Hillary Clinton

[chefist]

The flaw was that the then Soviet Union (as the Russian Federation does now) wasn't an equal society. It was (and is) an elite and corrupt hierarchy; A catastrophically bureaucratic and inefficient disaster that I doubt Marx envisioned. It wasn't a true collective with equal say and deed; sure the same poverty was enjoyed by all, be it a doctor or road sweeper, but that's as far as the equality went.

The inferior stuff was as a direct result of the insular paranoid maintained by the hierarchy, and the perverse belief that building a million tractors that were shit was better than building ten thousand that John Deer would envy.

Yea, it was just a new version of the ruling, political class and everyone else...just the titles were different, czar/general secretary, prince/commissar...etc...

[SciFiAuthor]

Marx didn't just come out of a blue sky, he was a consequence of the horrors of the factory system in England. If you were one of those people who found themselves exploited by the Industrial Revolution (including very young children, who were worked until they dropped in the factory system) I don't think things could have got much deadlier for you. Likewise the peasants under serfdom in Russia, treated like slaves under the knout. It's also a misconception to see Marx as someone who saw people as robots, in fact the opposite was the case. He was a very civilised man who saw that there was more to life than work and wanted to make sure that recreation was just as important as the weekly envelope. I don't think Henry Ford was all that bothered what people did when they were off the clock, or any other business magnate, but Marx realised that money was not an end in itself, and that deserves to be recognised and respected.

There's no comparison to the troubles of the industrial revolution and the wholesale slaughter of millions as a direct result of communism. This is not Marx's fault, but his folly. He failed to recognize that human social systems are extraordinarily complex and ideas can have repercussions that you do not expect. I doubt he expected Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But at the same time, good intentions aren't enough, they are simply naive. I have the same problem with Thomas Malthus. If you're going to throw an idea out there like a Malthusian correction, it needs to be based not just in theory, but in reality as well. And unfortunately, Marx and Engels forgot that and the reality of their ideas was quite ugly.

As for the other stuff, it depends where you look. If you see the left as refracted through the prism of talk radio then that's what you will see, but there are a plurality of views. The ones that get played up the most usually originate on college campuses where it's anything goes at that time of life and it's only natural to expect more heat than light. There's more to it than that, though, you just have to pay attention.

Most of them aren't represented enough to mean anything. Sure there are pure Marxists out there still, but they haven't prayer to inject anything into the public debate. The vast majority of the left is made up of the liberal dingbats like the college kids. As long as they're in charge, then they're the ones setting the left wing agenda and they're doing a really poor job of it.

[chefist]

There's no comparison to the troubles of the industrial revolution and the wholesale slaughter of millions as a direct result of communism. This is not Marx's fault, but his folly. He failed to recognize that human social systems are extraordinarily complex and ideas can have repercussions that you do not expect. I doubt he expected Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But at the same time, good intentions aren't enough, they are simply naive. I have the same problem with Thomas Malthus. If you're going to throw an idea out there like a Malthusian correction, it needs to be based not just in theory, but in reality as well. And unfortunately, Marx and Engels forgot that and the reality of their ideas was quite ugly.

Most of them aren't represented enough to mean anything. Sure there are pure Marxists out there still, but they haven't prayer to inject anything into the public debate. The vast majority of the left is made up of the liberal dingbats like the college kids. As long as they're in charge, then they're the ones setting the left wing agenda and they're doing a really poor job of it.

Marx advocated violent revolution against capitalism...He made no distinction on how violent you could be in instituting Communism.

[Yorkshire pud]

Marx advocated violent revolution against capitalism...He made no distinction on how violent you could be in instituting Communism.

In the near slavery circumstances, you can see his point.

[chefist]

In the near slavery circumstances, you can see his point.

Tell that to the 65 million dead under Stalin in the name of the common good.

Oh, monarchy was their political and economic systems...Not capitalism and constitutional republic.

[Yorkshire pud]

Tell that to the 65 million dead under Stalin in the name of the common good.

As I said before, Stalin was the hierarchy; a fascist, but certainly not for the common good. 

[21st Century Man]

Tell that to the 65 million dead under Stalin in the name of the common good.

And here I thought it was those nasty evil Christians who slaughtered the most people during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Obama told me so. lol.

[chefist]

As I said before, Stalin was the hierarchy; a fascist, but certainly not for the common good.

Best working model of communism is Israel.

[SredniVashtar]

Marx advocated violent revolution against capitalism...He made no distinction on how violent you could be in instituting Communism.

You're thinking of Lenin. Marx claimed that capitalism would fall by itself.

[chefist]

You're thinking of Lenin. Marx claimed that capitalism would fall by itself.

Read Marx and Engels... Violent revolution was advocated...

[Yorkshire pud]

And here I thought it was those nasty evil Christians who slaughtered the most people during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Obama told me so. lol.

And if you peek in the Falkie thread at his latest video, he'll confirm it.

[Kidnostad3]

Really? That could explain why American tourists flock to country piles that are occupied by the aristocracy (Chatsworth house in Derbyshire being just one); why being a certain 'Lord' or 'Lady' opens doors in the US, gets the good tables, the contacts etc.

As SV says, we look at the Firm (royal family), as a throwback we don't really take seriously. I see William and Harry as breaking the mold though. Both have served in the military, Harry doing two tours of Afghanistan: How many American high office politicians have seen their kids and grandkids go to Iraq or Afghanistan? Their grandmother drove ambulances in WW2, their grandad was in the RN, an uncle flew helis in the Falklands war, so there's form. I put that in because Americans make a great deal of past military service irrespective of if the person actually saw action. All the above did see it.

They both get massive attention in the US, especially now Katherine has had two children. Like it or not, most Americans, despite the revolution, despite the civil war and so on, like the whole concept of the continuity of a monarchy, borne out by the head counts of Americans on vacation in London paying to go in Buck House. I've said several time I'm ambivelant about it, I see the good and the bad sides of it,.

Several very left wing MP's over the years have pushed to eradicate the RF, and have a republic. But its never been popular. Only in the US could a Republic be seen as not left wing, when the rest of the world sees it rather differently.

Happy Easter.
[/

No doubt that many if not most Americans take an interest in, or are even a keen fascination with the seeming storybook lives of the Royals especially the younger generation of Windsors.  As you suggest, what's not to like--handsome warrior princes, a gorgeous princess and beautiful children.  Hell, central casting couldn't have done a better job. I do believe introduction of Diana's genes the into royal bloodline will ensure that the monarchy survives well into the next century.

As an aside, in the mid eighties I actually met Prince Charles while posted to a NATO staff.  He seemed an amiable sort and freely bantered with all assembled.   From that point I held a favorable impression of the Prince until, I, like many after learning of some of his antics over the years, became a bit doubtful as to his suitability for advancement.  Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with heirs to the throne being scamps in their youth. In fact most of us pretty much expect it.  I think that I began suspecting that he didn't possess the requisite gravitas for kingship when, while still married to Diana, he was recorded during a telephone conversation expressing a desire to become Camilla's tampon. To be sure, this was nothing more than phone sex or verbal foreplay, but, one would think that discretion would prevail or at the very least The Prince would be clever enough not to get caught at it.  For what it's worth, I think the Queen would be smart to pass over Charles and designate William as heir to the throne.  I don't know what the word on the street is over there in this regard but I'm betting this is exactly what she will do probably after giving Charles the opportunity to officially defer to his son as a way to save face.  Can anyone really picture Carmella as queen or even consort to a king.

We American's, for better or worse, create our own quasi royalty which ideally is based on a true perception of superlative qualities of character, talents and accomplishments.   Bestowal of this status is never universally accepted and all too frequently it proves to be a misplaced honor, but, when our virtual monarchs fall from favor we are not stuck with their maintenance for the remainder of their natural lives.  Sometimes this quasi royal status is imparted to whole families as is the case with the Kennedies and some would argue the Bushes.  I never have liked the idea of true political dynasties and the closest we have come to that are John Adams and John Quincy Adams and of course the Bushes.  Happily when it came to the Clintons the electorate rejected their bid to to become a dynasty. 

My point in saying that the notion of noble birth is abhorrent to Americans is simply that most Americans subscribe to the overriding belief that all men are created equal in the eyes of God and the government and that no one has a divine right to rule over another.  Even though this noble aim (no pun intended) is sometimes subverted by those with wealth and power, it is at least the accepted ideal of the vast majority of Americans.  On the other hand you Brits apparently have no qualms about paying homage to those you are told are higher up in the food chain than you purely by virtue of inherited status?  Whether or not this homage is rendered cynically and disengenuously and the nobility are seen as a harmless buffoons is immaterial.  It is fully incorporated into your political and social structure and you really should own it rather than dismissing it as inconsequential.  It strikes me that to do otherwise is just a tad on the intellectually dishonest side.

We Americans fought a revolution, among other things, because we do not accept the idea of noble birth and until I witness a grass roots movement to establish a monarchy in this country I will continue to believe that the vast majority of Americans find the idea of a monarchy and/or nobility being a part of of their government or social structure to be repugnant. What's more, I believe this is true even it weren't clearly proscribed in our constitution.

I think I just went a long way to explain what you already knew was the intent of my statement. Consider this post to be for purposes of record clarification.

Cheers

[Kidnostad3]

For purposes of further clarification the above not only responds to Pud's comments but also to those of SredniVashtar.  If either feels that I have misrepresented their their assertions it may be because the comment was intended for the other annoying Brit.  However, if the shoe fits...  Also, my comments concerning Camilla were gratuitous and not worthy of a gentlemen.  (This is the closest you'll get to an apology from me so if you don't find it sufficient you can fuck off)

Cheers and God Save the Queen




 

[Dr. MD MD]

God Save the Queen

I disagree.

[Kidnostad3]

I disagree.

As is your perogative my friend.

[Dr. MD MD]

As is your perogative my friend.

This year took Princess Leia from us but preserves that old war horse?! Fuck that shit!  :

[Kidnostad3]

This year took Princess Leia from us but preserves that old war horse?! Fuck that shit!  :

I can feel your pain.  No, really!   

[PB the Deplorable]

... the Brexit thing is still an unknown quantity. We're not even in the initial stages yet of how, what and when the process will take place. The ones crowing in the UK are disingenuous when they laugh the sky hasn't fallen in yet. We're still as it was before the referendum. Give it a few months or a few years after the withdraw and then we'll see. I think 2022-24 is the time to make a reasonable assessment...

But of course a month and a half ago was the proper time to make a reasonable assessment of the Trump years.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Merkel could well be the most irresponsible politician I've ever seen in my lifetime. She flat out destroyed Germany's political order, i.e. her political order, for no reason...

Oh, but there was a reason.  So the ''enlightened, non-judgmental, tolerant'' dipshits over there could feel good about themselves.  Sound familiar?

[PB the Deplorable]

Marx knew all about the way that bourgeois capitalism was sowing the seeds of its own demise. He just got the time frame wrong, that's all. I don't know where you get off criticising 'leftists' when you can see that the upshot of all this is that the state needs to step in to correct what the free market can't do by itself.

Marx didn't know a damn thing.  Capitalism has improved the lives of the entire human race, exponentially - at least where it's been adopted.  He couldn't see past the current scene - he was certainly no visionary.  He had zero understanding that his ideas were incompatible with human beings, no matter how great it all sounded on paper.

Communism, and it's little brother Fascism, caused more death and destruction in the previous century alone than anything seen in the world to date.

Of course there are problems with Capitalism - it involves humans.  It's part of why we have government - which you pointed out.  It's why we have oversight, regulations, and rules that apply to business.  It's why we have a social safety net. 


By the way, how is that socialistic War on Poverty going?

The flaw was that the then Soviet Union (as the Russian Federation does now) wasn't an equal society. It was (and is) an elite and corrupt hierarchy; A catastrophically bureaucratic and inefficient disaster that I doubt Marx envisioned. It wasn't a true collective with equal say and deed; sure the same poverty was enjoyed by all, be it a doctor or road sweeper, but that's as far as the equality went...

Of course.  That is what every government is going to turn into if given the power to impose a massive system like that, a massive bureaucracy to run it (I know you don't like the term Big Government), and the police/military power to enforce it. 

But they aren't going to use that power and force to create a ''Workers Paradise'', are they?

[PB the Deplorable]

And here I thought it was those nasty evil Christians who slaughtered the most people during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Obama told me so. lol.

''We are the ones we've been waiting for''

-Barry Obama

[Kidnostad3]

It's not there just for the tourists. Brits are a very theatrical people and all that stuff answers a deep-seated need. Also, we don't take it seriously enough to want to change it. You're just jealous because we have a rich history, while your country looks like it's been put together by IKEA.

As with the Queen, if it was considered that important, it would have been changed by now. I don't see the system you have - where someone can come in and appoint whoever they like to their cabinet - as really all that different. You might have confirmation hearings, but nobody will have elected Sexy Rexy or Steve The Munchkin. Likewise the Supreme Court. The Lords gives an element of continuity rather than chopping and changing every few years. You Americans have trouble seeing the difference between theory and practice. The British system looks a mess in theory but it works in practice - it's the other way round in the US. You plume yourself on how sleek and lovely it is, but a guy like Trump is going to be like a chimp with a machine gun, with no respect for your traditions, and a servile party in the Congress and Senate unable to provide those checks and balances you hold so dear.

You have your own nobility: the presidency was run like a family business not too long ago. The highest office in the land is open to anyone over there, so long as you're white, rich and male. You managed to elect a coffee-coloured guy recently, of course, and lots of you haven't stopped squeaking about it since, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Stuffy old Britain is on its second female  PM while you haven't even managed one yet.

We've spent the previous few centuries trying to teach you lot the rudiments of civilisation. Do we have to do everything for you? By all means turn inwards and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist - it's what you do so well - but in the nuclear age it isn't so easy to live inside your own borders any more.

It amazes me how many words it takes you to say absolutely nothing that is valid or even cogent.  Must be tough having the IQ of a turnip. 

[Dr. MD MD]

Aside from the alarmist "ism" talk I'd say this guy is right on the money. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4

[SredniVashtar]

It amazes me how many words it takes you to say absolutely nothing that is valid or even cogent.  Must be tough having the IQ of a turnip.

My goodness, and I thought Oscar Wilde was dead!

[Kidnostad3]

My goodness, and I thought Oscar Wilde was dead!

And I thought he was Presently alive in the form of your current flatmate. 

[SredniVashtar]

Marx didn't know a damn thing.  Capitalism has improved the lives of the entire human race, exponentially - at least where it's been adopted.  He couldn't see past the current scene - he was certainly no visionary.  He had zero understanding that his ideas were incompatible with human beings, no matter how great it all sounded on paper.

How could he be expected to? What he could see was a large class of people being exploited for the interests of a small elite at the top, the rentiers living high on the hog at the expense of the wage earners. I'm guessing you haven't read a word of Marx, because you don't have to agree with what he said to acknowledge many of the insights he offered.

Communism, and it's little brother Fascism, caused more death and destruction in the previous century alone than anything seen in the world to date.

No, as a percentage of the population, the world has become a lot less violent. You're talking off the top of your head again. I can give you some figures on that if you want, but I don't have it to hand right now. It's in a book called 'The Angels of Our Better Nature' by Steven Pinker.

Of course there are problems with Capitalism - it involves humans.  It's part of why we have government - which you pointed out.  It's why we have oversight, regulations, and rules that apply to business.  It's why we have a social safety net. 

I shouldn't have to point this out, but I guess I'll have to: Marx led to the labour movement, which led to regulations and the social safety net. Otherwise we'd all be living in a laissez-faire hellhole, or endless revolution. Too many people dismiss the State while taking what it has done for granted. I don't see how you can address the problems of growing wealth inequality unless the State takes some sort of role, for example, unless you're happy to see all the resources being sucked into the pockets of a small elite.

[Yorkshire pud]

But of course a month and a half ago was the proper time to make a reasonable assessment of the Trump years.

Based on the stall Trump set out at the time. True, now he's there he can roll it back piecemeal and tell everyone he didn't mean what he said.

[SredniVashtar]

And I thought he was Presently alive in the form of your current flatmate.

Whatever the fuck that means, but then you're not overburdened with brain.

[Kidnostad3]

Whatever the fuck that means, but then you're not overburdened with brain.

Think about it for while and maybe you'll get.  On second thought, have someone explain it to you. 

[SredniVashtar]

Think about it for while and maybe you'll get.  On second thought, have someone explain it to you.

Sorry about that! It took me a few moments to translate it from the original mongoloid. It was still shitty, though.