De'trop Communism and aspacia's capitalism debate

[aspacia]

Hi Dan,

I did reply to you latest post, but it did not submit. I will respond later.

With regards,

aspacia

[Peter_Kropotkin]

aspacia:
But those rewarded were at the top of the communist food chain, not the average communist."

K: But those rewarded were at the top of the capitalist food chain,
not the average worker" You could make the exact same argument
against capitalism. oil executives whose only action (inaction actually)
is to slow down the incoming amount of oil get rewarded with
millions upon millions of dollars. I note the CEO of exon? just
retired after getting an estimated $650 million dollars over
the last 6 years, and a retirement package of over $200 million
dollars and for what? Just for keeping the amount of oil in the
U.S limited, thus driving up the price. How is this different then
communism?

Kropotkin

[someoneisatthedoor]

@aspacia

Double post. Geez how to delete a post?

Just a guess, but clicking the ‘delete’ button might be worth a try…

[aspacia]

aspacia wrote:
Dan~ wrote:
I’d prefer an IQ based meritocracy, instead of modern democracy.
People of the highest IQ should all be brought into a ruling party which is given totalitarian control.

Not me, but this is a free land and we can agree to disagree. Many individuals who do not have high IQ’s are often far nicer and more industrious that some arrogant bookworm who cannot even drive a car.

The arrogant book worm???
Please, I need more then bad blood within your own family tree as evidence that people of the higher IQ are of the lower quality in character, world view and choice…

Dan, a person with a higher IQ does not necessarily have a better character, nor have gifts in other areas.

Ignorance and stupidity are the greatest source of human suffering on earth, and for anyone to turn that around and make it appear as if intelligence was the problem…

I am claiming that a person with a higher IQ may be a bad guy too. I am all for education, am an educator. The poor, uneducated are often led around by their political and religious leaders. IQ measures what a person knows, not necessarily their gifts in other areas. Also, Lenin was brilliant, butchered many; Stalin was not too bright, actually a thug, and butchered many.

Please, show me some REAL evidence of and for your claim; do not show me a single first hand experience.

Many are gifted in other areas; music, husbandry, agriculture, masonry, carpentry, construction, architecture, not all are high IQ people and many would score low on an IQ test.

All the leaders were well off, but not the people. This is true here as well, but at least more of us have more wealth than the average schmuck living under a communist regime.

So, them having it less “well off” [less money] makes them an “average schmuch”…!?

Dan, most of the world’s people are average schmucks.
Quote:
Quote:
Despite how much I like the idea of human population going down, I believe that “quality of life” consists primarily of sustainability, not “freedom”. I’d rather have my “freedoms” limited & my life extended, then die in a debochery free-for-all.

Hum, if I understand you correctly, you would rather have another have total control over your life than have control over your own life, mistakes and triumphs lost?

I believe that you have no need to reword what I’ve said.
I said:

“I believe that “quality of life” consists primarily of sustainability, not “freedom”. I’d rather have my “freedoms” limited & my life extended, then die in a debochery free-for-all.”

So we are mostly debauched. Actually nope.

In American, “freedom” and irresponsability often look like the same thing…

This stems, IMO, from many liberals blaming a lack of education, poverty, etc. I am all for the victims, not the perpetrators.

??? You could not even be a member of the communist party if affiliated with a religion???

This is because the church is capitolist, untrue, inequality non-sense!
Go, see how “Christian” you americans are… Jesus died in all ways.

Yes, feed the tithe. Many US Citizens are religious are kind and tolerant, many are not, ditto for any other faith in any other nation.

But those rewarded were at the top of the communist food chain, not the average communist.

Sadly, the soviets had various citizen classes. Having a class system like this is not Marxist, IMO. Still, I believe Communist Russia was better then capitolist Russia!

Yep, we have the same system, and Putin will use the capitalist system to the same ends as many of our leaders, except he will be totally totalitarian. The difference is that we have an out from lower class, middle class; in communist lands this is not true.

With regards,

aspacia

[aspacia]

@Peter Kropotkin

aspacia:
But those rewarded were at the top of the communist food chain, not the average communist."

K: But those rewarded were at the top of the capitalist food chain,
not the average worker" You could make the exact same argument
against capitalism.

[.quote]

True, but my point is we have more opportunity than those in communist countries. Also, those working in communist countries were usually, and I do mean usually, not motivate to highly achieve as there were no real tangible rewards.

oil executives whose only action (inaction actually)
is to slow down the incoming amount of oil get rewarded with
millions upon millions of dollars.

The companies want to drill for oil in many US places, like Alaska, but the ecologists fight this.

I note the CEO of exon? just
retired after getting an estimated $650 million dollars over
the last 6 years, and a retirement package of over $200 million
dollars and for what? Just for keeping the amount of oil in the
U.S limited, thus driving up the price. How is this different then
communism?

Are you sure? What I am reading is that they want to further exploit and the ecologists are hampering this. Right, the pay off for CEO’s is huge. The company paid billions in taxes too. Yes, they did. This went into the Federal pocket.

Kropotkin
[/quote]

With regards,
aspacia

[Peter_Kropotkin]

K: I note the CEO of exon? just
retired after getting an estimated $650 million dollars over
the last 6 years, and a retirement package of over $200 million
dollars and for what? Just for keeping the amount of oil in the
U.S limited, thus driving up the price. How is this different then
communism? "

A: Are you sure? What I am reading is that they want to further exploit and the ecologists are hampering this. Right, the pay off for CEO’s is huge. The company paid billions in taxes too. Yes, they did. This went into the Federal pocket.

K: Yep, I am sure, it was big news about a month ago.
the other bit is the oil companies have been getting tax cuts
by the bucket full over the last few years. Less then
6 months ago, they got another one. I suspect they have
gotten so many tax cuts, we have to pay them now.
The newspapers just the other day, had an article about how
U.S. companies were so flush with cash, that they don’t know
what to do with the cash. Of course the leading company with cash
was Exxon, who over the last few years has set records in achieving
profits. Mostly because they don’t get tax anymore. For all American
companies, the tax rate is less then 10%. I think the average is about
8% tax rate for companies, which explains the multimillion dollar
payouts for its executives.

Kropotkin

With regards,
aspacia
[/quote]

[aspacia]

@Peter Kropotkin

K: I note the CEO of exon? just
retired after getting an estimated $650 million dollars over
the last 6 years, and a retirement package of over $200 million
dollars and for what? Just for keeping the amount of oil in the
U.S limited, thus driving up the price. How is this different then
communism? "

Yep, they do receive a great deal, and in Japan this is not allowed, but this is neither here nor there. I just wish they would provide more bonuses to the hard workers, but as usual the execs receive all the credit. You are right on this one Peter.

A: Are you sure? What I am reading is that they want to further exploit and the ecologists are hampering this. Right, the pay off for CEO’s is huge. The company paid billions in taxes too. Yes, they did. This went into the Federal pocket.

K: Yep, I am sure, it was big news about a month ago.
the other bit is the oil companies have been getting tax cuts
by the bucket full over the last few years. Less then
6 months ago, they got another one.

Peter, you are probably correct, Bush is an Old Boy Oil Man.

I suspect they have
gotten so many tax cuts, we have to pay them now.

Sorry, I am not following you. A few years ago they did not receive tax cuts and took a huge beating in profits. Now that they have tax breaks we have to pay them back for the huge beating they took years ago? Okay, possible, but I do believe there are many other factors like the close down of refineries because of natural disasters in certain areas. I am not up to par on this, do you have valid information?

The newspapers just the other day, had an article about how
U.S. companies were so flush with cash, that they don’t know
what to do with the cash. Of course the leading company with cash
was Exxon, who over the last few years has set records in achieving
profits. Mostly because they don’t get tax anymore. For all American
companies, the tax rate is less then 10%. I think the average is about
8% tax rate for companies, which explains the multimillion dollar
payouts for its executives.

Kropotkin

Yes, currently they are very flush, but previously they were not. You appear to be stating that they are flush because of the tax cuts? Possibly, but they say the prices are so high because of the costs of refining???

Hum, again, I will have to read more on this, and you well may be correct Peter. At the moment, I have just gone shopping washed the car, now need to clean the car windows. Perhaps this weekend I will have time to research. Please provide any support for your claims for me to peruse.

With regards,

aspacia

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I really had you going there for a minute…

I was calling everybody “Comrade”, remember? At the other threads?

But as Krossie said: “All smoke and mirrors.”

Why Communism Kills
The Record of Communist Killing

Communism kills! This is not debatable. The record is crystal clear. The U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee conducted investigations into the number killed in the Soviet Union and China. Their report stated that 35 million to 45 million had been killed in the Soviet Union and 34 million to 62.5 million in Communist China.

Even these figures are considered inadequate by authorities on the Soviet Union such as Solzhenitsyn and Antonov Ovesyenko. The latter, whose father led the Bolshevik storming of the Winter Palace in 1917, has recently published the book entitled The Time of Stalin-Portrait of a Tyranny. He calculates those killed as a result of the Communist conquest of Russia at 100 million.

Some apologists for Communism acknowledge that Communism has killed in the past, but they blame this on incidental factors such as the traditions of cruelty and violence which existed in the countries conquered by the Communists, and they do not believe that killing is an essential ingredient of communism itself. They believe that the triumph of Communism in the United States, England, or Western Europe would not lead to mass slaughter. Are they right or are they suffering from a dangerous delusion? To answer this question, it is necessary to know why Communism kills.

Why
A simple, direct answer to the question, “Why does communism kill?” is-because the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, told them it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objective of Communism.

Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
Apologists for Marxism contend that Marx did not intend that this statement should be taken literally. They affirm that he was referring to the gradual elimination of property owners by the transformation of the economic system which Communism would bring to pass. They cannot deny, however, that many followers of Karl Marx, including Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot have taken this affirmation literally and have proceeded to kill the “middle-class owners of property” once they have acquired power.

To determine whether Marx intended this instruction to be taken literally, it is necessary to review the doctrines and objectives which Marx presented to his followers, and the programs which have been designed and executed to reach those objectives. It is necessary to know his vision of the future as well as his interpretation of the present. We must know what Marx believed and what the Communists continue to believe.

The Vision
Marx envisioned the creation of a new superior individual who would create a new society of unlimited abundance and freedom. It was the creation of a new earth, if not a new heaven, wherein “the redeemed” would dwell. This new man would be devoid of selfishness, greed, laziness, aggression, envy, malice, hate, and fear. He would be perfectly healthy, supremely intelligent, industrious, tolerant, generous and infinitely talented. By his industry and talents, he would create a society of abundance so that any individual could partake of all that he needed just as rich and poor today partake freely of the oxygen in the atmosphere. In this society, voluntary cooperation would replace coercion so there would be no need for governments, armies, police, courts, prisons and taxes. As each individual fulfilled his own desires, he would automatically minister to the well-being of others. In this classless, governmentless society, the slogan would be: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The golden era of Communism would have dawned for all mankind.

The Marxist vision is seductive but delusional. It ignores the realities of human nature including physical and mental disease as well as intractable personality defects. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to understand its allure, particularly to young idealists.

The Means
How was this perfect individual and the resulting perfect society to be created? To skeptics, who asked this question, Marx had a ready answer: “By science.” When Marx lived, science had achieved many miracles, and it was beginning to change to human condition. It has continued to accomplish incredible miracles since the death of Marx. It has transformed the material world by such things as the printing press, steam engine, internal combustion engine, radio, television, aviation, computers, and antibiotics; and it is now exploring new frontiers such as outer space and genetic engineering. Although many of these miracles did not exist during the lifetime of Karl Marx, his faith in the power of science was infinite. He believed that science could change human nature itself.

“Scientific” Laws
For science to be successful, it must operate in accordance with certain basic laws. Marx believed that he had discovered the laws which directed the formation of human nature and that it was possible to create a perfect human nature by programs based upon these laws. These laws are:

1. There is no God:

This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: “Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism.” If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.

2. Everything is material:

Marx proudly affirmed that he was a materialist. Mao Tse-tung summarizes the materialism of Marx with the statement: “There is nothing in the world apart from matter in motion.” (On Contradiction, International Publishers Edition, 1953, page 20)

Marxism does not deny the existence of thought and spirit. It affirms that these are derivatives of matter; that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.

Since thought and emotions are the product of material elements, they can be controlled by controlling the material elements which produce them. Thus the materialism of Marx provides the basis for the control of ideas and attitudes and ultimately of human nature itself.

3. Human nature is the product of the economic environment in which the individual is raised.
   Marx states in the Communist Manifesto: “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production.” (Page 67)

Engels, the co-author of the Manifesto, reaffirms this conviction of Marx when he states in his preface to the German edition of 1882: “The basic thought running through the Manifesto-that economic production, and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom, constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch.” (Page 13)

Marxism teaches that the economic environment creates the ideas, attitudes and impulses that constitute human nature. It pays attention to the environment of infancy and childhood since the brain is undergoing more rapid development during this period. The experiences of life, provided by the economic environment, are stored up within the structure of the brain and ultimately reveal themselves in the thoughts and emotions of the mature individual.

4. A special environment creates a special class:
   In order to live, it is necessary to secure food, clothing, housing and transportation. The lives of the vast majority of the people have been devoted to some facet of this productive process. As history develops, the methods of production change. New tools are created which create new environments.

Those people who shared the same experiences in the process of production generated the same brain structure. Consequently, they thought and felt alike. They formed a class.

In his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, Marx allegedly discovered two economic environments. One was that shared by those who owned the means of production. They formed a class which he named the bourgeoisie. The other environment was that of wage labor. The laborers formed the class known as the proletariat. Marx affirmed that a state of universal conflict existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He named this conflict the class struggle or the class war.

5. The proletariat must win:
   Analyzing the capitalism of his era, Marx saw the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as the dynamic of modern history. He contended that he had discovered a scientific law which assured that the proletariat would be victorious in this struggle; that it would overthrow the bourgeoisie by a revolutionary process and establish its hegemony in every country and ultimately over the entire world. He and his co-laborer, Frederick Engels, were so convinced of the inevitability of this that Engels undertook the study of military science so that he could serve as commander-in-chief of the world proletarian armies. The Communist Manifesto ends with the grim warning: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” (Page 96)

The Regenerate Man
Marx believed that a scientific program based upon these laws could create a new and superb quality of human nature. This new man would possess such diverse talents that he would be able to perform a vast variety of functions.

He stated: “In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.” (Collected Works, Vol. V, page 275)

The philosopher, Sydney Hook, comments on this statement: “All we need to do to show its bizarre character is to recast Marx’s schedule of activities in terms of modern vocations and avocations; to perform brain surgery in the morning, engage in nuclear research in the afternoon, do some gentle gene-splicing in the evening, and conduct a symphony after dinner, just as I have a mind to do without ever becoming a brain surgeon, or nuclear physicist, or geneticist, or conductor.” (Marxism and Beyond, page 6)

Steps to Regeneration
Despite his capacity for self-delusion, Karl Marx did not believe that the desired condition known as Communism could emerge suddenly from existing capitalism. As the beautiful butterfly must pass through the stage of the caterpillar before it can fly in all its glory, Communism must pass through the stage of Socialism before the era of abundance and freedom can dawn. Steel can only be created by passing iron and coal through a fiery furnace, and Communism can only be created by passing society through the fires of revolution and dictatorship.

Communism is the hypothetical end result which will reward the survivors of the long march that is necessary to move from Capitalism to Communism. Steps on this long march include: 1) Revolution, 2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 3) Destruction of the Capitalist State, 4) Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, 5) Creation of Socialism, 6) Creation of the New Socialist Man, 7) Withering Away of the State, and Emergence of Communism.

1. Revolution:
   Marx taught that a revolution to destroy Capitalism was both necessary and inevitable. He acknowledged the possibility that the revolution in England and the United States might be peaceful, but he believed that most revolutions would be violent. Lenin dismissed the possibility of peaceful revolution and declared that violence was essential.

A debate on the question whether revolution must be violent is presently raging in the ranks of the Communists. Certain Communist parties, known as Euro-Communist, such as the parties of Italy and Spain, believe that the revolution may be peaceful while others ridicule the idea as reformist. All are agreed that violence is permissible.

2. Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
   The purpose of the revolution is to overthrow the existing government and to replace it by the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is actually the dictatorship of the Communist Party over the proletariat. The Communist Party monopolizes all the levers of power.

Lenin defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as follows: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule-unrestricted by law and based on force-of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoying the sympathy and support of the laboring and exploited masses.” (The State and the Revolution by Lenin as quoted in Problems of Leninism by J. Stalin, page 49)

3. The Destruction of the Capitalist State:
   After a successful revolution, many of the institutions of the capitalist state remain relatively intact. These may include the army, the police force, the courts, the bureaucracy, and the educational system. If they are permitted to continue to exist, they pose a grievous threat to the new regime. Through them a counterrevolution may be organized which will threaten to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. These residual institutions of the capitalist state must be destroyed.

Lenin was as concerned with the maintenance of power as with its seizure. He wrote the book The State and the Revolution to show how it was necessary to destroy residual state institutions in order to maintain Communist power. Above all, the army must be destroyed and replaced by a new army, a “Red Army.”

4. Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie:
   The Communists are followers of Karl Marx. They believe that the economic environment generates ideas and character. Their ultimate objective is to create the perfect character through the perfecting environment.

When the revolution is successful, the majority of the bourgeois class remains. In the words of Karl Marx, they must be “swept out of the way and made impossible.” If this is not done, they will form the environment in which a substantial segment of the population is nurtured and will thus destroy the prospect of a perfect society.

The liquidation of the bourgeoisie is an essential step of the path to Communism. This is why Communism must kill.

Marxism in Cambodia
The leaders of the Cambodian Communist Party were convinced Marxists. The majority of them were converted to Marxism and Communism while they were students in France. Returning to Cambodia, they organized the Communist Party which they called the Khmer Rouge, and conquered Cambodia. They set out to be the best Communists the world had ever seen. They conducted the programs demanded by their Marxist doctrines with an amazing consistency and ruthlessness. These doctrines taught them that the environment generates character; that the capitalist environment generated an evil character; that the cities are the headquarters of capitalism; that the bourgeoisie must be liquidated and the residual people removed from the capitalist environment of the cities; that physical labor is regenerative.

Translating these doctrines into deeds, they ordered the evacuation of the cities of Cambodia. Everyone had to go. No one was exempt for humanitarian reasons. The people were animals and could be treated like animals. Three million people who were crowded into Phnom Penh, were ordered to leave the city in one day. Everyone had to leave just as they were. Children in schools were not permitted to go home and join their parents but were driven out of the city like cattle. Hospitals were emptied of doctors, nurses, and patients. The situation is described in the book Murder of a Gentle Land by John Barron and Anthony Paul, which is published by Reader’s Digest Press:
Troops stormed into the Preah Ket Melea Hospital, Phnom Penh’s largest and oldest, and shouted to patients, physicians and nurses alike. “Out! Everybody out! Get out!” They made no distinction between bedridden and ambulatory patients, between the convalescing and the dying, between those awaiting surgery and those who had just undergone surgery. Hundreds of men, women and children in pajamas limped, hobbled, struggled out of the hospital into the streets where the midday sun had raised the temperature to well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Relatives or friends pushed the beds of patients too wounded, crippled or enfeebled to walk, some holding aloft perfusion bottles dripping plasma or serum into the bodies of loved ones. One man carried his son, whose legs had just been amputated. The bandages on both stumps were red with blood, and the son, who appeared to be about twenty-two, was screaming, “You can’t leave me like this! Kill me! Please kill me!” (Page 17)
The population of Cambodia was about 7 million. It is estimated that between two and three million died. The remainder were forced to engage in the physical labor necessary to grow rice.

The number of dead did not trouble the Communist leaders, and Ieng Sary, their foreign minister, said: “As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man.”

Pol Pot and his associates have earned the right to be called the most consistent Marxists the world has ever seen.

In the Communist Program for human regeneration, killing is as necessary as the fire of the furnace is for the creation of steel

This program of slaughter is rational if the basic premises of Marxism are accepted. If there is no God who teaches, “Thou shalt not kill,” and if people are merely animals, why should they not be treated as animals? Husbandmen who breed finer animals and destroy the inferior ones in the process are respected and honored throughout the world. The Communists believe that they are the husbandmen who have been selected by history to enact the programs that will result in the creation of perfect human animals. To hesitate to eliminate the diseased would be to betray their mission.

THE CREATION OF SOCIALISM
A successful revolution, the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State and the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie do not lead directly to Communism. There is an additional stage through which society must pass before Communism emerges. This state is known as Socialism

The Communists often refer to their own special brand of socialism as “the first stage of Communism.”

The slogan of Communism is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” whereas that of Socialism is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”

Few, if any, of the alleged blessings Communism promises are proffered by Socialism. Instead of abundance, there is scarcity; instead of freedom, there is universal coercion exercised by the Communist dictatorship; instead of being able to take whatever is needed, the individual receives a ration of scarce commodities in accordance with his productivity in society. Instead of no government, there is an enormous oppressive state apparatus.

Socialism reaches its zenith in the society of the Gulag Archipelago, where each individual and group is given an amount to work to be done. The work is measured by the goods produced. So mush timber must be felled, so much coal or gold must be mined. The daily allotment of production is known as the norm.

Those who do not produce their norm are penalized by a reduction in the daily allowance of food. This is equivalent to a death sentence. As the source of nourishment is lessened, the strength of the prisoner diminishes and his output becomes less also. This leads to a further cut in the food ration. A vicious circle is established which leads downward to death.

No Communist claims that Communism exists anywhere in this present world. The official title of the Soviet Union is the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” or U.S.S.R. Communist China claims to be a “Socialist State of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”

Soviet leaders claim that Socialism has been built in the Soviet Union and that they are now advancing towards the building of Communism.

Accomplishments and Prospects
The Revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State, the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, and the Creation of Socialism have now been accomplished in the Soviet Union. We have the history of nearly 70 years since the Communist conquest of Russia to guide us. What is the result? Can we discern encouraging signs of the creation of the new socialist man, the withering away of the state, and the emergence of the blissful state of Communism?

All evidence indicates that the “new socialist man” is a cynical, apathetic, selfish individual. Alcoholism and crime and flourishing.

Whenever and wherever the opportunity exists, the “new socialist man” flees from the “regenerative” environment of Socialism into the “degenerative” hell which capitalism is alleged to create. The hideous price of mass murder and coerced labor, which the Communists have forced the people to pay, has purchased nothing by regimentation, militarization, and privation.

The state shows no signs of withering away. The monopolistic power of the Communist Party remains undiminished. The bureaucracy becomes more and more entrenched as it cherishes its special privileges. Human rights are occasionally affirmed in theory, but are ignored in practice.

The vision of ultimately reaching Communism has faded as scarcity, inequality, and authority become increasingly institutionalized. The special privileges of the elite few, the leaders of the Communist Party, increase. Maybe some of them have found their utopia-but the people have found themselves in a prison of body and spirit.

Conclusion
Communism is the literal fulfillment of Psalm 14: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” The consequences are stated clearly: “They are corrupt: They have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.”

The delusional doctrines of Karl Marx bear the same relationship to mass murder that the malarial parasite does to the disease of malaria. We must expose the errors of the basic doctrines of Marx if we wish to prevent the actions that result form the application of those doctrines.

The repudiation of communist conduct is not enough. Communist defeats will be temporary if the errors of Marxist doctrine are not exposed. A new generation will be seduced by the doctrines, and communist killing will recommence.

Some of the statements of Marx are true. This is not surprising. Every false philosophy and system contains elements of truth. A mixture of truth and falsehood is usually far more deadly than pure falsehood which can be discerned and isolated one and for all. Once pure falsehood is exposed, the battle is over. When the lethal ideological mixture contains elements of truth, these elements tend to revive the doctrine after it has appeared to have been destroyed. This accounts for the longevity of Marxism and its ability to survive the horrors of Stalinism, its history of brutality and terror, its multiple aggressions such as those in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, its censorship and disdain for human rights.

Essential elements of Marxist declines are false. This must be demonstrated, stated, and restated. The deplorable conduct of the communists is not due to their departing from the teachings of Marx, but to their obedience to them.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” The ingredients of the communist pudding are lethal. The massive and widespread homicide that characterizes Communist conduct is the fulfillment of Marxism.

The Marxist doctrines of ATHEISM, MATERIALISM, ECONOMIC DETERMINISM, CLASS, CLASS LIQUIDATION, CLASS DICTATORSHIP and INEVITABLE PROGRESS are false and deadly.

Should Communism conquer countries with traditions of political liberty, artistic freedom and inalienable rights, the same doctrines that guided Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot will generate programs of mass murder and universal enslavement. Doctrine that is sincerely believed will triumph over tradition, tolerance and compassion.

The Marxist demons conceived by falsehood, and nurtured by ignorance, must be exorcized by truth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Fred C. Schwarz was born in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, January 15, 1913. He was educated at the Brisbane Grammar School and later at the University of Queensland, where he graduated in Science. He became a school teacher and completed his degree in Arts while teaching. He was appointed to the staff at the Queensland Teacher’s College where he taught Mathematics and Science. Subsequently, while continuing his lecturing, he completed the Medical Course at the Queensland University, graduating in Medicine and Surgery, and established a general Medical Practice in Sydney, Australia.

Dr. Schwarz has been a Christian lay preacher for many years, and his attention was first directed to Communism while at the University of Queensland where he debated a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Australia. Later he began a special study of the basic Communist texts in an effort to explore not only the deeds, but also the thought-life of Communism. He has become widely known as one of the most informed non-Communists in the world because of his knowledge and understanding of basic Communist texts.

He issued an open challenge to debate any Communist on any platform in any part of the world. A number of debates resulted in the sharpening of his appreciation of the character, mind, and techniques of leading communists. He has devoted his talents and most of his life to an exposition of the tremendous danger which the progress of Communism presents to the entire civilized world.

He expounds the doctrines of Communism in simple understandable language, with the conviction that understanding is the irreducible minimum for intelligent counteraction.

In 1953 he founded the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade of which he is now President Emeritus.

^
So, that debunks Marxism quite well.

I will mail a copy of the report to detrop.

There is no real need to try to argue for or against “communism”.
History speaks for itself & there is pleanty of anti-communist facts a person can source.

Thanks for reading, and remember,
NEVER TAKE ME SERIOUSLY.

~

[side note: ]
Mini-communisms can exist as cults/unions for anyone who truly wants a communism. All they have to do is find a group of people who all believe in “marxism”, but then all form a sort of “family”, pooling everything that they own. The real & pure emotion behind the person craving the supposed rewards of communism are a sense of kin-ship & the family unity ideas of people sharing so freely and fairly.

[aspacia]

LMFAO, HI FIVE,YOU GO DAN. YES, YOU GOT ME. AND NO, I WILL NEVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AGAIN.

With regards,

aspacia

=D> =D>

[detrop]

If I spent a dollar for every critique of Marx I’ve seen, and fifty cents per error in each critique, but only made a quarter for every idiot that believed it, I could have bought the earth three years ago and still had enough left over to cater to Aspacia’s material needs. In cash.

I haven’t decided if I should handle this yet. On one hand, several of the members here might read it and learn from it. On the other hand, several of the members here might read it.

What to do, what to do.

…

Alright, I haven’t read the whole thing and I’m not going to yet, because I don’t have to. In three paragraphs I already see nonsequitors and rhetoric so blatantly loaded, I can only imagine what is to follow.

Karl Marx, told them it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objective of Communism.

Marx states in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)
Apologists for Marxism contend that Marx did not intend that this statement should be taken literally. They affirm that he was referring to the gradual elimination of property owners by the transformation of the economic system which Communism would bring to pass. They cannot deny, however, that many followers of Karl Marx, including Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot have taken this affirmation literally and have proceeded to kill the “middle-class owners of property” once they have acquired power.

The manifesto was a propaganda pamphlet that served no other purpose than to, as quickly and conveniently as possibly, spread the ideals among backwards masses, people who wouldn’t understand the political theory if it was shoved up their ass anyway, and attempt to unite them into a quantitative power.

Marx never advocated violence (that I know of). What Stalin and Mao and the others did with the theory is their problem. Although I am with and support Lenin so far (I’m learning much and studying his work), you’re talking about Marx here.

An interesting part of Lennin’s theory is that he believed it to be morally imperative to initiate the revolution, whereas Marx believed that the revolutionary events that occur are natural and rationally non-violent, in such a way that “over-throw” is not necessary.

My God, Marx was the first hippie. I can’t believe this shit. Ha! A “peaceful revolutionary” is incomprehensible.

And I guess the person who wrote this critique assumes that killing is bad? I might agree that killing for certain reasons is bad, but not unconditionally.

See, that’s the shit these little critiquers aren’t prepared for. You read their stuff like its the end-all thing to be said about something. No. There is always more, something more can always be said. Where was I when this dude wrote this thing? Bring him to me.

Picture in your head that stupid scene where all the indians are sitting around the fire in the tee-pee while the wise men talk back and forth…and after each time one of the chiefs says something…everyone else goes “mmmmm…ahhhhh,” and hits the pipe if they got one.

That’s how these “philosophical debates” work essentially. The question is not “who’s right,” but “what time is it and do we have any more tobacco?”

I’m going to try to read the whole thing, but I can’t make any promises.

[detrop]

aken this affirmation literally and have proceeded to kill the “middle-class owners of property” once they have acquired power.

Such actions are uneccessary. Temporary detainment and/or deportation into controlled environments works just fine. To make a capitalist become a proletariat, you merely need to monitor his resources.

Once a “power is aquired” by the vanguard party and all military resources are under their control, there could never be a case where capitalists would be killed. Its nonsense. More propaganda bullshit and completely uneccesary.

Who, if not the police state, pulls the strings in society? Is a capitalist going to resist me when I drive up to his factory with a fleet of tanks and hand him a paper to sign, or a body bag?

I doubt it. Find me a case where capitalists have the resources to create a great enough opposition to the ruling power of the vanguard to threaten them and need to be exterminated.

[detrop]

The Marxist vision is seductive but delusional. It ignores the realities of human nature including physical and mental disease as well as intractable personality defects. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to understand its allure, particularly to young idealists.

Physical and mental disease as a natural human characteristic is not an argument against a political state.

“On my God, he’s got cancer, and he thinks he’s James Brown. If only we were in a capitalism, Doc, we could fix em.”

My ass.

And Marx was not an idealist. He was a biology geek. It was all material for him. He was the Darwin Politicio.

[detrop]

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.

Look closely. See the hedge? Oh its in der alright.

See the immediate reference to Christianity, and then descriptions and values such as “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “evil?” Schock appeal. You are set up to think anti-christian, while half if not the majority of marxists mysticists believe that Jesus was a communist in both principle and practice.

And yes, morality is the creation of the victor.

But no more than the ballast upon which this very critique stands itself!

“The major questions in history are decided by force.,” I believe Lenin said.

[detrop]

The fucking thing just isn’t long enough in the first place. Come on, folks, “Anti-Marxism In One Page Or Less.” It can’t be done. Dan you owe me the money I am spending right now using my internet service to read this garbage.

I’m sending you a bill.

[detrop]

Since thought and emotions are the product of material elements, they can be controlled by controlling the material elements which produce them.

I think that’s too aggressive. I don’t like the way “controlled” hits there. It might be another hedge…but I’m already weary so who knows.

To speak in favor of the idea I could say that the assumption that life is anything more than the environment could be hazordous, and this compliments the intrusive effects of religion on the affairs of inter-racial diplomacy.

I guarantee(sp?) you it wasn’t a science that evolved despotism, but a language subordination.

Men stop working when they believe there is something more than this world and that this next world redeems those who suffered in this first world as the workers they were not. And those men are allowed to stop working by those who are subordinate to them. That’s all it ever is.

Life is work. It is not your “kackies,” (thanks tyler), it is not your “principles,” its not your “god,” its not your “opinions.”

[detrop]

Those people who shared the same experiences in the process of production generated the same brain structure. Consequently, they thought and felt alike. They formed a class.

Yes and no. It could have been said better.

It is not necessarily the similarity of people that creates a class, but the similarity of the environment. You suppose this reasoning is circular. But look closer.

“Culture” has been expanded beyond racial demographic boundaries and can progress through the passing of memes, entirely reliant on language. Two different races with unique brain compositions can still function as a culture and produce a society.

The “class” description is a hypothetical for the idea of a type who can have credit over another in the representative form of work; money. The “money” is not equal to the labour existentially, it is a cultural and memetic signature of a value system. For example, when man X works and I say his work is “worth” Y, how do I determine what “worth” means here? Not with an economic description, but with a moral description; Pedro gets paid less than me because his product is not as valuable, but I don’t work as much as him, as defined scientifically (the rate of metabolism and use of energy to create a force). As the economy is only the material conditions which exist, what is valuable isn’t always definable as what is economical, as “value” is a culturally bound system of language and metaphors which originate IN the classes.

The similarity of people who form classes are consequences of moral institutions (idealisms) and not material economics, while the only way to define a class existentially is to designate its conditions as similiar.

The “idea” of class is metaphorical. The “actuality” of class is empirical.

[detrop]

The Regenerate Man
Marx believed that a scientific program based upon these laws could create a new and superb quality of human nature. This new man would possess such diverse talents that he would be able to perform a vast variety of functions.

He stated: “In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.” (Collected Works, Vol. V, page 275)

The philosopher, Sydney Hook, comments on this statement: “All we need to do to show its bizarre character is to recast Marx’s schedule of activities in terms of modern vocations and avocations; to perform brain surgery in the morning, engage in nuclear research in the afternoon, do some gentle gene-splicing in the evening, and conduct a symphony after dinner, just as I have a mind to do without ever becoming a brain surgeon, or nuclear physicist, or geneticist, or conductor.” (Marxism and Beyond, page 6)

Marx was describing the very primitive working conditions in the early industrial period. Workers lived their entire lives spinning yarn, and because of that, had no opportuinity to learn new skills.

In theory this kind of society where several functions are shared among several people, the people might tend to literally evolve a better and faster intelligence.

People stay stupid when they have no options. If you gave an x-box to a kid in Zimbobway, he’d have it figured out in a day.

[detrop]

he liquidation of the bourgeoisie is an essential step of the path to Communism. This is why Communism must kill.

Okay, I’ve seen enough for now. This is enough to make we want to smack Uniqor in the ass.

“Freeze, Capitalist, or I will liquidate you with my Red Plasma Ray, because I must kill…kill…kill!”

Jesus Christ, do these idiots want a war or what? Look, nobody said you gotta kill anybody, but nobody said you can’t surrender either.

At the next Normandy, stay off the fucking beaches…mmkay, and you won’t get hurt.

[detrop]

The above “hedge” wasn’t a formal hedge, as defined by my trusty book of logic. But it had the power of a hedge and could be thought of as an indirect suggestion and so is still a device.

But this is only if the dude who wrote the thing was actually trying to use these techniques. He might actually be stupid and think in Christian terms himself.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

I actually thought about reading dan’s bit but after
3 sentences I knew it was going to be bad, really really bad,
so I stopped. I save me an headache and the need to send
dan a bill. Stupidity is a curse on the world, and this anti-marx
drivel is dumber then most. It is nonsense of the worst kind.
Blaming Marx for every thing that went wrong with communism
is kinda like blaming Lincoln for the depression.
The case is weak and really far fetched.

Kropotkin