Re: Commie nonsense

Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 14:23:47 MDT

No argument that communism is not bunk. Its attractions were the ideals of
equality, but that merely translated to peasant dictatorships based on
adherence to local, cultural, love-affairs with tyranny like the Soviet and
East Asian Communist Societies. Communism seems to produce Auto-Genocides as
in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea.

National Socialism produces Xeno-Genocide; the subjugation or elimination of
proscribed peoples. Note: you 4-1 ration is skewed, I believe, because Nazism
lasted only 13 years and Soviet Socialism was murdered people 'en masse'
since 1917. The Great Leap Forward caused about 28 millions deaths in China
between 1958-1963, alone. Its still in business, the business of brutal
repressions and a lust to dominate. Some scholars now see the Communist party
running China as not the Middle Kingdom, but acting as a Bismarkian Germay
did, circa 1866 onward.

In a message dated 6/15/00 12:43:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

<< Karl Marx claimed that communism was a scientific theory. As such, it must
 be testable, right? If communism in practice during the 20th century is
 considered as a series of experiments with known results and consequences,
 it has been a catastrophic failure. It has not delivered the propserity,
 freedom or transformation of man that it predicted. Therefore,
 scientifically, Marxism is bunk.
 Before looking at its direct results, let's consider the side effects of
 implementing communism. According to the French ex-communist scholars who
 compiled "The Black Book of Communism" communist governments for political
 reasons have killed approximately 100 million civilians (i.e.,
 non-combatants in any war or revolutionary conflict). For comparison, please
 note that this is 4 times the number of civilians killed by the Nazis. More
 difficult to quantify are the lives ruined and human potential wasted by
 communist governments. However, based on anecdotal reports of those who have
 lived under communist governments, it would be fair to state that writers,
 artists, philosophers, and would-be entrepreneurs were not given the chance
 to succeed on their own terms. Their less-than-maximum contributions to
 their respective societies cannot easily be tabulated, but surely represent
 a tremendous loss to those societies and to the human race as a whole.
 On the positive side, many scientists and engineers did have the opportunity
 to work up to their potential with some exceptions, including Darwinian
 biologists who had been suppressed in the Soviet Union during the reign of
 Lysenkoism (an offshoot of Lamarkism), and engineers who would have
 preferred to work on non-military projects but who had been assigned to
 military work without their consent.
 In terms of the material abundance, there is plenty of proof that communism
 fails to deliver. The joke in the old Soviet Union was that if communism
 came to the Sahara Desert there would be a shortage of sand. Recall that
 Russian coalmine workers went on strike during the final year of the USSR's
 existence. What was there non-negotiable demand? Soap! If you've ever seen
 the blacked faces and hands of men emerging from a coalmine, you know that
 soap is nearly as important to them as food. If communism promises to give
 to all according to their needs, how can it deny soap to coalminers?
 Then there is the whole matter of quality. Communism is the reign of
 quantity over quality. Factories were required to produce assigned
 quantities of good, even though the quality of those goods was so low that
 no one with any other options would buy them. Thus we have the situation of
 the post-Soviet 1990s when Russian goods (still being made by workers and
 managers trained under communism) cannot compete on world markets. In fact,
 the situation is even worse than that. Their manufactured goods are so bad
 that the world market has priced them below the market value of their raw
 material inputs. Can you imagine that? The legacy of communist economics is
 an industrial system that *REMOVES* value from raw materials!
 But let's give credit to communism where it is due: Under communism, few
 people starved unless the government wanted them to. Stalin starved farmers
 in the Ukraine during the 1930s by confiscating their crops. Mao did the
 same with his cockamamie schemes of the 1950s and 1960s. But for most
 citizens, there was bread or rice, and a few other vegetables with some
 occasional meat. And that's pretty much all there was for the next 50 or 60
 years. So for anyone whose greatest dream is to have a subsistence diet
 while foregoing freedom of speech, association, religion and economic
 opportunity, communism offers just the morsels they crave.
 Given the manifest failures of communism, we must ask why Marxism is still
 taken seriously by anyone. Certainly there are enough Marxist professors at
 American universities to make this question pertinent. I believe the answer
 is memetic: Marxism is a potent meme-complex that fits neatly into the mind
 space that would otherwise be occupied by other grand meme-complexes such as
 Catholicism or Transhumanism. Assuming that to be the case, we clearly need
 to redouble our efforts to introduce Extropian memes to those susceptible
 young undergraduate minds that otherwise could be swayed by the poisonous
 dreams of Marx.
 Michael LaTorra >>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:19 MDT