Is communism GOOD?

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by arbiture

 

You know, I agree with much that you just posted, but I have to say I dont believe you have read Das Kapital. At most, I suspect you've seen a few quotes & then read into them what you were taught at an American high school.

I don't care if you think I did not read Das Kapital. You are not an American because if you were you would know this kind of stuff is not taught in US high school class rooms. No doub't your a nieve European who has never lived in a dictatorship. The USA saved Europes ass, and you have the f****** gaul to say I don't know any thing about communisim? I spent a lot of time living in the eastern block. I diden't have to read about that, I lived it. Before you question what I say, do your damn homework. Oh by the way, I did read it.

reply to post by arbiture


If you did your homework, you would know that it was just as much, if not more, the Soviet's who helped turn the tides against the Nazis in WWII. After all, it wasn't the Americans who were pressing down hard on Berlin when ol' Adolf offed himself...

I had to read segments of Das Kapital in my high school economics and I had to read the entirety of the Communist Manifesto in my high school sociology class. By the way, I don't think you can hardly blame Marx for the actions taken by the Bolsheviks; Marx had been dead for some time before the Revolution took place. Marx is as much to blame for what happened as Christianity is for abortion clinic bombers.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Someone336]

reply to post by arbiture

No doub't your a nieve European who has never lived in a dictatorship.

Well, apart from my location, 1 way you can tell I'm a European is that I can spell "naive". As for dictatorships, & your earlier reference to state ownership, this is what prompts, & now reinforces my disbelief. Marx believed that the means of production should be owned by the workers. That they should be organised into committees with the minimum of authority necessary to distribute the goods & services produced; in short no state. If you'd read Das Kapital, you'd know this & not confuse the subsequent oligarchies &/dictatorships with Marxism.

The USA saved Europes ass, and you have the f****** gaul...

Actually, I've got "the f****** gaul" to say much more. For instance: what a typically naive, trite & hackneyed American response. Please explain to us what the USA selling steel to Hitler whilst he rearmed, taking no sanctions against him when he reoccupied the Rhineland, thus significantly boosting his industrial capacity & enabling the construction of the war machine he later unleashed, trading with the Nazis right up until the last minute & not joining the war until the British Empire was mortgaged up to the hilt, has got to do with a discussion about Das Kapital?
As for homework, I have no need. I already agree that communism doesn't work, neither in any form its been tried, nor even in its ideal. Perhaps you've failed to read my various posts saying just that, or even the part of the post you replied to where I stated that I agree with much you said?
Still, always best to stick to facts in a debate. Which is why I confronted your assertions about Marx.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Hey, not to mention the f****** gaul of American companies who financed, in addition to the Nazi party, Mussolini's regime and... the Bolshevik revolution!

Of course, chest beating patriots often ignore these facts.

Reply to the OP, haven't had time to read everything.

In the Bible, the early church sold property and possessions whenever a need came up in the church. Each person did not consider their property their own but recognized they were only stewards of what God had given them.

One man sold his property and claimed to be giving it all to the church but was in fact keeping some. He was struck dead by God for this lie. Not because he didn't give it all, as it was his to do with as he pleased, but he was selfish even in his giving because he wanted the honor for it while still benefiting.

If people were completely selfless, communism would work wonderfully. Not only would people have to be selfless though, they would have to work and not be lazy. "If you don't work, you don't eat." (

reply to post by Someone336 Yeah, neither to mention "the f****** gaul" of somebody trying to justify their current position by arguing from a position of dubious kudos owed to their grandfather's generation.

Originally posted by Mykahel

If people were completely selfless, communism would work wonderfully. Not only would people have to be selfless though, they would have to work and not be lazy. "If you don't work, you don't eat." (

Communism is better than having our tax money go towards bailing out the rich who in turn give themselves BIG bonuses.

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Hey, not to mention the f****** gaul of American companies who financed, in addition to the Nazi party, Mussolini's regime and... the Bolshevik revolution!

Of course, chest beating patriots often ignore these facts.

You have the progressives at the time to thank for that. They may have been Fascist, National Socialist and Communist but they are all sister ideologies with Progressivism. There were a lot of progressives at the heads of these American companies so they had no problem doing business with their brethren.

Not to be petty but since were calling people out..gaul is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium. I think you're looking to use the word gall when trying to burn Americans.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Originally posted by ladyx
Communism is better than having our tax money go towards bailing out the rich who in turn give themselves BIG bonuses.

Thats kinda the plan. What better way to get money to fill your slush fund coffers to use later on down the road for patronage? They get it right back by taxing it at 90 - 95 % and then give the money to toss up districts to buy votes. They never had the intention of letting them keep those bonuses to begin with. Kinda isnt capitalism either.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf


You are right, they could also be applied directly to capitalism. The point though is that the ONLY way communism in any sense would work was if people behaved in that way. It would make it better than capitalism because there would not be any poor among the group but they also would all have to contribute.

Even with people having to work to earn their keep and be less selfish in capitalism, there will always be the "haves" and "have nots." Though it would be much better than what weve got now.

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

You have the progressives at the time to thank for that. They may have been Fascist, National Socialist and Communist but they are all sister ideologies with Progressivism. There were a lot of progressives at the heads of these American companies so they had no problem doing business with their brethren.

No, we have unmitigated greed by the capitalists to thank for that. As they discretely funded the Bolsheviks, keep in mind that they also funded anti-Bolshevik movements. It's a demented Hegelian dialectic, the synthesis produced being more money. The biggest example of this is the National Socialist party; sooner or later, the two biggest kids on the block are gonna start a fight. Of course, the war machine in America is a good way to make profits as well.

Quite telling of these so-called "progressives" on Wall Street was that during the funding of the Bolsheviks the corporate cartel was fighting a war on American soil against the socialist labour movements.

I would also disagree with you on National Socialism, Italian fascism and Communism being sister movements... National Socialism was named in this manner only to appeal to the left wing, but in reality Hitler held great disdain for socialism. Ever hear about how many socialists and communists died in the concentration camps as well? National Socialism and Fascism were sister ideologies in the fact that they were corporatist models, dangerously similar to what is happening today: a strange culture clash consisting of elements of Keynesian and Friedmanite economics; the market is [loosely] regulated by the government, while the government is bowing to the whims of the overlords of the modern marketplace, which is the corporation. Thus we have a left/right mixed economy designed to support a pseudo-fascist neo-capitalist economic system of Privatizing the Wins, Socializing the Losses.

You hate the progressivist ideology? So I guess you harbor a strong dislike for

Women and black voters
The mayor/city council system
Anti-Trust laws
Organized labor laws
Child labor laws
National parks

Now, I'm not saying they were perfect: many early progressives supported the idea of eugenics, which was, appallingly, a pretty accepted norm at the time. Oh yeah, and they were the originators of the prohibition of alcohol.

By the way, let's not forget that there was never one singular "Progressive Party." In fact, there has been three different ones, not to mention the whole variety of politicians who are self-professed 'progressives', despite radically differing ideology. Dennis Kunich, Barack Obama and Noam Chomsky are all 'progressives', yet the only thing they have in common is that they sit left of center.

Not to be petty but since were calling people out..gaul is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium. I think you're looking to use the word gall when trying to burn Americans.

We were quoting Arbiture's post at the top of the page... by the way, I'm an American.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Someone336]

Originally posted by Mykahel
[
Even with people having to work to earn their keep and be less selfish in capitalism, there will always be the "haves" and "have nots." Though it would be much better than what weve got now.

Its absolute Utopian bs though. You might as well argue that the world would be better off if we all could fly like superman. Or never need to drink a drop of water. Or never have to go to the bathroom. Sure it sounds good for 2 seconds but then after putting a little thought to it reality sets in and you realize its all just crap.

reply to post by Someone336



I can’t see how any of that is inherent to capitalism though. Greed is greed. Lenin wasn't greedy? Stalin wasn't greedy? Mussolini wasn't greedy? Hitler wasn't greedy? What? Because they said they weren't? Because they said they were looking out for the little guy? Give me a break. I think you need to give them a closer look. You seem to think they were just a squirrel trying to get a nut in a cruel world controlled by capitalists. They were being assisted by people in the US that has similar ideologies. Just because they lived in a capitalist society doesn't mean they were capitalist.

I disagree with your disagreement. In fact yes they were all sister movements of the left. Look at their goals and look at their accomplishments. Communism, Fascisim, and Socialism are all sister movements of the left. Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism. Whats Hegelian here is the antitheses being capitalism the thesis being communism and the synthesis being the parasitic socialist system rotting capitalism into communism. National Socialism is nothing more that communism with a racist tinge to it other than that it was also a leftist movement with the same goals of communism. Inherent to these system is after they pick up steam they do eat their own in their never ending pursuit of power. It doesn't surprise me that they would be throwing their own in concentration camps and gulags. Socialism is never about socialism. Communism is never about communism. Is about power and control. Capitalism is about individuality and freedom. Either you get off of your lazy ass or you get left behind. Its Darwinian and it follows the natural order of things.

Of course you always have the eugenics bugaboo with the progressives. I know I know. You cant make an omelet without breaking eggs. This is telling of the progressive mentality. They have nothing but contempt for the humans that cant produce in the system and these are the ones that should be discarded. I guess they should have been asked if they wanted to be part of the machine to begin with. They want to control you from cradle to grave and they want to control who gets a cradle and who gets a grave all in the name of efficiency.

The problem with our capitalist system as it currently is is that it is an amalgamation of socialism and capitalism. It’s as simple as that. For some reason socialism gets all the accolades when something goes right while capitalism gets all the blame when something goes bad. Funny how that works huh? If we were to remove a majority of the socialist infection in the system and we’d return to normalcy. I'll agree with you on this point. It does lead to privatizing wins and socializing losses. Losses should be privatized too. No more stimulus or bailouts. You screw up, you fail, tough. That’s capitalism and that's only right.

Just as there were never one progressive party there were never one communist, socialist, or fascist party either. It is a movement and an ideology which can span party lines. That’s why you can have dems and republicans that are tinged with communism, progressivism, socialism, fascism. If a politician claims to be a progressive and fully understands what a true progressive is then people shouldn't cast one vote for them. They’re scary people. I think that a lot of them just say it because it sounds like " progress " to the voters and they don't know what it means to be a real progressive.

You can never build a society on Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and progressivism. These are all parasitic systems that latch onto a capitalist host and feed off of it until ultimately everything collapses. How is that not the ultimate evil and greed? You just can’t argue with history. They are the eventual ruin of countries every time they take hold.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

I can’t see how any of that is inherent to capitalism though. Greed is greed. Lenin wasn't greedy? Stalin wasn't greedy? Mussolini wasn't greedy? Hitler wasn't greedy? What? Because they said they weren't? Because they said they were looking out for the little guy? Give me a break. I think you need to give them a closer look.

Hm. I never recall defending these individuals, and I never recall stating that they weren't motivated by greed. Are you saying that capitalism cannot be taken advantage of for greed?

You seem to think they were just a squirrel trying to get a nut in a cruel world controlled by capitalists.

Nope, never said that. Pretty typical around here how people's words and thoughts are taken to an ideological extreme.

They were being assisted by people in the US that has similar ideologies. Just because they lived in a capitalist society doesn't mean they were capitalist.

Can you show me where J.P. Morgan expressed his 'progressive' and left wing views? Can you show where Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and any of the other robber barons disagreed with capitalism?

In fact yes they were all sister movements of the left. Look at their goals and look at their accomplishments. Communism, Fascisim, and Socialism are all sister movements of the left.

Ah, the Glenn Beck School of History emerges. Should have seen that coming with the overuse of today's fearsome buzzword.

Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.

But didn't socialism predate communism? And what kind of socialism are you discussing? Please, specify. None of the various socialist groups share the same ideologies.

National Socialism is nothing more that communism with a racist tinge to it other than that it was also a leftist movement with the same goals of communism. Inherent to these system is after they pick up steam they do eat their own in their never ending pursuit of power. It doesn't surprise me that they would be throwing their own in concentration camps and gulags.

Let me give you a few quotes:

Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end

German Worker's Party

Do you know about the Sturmabteilung? They were socialists who followed Hitler because he was going to eliminate the German Marxists and the trade unionists. Of course, he ended up purging them when they plotted a socialist coup to take over the party.

I don't discount the influence of left-wing elements in National Socialism and Italian Fascism. Let me do some shameful self-quoting:

National Socialism and Fascism were sister ideologies in the fact that they were corporatist models, dangerously similar to what is happening today: a strange culture clash consisting of elements of Keynesian and Friedmanite economics; the market is [loosely] regulated by the government, while the government is bowing to the whims of the overlords of the modern marketplace, which is the corporation. Thus we have a left/right mixed economy designed to support a pseudo-fascist neo-capitalist economic system of Privatizing the Wins, Socializing the Losses.

Socialism is never about socialism.

I don't know how you can make that approximation.

Communism is never about communism.

Well, yeah, I might agree with you there. Unless you're talking about Marx; I find it highly doubtful that he wrote the Manifesto with Stalin in mind.

Capitalism is about individuality and freedom.

Haha, that's worked out so well, hasn't it? Let's not forget why socialist movements and labor movements first sprung forth in America.

Either you get off of your lazy ass or you get left behind.

My favorite defense of capitalism is the one where all people who don't believe in it are lazy. Thanks for supplying it for me. I guess I better quit my job to assume the proper role.

Its Darwinian and it follows the natural order of things.

That's funny considering how many scientists are now saying that natural selection is slowing down considerably. In fact, some scientists, such as Professor Steve Jones, who say that it is over as we speak. Also, you just added fuel to the big commie fire for comparing economics to such a cold and unforgiving system. Should I fully expect you not to draw on unemployment if you happen to lose your job? How about not calling the police if you've been mugged or your house is broken into? Can't call the fire department either if your house is burning down... survival of the fittest! Gotta pave the roads yourself... and I wonder, [if you went] did you take out students loans in college?

If a politician claims to be a progressive and fully understands what a true progressive is then people shouldn't cast one vote for them.

Who are you to tell people who they should or shouldn't cast a vote for?

You can never build a society on Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and progressivism. These are all parasitic systems that latch onto a capitalist host and feed off of it until ultimately everything collapses. How is that not the ultimate evil and greed? You just can’t argue with history. They are the eventual ruin of countries every time they take hold.

Well, somebody better call up Australia, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, German, Austria, Mongolia, Switzerland, Israel, the Netherlands and all other countries with leaders belonging to the Socialist International and warn them!

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Someone336]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Someone336]

Originally posted by Someone336
Page 1....

Hm. I never recall defending these individuals, and I never recall stating that they weren't motivated by greed. Are you saying that capitalism cannot be taken advantage of for greed?

Nope, never said that. Pretty typical around here how people's words and thoughts are taken to an ideological extreme.

I never said that either. Now your doing to me what you were complaining about. I absolutely believe it can with any system.

Can you show me where J.P. Morgan expressed his 'progressive' and left wing views? Can you show where Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and any of the other robber barons disagreed with capitalism?

You'd have to have a sit down with these men and ask them directly their views on things. That said the next best thing is to look at what they've done. They were the emperors of their companies and they had the power to do what they saw fit. Their actions speak for themselves. They are also exactly what De Tocqueville said would happen. You seem to think I'm defending them. They were Oligarchs. Not good.

Ah, the Glenn Beck School of History emerges. Should have seen that coming with the overuse of today's fearsome buzzword.

Who's Glenn Beck? Today's fearsome buzzword has been around for over 100 years

But didn't socialism predate communism? And what kind of socialism are you discussing? Please, specify. None of the various socialist groups share the same ideologies.

I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that. I'm sure the argument could be made that Cro Magnon man practiced communism in their small tribes and Neolithic man practiced socialism when they moved into the villages. Suffice it to say they both suck eggs and have no place in a modern world.

Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favor of equality for those who had "German blood".

I reeealy don't see where this is at odds with what I've said about socialism. He has issues with it to be sure but he knew that it was the fastest and most effective way to rot and collapse the current system (under the guise of hope and change) so he could bring what the Nazi's were really about out into the open. I think we agree here. Like I said, Socialism isn't about the socialism. Its about power and control.

Do you know about the Sturmabteilung? They were socialists who followed Hitler because he was going to eliminate the German Marxists and the trade unionists. Of course, he ended up purging them when they plotted a socialist coup to take over the party.

Not surprising. Like I said Socialism isn't about the socialism.

Continue to page 2....


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

 

Page 2..

I don't discount the influence of left-wing elements in National Socialism and Italian Fascism. Let me do some shameful self-quoting:

National Socialism and Fascism were sister ideologies in the fact that they were corporatist models, dangerously similar to what is happening today: a strange culture clash consisting of elements of Keynesian and Friedmanite economics; the market is [loosely] regulated by the government, while the government is bowing to the whims of the overlords of the modern marketplace, which is the corporation. Thus we have a left/right mixed economy designed to support a pseudo-fascist neo-capitalist economic system of Privatizing the Wins, Socializing the Losses.

Another point of agreement. We saw eye to eye on this the last post.

"Communism is never about communism."

Well, yeah, I might agree with you there. Unless you're talking about Marx; I find it highly doubtful that he wrote the Manifesto with Stalin in mind.

Well I dont think he did either. The manifesto was published in 1848 and Stalin was born in 1879

"Capitalism is about individuality and freedom."

Haha, that's worked out so well, hasn't it? Let's not forget why socialist movements and labor movements first sprung forth in America.

In fact it has. Besides, these labor movements are nothing more that an attempt to agitate and organize people into voting blocks. Hows that worked out for them so far? Have they promised what they said they would or are they still conveniently fighting the good fight on behalf of the worker?

Should I fully expect you not to draw on unemployment if you happen to lose your job? How about not calling the police if you've been mugged or your house is broken into? Can't call the fire department either if your house is burning down... survival of the fittest! Gotta pave the roads yourself... and I wonder, [if you went] did you take out students loans in college?

I will not have to draw unemployment because I have a savings. I cant ever begin to understand why you believe the police force or fire department is part of and a direct result of anything socialist, communist, fascist, progressive or capitalist system. Why don't you just lump in chiropractors, mds, garbage men etc. Sorry, you just not coming off as cogent here.

" If a politician claims to be a progressive and fully understands what a true progressive is then people shouldn't cast one vote for them."

Who are you to tell people who they should or shouldn't cast a vote for?

I think therefore I am.

Well, somebody better call up Australia, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, German, Austria, Mongolia, Switzerland, Israel, the Netherlands and all other countries with leaders belonging to the Socialist International and warn them!

You prove my point here exactly. With the exception of Australia what are these other rat holes know for? Explain why exactly what makes them great? I have an idea what you're going to say but I just want to hear it from you first. And Mongolia? Did you have a bet with someone to see if you could work that into the conversation? Again, you're just not cogent here.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf

You'd have to have a sit down with these men and ask them directly their views on things. That said the next best thing is to look at what they've done. They were the emperors of their companies and they had the power to do what they saw fit. Their actions speak for themselves. They are also exactly what De Tocqueville said would happen. You seem to think I'm defending them. They were Oligarchs. Not good.

While they funded the Bolsheviks, Mussolini and the National Socialist party, their is no evidence to suggest that they agreed with the point of view of left wing systems - other than fascism, which transcends left and right. As a matter of fact, they espoused exactly the opposite point of views in the 1920s during the anarchist scares.

Who's Glenn Beck? Today's fearsome buzzword has been around for over 100 years

Yes, but it hasn't entered common nomenclature due to the mass media until recently, much like "terrorism" in the early part of the 2000s.

I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that.

They are quite different when it comes to economic planning, government, etc. For example, social anarchism argues for the socialist collective in the anarchist frame work, and differs from a social democracy, is based a welfare state based on both socialism and capitalism (the EU) and respects the notion of private property. Ricardian socialism believes in free markets as the path to socialism while market-oriented socialism is more akin to China, with the state directing the flow of the market. I could go on.

In fact it has. Besides, these labor movements are nothing more that an attempt to agitate and organize people into voting blocks. Hows that worked out for them so far? Have they promised what they said they would or are they still conveniently fighting the good fight on behalf of the worker?

While the union system has proven to be not as beneficial today, the socialist and labor movements of the times succeeded in gaining more labor laws as well as more rules and regulations to keep the worker safe in the workplace. The copper mines that Wild Bill Haywood fought for are a good example of this.

I will not have to draw unemployment because I have a savings. I cant ever begin to understand why you believe the police force or fire department is part of and a direct result of anything socialist, communist, fascist, progressive or capitalist system. Why don't you just lump in chiropractors, mds, garbage men etc. Sorry, you just not coming off as cogent here.

I could lump in garbage men here, and the military as well. We pay for these things through taxation, and the government provides these services for us. This is a "socialist"-leaning system.

With the exception of Australia what are these other rat holes know for? Explain why exactly what makes them great? I have an idea what you're going to say but I just want to hear it from you first.

Well, Germany's economy is the largest in Europe, the fourth largest GDP in the world. Noway has had a stable economy despite the recession, while Switzerland (a more capitalist leaning economy, but still has SI leadership) has the most stable economy in the world. Sweden, another mixed market economy, has fared very well for the government and citizens.

And Mongolia? Did you have a bet with someone to see if you could work that into the conversation?

Hey, believe it or not, Mongolia is a modern country that is a beneficial part of Northern Asia due to their output of gold, copper, tin and coal, and despite a large deficit they have had a steadily rising GDP for the last six or seven years.

I've made it clear elsewhere in this thread that I believe in a regulated but not government owned market with, among other things, healthcare provided. I'm also a strong supporter of the idea of the worker co-operative, as well as stricter anti-trust laws and the revoking of many of the corporate charters of the Wall Street cartel.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Someone336]

Communism is bad. It terribly flawed. The proof of this is the fact that Marxist regimes the world over have always turned into oppressive and murderous states. Communism is so ill conceived that it can't implement itself ANYWHERE without transforming into a highly class based society that abuses its own population.

Originally posted by Someone336

"I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that."

They are quite different when it comes to economic planning, government, etc. For example, social anarchism argues for the socialist collective in the anarchist frame work, and differs from a social democracy, is based a welfare state based on both socialism and capitalism (the EU) and respects the notion of private property. Ricardian socialism believes in free markets as the path to socialism while market-oriented socialism is more akin to China, with the state directing the flow of the market. I could go on.

I very well believe you could. Though there are many federated versions of it in the modern world it doesn't make it any less of a bitter pill to swallow. They are all destructive and bitter. Their ultimate outcome is totalitarianism.

Its like the difference between a fantasy and reality. Lets just say that my fantasy is to have my wife bring another woman home sometime for " coffee ". The thought of it is exciting. And what could go wrong if everyone is consenting? The reality is its get much more complicated once the fantasy becomes a reality. Chances are a whole host of things will happen afterward that will lead to the ruin of my once happy marriage. So all of these are nothing more than different iterations of the same fantasy. An engineered society in one form or another if you will. They are also nothing more than a vehicle to totalitarian ruin once you go down that road. Look at Greece. Its a model for what will probably be the rest of social Europe very very soon.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]