third Reich, it is probably because it has not been conclusively defeated in battle in the same way.
     
    And that was because the Reds had the backing of the more effective gang of big money boys.

    Never heard of that song before, but wish I had.


    This’ll master money, though money masters all things
     
    The unbreakable circle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Is Communism Really Dead?

    Not as long as the International Banking Cartels are able to turn the concept to their own ends.

    All the really “fashionable” concepts are supported by the usual suspects to dupe the unwary for their own purposes.

    Please note that now the ruling money bags seem to be pushing their ideas of “independence.” I have little doubt that the plutocrats think they’ve devised ways of using that too.

    And so it goes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @ThreeCranes
    Saker, not every thinker in the West holds the simplistic ideas Capitalism=Good, Communism=Bad that you ascribe to us. True, many mainstream thinkers do. But they are not serious thinkers. They are neither particularly well read nor do they think deeply about what they have read. Any thinking person knows that in every economy there are socialist, communistic and capitalist forces.

    In supposedly capitalist America, the roads are publicly owned. Pure socialism. Most, if not all water and sewage treatment plants are publicly owned, as are (or were) most schools. Only a shallow-minded Milton Friedman type would argue that this is bad or needs correction. Such apostles of the pure "free" market aren't really taken seriously by any American thinker.

    I understand "communism" to mean direct worker ownership and management of factories and infrastructure. All to be administered by worker's communes.

    To understand why this failed in the West, we have to look at how capitalism short circuited this process. Capitalism undermined direct worker ownership by buying off the elite managers/engineers who were to be the brains of the workers communes. They bribed them with good wages and nice retirement plans. Without brains, the workers were left powerless.

    American capitalism justifies this bribery by arguing that brain-power is a scarce commodity and that the market distributes rewards for any scarce commodity according to the rules of supply and demand. No one bothered to prove this empirically. No one has ever made a rigorous mathematical study that establishes a strict correlation between levels of IQ, market forces and annual salary. In America today professionals are vastly overpaid (e.g. Doctors) while the average laborer struggles with his rent and is literally broken on the rack by his health care expenses. In this respect, Communism is more fair, as was Socialist Europe.

    I say "was" Socialist Europe because today the push by our "elites" is to undermine wages for all workers, managers/engineers/scientists included. We have entered a new phase, the International bankers phase. Former bastions of equality, Denmark et al. are under siege by international capital to dismantle the welfare state by making it unaffordable for its citizens due to free rider effects caused by forced immigration, putting local workers in direct competition with workers halfway around the globe and so on, and so on. We all know the litany.

    I have not read "Das Capital" (though I have read other of Marx's writings) but I understand it to have said that international finance is the ultimate stage of capitalism. If what has happened in the world in the last fifty years is any indication, this seems to be true. This dominance is (dialectically, to use Marxist terminology) driving the emergence of the new populism.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp. A reformer such as Roosevelt will be elected and he will trim the wings of finance. Nationalistic socialism will reassert itself and a rising standard of living will once again become more widespread. Once everyone is prosperous again, spokespersons will emerge who will lay claim to all the prosperity by attributing it to the miracle of the "free markets", which will give rise to concentration of capital and so the process will repeat itself.

    I agree with the bulk of what you say, but am wondering which Roosevelt you are referring to. Teddy was billed as a reformer, but was as phony in that as he was in most other things. Any reforms were used as clubs against his opponents, but most of it consisted of the usual publicity and self aggrandizing showtime stunts.

    FDR, on the other hand, probably wasn’t offered so much as a reformer, but as a populist. While preaching support for the people he was busy consolidating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. He successfully pulled off the populist schtick while reinforcing the ruling plut-oligarchy.

    Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp.

    I agree that very intelligent people can, and will be seduced into just about any self satisfying Utopian daydream, and it’s well described in Dodd’s “School of Darkness” as well as in many other places.

    Almost overnight and seemingly from nowhere organization arose. Groups of the Young Communist League and the League for Industrial Democracy — an organization originating in England among Fabians — appeared in our midst, small dedicated bands of young people. This soon led to mass groups of students who began clamoring for the right to meet on the campus; if permission was not granted, they met outside and protested very loudly.

    I was very conscious of one thing: these organizations were not springing up spontaneously; some creating group was behind them. But it was true that the student answer was spontaneous and very immediate. Suddenly there had appeared on the indifferent campus a student group who seemed to care, to believe in things, to be willing to work and suffer for what they believed in and cared for. Before long they had infected the entire student body.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6

    I could not at that time know, as I did later, how men of wealth use the communist movement to bend workers to their will. So I quite willingly adopted the clichés about secrecy being necessary because of the brutality and savagery of the working-class enemies. I soon learned that the members exposed to the public were not the important Communists.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Marx pretended that he was offering something new to the world of ideas with his concept of "dialectical materialism", which he, of course, admitted to have adapted from Hegel, having, in his own words, merely stood Hegel's notion upright. Whereas Hegel thought that Ideas led and matter followed (cousin to Plato), Marx was a "materialist" and believed that economic technology and more specifically, one's class dictated one's consciousness (a popular meme with the Left today).

    Lao Tzu anticipated both by a couple thousand years with his familiar Yin/Yang theory.

    What Taoism and Hegel say is that whenever anyone proposes anything then he will generate opposition. The act of positing itself engenders resistance. To move is to meet resistance. Newton said something like this too.

    So, for example, in astrology, Ares is pure energy. It is upwards striving, reaching for the light. The first sign of the zodiacal calendar starting on Spring equinox when seeds begin to sprout, its symbol is the ram's horn shape, basically a fountain. It is unbridled enthusiasm, growth, striving upwards. Appropriately enough, it is a fire sign.

    But any movement generates opposition. The next sign is Taurus. Taurus is an Earth sign. Solidity. Resistance. Unyielding.

    What happens when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object? The next sign is Gemini, the twins, a balance. A dynamic balance though, pulsing energy like a heartbeat or the escapement of a spring powered clock. Only this kind of measured effort can accomplish real work. Ares is energy unchained. Taurus is solidity. Their synthesis in Gemini is a rhythmic dynamism, diastole and systole, the cycle of work and repose.

    This is the true astrology. It is a calendar of experience based on the ancient agricultural rhythms of living plants and animals. There are four dancing triads that make up the twelve months of the year. The ancients had already grasped the concept of the dialectic. Hegel and Marx resurrected it and gave it a modern imprimatur.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. America Is A Communist Country AIACC, we financed the soviet revolution and state from beginning to end even while fight wars with its proxies in europe vietnam and korea we were shipping entire factories technologies food etc.This is shocking and most will not beieve it unless they do all the research to find its well documented that we even gave them technology vital to their ICBm program during the cold war. So what was going on?

    As far as I can tell and the past few decades seem to increasingly confirm, we have had communists at the highest levels of american power from the beginning, and enough of them and perhaps even several presidents that we could simultaneously finance hardcore communism abroad while instituting a socialist model at home.

    It seems then that as the hard communism began to fail so spectacularly despite massive american assistance, what also happened was the side projects of the soft communism , projects designed to bring america to the point it could be flipped to hard communism, the projects of cultural marxism like empowering brown people women fags and other degenerates, anti religion anti male anti family anti white etc These projects were all working so well, yet hard communism was a dismal failure still among the hard working and reasonably affluent whites in america, that a consensus developed that the model should change from a hard communist of class to a socialist communism of race and other minorities, in short racial redistributionist, electing a new people of course by this time the communists here had begun the non white massive immigration initiative in 64.

    From this another perfect storm began, the engine of american communism capitalism began to integrate racial/victim cultural marxism, adopting counter cultural references in it adverts, developing countercultural products and memes in media and it began to see how lucrative non white immigration could be. It also began to realize that outsourcing could alo be lucrative giving it both cheaper labor than even immigration and simultaneously financing larger foreign markets for its goods. This lead to an unholy alliance between capital and communism, while its true that it was multinational corporations (rather than the govt who was just orchestrating the plan,signing the paperwork helping facilitate the deals) that were doing the massive technological transfers during the past this was something new. Since the hard communists within america realized that hard communism could never work because economics, but the racial redistributionism was working brilliantly it became possible for capitalists and communists to stop worry about the other and fully partner for mutual benefit understanding that they each needed the other in perpetuity.

    WE americans think of capitalism to be a right wing thing its not its a profit minded thing it cares not who runs a govt as long as it is allowed to operate it will pass along any percentage it must pay to operate to its customers, its also pretty culturally ecologically etc degenate. this served the commies well and they quickly ramped up the cap media to full american racial/victim communism, and both began the campaign for globalism to export the revolution of ComCap. One problem was europe had no negro slaves to use as a yeast to get the transition going although it was still suffering more from the transition from serf agriculture to industrialization it had been more receptive to hard communism t seemed as it recovered from that and the wars it would become as resistant as america to hardCom if something were not done, cultmarx was ramped up there as well and the colonialist meme was used in place of the slavery meme and massive immigration of useless brown mouths was instituted there as well.and the EU project was instituted.

    The only fly n the appointment of this new american style CapCom besides the people who are daily humiliated into submission and pacified with the eternal hope of fake democracy, is the former hard communists don’t want to accept a second or third tier position in the new communist model and are working for a russosinoislamic alternative or at least better terms. Ironically its the very present of all the useless brown mouths that has so weakened the Us/Euro CapComs to the point their hegemony is in doubt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @E
    If communism is not quite as dead as the Third Reich, it is probably because it has not been conclusively defeated in battle in the same way. In the places where it WAS defeated in battle (and which some think helped precipitate its collapse), this was done not by capitalism but by religious extremism (Islamic takfirism, to be precise). This leads me to think that when the time comes, if there's a similar coup among the "capitalist" elites, people won't rush to fight for the capitalist ideology any more than they did for the communist system (except for a few thousand Russian parliament supporters in 1993).

    I guess it's possible that elements of communism will be part of whatever comes next. You already see related ideas being proposed under different names such as "universal basic income". In Russia itself, about two-thirds of the economy is back to being state-owned, whereas the number was around one-third a decade or so ago, around half of the public prefer central planning, and they're talking about re-introducing the 5-year plans...

    But I think you're putting too much focus on "how rich the theory is". That's also true of Neoplatonism, and where is that today? Will anyone read it, and will they be willing to fight for it? For the moment, "communism" retains has the aura of a "loser ideology" defeated by capitalism and Islamic takfirism.

    I'm reminded of the lyrics of the English folk song "Dominion of the Sword":

    --- (I'm omitting a few period-specific verses)

    Lay by your pleading, law lies a-bleeding
    Burn all your studies down, and throw away your reading
    Small power the word has, and can afford us
    Not half so much privilege as the sword does

    It'll the foster the master, plaster disaster
    This'll make a servant quickly greater than the master
    Ventures, enters, seeks and it centres
    Ever the upper hand, never a dissenter

    Talks of small things, it sets up all things
    This'll master money, though money masters all things
    It is not season to talk of reason
    Never call it loyal when the sword says treason

    Subtle deceiver, turns calm to fever
    See the pilgrim flay the unbeliever
    It'll make a lay man, preach and to pray man
    It'll make a Lord of him that was but a drayman

    Conquers the crown too, grave and the gown too
    Set you up a province, but it'll pull it down too
    No gospel can guide it, no law decide it
    In church or state, till the sword sanctified it

    Take books, rent 'em, who can invent 'em?
    When that the sword says there'll be no argumentum
    Blood that is spilt, sir, has gained all the guilt, sir
    Thus have you seen me run my sword up to the hilt, sir

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na0SyJScrQo

    Superb comments!

    If communism is not quite as dead as the Third Reich, it is probably because it has not been conclusively defeated in battle in the same way.

    And that was because the Reds had the backing of the more effective gang of big money boys.

    Never heard of that song before, but wish I had.

    This’ll master money, though money masters all things

    The unbreakable circle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Mimo
    Capitalism is the natural tendency of people to trade with each other, This has nothing to do with with any flawed theoretical framework which can necessarily only be imposed by force on a society. And this compulsion achieves what? The natural state of humanity is poverty. All formal political systems of which Marxism is one, have shown mediocre to zero and even negative (given time) propensity (Venezuela) for alleviating this misery as indeed the Chinese have latterly admitted, in their actions at least. Along with other instances. hundreds of millions of Chinese have joined the middle classes in the past 20 years, an achievement met by leaving individuals pretty much free to make micro decisions to benefit themselves by benefiting others with whom they trade in free exchange. Rather like Molière's M. Jourdain, who discovered he'd been speaking in prose without knowing it all his life, humans are also natural capitalists in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory.

    …humans are also natural capitalists in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory.

    I’m not trying to split hairs here, but I’d say that humans are also natural traders and negotiators in goods and services without the benefit of coercion or theory, while capitalism is a convenient tool toward those ends. As a tool it can be used for good or evil.

    I believe you are correct that coercion, while it often provides short term gain for a few, means long term pain for the many.

    If there’s a way or ways for our societal immune systems to deal with such situations when they become problems, I’d like to know what it or they would be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @5371
    Nah, we need old-school fascism, the original and best.

    No, we need a world approximate to the world of “Roger Rabbit”. Now that would be “cool”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    I’d like to know what doesn’t turn to shit eventually.

    You can call it the JSist theory of everything. And in the ‘Merkin vernacular, in the end ain’t nobody knows JS.

    Ain’t dat de sheetz?

    The End.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    I’d like to know what doesn’t turn to shit eventually.
     
    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

    ;-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. I would read this as a version of the “don’t overthrow Putin, there’s worse behind him” argument, which tells us that the author sees the overthrow of Putin as a real possibility within the foreseeable future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. @animalogic
    Thus demonstrating that you failed to comprehend ANYTHING in the Saker's article, Anatoly. A nuanced article, that asks no more than you move beyond cliches etc to actually think , but what can you give us ? It's "Shit"....

    I agree that it’s one damned fine article. It’s apparent that the author is a true genius and well educated too, with an amazing genius/talent for writing.

    The author is a true asset to humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. “It is not really surprising that the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time, might be strongly inclined to adopt the notion of having won the Cold War and/or having defeated Communism. In a country where adult and presumably educated people can declare with a serious face that Obama is a Socialist (or even a Communist) such nonsense will very rarely be challenged.”

    What to say about this piece of ignorance? There is no subset of Americans with opinions about who won the Cold War that could populate a town in the U.S. bigger than Wapakoneta, Ohio. Which is why we got a fraud like Obama, a simpleton Marxist of the usual kind produced by American universities. Was Obama a communist? The response from most Americans was, “who cares?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. @jacques sheete
    I agree with the bulk of what you say, but am wondering which Roosevelt you are referring to. Teddy was billed as a reformer, but was as phony in that as he was in most other things. Any reforms were used as clubs against his opponents, but most of it consisted of the usual publicity and self aggrandizing showtime stunts.

    FDR, on the other hand, probably wasn't offered so much as a reformer, but as a populist. While preaching support for the people he was busy consolidating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. He successfully pulled off the populist schtick while reinforcing the ruling plut-oligarchy.


    Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp.
     
    I agree that very intelligent people can, and will be seduced into just about any self satisfying Utopian daydream, and it's well described in Dodd's "School of Darkness" as well as in many other places.

    Almost overnight and seemingly from nowhere organization arose. Groups of the Young Communist League and the League for Industrial Democracy — an organization originating in England among Fabians — appeared in our midst, small dedicated bands of young people. This soon led to mass groups of students who began clamoring for the right to meet on the campus; if permission was not granted, they met outside and protested very loudly.

    I was very conscious of one thing: these organizations were not springing up spontaneously; some creating group was behind them. But it was true that the student answer was spontaneous and very immediate. Suddenly there had appeared on the indifferent campus a student group who seemed to care, to believe in things, to be willing to work and suffer for what they believed in and cared for. Before long they had infected the entire student body.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6
     

    I could not at that time know, as I did later, how men of wealth use the communist movement to bend workers to their will. So I quite willingly adopted the clichés about secrecy being necessary because of the brutality and savagery of the working-class enemies. I soon learned that the members exposed to the public were not the important Communists.

    -Bella Dodd, School of Darkness, Ch 6
     

    Marx pretended that he was offering something new to the world of ideas with his concept of “dialectical materialism”, which he, of course, admitted to have adapted from Hegel, having, in his own words, merely stood Hegel’s notion upright. Whereas Hegel thought that Ideas led and matter followed (cousin to Plato), Marx was a “materialist” and believed that economic technology and more specifically, one’s class dictated one’s consciousness (a popular meme with the Left today).

    Lao Tzu anticipated both by a couple thousand years with his familiar Yin/Yang theory.

    What Taoism and Hegel say is that whenever anyone proposes anything then he will generate opposition. The act of positing itself engenders resistance. To move is to meet resistance. Newton said something like this too.

    So, for example, in astrology, Ares is pure energy. It is upwards striving, reaching for the light. The first sign of the zodiacal calendar starting on Spring equinox when seeds begin to sprout, its symbol is the ram’s horn shape, basically a fountain. It is unbridled enthusiasm, growth, striving upwards. Appropriately enough, it is a fire sign.

    But any movement generates opposition. The next sign is Taurus. Taurus is an Earth sign. Solidity. Resistance. Unyielding.

    What happens when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object? The next sign is Gemini, the twins, a balance. A dynamic balance though, pulsing energy like a heartbeat or the escapement of a spring powered clock. Only this kind of measured effort can accomplish real work. Ares is energy unchained. Taurus is solidity. Their synthesis in Gemini is a rhythmic dynamism, diastole and systole, the cycle of work and repose.

    This is the true astrology. It is a calendar of experience based on the ancient agricultural rhythms of living plants and animals. There are four dancing triads that make up the twelve months of the year. The ancients had already grasped the concept of the dialectic. Hegel and Marx resurrected it and gave it a modern imprimatur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. As long as there is Zionism there is communism , Zionists created communism and were the Bolsheviks and are the destroyers of civilizations and are the worshipers of SATAN.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. TG says:

    “Capitalism is a system of man exploiting his fellow man, whereas communism is just the reverse!”

    Certainly an interesting and intelligent post. I would suggest however, that political systems are less important than commonly thought.

    Capitalism can produce societies that are prosperous – such as modern Germany or Switzerland – and also societies so poor that daily life resembles a Stalinist slave labor camp more than anything else – India and Bangladesh are just two examples.

    What, you say that India is ‘socialist?’ Work like a dog for 50 cents an hour or you starve? Where multinationals drool over all that profitable cheap labor? Where everything is for sale to the highest bidder, including the law? Sounds like a capitalist utopia to me. And in India alone there are 500 million people who are chronically malnourished, their physical standard of living inferior to late Medieval England.

    When there are 100 desperate hungry people competing for every job, wages will be crushed to the most miserable subsistence. When there are four business desperate for every worker, wages will be bid high and there will be widespread prosperity. Supply and demand, people, and capitalism is absolutely neutral about whether wages will be high or low.

    Almost any political system can be made to work, more or less, if the elites are not completely corrupt and feel some connection to the society as a whole. And there is no system of checks and balances that cannot be corrupted if the elites don’t care and ignore them. And finally, no system can create prosperity when there is no open frontier and everyone has six kids a pop, because no political system can over-ride the dictates of physical reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    "Almost any political system can be made to work, more or less, if the elites are not completely corrupt and feel some connection to the society as a whole. And there is no system of checks and balances that cannot be corrupted if the elites don’t care and ignore them."

    While many would reactively disagree because they champion this or that favorite, I believe history has shown that you're correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anarchyst says:

    Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society–especially in the USA.
    Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these “anointed” types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population “by any means necessary”.
    Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced “land use controls” on private property owners without compensation–clearly an unconstitutional “taking” of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves–not by government force. Today, the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is “shoot, shovel, and shut up”.
    If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to “pristine wilderness (rural) areas” would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these “anointed” environmentalists.
    The “endangered species act” is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments–”survival if the fittest”. In fact, the hoopla over the “spotted owl” (that placed much northwest timber land “off-limits” to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
    More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to “plant” lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas “off-limits” for logging or development. Fortunately, these “scientists” were caught–however, no punishment was given.
    In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism… like watermelon…”green” on the outside and “red” (communist) on the inside…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @jacques sheete

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.
     
    I'd like to know what doesn't turn to shit eventually.

    You can call it the JSist theory of everything. And in the 'Merkin vernacular, in the end ain't nobody knows JS.

    Ain't dat de sheetz?

    The End.

    I’d like to know what doesn’t turn to shit eventually.

    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.
    ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

     

    Then what?

    ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Wally says:
    @yeah
    "No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient."

    Now that is what is called a nice knock-down argument! I don't like "x", I condemn it, case closed. No facts, logic or reasoning needed.

    The Saker is neither defending communism here, nor touting its glories. With significant reasoning he is arguing that the urge towards communism has in common with most religions a desire for human equality and mitigation of the horrors of poverty. As to whether communism can deliver that objective is a different matter. But if the suffering caused by globalized capitalism of the crony and corrupt kind continues - as it is in our times - expect some more thrusts in the direction of socialism or communism.

    Nor is there any evidence to show that everything touched by communism turns to shit. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism. The USSR, for all its warts and troubles, cannot be dismissed as a case of shit. Communism may not be compatible with human nature, but that does not knock down its appeal in certain moments of human history. Communism will likely never succeed, for reasons that need some serious thinking and not an ignorant dismissal if we are to understand politics, history, and such.

    “China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Certainly true, but that doesn’t speak well for communism.

    After all, ‘what China is today’ is an utter rejection of their communist history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vidi

    “China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Certainly true, but that doesn’t speak well for communism.
    After all, ‘what China is today’ is an utter rejection of their communist history.
     
    Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.

    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore.
    , @Joe Wong
    Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won't happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world...Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Wally says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    “No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.”

    Well said. The landscape of history is littered with example after example.

    There has never been a more historically unsuccessful system of governance.

    Anatoly, we finally agree on something.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. han9 says:

    I am most surprised by what I read here about the qualification of doctors and engineers from the former Soviet Union. Admitted I am not from any former SU country but from one former Eastern Bloc.

    I have a few relatives who are medical doctors and while during ‘communism’ the opportunity to visit their professional colleagues in the west was limited it is not like there was none at all.

    Their impression form that time were not at all flattering for their western counterparts especially general practitioners. These western ‘doctors’ were mostly clueless and were practicing something that can be called symptoms treatment medicine – in other words the idea was to treat the symptoms, charge the individual or his medical insurance provider and move on to the next patient. Only if the alignment persisted or the condition was serious to begin with was the patient send to a specialist or a hospital. What many eastern doctors also found shocking (at least at the beginning) was the openness with which their western host would admit their ‘we are here to charge the patient’ attitude because in the east it was preached to medical students that what they are about to do is a great service to the society as a whole and to individual human beings and similar lofty stuff.

    It was similar in hospitals. Even specialists were sometimes hapless when confronted with something else then an obvious case but what made a huge difference, in fact all the difference was the availability of specialist diagnostic equipment and a plethora of drugs.

    While a doctor in eastern Europe frequently had only his knowledge, experience and not much more than for example a stethoscope to diagnose the patient and had to treat the man with whatever was available which was usually not much his western counterpart had diagnostic equipment & various medications that were seldom if at all available in the east. The resulting difference in treatment quality is obvious.

    In addition the conditions in hospitals eastern vs. western hospital were like earth and heaven. Comfortable beds, much better food, even ventilation / air conditioning in the west was better.

    The end result was that anybody having a choice would obviously pick a western hospital over an eastern one but that had very little to do with the competence of eastern vs. western doctors.

    The above does not of course exclude that there were in fact some very competent western doctors who had individual experiences with their incompetent professional counterparts from the east.

    It was a very similar with engineers. Usually academic standards in eastern educational institutions were high. A lot of emphasis was put on theoretical knowledge, the ability to calculate and such. Last but not least the exams were most of the time rigorous.

    I beg to opine that sitting side by side the holder of an engineering degree from the east and from the west side by side, give them pencils, sheets of paper and a complex equation to solve the former would probably solve it faster than the latter.

    But again other things made all the difference. A western engineer would have computers and computer assisted design tools which most of his eastern counterparts could only dream about for such technology was only available at higher governmental, scientific or military institutions (if at all).

    Thus while let us five eastern engineers would spend days making calculations and then even more time preparing a design at the drawing boards a western engineer would singlehanded get the job done in a shorter time.

    Now why it was so, why the westerners had all those tools which the easterners did not have is a separate issue to discuss at another time (in fact some have already given partial explanations in other comments).

    The bottom line is that on a one on one basis most eastern MDs or engineers would probably be equally in some case even better educated than their western counterparts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Engineer says:

    More than a few Americans who lived through the cold war (and their offspring) were/are brainwashed into believing capitalism is basically a divine creation that is beyond criticism even as global capitalism is tearing the country apart. Communism/socialism/Marxism, of course, are the ultimate evil and the work of Satan even though most Americans have no clue what these concepts actually entail. And no people on Earth are more irrational and paranoid about “communism” than Americans.

    Hence you get idiots on Medicare railing against single payer healthcare, alt-righters calling Obama a “socialist” (lol) and various GOP geniuses and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc. denouncing Canada as “socialist” (lol) because it has a single payer universal healthcare system.

    It’s almost painful hearing people “criticize” something they know nothing about. It is much easier to go into Pavlovian mode and denounce anyone who dares call out capitalism’s unsavory and regressive aspects as a “commie” “pinko” or a “socialist” than breaking the chains of indoctrination and formulating an argument based on facts and reality.

    Funny how many folks think the government, media and the education system lie about everything…except communism. Reagan, especially, could never tell a lie about the commies and their Evil Empire in the east.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yet 'single payer' IS socialist / communist, simple as that.

    I do agree, however, that there are too many who are sucking at the socialist / communist tit and then hypocritically condem what they obviously use.

    Thanks.

    , @utu
    Hence you get idiots on Medicare railing against single payer healthcare, alt-righters calling Obama a “socialist” (lol) and various GOP geniuses and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc. denouncing Canada as “socialist” (lol) because it has a single payer universal healthcare system.

    The idiots do it because they got conditioned so it is not really spontaneous. I suspect big money is poured into the conditioning projects to keep idiots remain idiots. All those Alex Joneses, Rush Limbaughs and the whole libertarian project of idiotification of young American males are there for a good reason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @renfro
    '' China would not be what it is today without its history of communism''

    Correction.,,,...China wouldnt be what it is today if Britain hadn't taken over Hong Kong 160 some years ago (they turned it over in 1997. )
    Hong Kong because of what the Brits set up for trade and commerce became the financial heart of China.
    Although it is not officially 'part of' China but a stand alone territory with its own governance it is where China's business is done.
    It is also where the mainland coolie Chinese try to get into because it has advanced benefits like medical care, some welfare benefits...things they don't have in mainland China.

    A race whose brains are more than a third smaller cannot teach anything to a race whose brains are a more than a third larger, the inferior degenerate pleasure loving british race didnt teach the chinese anything,

    Read More
    • Replies: @britishbrainsize1325cc
    Correction british brains size is one tenth or much smaller than asians which is a huge difference in size.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Andrei Martyanov

    Isn’t it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members
     
    Excellent point. Now, apart from actual traitors, which did exist, such as Yakovlev, among few of them, consider this fact: 1985 you have a society which is a very affluent one--yes, yes, USSR was extremely developed country and while uneven, most people lived in 1985 way better than they lived in 1965, not to mention 1939. In fact, the progress was starling. Moreover, consider this--you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care. So, what are you going to do? Soviet population also had a shitload of savings. This was a perfect mixture for a desire to live even better, the existing system, which still retained a lot of mobilizational element in it, was simply incapable to provide this. Just one example--the retail mafia was a real mafia and played a crucial role in creating deficits. As paradoxical as it sounds, but Soviet "communism" sentenced itself by creating a very good level of consumption and having the most educated country in the world. As Nobel Peace Prize nominee Johan Galtung noted: "This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world." It was a perfect storm in many respects which DID include the issue of actual treason among many other factors. But what is not understood in the West is the fact that Soviets at that time viewed desired "capitalism" through the prism of a very "communist" privileges they had. As for the Party and Komsomol--first serious businesses (cooperatives etc.) were promoted through regional Obkoms of Komsomol and often went under the title of Centers of NTTM (Scientific-Technical Creativity of Youth). Now, what is happening today in Russia is steady separation of the "communism" and of the Soviet State and this separation is legitimate. Soviet system not always was "communist" per se.

    I had exactly same thought about high level of education and the rest. We should not forget that we are dealing with human nature which is extremely faulty and considering numbers of us it is mind boggling how to achieve sort of decent conditions for preferably all. I find it disturbing that in 21st century there is so many and increasing numbers of poor and needy. Regarding communism end in ussr after Stalin death. I think dialectic dropped from equation. And lack of outstanding personalities who could make further development in theory which would then get translated into practise was obvious. You mentioned Suslov not once. This is what we had. We calcified and pressure was growing. Anyway, I am strong believer in far more communal future and if anything in my opinion capitalism is utopia. How cannot be utopia anythi g that states that personal greed will be good for society as a whole, trickle down and that limited planet can be used for unlimited growth. Here we come to space exploration and development and considering deep capitalism flaws I see it is as unlikely we can do it under current system. It is do or die for humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You have one thing right, namely the salient importance of (flawed, self-centred) human nature. But I remember an interpreter in the early 80s who thought that Western visitors were taught to pretend they had family cars with special disbelief for those who said they had one for each adult member of the family. How many ways that testified to the backwardness and isularity of the USSR! You did implicitly agree with the claim about cars made contra Karlin).

    Where do you find the increasing numbers of poor and needy? Set aside African countries which continue with absurdly high total fertility, whete in the world which has adopted the possibilities for use of capital and skills in globalised markets do you find these increasing numbers of poor (especially after allowing for population growth)? Paradoxically America and Venezuela may be amongst the rare examples. OK fertility is a problem everywhere including KSA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Mark Presco says: • Website

    The main problem with this article and the comments is that it discusses differences in “isms” but not differences in people. People are not fungible.

    I now define the “Left” as collectivists and the “Right” as individualists. These two basic personality traits are not very compatible. Unfortunately, there is no hard definition of this because most people have some combination of both traits.

    I believe that the USA was as successful as it was because a large population of high functioning individualists were pretty much left alone to conduct business via a meritocracy. I refer to the independent, self-reliant pioneers that settled this country. These people thrived on room to grow, natural resources, and the ability of the cream to rise. Contrast this to the indigenous population that was highly collectivist.

    This is why I have become a White Nationalist. People develop cultures as a means of survival, based upon their history, character and environment. We are not the same even within races. It would be best if we could live in a culture best suited to our nature. Forcing incompatible people to live together is a very bad idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " I define the " Left" as collectivists and the "Right" as individualists"

    Not off the mark, however I define the "Left" as : Dummköpfe" , dummies who wouldn't be Leftists if they were not such idiots.

    There is no such animal as an "Intelligent" Leftist, and all of the blather about the edumacation level of Leftists is simply that : Blather. They, Leftists, are not truely educated or intelligent, by any stretch of the imagination, as they do not EVER understand the issues and constellations within which they are delving.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @another fred

    I’d like to know what doesn’t turn to shit eventually.
     
    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

    ;-)

    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

    Then what?

    ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    Then what?
     
    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    But I WIN the debate because fertilizer does not turn directly to shit, there are intermediate steps involved.

    So there.
    , @Johnny Rico
    Flowers. Let a hundred flowers blossom...oops, awkward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Wally says:
    @Engineer
    More than a few Americans who lived through the cold war (and their offspring) were/are brainwashed into believing capitalism is basically a divine creation that is beyond criticism even as global capitalism is tearing the country apart. Communism/socialism/Marxism, of course, are the ultimate evil and the work of Satan even though most Americans have no clue what these concepts actually entail. And no people on Earth are more irrational and paranoid about "communism" than Americans.

    Hence you get idiots on Medicare railing against single payer healthcare, alt-righters calling Obama a "socialist" (lol) and various GOP geniuses and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc. denouncing Canada as "socialist" (lol) because it has a single payer universal healthcare system.

    It's almost painful hearing people "criticize" something they know nothing about. It is much easier to go into Pavlovian mode and denounce anyone who dares call out capitalism's unsavory and regressive aspects as a "commie" "pinko" or a "socialist" than breaking the chains of indoctrination and formulating an argument based on facts and reality.

    Funny how many folks think the government, media and the education system lie about everything...except communism. Reagan, especially, could never tell a lie about the commies and their Evil Empire in the east.

    Yet ‘single payer’ IS socialist / communist, simple as that.

    I do agree, however, that there are too many who are sucking at the socialist / communist tit and then hypocritically condem what they obviously use.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How's that social security check working out for you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Priss Factor
    Communism was a huge failure.

    Now, it's true that many 'capitalist' allies of the US did poorly, but it had more to do with race and diversity. Some races aren't good at economics. And some new Third World nations were too diverse for cohesion and unity. They would failed under ANY system.

    But look at Asia. Compare China under communism to China under free markets. Which did better?
    Compare Japan and Taiwan with commie China and commie Vietnam. Compare North Korea and South Korea.

    If a people have basic ability and unity, they do better under capitalism. Still, excessive capitalism invariably leads to huge problems. Main problem is that capitalism creates a globalist elite neo-aristo class that feels closer to one another than with their own people. As such, the national elites become cosmo-deracinated and useless as leaders of their own people. Worse, they try to replace their own people with foreigners to (1) to use divide-and-rule among the masses and (2) feel morally superior to the masses. Rich people are often blamed for having too much by the masses. So, an effective counter-moral-weapon of the rich is to increase diversity and then blame the masses for 'racism' and 'xenophobia'. UK and French elites pull this shi* all the time. British working classes used to have the moral advantage against the Rich. But now, the British uppercrust turn up their noses as the working class white masses as 'racists' who aren't welcoming of Muslims and Africans.

    Communism, miserable as it was, had one positive feature in stressing that the elites must feel a strong kinship with the masses. Since there was a cap on how much wealth one could accumulate under communism, it was less likely to lead to a rise of Elysium Elite Club. But Communism is too stifling and repressive.

    The solution is Neo-Fascism that allows free markets and enterprise but also emphasizes the needs of the masses in terms of social security, identity, history, and pride. Best qualities of post-Maoist China and post-Yeltsin Russia is their elements of Neo-Fascism... though the power of capital are such that both nations are lurching toward globalist deracination if current trends continue.

    PS. The Soviet Revolution was, in a way, the Revolt of the Imperial Periphery against the Russian Core. Russian Empire led to blowback. Russia came to control so many peoples, and the radical elites of these regions -- Georgia, Poland, Latvia, Armenia, Pale of Settlement, etc -- exploited the crisis of WWI to gain power. Russian masses were vulnerable once the Russian elites fell in the Revolution. On average, Russians were far less educated and intellectual than many other groups under Imperial Russian rule. So, when Imperial Rule fell apart, Russian masses were lost, and the non-Russian alien radicals filled the vacuum.

    ” Stressing that the ( communist) elites must feel a strong kinship with the masses”

    HA HA HA HA HA

    Yeah strong kinship with the masses expressed through their covert ownership of vacation houses, stuffed with western merchandise, and other such perversities as F Castro’s Alfa Romeo collection and his private roads, which were on display in one of the photo mags of the sixties, and then suddenly disappeared after the honchos realized that they made a mistake in publishing such ” conterrevolutionary” information.

    There never, ever, was any humanitarian, or altrustic motivations behind the drivers of the revolutions, they were ALL in it for the power and oppression of those they feared : “The masses”

    I visited several east-block countries long before the fall of the wall and I will never forget the morgue-like atmosphere of the cities and the dead eyes of the downtrodden, dispaired populations.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Couldn't agree more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. utu says:
    @Engineer
    More than a few Americans who lived through the cold war (and their offspring) were/are brainwashed into believing capitalism is basically a divine creation that is beyond criticism even as global capitalism is tearing the country apart. Communism/socialism/Marxism, of course, are the ultimate evil and the work of Satan even though most Americans have no clue what these concepts actually entail. And no people on Earth are more irrational and paranoid about "communism" than Americans.

    Hence you get idiots on Medicare railing against single payer healthcare, alt-righters calling Obama a "socialist" (lol) and various GOP geniuses and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc. denouncing Canada as "socialist" (lol) because it has a single payer universal healthcare system.

    It's almost painful hearing people "criticize" something they know nothing about. It is much easier to go into Pavlovian mode and denounce anyone who dares call out capitalism's unsavory and regressive aspects as a "commie" "pinko" or a "socialist" than breaking the chains of indoctrination and formulating an argument based on facts and reality.

    Funny how many folks think the government, media and the education system lie about everything...except communism. Reagan, especially, could never tell a lie about the commies and their Evil Empire in the east.

    Hence you get idiots on Medicare railing against single payer healthcare, alt-righters calling Obama a “socialist” (lol) and various GOP geniuses and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh etc. denouncing Canada as “socialist” (lol) because it has a single payer universal healthcare system.

    The idiots do it because they got conditioned so it is not really spontaneous. I suspect big money is poured into the conditioning projects to keep idiots remain idiots. All those Alex Joneses, Rush Limbaughs and the whole libertarian project of idiotification of young American males are there for a good reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Mark Presco
    The main problem with this article and the comments is that it discusses differences in “isms” but not differences in people. People are not fungible.

    I now define the “Left” as collectivists and the “Right” as individualists. These two basic personality traits are not very compatible. Unfortunately, there is no hard definition of this because most people have some combination of both traits.

    I believe that the USA was as successful as it was because a large population of high functioning individualists were pretty much left alone to conduct business via a meritocracy. I refer to the independent, self-reliant pioneers that settled this country. These people thrived on room to grow, natural resources, and the ability of the cream to rise. Contrast this to the indigenous population that was highly collectivist.

    This is why I have become a White Nationalist. People develop cultures as a means of survival, based upon their history, character and environment. We are not the same even within races. It would be best if we could live in a culture best suited to our nature. Forcing incompatible people to live together is a very bad idea.

    ” I define the ” Left” as collectivists and the “Right” as individualists”

    Not off the mark, however I define the “Left” as : Dummköpfe” , dummies who wouldn’t be Leftists if they were not such idiots.

    There is no such animal as an “Intelligent” Leftist, and all of the blather about the edumacation level of Leftists is simply that : Blather. They, Leftists, are not truely educated or intelligent, by any stretch of the imagination, as they do not EVER understand the issues and constellations within which they are delving.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vidi

    There is no such animal as an “Intelligent” Leftist
     
    Zhou Enlai, the former premier of China, would demolish you intellectually in spite of your alleged Mensa qualifications. Xi Jinping would probably do the same with ease.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @britishbrainsize1325cc
    A race whose brains are more than a third smaller cannot teach anything to a race whose brains are a more than a third larger, the inferior degenerate pleasure loving british race didnt teach the chinese anything,

    Correction british brains size is one tenth or much smaller than asians which is a huge difference in size.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Many posters from Western countries and USA have illusion of viability of their states systems because ultimate inviability of their system is being plastered over by their ability to parasitically siphon resources from around the globe through financial system and other tricks at their disposal. Even this worked worse and worse as exponentially accumulating debt testifies. Once shit hits the fan all illusions will go. I liked one poster mentioned dead eyes of people from eastern blog. In reality we can see those dead eyes all around here in the West. Hence unhealthy obsession with zombies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    What I find the funniest is that the Western zombies (i.e. the walking dead) always see others as the zombies, not realizing yet what they are. There are no mirrors in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @jacques sheete

    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

     

    Then what?

    ;)

    Then what?

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    But I WIN the debate because fertilizer does not turn directly to shit, there are intermediate steps involved.

    So there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred
    Yeah, I know, you said eventually. But, that's still just a phase not a destiny

    See: 3:53

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @jacques sheete

    Shit does not turn to shit. Shit turns to fertilizer.

     

    Then what?

    ;)

    Flowers. Let a hundred flowers blossom…oops, awkward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. edNels says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Saker, not every thinker in the West holds the simplistic ideas Capitalism=Good, Communism=Bad that you ascribe to us. True, many mainstream thinkers do. But they are not serious thinkers. They are neither particularly well read nor do they think deeply about what they have read. Any thinking person knows that in every economy there are socialist, communistic and capitalist forces.

    In supposedly capitalist America, the roads are publicly owned. Pure socialism. Most, if not all water and sewage treatment plants are publicly owned, as are (or were) most schools. Only a shallow-minded Milton Friedman type would argue that this is bad or needs correction. Such apostles of the pure "free" market aren't really taken seriously by any American thinker.

    I understand "communism" to mean direct worker ownership and management of factories and infrastructure. All to be administered by worker's communes.

    To understand why this failed in the West, we have to look at how capitalism short circuited this process. Capitalism undermined direct worker ownership by buying off the elite managers/engineers who were to be the brains of the workers communes. They bribed them with good wages and nice retirement plans. Without brains, the workers were left powerless.

    American capitalism justifies this bribery by arguing that brain-power is a scarce commodity and that the market distributes rewards for any scarce commodity according to the rules of supply and demand. No one bothered to prove this empirically. No one has ever made a rigorous mathematical study that establishes a strict correlation between levels of IQ, market forces and annual salary. In America today professionals are vastly overpaid (e.g. Doctors) while the average laborer struggles with his rent and is literally broken on the rack by his health care expenses. In this respect, Communism is more fair, as was Socialist Europe.

    I say "was" Socialist Europe because today the push by our "elites" is to undermine wages for all workers, managers/engineers/scientists included. We have entered a new phase, the International bankers phase. Former bastions of equality, Denmark et al. are under siege by international capital to dismantle the welfare state by making it unaffordable for its citizens due to free rider effects caused by forced immigration, putting local workers in direct competition with workers halfway around the globe and so on, and so on. We all know the litany.

    I have not read "Das Capital" (though I have read other of Marx's writings) but I understand it to have said that international finance is the ultimate stage of capitalism. If what has happened in the world in the last fifty years is any indication, this seems to be true. This dominance is (dialectically, to use Marxist terminology) driving the emergence of the new populism.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp. A reformer such as Roosevelt will be elected and he will trim the wings of finance. Nationalistic socialism will reassert itself and a rising standard of living will once again become more widespread. Once everyone is prosperous again, spokespersons will emerge who will lay claim to all the prosperity by attributing it to the miracle of the "free markets", which will give rise to concentration of capital and so the process will repeat itself.

    Real good comment, could be the thesis of an article.

    Agree with the points made, but not the predictions for another cyclical repeat of history.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp

    I don’t know what Fukyama meant by ”History is Dead’, but somethings have changed in the last 100plus years that make it unlikely that meaningful populist reforms will ever again make any headway against consolidated capital. IE: Automated mass warfare and now ubiquitous surveillance state and developing Artificial Intelligence and a host of other niceties from applied psych and pharma and information/perception management through cognitive dissonance generation and...herding techniques will pretty much put the cap on it.

    I mean sad to say, but the only possible way mankind will ever be free again, after this coming distopia, will be the failure of the main plan, through human limitation as has always occurred in repeated boom and bust, or Collapse. But now bringing in Artificial Intelligence, mechanized thought and volitional capabilities beyond what elites own in their mediocre biological selves, and some of the heavy thinkers are nervous about how that may play out, (or be a wild card.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Thanks for your insightful reply. Offhand, I'd say your predictions seem spot on. Hmmmm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @another fred

    Then what?
     
    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    But I WIN the debate because fertilizer does not turn directly to shit, there are intermediate steps involved.

    So there.

    Yeah, I know, you said eventually. But, that’s still just a phase not a destiny

    See: 3:53

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. peterAUS says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Stressing that the ( communist) elites must feel a strong kinship with the masses"

    HA HA HA HA HA

    Yeah strong kinship with the masses expressed through their covert ownership of vacation houses, stuffed with western merchandise, and other such perversities as F Castro's Alfa Romeo collection and his private roads, which were on display in one of the photo mags of the sixties, and then suddenly disappeared after the honchos realized that they made a mistake in publishing such " conterrevolutionary" information.

    There never, ever, was any humanitarian, or altrustic motivations behind the drivers of the revolutions, they were ALL in it for the power and oppression of those they feared : "The masses"

    I visited several east-block countries long before the fall of the wall and I will never forget the morgue-like atmosphere of the cities and the dead eyes of the downtrodden, dispaired populations.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Why do I find it hard to believe anything you claim to be or have done...?

    Someone who brags about being in Mensa is probably a start...?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @edNels
    Real good comment, could be the thesis of an article.

    Agree with the points made, but not the predictions for another cyclical repeat of history.

    If history is any indication, the situation will worsen, the chasm widen and a crisis of the world order will bring things to a grinding halt. Very intelligent and capable people will be driven into the socialist/communist camp
     
    I don't know what Fukyama meant by ''History is Dead', but somethings have changed in the last 100plus years that make it unlikely that meaningful populist reforms will ever again make any headway against consolidated capital. IE: Automated mass warfare and now ubiquitous surveillance state and developing Artificial Intelligence and a host of other niceties from applied psych and pharma and information/perception management through cognitive dissonance generation and...herding techniques will pretty much put the cap on it.

    I mean sad to say, but the only possible way mankind will ever be free again, after this coming distopia, will be the failure of the main plan, through human limitation as has always occurred in repeated boom and bust, or Collapse. But now bringing in Artificial Intelligence, mechanized thought and volitional capabilities beyond what elites own in their mediocre biological selves, and some of the heavy thinkers are nervous about how that may play out, (or be a wild card.)

    Thanks for your insightful reply. Offhand, I’d say your predictions seem spot on. Hmmmm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. RobinG says:
    @shortchanged
    Has anyone heard of 'compulsory aquisition' , that is the forced sale of private property to a local or state goverment, in Australia and England and ?? Surely this is a form communism, but cannot be called that because conservative governments do this as well. Or is it that any colour of goverment will do whatever it wants no matter the reason.

    Is ‘compulsory acquisition’ the equivalent of ‘eminent domain’ in the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think it is. But Shortchanged left out an important fact about Australian compulsory acquisitions. The federal government is constrained by the wording of the constitutional power to acquire property "on just terms". That even led to a Labor government's nationalisation of the banks oin the 40s being overturned in court.

    The states, i.e. ex-19th-century-self-governing-colonies, no doubt are patchy on the matter of just terms. A NSW Labor government took freeholders rights to the (unmined) minerals under their land without compensation but other states started with the Crown owning all such minerals anyway. There is generally the possibility of getting 10 per cent on top of market value as compensation for inconvenience. I'm not so sure about the position where government delays and previous announcements have adversely affected the market value. But there would often be a politically dangerous backlash as so many compulsory acquisitions have to affect many people, when, for example, a new freeway is to be built.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. That which was true in Communism will live on in the forms of the National Socialisms of the future.

    After giving the matter much thought, it seems to me that the following statement is true. Communism retains a certain appeal and vitality because it is one of the few available (albeit cryptic) expressions of Tradition, Nationalism, an religiousity possible under a capitalist system.

    “Communism-as-crypto-Traditionalism” seems to me self-evidently true and is something I’ve believed all of my life. I’ve struggled to find the correct formulation of that idea, but I think this sums it up adequately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @TG
    "Capitalism is a system of man exploiting his fellow man, whereas communism is just the reverse!"

    Certainly an interesting and intelligent post. I would suggest however, that political systems are less important than commonly thought.

    Capitalism can produce societies that are prosperous - such as modern Germany or Switzerland - and also societies so poor that daily life resembles a Stalinist slave labor camp more than anything else - India and Bangladesh are just two examples.

    What, you say that India is 'socialist?' Work like a dog for 50 cents an hour or you starve? Where multinationals drool over all that profitable cheap labor? Where everything is for sale to the highest bidder, including the law? Sounds like a capitalist utopia to me. And in India alone there are 500 million people who are chronically malnourished, their physical standard of living inferior to late Medieval England.

    When there are 100 desperate hungry people competing for every job, wages will be crushed to the most miserable subsistence. When there are four business desperate for every worker, wages will be bid high and there will be widespread prosperity. Supply and demand, people, and capitalism is absolutely neutral about whether wages will be high or low.

    Almost any political system can be made to work, more or less, if the elites are not completely corrupt and feel some connection to the society as a whole. And there is no system of checks and balances that cannot be corrupted if the elites don't care and ignore them. And finally, no system can create prosperity when there is no open frontier and everyone has six kids a pop, because no political system can over-ride the dictates of physical reality.

    “Almost any political system can be made to work, more or less, if the elites are not completely corrupt and feel some connection to the society as a whole. And there is no system of checks and balances that cannot be corrupted if the elites don’t care and ignore them.”

    While many would reactively disagree because they champion this or that favorite, I believe history has shown that you’re correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Vidi says:
    @Wally
    "China would not be what it is today without its history of communism"

    Certainly true, but that doesn't speak well for communism.

    After all, 'what China is today' is an utter rejection of their communist history.

    “China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Certainly true, but that doesn’t speak well for communism.
    After all, ‘what China is today’ is an utter rejection of their communist history.

    Very not true. China’s state-owned enterprises still predominate: they’re over 50% of the economy; they’re over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.

    When China said they would be implementing “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.
    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore."

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, 'a Chinese rejection of their communist past' ... where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    What you're really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    clue: Not the same as communist.

    Bye.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    This should sooner be described as "state capitalism."

    Markets are no longer substantially suppressed, which is a more defining feature of Communist regimes than state ownership. State ownership is usually worse than private ownership (possible exception: Natural monopolities), but it's not a critical handicap, and for that matter, there were periods in some Western countries when the "commanding heights" of the economy were state-owned.

    The extent to which China can be described as socialist is also questionable since its welfare state was traditionally extremely threadbare (this is slowly changing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Excal says:

    It is not really surprising that the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time …

    They are really quite close to finishing themselves off, though.

    Read More
    • LOL: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Yet 'single payer' IS socialist / communist, simple as that.

    I do agree, however, that there are too many who are sucking at the socialist / communist tit and then hypocritically condem what they obviously use.

    Thanks.

    How’s that social security check working out for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You mean the SS I paid for, and then some.

    And how's that mommy & daddy money you live off? LOL
    I can only imagine how that money was 'made'.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Vidi says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " I define the " Left" as collectivists and the "Right" as individualists"

    Not off the mark, however I define the "Left" as : Dummköpfe" , dummies who wouldn't be Leftists if they were not such idiots.

    There is no such animal as an "Intelligent" Leftist, and all of the blather about the edumacation level of Leftists is simply that : Blather. They, Leftists, are not truely educated or intelligent, by any stretch of the imagination, as they do not EVER understand the issues and constellations within which they are delving.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    There is no such animal as an “Intelligent” Leftist

    Zhou Enlai, the former premier of China, would demolish you intellectually in spite of your alleged Mensa qualifications. Xi Jinping would probably do the same with ease.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Excal says:

    Some of those who find this essay important and interesting, as I do, may also be interested in a very recent essay by Edward Feser, posted to his blog on October 10, called “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”.

    Both essays provide clear views of the present situation of the world, from different perspectives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. FB says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    No you don't need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIbq7HkalQ

    ‘…No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient…’

    And there is the definitive answer from the Philistine camp of humanity…

    In fact, why even bother with education at all…indoctrination seems to work well enough…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Joe Hide says:

    An oddly written article. Arguing one side, then the other.. over and over, and over and over. I read it all carefully but really didn’t learn anything. Is that because I am uneducated, ignorant, low intelligence, … OR … is there some other reason?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dube
    Joe Hide says:
    October 15, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT [#116]

    "An oddly written article. Arguing one side, then the other.. over and over, and over and over. I read it all carefully but really didn’t learn anything. Is that because I am uneducated, ignorant, low intelligence, … OR … is there some other reason?"

    Read it as written from the p.o.v. of an Orthodox Christian, as he indicates himself. I guess that--how shall I try to put it--with God, all things are possible. And interesting, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Art says:

    But when the grand edifice of Capitalism finally comes tumbling down and its victims rediscover the difference between propaganda and education – then a credible modern challenge to the Communist ideology will possibly arise. But for the time being and the foreseeable future Communism will remain not only alive, but also quite undefeated.

    We need to work together – but how?

    Communist collective dictation of life is a cruel joke – on the other hand neighborly community cooperation has worked for millennia. Communism is another false uncaring top-down forced collective.

    Both late stage Capitalism and Communism end up with the deep state in control of social life, removed from the concerns of local folks.

    Human organization is 100% all about ownership – who owns what, is the difference between freedom and oppression – cooperation and dictatorship – community and coercive state.

    When Wall Street owns Main Street, local communities stop working for local people – the people become disassociated from each other. The problem is that decisions about the future are made by far away uncaring money centers. The decisions are dictated by money concerns, NOT the needs of the local people. Lives are shredded with the click of a mouse. Ownership must come back to communities.

    Local community ownership by local folks is the future of humanity – it is the goal of society for local folks to own the productive capacity and services they need to sustain their lives. They should have a shared legal ownership of their place of business, banks, stores, utilities, hospitals, and governments.

    Voting one’s ownership share of local organizations is the safest sustainable configuration for humanity.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. tomasrose says:
    @Thirdeye
    The Russian Orthodox hierarchy was part of a church-state combine resembling that of the Catholic hierarchy and the Feudal aristocracies of western Europe during Medieval times. It taught that the Tsar's place in Holy Russia was ordained, and that notion had considerable authority among Russian peasants. The Bolsheviks gained allies among national minorities who chafed under that ideology and there was considerable brutality directed against Russian peasants who embraced it. Communist atheism lasted only until late 1941 when Stalin, who had been trained as an Orthodox priest, revived Holy Russia as a national ideology. Best indications are that his re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity was genuine.

    ” Communist atheism lasted only until late 1941 when Stalin, who had been trained as an Orthodox priest, revived Holy Russia as a national ideology. Best indications are that his re-embrace of Orthodox Christianity was genuine.”
    Ridiculous. Stalin temporarily embraced Orthodoxy for the purpose of rousing the populace against the German assault. The other appeals to patriotism were not working.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Art says:

    Please – what is wrong with us?

    We cannot put to bed the Civil War – WWII – and now Communism!

    What about today?

    Good god – Trump is playing nuclear games with Iran and NKorea – if there was to be a war, we could not win either, let alone both of them — this is crazy!

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. Really – how can nuking NKorea into obliteration be a win?

    p.s. This is total stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Who isn’t bored after one paragraph?

    Without markets there are no price signals and efficient use of resources to meet human needs is impossible.

    That’s elementary logic, just look at the paradise in Venezuela if you want a current demonstration.

    You can’t even wipe your ass in Venezuela.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. Wally says:
    @Vidi

    “China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Certainly true, but that doesn’t speak well for communism.
    After all, ‘what China is today’ is an utter rejection of their communist history.
     
    Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.

    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore.

    “Very not true. China’s state-owned enterprises still predominate: they’re over 50% of the economy; they’re over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.
    When China said they would be implementing “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore.”

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, ‘a Chinese rejection of their communist past’ … where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    What you’re really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    clue: Not the same as communist.

    Bye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You have no idea what you're talking about. China isn't even remotely fascist. It doesn't operate according to a corporatist economy, it discourages nationalism, it is not centered around a single dictator, etc. Even under Mao, private industry was never completely abolished. You really shouldn't comment on things about which you know nothing.
    , @Vidi

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
     
    Only a minority of the economy is private now. That is definitely not "an utter rejection of their communist history".

    Furthermore, the state-owned enterprises are very profitable, so in spite of carping from many Western critics China will continue to be socialist / communist.
    , @Vidi

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, ‘a Chinese rejection of their communist past’ … where 100% of everything was in communist hands.
     
    Just because China has adopted bits of capitalism, you can't say that the country has "utterly rejected" socialism. Otherwise, you would have to say the U.S. has utterly rejected capitalism since the government funds most police departments.

    The unshakeable reality is that China is quite socialist: the state controls the major part of the economy, and the five-year plans work. That is more than good enough.

    What you’re really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.
     
    I'm not playing your definition game.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. FB says:
    @peterAUS
    Couldn't agree more.

    Why do I find it hard to believe anything you claim to be or have done…?

    Someone who brags about being in Mensa is probably a start…?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Why do I find it hard to believe anything you claim to be or have done…?
     
    Attention to detail, among other things, perhaps?

    As

    Someone who brags about being in Mensa is probably a start…?
     
    are you sure you haven't mistaken me for somebody else here?
    Hint: word "Jazz".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Anon
    A very wordy article. A couple of (logical) questions:

    1) Is the abolition of private property a central tenet of communism?
    2) Is the abolition of private property compatible with human nature?

    The answer to the second is no, which is why when attempted has to be imposed tyrannically. It is an utopia that disregards, even hates, the human person. It can no more be achieved than the current gender ideology espoused by totalitarian politicians. But it will be tried, and cause like communism, incalculable suffering.

    The abolitionism of private property was postulated as a historical process and not a political decision; the point being made is that it had no long term future and was not an expression of our species being, but a weight upon our necks. Private property in the means of production, is not the same as various forms of personal property, there is an important distinction there which is often missed.

    Private property has almost completely been abolished by capital accumulation, not Marxism.

    Ironically, it has been financial capital that abolished it not to free humanity, but further enslave it. In such circumstances a revival of small capital; individually or collectively held private property in the means of production as solution to dissolving large financially based corporatism.

    Marxism if you actually try to understand it is all about human freedom, is anti-utopian and liberation, it is essentially a method of history that in understanding historical processes seeks to direct them to the benefit of humanity.

    What you are opposed to is the rise of managerialism, which Stalin was an excellent representative, for that is a social class of enslavers that were produced by the abolition of private property that began in the 1860s and took off in the 1880s.

    To truly oppose something, which the Saker is arguing, you must know the strongest parts, from my perspective anti-c0mmunism strongest parts are not intellectual, but thuggery under safe havens.

    Conservatives and right reaction are not the same thing there is common ground on some vital things, imperialism, corporatism and managerialism hurt us all. The Saker was not wasting his words, and there has been an intellectual shift towards Marxism (without a party organisation) of which I would count myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Communism will not be dead until the most evil, oxymoronic belief – universal brotherhood – is killed. Communism wants the workers of the world to unite, the RCC wants everyone in its church to follow the pope (regardless of his race). These beliefs are destroying the West and until people start realizing that world history can be summed up in 2 words: IQ which leads to racial differences which leads to the separation of low IQ people from the higher IQ people (no blacks/Asians in the West) – we will continue to have many problems.

    Thousands of years ago people in the Middle East tried to build a tower to reach God. People spoke the same language so God confused their languages and scattered them about the world. Ever since then, people (through religion, Freemasonry, worldwide political movements, i.e., Communism) have tried to unite humanity. All that has happened is constant war and constant loss of IQ. The ancient Egyptians (Caucasians) and ancient Indians (Aryan) were destroyed by mixing with blacks/Asians.

    These universal beliefs must be destroyed and a belief system based on the most important, objective truth, IQ, must be developed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. @Sergey Krieger
    I had exactly same thought about high level of education and the rest. We should not forget that we are dealing with human nature which is extremely faulty and considering numbers of us it is mind boggling how to achieve sort of decent conditions for preferably all. I find it disturbing that in 21st century there is so many and increasing numbers of poor and needy. Regarding communism end in ussr after Stalin death. I think dialectic dropped from equation. And lack of outstanding personalities who could make further development in theory which would then get translated into practise was obvious. You mentioned Suslov not once. This is what we had. We calcified and pressure was growing. Anyway, I am strong believer in far more communal future and if anything in my opinion capitalism is utopia. How cannot be utopia anythi g that states that personal greed will be good for society as a whole, trickle down and that limited planet can be used for unlimited growth. Here we come to space exploration and development and considering deep capitalism flaws I see it is as unlikely we can do it under current system. It is do or die for humanity.

    You have one thing right, namely the salient importance of (flawed, self-centred) human nature. But I remember an interpreter in the early 80s who thought that Western visitors were taught to pretend they had family cars with special disbelief for those who said they had one for each adult member of the family. How many ways that testified to the backwardness and isularity of the USSR! You did implicitly agree with the claim about cars made contra Karlin).

    Where do you find the increasing numbers of poor and needy? Set aside African countries which continue with absurdly high total fertility, whete in the world which has adopted the possibilities for use of capital and skills in globalised markets do you find these increasing numbers of poor (especially after allowing for population growth)? Paradoxically America and Venezuela may be amongst the rare examples. OK fertility is a problem everywhere including KSA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    We talk different languages. I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70's. So what. So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him. Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about. I mean calling Soviet industry backward because it was not turning 10 million cars annually. May be it was not the goal. I am right not only about human nature but about te rest of my post. I will add one more thing. Without extremely timely dismantling of the Soviet union by treasonous elites USA would get into existential crisis much earlier. Resources from former eastern block especially from ussr bought time to pretend that usa is prospering. First, numbers of poor and needy are on the rise in USA. Did I miss something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Sometimes The Saker is interesting and thought provoking but to appear to be declaiming de haut en bas as the supremely clear eyed logical person really won’t wash when he calls Proudhon’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” a *”slightly”* different version to Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. It disqualifies him from any right to be taken seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @RobinG
    Is ‘compulsory acquisition’ the equivalent of 'eminent domain' in the US?

    I think it is. But Shortchanged left out an important fact about Australian compulsory acquisitions. The federal government is constrained by the wording of the constitutional power to acquire property “on just terms”. That even led to a Labor government’s nationalisation of the banks oin the 40s being overturned in court.

    The states, i.e. ex-19th-century-self-governing-colonies, no doubt are patchy on the matter of just terms. A NSW Labor government took freeholders rights to the (unmined) minerals under their land without compensation but other states started with the Crown owning all such minerals anyway. There is generally the possibility of getting 10 per cent on top of market value as compensation for inconvenience. I’m not so sure about the position where government delays and previous announcements have adversely affected the market value. But there would often be a politically dangerous backlash as so many compulsory acquisitions have to affect many people, when, for example, a new freeway is to be built.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @shortchanged
    Has anyone heard of 'compulsory aquisition' , that is the forced sale of private property to a local or state goverment, in Australia and England and ?? Surely this is a form communism, but cannot be called that because conservative governments do this as well. Or is it that any colour of goverment will do whatever it wants no matter the reason.

    See my reply to RobinG’s #107

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. peterAUS says:
    @FB
    Why do I find it hard to believe anything you claim to be or have done...?

    Someone who brags about being in Mensa is probably a start...?

    Why do I find it hard to believe anything you claim to be or have done…?

    Attention to detail, among other things, perhaps?

    As

    Someone who brags about being in Mensa is probably a start…?

    are you sure you haven’t mistaken me for somebody else here?
    Hint: word “Jazz”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    "Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.
    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore."

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, 'a Chinese rejection of their communist past' ... where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    What you're really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    clue: Not the same as communist.

    Bye.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. China isn’t even remotely fascist. It doesn’t operate according to a corporatist economy, it discourages nationalism, it is not centered around a single dictator, etc. Even under Mao, private industry was never completely abolished. You really shouldn’t comment on things about which you know nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Wizard of Oz
    You have one thing right, namely the salient importance of (flawed, self-centred) human nature. But I remember an interpreter in the early 80s who thought that Western visitors were taught to pretend they had family cars with special disbelief for those who said they had one for each adult member of the family. How many ways that testified to the backwardness and isularity of the USSR! You did implicitly agree with the claim about cars made contra Karlin).

    Where do you find the increasing numbers of poor and needy? Set aside African countries which continue with absurdly high total fertility, whete in the world which has adopted the possibilities for use of capital and skills in globalised markets do you find these increasing numbers of poor (especially after allowing for population growth)? Paradoxically America and Venezuela may be amongst the rare examples. OK fertility is a problem everywhere including KSA.

    We talk different languages. I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70′s. So what. So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him. Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about. I mean calling Soviet industry backward because it was not turning 10 million cars annually. May be it was not the goal. I am right not only about human nature but about te rest of my post. I will add one more thing. Without extremely timely dismantling of the Soviet union by treasonous elites USA would get into existential crisis much earlier. Resources from former eastern block especially from ussr bought time to pretend that usa is prospering. First, numbers of poor and needy are on the rise in USA. Did I miss something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You take the easy rhetorical path of not quite answering the points you were purporting to answer and making some up that you chose to answer.
    , @utu
    I remember reading interview with Fidel Castro in mid eighties, I think, when he made the point that the western model cannot be applied in the whole world, that we can't imagine in China each family having a car like in America. He was making perfect sense to me then. And now, what China is doing? Why they did not listen to Fidel?
    , @Johnny Rico

    I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70′s. So what.
     
    So what? Well, for starters, you are wrong. Completely wrong. There were 111 million cars in 1970 in the United States and only 161 million by 1980.

    https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html


    So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him.
     
    No. You just need to think more before you type.

    Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about.
     
    Awkward considering the above.

    May be it was not the goal.
     
    Oh. It definitely wasn't the goal. Not in the 1970s. See, you are actually correct there - however you have no idea, you are unsure, you don't actually know what you are talking about. That's why you wrote "May be."

    In the 1930s Stalin wanted to emulate the United States technologically and scientifically. By the 1970s the Soviet Union had far bigger problems.


    "The USSR's main use for oil was for domestic purposes, Moscow always prizing independence from a hostile capitalist world. But Moscow needed that world too because Russia, which before the revolution had been the world's greatest exporter of grain, had become by the late 1970s the world's largest importer. In 1963 Khrushchev had spent a third of the country's gold to buy grain. The collective agriculture forcibly imposed by Stalin was a failure. As the head of a collective farm once said to me: ".. . collective farming could have worked. It worked in Israel.. .. But it couldn't be done by force and decree." Storage and distribution were also significant problems, up to a third of a year's crop lost to spillage and spoilage."
    -pg. 106

    Putin: His Downfall and Russia's Coming Crash
    by Richard Lourie (July 2017)
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Wally says: • Website

    Our resident low IQ, unhinged Zionist is back talking about things that he simply makes up.
    But then we can expect no better, he’s a veritable Harvey Weinstein.

    Now this is China today, no “dictator’ required:

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism [China] sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism [China] did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority [Chinese] conceived it.
    Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism [China] left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism [China] controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

    Anon & his “Holocau$t Industry” in court:

    ‘Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are, … but, but, well, umm, we can’t show the court. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Moreover, consider this–you have a population which by that time owned apartments, very many owned cars, dachas, all had access to free education (including higher one), free health care.
     
    I mean dude, why ruin what was a reasonable point (if one that could still be contended with on the details) with... cars, of all things.

    If there's one consumption item on which the USSR failed above all else, it was in cars. Even 1990s Russia did far better on raising car ownership!

    Johan Galtung noted: “This situation arose from the fact that the Soviet Union had the highest number of intelligentsia in the world, thirty five million—fifteen million who had university degrees and twenty million who in the United States would be community-college graduates. In some statistical reports, this is supposed to account for some 25 percent of intelligentsia in the world.”
     
    Another way of saying overqualified. Most Soviet "engineers" would be "technicians" and most Soviet "doctors" would be "nurses" or "medical orderlies" in the West.

    “Quantity has a quality all its own”https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin#Quantity_is_quality seems to generally be the rallying cry and leitmotif of Communism.

    The is an interesting recent article from the NY Times:

    Fraud Scandals Sap China’s Dream of Becoming a Science Superpower

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-fraud-scandals.html

    [As in the West, career advancement can often seem to be based more on the quantity of research papers published rather than the quality. However, in China, scientists there say, this obsession with numerical goal posts can reach extremes. Compounding the problem, they say, is the fact that Chinese universities and research institutes suffer from a lack of oversight, and mete out weak punishments for those who are caught cheating. ]
    [...]
    [Some scientists say China’s overemphasis on numerical measures of success can be seen in its almost single-minded focus on the Science Citation Index, or S.C.I. This index is used to assign an “impact factor” score to scientific journals, which ranks their importance in part by counting how many times their articles are cited in other papers.]
    [...]
    [“Everything revolves around the S.C.I.,” said Chen Li, a professor in the medical school at Fudan University in Shanghai. He and other scientists compared Chinese academia’s obsession with this numerical index to the government’s fixation on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success.]

    http://www.unz.com/suggestion/suggestion-thread-for-forum-articles/#comment-2044582 (Comment is still in moderation)

    This is why I am also skeptical, in particular, of IQ test scores/results coming out of China:

    Source: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    This is also interesting in this context:

    So why are we so into algebra? Baker points out that many of today’s math requirements are relics of the Cold War. In 1950, only 25 percent of students in the U.S. were taking algebra. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was churning out mathematicians, partially because compared to lab sciences, teaching math is cheap–pen and paper are the only required materials. And so, seeing the influx of young mathematicians in Russia, Congress passed 1958′s National Defense Education Act, re-upping the American math curriculum requirementshttp://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1914253

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I didn't perform a proper quality control inspection on my above comment; typo correction: *This* is an interesting recent article from the NY Times...

    Also, after I read this comment http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2044790 , I just thought about this again, and it is actually somewhat unfair of me to single out Communism as being the only ideology which generally prioritizes quantity over quality. Organized religions in general are even worse offenders in this regard: http://www.unz.com/article/the-reality-of-red-subversion/#comment-1699584

    I guess, technically Communism could/should also be classified as an organized religion, though.

    Giving Up Marxism - Christopher Hitchens

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FcBeyEWgSM

    Christopher Hitchens comparing his loss of philosophy of Marxism to someone losing their faith in religion. This comes from his book "God is Not Great" which I do not own the rights to.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Joe Wong says:
    @J.L.Seagull
    Indeed, Mao Cheng Ji, there seem to be a lot of people who think saying "XYZ sucks" automatically makes it true... this must be some instant gratification culture at work.

    It is called American Exceptionalism, American’s words must be taken as given truth, only the American can invent and only the American can succeed, or the USA owns the world, therefore whatever USA does is necessary with the best intention including bombing and killing on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Sergey Krieger
    We talk different languages. I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70's. So what. So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him. Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about. I mean calling Soviet industry backward because it was not turning 10 million cars annually. May be it was not the goal. I am right not only about human nature but about te rest of my post. I will add one more thing. Without extremely timely dismantling of the Soviet union by treasonous elites USA would get into existential crisis much earlier. Resources from former eastern block especially from ussr bought time to pretend that usa is prospering. First, numbers of poor and needy are on the rise in USA. Did I miss something?

    You take the easy rhetorical path of not quite answering the points you were purporting to answer and making some up that you chose to answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    Which points? Poor and needy? I answered. What was Interesting, Soviet people did not believe about homeless in America. Could they imagine some 50 million on food stamps? Who needs 300 million cars if people live on the streets and cannot afford food? Trust me. Now, America is viewed very differently in Russia. Lessons learned and propaganda is not working.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. utu says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    We talk different languages. I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70's. So what. So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him. Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about. I mean calling Soviet industry backward because it was not turning 10 million cars annually. May be it was not the goal. I am right not only about human nature but about te rest of my post. I will add one more thing. Without extremely timely dismantling of the Soviet union by treasonous elites USA would get into existential crisis much earlier. Resources from former eastern block especially from ussr bought time to pretend that usa is prospering. First, numbers of poor and needy are on the rise in USA. Did I miss something?

    I remember reading interview with Fidel Castro in mid eighties, I think, when he made the point that the western model cannot be applied in the whole world, that we can’t imagine in China each family having a car like in America. He was making perfect sense to me then. And now, what China is doing? Why they did not listen to Fidel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I guess you should ask them. Do you think China is a land of milk and honey? I would have never agreed to live there. I did live there before...temporary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Seraphim says:
    @utu
    Perhaps Stalin was right about the doctors' plot.

    You will be completely right if you remove the ‘perhaps’. The Doctors Plot had nothing to do with Stalin’s anti-semitic ‘paranoia’, but very much to do with the ‘Crimean Affair’*

    *Name used to refer to the closed antisemitic trial of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) held in Moscow from May to July 1952. One of the pretexts may have been a memorandum presented in the summer of 1944 by members of the Committee to the Soviet leadership containing a proposal to create a Jewish Soviet republic in the Crimea (the Tatar population of which was exiled by Stalin by May 1944) on the territory of the former German republic of the Volga. Noting the successes of the Jewish national regions in the Crimea and in the Kerson region, the authors of the memorandum based their proposal on the lack of a geographical base of a significant part of the Jewish population of the Soviet Union and on the need to grant the Jews equality in governmental-legal terms with the other nationalities of the Soviet Union. They also expressed the hope that “the Jewish masses of all countries, in particular the United States would give substantial aid” to building up such a republic. Despite the rumors that some members of the Politburo of the Central Committee (Lazar Kaganovich and Vyacheslav Molotov) were favorably disposed toward the idea of the “Crimean Plan,” it was rejected in 1944.
    The proposals of the memorandum contained nothing radically new. Projects for establishing a Jewish republic in the southern Ukraine or in the Crimea had been suggested earlier. For example, in 1923 the social leader A. Bragin had proposed that one be established on the Black Sea coast from Bessarabia to Abkhaz with its capital in Odessa, while Yuri Larin supported, in opposition to the Birobidzhan plan, a Jewish autonomous area in the southern Crimean and Azov region centered in Kerch..
    At a secret trial the defendants were accused of espionage, anti-Soviet activity, and plotting the secession of the Crimea from the Soviet Union and establishing there a bourgeois Zionist republic which was supposed to become a base for American imperialism…
    A number of additional trials involving other Jewish cultural figures and employees of the JAC were soon thereafter linked to the charges in the Crimean Affair. The Crimean Affair was the culminating act in the total liquidation of Jewish cultural and social life in the Soviet Union. It was followed by the accusations of “cosmopolitanism,” which resulted in the dismissal of thousands of Jews in senior positions in almost all walks of Soviet life. It also served as a prelude to the antisemitic Doctor’s Plot (1952–53)”
    @http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/crim

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Joe Wong says:
    @Wally
    "China would not be what it is today without its history of communism"

    Certainly true, but that doesn't speak well for communism.

    After all, 'what China is today' is an utter rejection of their communist history.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won’t happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world…Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally

    1. Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won’t happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    2. You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world…Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.
     

    Briefly:

    1. The old 'it was never tried excuse'.
    Given how many times communism has been tried & failed, there can no longer be any excuse.
    Capitalism is not being implemented correctly because Big Government has intervened for it's own benefit.
    In fact, history reveals that the closer any system is to unmanipulated capitalism, the better served are the people.
    Indeed, getting Big Government out of the business sector benefits Americans.

    While the US is no doubt going off the rails, it is nonetheless the most free market system available today. Witness the fact of foreign investments, foreign deposits.
    I dread what the future holds, however.

    The problems you speak of are a result of government interference in the market place, simple as that.

    2. Are you serious?
    Show me where "Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times". Come on.
    The trend is for the makers to be assailed by the unproductive takers.
    But perhaps you think the UN, NGOs, etc. are really trying to help the world rather than lining their own pockets. If so, I can't help you, you're too far gone.

    Who said anything about "colonialism", comrade? No college freshman false strawmen, please.
    Yes, I agree, a Cold war mentality & "defense spending" is harmful. But once again that is Big Government, not capitalism.

    Speaking of Big Government, here is where free speech is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes:
    https://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1858

    Cheers.

    , @Authenticjazzman
    " Has it every occured to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past"

    Yeah we are quite familiar with this worn out, tired excuse, this absurd justification for it's failure, expressed by each new generation of communists :

    " They were the wrong ones, and we are the right ones and we will get it right this time"

    How many more time do you guys want to try it "wrongly", with it's unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artisit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. is the average russian actually better off than he would have been had the CPSU remained in power?

    you know the conspiracy theory that the USSR faked its disintegration? once a chekist always a chekist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. FKA Max says: • Website
    @FKA Max
    "Quantity has a quality all its own" - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin#Quantity_is_quality seems to generally be the rallying cry and leitmotif of Communism.

    The is an interesting recent article from the NY Times:


    Fraud Scandals Sap China’s Dream of Becoming a Science Superpower

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-fraud-scandals.html

    [As in the West, career advancement can often seem to be based more on the quantity of research papers published rather than the quality. However, in China, scientists there say, this obsession with numerical goal posts can reach extremes. Compounding the problem, they say, is the fact that Chinese universities and research institutes suffer from a lack of oversight, and mete out weak punishments for those who are caught cheating. ]
    [...]
    [Some scientists say China’s overemphasis on numerical measures of success can be seen in its almost single-minded focus on the Science Citation Index, or S.C.I. This index is used to assign an “impact factor” score to scientific journals, which ranks their importance in part by counting how many times their articles are cited in other papers.]
    [...]
    [“Everything revolves around the S.C.I.,” said Chen Li, a professor in the medical school at Fudan University in Shanghai. He and other scientists compared Chinese academia’s obsession with this numerical index to the government’s fixation on gross domestic product as a measure of economic success.]
     

    - http://www.unz.com/suggestion/suggestion-thread-for-forum-articles/#comment-2044582 (Comment is still in moderation)

    This is why I am also skeptical, in particular, of IQ test scores/results coming out of China:

    https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/average.jpg

    Source: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/09/05/worldwide-iq-estimates-based-on-education-data/

    This is also interesting in this context:

    So why are we so into algebra? Baker points out that many of today’s math requirements are relics of the Cold War. In 1950, only 25 percent of students in the U.S. were taking algebra. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was churning out mathematicians, partially because compared to lab sciences, teaching math is cheap–pen and paper are the only required materials. And so, seeing the influx of young mathematicians in Russia, Congress passed 1958′s National Defense Education Act, re-upping the American math curriculum requirements - http://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1914253

    I didn’t perform a proper quality control inspection on my above comment; typo correction: *This* is an interesting recent article from the NY Times

    Also, after I read this comment http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2044790 , I just thought about this again, and it is actually somewhat unfair of me to single out Communism as being the only ideology which generally prioritizes quantity over quality. Organized religions in general are even worse offenders in this regard: http://www.unz.com/article/the-reality-of-red-subversion/#comment-1699584

    I guess, technically Communism could/should also be classified as an organized religion, though.

    Giving Up Marxism – Christopher Hitchens



    Christopher Hitchens comparing his loss of philosophy of Marxism to someone losing their faith in religion. This comes from his book “God is Not Great” which I do not own the rights to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Vidi says:
    @Wally
    "Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.
    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore."

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, 'a Chinese rejection of their communist past' ... where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    What you're really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    clue: Not the same as communist.

    Bye.

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.

    Only a minority of the economy is private now. That is definitely not “an utter rejection of their communist history”.

    Furthermore, the state-owned enterprises are very profitable, so in spite of carping from many Western critics China will continue to be socialist / communist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Well yes, someone could say that China' 30-50% private economy .... & growing is a "minority". But so what? One doesn't convert such a huge percentage without acknowledging the fact that the previous system, communism, was a bust, otherwise they would have stayed with it.

    The fact that the Chinese economy had until fairly recently been 100% communist controlled doesn't matter to the willfully ignorant.

    Their 'state owned enterprises very profitable'? Well duh, they have no competition.

    China is fascist economy, see my previous post.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Wally says: • Website
    @Joe Wong
    Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won't happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world...Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.

    1. Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won’t happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    2. You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world…Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.

    Briefly:

    1. The old ‘it was never tried excuse’.
    Given how many times communism has been tried & failed, there can no longer be any excuse.
    Capitalism is not being implemented correctly because Big Government has intervened for it’s own benefit.
    In fact, history reveals that the closer any system is to unmanipulated capitalism, the better served are the people.
    Indeed, getting Big Government out of the business sector benefits Americans.

    While the US is no doubt going off the rails, it is nonetheless the most free market system available today. Witness the fact of foreign investments, foreign deposits.
    I dread what the future holds, however.

    The problems you speak of are a result of government interference in the market place, simple as that.

    2. Are you serious?
    Show me where “Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times”. Come on.
    The trend is for the makers to be assailed by the unproductive takers.
    But perhaps you think the UN, NGOs, etc. are really trying to help the world rather than lining their own pockets. If so, I can’t help you, you’re too far gone.

    Who said anything about “colonialism”, comrade? No college freshman false strawmen, please.
    Yes, I agree, a Cold war mentality & “defense spending” is harmful. But once again that is Big Government, not capitalism.

    Speaking of Big Government, here is where free speech is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes:

    https://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1858

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If it weren't bad enough that the definition you linked to is a very bad definition of fascism, your attempt to shoehorn China into that bad definition is even worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @jilles dykstra
    Of course communism is not dead, no religion ever really died.
    What a centrally directed economy is unable of is producing those consumer goods the consumer wants.
    Only the profit motive can accomplish this.
    When USSR citizens began to see, literally, tv, how people in the west lived, far better than they did, it was the end of communism in practice.
    When Chrustjow visited the USA he was flabbergasted on how ordinary USA citizens lived.

    Sure, the population where increasingly frustrated about the lack of consumer goods, but the USSR wasn’t a democracy where the people voted to replace the government, and there was no bloody revolution, so the USSR must have fell for some other reason. The answer as to why the USSR collapsed was because, unlike the communist government in China, it lost control of the reform process it initiated in the 1980s. However, answering that question only begs another question – why did it lose control of the reform process?

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    However, answering that question only begs another question – why did it lose control of the reform process?
     
    Surely part of the "why" has to do with the length of time that China has had to meld its population into a nation compared to the recent history of the acquisitions of the Russian/USSR empire.

    I do understand that there is diversity in China and some tension with regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang, but that is nothing compared to the dog's breakfast they were trying to lash together in the USSR.

    Probably the quality of leadership figured in the process.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Mao Cheng Ji

    And it is true that Lenin and Trotsky engaged in what can only be described as a genocidal and satanic run amok against religion in general, and Orthodox Christianity especially, while they were in power.
     
    I don't think they did that. The alternative theory is that Russian peasants hated the priests -- not Orthodox Christianity as such, but the priests and the official church, essential part of the ruling class -- so much that they happily killed a whole bunch of 'blood-sucking priests'. Personally, I find this theory more plausible.

    Now, Khrushchev, on the other hand, really did hit the church hard. Still, I don't think it was particularly genocidal or satanic. Just politics.

    It is frightening to realize there are people like you around, eager to resume the mass slaughter of Christians. A bloody persecution can erupt at any minute.

    It is also discouraging to realize there are many people like you who – people who can be whipped into a murderous frenzy by propaganda, mostly from television.

    Finally, if you actually believe that Stalin didn’t persecute and kill Christians, especially Orthodox and Catholic priests, you will believe anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    It is frightening to realize there are people like you around, eager to resume the mass slaughter of Christians.
     
    You need to calm down a bit. What I said was that Orthodox priests were high-level members of the power structure, hated by the people. For that, many of them got killed, killed by ordinary people, which is what happens in a revolution.

    If you care so much about the functionaries of your particular branch of organized religion, the lesson you might want to learn from this historical episode is that they should avoid affixing themselves to unpopular power structures. Or, better: to any power structures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Wizard of Oz
    You take the easy rhetorical path of not quite answering the points you were purporting to answer and making some up that you chose to answer.

    Which points? Poor and needy? I answered. What was Interesting, Soviet people did not believe about homeless in America. Could they imagine some 50 million on food stamps? Who needs 300 million cars if people live on the streets and cannot afford food? Trust me. Now, America is viewed very differently in Russia. Lessons learned and propaganda is not working.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I guess you point to the problem of ruling classes, at least in big countries, who can't think of better says of deploying a country's wealth than on wars. While the USSR and the USA are examples of that it does seem that India and China are not so far guilty, though China gives ground for suspicion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @utu
    I remember reading interview with Fidel Castro in mid eighties, I think, when he made the point that the western model cannot be applied in the whole world, that we can't imagine in China each family having a car like in America. He was making perfect sense to me then. And now, what China is doing? Why they did not listen to Fidel?

    I guess you should ask them. Do you think China is a land of milk and honey? I would have never agreed to live there. I did live there before…temporary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, China isn't using the Western model if that's the question. It would be pretty ridiculous to extend everything over there, there isn't enough space for suburbs and the like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Vidi

    “China would not be what it is today without its history of communism”

    Certainly true, but that doesn’t speak well for communism.
    After all, ‘what China is today’ is an utter rejection of their communist history.
     
    Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.

    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore.

    This should sooner be described as “state capitalism.”

    Markets are no longer substantially suppressed, which is a more defining feature of Communist regimes than state ownership. State ownership is usually worse than private ownership (possible exception: Natural monopolities), but it’s not a critical handicap, and for that matter, there were periods in some Western countries when the “commanding heights” of the economy were state-owned.

    The extent to which China can be described as socialist is also questionable since its welfare state was traditionally extremely threadbare (this is slowly changing).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vidi
    China isn't totally socialist, I agree. But it is still mostly socialist, as most of its economy is controlled by the government. And its five-year plans are still effective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Joe Wong
    Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won't happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world...Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.

    ” Has it every occured to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past”

    Yeah we are quite familiar with this worn out, tired excuse, this absurd justification for it’s failure, expressed by each new generation of communists :

    ” They were the wrong ones, and we are the right ones and we will get it right this time”

    How many more time do you guys want to try it “wrongly”, with it’s unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artisit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    How many more time do you guys want to try it “wrongly”, with it’s unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.
     
    Ah...you see, they do know it will never work. For masses that is.
    Smart players there ,not "useful idiots". Those idiots are in "belief mode" and no amount of reasoning could help.
    All the players want is power to rule.
    And then, they believe, it will, perfectly, work for them.
    "This time" the control will work, they believe. Technology/means for mass surveillance and killings/imprisonment/brainwashing will give them that capability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Kiza says:
    @Giuseppe

    Worse, most of those who did defect (and I personally helped quite a few of them) were mostly miserable once they came to the West, their illusions shattered in less than a year, and all they were left with was a ever-present nostalgia. For that reason, I personally always advised them not to emigrate.
     
    So, how would you counsel me, a Westerner who loves his country but hates the empire that stole its place. I toy with the idea of emigrating to Russia to escape the tyranny of the national security state, perhaps to take advantage of the free land being offered to homesteaders in the East.

    Do you think my illusions would also be shattered in less than a year? Keep in mind that that I fully agree with you regarding...

    ...the ongoing collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire...
     

    An interesting concept – moving to Russia. Let me share a few thoughts about it, my pros and cons list.

    To begin with, the current Russia is in predatory capitalism, not in socialism. But the Russian Orthodox Christianity is also more humane than the Western quasi-Christianity, aka the lukewarm opium for the masses. This means that the ordinary Russian people are much more Christian and humane than ordinary Western people: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/l-reichard-white/the-banksters-vs-my-babushka/. Move to Russia for its Christianity, not for its (past) communism.

    Furthermore, the average Russian is significantly better educated than the average Westerner, your mind would expand if you were exposed to the right intellectual micro-environment in Russia.

    Finally, since the West, that is the Anglo-Zionist empire, is slipping into totalitarianism and war, then things can only be better in Russia which has some clear ideas about its future (The New Silk Road). It is a bit like moving from a diseased society into a still healthy one.

    On the opposite side, against moving to Russia are:
    1) do you know the language
    2) how do you cope with foreign cultures
    3) are you expectations too high
    4) how do you cope with disappointments.

    I have also been thinking of leaving the sick West, but going to the more risky South America instead of Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Kiza says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Many posters from Western countries and USA have illusion of viability of their states systems because ultimate inviability of their system is being plastered over by their ability to parasitically siphon resources from around the globe through financial system and other tricks at their disposal. Even this worked worse and worse as exponentially accumulating debt testifies. Once shit hits the fan all illusions will go. I liked one poster mentioned dead eyes of people from eastern blog. In reality we can see those dead eyes all around here in the West. Hence unhealthy obsession with zombies.

    What I find the funniest is that the Western zombies (i.e. the walking dead) always see others as the zombies, not realizing yet what they are. There are no mirrors in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    And, BTW, I consider this character Karlin the best example of a Western walking dead. I just came to skipping anything yellow that this aggressive and brain dead character spews out. But he does have a like-minded/dead-minded [sic] audience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Kiza says:
    @Kiza
    What I find the funniest is that the Western zombies (i.e. the walking dead) always see others as the zombies, not realizing yet what they are. There are no mirrors in the West.

    And, BTW, I consider this character Karlin the best example of a Western walking dead. I just came to skipping anything yellow that this aggressive and brain dead character spews out. But he does have a like-minded/dead-minded [sic] audience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. I found this article about Xi Jinping and recent Chinese history to be very interesting.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Thoughts_Chairman_Xi

    To those interested in Chinese economics I recommend the works of Michael Pettis, who teaches at Beijing University.

    It is a complex subject.

    http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. @unpc downunder
    Sure, the population where increasingly frustrated about the lack of consumer goods, but the USSR wasn't a democracy where the people voted to replace the government, and there was no bloody revolution, so the USSR must have fell for some other reason. The answer as to why the USSR collapsed was because, unlike the communist government in China, it lost control of the reform process it initiated in the 1980s. However, answering that question only begs another question - why did it lose control of the reform process?

    However, answering that question only begs another question – why did it lose control of the reform process?

    Surely part of the “why” has to do with the length of time that China has had to meld its population into a nation compared to the recent history of the acquisitions of the Russian/USSR empire.

    I do understand that there is diversity in China and some tension with regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang, but that is nothing compared to the dog’s breakfast they were trying to lash together in the USSR.

    Probably the quality of leadership figured in the process.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Mao Cheng Ji

    No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient.
     
    But that's nothing like refutation of marxism (which, after all, is only a tool-set for analyzing socioeconomic phenomena from a certain angle). That's just you declaring yourself anti-marxist.

    You clearly have no idea what the term “”Observe” means. It means Marxism is self refuting because of its results. We see the same thing in so called mixed economies, which are also a mess and will eventually collapse, and for the same reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @yeah
    "No you don’t need any education to refute Marxism, merely observing that everything it touches it turns to shit is more than sufficient."

    Now that is what is called a nice knock-down argument! I don't like "x", I condemn it, case closed. No facts, logic or reasoning needed.

    The Saker is neither defending communism here, nor touting its glories. With significant reasoning he is arguing that the urge towards communism has in common with most religions a desire for human equality and mitigation of the horrors of poverty. As to whether communism can deliver that objective is a different matter. But if the suffering caused by globalized capitalism of the crony and corrupt kind continues - as it is in our times - expect some more thrusts in the direction of socialism or communism.

    Nor is there any evidence to show that everything touched by communism turns to shit. China would not be what it is today without its history of communism. The USSR, for all its warts and troubles, cannot be dismissed as a case of shit. Communism may not be compatible with human nature, but that does not knock down its appeal in certain moments of human history. Communism will likely never succeed, for reasons that need some serious thinking and not an ignorant dismissal if we are to understand politics, history, and such.

    Red China is where it is because of the extent of its denial of Marxist orthodoxy. The government is now a garden variety Fascist regime. It will allow the gathering of wealth only so long as the gatherer toes the regime’s line, just as was the case in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. chris m says:

    i got to take issue with
    “the Americans, who have not defeated anybody or anything in a very long time” hahaha

    it’s not the winning that counts;it’s the taking part (isnt that the motto of the Olympics?)

    yes. but they have destroyed numerous countries
    (Iraq on at least 3 occasions
    1990-1998 war,sanctions
    2003 war
    since 2003 more of the same)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  157. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally

    1. Has it ever occurred to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past, and China is trying to implement communism the right way? Even it is possible that the capitalism is being implemented wrongly by the greedy 1%, and if the capitalism was implemented correctly, the inequality in the USA won’t happen, and all the Americans can have their American dream instead living the terror of gun violence, subprime scams, uncomfortable healthcare, insecure jobs, being hated by the world, etc.

    2. You should know that we are now living in a rapidly changing world…Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times, we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism, and constrained by zero-sum Cold War mentality.
     

    Briefly:

    1. The old 'it was never tried excuse'.
    Given how many times communism has been tried & failed, there can no longer be any excuse.
    Capitalism is not being implemented correctly because Big Government has intervened for it's own benefit.
    In fact, history reveals that the closer any system is to unmanipulated capitalism, the better served are the people.
    Indeed, getting Big Government out of the business sector benefits Americans.

    While the US is no doubt going off the rails, it is nonetheless the most free market system available today. Witness the fact of foreign investments, foreign deposits.
    I dread what the future holds, however.

    The problems you speak of are a result of government interference in the market place, simple as that.

    2. Are you serious?
    Show me where "Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times". Come on.
    The trend is for the makers to be assailed by the unproductive takers.
    But perhaps you think the UN, NGOs, etc. are really trying to help the world rather than lining their own pockets. If so, I can't help you, you're too far gone.

    Who said anything about "colonialism", comrade? No college freshman false strawmen, please.
    Yes, I agree, a Cold war mentality & "defense spending" is harmful. But once again that is Big Government, not capitalism.

    Speaking of Big Government, here is where free speech is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes:
    https://forum.codoh.com/download/file.php?id=1858

    Cheers.

    If it weren’t bad enough that the definition you linked to is a very bad definition of fascism, your attempt to shoehorn China into that bad definition is even worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    A wussy girl Zionist gets hammered and her response is 'it's very bad'. LOL

    IOW, you have no rebuttal.

    AMon and his "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
    'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are, ... but, but, well, umm, we can't show the court. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. “That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow’s nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke down—and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it’s a threat. But Russia has many of the same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP—just behind Panama.”

    The Dark History of Fear, Inc.
    By MARK PERRY • October 6, 2017

    Read More
    • Replies: @1RW
    It's incorrect to use the foreign exchange rate to compare military budgets and thus military capabilities of the US and Russia. Russian defense industries are vertically integrated inside RF. They pay for everything in rubles on the domestic market. Russian workers also cost about a 4th of what American ones do. Russia also has cheaper energy than the US. Since most physical objects are the result of the application of physical labor and energy to precursor items, from ore to bolts or microchips, we can multiply the value of the Russian budget by at least a factor of 4 so 14% now becomes 56%. Russia also has far less of a logistical and payroll burden. It's overseas base empire is far smaller (where the exchange rate would really hurt). Russia doesn't need to do power projection like the US - a carrier killer missile is far cheaper than a carrier battle group.

    Fixating on the one time when a T14 "broke down", I put it in quotes because it didn't break down, it was improperly operated by a newb driver, demonstrates wishful thinking of the writers more than actual Russian capabilities. It is far better to focus on the effectiveness of the Russian Air Force in Syria, the sortie rates it generated and the outcomes it created on the ground. Or the fact that Russia demonstrated its ability to hit targets in Syria from the Caspian and Mediterranean seas with both submarine and surface platforms. Or the bloodless taking of control in Crimea, which showed that Russia understands how to conduct large special forces operations swiftly and masterfully. Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.

    Russia's 21st Century combat record has been successful if less prolific than the ever over-engaged US, and talking it down looks more like self soothing than rational analysis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Wally says:
    @Anon
    How's that social security check working out for you?

    You mean the SS I paid for, and then some.

    And how’s that mommy & daddy money you live off? LOL
    I can only imagine how that money was ‘made’.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Wally says:
    @Anon
    If it weren't bad enough that the definition you linked to is a very bad definition of fascism, your attempt to shoehorn China into that bad definition is even worse.

    A wussy girl Zionist gets hammered and her response is ‘it’s very bad’. LOL

    IOW, you have no rebuttal.

    AMon and his “Holocau$t Industry” in court:
    ‘Please your honor, there really are remains of millions buried in huge mass graves, we know where the mass graves are, … but, but, well, umm, we can’t show the court. You must trust us, we’re Zionists.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Wally says:
    @Vidi

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
     
    Only a minority of the economy is private now. That is definitely not "an utter rejection of their communist history".

    Furthermore, the state-owned enterprises are very profitable, so in spite of carping from many Western critics China will continue to be socialist / communist.

    Well yes, someone could say that China’ 30-50% private economy …. & growing is a “minority”. But so what? One doesn’t convert such a huge percentage without acknowledging the fact that the previous system, communism, was a bust, otherwise they would have stayed with it.

    The fact that the Chinese economy had until fairly recently been 100% communist controlled doesn’t matter to the willfully ignorant.

    Their ‘state owned enterprises very profitable’? Well duh, they have no competition.

    China is fascist economy, see my previous post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Doesn't matter that you paid for it. It's a social insurance program -- it's socialism, and you're participating in it, you hypocrite.
    , @Anon
    I'm not going to bother explaining things to you any longer, since it's clear you don't ever care when you're wrong.
    , @Vidi
    This posting was supposed to be a reply to you, but it got misconnected somehow. Not the first time that this has happened to me. Maybe the site's comment system needs to be fixed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Schuey says:

    Read the gulag archipelago. Nuff said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. Ez says:

    Communists and defenders of Communism should be killed whenever and wherever by any person able to do it and with as little ceremony as possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EugeneGur
    The Nazis used to implement a policy like that quite widely. It's nice to be in full agreement with them, isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Well yes, someone could say that China' 30-50% private economy .... & growing is a "minority". But so what? One doesn't convert such a huge percentage without acknowledging the fact that the previous system, communism, was a bust, otherwise they would have stayed with it.

    The fact that the Chinese economy had until fairly recently been 100% communist controlled doesn't matter to the willfully ignorant.

    Their 'state owned enterprises very profitable'? Well duh, they have no competition.

    China is fascist economy, see my previous post.

    Doesn’t matter that you paid for it. It’s a social insurance program — it’s socialism, and you’re participating in it, you hypocrite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Nope, I pay for it.
    You don't like it, but then you are a Zionist, facts matter not to unhinged Zionists.
    Slapping you around is fun.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
     
    , @Avery
    Those people in their 70s and 80s who are collecting Social Security today used up what they contributed in their working years long time ago: their payments are being paid for by people who work today contributing to SS system.
    Similarly, those who will be collecting SS in a few years will at some point exhaust their contributions and be paid by the contributions of somebody else (younger) who is working.

    Also, Medicare for those above age 65 is federal socialized medicine.
    Whether you were working or not you get covered, i.e. somebody else's taxes pay for your medical care.

    Both SS and Medicare serve a useful, maybe essential, purpose, but to deny they are a form of socialism is to deny reality.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Well yes, someone could say that China' 30-50% private economy .... & growing is a "minority". But so what? One doesn't convert such a huge percentage without acknowledging the fact that the previous system, communism, was a bust, otherwise they would have stayed with it.

    The fact that the Chinese economy had until fairly recently been 100% communist controlled doesn't matter to the willfully ignorant.

    Their 'state owned enterprises very profitable'? Well duh, they have no competition.

    China is fascist economy, see my previous post.

    I’m not going to bother explaining things to you any longer, since it’s clear you don’t ever care when you’re wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yawn.

    You retreat yet again.

    "Some stories are true that never happened."
    - Elie Wiesel

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Bro Methylene
    It is frightening to realize there are people like you around, eager to resume the mass slaughter of Christians. A bloody persecution can erupt at any minute.

    It is also discouraging to realize there are many people like you who - people who can be whipped into a murderous frenzy by propaganda, mostly from television.

    Finally, if you actually believe that Stalin didn't persecute and kill Christians, especially Orthodox and Catholic priests, you will believe anything.

    It is frightening to realize there are people like you around, eager to resume the mass slaughter of Christians.

    You need to calm down a bit. What I said was that Orthodox priests were high-level members of the power structure, hated by the people. For that, many of them got killed, killed by ordinary people, which is what happens in a revolution.

    If you care so much about the functionaries of your particular branch of organized religion, the lesson you might want to learn from this historical episode is that they should avoid affixing themselves to unpopular power structures. Or, better: to any power structures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. It cannot be claimed that Capitalism beat Communism because True Capitalism has never been tried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EugeneGur

    It cannot be claimed that Capitalism beat Communism because True Capitalism has never been tried.
     
    Nice defense but too bad its a logical fallacy. It could just as easily be said, perhaps, with much better justification, that neither has True Communism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Doesn't matter that you paid for it. It's a social insurance program -- it's socialism, and you're participating in it, you hypocrite.

    Nope, I pay for it.
    You don’t like it, but then you are a Zionist, facts matter not to unhinged Zionists.
    Slapping you around is fun.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Repeating yourself isn't an argument, dummy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Wally says:
    @Anon
    I'm not going to bother explaining things to you any longer, since it's clear you don't ever care when you're wrong.

    Yawn.

    You retreat yet again.

    “Some stories are true that never happened.”
    - Elie Wiesel

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Avery says:
    @Anon
    Doesn't matter that you paid for it. It's a social insurance program -- it's socialism, and you're participating in it, you hypocrite.

    Those people in their 70s and 80s who are collecting Social Security today used up what they contributed in their working years long time ago: their payments are being paid for by people who work today contributing to SS system.
    Similarly, those who will be collecting SS in a few years will at some point exhaust their contributions and be paid by the contributions of somebody else (younger) who is working.

    Also, Medicare for those above age 65 is federal socialized medicine.
    Whether you were working or not you get covered, i.e. somebody else’s taxes pay for your medical care.

    Both SS and Medicare serve a useful, maybe essential, purpose, but to deny they are a form of socialism is to deny reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I agree, it is a form of socialism, hence 'Social' Security. So what?

    After all, you just highlighted the obvious injustice of socialism / communism. Thanks for that.

    However, some of us have paid into SS way more then we will ever get back. So I'm not taking, but have added TO a system that is ultimately unsustainable.

    As for Medicare, I make a monthly forced 'contribution' to a system that I do not want or need, I have my own medical insurance.

    In general, it's all called state coercion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Sergey Krieger
    We talk different languages. I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70's. So what. So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him. Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about. I mean calling Soviet industry backward because it was not turning 10 million cars annually. May be it was not the goal. I am right not only about human nature but about te rest of my post. I will add one more thing. Without extremely timely dismantling of the Soviet union by treasonous elites USA would get into existential crisis much earlier. Resources from former eastern block especially from ussr bought time to pretend that usa is prospering. First, numbers of poor and needy are on the rise in USA. Did I miss something?

    I knew there were some 300 million cars in USA back in 70′s. So what.

    So what? Well, for starters, you are wrong. Completely wrong. There were 111 million cars in 1970 in the United States and only 161 million by 1980.

    https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

    So I need to start follow every idiocy by everyone just to please him.

    No. You just need to think more before you type.

    Who need this many cars. Really. You are talking about things you have no clue about.

    Awkward considering the above.

    May be it was not the goal.

    Oh. It definitely wasn’t the goal. Not in the 1970s. See, you are actually correct there – however you have no idea, you are unsure, you don’t actually know what you are talking about. That’s why you wrote “May be.”

    In the 1930s Stalin wanted to emulate the United States technologically and scientifically. By the 1970s the Soviet Union had far bigger problems.

    “The USSR’s main use for oil was for domestic purposes, Moscow always prizing independence from a hostile capitalist world. But Moscow needed that world too because Russia, which before the revolution had been the world’s greatest exporter of grain, had become by the late 1970s the world’s largest importer. In 1963 Khrushchev had spent a third of the country’s gold to buy grain. The collective agriculture forcibly imposed by Stalin was a failure. As the head of a collective farm once said to me: “.. . collective farming could have worked. It worked in Israel.. .. But it couldn’t be done by force and decree.” Storage and distribution were also significant problems, up to a third of a year’s crop lost to spillage and spoilage.”
    -pg. 106

    Putin: His Downfall and Russia’s Coming Crash
    by Richard Lourie (July 2017)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Nope, I pay for it.
    You don't like it, but then you are a Zionist, facts matter not to unhinged Zionists.
    Slapping you around is fun.

    Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
     

    Repeating yourself isn’t an argument, dummy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    [Obsessively posting essentially the same comment over and over again on numerous different and usually unrelated threads really isn't good commenting policy, and should be curtailed unless you want your comments regularly trashed.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. EugeneGur says:
    @Ez
    Communists and defenders of Communism should be killed whenever and wherever by any person able to do it and with as little ceremony as possible.

    The Nazis used to implement a policy like that quite widely. It’s nice to be in full agreement with them, isn’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. EugeneGur says:
    @Normie-American
    It cannot be claimed that Capitalism beat Communism because True Capitalism has never been tried.

    It cannot be claimed that Capitalism beat Communism because True Capitalism has never been tried.

    Nice defense but too bad its a logical fallacy. It could just as easily be said, perhaps, with much better justification, that neither has True Communism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whoosh!
    Enuff said
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. peterAUS says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Has it every occured to you that the communism was implemented wrongly in the past"

    Yeah we are quite familiar with this worn out, tired excuse, this absurd justification for it's failure, expressed by each new generation of communists :

    " They were the wrong ones, and we are the right ones and we will get it right this time"

    How many more time do you guys want to try it "wrongly", with it's unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artisit.

    How many more time do you guys want to try it “wrongly”, with it’s unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.

    Ah…you see, they do know it will never work. For masses that is.
    Smart players there ,not “useful idiots”. Those idiots are in “belief mode” and no amount of reasoning could help.
    All the players want is power to rule.
    And then, they believe, it will, perfectly, work for them.
    “This time” the control will work, they believe. Technology/means for mass surveillance and killings/imprisonment/brainwashing will give them that capability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " Ah...you see, they do know that it will never work"

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.

    I remember seeing a photo of Che' decades ago with him having, in blatent macho style, a fat cigar clenched in his teeth, and a Rolex submariner on his wrist, a total power-mad charlatan, and completely in tune with the mentality of his deranged comrades.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @peterAUS

    How many more time do you guys want to try it “wrongly”, with it’s unavoidable murder and chaos, before you finally realize that it will never work, period.
     
    Ah...you see, they do know it will never work. For masses that is.
    Smart players there ,not "useful idiots". Those idiots are in "belief mode" and no amount of reasoning could help.
    All the players want is power to rule.
    And then, they believe, it will, perfectly, work for them.
    "This time" the control will work, they believe. Technology/means for mass surveillance and killings/imprisonment/brainwashing will give them that capability.

    ” Ah…you see, they do know that it will never work”

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.

    I remember seeing a photo of Che’ decades ago with him having, in blatent macho style, a fat cigar clenched in his teeth, and a Rolex submariner on his wrist, a total power-mad charlatan, and completely in tune with the mentality of his deranged comrades.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.
     
    Well…I would credit some of them with quite some intelligence. Those are truly dangerous.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
     
    Let’s say I have had much “closer” relationship with them.
    Based on that experience I wouldn’t underestimate their will to power and even less so their capability for evil.

    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.
     
    I’d qualify those as higher echelons of “useful idiots”.

    This is how I see Communists (very…very briefly):
    There is a miniscule group of true humanists there, both highly intelligent, educated and with good intentions. You’ll see this group writing books about Communism etc.
    Then, there is a bit larger group of people who recognize that idea as a very good vehicle to gain power.
    Then, you have, say, “management” level of “useful idiots”. You’d see those types defending Communism in forums etc. They emotionally, morally, belong to the first group but aren’t psychopathic as members of the second, power, group.
    Then, you have masses who don’t think, just feel and simply want better life.

    Revolution:
    Masses buy the idea by the group 1.
    Groups 1 and 2 work as elite of the movement with useful idiots as management/lower leadership level, using masses to win.

    Now…the crux of the game.

    As soon as POWER is won there is a “cleanup”.
    Group 1 is destroyed/broken/coopted into the group 2. In that order.
    Group 2 rules by iron fist.
    Group 3 is also cleaned up. True believers are executed/imprisoned/sent abroad/whatever, or, those “seeing the true light” after a bit of “re-education” retained as “middle management”. Some from the mass also get there. Usually the hard, ruthless types and they get into security services and military.
    The masses get back to being exploited masses.
    The system is locked in place.

    The top group does have “communism”. The masses have….well….what we’ve seen what they had in…ahm…”communist” countries.
    North Korea isn’t a bad example.
    , @Wally
    Not to mention Che personally shooting countless peasants who resisted his madness.

    Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @WorkingClass
    If the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that Communism "does not work" then I suppose that the collapse of the Anglo/Zio Empire will prove that Capitalism does not work. Maybe then we will accept that all national economies are mixed economies with private financing of private needs and public financing of public needs. How we do the mixing will lean left or right.

    “If the collapse of the Soviet Union proved that Communism “does not work” then I suppose that the collapse of the Anglo/Zio Empire will prove that Capitalism does not work.” – the difference is that regardless of empire fate, capitalism is around and it works, while in Soviet Union it collapsed, regardless of this bunch of monstrous lies presented in the piece that does not deserve being called an article.

    The tendency to deliberately mix up imperialism with economic system is a Marxist-Leninist concrete-head (as we called dumb Party officials here during Soviet times) practice designed for idiotic propaganda: that capitalism is you know, evel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    Repeating yourself isn't an argument, dummy.

    [Obsessively posting essentially the same comment over and over again on numerous different and usually unrelated threads really isn't good commenting policy, and should be curtailed unless you want your comments regularly trashed.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Wally says:
    @Avery
    Those people in their 70s and 80s who are collecting Social Security today used up what they contributed in their working years long time ago: their payments are being paid for by people who work today contributing to SS system.
    Similarly, those who will be collecting SS in a few years will at some point exhaust their contributions and be paid by the contributions of somebody else (younger) who is working.

    Also, Medicare for those above age 65 is federal socialized medicine.
    Whether you were working or not you get covered, i.e. somebody else's taxes pay for your medical care.

    Both SS and Medicare serve a useful, maybe essential, purpose, but to deny they are a form of socialism is to deny reality.

    I agree, it is a form of socialism, hence ‘Social’ Security. So what?

    After all, you just highlighted the obvious injustice of socialism / communism. Thanks for that.

    However, some of us have paid into SS way more then we will ever get back. So I’m not taking, but have added TO a system that is ultimately unsustainable.

    As for Medicare, I make a monthly forced ‘contribution’ to a system that I do not want or need, I have my own medical insurance.

    In general, it’s all called state coercion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If you live until 71, you'll have been paid back in full and then some. You really don't understand this stuff at all, do you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. peterAUS says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Ah...you see, they do know that it will never work"

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.

    I remember seeing a photo of Che' decades ago with him having, in blatent macho style, a fat cigar clenched in his teeth, and a Rolex submariner on his wrist, a total power-mad charlatan, and completely in tune with the mentality of his deranged comrades.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.

    Well…I would credit some of them with quite some intelligence. Those are truly dangerous.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.

    Let’s say I have had much “closer” relationship with them.
    Based on that experience I wouldn’t underestimate their will to power and even less so their capability for evil.

    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.

    I’d qualify those as higher echelons of “useful idiots”.

    This is how I see Communists (very…very briefly):
    There is a miniscule group of true humanists there, both highly intelligent, educated and with good intentions. You’ll see this group writing books about Communism etc.
    Then, there is a bit larger group of people who recognize that idea as a very good vehicle to gain power.
    Then, you have, say, “management” level of “useful idiots”. You’d see those types defending Communism in forums etc. They emotionally, morally, belong to the first group but aren’t psychopathic as members of the second, power, group.
    Then, you have masses who don’t think, just feel and simply want better life.

    Revolution:
    Masses buy the idea by the group 1.
    Groups 1 and 2 work as elite of the movement with useful idiots as management/lower leadership level, using masses to win.

    Now…the crux of the game.

    As soon as POWER is won there is a “cleanup”.
    Group 1 is destroyed/broken/coopted into the group 2. In that order.
    Group 2 rules by iron fist.
    Group 3 is also cleaned up. True believers are executed/imprisoned/sent abroad/whatever, or, those “seeing the true light” after a bit of “re-education” retained as “middle management”. Some from the mass also get there. Usually the hard, ruthless types and they get into security services and military.
    The masses get back to being exploited masses.
    The system is locked in place.

    The top group does have “communism”. The masses have….well….what we’ve seen what they had in…ahm…”communist” countries.
    North Korea isn’t a bad example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    [Commenters using a tagline bragging of their greatness but whose comments are almost always totally vacuous and content-free, are not usefully contributing to this website. Unless you drop your tag-line and enormously improve the quality of your comments, all future ones will be summarily trashed.]

    "There is a miniscule group of true humanists there"

    Never, never, never. There is not and never has been a "miniscule group of humanists" within the communist movement, simply because then the murderous history, the murderous record of their past endeavors must be ignored and swept under the rug by these "humanists", and explained away as if it had been necessary : The necessary breaking of a few eggs ( a few million murders) to create an omelette.
    The higher up in the cadre' the more sinister, bloodthirsty, and insane they are.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    I agree, it is a form of socialism, hence 'Social' Security. So what?

    After all, you just highlighted the obvious injustice of socialism / communism. Thanks for that.

    However, some of us have paid into SS way more then we will ever get back. So I'm not taking, but have added TO a system that is ultimately unsustainable.

    As for Medicare, I make a monthly forced 'contribution' to a system that I do not want or need, I have my own medical insurance.

    In general, it's all called state coercion.

    If you live until 71, you’ll have been paid back in full and then some. You really don’t understand this stuff at all, do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    You forget the power of compound interest...You are correct in stating that a SS recipient will "break even" with his "contributions" by age 71, BUT, that does not count the interest that his "contributions" should have earned, if he were "allowed to invest his (and his employer's) SS "contribution" on his own, he would have been much better off--a millionaire easily. People forget that SS is a grand "Ponzi scheme" in which current workers pay current retirees...
    The city of Galveston Texas was the last municipality "allowed" to "opt out" of the federal Social Security system. The average retiree of the Galveston system collects approximately THREE TIMES what the average social security system recipient gets...sorta tells you something...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Cyrano says:

    The argument whether you need a worldwide communist revolution in order for communism to succeed, or whether communism in one country is sustainable has been settled.

    Stalin was a firm supporter of the second option – communism (socialism) in one country – and he has been proven wrong. Why was this the case? It’s pretty simple actually – because the capitalists vultures gang up together against USSR both militarily (NATO) and economically (IMF) in order to weaken and destroy USSR.

    Today USA are well aware that the opposite is also true – that capitalism in one country is not a viable option either, that’s why they are wrecking havoc around the world – supposedly in order to promote democracy, while the real goal is to promote and protect capitalism and prevent alternative ideas about new socioeconomic systems emerging.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Stalin was a firm supporter of the second option – communism (socialism) in one country – and he has been proven wrong.
     
    Well, it depends on how China is going to turn out, doesn't it. They still have ostensibly communist 'vanguard-party' (Lenin's idea) government, running something reminiscent of Lenin's NEP. Stay tuned...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Cyrano
    The argument whether you need a worldwide communist revolution in order for communism to succeed, or whether communism in one country is sustainable has been settled.

    Stalin was a firm supporter of the second option – communism (socialism) in one country - and he has been proven wrong. Why was this the case? It’s pretty simple actually – because the capitalists vultures gang up together against USSR both militarily (NATO) and economically (IMF) in order to weaken and destroy USSR.

    Today USA are well aware that the opposite is also true – that capitalism in one country is not a viable option either, that’s why they are wrecking havoc around the world – supposedly in order to promote democracy, while the real goal is to promote and protect capitalism and prevent alternative ideas about new socioeconomic systems emerging.

    Stalin was a firm supporter of the second option – communism (socialism) in one country – and he has been proven wrong.

    Well, it depends on how China is going to turn out, doesn’t it. They still have ostensibly communist ‘vanguard-party’ (Lenin’s idea) government, running something reminiscent of Lenin’s NEP. Stay tuned…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. 1RW says:
    @Johnny Rico

    "That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow’s nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke down—and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it’s a threat. But Russia has many of the same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP—just behind Panama."
     
    The Dark History of Fear, Inc.
    By MARK PERRY • October 6, 2017

    It’s incorrect to use the foreign exchange rate to compare military budgets and thus military capabilities of the US and Russia. Russian defense industries are vertically integrated inside RF. They pay for everything in rubles on the domestic market. Russian workers also cost about a 4th of what American ones do. Russia also has cheaper energy than the US. Since most physical objects are the result of the application of physical labor and energy to precursor items, from ore to bolts or microchips, we can multiply the value of the Russian budget by at least a factor of 4 so 14% now becomes 56%. Russia also has far less of a logistical and payroll burden. It’s overseas base empire is far smaller (where the exchange rate would really hurt). Russia doesn’t need to do power projection like the US – a carrier killer missile is far cheaper than a carrier battle group.

    Fixating on the one time when a T14 “broke down”, I put it in quotes because it didn’t break down, it was improperly operated by a newb driver, demonstrates wishful thinking of the writers more than actual Russian capabilities. It is far better to focus on the effectiveness of the Russian Air Force in Syria, the sortie rates it generated and the outcomes it created on the ground. Or the fact that Russia demonstrated its ability to hit targets in Syria from the Caspian and Mediterranean seas with both submarine and surface platforms. Or the bloodless taking of control in Crimea, which showed that Russia understands how to conduct large special forces operations swiftly and masterfully. Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.

    Russia’s 21st Century combat record has been successful if less prolific than the ever over-engaged US, and talking it down looks more like self soothing than rational analysis

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    I agree with much of what you say.

    But blaming the T-14 incident on the driver seems rather silly. No? And the only people "fixating" on that incident also seem to be you and whoever had to create the cover story of the newb driver.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.
     
    The actual 5-day war in 2008 in Georgia bears little resemblance to what you describe. The Russians suffered 67 dead to the Georgians 180. "Blitzed" and "ground to dust" are not very good ways to describe what happened.

    The version I'm familiar with is of the Russian assault having massive problems with Putin himself travelling to the front and taking personal control after between outraged at the performance of the 58th Army.

    The US had in fact declined supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Georgians. These would probably have helped a little.

    The Georgians had something like 10 light infantry battalions available. They never stood a chance. Using these 5 days as evidence of Russian military skill would be a mistake in my opinion. Rather, it served as evidence of the need to upgrade, reorganize, and reform the Russian military - as has in fact happened to a great degree in the years since.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Wally says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Ah...you see, they do know that it will never work"

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.

    I remember seeing a photo of Che' decades ago with him having, in blatent macho style, a fat cigar clenched in his teeth, and a Rolex submariner on his wrist, a total power-mad charlatan, and completely in tune with the mentality of his deranged comrades.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Not to mention Che personally shooting countless peasants who resisted his madness.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I heard those "peasants" were non-uniformed partisans. It's perfectly lawful to kill partisans under international law, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Does communism have a future? But then, it was never communism per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win and keep many converts. It was more about hysteria(and in that sense, PC may have more to do with Maoist strain than Marxism or Leninism or Trotskyitism that were more intellectual, cerebral, and even bourgeois in style).

    If it wasn’t for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have appealed to so many people? After all, communism predated Marxism. And yet, it was the Marxist take on communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or a cult(as some denigrated it). And it was this strain of Freudianism that had a huge impact on arts and entertainment, from high art to low mass culture. And among libertarianism, it was Rand’s particular take on capitalism and individualism that won so many adherents.

    In all these intellectual phenomenon, we see several factors. We see the appeal of something big, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Human Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren’t just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggle. Freud explained that the mind isn’t independent of body and base drives but always shaped by animal drives like sexuality though these energies become repressed and often turn into complexes. And Rand argued that every progress in human history was linked to individual liberty and heroism. The best way to do good is not to be ‘good’ but to be great as individual. For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, should he do that or should he take care of the poor? Helping the poor might do some good, but he will not invent fire that can change mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? (Granted, most people aren’t great and their idea of liberty is more video games or fooling around.)

    Another great appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It’s part of human nature to want a human face on something. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god created thunder. Maybe manlike god controlled the seas. It’s like Greeks had bunch of gods. And in war narratives, we wanna focus on big personalities. Even though victory in war relies much on soldiers and the entire chain of command — and industry providing armaments and logistics — , we’d rather focus on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Same thing goes for ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be admired as its Moses, its law-giver, its great prophet.
    Likewise, Freud became the center of adulation. The ideas weren’t merely generic or academic but personal and human, the work of a ‘genius’.
    And of course, Ayn Rand cultists see her as bigger-than-life godlike figure. She made the basic and generic ideas of freedom and individuality into something powerfully personal and heroic.

    So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland. So, it has to revolve around some ‘genius’ or ‘prophet’ who gives it a human face and stamps it with personality and vision. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx as its prophet. And this is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and frauds, came to captivate so many people. And this is why Rand made American freedom so exciting and heroic.

    Also, there was something bold and radical about such figures, and that too is intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally wiser, they don’t excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he would have been a better thinker. But then, he would have been one of the many sane theorists and writers, which is boring. For him to gain fame and notoriety, he had to think BIGGER and make big claims about history.
    It’s like cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. It’s like Auteur Theory became such a major issue in the film world because Truffaut’s declaration was so confident and assertive. It wasn’t announced as a ‘maybe’ but a certainty.
    And Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their delusional derangement syndrome was part of the appeal. It’s like Rockers get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin plays hard, there is nothing but the music’s power. Thunder stirs us more than breezes. A storm is more impressive than a drizzle.

    And Marxism was a truly bold and epic prophecy.
    Imagine if Moses came down with some laws and explained to Hebrews that he got some good ideas. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses got respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed God gave him the tablets with fire and brimstone like in DeMille’s movie.

    The reason why Christianity and Islam became such huge religions was the fusion of universality and personality: Universonality. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren’t really new. There had been ideas of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity become so powerful? Because those ideas became poeticized through Jesus’ words and sacralized by His sacrifice. It was the combination of ideas, story, and personality that made it a great religion. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be fully appreciated without the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

    There is also the appeal of the champion. In boxing, there may be several leagues. So, there can be 4 or 5 heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to see who is the real ONE champion. So, we want all the champs to fight it out to see who’s the real champion. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god among Greeks, and Odin as top god among Germanics. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

    And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything. It had all the answers for all humanity and for the single individual’s place in the world. There were many theories of communism before Marx, but under Marxism, a single theory came to dominate. Other ideas were either subsumed or rejected. And Freud insisted his theory of the mind-body-connection explained all of human psychological experience. And Rand insisted that her theory was about the triumph of reason and objective truth above all else. There was no need for any other theory. They claimed championship.

    And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to end up the same way due to its catering to hedonism. As for Randism, she was not the founder of capitalism or individualism. Just its most fervent and fanatical proponent. In contrast, even though Marx didn’t invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great new movement and a great new order that would shake the world in the 20th century(though the rise and spread of communism had more to do with tragic mistakes of imperialists who fought each other to exhaustion and created a gaping hole to be filled by radicals).
    As important as psychology is, it’s about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it’s impossible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future). To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. In a way, TV-Radio-internet are like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens and radios beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to 100s of millions of people around the world, all our minds are being molded by the same handful of Big Media corporations. If I had a machine that created certain ideas and images and if I could beam those ideas/images to a billion people around the world, I would be colonizing their minds with what I want them to think, see, and feel. And in a sense, TV is a mind-control tool that unifies minds. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, they came to see the same images and their minds came to be molded by same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Tropers are more dangerous than troopers. It’s chilling that Freud’s nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology.

    Still, as exciting as idology is, it is not fulfilling in the long run. It’s about thrills. It’s like fireworks are fun but can’t warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by Marxism. It has the element of high intellect that won it much respect from intelligent erudite people. But its themes are about justice and the poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it has an ennobling element, something found in great religions like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together elite intellect and with moral concern for the masses. And because it envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it has a spiritual element for modern people who’d lost faith in God. It united the mind, the body, and the soul. And also the senses. As Marxism tied EVERYTHING to economics, a Marxist was expected to become an expert in the arts and criticism. Marxist must use arts and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And Marxist must be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true message. So, there was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere.

    Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, but that was its appeal for the intellectuals. Like Heidegger’s BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood was akin to someone reading the whole Torah(and Talmud) and thinking about it. After all, even as universalist intellectuals want to feel a moral connection to the masses, they also want to feel special as serious thinkers. So, Marxism’s appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of whole human history. It’s like what Barton Fink explains.

    [MORE]

    What is the appeal of the Bible? It is a unity. Its truths can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible’s appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

    And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, one felt the Truth was in one’s hands.

    I was never a communist, but I had a collection of commie sacred texts from mid 80s to late 80s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but meaningless. So, reading the commie works like the Bible offered some kind of meaning though I was too skeptical to really believe in that stuff. But then, I still read the Bible even though I never believed in religion. The sense of Unity of Meanings in them is assuring on some level even to a non-believer.

    There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

    It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such spell on so many people — from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest warriors in the Third World — in the 20th century. The thing is it offered a unity with a simple but profound idea collected in a few sacred texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, people working in very different fields and departments could feel related and connected since, as fellow Marxists, they were all working for Justice and the Future. Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological unity of all men? Many looked to Marxism. In post-war European cinema, why do so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be ‘Marxist’? They didn’t want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. They adopted ‘Marxism’ as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that would serve as a thread for all mankind.

    So, the key is not whether communism will come back. The question is why Marxism-Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious in the sense that we want some unity of truth and authority. When the West worshiped religion, this sense of totality and unity was offered by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But religion is long dead. And we were told by Francis Fukuyama that End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called ‘liberal democracy’ which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, as mythical as the unicorn? And whatever fun that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is that meaningful? The iconography of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they offer shallow thrills.

    For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this holds for some Jews. And it’s true enough that Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the new christ figures. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and West Bank mess — and with negative news about the likes of Weinstein and Weiner — , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming more problematic. As horrible as Shoah was, the problem with Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though blacks were once slaves, they act like louts. And even though Jews suffered Shoah, they can gain power and do awful things. Unlike God who can be said to be great eternally, all groups of people are good and bad depending on times. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, and then good again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. So, the idea of worshiping Shoah as religion wont’ work in the long run because it says we have to look at all Jews through the prism of Shoah for all eternity. So, even if Zionists decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as ‘the eternal victim’. It’s ridiculous.

    There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a craving for such unity of values and vision. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting. Some on the true left must be wondering what the hell happened to them. I mean, how did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism lost its true meaning and connection to the people. Also, this embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about ‘more immigrants’, how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it’s too busy attacking natives as ‘xenophobes’ for not taking in MORE foreigners.

    Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

    BUT, Marxism is really a spent force, and you can’t go home again. It’s like Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it’s now faded as a faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania made it a sick decadent faith. And Marxism failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a comeback.

    But the current malaise opens up new opportunities for new great ideas, visions, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such movements. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.

    It is the time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered and made into one. It’s like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but unique and special. This is why Dylan’s status as the prophet of rock stuck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements.
     
    Agree.

    They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.
     
    That's an optimistic version.

    There is another.
    It doesn't really have to happen.
    Things can happily go as they've been going for quite some time.

    There will be winners in that game who'll believe "the world is saved and set right again".
    Because for them it will be and that's all what matters.

    World has always been right for some and not right for some else. Usually 20/80, most of the time.

    Why the future world should be any different?
    , @edNels
    Priss Factor's is a very seriously informative and insightful comment/essay. But I bet it isn't being read by other contributors. Some of the ''jingoistic'' reflexive stuff offered on the subject, wouldn't suggest that kind of erudition is much in evidence, but thanks for the many points to ponder on in the wake the article above, also a long winded one, approapriately, for the subject is key today, and... WTF is the next thing coming to fill the philisophy/ religious/ culture/ vacuume/ for humans?
    , @Authenticjazzman
    "As important as psychology is"

    Totally absurd nonsense.

    There is not and has never been anything "Important" about these psuedo-sciences : Psychology and it's medical-madness, drug-addicting sister Psychiatry.

    Freud was a criminal-minded lunatic, who used his bullshit theories to "treat" "Hysterical" upper class women, and it doesn't take much imagination to guess what that means.

    Psychology/Psychiatry have no knowledge of the workings of the human mind, and THIS is the reason why they then resort to drugging the patients whom they consider "Untreatable".

    They are goddamn madmen and it is high time that their abberations of medicine be exposed for what they are namely : sadistic mental torture.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro jazz aritist.

    PS I have read "Das Kapital" and his "Manifesto" in German : Kaisers new suit jabberwocky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. anarchyst says:
    @Anon
    If you live until 71, you'll have been paid back in full and then some. You really don't understand this stuff at all, do you?

    You forget the power of compound interest…You are correct in stating that a SS recipient will “break even” with his “contributions” by age 71, BUT, that does not count the interest that his “contributions” should have earned, if he were “allowed to invest his (and his employer’s) SS “contribution” on his own, he would have been much better off–a millionaire easily. People forget that SS is a grand “Ponzi scheme” in which current workers pay current retirees…
    The city of Galveston Texas was the last municipality “allowed” to “opt out” of the federal Social Security system. The average retiree of the Galveston system collects approximately THREE TIMES what the average social security system recipient gets…sorta tells you something…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Anon, never knew anything to forget. LOL

    He a classic airhead Mama's boy.

    Cheers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Ano Nimus says:

    Communism cannot work without absolutist tyranny. You cannot take from the haves and give to… without force. For that reason the state behaves like a god, eliminating all undesirable elements including faith in the True God. Lack of a guilty conscience and the fear of God, leads the communist (fascist) govt to commit atrocities. Communism ccould be understood as pro-poor fascism.
    The real challenge is how to save one’s soul in the face capitalist aggression and temptation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  189. Mad Jack says:

    No Communism is not dead. It’s alive and well with the Demoncratic Party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  190. peterAUS says:
    @Priss Factor
    Does communism have a future? But then, it was never communism per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win and keep many converts. It was more about hysteria(and in that sense, PC may have more to do with Maoist strain than Marxism or Leninism or Trotskyitism that were more intellectual, cerebral, and even bourgeois in style).

    If it wasn't for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have appealed to so many people? After all, communism predated Marxism. And yet, it was the Marxist take on communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or a cult(as some denigrated it). And it was this strain of Freudianism that had a huge impact on arts and entertainment, from high art to low mass culture. And among libertarianism, it was Rand's particular take on capitalism and individualism that won so many adherents.

    In all these intellectual phenomenon, we see several factors. We see the appeal of something big, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Human Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren't just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggle. Freud explained that the mind isn't independent of body and base drives but always shaped by animal drives like sexuality though these energies become repressed and often turn into complexes. And Rand argued that every progress in human history was linked to individual liberty and heroism. The best way to do good is not to be 'good' but to be great as individual. For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, should he do that or should he take care of the poor? Helping the poor might do some good, but he will not invent fire that can change mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? (Granted, most people aren't great and their idea of liberty is more video games or fooling around.)

    Another great appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It's part of human nature to want a human face on something. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god created thunder. Maybe manlike god controlled the seas. It's like Greeks had bunch of gods. And in war narratives, we wanna focus on big personalities. Even though victory in war relies much on soldiers and the entire chain of command -- and industry providing armaments and logistics -- , we'd rather focus on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Same thing goes for ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be admired as its Moses, its law-giver, its great prophet.
    Likewise, Freud became the center of adulation. The ideas weren't merely generic or academic but personal and human, the work of a 'genius'.
    And of course, Ayn Rand cultists see her as bigger-than-life godlike figure. She made the basic and generic ideas of freedom and individuality into something powerfully personal and heroic.

    So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland. So, it has to revolve around some 'genius' or 'prophet' who gives it a human face and stamps it with personality and vision. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx as its prophet. And this is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and frauds, came to captivate so many people. And this is why Rand made American freedom so exciting and heroic.

    Also, there was something bold and radical about such figures, and that too is intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally wiser, they don't excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he would have been a better thinker. But then, he would have been one of the many sane theorists and writers, which is boring. For him to gain fame and notoriety, he had to think BIGGER and make big claims about history.
    It's like cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. It's like Auteur Theory became such a major issue in the film world because Truffaut's declaration was so confident and assertive. It wasn't announced as a 'maybe' but a certainty.
    And Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their delusional derangement syndrome was part of the appeal. It's like Rockers get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin plays hard, there is nothing but the music's power. Thunder stirs us more than breezes. A storm is more impressive than a drizzle.

    And Marxism was a truly bold and epic prophecy.
    Imagine if Moses came down with some laws and explained to Hebrews that he got some good ideas. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses got respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed God gave him the tablets with fire and brimstone like in DeMille's movie.

    The reason why Christianity and Islam became such huge religions was the fusion of universality and personality: Universonality. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren't really new. There had been ideas of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity become so powerful? Because those ideas became poeticized through Jesus' words and sacralized by His sacrifice. It was the combination of ideas, story, and personality that made it a great religion. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be fully appreciated without the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

    There is also the appeal of the champion. In boxing, there may be several leagues. So, there can be 4 or 5 heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to see who is the real ONE champion. So, we want all the champs to fight it out to see who's the real champion. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god among Greeks, and Odin as top god among Germanics. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

    And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything. It had all the answers for all humanity and for the single individual's place in the world. There were many theories of communism before Marx, but under Marxism, a single theory came to dominate. Other ideas were either subsumed or rejected. And Freud insisted his theory of the mind-body-connection explained all of human psychological experience. And Rand insisted that her theory was about the triumph of reason and objective truth above all else. There was no need for any other theory. They claimed championship.

    And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to end up the same way due to its catering to hedonism. As for Randism, she was not the founder of capitalism or individualism. Just its most fervent and fanatical proponent. In contrast, even though Marx didn't invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great new movement and a great new order that would shake the world in the 20th century(though the rise and spread of communism had more to do with tragic mistakes of imperialists who fought each other to exhaustion and created a gaping hole to be filled by radicals).
    As important as psychology is, it's about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it's impossible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future). To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. In a way, TV-Radio-internet are like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens and radios beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to 100s of millions of people around the world, all our minds are being molded by the same handful of Big Media corporations. If I had a machine that created certain ideas and images and if I could beam those ideas/images to a billion people around the world, I would be colonizing their minds with what I want them to think, see, and feel. And in a sense, TV is a mind-control tool that unifies minds. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, they came to see the same images and their minds came to be molded by same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Tropers are more dangerous than troopers. It's chilling that Freud's nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology.

    Still, as exciting as idology is, it is not fulfilling in the long run. It's about thrills. It's like fireworks are fun but can't warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by Marxism. It has the element of high intellect that won it much respect from intelligent erudite people. But its themes are about justice and the poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it has an ennobling element, something found in great religions like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together elite intellect and with moral concern for the masses. And because it envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it has a spiritual element for modern people who'd lost faith in God. It united the mind, the body, and the soul. And also the senses. As Marxism tied EVERYTHING to economics, a Marxist was expected to become an expert in the arts and criticism. Marxist must use arts and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And Marxist must be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true message. So, there was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere.

    Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, but that was its appeal for the intellectuals. Like Heidegger's BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood was akin to someone reading the whole Torah(and Talmud) and thinking about it. After all, even as universalist intellectuals want to feel a moral connection to the masses, they also want to feel special as serious thinkers. So, Marxism's appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of whole human history. It's like what Barton Fink explains.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiN26NHb4ao

    What is the appeal of the Bible? It is a unity. Its truths can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible's appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

    And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, one felt the Truth was in one's hands.

    I was never a communist, but I had a collection of commie sacred texts from mid 80s to late 80s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but meaningless. So, reading the commie works like the Bible offered some kind of meaning though I was too skeptical to really believe in that stuff. But then, I still read the Bible even though I never believed in religion. The sense of Unity of Meanings in them is assuring on some level even to a non-believer.

    There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

    It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such spell on so many people -- from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest warriors in the Third World -- in the 20th century. The thing is it offered a unity with a simple but profound idea collected in a few sacred texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, people working in very different fields and departments could feel related and connected since, as fellow Marxists, they were all working for Justice and the Future. Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological unity of all men? Many looked to Marxism. In post-war European cinema, why do so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be 'Marxist'? They didn't want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. They adopted 'Marxism' as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that would serve as a thread for all mankind.

    So, the key is not whether communism will come back. The question is why Marxism-Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious in the sense that we want some unity of truth and authority. When the West worshiped religion, this sense of totality and unity was offered by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But religion is long dead. And we were told by Francis Fukuyama that End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called 'liberal democracy' which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, as mythical as the unicorn? And whatever fun that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is that meaningful? The iconography of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they offer shallow thrills.

    For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this holds for some Jews. And it's true enough that Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the new christ figures. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and West Bank mess -- and with negative news about the likes of Weinstein and Weiner -- , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming more problematic. As horrible as Shoah was, the problem with Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though blacks were once slaves, they act like louts. And even though Jews suffered Shoah, they can gain power and do awful things. Unlike God who can be said to be great eternally, all groups of people are good and bad depending on times. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, and then good again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. So, the idea of worshiping Shoah as religion wont' work in the long run because it says we have to look at all Jews through the prism of Shoah for all eternity. So, even if Zionists decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as 'the eternal victim'. It's ridiculous.

    There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a craving for such unity of values and vision. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting. Some on the true left must be wondering what the hell happened to them. I mean, how did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism lost its true meaning and connection to the people. Also, this embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about 'more immigrants', how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it's too busy attacking natives as 'xenophobes' for not taking in MORE foreigners.

    Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

    BUT, Marxism is really a spent force, and you can't go home again. It's like Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it's now faded as a faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania made it a sick decadent faith. And Marxism failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a comeback.

    But the current malaise opens up new opportunities for new great ideas, visions, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such movements. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.

    It is the time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered and made into one. It's like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but unique and special. This is why Dylan's status as the prophet of rock stuck.

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements.

    Agree.

    They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.

    That’s an optimistic version.

    There is another.
    It doesn’t really have to happen.
    Things can happily go as they’ve been going for quite some time.

    There will be winners in that game who’ll believe “the world is saved and set right again”.
    Because for them it will be and that’s all what matters.

    World has always been right for some and not right for some else. Usually 20/80, most of the time.

    Why the future world should be any different?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Parfois says:
    @anonymous

    All of them, beginning with the Gorbachev and Eltsin gangs were traitors to their Party, to their people and to their country.
     
    Isn't it exceedingly strange that within the party itself, at the very highest levels, members of long standing would suddenly emerge as sellouts and traitors? There must have been something at the very heart of the party that led to this corruption by high-ranking members. What was it? A lot of former communists seem to have been able to make a complete turnabout and morph into greedy opportunists in post-communist countries.
    Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully. The communists theorized they could skip over stages of development and were in a hurry to do so, creating reigns of terror. This inevitably deformed the nature of this so-called 'communism'. Would Marx approve of the 'communism' of the Pol Pot regime or DPRK? The term 'Marxism-Leninism' is used frequently. Perhaps it would be best to drop the second name and go back to the original writings to see what the actual intent was. There's always a gap between the theory and the practice whether discussing communism or any other ideology.

    “Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully.”

    It is not hard to guess why communist parties have a go at political power when societies are sent to dire straits by capitalism, as the Russians did 100 years ago when the country was on its knees and could not feed the troops in the fronts and the masses in the rear.

    Honestly, how can it be otherwise? Communism is simply banned in capitalsit societies, either by hook or by crook. Even mild socialism is proscribed: see what happened to Greece and Italy after WWII. See what happened in Chile 1973, Portugal and Australia 1975.

    The only way left for socialism/communism to succeed is to storm the barricades and free humanity from the shackles of slavery to the money barons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You'll remain in a muddle if you let so much rubbish rot your brain. Not even the dismissed Australian PM thought there was an anti-democratic basis for his lkss of office in 1975. Greek Communists after WW2 were not trying to institute mild socialism when they were defeated. In Chile the KGB was as much involved as the CIA and Allende, elected with 35 per cent of the vote, had engaged in expropriations, not socialism or lawful constitutional government. And your point about Portugal and Italy????
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Parfois says:
    @Priss Factor
    Neo-Fascism is the only answer.

    It is fusion of nationalism, humanism, traditionalism, modernism, capitalism, and socialism.

    Only Neo-Fascism can balance all the -isms. Without the neo-fascist hand to play coach and referee, the various -isms will just fight each other like stupid children.

    And it must be NEO-fascism because old fascism failed with cult of personality, denial of individuality, delusions of grandeur, tough guy hubris, and radical racism.

    “Neo-fascism is the only answer”

    Thank you for your honesty and candour, straight from the horse’s mouth.

    All one needs to attach respectability to fascism (a theory of corporate political power) is to append the prefix Neo. Fascism knows many disguises (e.g. “national socialism”, “capitalist democracy”) to fool the ignorant sheeple such as yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Not to mention Che personally shooting countless peasants who resisted his madness.

    Cheers.

    I heard those “peasants” were non-uniformed partisans. It’s perfectly lawful to kill partisans under international law, no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Vidi says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    This should sooner be described as "state capitalism."

    Markets are no longer substantially suppressed, which is a more defining feature of Communist regimes than state ownership. State ownership is usually worse than private ownership (possible exception: Natural monopolities), but it's not a critical handicap, and for that matter, there were periods in some Western countries when the "commanding heights" of the economy were state-owned.

    The extent to which China can be described as socialist is also questionable since its welfare state was traditionally extremely threadbare (this is slowly changing).

    China isn’t totally socialist, I agree. But it is still mostly socialist, as most of its economy is controlled by the government. And its five-year plans are still effective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. edNels says:
    @Priss Factor
    Does communism have a future? But then, it was never communism per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win and keep many converts. It was more about hysteria(and in that sense, PC may have more to do with Maoist strain than Marxism or Leninism or Trotskyitism that were more intellectual, cerebral, and even bourgeois in style).

    If it wasn't for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have appealed to so many people? After all, communism predated Marxism. And yet, it was the Marxist take on communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or a cult(as some denigrated it). And it was this strain of Freudianism that had a huge impact on arts and entertainment, from high art to low mass culture. And among libertarianism, it was Rand's particular take on capitalism and individualism that won so many adherents.

    In all these intellectual phenomenon, we see several factors. We see the appeal of something big, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Human Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren't just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggle. Freud explained that the mind isn't independent of body and base drives but always shaped by animal drives like sexuality though these energies become repressed and often turn into complexes. And Rand argued that every progress in human history was linked to individual liberty and heroism. The best way to do good is not to be 'good' but to be great as individual. For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, should he do that or should he take care of the poor? Helping the poor might do some good, but he will not invent fire that can change mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? (Granted, most people aren't great and their idea of liberty is more video games or fooling around.)

    Another great appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It's part of human nature to want a human face on something. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god created thunder. Maybe manlike god controlled the seas. It's like Greeks had bunch of gods. And in war narratives, we wanna focus on big personalities. Even though victory in war relies much on soldiers and the entire chain of command -- and industry providing armaments and logistics -- , we'd rather focus on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Same thing goes for ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be admired as its Moses, its law-giver, its great prophet.
    Likewise, Freud became the center of adulation. The ideas weren't merely generic or academic but personal and human, the work of a 'genius'.
    And of course, Ayn Rand cultists see her as bigger-than-life godlike figure. She made the basic and generic ideas of freedom and individuality into something powerfully personal and heroic.

    So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland. So, it has to revolve around some 'genius' or 'prophet' who gives it a human face and stamps it with personality and vision. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx as its prophet. And this is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and frauds, came to captivate so many people. And this is why Rand made American freedom so exciting and heroic.

    Also, there was something bold and radical about such figures, and that too is intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally wiser, they don't excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he would have been a better thinker. But then, he would have been one of the many sane theorists and writers, which is boring. For him to gain fame and notoriety, he had to think BIGGER and make big claims about history.
    It's like cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. It's like Auteur Theory became such a major issue in the film world because Truffaut's declaration was so confident and assertive. It wasn't announced as a 'maybe' but a certainty.
    And Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their delusional derangement syndrome was part of the appeal. It's like Rockers get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin plays hard, there is nothing but the music's power. Thunder stirs us more than breezes. A storm is more impressive than a drizzle.

    And Marxism was a truly bold and epic prophecy.
    Imagine if Moses came down with some laws and explained to Hebrews that he got some good ideas. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses got respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed God gave him the tablets with fire and brimstone like in DeMille's movie.

    The reason why Christianity and Islam became such huge religions was the fusion of universality and personality: Universonality. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren't really new. There had been ideas of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity become so powerful? Because those ideas became poeticized through Jesus' words and sacralized by His sacrifice. It was the combination of ideas, story, and personality that made it a great religion. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be fully appreciated without the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

    There is also the appeal of the champion. In boxing, there may be several leagues. So, there can be 4 or 5 heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to see who is the real ONE champion. So, we want all the champs to fight it out to see who's the real champion. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god among Greeks, and Odin as top god among Germanics. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

    And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything. It had all the answers for all humanity and for the single individual's place in the world. There were many theories of communism before Marx, but under Marxism, a single theory came to dominate. Other ideas were either subsumed or rejected. And Freud insisted his theory of the mind-body-connection explained all of human psychological experience. And Rand insisted that her theory was about the triumph of reason and objective truth above all else. There was no need for any other theory. They claimed championship.

    And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to end up the same way due to its catering to hedonism. As for Randism, she was not the founder of capitalism or individualism. Just its most fervent and fanatical proponent. In contrast, even though Marx didn't invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great new movement and a great new order that would shake the world in the 20th century(though the rise and spread of communism had more to do with tragic mistakes of imperialists who fought each other to exhaustion and created a gaping hole to be filled by radicals).
    As important as psychology is, it's about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it's impossible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future). To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. In a way, TV-Radio-internet are like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens and radios beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to 100s of millions of people around the world, all our minds are being molded by the same handful of Big Media corporations. If I had a machine that created certain ideas and images and if I could beam those ideas/images to a billion people around the world, I would be colonizing their minds with what I want them to think, see, and feel. And in a sense, TV is a mind-control tool that unifies minds. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, they came to see the same images and their minds came to be molded by same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Tropers are more dangerous than troopers. It's chilling that Freud's nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology.

    Still, as exciting as idology is, it is not fulfilling in the long run. It's about thrills. It's like fireworks are fun but can't warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by Marxism. It has the element of high intellect that won it much respect from intelligent erudite people. But its themes are about justice and the poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it has an ennobling element, something found in great religions like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together elite intellect and with moral concern for the masses. And because it envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it has a spiritual element for modern people who'd lost faith in God. It united the mind, the body, and the soul. And also the senses. As Marxism tied EVERYTHING to economics, a Marxist was expected to become an expert in the arts and criticism. Marxist must use arts and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And Marxist must be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true message. So, there was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere.

    Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, but that was its appeal for the intellectuals. Like Heidegger's BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood was akin to someone reading the whole Torah(and Talmud) and thinking about it. After all, even as universalist intellectuals want to feel a moral connection to the masses, they also want to feel special as serious thinkers. So, Marxism's appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of whole human history. It's like what Barton Fink explains.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiN26NHb4ao

    What is the appeal of the Bible? It is a unity. Its truths can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible's appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

    And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, one felt the Truth was in one's hands.

    I was never a communist, but I had a collection of commie sacred texts from mid 80s to late 80s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but meaningless. So, reading the commie works like the Bible offered some kind of meaning though I was too skeptical to really believe in that stuff. But then, I still read the Bible even though I never believed in religion. The sense of Unity of Meanings in them is assuring on some level even to a non-believer.

    There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

    It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such spell on so many people -- from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest warriors in the Third World -- in the 20th century. The thing is it offered a unity with a simple but profound idea collected in a few sacred texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, people working in very different fields and departments could feel related and connected since, as fellow Marxists, they were all working for Justice and the Future. Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological unity of all men? Many looked to Marxism. In post-war European cinema, why do so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be 'Marxist'? They didn't want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. They adopted 'Marxism' as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that would serve as a thread for all mankind.

    So, the key is not whether communism will come back. The question is why Marxism-Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious in the sense that we want some unity of truth and authority. When the West worshiped religion, this sense of totality and unity was offered by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But religion is long dead. And we were told by Francis Fukuyama that End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called 'liberal democracy' which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, as mythical as the unicorn? And whatever fun that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is that meaningful? The iconography of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they offer shallow thrills.

    For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this holds for some Jews. And it's true enough that Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the new christ figures. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and West Bank mess -- and with negative news about the likes of Weinstein and Weiner -- , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming more problematic. As horrible as Shoah was, the problem with Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though blacks were once slaves, they act like louts. And even though Jews suffered Shoah, they can gain power and do awful things. Unlike God who can be said to be great eternally, all groups of people are good and bad depending on times. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, and then good again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. So, the idea of worshiping Shoah as religion wont' work in the long run because it says we have to look at all Jews through the prism of Shoah for all eternity. So, even if Zionists decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as 'the eternal victim'. It's ridiculous.

    There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a craving for such unity of values and vision. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting. Some on the true left must be wondering what the hell happened to them. I mean, how did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism lost its true meaning and connection to the people. Also, this embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about 'more immigrants', how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it's too busy attacking natives as 'xenophobes' for not taking in MORE foreigners.

    Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

    BUT, Marxism is really a spent force, and you can't go home again. It's like Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it's now faded as a faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania made it a sick decadent faith. And Marxism failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a comeback.

    But the current malaise opens up new opportunities for new great ideas, visions, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such movements. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.

    It is the time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered and made into one. It's like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but unique and special. This is why Dylan's status as the prophet of rock stuck.

    Priss Factor’s is a very seriously informative and insightful comment/essay. But I bet it isn’t being read by other contributors. Some of the ”jingoistic” reflexive stuff offered on the subject, wouldn’t suggest that kind of erudition is much in evidence, but thanks for the many points to ponder on in the wake the article above, also a long winded one, approapriately, for the subject is key today, and… WTF is the next thing coming to fill the philisophy/ religious/ culture/ vacuume/ for humans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    WTF is the next thing coming to fill the philisophy/ religious/ culture/ vacuume/ for humans?
     
    Well...that is THE QUESTION, isn't it?

    I suspect something like combination of "1984" and "Brave New World" type.
    Hopefully I'll be proven wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Wally says: • Website

    No it was not.
    Boy, you are desperate.

    Unlike the legally executed communist terrorists / ‘partisans’ of WWII, there was no relevant declared war or declared warring parties under international law in regions of Che’s mass murders.

    The peasants that were murdered by Che & his communists were not armed, not party to any aggression.

    Che never offered that excuse for his mass murder sprees, but you sadly do.

    You lose again. What a truly ignorant redneck Zionist you are.

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  197. Wally says:
    @anarchyst
    You forget the power of compound interest...You are correct in stating that a SS recipient will "break even" with his "contributions" by age 71, BUT, that does not count the interest that his "contributions" should have earned, if he were "allowed to invest his (and his employer's) SS "contribution" on his own, he would have been much better off--a millionaire easily. People forget that SS is a grand "Ponzi scheme" in which current workers pay current retirees...
    The city of Galveston Texas was the last municipality "allowed" to "opt out" of the federal Social Security system. The average retiree of the Galveston system collects approximately THREE TIMES what the average social security system recipient gets...sorta tells you something...

    Anon, never knew anything to forget. LOL

    He a classic airhead Mama’s boy.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    No it was not.
    Boy, you are desperate.
     
    No, you miss the point. I'm making an analogy for your edification. Under no circumstances would I ever support anyone executing civilians. Ever. Unlike you.

    Unlike the legally executed communist terrorists / ‘partisans’ of WWII, there was no relevant declared war or declared warring parties under international law in regions of Che’s mass murders.
     
    But there wasn't a declared war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union either. Even with the USSR attempted to get Germany to adhere to the international laws of war, the Nazis refused, since they had already committed to committing a Vernichtungskrieg against the USSR. You know -- Kommissarbefehl, etc.

    The peasants that were murdered by Che & his communists were not armed, not party to any aggression.

     

    Neither were Jewish children.

    Che never offered that excuse for his mass murder sprees, but you sadly do.
     
    Know what Che did that the Nazis didn't do? He convened military tribunals. He at least tried to give the appearance of legality. And by the way, the total executed was around 1,000, and most of them were in cahoots with the Battista regime. Again, I wouldn't support their being executed, but they weren't children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Vidi says:
    @Wally
    "Very not true. China's state-owned enterprises still predominate: they're over 50% of the economy; they're over 70%, according to some economists. I would say the country is still socialist and communist.
    When China said they would be implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics", there was much laughter in the West. But after decades of fast, sustained growth, I doubt that anyone is laughing anymore."

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, 'a Chinese rejection of their communist past' ... where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    What you're really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    clue: Not the same as communist.

    Bye.

    So IOW, according to you, ca. 30-50% of the economy has been pulled out of the grasp of the communists.
    Thanks for that.

    Like I said, ‘a Chinese rejection of their communist past’ … where 100% of everything was in communist hands.

    Just because China has adopted bits of capitalism, you can’t say that the country has “utterly rejected” socialism. Otherwise, you would have to say the U.S. has utterly rejected capitalism since the government funds most police departments.

    The unshakeable reality is that China is quite socialist: the state controls the major part of the economy, and the five-year plans work. That is more than good enough.

    What you’re really trying to talk about is a Chinese fascist economy, look it up.

    I’m not playing your definition game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. “Marxism-Leninism clearly states that Capitalism is built on the oppression of the weak and that imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism.”

    Capitalism is about making money (from money); it favours whatever makes the most money. It favours imperialism if that makes money; if oppression makes money it’ll favour that too (although it rarely does favour what I would consider oppression, this can happen if circumstances merit). Currently capitalism favours globalism and free migration that drives down labour costs, that seems to be the way to make most money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  200. @Sergey Krieger
    Which points? Poor and needy? I answered. What was Interesting, Soviet people did not believe about homeless in America. Could they imagine some 50 million on food stamps? Who needs 300 million cars if people live on the streets and cannot afford food? Trust me. Now, America is viewed very differently in Russia. Lessons learned and propaganda is not working.

    I guess you point to the problem of ruling classes, at least in big countries, who can’t think of better says of deploying a country’s wealth than on wars. While the USSR and the USA are examples of that it does seem that India and China are not so far guilty, though China gives ground for suspicion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Parfois
    "Communist parties imposed themselves in circumstances of war, chaos and use of bayonets rather than evolving towards communism peacefully."

    It is not hard to guess why communist parties have a go at political power when societies are sent to dire straits by capitalism, as the Russians did 100 years ago when the country was on its knees and could not feed the troops in the fronts and the masses in the rear.

    Honestly, how can it be otherwise? Communism is simply banned in capitalsit societies, either by hook or by crook. Even mild socialism is proscribed: see what happened to Greece and Italy after WWII. See what happened in Chile 1973, Portugal and Australia 1975.

    The only way left for socialism/communism to succeed is to storm the barricades and free humanity from the shackles of slavery to the money barons.

    You’ll remain in a muddle if you let so much rubbish rot your brain. Not even the dismissed Australian PM thought there was an anti-democratic basis for his lkss of office in 1975. Greek Communists after WW2 were not trying to institute mild socialism when they were defeated. In Chile the KGB was as much involved as the CIA and Allende, elected with 35 per cent of the vote, had engaged in expropriations, not socialism or lawful constitutional government. And your point about Portugal and Italy????

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. If Communism entails “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” it will require decades of superabundance before the people of diverse communities too large for anyone to know more than a small proportion of their fellow citizens to accept the necessary redistribution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. @Priss Factor
    Does communism have a future? But then, it was never communism per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win and keep many converts. It was more about hysteria(and in that sense, PC may have more to do with Maoist strain than Marxism or Leninism or Trotskyitism that were more intellectual, cerebral, and even bourgeois in style).

    If it wasn't for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have appealed to so many people? After all, communism predated Marxism. And yet, it was the Marxist take on communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or a cult(as some denigrated it). And it was this strain of Freudianism that had a huge impact on arts and entertainment, from high art to low mass culture. And among libertarianism, it was Rand's particular take on capitalism and individualism that won so many adherents.

    In all these intellectual phenomenon, we see several factors. We see the appeal of something big, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Human Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren't just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggle. Freud explained that the mind isn't independent of body and base drives but always shaped by animal drives like sexuality though these energies become repressed and often turn into complexes. And Rand argued that every progress in human history was linked to individual liberty and heroism. The best way to do good is not to be 'good' but to be great as individual. For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, should he do that or should he take care of the poor? Helping the poor might do some good, but he will not invent fire that can change mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? (Granted, most people aren't great and their idea of liberty is more video games or fooling around.)

    Another great appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It's part of human nature to want a human face on something. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god created thunder. Maybe manlike god controlled the seas. It's like Greeks had bunch of gods. And in war narratives, we wanna focus on big personalities. Even though victory in war relies much on soldiers and the entire chain of command -- and industry providing armaments and logistics -- , we'd rather focus on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Same thing goes for ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be admired as its Moses, its law-giver, its great prophet.
    Likewise, Freud became the center of adulation. The ideas weren't merely generic or academic but personal and human, the work of a 'genius'.
    And of course, Ayn Rand cultists see her as bigger-than-life godlike figure. She made the basic and generic ideas of freedom and individuality into something powerfully personal and heroic.

    So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland. So, it has to revolve around some 'genius' or 'prophet' who gives it a human face and stamps it with personality and vision. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx as its prophet. And this is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and frauds, came to captivate so many people. And this is why Rand made American freedom so exciting and heroic.

    Also, there was something bold and radical about such figures, and that too is intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally wiser, they don't excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he would have been a better thinker. But then, he would have been one of the many sane theorists and writers, which is boring. For him to gain fame and notoriety, he had to think BIGGER and make big claims about history.
    It's like cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. It's like Auteur Theory became such a major issue in the film world because Truffaut's declaration was so confident and assertive. It wasn't announced as a 'maybe' but a certainty.
    And Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their delusional derangement syndrome was part of the appeal. It's like Rockers get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin plays hard, there is nothing but the music's power. Thunder stirs us more than breezes. A storm is more impressive than a drizzle.

    And Marxism was a truly bold and epic prophecy.
    Imagine if Moses came down with some laws and explained to Hebrews that he got some good ideas. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses got respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed God gave him the tablets with fire and brimstone like in DeMille's movie.

    The reason why Christianity and Islam became such huge religions was the fusion of universality and personality: Universonality. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren't really new. There had been ideas of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity become so powerful? Because those ideas became poeticized through Jesus' words and sacralized by His sacrifice. It was the combination of ideas, story, and personality that made it a great religion. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be fully appreciated without the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

    There is also the appeal of the champion. In boxing, there may be several leagues. So, there can be 4 or 5 heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to see who is the real ONE champion. So, we want all the champs to fight it out to see who's the real champion. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god among Greeks, and Odin as top god among Germanics. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

    And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything. It had all the answers for all humanity and for the single individual's place in the world. There were many theories of communism before Marx, but under Marxism, a single theory came to dominate. Other ideas were either subsumed or rejected. And Freud insisted his theory of the mind-body-connection explained all of human psychological experience. And Rand insisted that her theory was about the triumph of reason and objective truth above all else. There was no need for any other theory. They claimed championship.

    And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to end up the same way due to its catering to hedonism. As for Randism, she was not the founder of capitalism or individualism. Just its most fervent and fanatical proponent. In contrast, even though Marx didn't invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great new movement and a great new order that would shake the world in the 20th century(though the rise and spread of communism had more to do with tragic mistakes of imperialists who fought each other to exhaustion and created a gaping hole to be filled by radicals).
    As important as psychology is, it's about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it's impossible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future). To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. In a way, TV-Radio-internet are like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens and radios beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to 100s of millions of people around the world, all our minds are being molded by the same handful of Big Media corporations. If I had a machine that created certain ideas and images and if I could beam those ideas/images to a billion people around the world, I would be colonizing their minds with what I want them to think, see, and feel. And in a sense, TV is a mind-control tool that unifies minds. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, they came to see the same images and their minds came to be molded by same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Tropers are more dangerous than troopers. It's chilling that Freud's nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology.

    Still, as exciting as idology is, it is not fulfilling in the long run. It's about thrills. It's like fireworks are fun but can't warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by Marxism. It has the element of high intellect that won it much respect from intelligent erudite people. But its themes are about justice and the poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it has an ennobling element, something found in great religions like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together elite intellect and with moral concern for the masses. And because it envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it has a spiritual element for modern people who'd lost faith in God. It united the mind, the body, and the soul. And also the senses. As Marxism tied EVERYTHING to economics, a Marxist was expected to become an expert in the arts and criticism. Marxist must use arts and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And Marxist must be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true message. So, there was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere.

    Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, but that was its appeal for the intellectuals. Like Heidegger's BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood was akin to someone reading the whole Torah(and Talmud) and thinking about it. After all, even as universalist intellectuals want to feel a moral connection to the masses, they also want to feel special as serious thinkers. So, Marxism's appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of whole human history. It's like what Barton Fink explains.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiN26NHb4ao

    What is the appeal of the Bible? It is a unity. Its truths can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible's appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

    And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, one felt the Truth was in one's hands.

    I was never a communist, but I had a collection of commie sacred texts from mid 80s to late 80s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but meaningless. So, reading the commie works like the Bible offered some kind of meaning though I was too skeptical to really believe in that stuff. But then, I still read the Bible even though I never believed in religion. The sense of Unity of Meanings in them is assuring on some level even to a non-believer.

    There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

    It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such spell on so many people -- from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest warriors in the Third World -- in the 20th century. The thing is it offered a unity with a simple but profound idea collected in a few sacred texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, people working in very different fields and departments could feel related and connected since, as fellow Marxists, they were all working for Justice and the Future. Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological unity of all men? Many looked to Marxism. In post-war European cinema, why do so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be 'Marxist'? They didn't want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. They adopted 'Marxism' as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that would serve as a thread for all mankind.

    So, the key is not whether communism will come back. The question is why Marxism-Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious in the sense that we want some unity of truth and authority. When the West worshiped religion, this sense of totality and unity was offered by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But religion is long dead. And we were told by Francis Fukuyama that End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called 'liberal democracy' which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, as mythical as the unicorn? And whatever fun that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is that meaningful? The iconography of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they offer shallow thrills.

    For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this holds for some Jews. And it's true enough that Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the new christ figures. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and West Bank mess -- and with negative news about the likes of Weinstein and Weiner -- , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming more problematic. As horrible as Shoah was, the problem with Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though blacks were once slaves, they act like louts. And even though Jews suffered Shoah, they can gain power and do awful things. Unlike God who can be said to be great eternally, all groups of people are good and bad depending on times. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, and then good again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. So, the idea of worshiping Shoah as religion wont' work in the long run because it says we have to look at all Jews through the prism of Shoah for all eternity. So, even if Zionists decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as 'the eternal victim'. It's ridiculous.

    There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a craving for such unity of values and vision. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting. Some on the true left must be wondering what the hell happened to them. I mean, how did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism lost its true meaning and connection to the people. Also, this embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about 'more immigrants', how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it's too busy attacking natives as 'xenophobes' for not taking in MORE foreigners.

    Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

    BUT, Marxism is really a spent force, and you can't go home again. It's like Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it's now faded as a faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania made it a sick decadent faith. And Marxism failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a comeback.

    But the current malaise opens up new opportunities for new great ideas, visions, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

    This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such movements. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set right again.

    It is the time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered and made into one. It's like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but unique and special. This is why Dylan's status as the prophet of rock stuck.

    “As important as psychology is”

    Totally absurd nonsense.

    There is not and has never been anything “Important” about these psuedo-sciences : Psychology and it’s medical-madness, drug-addicting sister Psychiatry.

    Freud was a criminal-minded lunatic, who used his bullshit theories to “treat” “Hysterical” upper class women, and it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what that means.

    Psychology/Psychiatry have no knowledge of the workings of the human mind, and THIS is the reason why they then resort to drugging the patients whom they consider “Untreatable”.

    They are goddamn madmen and it is high time that their abberations of medicine be exposed for what they are namely : sadistic mental torture.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained U S Army Vet, and pro jazz aritist.

    PS I have read “Das Kapital” and his “Manifesto” in German : Kaisers new suit jabberwocky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @peterAUS

    Well I would not credit them with so much intelligence, my observation being that they are really quite stupid, however at the same time they are insanely fanatical regarding their goal of world communism.
     
    Well…I would credit some of them with quite some intelligence. Those are truly dangerous.

    I have encountered many, many communists during my fifty years of world travel and my main conclusion and observation is that they are ALL insane, and they are equipped with horrid ugly personalities.
     
    Let’s say I have had much “closer” relationship with them.
    Based on that experience I wouldn’t underestimate their will to power and even less so their capability for evil.

    They are not likeable people, rather unbearable know-it-alls, and how else can I word this : malicious creepy fanatics.
     
    I’d qualify those as higher echelons of “useful idiots”.

    This is how I see Communists (very…very briefly):
    There is a miniscule group of true humanists there, both highly intelligent, educated and with good intentions. You’ll see this group writing books about Communism etc.
    Then, there is a bit larger group of people who recognize that idea as a very good vehicle to gain power.
    Then, you have, say, “management” level of “useful idiots”. You’d see those types defending Communism in forums etc. They emotionally, morally, belong to the first group but aren’t psychopathic as members of the second, power, group.
    Then, you have masses who don’t think, just feel and simply want better life.

    Revolution:
    Masses buy the idea by the group 1.
    Groups 1 and 2 work as elite of the movement with useful idiots as management/lower leadership level, using masses to win.

    Now…the crux of the game.

    As soon as POWER is won there is a “cleanup”.
    Group 1 is destroyed/broken/coopted into the group 2. In that order.
    Group 2 rules by iron fist.
    Group 3 is also cleaned up. True believers are executed/imprisoned/sent abroad/whatever, or, those “seeing the true light” after a bit of “re-education” retained as “middle management”. Some from the mass also get there. Usually the hard, ruthless types and they get into security services and military.
    The masses get back to being exploited masses.
    The system is locked in place.

    The top group does have “communism”. The masses have….well….what we’ve seen what they had in…ahm…”communist” countries.
    North Korea isn’t a bad example.

    [Commenters using a tagline bragging of their greatness but whose comments are almost always totally vacuous and content-free, are not usefully contributing to this website. Unless you drop your tag-line and enormously improve the quality of your comments, all future ones will be summarily trashed.]

    “There is a miniscule group of true humanists there”

    Never, never, never. There is not and never has been a “miniscule group of humanists” within the communist movement, simply because then the murderous history, the murderous record of their past endeavors must be ignored and swept under the rug by these “humanists”, and explained away as if it had been necessary : The necessary breaking of a few eggs ( a few million murders) to create an omelette.
    The higher up in the cadre’ the more sinister, bloodthirsty, and insane they are.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well...you apparently have a very strong opinion there.
    No debate will change it, so, let's just agree to disagree.
    Or, in simple terms, I do believe you are very simplistic and wrong there.

    Just for a record and forum benefit:
    In each revolutionary movement, and that includes communists, there have been different types involved. Huge topic so I'll try to make it very simple here.
    There were true idealists wanting to make the world a better place.
    There were power hungry sociopaths who were using the movement to advance themselves up the social ladder.
    There were pragmatists realizing the world was changing so they joined that change.
    There were masses of desperate people who didn't think, just felt their misery and wanted better life.
    And, of course, a fringe of psychopaths, adventurers and similar types.
    , @Cyrano
    Why don’t you shove you saxophone (or whatever stupid instrument that you are playing) up your a**, you stupid a**hole.

    I had enough of your imbecilic comment that are worth nothing, but in order to “increase” their value, you back them up with some retarded claim about your extraordinary intelligence – of which there is no evidence whatsoever in you stupid comments.

    I think also that showing your sax up your a** will only increase the quality of the music that you are playing, because your a** is attached to more intelligent part of your body than your mouth is – being connected as it is to your retarded brain.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. I read here to keep a breeze of contrary opinion flowing through my infobubble.

    Now that The Saker has declared himself objectively (heh*) in favor of the Marxist skull-mountains, that has become… more difficult. I don’t know how much I will benefit from fresh air whilst holding my nose against the stench of rotting flesh crying out for vengeance**.

    * I have a minor in Soviet cant…

    ** My family name derives from “kulak”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  206. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Anon, never knew anything to forget. LOL

    He a classic airhead Mama's boy.

    Cheers.

    No it was not.
    Boy, you are desperate.

    No, you miss the point. I’m making an analogy for your edification. Under no circumstances would I ever support anyone executing civilians. Ever. Unlike you.

    Unlike the legally executed communist terrorists / ‘partisans’ of WWII, there was no relevant declared war or declared warring parties under international law in regions of Che’s mass murders.

    But there wasn’t a declared war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union either. Even with the USSR attempted to get Germany to adhere to the international laws of war, the Nazis refused, since they had already committed to committing a Vernichtungskrieg against the USSR. You know — Kommissarbefehl, etc.

    The peasants that were murdered by Che & his communists were not armed, not party to any aggression.

    Neither were Jewish children.

    Che never offered that excuse for his mass murder sprees, but you sadly do.

    Know what Che did that the Nazis didn’t do? He convened military tribunals. He at least tried to give the appearance of legality. And by the way, the total executed was around 1,000, and most of them were in cahoots with the Battista regime. Again, I wouldn’t support their being executed, but they weren’t children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. A further Biblical indication that communism was the template for the Christian way of life can be found in Acts of the Apostles:

    ‘Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common…..For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Now, true 'communism' would have been that 'the multitude of those who believed' (in Acts 4:32 in a specific miracle performed before their eyes) put their properties, houses, belongings together in a common property. Instead they sold them and put the money at the feet of the Apostles. It was the response to the injunction of the Christ to the rich young man: "go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me" (Mark 10:21).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Whoosh! says:
    @EugeneGur

    It cannot be claimed that Capitalism beat Communism because True Capitalism has never been tried.
     
    Nice defense but too bad its a logical fallacy. It could just as easily be said, perhaps, with much better justification, that neither has True Communism.

    Enuff said

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Communism is the name of a form of socialism that was the evolutionary descendent of the Industrial Revolution. Communism itself may cease to exist since the Industrial Revolution has itself evolved into the current form of Corporatism, but, socialism in its many forms is almost universally the result of the very human emotion of envy. Envy coupled with the desire for revenge against those who are perceived to be “privileged” will always result in some form of socialism.

    “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” This is the motivation for all socialist forms of interrelationship, whether religious, governmental, or philosophical. Of course, in order to facilitate the transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who need, some form of coercion is necessary, whether from the barrel of a gun or through some act of shunning.

    Whether in the form of religion or government or some combination of the two, this is the essence . So yes, Communism in its original form is dead, but it’s genesis is alive and well.

    GoodDay

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Of course, in order to facilitate the transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who need, some form of coercion is necessary, whether from the barrel of a gun or through some act of shunning.
     
    Hmm. This is an odd statement, considering that perhaps the most famous communist/socialist demand is that wealth should belong to those who produce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @HallParvey
    Communism is the name of a form of socialism that was the evolutionary descendent of the Industrial Revolution. Communism itself may cease to exist since the Industrial Revolution has itself evolved into the current form of Corporatism, but, socialism in its many forms is almost universally the result of the very human emotion of envy. Envy coupled with the desire for revenge against those who are perceived to be "privileged" will always result in some form of socialism.

    "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This is the motivation for all socialist forms of interrelationship, whether religious, governmental, or philosophical. Of course, in order to facilitate the transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who need, some form of coercion is necessary, whether from the barrel of a gun or through some act of shunning.

    Whether in the form of religion or government or some combination of the two, this is the essence . So yes, Communism in its original form is dead, but it's genesis is alive and well.

    GoodDay

    Of course, in order to facilitate the transfer of wealth from those who produce to those who need, some form of coercion is necessary, whether from the barrel of a gun or through some act of shunning.

    Hmm. This is an odd statement, considering that perhaps the most famous communist/socialist demand is that wealth should belong to those who produce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. peterAUS says:
    @edNels
    Priss Factor's is a very seriously informative and insightful comment/essay. But I bet it isn't being read by other contributors. Some of the ''jingoistic'' reflexive stuff offered on the subject, wouldn't suggest that kind of erudition is much in evidence, but thanks for the many points to ponder on in the wake the article above, also a long winded one, approapriately, for the subject is key today, and... WTF is the next thing coming to fill the philisophy/ religious/ culture/ vacuume/ for humans?

    WTF is the next thing coming to fill the philisophy/ religious/ culture/ vacuume/ for humans?

    Well…that is THE QUESTION, isn’t it?

    I suspect something like combination of “1984″ and “Brave New World” type.
    Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. peterAUS says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    [Commenters using a tagline bragging of their greatness but whose comments are almost always totally vacuous and content-free, are not usefully contributing to this website. Unless you drop your tag-line and enormously improve the quality of your comments, all future ones will be summarily trashed.]

    "There is a miniscule group of true humanists there"

    Never, never, never. There is not and never has been a "miniscule group of humanists" within the communist movement, simply because then the murderous history, the murderous record of their past endeavors must be ignored and swept under the rug by these "humanists", and explained away as if it had been necessary : The necessary breaking of a few eggs ( a few million murders) to create an omelette.
    The higher up in the cadre' the more sinister, bloodthirsty, and insane they are.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Well…you apparently have a very strong opinion there.
    No debate will change it, so, let’s just agree to disagree.
    Or, in simple terms, I do believe you are very simplistic and wrong there.

    Just for a record and forum benefit:
    In each revolutionary movement, and that includes communists, there have been different types involved. Huge topic so I’ll try to make it very simple here.
    There were true idealists wanting to make the world a better place.
    There were power hungry sociopaths who were using the movement to advance themselves up the social ladder.
    There were pragmatists realizing the world was changing so they joined that change.
    There were masses of desperate people who didn’t think, just felt their misery and wanted better life.
    And, of course, a fringe of psychopaths, adventurers and similar types.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    How can one write an extended article (4,200 words) about the glorious future of Communism without bothering to define what it is–in practical terms, not just a few breezy slogans, such as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”?

    Which by the way shows a total ignorance of human nature. Ask yourself, why did the “nomenklatura” of the USSR become corrupt? Are the Russians uniquely bad people or is human nature perhaps the problem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  214. Vidi says:
    @Wally
    Well yes, someone could say that China' 30-50% private economy .... & growing is a "minority". But so what? One doesn't convert such a huge percentage without acknowledging the fact that the previous system, communism, was a bust, otherwise they would have stayed with it.

    The fact that the Chinese economy had until fairly recently been 100% communist controlled doesn't matter to the willfully ignorant.

    Their 'state owned enterprises very profitable'? Well duh, they have no competition.

    China is fascist economy, see my previous post.

    This posting was supposed to be a reply to you, but it got misconnected somehow. Not the first time that this has happened to me. Maybe the site’s comment system needs to be fixed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Cyrano says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    [Commenters using a tagline bragging of their greatness but whose comments are almost always totally vacuous and content-free, are not usefully contributing to this website. Unless you drop your tag-line and enormously improve the quality of your comments, all future ones will be summarily trashed.]

    "There is a miniscule group of true humanists there"

    Never, never, never. There is not and never has been a "miniscule group of humanists" within the communist movement, simply because then the murderous history, the murderous record of their past endeavors must be ignored and swept under the rug by these "humanists", and explained away as if it had been necessary : The necessary breaking of a few eggs ( a few million murders) to create an omelette.
    The higher up in the cadre' the more sinister, bloodthirsty, and insane they are.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army Vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Why don’t you shove you saxophone (or whatever stupid instrument that you are playing) up your a**, you stupid a**hole.

    I had enough of your imbecilic comment that are worth nothing, but in order to “increase” their value, you back them up with some retarded claim about your extraordinary intelligence – of which there is no evidence whatsoever in you stupid comments.

    I think also that showing your sax up your a** will only increase the quality of the music that you are playing, because your a** is attached to more intelligent part of your body than your mouth is – being connected as it is to your retarded brain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. The world has moved so far and is developing so fast that the whole idea of someone in 21st century owing billions while millions barely getting by is not just ridiculous it is already inhuman. Therefore communist idea cannot die. It was just first attempt. Next time will be better. On the other hand capitalism has no future on limited planet.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    So I guess you are trying to say four legs good, two legs bad? Russia good, America not so good. Or something like that. And you have Uncle Joe's head frozen in your basement. Sounds about right.
    , @Cyrano
    I think that both capitalism and communism are flawed systems – as is pretty much everything made by humans. Probably the ideal solution would be a hybrid between those 2 systems.

    The main reason why communism failed it was because it didn’t realize that the primary motivator for any human activity has always been and always will be – greed.

    In order to entice anybody to do anything you have to play to their greed and reward them as much as possible. Entrepreneurs, innovators and common workers should all be compensated adequately, so the society doesn’t end up like in the old communist joke: “We pretend that we’re working, and they are pretending that they are paying us”.

    Also, it should be left to the market to decide what needs to be produced, not some clueless bureaucrats making those decisions.

    Countries that have capitalist systems which contain some significant elements of communism (or socialism) like the Scandinavian countries are probably the best model for the moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Sergey Krieger
    I guess you should ask them. Do you think China is a land of milk and honey? I would have never agreed to live there. I did live there before...temporary.

    Well, China isn’t using the Western model if that’s the question. It would be pretty ridiculous to extend everything over there, there isn’t enough space for suburbs and the like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @1RW
    It's incorrect to use the foreign exchange rate to compare military budgets and thus military capabilities of the US and Russia. Russian defense industries are vertically integrated inside RF. They pay for everything in rubles on the domestic market. Russian workers also cost about a 4th of what American ones do. Russia also has cheaper energy than the US. Since most physical objects are the result of the application of physical labor and energy to precursor items, from ore to bolts or microchips, we can multiply the value of the Russian budget by at least a factor of 4 so 14% now becomes 56%. Russia also has far less of a logistical and payroll burden. It's overseas base empire is far smaller (where the exchange rate would really hurt). Russia doesn't need to do power projection like the US - a carrier killer missile is far cheaper than a carrier battle group.

    Fixating on the one time when a T14 "broke down", I put it in quotes because it didn't break down, it was improperly operated by a newb driver, demonstrates wishful thinking of the writers more than actual Russian capabilities. It is far better to focus on the effectiveness of the Russian Air Force in Syria, the sortie rates it generated and the outcomes it created on the ground. Or the fact that Russia demonstrated its ability to hit targets in Syria from the Caspian and Mediterranean seas with both submarine and surface platforms. Or the bloodless taking of control in Crimea, which showed that Russia understands how to conduct large special forces operations swiftly and masterfully. Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.

    Russia's 21st Century combat record has been successful if less prolific than the ever over-engaged US, and talking it down looks more like self soothing than rational analysis

    I agree with much of what you say.

    But blaming the T-14 incident on the driver seems rather silly. No? And the only people “fixating” on that incident also seem to be you and whoever had to create the cover story of the newb driver.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.

    The actual 5-day war in 2008 in Georgia bears little resemblance to what you describe. The Russians suffered 67 dead to the Georgians 180. “Blitzed” and “ground to dust” are not very good ways to describe what happened.

    The version I’m familiar with is of the Russian assault having massive problems with Putin himself travelling to the front and taking personal control after between outraged at the performance of the 58th Army.

    The US had in fact declined supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Georgians. These would probably have helped a little.

    The Georgians had something like 10 light infantry battalions available. They never stood a chance. Using these 5 days as evidence of Russian military skill would be a mistake in my opinion. Rather, it served as evidence of the need to upgrade, reorganize, and reform the Russian military – as has in fact happened to a great degree in the years since.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vidi

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.
     
    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops? If you were, please explain why there were large, spontaneous celebrations throughout the peninsula, all day long, when it was announced that like 98% of the voters were in favor of joining the RF. Do you think some Russian tanks forced the Crimeans to smile, laugh, and sing?
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed.
     
    Not only was it unopposed, but 80% of the Ukrainian troops stationed there switched sides, and now happily serve in the Russian army.
    , @1RW
    Crimea was also bloodless because the Russian special forces achieved surprise, controlled the situation deftly-did not open fire, did not force the Ukranians to open fire. There is a million ways this thing could have been botched. It's a testament to Russia's organizational prowess that it came off.

    Russia responded to Georgia's aggression very quickly and decisively. The Georgian's own ineptitude left Russia an opening - they started shelling civilians instead of securing the tunnel that connected Russia and Georgia. The Russians took the opening, deploying a tank army in a day isn't exactly easy, and continued to maintain initiative. Georgia's American trained army couldn't deal with Russia's classic combined arms blitz, lost morale and routed. Sorry if that's not "ground to dust". It's still a victory achieved not merely through preponderance of force, but by ability to deploy in a constricted space and exploit the situation. BTW I never heard about Putin showing up personally and can't understand what he would have done - he not being a practiced army mover.

    Finally, the stalled T14 was mentioned by the person whom I responded to, and is regularly used to symbolize Russia's state of readiness. To my knowledge, it was a driver issue and I don't see it being silly - it's a newfangled, underdeveloped, complex machine operated by a conscript, operator error seems unremarkable within that context.

    It's easy to nitpick, but the fact is that both the operations described went well without visible screw ups while the opponents did screw up. The Georgians proved strategically inept while the Ukrainians had decades of neglect and corruption suddenly catch up. By your standards Operation Iraqi freedom can also be discounted, even though it at the very least showed American ability to deploy and coordinate massive combined arms ops - nothing to sneeze at
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @Sergey Krieger
    The world has moved so far and is developing so fast that the whole idea of someone in 21st century owing billions while millions barely getting by is not just ridiculous it is already inhuman. Therefore communist idea cannot die. It was just first attempt. Next time will be better. On the other hand capitalism has no future on limited planet.

    So I guess you are trying to say four legs good, two legs bad? Russia good, America not so good. Or something like that. And you have Uncle Joe’s head frozen in your basement. Sounds about right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Cyrano says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    The world has moved so far and is developing so fast that the whole idea of someone in 21st century owing billions while millions barely getting by is not just ridiculous it is already inhuman. Therefore communist idea cannot die. It was just first attempt. Next time will be better. On the other hand capitalism has no future on limited planet.

    I think that both capitalism and communism are flawed systems – as is pretty much everything made by humans. Probably the ideal solution would be a hybrid between those 2 systems.

    The main reason why communism failed it was because it didn’t realize that the primary motivator for any human activity has always been and always will be – greed.

    In order to entice anybody to do anything you have to play to their greed and reward them as much as possible. Entrepreneurs, innovators and common workers should all be compensated adequately, so the society doesn’t end up like in the old communist joke: “We pretend that we’re working, and they are pretending that they are paying us”.

    Also, it should be left to the market to decide what needs to be produced, not some clueless bureaucrats making those decisions.

    Countries that have capitalist systems which contain some significant elements of communism (or socialism) like the Scandinavian countries are probably the best model for the moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @1RW
    Communism in the Soviet Union was the triumph of the will over market forces. The Soviet Union, and Russia now, if they were to strictly follow market forces would be nothing more than suppliers of ore, wood, and hydrocarbons. In fact, today's capitalist Russia has been accused of a gas station masquerading as a country.

    The Soviet communists decided that there would be industry, electricity, nuclear power and space flight. To that end they educated the masses and used the state's power of coercion to achieve growth that market forces not only wouldn't sustain, but would not even justify. The fact that the USSR was able to outproduce Nazi Germany, with its slave labor and most of Europe's capacity in WW2 supports this claim.

    Unfortunately, while communism proved adept at solving problems of a national scale, it couldn't keep up with people's desire for nice things. However, capitalism has a nasty way of ignoring things like social stability for the sake of profit and efficiency. Obviously some kind of hybrid economic model that can adjust the state/private enterprise ratio would be optimal. Running a computerized command economy would also be a worthwhile subject of experiment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Seraphim says:
    @Shakesvshav
    A further Biblical indication that communism was the template for the Christian way of life can be found in Acts of the Apostles:

    'Not one of them claimed that anything of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.....For neither was there among them any who lacked, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made to each, according as anyone had need.'

    Now, true ‘communism’ would have been that ‘the multitude of those who believed’ (in Acts 4:32 in a specific miracle performed before their eyes) put their properties, houses, belongings together in a common property. Instead they sold them and put the money at the feet of the Apostles. It was the response to the injunction of the Christ to the rich young man: “go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me” (Mark 10:21).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Vidi says:
    @Johnny Rico
    I agree with much of what you say.

    But blaming the T-14 incident on the driver seems rather silly. No? And the only people "fixating" on that incident also seem to be you and whoever had to create the cover story of the newb driver.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.
     
    The actual 5-day war in 2008 in Georgia bears little resemblance to what you describe. The Russians suffered 67 dead to the Georgians 180. "Blitzed" and "ground to dust" are not very good ways to describe what happened.

    The version I'm familiar with is of the Russian assault having massive problems with Putin himself travelling to the front and taking personal control after between outraged at the performance of the 58th Army.

    The US had in fact declined supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Georgians. These would probably have helped a little.

    The Georgians had something like 10 light infantry battalions available. They never stood a chance. Using these 5 days as evidence of Russian military skill would be a mistake in my opinion. Rather, it served as evidence of the need to upgrade, reorganize, and reform the Russian military - as has in fact happened to a great degree in the years since.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops? If you were, please explain why there were large, spontaneous celebrations throughout the peninsula, all day long, when it was announced that like 98% of the voters were in favor of joining the RF. Do you think some Russian tanks forced the Crimeans to smile, laugh, and sing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops?
     
    That's exactly what that moron is trying to imply. Never mind that Crimea is about 70% ethnic Russian and it's only logical that they would vote to reunify with Russia rather than be ruled by the treacherous Ukrainians.

    That retard thinks that the Russian government is so bad that even the Russians don't wan't to be ruled by Russia, but would instead prefer Ukraine - because their "democracy" has been certified with the golden seal of approval by US - and we all know that only US has the ability to recognize what constitutes a true democracy.

    , @Johnny Rico
    I wasn't implying anything. I was simply stating what I believe to be the case from what I've read.

    Your immediate judgment that I am implying something suggests you understand these to be the basics as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Johnny Rico
    I agree with much of what you say.

    But blaming the T-14 incident on the driver seems rather silly. No? And the only people "fixating" on that incident also seem to be you and whoever had to create the cover story of the newb driver.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.
     
    The actual 5-day war in 2008 in Georgia bears little resemblance to what you describe. The Russians suffered 67 dead to the Georgians 180. "Blitzed" and "ground to dust" are not very good ways to describe what happened.

    The version I'm familiar with is of the Russian assault having massive problems with Putin himself travelling to the front and taking personal control after between outraged at the performance of the 58th Army.

    The US had in fact declined supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Georgians. These would probably have helped a little.

    The Georgians had something like 10 light infantry battalions available. They never stood a chance. Using these 5 days as evidence of Russian military skill would be a mistake in my opinion. Rather, it served as evidence of the need to upgrade, reorganize, and reform the Russian military - as has in fact happened to a great degree in the years since.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed.

    Not only was it unopposed, but 80% of the Ukrainian troops stationed there switched sides, and now happily serve in the Russian army.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Cyrano says:
    @Vidi

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.
     
    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops? If you were, please explain why there were large, spontaneous celebrations throughout the peninsula, all day long, when it was announced that like 98% of the voters were in favor of joining the RF. Do you think some Russian tanks forced the Crimeans to smile, laugh, and sing?

    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops?

    That’s exactly what that moron is trying to imply. Never mind that Crimea is about 70% ethnic Russian and it’s only logical that they would vote to reunify with Russia rather than be ruled by the treacherous Ukrainians.

    That retard thinks that the Russian government is so bad that even the Russians don’t wan’t to be ruled by Russia, but would instead prefer Ukraine – because their “democracy” has been certified with the golden seal of approval by US – and we all know that only US has the ability to recognize what constitutes a true democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. 1RW says:
    @Johnny Rico
    I agree with much of what you say.

    But blaming the T-14 incident on the driver seems rather silly. No? And the only people "fixating" on that incident also seem to be you and whoever had to create the cover story of the newb driver.

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.

    Or even the 2008 war with Georgia, where Russian combined arms operations ground the NATO trained and equipped Georgians to dust in a blitz fronted by tanks and supported by combat aviation.
     
    The actual 5-day war in 2008 in Georgia bears little resemblance to what you describe. The Russians suffered 67 dead to the Georgians 180. "Blitzed" and "ground to dust" are not very good ways to describe what happened.

    The version I'm familiar with is of the Russian assault having massive problems with Putin himself travelling to the front and taking personal control after between outraged at the performance of the 58th Army.

    The US had in fact declined supplying shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to the Georgians. These would probably have helped a little.

    The Georgians had something like 10 light infantry battalions available. They never stood a chance. Using these 5 days as evidence of Russian military skill would be a mistake in my opinion. Rather, it served as evidence of the need to upgrade, reorganize, and reform the Russian military - as has in fact happened to a great degree in the years since.

    Crimea was also bloodless because the Russian special forces achieved surprise, controlled the situation deftly-did not open fire, did not force the Ukranians to open fire. There is a million ways this thing could have been botched. It’s a testament to Russia’s organizational prowess that it came off.

    Russia responded to Georgia’s aggression very quickly and decisively. The Georgian’s own ineptitude left Russia an opening – they started shelling civilians instead of securing the tunnel that connected Russia and Georgia. The Russians took the opening, deploying a tank army in a day isn’t exactly easy, and continued to maintain initiative. Georgia’s American trained army couldn’t deal with Russia’s classic combined arms blitz, lost morale and routed. Sorry if that’s not “ground to dust”. It’s still a victory achieved not merely through preponderance of force, but by ability to deploy in a constricted space and exploit the situation. BTW I never heard about Putin showing up personally and can’t understand what he would have done – he not being a practiced army mover.

    Finally, the stalled T14 was mentioned by the person whom I responded to, and is regularly used to symbolize Russia’s state of readiness. To my knowledge, it was a driver issue and I don’t see it being silly – it’s a newfangled, underdeveloped, complex machine operated by a conscript, operator error seems unremarkable within that context.

    It’s easy to nitpick, but the fact is that both the operations described went well without visible screw ups while the opponents did screw up. The Georgians proved strategically inept while the Ukrainians had decades of neglect and corruption suddenly catch up. By your standards Operation Iraqi freedom can also be discounted, even though it at the very least showed American ability to deploy and coordinate massive combined arms ops – nothing to sneeze at

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    是故百戰百勝,非善之善者也;不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也。
    {For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.}

    Sun Tsu.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Vidi

    What happened in Crimea was bloodless because it was unopposed. Russian Spec Ops were already there.
     
    Were you implying that Crimea was coerced into joining the Russian Federation by the overwhelming power of the Russian troops? If you were, please explain why there were large, spontaneous celebrations throughout the peninsula, all day long, when it was announced that like 98% of the voters were in favor of joining the RF. Do you think some Russian tanks forced the Crimeans to smile, laugh, and sing?

    I wasn’t implying anything. I was simply stating what I believe to be the case from what I’ve read.

    Your immediate judgment that I am implying something suggests you understand these to be the basics as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Avery says:
    @1RW
    Crimea was also bloodless because the Russian special forces achieved surprise, controlled the situation deftly-did not open fire, did not force the Ukranians to open fire. There is a million ways this thing could have been botched. It's a testament to Russia's organizational prowess that it came off.

    Russia responded to Georgia's aggression very quickly and decisively. The Georgian's own ineptitude left Russia an opening - they started shelling civilians instead of securing the tunnel that connected Russia and Georgia. The Russians took the opening, deploying a tank army in a day isn't exactly easy, and continued to maintain initiative. Georgia's American trained army couldn't deal with Russia's classic combined arms blitz, lost morale and routed. Sorry if that's not "ground to dust". It's still a victory achieved not merely through preponderance of force, but by ability to deploy in a constricted space and exploit the situation. BTW I never heard about Putin showing up personally and can't understand what he would have done - he not being a practiced army mover.

    Finally, the stalled T14 was mentioned by the person whom I responded to, and is regularly used to symbolize Russia's state of readiness. To my knowledge, it was a driver issue and I don't see it being silly - it's a newfangled, underdeveloped, complex machine operated by a conscript, operator error seems unremarkable within that context.

    It's easy to nitpick, but the fact is that both the operations described went well without visible screw ups while the opponents did screw up. The Georgians proved strategically inept while the Ukrainians had decades of neglect and corruption suddenly catch up. By your standards Operation Iraqi freedom can also be discounted, even though it at the very least showed American ability to deploy and coordinate massive combined arms ops - nothing to sneeze at

    是故百戰百勝,非善之善者也;不戰而屈人之兵,善之善者也。
    {For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.}

    Sun Tsu.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. 1RW says:
    @Cyrano
    I think that both capitalism and communism are flawed systems – as is pretty much everything made by humans. Probably the ideal solution would be a hybrid between those 2 systems.

    The main reason why communism failed it was because it didn’t realize that the primary motivator for any human activity has always been and always will be – greed.

    In order to entice anybody to do anything you have to play to their greed and reward them as much as possible. Entrepreneurs, innovators and common workers should all be compensated adequately, so the society doesn’t end up like in the old communist joke: “We pretend that we’re working, and they are pretending that they are paying us”.

    Also, it should be left to the market to decide what needs to be produced, not some clueless bureaucrats making those decisions.

    Countries that have capitalist systems which contain some significant elements of communism (or socialism) like the Scandinavian countries are probably the best model for the moment.

    Communism in the Soviet Union was the triumph of the will over market forces. The Soviet Union, and Russia now, if they were to strictly follow market forces would be nothing more than suppliers of ore, wood, and hydrocarbons. In fact, today’s capitalist Russia has been accused of a gas station masquerading as a country.

    The Soviet communists decided that there would be industry, electricity, nuclear power and space flight. To that end they educated the masses and used the state’s power of coercion to achieve growth that market forces not only wouldn’t sustain, but would not even justify. The fact that the USSR was able to outproduce Nazi Germany, with its slave labor and most of Europe’s capacity in WW2 supports this claim.

    Unfortunately, while communism proved adept at solving problems of a national scale, it couldn’t keep up with people’s desire for nice things. However, capitalism has a nasty way of ignoring things like social stability for the sake of profit and efficiency. Obviously some kind of hybrid economic model that can adjust the state/private enterprise ratio would be optimal. Running a computerized command economy would also be a worthwhile subject of experiment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Dube says:
    @Joe Hide
    An oddly written article. Arguing one side, then the other.. over and over, and over and over. I read it all carefully but really didn't learn anything. Is that because I am uneducated, ignorant, low intelligence, ... OR ... is there some other reason?

    Joe Hide says:
    October 15, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT [#116]

    “An oddly written article. Arguing one side, then the other.. over and over, and over and over. I read it all carefully but really didn’t learn anything. Is that because I am uneducated, ignorant, low intelligence, … OR … is there some other reason?”

    Read it as written from the p.o.v. of an Orthodox Christian, as he indicates himself. I guess that–how shall I try to put it–with God, all things are possible. And interesting, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. John_G says:

    One of the wordier versions of ‘but that wasn’t true Communism’. Which would have been to the point, with much less sophistry. I was in East Germany and Czechoslovakia when they were still Communist… they were sh*tholes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. Dissenter says:

    Well, at last the Saker confesses what the true nature of his supposed intelligence work consists of, that seems to have nothing to do with a supposed role of observer in armed conflicts and his position in favor of justice, but it seems that he has really been for a long time an anti-communist agent, and most importantly, he still is. Of course, it seems nothing remotely similar to an intelligence work, but rather that of a propagandist, in this case the “evangelist” type. It is funny that he does not want to see other propagandists around his blog, considering his goals …..must be to avoid competence…..

    Then one wonders why a ·US anti-communist agent” would go around there pretending to be a Libertarian and a friend of the Communists ( whom he described as” good and honest people” in their long-held confidences of his beginnings… ), and publish articles by supposed communists. But what is more serious, why would he ask for the close collaboration of some of them in order to achieve stablishing trust and then collecting personal data, such as real email accounts, real names and even photographs, to then end up trying to humiliate them and destroy their credibility on the internet?

    If it was not enough, he ends up confessing that he has also committed other unspeakable actions in this say “occupation”…. I wonder if that has anything to do with betrayal …..

    Must I remember here that one can be photographed, and located, during a videoconference? Of course, if you are one of the bona fide Nazis who now mostly populate his blog, you have nothing to fear……remember that his bedside books have been, among other luminaries, “Mein Kampf” and that bible of anti-communism written by Solzenhytsin….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  232. anonmyous says:

    I am very disappointed in The Saker with this article.
    I consider a lot of it to be nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  233. Jalan says:

    Abolition of private property in land, no? Not all private property. Most people rent land, and nomadic tribes are well documented, so it doesn’t seem incompatible with human nature.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?