: :... I support many of the short- and long-term goals of the communists, as you know. In any case, the fundamental problem with your essay is that you persist in denying the difference between militant communism, and the communism that has come to power in country after country either by the ballot box or by peaceful protest. Even if your criticisms of militant communism were valid (they're not, not all of them, by a long shot) they would be irrelevant to the question of democratic communism. I suppose your argument is that peaceful or democratic communism, where it exists, is a front for militant communism, a way for the Stalinists to creep into power as it were. But we can immediately see that this is false, because in general whenevr democratic communism has come into power, they have suppressed the Stalinists with far more vigor than the right ever did. For example: the Marxist Robert Mugabe's crushing of a pro-Soviet insurrection in the early '80s, for which he is still condemned by hypocrites in the Western press. The bloody Maoist uprisings in India were crushed by Jyoti Basu, a Communist, which no pre-communist administration was able to do. Today Nepal, home of one of the most powerful Communsit Parties, is fighing a war against the Maoists who are condemned by mainstream comumunists. Nicaragua, where the Marxist-leninists scorned the Sandinsitas and refused to join their coalition. Grenada, the hoem of the only Stalinist coup in the Western Hemisphere- against, you guessed it, a Communist administration. Therefore, your association of teh militant and teh democratic forms of communism cannot stand. : And Lee Van Kew (sp?), an ex-communist, is and was quite popular in Singapore.
He may be popular, but he's also an old-line, anti-American eugenicist. He has the nerve to tell us that our problem is that we expect all races to perform equally....that should tell you enough about his views on the [in]equality of races, views which we thankfully got rid of in American government decades ago. Mr. Lee's policies of selective breeding are horrific; e.g. rich people's children are given preference in their choice of public schools, on the theory that they are genetically more intelligent and can benefit more from education. I'd suggest that if you want examples of successful capitalism to make your argument, Singapore is not a good one- why not use switzerland for example?
:I might add that Ms. Chamorro seems to have something of a following in Nicaragua, despite her lack of affiliation with the Sandanistas (who attempted to surpress her newspaper, La Prensa, as I recollect).
Salman Rushdie, in his book "The jaguar Smile", demonstrates that Lady Violeta is a notorious liar, a charlatan and a selfish aristocrat who nmakes claims without evidence. She is not deserving of any sympathy or admirations from American citizens. The Sandinistas, incidentally, continue to have a large base of support. Ex-Marine John Stockwell and others have shown that what Lady Violeta did with her newspaper would get her, not just shut down, but arrested if she lived in america. teh Sandinista's response actually took tolerance to its extreme.
:Mr. Mandela, whose left-wing affiliations are well known, has used capitalist principles to hold the economy together (although the crime rate is another story altogether).
Well, i would hardly call his principles capitalist. the SA constitution proclaims a whole smorgasbord of social/economic rights, which is hardly very capitalist. Mandela's construction of half a million houses, his plan to "Africanize" the civil service, his desire to nationalize the mines, and his appointing of Communists to high offices are hardly capitalist ideas. Mr. mandela, I believe, remains a committed socialist; he has just used gradual means to achieve it, and circumstances had forced him to put some of hsi hopes on hold for a while. President Mandela favors teh trade unions and in general has promoted economic and social democracy; to call him a capitalist seems insupportable. You can't ahve it both ways; you can't spread teh socialist umbrella to include Pol pot, and then squeeze it to exclude Mandela. Either use a tight definition of socialism/communism, or a narrow one.
: Probably the best statement I could make on the subject is to state that I hold Marxists in complete contempt, but am not adverse to people having good ideas that are traditionally Marxist. For example, although I have no sympathy for Nazis, I must admit that the Volkswagen is a pretty nifty idea. Likewise, the principles of blitzkrieg seem to work quite well.
That's hardly a very tolerant statement, is it now? You don't have to agree with communists to respect them. Your analogy between Marxists and Nazis is so weak and devoid of support by thsi time that I'd really suggest giving it up- besides being extremely offensive and slanderous, it's absurd on the face of it. After all, most marxists, with better reason, could draw numerous analogies between capitalism and fascism- I haven't noticed anyone doing that around here, have you?
: Incidentally … one of the most ironic elements of Marxism is that the goals of this ideology are best met by a sufficiently developed capitalist system. Think about it.
Sorry, I still don't see it. I guess I'm not smart enough.
: : It is, to a Christian, the perculiar trait of the Jesuit zealot to marry "good works" and killing that perhaps is at the root of most criticisms.
: I do not believe the Archbishop killed anyone. perhaps you can correct me. See above, my comments are applicable right here.
: Jesuits don’t kill people. Zealous congregations kill people. Please… (As I remember, Pope Urban struck down not one heathen dog. This did not particularly endear him to the heathen dogs, strangely)
You know what I mean . Did the Archbishop ever endorse "Stalinism"?
: : Communists seem to see this relationship far more clearly when they comment on an earlier Catholic 'liberation' program (known as the Crusades) or a precurser to the more modern Communist system of ideological purity enforcement (known as the Inquisition).
: Just as the Inquisition says nothing about Catholicism as a whole, nor does Stalinism tell us anything about communism.
: That is correct. As well, so is the reverse. Yet, I am a Catholic (and you are … a liberal?)
I'm glad we can agree on one thing. No, I am not a Christian, I'm a neo-Hindu. But most of my friends from high school are Catholics, and they are also Massachusetts "liberals" who would disagree with you on most of these issues. Please do not suggest that they aren't genuine Catholics. i have total respect and admiration for their Catholic faith , and If i was to eb a Christian I would be a Catholic, or maybe a Quaker.
: "It is better to take one step with teh people than ten steps without them." - Thomas Sankara (DC: I seem to remember Lenin’s words on revolutions and the necessity for terror. Perhaps he too was a ‘Stalinist’ …)
I am not a big fan of Lenin, although he inspired many admirable people, his domestic influence in the SU seems to have been largely for the worse. May I ask what the relevance of this is to my quotation from Sankara, which was intended to show that constructive revolution and social progress cannot come about unless by the expressed will of the people.
: : I suppose if Christ had come off the cross, sword in hand, and done some serious liberation (like the Sadduccees had been waiting so long for), the connection might be a bit clearer in my mind.
: You lose me here. We had to sing hymns sometimes in high school, and my popersonal favorite whas always William Blake's 'Jerusalem", whose martial imagery is only too plain:
: "I will not cease from mental fight,
: 'Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
: "Till we have built Jerusalem
: "In England's green and pleasant land."
: And JC Himself said, 'I have not come to bring peace, but a sword..."
: Martial imagery has been a part of Christianity form teh beginning, this is undeniable.
: Jesus clearly had a conciliatory, non-violent attitude towards the Romans. The Sadduccees were very intent on a violent, bloodthirsty Messiah (sort of a David II), and were not keen on where Jesus was taking the Hebrew ‘flock’. A liberation theologian he was not, and anyone schooled in the basics of his teachings damn well knows it, sword or no (he who lives by the sword, and all that). The Crusaders knew it too - they just could care less, ther being free land and loot to be had. So also the religious zealots of early America, whose ideas of "Manifest Destiny" were hardly religious (not that the natives were particularly pious or innocent either, human nature being what it is).
Actually, i believe JC also says, "I have come to bring not peace but a sword." As for 'living by teh sword', teh refernce in this context hardly seems valid. I don't think that pressuring an elective government for land reform, nationalization of industries, social welfare and education count as "living by the sword". Nor, i think, does taking up arms in brief and necessary self-defence against murderous dictators, terrorists and slavemasters. Nor does laying a claim to one's rightful share in the dignity, wealth, social services and welfare that are one's birthright as a human being. When possible, revolutions ought to be bloodless or nearly so. Violence ought to be a last resort, and only used in self-defence against those who have committed deeply immoral actions against human rights or moral law. Whoever is teh first to spill blood has committed a sin. A "just war", and all that....I do not believe that these kind of regrettable actions , long countenanced within Christianity and almost all other religions, count as "living by the sword". And unless you are a full pacifist, you don't either. Do you believe the American revolution was justified?
If so, why do you deny legitimacy to the Nicaraguan and other revolutions (obviously, teh Soviet and chinese experiments excepted, I don't support them in any acse.)
Jesus Christ, when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple, was engaging in bloodless violence, against property rights if nothing else. Such legla deprivation of property claims, I believe, are fully justified under the right circumstances. drawing blood, of course, is a separate matter. But in general, leftist asseumption of power has been far less bloody than the rightist reaction.
: :Even if he had stored some weapons for Barrabas, or something similar ... (Jennifer Casolo, though hardly virtuous, doesn't quite measure up to Ms. Magdelaine)
: Who is Jennifer Casolo?
: Jennifer Casolo was a hero of the Left, back in the 1980’s. She was a volunteer activist, working for Jesuits in El Salvador. A large store of weapons, including anti-tank rockets, were found buried in her backyard, and on the grounds of the Jesuit mission. Her early militant defiance of the authorities, once caught ‘red-handed’, so to speak, turned quickly to a demure childlike innocence once her sentence was handed down. As far as I know, the Left line is still similar to that towards Peltier, et. al; that is, she is a victim of reactionary lies and atrocities, and that this ‘political prisoner of conscience’ ought to be let loose.
She certainly deserves to be free. Defending priests, impoversihed peasants and freedom fighetrs against terrorist death squads ought not to be a crime.
: About all that Ms. Magdelaine could be accused of was rather suggestively washing a man’s feet. So far as I know, she did not take up that ‘sword’ that Jesus spoke of; we would have to wait about 14 centuries or so for a young lady to take up that chore. Although the French may have thought otherwise, the cleaving of people in the name of a secular authority hardly qualifies as ‘the work
: Really? Liberation theology, or variants thereof (Christian socialism, etcetera) were, as i recall, very popular in Nicaragua, Tanzania, Zambia, as well as in Brazil and other South American nations.
: So was revolution, amongst the right sort of people. I hear that the Aryan Brotherhood is making a comeback in many prisons; the Black Muslims also seem to enjoy a similar popularity. For many others, of course, this ‘religion’ is worth fighting against, especially in regards to what is commonly interpreted as ‘liberation’ by this theological variant.
I didn;t say that popularity = legitimacy. You said that LT was not popular, I provided counterevidence.
: : The "Doc" (still buffooning with the expected pomposity, and all that ...)
: I didn't call you a pompous buffoon, and I wish no one had.
: I believe you. I have certainly gotten far too much mileage on that ‘gag’. Sorry for the inconvenience. I couldn’t resist.
: "Doc" Cruel
- NJ
None.
