The Communist Party of China, for no apparent reason other than totalitarian paranoia, sees Falun Gong as an ideological threat to its existence. Yet, objectively, Falun Gong is just a set of exercises with a spiritual component.
AND
Falun Gong practitioners are victims of systematic torture and ill treatment. While the claims of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners have been met with doubt, there is no doubt about this torture.
Why don’t you liberals point this shit out? Oh, that’s right:
Cause it doesn’t benefit you to point out that your communist paradise doesn’t exist…
If china was actually a communist state as described
by Marx, then maybe, but as of right now it is a simple
minded dictatorship of which we have over 100 of
in the world including the U.S. Give me a true communist state
then we can talk, but not a single one has ever existed, so
your chances of that are slim.
None may exist, this is true.
However, many have tried AND FAILED, and that is a fact.
Why do they fail time and time again?
Because communism doesn’t work.
It inevitably defaults into a defacto dictatorship where the State acts as god.
thirst4metal: None may exist, this is true.
However, many have tried AND FAILED, and that is a fact.
Why do they fail time and time again?
Because communism doesn’t work.
It inevitably defaults into a defacto dictatorship where the State acts as god.
K: wrong again. Communism as defined by Marx has never,
ever been tried. What has been tried is Leninism and stalinism
but not Marxism. Leninism and stalinism is dictatorship,
not clearly not Marxism. When Marxism has been tried, get back
to me. and by the way, marx was an economist, not a political
writer, that is how you can tell if marxism has been tried,
becausse Marx is all about the economics, not the political.
Economics without politics is like sex without intercourse:
It doesn’t produce any long term results.
But the fact is that Marxism was attempted. It was reviewed by well-meaning Jaspars and they realized the foolishness of implementing such a system. In other words, they HAD to go back to the drawing board in order to even have a chance for it to work. Why carry out a faulty design? Unless of course, failure is the objective.
I would point out that many liberals do point those atrocities out and are opposed to many of the practices of the PRC. See the Free Tibet movement. Fulan Gong and their plight has become closely tied to the Free Tibet movement in America (go to Free Tibet protests, the abuses towards the Fulan Gong are clearly outlined).
So, errrr, your whole argument is empty.
And I’ll also throw out there that Marxism, as defined by Marx is pretty much doomed to failure because:
Dictatorship of the Proles: It is very hard for people, once in a position of power, to give it up. The more power they have, the more difficult it is for them to give it up.
Classless society: humans want to form classes, the distinction between people is natural and unavoidable. Even if you create a level playing field, in a short while people will seperate out into subgroups and group mentality will then further drive people apart.
K: wrong again. Communism as defined by Marx has never, ever been tried. What has been tried is Leninism and stalinism but not Marxism. Leninism and stalinism is dictatorship, not clearly not Marxism. When Marxism has been tried, get back to me. and by the way, marx was an economist, not a political writer, that is how you can tell if marxism has been tried, becausse Marx is all about the economics, not the political.
[/quote]
Thirst: Economics without politics is like sex without intercourse:
It doesn’t produce any long term results.
K: Marx is still an economist and Lenin is still a dictator/political.
Thirst: But the fact is that Marxism was attempted. It was reviewed by well-meaning Jaspars and they realized the foolishness of implementing such a system. In other words, they HAD to go back to the drawing board in order to even have a chance for it to work. Why carry out a faulty design? Unless of course, failure is the objective.
K: your point such as it is completely so off the mark as to not
to be on the same planet as reality. Who tried Marxism?
Certainly not Lenin or Stalin.
Thirst: “It was reviewed by well meaning Jaspars”
K: Reviewed by whom and who the fuck is jaspar?
What drawing board? what the hell are you talking about.
Learn some history, please. I can suggest some books that
will fill some of these immense holes in your knowledge about
Marxism. There was over 30 years of writings about Marxism
before Lenin came on the scene in 1917. He also wrote about
Marxism, but from his slant. Which was a far different spin
on Marxism then Marx ever wrote.
Look at the U.S. ,almost all of our stuff is made there, and we are capitalistic.
China is directly connected to U.S. capitalism? Therefore China is NOT communist at all.
Look at all the countries througout the world who have had the title, “socialist” in them. Dictatorships, democracies, military gov’t and everything inbetween has called themselves “socialist” from one time to another.
Most terms like these are major unspecifics.
“It is through the illusion of freedom from social determinants…that social determinations win the freedom to exercise their full power… And so, paradoxically, sociology frees us from the illusion of freedom, or, more exactly from the misplaced belief in illusory freedoms” (Pierre Bourdieu, “In Other Words”).
-so, communism, freedom and socialism are terms often used in my opinion to make people “believe” they are free and well taken care of.
While the PRC has been moving more towards a free market in recent years, calling them capitalistic is more than a bit of a stretch – they are still very much a command economy.
Xunzian:I would point out that many liberals do point those atrocities out and are opposed to many of the practices of the PRC. See the Free Tibet movement. Fulan Gong and their plight has become closely tied to the Free Tibet movement in America (go to Free Tibet protests, the abuses towards the Fulan Gong are clearly outlined).
So, errrr, your whole argument is empty.
And I’ll also throw out there that Marxism, as defined by Marx is pretty much doomed to failure because:
Dictatorship of the Proles: It is very hard for people, once in a position of power, to give it up. The more power they have, the more difficult it is for them to give it up.
Classless society: humans want to form classes, the distinction between people is natural and unavoidable. Even if you create a level playing field, in a short while people will separate out into subgroups and group mentality will then further drive people apart."
K: thank you for some intelligent criticism of Marxism.
I suggest there are a couple of different drives in people.
The need for power but also the alteristic drive. People have
walked away from power. It is possible given the right
incentive. One argument against anarchism is, it is not possible,
and yet in Barcelona Spain in 1936 it was tried and was
very successful. People forget or don’t know about it.
People also want to be happy, I suggest that the need for
happiness might overcome their need to form classes.
It depends on the drive that comes out on top.
The problem with that is that the people who are most likely to get in power are the least likely to be the kind who would willingly give up that power.
If you get power, it is because you place a very large value on power and are a driven person.
Funny how so many liberals who were all over the Plame leak, calling the administration a dictatorship, blah, blah, blah, but are so very silent since it was a Bush administration critic, Armitage, who outed her.
Shhhhh, we musn’t mention this as Armitage has been at odds with the neocons for many years.
He was a poor economist and his economic model fails.
Early settlers. Also, the present liberal machine is trying (and failing).
A jaspar is a moron. Well meaning morons tried Marxism and failed. Where did they try it? On the drawing board. And that is where Marxism fails. The economic model is a fantasy based model based on unrealistic expectations of the market.
i bring all my problems with communism all go back to drain cleaning. drain cleaning is a crappy job, you spend all day with your hands in shit. i did it for four plus years, i should know. no one wants to be a drain cleaner, no one, all the people i met while doing the job hated doing it, why did they do it, the money, plain and simple, drain cleaning pays (unless your me).
drain cleaning is a required job, unless we go back to throwing are shit out in the middle of the streets (which results in different problems), we need drain cleaners to make sure we can continue to shit.
if i get “paid” the same amount as a book writer, for drain cleaning, no one in there right mind well do drain cleaning, and we all become writers, yey. so what are the options at this point… we force people to be drain cleaners, or there are none and bam you have a dictatorship.
hey we could also get rid of book writers, what a lovely place to live.
Chuckle, the problem is that many who lived under dictators, are undereducated, poor, have not idea regarding reality, are still susceptible to this hokum. I am thinking Chavez in Venezuela. He is confiscating land, and making distributions to the poor, but he is, as usual, a communist dictator.
and bam you have a dictatorship.