At long last, we come to the end of our little dissection of this steaming heap of an "article"
Accusation 10. Leftists want to tell everybody what to do.
They think governments should tell people what to think and what to say and what to do. Why? It's obvious. Because if government didn't do that, we might all suddenly realise what crap they're spouting!
Coming from a supporter of an administration that told us "you're with us, or you're with Bin Laden", that's a pretty bold statement. Coming from someone who, seven posts back, told everyone in the world to be Christian and uphold "traditional family values", that's EXTREMELY bold.
Again, the confusion between communism and socialism is at the crux of his stupidity. In Communism, yes; the government tells you what to do, and people don't control a government, and that sucks. As a socialist, I will openly and freely agree with that. The fundamental distinction between the two comes over who controls the government. In communism, the government controls the government. I don't care if it claims to be socialist or if it claims to be communist or even libertarian or conservative. If the people have no control over the government, it's not a democracy. The United States in 2000 and 2004 is an excellent example of this. Voting irregularities, outright fraud, and some of the dirtiest politicking seen since the time of Richard III allowed Emperor George II to steal an election not once, but TWICE. Is that any worse than someone like Pol Pot or Lenin? When it comes down to it, Bush and Pol Pot have killed roughly the same number of people. Pol Pot killed 1,400,000 Cambodians. Bush has killed 1,100,000 Iraqis, 8,000 Americans (between Afghanistan, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina) and lead to the deaths of 400,000 for his refusal to get off his ass and do something about Darfur. They're roughly the same, but Bush is an American, and therefore not as bad (at least in some people's eyes)
as i've mentioned earlier, Marxism revolves around the idea that people should control a government. Is that bad? In the eyes of conservatives, yes. Stalin and Milton Friedman had one thing in common: neither of them liked democracy. the late Salvador Allende and Tony Benn have one thing in common: They're both democratic socialists. The fundamental difference between the evils of antidemocracy and the good of democracy is that in a democracy there is always a method of removing the government. The government does what the people want. If it doesn't, it's removed.
The left doesn't want to tell everyone what to do. The left wants to tell the government what to do, and then have the government do it. Remarkable! The left doesn't want the government to tell people exactly what to think (that's the job of neocons like Cheney...murderous bastard), all we want is for people to be a bit smarter about the world around them, stop writing and behaving as if they have a single-digit IQ (yes, I'm talking to you, op-ed contributors for the National Post), and care about someone other than themselves - even if their salary and CEO tell them not to.
And now, "The last ten posts in 10 sentences"
1: American capitalism is overly greedy, and socialist Norway makes more than the average American.
2: Whoever first thought up the phrase "Traditional Family Values" was a moron, and now, not all leftists come from broken homes
3: Christianity and Socialism get along remarkably well, despite what the prosperity gospel may tell you.
4: The right's lies tend to be very destructive, to the point where entire countries (Iraq) descend into anarchy and chaos as a result
5: The left wants people to care about other people.
6: Socialim and Communism are not the same, and the right is really scared of that, because Socialism is coming back.
7: Similar to the self-devouring snake, the poor and outcast are only the first on capitalism's hit list; help them, or you're next.
8: Education is fundamental, and ignorance is a much deadlier sin than lust, idolatry and envy put together.
9: Everyone is equal; thinking to the contrary has led us to bad places.
10: People should be able to control their government.
Thank you
Ebook , by Autumn Reed
6 years ago
8 comments:
A bravura performance, Mister Climie.
I have enjoyed paddling in this mucky pond with you.
Let's get some things straight.
1. Comparing Pol Pot to Bush does nothing but minimize Pol Pot's crimes. Pol Pot systematically murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people in order to build a new society based on communism. Bush, whatever his failings, incompetencies, or ulterior motives, has brought at least the beginning of democracy to the Iraqi people. Most of those Iraqis killed have been by Iraqi fighters, not American soldiers. The fact that Bush was willing to sacrifice the legacy of his party and himself so that Iraq would not fall apart into genocidal chaos is something a lot of other politicians wouldn't have done.
2. Bush has not been on his ass in Darfur. The only reason nothing's been done there is because of Russia and China holding up any action at the UN while they sell arms to Sudan. They're very good at it, since they had practice before supporting opressive Muslim states. What was that one they prevented action against before? Oh yes. IRAQ.
3. Salvador Allende was not a democrat nor a socialist, by either of your definitions. Not only did he explicitly ignore other Chilean organs of government that tried to stop his "socialist" excesses (not very democratic, is it?) but he was also a paid agent of the KGB, which in and of itself disqualifies him from your adultation. Ever heard of something called the Mitrokhin Archives?
Patterson: Thanks, it was enjoyable to wade through.
Mladen:
1: The intentions are irrelevant. If a crime is committed, it is punishable (Nuremburg Principle I)
2: Remarkable, the double standard that the states has. They didn't give a fuck what anyone told them about Iraq, and then suddenly agreed to play by international rules for Darfur. Likely because they have a vested interest in Iraq (oil, regional control) and none in Sudan.
3: The "paid KGB agent" stuff is bullshit. Plus, in a democracy, the ruling majority has power. the lunatic fringe of the chicago boys doesn't have to be listened to, and shouldn't. Compared to Pinochet (whom you have frequently defended), he was a crown jewel.
1. KGB archives confirm Allende recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars from the KGB in order for him to win the Chilean presidential election and then maintain his hold on power; money that probably proved decisive in his election. Look up the Mitrokhin Archive article in Wikipedia for starters, instead of rejecting off-hand information that doesn't agree with you.
2. Allende didn't have a majority in his electoral win; he won by only 39,000 votes in a nation of 3 million people, and even then only won about 37% of the vote. If the KGB hadn't funded him, or if there was a united opposition against him, Allende would only be a mere footnote in history.
See why I love this medium?
All this lobbing and backhanding and rushing the net...
The Chile debate alone could go on for days.
And I will have to check out the Mitrokhin thing.
The Mitrokhin Archives only show part of the picture, it doesn't mention that the US was actively supporting and payrolling his opponents at the same time. That has to be taken into consideration. When Allende turned to the USSR again, it was because an economic blockade was crippling him.
I've got a blog entry on this to continue the debate.
Cam,
If you want something to rant about, check out Nigel Hannaford's editorial in Saturday's Herald.
It's amazing what some people can do with their logic and brains and basic understanding of taxation when they are frothingly eager to make a right-wing point at the expense of left-wing reality.
Have fun with it.
RP
Oops. Too late. I did it for you.
P.S. The word verification is "alitio" which sounds like something nastily pornographic that Supreme Court Justices do to each other.
Post a Comment