Marxism

[vern_humphrey]

Vern Wrote:

“The inherent flaw in Marxism is that it requires a dictator. Even Marx realized that when he spoke of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.””

Actually Vern, Marx considered democracy to be inherently compatible with socialism. (see Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe vol I).

“Marx considered democracy to be inherently compatible with socialism”

Marx considered a lot of things to be true that were false. And that’s what’s wrong with Marxism – and why it always produces a brutal personality cult dictatorship.

Your “command” of Marxism seems more ideological than scholarly.

Your “command” of Marxism seems more ideological than realistic.

Marxism always produces a brutal personality cult dictatorship.

Erich Fromm wrote “that Marx cold be regarded as an enemy of freedom was made possible only by the fantastic fraud of Stalin in presuming to talk in the name of Marx” (Marx’s concept of Man).

And Mao Tsedong? And Pol Pot? And dozens of other brutal totalitarian dictators?

You seem to make the classic error of confusing Soviet communism with Marxism. Relying on such an error will provide you with endless ammunition “against” your construct of what you think Marxism really is about.

You seem to be making the classic error of thinking Marxism is not what it is. And what it is is what happens when it is put into practice. It always produces a murderous totalitarian dictatorship. That’s inherent in Marxism.

Just as there has been several interpretations of “true Christianity”, so has there been several interps of Marxism. I would submit that if you took a snapshot of the Renaissance Popes and called that “true Catholicism”, many would disagree.

Fortunately, there are some good followers of Christ. Find me any communist country that is not a dictatorship.

Ribozyme was right, we should want to emulate the egalitarianism of Marxism.

By executing the opponents of the government? By creating artificial famines to starve people off their farms? By shooting people without trial in the soccer stadium? By driving people out of the cities and killing them with plastic bags?

Marx was inherently concerned with freedom and equality. Marx’s problem was that in his rejection of the social (and intellectual) control elements of religion, he denied God and the role of salvation in history.

Marx’s problem was that he created an idea that required force and absolute government power – and once it was put into practice it always spawned brutal, totalitarian dictatorships.

His other problem was he failed to understand economics – so even those people not imprisoned by the dictators suffered grinding poverty, generation after generation.

 

[Peregrino]

Vern, you have a lot of anger in your heart. Take a deep breath…

I do not endorse Marxism. I do however understand Marx’s intentions. I do disagree with you that its application requires the brutal dictorships you seem to associate with Marx’s ideas. Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and other monsters merely used his name as a way of securing and legitimizing their power. Capitalism itself has produced many evils. I think there are many in the world who would like to give you their two cents about how the “humane” U.S. has exploited their countries and economies. Heck, only 41% if Iraqi’s think that they are better off than when Sadaam was in power. That is pretty sad…

The Church of the inquisition years executed people who disagreed with the Church’s authority. Does this “implementation” of christianity mean that the Christian ideal is wrong? The history of the crusades and conversion by the sword doesn’t speak too favorably for the Church yet I am guessing you wouldn’t say that this “fruit” means the tree itself is bad. You have made an impassioned leap that isn’t logically justified. All that said, your humanitarian concern for the oppressed in those countries is laudable.

 

[DL82]

Again, everybody’s focussing on Communism. That’s not what I meant to ask about.

Marx wrote about politics, and his politics is brutally flawed, as history has shown.

But Marx also developed a system of social enquiry called Dialectical Materialism, which is about dissecting the material benefits and vested interests in the ideas and received truths that any culture constructs for itself. From this system, we can explore capitalism and see its’ faults.

This is entirely separate from marxist politics.

Plato separated deductive reasoning from sophistry. This is good and is the foundation of rational enquiry. Plato also believed in reincarnation. It doesn’t follow that if you believe in deductive reasoning you have to believe in reincarnation.

Likewise, you can understand Dialectical Materialism as a method within sociology, without believing in Communism.

In the Worker Priest movement, it was Marxist intellectual methods and sociology that were used, not Marxist politics, but they were still censured by the Church.

Why?

 

[RobNY]

When the Liberation Theologians used methods from Marxism to criticise the capitalist system and to propose a system based on Christian values of poverty, JPII criticised them and basically pulled the plug on the whole Worker Priests operation, which was both Christianising Latin-American socialism and putting a social conscience into Latin-American Christianity.

Why should an intellectual method be so opposed to the Catholic faith?

Dear DL82:

Please take my thoughts as trying to be as constructive as possible. It is not my intent to be antagonistic or to paint those who differ from me unfairly. Please bear with me in the likely event that I do. I don’t have the best grasp of the material, so it might be a bit confused!

The Church recently disciplined Fr. Jon Sobrino S.J. because of some of his works. Fr. Sobrino is one of the leading purveyors of liberation theology.

But why did they discipline him? I recommend you read the Explanatory Note and the Notification on the Works of Fr. Jon Sobrino.

You will notice a gentle, respectful treatment of Fr. Sobrino. Indeed, they are careful to disclaim that they recognize the great nobility which his works entail. For instance that, “Father Sobrino manifests a preoccupation for the poor and oppressed, particularly in Latin America. This preoccupation certainly is shared by the whole Church.”

It is often the case that anything false (for instance, Liberation Theology) contributes something true. This holds true for Liberation Theology. While the Church rejects its presuppositions it wholeheartedly accepts its concern for the poor. The preferential option for the poor is an important part of Catholic teaching. The Explanatory Note comments:

“The preferential option for the poor, far from being a sign of particularism or sectarianism, manifests the universality of the Church’s being and mission. This option excludes no one. This is the reason why the Church cannot express this option by means of reductive sociological and ideological categories which would make this preference a partisan choice and a source of conflict”. [3] Previously, this same Congregation in its Instruction on some aspects of liberation theology (*Libertatis nuntius, *observed that the warnings about this theological trend contained in that document were not able to be interpreted as a reproach to those who wish to be faithful to a “preferential option for the poor”, nor could they be an excuse for those who remain indifferent to the grave problems of human misery and injustice.[4]

The citations clearly show the position of the Church with regard to this complex problem: “The evil inequities and oppression of every kind which afflict millions of men and women today openly contradict Christ’s Gospel and cannot leave the conscience of any Christian indifferent. The Church, in her docility to the Spirit, goes forward faithfully along the paths to authentic liberation. Her members are aware of their failings and their delays in this quest. But a vast number of Christians, from the time of the Apostles onwards, have committed their powers and their lives to liberation from every form of oppression and to the promotion of human dignity. The experience of the saints and the example of so many works of service to one’s neighbor are an incentive and a beacon for the liberating undertakings that are needed today”.[5]

 

[RobNY]

Do you see how it balances the problems of Marxist ideology with the good that is inherent in it? It seeks to avoid the reduction to class conflict which Marxist thought brings. The Church cannot see things primarily through a lens of class conflict.

The problem with the liberation theology is that it seeks to view the Church and the Gospel through its ideological lens. The Notification’s first part is on, “Methodological Presuppositions.” It summarizing Fr. Jon’s position thus:

In his book *Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological View, *Father Sobrino affirms: “Latin American Christology…identifies its setting, in the sense of a real situation, as the poor of this world, and this situation is what must be present in and permeate any particular setting in which Christology is done” (*Jesus the Liberator, 28). Further, * “the poor in the community question Christological faith and give it its fundamental direction” (Ibidem, 30), and “the Church of the poor…is the ecclesial setting of Christology because it is a world shaped by the poor” (Ibidem, 31). “The social setting is thus the most crucial for the faith, the most crucial in shaping the thought pattern of Christology, and what requires and encourages the epistemological break” (Ibidem).

This should present an obvious problem to any faithful Catholic. Indeed, the view that Christology must be interpreted most fundamentally from the setting of the poor, specifically, the poor of Latin America, is incredibly narrow. Perhaps this is a bit of a caricature but-- what liberation theology does, then, is to, more or less, say that the religious texts have no meaning absolutely, and instead what we have to do is to find what the texts mean to me. It rejects that the meaning the texts have as interpreted through Christian Dogma as developed has any real meaning. Hence we must ground them in our contemporary position to extract their meaning for ourselves. This is very much a position of thought which derives from the methods of Christology introduced by someone like… I can’t remember which…Gotthold Lessing or Schliermacher. (Can’t remember which one) thinks we need to get rid of the erroneous accretions of doctrine if we are to find the true historical Jesus. Lest you think that I am unfairly caricaturizing Fr. Sobrino, I offer this, which is the document as it responds to Sobrino’s position (note especially the fourth and fifth paragraphs):

 

[RobNY]

While such a preoccupation for the poor and oppressed is admirable, in these quotations the “Church of the poor” assumes the fundamental position which properly belongs to the faith of the Church. It is only in this ecclesial faith that all other theological foundations find their correct epistemological setting.

The ecclesial foundation of Christology may not be identified with “the Church of the poor”, but is found rather in the apostolic faith transmitted through the Church for all generations. The theologian, in his particular vocation in the Church, must continually bear in mind that theology is the science of the faith. Other points of departure for theological work run the risk of arbitrariness and end in a misrepresentation of the same faith.

Although the Author affirms that he considers the theological fonts “normative”, the lack of due attention that he pays to them gives rise to concrete problems in his theology which we will discuss below. In particular, the New Testament affirmations concerning the divinity of Christ, his filial consciousness and the salvific value of his death, do not in fact always receive the attention due them. The sections below will treat these specific questions.

The manner in which the author treats the major Councils of the early Church is equally notable, for according to him, these Councils have moved progressively away from the contents of the New Testament. For example, he affirms: “While these texts are useful theologically, besides being normative, they are also limited and even dangerous, as is widely recognized today” (*Christ the Liberator, *221). Certainly, it is necessary to recognize the limited character of dogmatic formulations, which do not express nor are able to express everything contained in the mystery of faith, and must be interpreted in the light of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. But there is no foundation for calling these formulas dangerous, since they are authentic interpretations of Revelation.

Father Sobrino considers the dogmatic development of the first centuries of the Church including the great Councils to be ambiguous and even negative. Although he does not deny the normative character of the dogmatic formulations, neither does he recognize in them any value except in the cultural milieu in which these formulations were developed. He does not take into account the fact that the *transtemporal *subject of the faith is the believing Church, and that the pronouncements of the first Councils have been accepted and lived by the entire ecclesial community. The Church continues to profess the Creed which arose from the Councils of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople I (AD 381). The first four Ecumenical Councils are accepted by the great majority of Churches and Ecclesial Communities in both the East and West. If these Councils used the terminology and concepts expressive of the culture of the time, it was not in order to be conformed to it. The Councils do not signify a hellenization of Christianity but rather the contrary. Through the inculturation of the Christian message, Greek culture itself underwent a transformation from within and was able to be used as an instrument for the expression and defense of biblical truth.

The problem is precisely that the methodology behind Liberation Theology means that one must do as Fr. Sobrino does-- make historical expressions of doctrine limited to that time/culture, and make them into erroneous expressions of religious experiences which really should not have been dogmatized. The problem is that this destroys Tradition. The Church can’t live with this methology. This is not to say that we should not interpret apart from the p.o.v. of the poor, as Fr. Sobrino wants, but rather that we should do so while primarily interpreting it from the Church’s tradition.

At the same time, the Church accepts and lauds the good in liberation theology-- the concern for the poor.

Does this help at all? If you’ve read all of the notification, do you understand why liberation theologians are being censured?

-Rob

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, you have a lot of anger in your heart. Take a deep breath…

What a patronizing thing to say!

You claim that if I had no “anger” I’d think dictators like Castro, Mao Tsedong, Honnaker, Kim Il Sung, Stalin, and so on were really nice guys?

I do not endorse Marxism. I do however understand Marx’s intentions.

If you understood Marx, you would not have written the paragraph below.

I do disagree with you that its application requires the brutal dictorships you seem to associate with Marx’s ideas.

Then explain to me how it is that every nation that embraces communism winds up as a brutal dictatorship?

---

Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and other monsters merely used his name as a way of securing and legitimizing their power.

Every nation which embraces Marx’ ideas winds up that way. Therefore, that is Marxism – a system for producing brutal dictatorships and keeping hundreds of millions of people in grinding poverty.

Capitalism itself has produced many evils.
When did Capitalism produce an Eric Honnaker, a Stalin, a Mao Tsedong, a Kim Il Sung, a Pol Pot?
Peregrino;2038325:

I think there are many in the world who would like to give you their two cents about how the “humane” U.S. has exploited their countries and economies. Heck, only 41% if Iraqi’s think that they are better off than when Sadaam was in power. That is pretty sad…

What’s sad is that misguided people believe in Marx’ brutal system, and then attack the nation that kept both Communism and Nazism from overrunning the world/.

The Church of the inquisition years executed people who disagreed with the Church’s authority.

You’re an expert on the Inquisition, are you?

Are you prepared to back up your claim that “The Church of the inquisition years executed people who disagreed with the Church’s authority?”

Does this “implementation” of christianity mean that the Christian ideal is wrong? The history of the crusades and conversion by the sword doesn’t speak too favorably for the Church yet I am guessing you wouldn’t say that this “fruit” means the tree itself is bad. You have made an impassioned leap that isn’t logically justified. All that said, your humanitarian concern for the oppressed in those countries is laudable.

Aside from the fact taht you draw a moral equivallency between the Church and Communism, you clearly have no background in this subject.

When you actually study “the Church of the Inquisition” get back to me.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The point is, what Marx intended is one thing, what happens when his receipe is applied is another.

The inherent flaw in Marxism is that it requires a dictator. Even Marx realized that when he spoke of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” What he failed to understand (and I believe the failure was deliberate) was that a dictatorship ultimately results in absolute power falling into the hands of one man. And that has happened in every country that has attempted to apply Communism.

Actually, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is supposed to be a transitional phase in Marxist theory. However, most Communist societies never get beyond the theoretical point. His recipe is a bad one.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is supposed to be a transitional phase in Marxist theory. However, most Communist societies never get beyond the theoretical point. His recipe is a bad one.

Exactly. His recipe is not what is written on the card, but what comes out of the oven. Marxism is a system for creating brutal dictatorships, regardless of the theories behind it. Whenever implemented, it always produces death and misery.

Marxism has proven to be even more brutal than Nazism, and to defend it is worse than defending Nazism.

 

[Vaclav]

Out of curiosity, since some of you comment on Father Sobrino’s work through the Vatican’s statement, how many have actually read the book Jesus the Liberator?

The problem is precisely that the methodology behind Liberation Theology means that one must do as Fr. Sobrino does-- make historical expressions of doctrine limited to that time/culture

I don’t think Father Sobrino is making “historical expressions of doctrine.” He wrote a Christology using Latin America’s Christian history, tradition, and culture as the point of reference.

Any time anyone answers the question: “Who is Jesus Christ?” with a scholarly approach, they are going to run into the possibility of offending a large group of people.

 

[Vaclav]

Exactly. His recipe is not what is written on the card, but what comes out of the oven. Marxism is a system for creating brutal dictatorships, regardless of the theories behind it. Whenever implemented, it always produces death and misery.

Marxism has proven to be even more brutal than Nazism, and to defend it is worse than defending Nazism.

That is a rubbish statement that shows a lack of knowledge in the subject matter to a great degree. What DL82 is asking is not how Communist states acted, but whether Marxian analysis is appropriate to use in various subjects. The answer is of course, yes.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat was a phrase by Marx that had nothing to do with the individual, but instead meant that the victorious Proletariat (and it is important to understand how Marx defined class - not as liberal-leftists do today) would have absolute power to finish dismantling the institutions of the overthrown bourgeois.

When Lenin changed that meaning it is notable that many Marxists called him out and even predicted exactly what eventually took place (notably Rosa Luxemburg).

It always amazes me when people who have clearly never read a word of Marx make the loudest noise about how awful his philosophy must be.

As for Pol Pot, you might ought to check out who funded him and his regime (Khmer Rouge) when they decided to invade Vietnam. There have been plenty of nasty and brutal right wing dictators as well. Many have invoked capitalism as their hallmark, does that somehow mean that capitalism is an evil system of economics?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is supposed to be a transitional phase in Marxist theory. However, most Communist societies never get beyond the theoretical point. His recipe is a bad one.

Communism is what it is, not what Marx theorized it would be.

The Parable of the Wolf, the Horse and the Man

All the animals were oppressed by a fierce wolf. Unable to deal with his depredations, they asked Man for help. Man said, “I will be glad to save you from this monster, but Horse must lend me his speed and strength.”

“I am willing to do whatever I must,” said Horse. So the man fashioned a saddle and bridle and mounted Horse. Together they ran down and speared Wolf.

The animals all rejoiced, and Horse said, “Now that our common enemy is dead, remove your saddle and bridle and restore to me my freedom.”

“The hell you say,” said Man. “Giddyup, Dobbin!”

 

[Vaclav]

Capitalism is what it is, not what libertarians theorize it to be.

I wonder if there is a parable for the people who are forced to be slaves and mine for diamonds to feed Americans’ appetite for wedding jewelry?

Or perhaps a parable for the priests, nuns, or innocent people murdered by regimes supported by the United States in Chile, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and probably a few I left out.

Fun with right wing death squads

 

[vern_humphrey]

That is a rubbish statement that shows a lack of knowledge in the subject matter to a great degree. What DL82 is asking is not how Communist states acted, but whether Marxian analysis is appropriate to use in various subjects. The answer is of course, yes.

No, your answer shows a lack of knowledge of Commnism. Communism** is** what it is. And it is a system that always creates a brutal, totalitiarian dictatorship.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat was a phrase by Marx that had nothing to do with the individual, but instead meant that the victorious Proletariat (and it is important to understand how Marx defined class - not as liberal-leftists do today) would have absolute power to finish dismantling the institutions of the overthrown bourgeois.

Riiiiiight – and what mechanism keeps the power from falling into the hands of those who exercise it?

And once they have the power, how do you make them give it up?

The answer is, it is inevativble the power will fall into a few hands, and once in power, they never relinquish it voluntarily.

When Lenin changed that meaning it is notable that many Marxists called him out and even predicted exactly what eventually took place (notably Rosa Luxemburg).

Gee. Too bad they didn’t see it coming sooner.

It always amazes me when people who have clearly never read a word of Marx make the loudest noise about how awful his philosophy must be.

It always amazes me when people who have only read Marx conceal from themselves the disasters of communism and make the loudest noise about how wonderful his philosophy must be.

As for Pol Pot, you might ought to check out who funded him and his regime (Khmer Rouge) when they decided to invade Vietnam. There have been plenty of nasty and brutal right wing dictators as well. Many have invoked capitalism as their hallmark, does that somehow mean that capitalism is an evil system of economics?

No. It means, as Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Marxism is a system of absolute power.

And as I have pointed out to you before, capitalism is not a political system. It is merely an economic system.

Marxists are like the medieval authors of Chanson Roldan, who because they had a Pope, assumed Muslims must also have a Pope. Marxists assume because they have a political system based on theory, capitalism must also be a political system based on theory, rather than an economic system based on pragmatism.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Capitalism is what it is, not what libertarians theorize it to be.

And what do libertarians theoritize it to be?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive system.

I wonder if there is a parable for the people who are forced to be slaves and mine for diamonds to feed Americans’ appetite for wedding jewelry?

Since the diamond mines are operated as a cartel at best, and as government enterprises in many cases they are more like communism that capitalism.

Or perhaps a parable for the priests, nuns, or innocent people murdered by regimes supported by the United States in Chile, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and probably a few I left out.

And what’s that got to do with capitalism?

Fun with right wing death squads

As opposed to fun with left wing death squads, as in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Collectivization Famine, the execution of “landlords” in China, the Sendero Lunimoso terrorists in Peru, etc., etc.?

 

[Vaclav]

No, your answer shows a lack of knowledge of Commnism. Communism is what it is. And it is a system that always creates a brutal, totalitiarian dictatorship.

Actually, communism is a state without a government.

It always amazes me when people who have only read Marx conceal from themselves the disasters of communism and make the loudest noise about how wonderful his philosophy must be.

I’ve read Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste-Say (one of the best and least appreciated free-market thinkers), von Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Plato, Kant…and so forth.

Marx is one of the seminal thinkers of modern history, but I don’t believe I’ve ever said that his philosophy is peaches & cream.

Though, at least I’ve read the work before I launch criticisms of it. You’re no different than the Protestants who come in here and write long incoherent treatises about Catholics worshipping Mary and murdering Jews in the inquisition.

Marxists are like the medieval authors of Chanson Roldan, who because they had a Pope, assumed Muslims must also have a Pope. Marxists assume because they have a political system based on theory, capitalism must also be a political system based on theory, rather than an economic system based on pragmatism.

Do you mean Chanson de Roland? I’ve read that too.

Capitalism has had contributing theorists of course. It is not a system of economics that simply sprung from the ground. The Austrian School, the Chicago School, people like Adam Smith to a degree, Jean Baptiste-Say and others have contributed to capitalist modes of thought.

And economic theories (and practices) do not exist in a vacuum separated from social reality. Milton Friedman and von Hayek certainly held theories of sociology and psychology that went far beyond mere “pragmatic exchange.” To promote that is at best ignorance and at worse malign falsehood.

 

[Vaclav]

And what do libertarians theoritize it to be?

Depends on the libertarian. Some hold to Ayn Rand’s notion that pure egoism (selfishness) and indivualism produces the greatest outcome for everyone.

Since the diamond mines are operated as a cartel at best, and as government enterprises in many cases they are more like communism that capitalism.

Nice try. Yet, jewelry stores still sell the bloody things right here so American women can wear them. Very few are “government enterprises” by the way. The brokers, distributors, jewelers, and sellers are certainly not.

And what’s that got to do with capitalism?

Considering the capitalist countries and businesses provided funding to them? And yes there is proof, including Congressional Reports.

As opposed to fun with left wing death squads, as in the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Collectivization Famine, the execution of “landlords” in China, the Sendero Lunimoso terrorists in Peru, etc., etc.?

You keep bringing up Pol Pot - the United States funded the Khmer Rouge from the invasion of Vietnam (1978) until 1993. And how many of your “competetive pragmatists” are trading, and working in China right now - this very minute?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, communism is a state without a government.

No, that’s Italy.

I’ve read Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste-Say (one of the best and least appreciated free-market thinkers), von Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Plato, Kant…and so forth.

Marx is one of the seminal thinkers of modern history, but I don’t believe I’ve ever said that his philosophy is peaches & cream.

His “philosophy” has killed more people than Nazism.

Though, at least I’ve read the work before I launch criticisms of it. You’re no different than the Protestants who come in here and write long incoherent treatises about Catholics worshipping Mary and murdering Jews in the inquisition.

And I haven’t read Marx?

I have. But I have also seen Marxism in action. And as Zbignew Brzinski said, “Communism is the greatest disaster ever to overtake the Human Race.”

Capitalism has had contributing theorists of course. It is not a system of economics that simply sprung from the ground. The Austrian School, the Chicago School, people like Adam Smith to a degree, Jean Baptiste-Say and others have contributed to capitalist modes of thought.

Capitalism existed before any school taught it. It existed hundreds of years before Adam Smith described it.

And economic theories (and practices) do not exist in a vacuum separated from social reality.

Thank you for admitting that!

Therefore we must look at what a political/economic theory like Communism does to know what it is.

Milton Friedman and von Hayek certainly held theories of sociology and psychology that went far beyond mere “pragmatic exchange.” To promote that is at best ignorance and at worse malign falsehood.

To promote what?

Friedman and von Hayek never took over a country and executed their political enemies by the millions.

 

[Vaclav]

And I haven’t read Marx?

I have.

What have you read?

Capitalism existed before any school taught it. It existed hundreds of years before Adam Smith described it.

No, it did not. Your definition of bartering existed, not capitalism as it exists today. This argument of making capitalism into an extremely simplified swapping of a goat for a few loaves of bread is not reality.

Therefore we must look at what a political/economic theory like Communism does to know what it is.

Communism has not existed yet.

To promote what?

That capitalism is a skip through the tulips and simple Econ 101.

Friedman and von Hayek never took over a country and executed their political enemies by the millions.

Neither did Marx.

And surely you aren’t suggesting that because a few million people less were killed in the name of communism than capitalism that it is somehow superior?

That is logical ineptitude and you know it. Making such a statement would lead to such statements being made about those who have killed in the name of Christ as well.

Neither of us agree with murder, I think that can safely be said. Or at least I hope so. Whether it was done by Augusto Pinochet or Josef Stalin is not relevant.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What have you read?

Marx? Whatdid you think I meant?

For the record, I have taken both undergraduate and graduate courses in Marxism.

No, it did not. Your definition of bartering existed, not capitalism as it exists today. This argument of making capitalism into an extremely simplified swapping of a goat for a few loaves of bread is not reality.

Wrong. Joint stock companies (the hallmark of Capitalism) existed a couple of hundred years before Adam Smith.

Communism has not existed yet.

Yes it has – in the form of brutal, bloodthirsty dictatorships.

That capitalism is a skip through the tulips and simple Econ 101.

I don’t recall any tulips in any classroom when I was going to college.

Neither did Marx.

And surely you aren’t suggesting that because a few million people less were killed in the name of communism than capitalism that it is somehow superior?

When were people killed “in the name of capitalism?”

You keep mistaking capitalism for a system of government or ideology – which it isn’t.

That is logical ineptitude and you know it. Making such a statement would lead to such statements being made about those who have killed in the name of Christ as well.

Mass murder is part-and-parcel of Communism. It can’t not be.

Neither of us agree with murder, I think that can safely be said. Or at least I hope so. Whether it was done by Augusto Pinochet or Josef Stalin is not relevant.

Agusto Pinochet was not a capitalist. Stalin was a Communist.