djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 19:51:15 GMT -5
Well, let' see, if i say Obama is "left wing", then i get posters arguing with me that no he is really right wing. red herring. i never claimed that. what i said is that he was a moderate republican. i would use the term "centrist" if we are talking political spectrum- NEITHER left NOR right wing. it is actually a term that most historians, and even quite a few people on the right and left agree with. i would say that his rhetoric is more left wing than centrist, but that is just for kiddies, cameras, nd votes. the man is fundamentally no radical, even if he "hung out" with them in college. he strikes me as a moderate to the core, and a very appeasing and cautious one at that- which is why he pisses liberals like me off to no end. he talks the talk, but he does not even come close to walking the walk.So, i then would say Obama is "right wing", then i would then get oh no Obama is left wing. no, i would still say he is a centrist. His record is his record from Obamacare on down. What this has to do with anything, i am not sure. me neither, other than that you could just as easily call Obamacare Romneycare or Gingrichcare. the idea of having a universal mandate was supported by both of those men and a lot of other moderate republicans before Obama got identified with it. again, how that makes him anything other than a centrist is beyond me. compared to someone like FDR or even Nixon, the man is a right winger.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 40,011
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 21, 2012 19:53:18 GMT -5
Thanks Crafty. The things I miss not having cable or a newspaper subscription. A guy who converted to become a Mormon and had a bribe run in with LaToya Jackson's future agent and hubby. Interesting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 19:53:21 GMT -5
What are you talking about my "contradiction"? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) i already pointed it out, like three times. i think i will quit at three and wait for you to catch up.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 20:51:05 GMT -5
Cap and trade, as envisioned by nearly all of the influential NGOs and think tanks that support it, necessitates the creation of a global regulatory structure and a global financial structure (for sake of handling exchanges of the needed magnitude). There are numerous proposals on how to accomplish this, and perhaps the architects of said proposals are all "morons" in your view, but they involve the centralization of regulatory and financial authority to a very small number of (as of yet most non-existent) supranational organizations and bodies. Not surprisingly, central banks run amok with power to destroy the economies of entire continents are among them.
As regulatory and financial power are being centralized, since (in addition to 'military') these are really the only two types of power that matter, many cap and trade skeptics (and several of the pro-CAT NGO proposals) have also suggested that centralization of political power would inevitably follow.
Does this equate to socialism? Directly, no. But consider that if a handful of organizations ostensibly control earth's financial, political, and regulatory resources, with historically unprecedented free license to use this power unopposed by any competing nation or principality, I would suggest to you, sir, that is isn't simply the "morons" who are worrying that such a system could evolve into an oligarchy and ultimately to the kinds of abuses seen in any opaque, heavily-centralized form of government—only on a world scale.
If that doesn't make sense to you, or you can't imagine it happening, fine. If you want to quibble over the definition of "socialism", don't waste your breath.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:17:40 GMT -5
Does this equate to socialism? Directly, no. But consider that if a handful of organizations ostensibly control earth's financial, political, and regulatory resources, with historically unprecedented free license to use this power unopposed by any competing nation or principality, I would suggest to you, sir, that is isn't simply the "morons" who are worrying that such a system could evolve into an oligarchy and ultimately to the kinds of abuses seen in any opaque, heavily-centralized form of government—only on a world scale. sorry, but i don't see mankind's interest in regulating our one true common heritage: the environment: as anything sinister or ugly. i don't see it as a desire to dominate anyone. rather, i see it is a genunine concern that our planet is bequeathed in a condition that is as good or better than how we were born into it.
but if you want to get into sinister elements, consider the wealth and holdings of the top 100 corporations, and their influence on the environment. these are PRIVATE companies that control vast swaths of what was once considered the PUBLIC domain. that should scare the shit out of you, and it has NOTHING to do with socialism.If that doesn't make sense to you, or you can't imagine it happening, fine. If you want to quibble over the definition of "socialism", don't waste your breath. no, i know what it means. i think you do too. and again, if you or anyone else here thinks that cap and trade is some kind of socialist plot, i really think that ranks right up there in nuttiness with the idea that Bush bombed the WTC. most socialists would want DIRECT intervention with companies that intersect with the environment. the idea of swaps is far too arbitrary and commercial for them.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Aug 21, 2012 21:28:59 GMT -5
Faux outrage...Anything to take the spotlight off Obama/Biden. ironically, there is plenty of reason for Romney and Ryan to be enjoying this little distraction, as well. While everyone is fussin' and fightin' over the uteri of people they don't even know, no-one asking questions or starting threads concerning Romney's tax returns. What a passel of patsies.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 21, 2012 21:31:29 GMT -5
ironically, there is plenty of reason for Romney and Ryan to be enjoying this little distraction, as well. While everyone is fussin' and fightin' over the uteri of people they don't even know, no-one asking questions or starting threads concerning Romney's tax returns. What a passel of patsies. ...not patsies... survivalists... if we start one more thread about asking politicians for college transcripts, birth certs, and the like... we'll get banned for sure... ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png)
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 21, 2012 21:34:59 GMT -5
<<< sorry, but i don't see mankind's interest in regulating our one true common heritage: the environment: as anything sinister or ugly. >>> ...fwiw, I'd have to just agree to disagree with you on this one, then... ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 21:38:34 GMT -5
I didn't realize you were the spokesperson for Socialists International. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/tongue2.png) "Socialism" compasses an enormously diverse set of ideologies, sir. Any declaration of "what most socialists want" beyond the most general "collective management/ownership of the means of production" isn't worth the bytes it's printed on. Many people believe in this. The major backers for cap and trade legislation (Goldman, JPM, Barclays)... somehow I'm thinking no. Over the years I've posted articles about why CAT doesn't work, has never worked, on any scale. I think I can still dig up the one where the legal architects of the CAT legislation in California admit they made a terrible mistake and beg the national public not to implement it on a national scale. My argument has always been: if you care about the environment, care about the environment. Cap and trade is not, and never truly will be, about caring for the environment. It is about making money and consolidating wealth, power, and resources. If you want to get into the sinister elements, consider that a consolidation of even more power and influence into the hands of the interests that own these corporations is precisely what global CAT legislation would bring about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:43:49 GMT -5
I didn't realize you were the spokesperson for Socialists International. let's just say i got tired enough of the accusation being bandied about that i spent some time studying it. it would be nice if EVERYONE did it, but that's ok if they don't. i am here to fill in the gaps. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) "Socialism" compasses an enormously diverse set of ideologies, sir. Any declaration of "what most socialists want" beyond the most general "collective management/ownership of the means of production" isn't worth the bytes it's printed on. not really. there are a few very fundamental socialist principles. the most fundamental of them all is ownership of the means of production. without it, there is no control of capital or labor markets, which is the proximate goal. to allow a system to carry on with the freedom of private individuals to do whatever they wish, and simply TRADE their dirt for dollars, is completely antithetical to socialist principles. i don't really consider that an opinion, i consider it a fact. but don't just take my word for it. ask a socialist. an example of i think the real problem is that most people on this board probably think France is socialist to the core, and yet i have never met a socialist who thinks that is true. modern nation states are ALL mixed economies. they are far more capitalist than socialist in their underpinnings, and are fundamentally neither socialist NOR capitalist, but both. hence the term "mixed".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:47:47 GMT -5
whats the difference between "direct intervention" and "collective management"? none, in the case of socialism. but i think that a capitalist or mixed economic system CAN have direct intervention without being declared fundamentally socialist. IE- if a company is found to be a grossly negligent in the legal sense, i think that it is well within the rights of a representative government to shut that business down and clean it up, and sue the bejezus out of the former owners, liquidate the assets, mulch the business and turn it into an eco-park. having accomplished that work, they can go right back to being a mixed economy. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) but in the US, it is very rare, if ever, you hear of such extreme measures. but some just can't accept this as proof.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 21:49:39 GMT -5
You wouldn't consider Canada to be a socialist nation?
Last time I checked, 55% of my take home pay goes to the federal and provincial governments. Public schools, public utilities, public healthcare. All regulations, trade, finance are federally controlled. It's about halfway between Smithian capitalism and communism, which is where Marx envisioned "socialism" in his manifesto.
That's your personal assessment. Pure and exclusive ownership of the means of production is communism. 'Socialism' is midway on the spectrum.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:52:57 GMT -5
Many people believe in this. The major backers for cap and trade legislation (Goldman, JPM, Barclays)... somehow I'm thinking no. precisely. proof positive that CAT is crony capitalism at it's finest, and completely antithetical to socialism. as is most of the rest of your post. thanks, Virgil. you saved me a ton of typing. by the way, i think CAT is a POS. free market approaches to public issues like this are NEVER going to work.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:55:11 GMT -5
That's your personal assessment. Pure and exclusive ownership of the means of production is communism. 'Socialism' is midway on the spectrum. no. communism is a stateless society. if you have statism, you have socialism, NOT communism. you are dead wrong here, Virgil. sorry. if you have nation states that exert economic control, they cannot possibly be communist, by definition.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 21:58:34 GMT -5
oh, and it is pretty clear that Canada is a mixed economy, given that half my stock holdings are in Canadian companies.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 21:59:21 GMT -5
I suppose we're just quibbling over labels, then.
To you, if government hands over the reins to some corporate oligopoly, it's capitalism because of the corporate nature of the oligopoly.
To me, the government has handed over power to a group that ostensibly now controls regulation, finance, and has a "ring through the nose" of production, claiming to rule for the sake of saving the earth in the public interest. It meets the dictionary definition of 'socialism'.
"Fascism" would normally be a lot closer, but it normally implies a military dictatorship of some sort, which (at least initially) wouldn't be the case with CAT.
Maybe in Marx manifesto a hundred years ago. From the moment it was put into practice, communism was intrinsically linked to the state.
Like it or not, the iron fist of the USSR defines "communism" now in common parlance, with socialism being the "mix".
Live with it. I do. I also resent the fact that "ground zero", which used to be a general term useful for describing "very proximate to the site of the major event", now exclusively refers to the site of the WTC attacks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 22:09:03 GMT -5
I suppose we're just quibbling over labels, then. if you say so. but you just stated CORRECTLY that corporations are dooling over cap and trade. they would hardly do this if it were any threat to them. socialism is not only a threat. it is the END of corporations. period. they can't exist in a socialist system without the state running them.To you, if government hands over the reins to some corporate oligopoly, it's capitalism because of the corporate nature of the oligopoly. To me, the government has handed over power to a group that ostensibly now controls regulation, finance, and has a "ring through the nose" of production, claiming to rule for the sake of saving the earth in the public interest. It meets the dictionary definition of 'socialism'. if those interests are corporate, it meets my definition of "fascism", which is about as far from true socialism as you can get."Fascism" would normally be a lot closer, but it normally implies a military dictatorship of some sort, which (at least initially) wouldn't be the case with CAT. i think we have a very passive, soft fascism taking place here. a new kind of fascism, just like China is a new kind of socialism. one that allows limited entrepreneurship, but under state control. but i think this conversation has run it's course. i do thank you for it, however.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Aug 21, 2012 22:10:48 GMT -5
Reasons for B allways being the best choice. 1. Hindsight is allways 20/20 2. everyone wants to join a cause. 3. bandwagon joiners 4. the first liar doesn't stand a chance.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 21, 2012 22:14:34 GMT -5
Likewise.
Fundamentally, we're not that far apart on the issue. Neither of us wants to hand a giant stick to some authority—be it corporate or political—unless we have some strong assurances that stick will be used for the genuine public good rather than the consolidation of (and abuse of) more power.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 22:15:19 GMT -5
I suppose we're just quibbling over labels, then. To you, if government hands over the reins to some corporate oligopoly, it's capitalism because of the corporate nature of the oligopoly. To me, the government has handed over power to a group that ostensibly now controls regulation, finance, and has a "ring through the nose" of production, claiming to rule for the sake of saving the earth in the public interest. It meets the dictionary definition of 'socialism'. "Fascism" would normally be a lot closer, but it normally implies a military dictatorship of some sort, which (at least initially) wouldn't be the case with CAT. Maybe in Marx manifesto a hundred years ago. no. now. communism is defined as a stateless society. the definition has not changed since Marx wrote it. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) communism is a Marxist IDEAL. the fact that it doesn't conform to any nation state is totally immaterial.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 22:16:31 GMT -5
Likewise. Fundamentally, we're not that far apart on the issue. Neither of us wants to hand a giant stick to some authority—be it corporate or political—unless we have some strong assurances that stick will be used for the genuine public good rather than the consolidation of (and abuse of) more power. totally. i am all about the public good. i know you are too. which is why, fundamentally, you are one of the last people i want to fight. you are a natural ally.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Aug 21, 2012 23:06:30 GMT -5
CAT is a regulation that benefits larger corporations over smaller ones? It is a case of socialism being used to help out the larger Capitalists?
It is sold as a regulation(anti-big bad corporations) but in the end it helps out the big baddies?
Now I see why those JPM executives make those million dollar bonuses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2012 23:22:20 GMT -5
CAT is a regulation that benefits larger corporations over smaller ones? It is a case of socialism being used to help out the larger Capitalists? It is sold as a regulation(anti-big bad corporations) but in the end it helps out the big baddies? Now I see why those JPM executives make those million dollar bonuses. bingo. i think that CAT is actually neo-fascist. it is really odd that there are is so much of that around these days. but since Citizen United passed it is totally unsurprising.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 22, 2012 0:26:25 GMT -5
I've had this debate with others about assumptive definitions versus actual definitions. I was on your side, initially. And I believe that debate was specifically regarding the term "ground zero".
I argued that "ground zero" had been defined exclusively as a synonym for "hypocenter" for decades. The term makes sense. It refers to the ground with zero radial distance from some climactic point of reference. It made no sense to let 'the Americans' appropriate the term to popularly mean "site of the WTC attacks" so that the original meaning was made ambiguous at best, obsolete at worst. My opponent (I think it was my mom) basically claimed "tough beans; if everyone thinks it means 'site of the WTC attacks', that's what it means".
I didn't agree, but over the coming years I had to accept that she was right. If I used 'ground zero' as an idiom (e.g. "it was ground zero for the Christmas chaos"), people got confused or upset, or they pointed out that I really should use some other term because 'ground zero' might cause people to get confused or upset. Hence I begrudgingly changed my opinion on the matter.
When you say "communism", I'm sorry, but what everyone hears is Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev et al. As in: Marx was pushing up daisies before "communism" even got its feet wet. The USSR under Stalin defines "communism" in the minds of all but polisci grad students.
And like me, you may hold out and use it in the correct historical sense. And like me, you'll be constantly having to explain what you mean, and "Yes, but the dictionary says...", and "Yes, I realize that saying Stalin wasn't a communist sounds ridiculous, but..." until you're blue in the face. If that's your cup of tea, drink it. But I suspect you'll tire of it as quickly as I did and eventually concede that if communism means "the big, hulking state that owns everything" in the minds of everyone but a few puritans, your battles are best fought elsewhere.
Arguments about denotation and connotation also fall in this vein. I couldn't convince an amateur novelist that "The cowboy pranced up to the counter." wasn't the language he wanted, even though the denotation of 'prance' is "to move with high springy steps" (which was closest to the jaunty gait this fellow wanted to describe).
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,997
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Aug 22, 2012 3:01:56 GMT -5
I would have thought Communism was totalitarian socialist.
There may have been a bit of that under Mao or Stalin in the early days but most of the traditional Communist countries, Russia, China, Cuba are not like that now have been toying with Capitalism......with the possible exception of N.Korea.
The US equates left and right wing....with Democrat and Republican and broadly speaking they are....but there are people on the continuum who could be described as Liberal Conservative....or Democratic Republican and its not surprising there is a bit of overlap.
Each country has its own dynamic and the actual intricacies of accreditation can be different.....and in other countries a "left wing" government might be far more left wing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:39:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 7:56:01 GMT -5
Communism was never intended to be totalitarian anything, it's just that in practice communism is just as idealistic/impractical as pure capitalism... The intended outcomes of neither are achievable in 'the real world'...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:39:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 8:15:18 GMT -5
A Communist society has never been achieved. It is indeed idealistic, and highly impractical. In hindsight it is hard to believe that intelligent people believed the premise. A free market capitalist society has never been achieved. It is indeed idealistic, and highly impractical. In hindsight it is hard to believe that intelligent people believed the premise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:39:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 9:14:17 GMT -5
A Communist society has never been achieved. It is indeed idealistic, and highly impractical. In hindsight it is hard to believe that intelligent people believed the premise. I think the problem is scalability. If you define your "society" narrowly enough, communism can be a lovely form of self-governance. I think it maxes out somewhere around 2 dozen people though.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 22, 2012 10:49:38 GMT -5
A Communist society has never been achieved. It is indeed idealistic, and highly impractical. In hindsight it is hard to believe that intelligent people believed the premise. I think the problem is scalability. If you define your "society" narrowly enough, communism can be a lovely form of self-governance. I think it maxes out somewhere around 2 dozen people though. communism is by definition stateless- therefore it is a form of ANARCHISM. since there have been very few examples of stateless societies, and NONE that involved the abolition of capital, i would argue that communism only exists in the imagination of people like Marx. but i have to concede something. the American meaning of this term DOES involve nation-states. we misused the term so much in the 50's and 60's, that it is now common parlance to call places like China and Cuba communist even though they are pretty obviously Socialist states. if you look it up in Wikipedia, they also note the conflation of these terms. so even though communism is different than socialism which is totally different from mixed economies, in the US, we use these terms interchangeably. it really doesn't help us communicate about these ideas, but i think that is precisely the point. by making it all one evil, it means that distinctions don't have to be made any more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 22, 2012 10:55:27 GMT -5
When you say "communism", I'm sorry, but what everyone hears is Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev et al. As in: Marx was pushing up daisies before "communism" even got its feet wet. The USSR under Stalin defines "communism" in the minds of all but polisci grad students. that is totally true, Virgil. but also i think it is pretty clear that the general public doesn't understand these terms nearly as well as poly sci graduates. so, although Alan West may think that 100 or so members of the house are "communists", in the air breathing, thinking, and politically astute world, this argument is totally absurd. i find it irritating at a minimum that people can actually nod their heads in agreement hearing such things from people that SHOULD know better (and secretly probably do), but if you are good with it, i guess you will just have to put up with my anxieties.
|
|