Suggested commie reading list

[John Galt]

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
1984 by George Orwell

Any others?

[dannie]

the obvious

marx, engels, lenin, guevara, mao, stalin, trotski, ......

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 11:30 PM
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
1984 by George Orwell

Any others?
.....George Orwell was a socialist you know, so if you are trying to find a writer who is anti-leftist Orwell isn't really a good choice, granted he was anti-communist but he was infact a leftist.

Also most anti-communist fiction is a bit oversimplified. There is really no point in reading Brave New World and 1984 as both deal with the same subject matter.

ONCE YOU"VE READ ONE ANTI_COMMUNIST FICTION BOOK YOUO"VE READ THEM ALL.

Though I'd suggest reading 1984 over Brave New World..Brave NEw World wasn't as good

[Misodoctakleidist]

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


Animal Farm by George Orwell

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


1984 by George Orwell

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

I think this is the book with the motor company story in (i may be mistaken) if so it had nothing to do with communism. The story is based a phrase once used by lenin, who is a communist, which is taken out of context, it's a rather poor attempt to associate communism with something bad.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:36 PM

ONCE YOU"VE READ ONE ANTI_COMMUNIST FICTION BOOK YOUO"VE READ THEM ALL.

I guess once you read one book by a communist, youve read them all.

And I think brave new world gives a better look at communism than 1984.

[mhallex]

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state

If you dont think the two go hand in hand, then I'd suggest also reading a history book...

And lets not forget things like "A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:38 PM

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


Animal Farm by George Orwell

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


1984 by George Orwell

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state


Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

I think this is the book with the motor company story in (i may be mistaken) if so it had nothing to do with communism. The story is based a phrase once used by lenin, who is a communist, which is taken out of context, it's a rather poor attempt to associate communism with something bad.
You obviosly have never read any of them.

The whole point of those books is that communism is damned to a totalitarian state.

Atlas Shrugged- The motor company story is indeed in it. For those who dont know: A motor company tried to do an experiment. They gave all the workers equal shares in the company. One engineer stood up at this meeting, and walked out. I gotta go, but I suggest reading this. Its a good book even if you dont agree with it

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:46 PM

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state

If you dont think the two go hand in hand, then I'd suggest also reading a history book...

And lets not forget things like "A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
Oh please share your historical knowledge with me, where have communism and totalitarianism gone hand in hand? they havn't becuase communism is stateless and so by definition can't be totalitarian.

[Germanator]

If you were smart you would have put "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Misodoctakleidist+Jan 10 2004, 11:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Misodoctakleidist @ Jan 10 2004, 11:49 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 11:46 PM

nothing to do with communism since it is about a totalitarian state

If you dont think the two go hand in hand, then I&#39;d suggest also reading a history book...

And lets not forget things like "A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"
Oh please share your historical knowledge with me, where have communism and totalitarianism gone hand in hand? they havn&#39;t becuase communism is stateless and so by definition can&#39;t be totalitarian. [/b]
If communism is stateless then who hands out the benefits of society?

What stops Bubba from bending you over a table and raping you?

What stops me from taking your benefits of society?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:51 PM
If you were smart you would have put "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn.
Never heard of it

[Nobody]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 11:30 PM
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
1984 by George Orwell

Any others?
Know what they all have in common? They&#39;re all made up&#33;

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Nobody+Jan 10 2004, 11:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nobody @ Jan 10 2004, 11:54 PM)
John [email protected] 10 2004, 11:30 PM
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
1984 by George Orwell

Any others?
Know what they all have in common? They&#39;re all made up&#33; [/b]
Know what they have that in common with?


COMMUNISM&#33;

[New Tolerance]

What stops me from taking your benefits of society?

examples?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 10 2004, 11:56 PM

What stops me from taking your benefits of society?

examples?
I come into your house, shoot you, and take your house.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 11:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 11:42 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 11:36 PM

ONCE YOU"VE READ ONE ANTI_COMMUNIST FICTION BOOK YOUO"VE READ THEM ALL.

I guess once you read one book by a communist, youve read them all.

And I think brave new world gives a better look at communism than 1984. [/b]
It&#39;s a good thing then that the left is not simply a bunch of communists but a collection of varying political beliefs. So I can read books by communists, democratic socialists, christian socialists, leninists, liberals, etc.

I personally just didn&#39;t see Brave NEw World on the same level as 1984 or even Animal Farm for that matter. Huxley is a great writer, but if I had to choose it would be 1984. For one I didn&#39;t like any of Huxley&#39;s characters. John was a bit too self rightous, Bernard&#39;s attacks on the state were superficial, granted I know Huxley meant to make him that way, but that left the sole responsibility of Attacking the state ideology on John and Helmotz(i think thats his name), and John&#39;s position of individual freedom were not as strong as I thought they could have been. Helmotz wasn&#39;t a large enough character to attack the state as I thought he could have(I personally thought he woul have faired the best against mustapha mond). And mustapha mond oversimplified his idelogy. So in general I guess I thought Huxley over simplified everything. Had the book been longer I think i would have enjooyed it more.

[John Galt]

Some brief summaries

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley- There are 4 classes of people. The lowest(Delta) do menial labor. Gammas do slightly better labor. Alphas and Betas play all day. Everyone is geneticlly engineerged to love their job.
Animal Farm by George Orwell- Communism, but in a parable with animals
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand- Too long to summarize.
1984 by George Orwell- Too long to summarize

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Lardlad95+Jan 10 2004, 11:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lardlad95 @ Jan 10 2004, 11:59 PM)
Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 11:42 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 11:36 PM

ONCE YOU"VE READ ONE ANTI_COMMUNIST FICTION BOOK YOUO"VE READ THEM ALL.

I guess once you read one book by a communist, youve read them all.

And I think brave new world gives a better look at communism than 1984.


I personally just didn&#39;t see Brave NEw World on the same level as 1984 or even Animal Farm for that matter. Huxley is a great writer, but if I had to choose it would be 1984. For one I didn&#39;t like any of Huxley&#39;s characters. John was a bit too self rightous, Bernard&#39;s attacks on the state were superficial, granted I know Huxley meant to make him that way, but that left the sole responsibility of Attacking the state ideology on John and Helmotz(i think thats his name), and John&#39;s position of individual freedom were not as strong as I thought they could have been. Helmotz wasn&#39;t a large enough character to attack the state as I thought he could have(I personally thought he woul have faired the best against mustapha mond). And mustapha mond oversimplified his idelogy. So in general I guess I thought Huxley over simplified everything. Had the book been longer I think i would have enjooyed it more. [/b]
I didnt like 1984 because the ending was so anti-climatic.

I mean, what kinda main character gets captured, gives into tortute, and then is executed at the end?

[bush youth]

I&#39;ve been thinking about reading Ayn Rand, or at least glance through it to see what the cappies are talking about.

Nothing bugs me more than an anti-communist who doesn&#39;t understand Marx..

[BuyOurEverything]

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
1984 by George Orwell

Read em. I really don&#39;t know what you&#39;re trying to prove though. Assuming they are anti-communist (which they&#39;re not) it really doesn&#39;t mean anything. I can come up with a list of anti-capitalist fiction books too.

Animal Farm was anti-capitalist (in case you don&#39;t remember, Farmer Jones wasn&#39;t exactly a hero) and anti-revisionist. 1984 was simply anti-totalitarian, it actually explained how socialist theory had been perverted to the point where the word &#39;Ingsoc&#39; was completely meaningless and was just a tool for the ruling class to maintain power. Brave New World dealt with, among other things, the ruling class forcing the working class to increase their consumption of goods, drugs, sex etc. That sounds pretty consumerist to me.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 11:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 11:57 PM)
New [email protected] 10 2004, 11:56 PM

What stops me from taking your benefits of society?

examples?
I come into your house, shoot you, and take your house. [/b]
Ok, I might agree you if you show me some scientific evidence that the majority people is afraid of doing things because of the law.


Animal Farm by George Orwell- Communism, but in a parable with animals

What if I&#39;m a trotskyite?

[Lardlad95]

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley- There are 4 classes of people. The lowest(Delta) do menial labor. Gammas do slightly better labor. Alphas and Betas play all day. Everyone is geneticlly engineerged to love their job.

It&#39;s a bit deeper than that(as I&#39;m sure you know).

You don&#39;t even mention the conflict between John&#39;s belief in individuality and the state&#39;s need for stability culminating in John&#39;s indulgence into state life before he kills himself(great ending)


Animal Farm by George Orwell- Communism, but in a parable with animals

Too simple of an explanation.

This has more to do with the assertion that Communism is hypocritical because it creates a society that is more opressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoise that it villifies.

(where as the others deal more with communism supressing individuality..except for Atlas Shrugged, I&#39;ve never read it)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 12:04 AM
Animal Farm was anti-capitalist
AAHAHAHAHHA

Brave New World dealt with, among other things, the ruling class forcing the working class to increase their consumption of goods, drugs, sex etc. That sounds pretty consumerist to me.
There was no ruling class iirc. There was a benevolent dictator.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 12:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 12:01 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by John [email protected] 10 2004, 11:42 PM

[email protected] 10 2004, 11:36 PM

ONCE YOU"VE READ ONE ANTI_COMMUNIST FICTION BOOK YOUO"VE READ THEM ALL.

I guess once you read one book by a communist, youve read them all.

And I think brave new world gives a better look at communism than 1984.


I personally just didn&#39;t see Brave NEw World on the same level as 1984 or even Animal Farm for that matter. Huxley is a great writer, but if I had to choose it would be 1984. For one I didn&#39;t like any of Huxley&#39;s characters. John was a bit too self rightous, Bernard&#39;s attacks on the state were superficial, granted I know Huxley meant to make him that way, but that left the sole responsibility of Attacking the state ideology on John and Helmotz(i think thats his name), and John&#39;s position of individual freedom were not as strong as I thought they could have been. Helmotz wasn&#39;t a large enough character to attack the state as I thought he could have(I personally thought he woul have faired the best against mustapha mond). And mustapha mond oversimplified his idelogy. So in general I guess I thought Huxley over simplified everything. Had the book been longer I think i would have enjooyed it more.
I didnt like 1984 because the ending was so anti-climatic.

I mean, what kinda main character gets captured, gives into tortute, and then is executed at the end? [/b]
oh Yes I agree about the endings. Like i said I liked Brave New World&#39;s ending alot bbetter. But as a whole I liked 1984 better

[John Galt]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 11 2004, 12:05 AM
Ok, I might agree you if you show me some scientific evidence that the majority people is afraid of doing things because of the law.
Lets do a quick poll right here.

Who here is afraid of being executed/sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 12:06 AM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 12:04 AM
Animal Farm was anti-capitalist
AAHAHAHAHHA

Brave New World dealt with, among other things, the ruling class forcing the working class to increase their consumption of goods, drugs, sex etc. That sounds pretty consumerist to me.
There was no ruling class iirc. There was a benevolent dictator. [/b]
First on Animal Farm..it depends on your interpretation. I saw it as an attack on COmmunism and on Capitalism(the Farmer Jones thing)

On Brave new world yu are wrong..there wasnt 1 dictator...there were 10.

Mustapha Mond only ruled Western Europe

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 12:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 12:09 AM)
New [email protected] 11 2004, 12:05 AM
Ok, I might agree you if you show me some scientific evidence that the majority people is afraid of doing things because of the law.
Lets do a quick poll right here.

Who here is afraid of being executed/sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life? [/b]
Afraid? Why so I can be a martyr and go down in history?

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 11 2004, 12:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 11 2004, 12:09 AM)
New [email protected] 11 2004, 12:05 AM
Ok, I might agree you if you show me some scientific evidence that the majority people is afraid of doing things because of the law.
Lets do a quick poll right here.

Who here is afraid of being executed/sitting in a jail cell for the rest of your life? [/b]
Well, my point was that alot of criminal think that they can get away with it, and aren&#39;t already afraid.

[Germanator]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 10 2004, 11:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 10 2004, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 10 2004, 11:51 PM
If you were smart you would have put "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn.
Never heard of it [/b]
And that doesn&#39;t surprise me. Your suggestions are so cliche that you&#39;ve obviously put no effort into your opinions at all. Not only is every book you&#39;ve mention fiction, half of them were written by a socialist...which suggests that, if you&#39;ve even read Orwell at all, that you never bothered to read up on Orwell himself, which is crucial to getting the whole picture of 1984.

"The Gulag Archipelago", however, is a true story about a Captain of a Soviet tank division who, during World War II, was arrested and thrown into a gulag for ten years. I doubt a man of your "capacity" could sit through it, though, as it requires a good deal of background on both Russian culture and Soviet "communism".

I suggest two books:

1- "Killing Hope: Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum. This will make you revulsed by the American government.

2- "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, just to remind you of what happens when things go too far.

[BuyOurEverything]

AAHAHAHAHHA


What an intelligent argument.


There was no ruling class iirc. There was a benevolent dictator.

Well, there was more than one &#39;dictator.&#39; I think that constitutes a ruling class.


I come into your house, shoot you, and take your house.

That&#39;s murder, what does it have to do with communism? I could, however, make that argument against liberatarian capitalism (ie very small government, survival of the fittest etc.) You believe that if someone can&#39;t complete, they don&#39;t have a right to make a living, correct? So how would I not be justified in, say kicking a little girl in the head and taking her wallet and watch? Survival of the fittest&#33; If she can&#39;t compete in society, that&#39;s her problem, not mine&#33; Right?

[A Pict]

The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.

[mhallex]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 11 2004, 01:09 AM
The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.
Get real.

If these guys wanted to actually be forced to think and cahllenge their own beleifs they wouldnt segregate all the opposition.

Theres something to be said to keeping down the spam of the cappie trolls, but when you can avoid all dissent and just enegage in a big circle jerk, well, whats the point really?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by mhallex+Jan 11 2004, 01:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mhallex @ Jan 11 2004, 01:39 AM)
A [email protected] 11 2004, 01:09 AM
The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.
Get real.

If these guys wanted to actually be forced to think and cahllenge their own beleifs they wouldnt segregate all the opposition.

Theres something to be said to keeping down the spam of the cappie trolls, but when you can avoid all dissent and just enegage in a big circle jerk, well, whats the point really? [/b]
do either of you really think you are going to really convince anyonne to read these books or participate in a civilized discussion with you if you are insulting their intellegence?

Lets not get into insults guys.

[D&#39;Anconia]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 11 2004, 01:09 AM
The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.
I must say a word in defense of Atlas Shrugged here.

Yes, it is fiction. But those who have read it would know that it contains a great deal of philosophy, both direct and indirect. If someone were to read it with an open mind, it could be very instructive in capitalist philosophy.

I do agree with you, A Pict. Mises would be more instructive than the rest of these books.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by D&#39;Anconia+Jan 11 2004, 11:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (D&#39;Anconia @ Jan 11 2004, 11:10 PM)
A [email protected] 11 2004, 01:09 AM
The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.
I must say a word in defense of Atlas Shrugged here.

Yes, it is fiction. But those who have read it would know that it contains a great deal of philosophy, both direct and indirect. If someone were to read it with an open mind, it could be very instructive in capitalist philosophy.

I do agree with you, A Pict. Mises would be more instructive than the rest of these books. [/b]
I was trying to be nice to them.

I for one have great trouble forcing myself to read some dry boring paper instead of a book that has the same stuff but written by means of a story.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by D&#39;Anconia+Jan 11 2004, 11:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (D&#39;Anconia @ Jan 11 2004, 11:10 PM)
A [email protected] 11 2004, 01:09 AM
The problem with you, mr. John Galt, is your asking them to read opposing propoganda, which any zealot can do with impunity (believe me, i know).

Have them read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. If they can (it might be a little tough for the 10-14ish group that compromises these boards), and understand it, I don&#39;t see how they could possibly remain communists.
I must say a word in defense of Atlas Shrugged here.

Yes, it is fiction. But those who have read it would know that it contains a great deal of philosophy, both direct and indirect. If someone were to read it with an open mind, it could be very instructive in capitalist philosophy.

I do agree with you, A Pict. Mises would be more instructive than the rest of these books. [/b]
Thats nice but have you ever met anyone who reads something with a completely openmind, commie or cappie? I mean if you read a book by a socialist are you gonna tell me that you aren&#39;t going to have preconcieved notions about the book before you even read it?

[synthesis]

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

[synthesis]

One more thing. Animal Farm was by no means anti-Communism as a whole. It was about the "Revolution Betrayed." The characters were direct allegories of key figures in the Russian Revolution.

By the way, historical tidbit. George Orwell fought in a Trotskyite brigade in Spain against Franco&#39;s forces. These are the same forces that one Alexander Solzhenitsyn would strongly defend about forty years later.


After Franco died in 1975, the Spanish fascist regime began to lose control of the political situation and at the beginning of 1976, events in Spain captured world public opinion. There were strikes and demonstrations to demand democracy and freedom, and Franco&#39;s heir, King Juan Carlos, was obliged very cautiously to introduce some liberalisation in order to calm down the social agitation.

At this most important moment in Spanish political history, Alexander Solzhenitsyn appears in Madrid and gives an interview to the programme Directisimo one Saturday night, the 20th of March, at peak viewing time (see the Spanish newspapers, ABC and Ya of 21 March 1976). Solzhenitsyn, who had been provided with the questions in advance, used the occasion to make all kinds of reactionary statements. His intention was not to support the King&#39;s so-called liberalisation measures. On the contrary, Solzhenitsyn warned against democratic reform. In his television interview he declared that 110 million Russians had died the victims of socialism, and he compared &#39;the slavery to which Soviet people were subjected to the freedom enjoyed in Spain&#39;. Solzhenitsyn also accused &#39;progressive circles&#39; of &#39;Utopians&#39; of considering Spain to be a dictatorship. By &#39;progressive&#39;, he meant anyone in the democratic opposition - were they liberals, social-democrats or communists. &#39;Last autumn,&#39; said Solzhenitsyn, &#39;world public opinion was worried about the fate of Spanish terrorists [i.e., Spanish anti-fascists sentenced to death by the Franco regime]. All the time progressive public opinion demands democratic political reform while supporting acts of terrorism&#39;. &#39;Those who seek rapid democratic reform, do they realise what will happen tomorrow or the day after? In Spain there may be democracy tomorrow, but after tomorrow will it be able to avoid falling from democracy into totalitarianism?&#39; To cautious inquiries by the journalists as to whether such statements could not be seen as support for regimes in countries where there was no liberty, Solzhenitsyn replied: &#39;I only know one place where there is no liberty and that is Russia.&#39; Solzhenitsyn&#39;s statements on Spanish television were a direct support to Spanish fascism, an ideology he supports to this day. This is one of the reasons why Solzhenitsyn began to disappear from public view in his 18 years of exile in the US, and one of the reasons he began to get less than total support from capitalist governments. For the capitalists it was a gift from heaven to be able to use a man like Solzhenitsyn in their dirty war against socialism, but everything has its limits. In the new capitalist Russia, what determines the support of the west for political groups is purely and simply the ability of doing good business with high profits under the wing of such groups. Fascism as an alternative political regime for Russia is not considered to be good for business. For this reason Solzhenitsyn&#39;s political plans for Russia are a dead letter as far as Western support is concerned. What Solzhenitsyn wants for Russia&#39;s political future is a return to the authoritarian regime of the Tsars, hand-in-hand with the traditional Russian Orthodox Church.

[redstar2000]

A crushing refutation, DyerMaker. :lol:

And perfectly appropriate; Rand&#39;s comic-book philosophy refuted by a comic&#33;

Our "intellectual" defenders of capitalism need to read a year&#39;s worth of Dilbert...that should serve to thoroughly trash their naive fantasies about "capitalist meritocracy".

Then they can move on to real books with printed words. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[John Galt]

Ooops, totally refuted.


Except for the fact that everyone in Galt&#39;s Gulch did manual labor. They could only do their real occupations for one month a year.

[A Pict]

A crushing refutation, DyerMaker.

And perfectly appropriate; Rand&#39;s comic-book philosophy refuted by a comic&#33;

Our "intellectual" defenders of capitalism need to read a year&#39;s worth of Dilbert...that should serve to thoroughly trash their naive fantasies about "capitalist meritocracy".

Then they can move on to real books with printed words

Do you read your posts, or just spew off what randomly bangs togther in your head?


But YOUR RIGHT&#33; I am gonna start by re-education today&#33; I just picked up the year calendar of Dilbert&#33; Apparantly, cats are evil HR directors.


Now, I must buy a year of Prince Valient, to learn about 13th century europe&#33;

Then Garfield, to learn about feline vetinary practices&#33;

After that, ill finish off with Judge Morgan before i go off to pass my bar exam&#33;


(also of note-- Some bosses are indeed morons in capitalism. But then their companies will fall behind, and those with good bosses will pull ahead. The thing about capitalism is it doesn&#39;t say every will work perfectly always, but rather that those who do things better will be rewarded. like a ,

a...

meritocracy&#33;

[RedComrade]

As a Market Socialist who considers himself fairly objective I would reccomend against reading these books, that is if your looking for something to challenge your communist beleifs. I&#39;ve read 3 out of 4 of these books (AF, 1984, AS) and beleive me you should save yourself some time and read a non-fiction book like A Citizen&#39;s Guide to the Economy or the Black Book of Communism if you actually want something to challenge your beleifs. While 1984 and Animal Farm are both good books theyre still fiction and inevitably flawed when used for dealing with scientific refutations of an ideology. Atlas Shrugged is just a terrible book, whether reading it for ideological use or for the content of its dry,boring, outstretched prose. As previoulsy stated if your looking for books to challenge an ideology, read something non-fiction; only a cappie would use fiction as an argument.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:18 AM
only a cappie would use fiction as an argument.
only a commie would believe fiction

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by John Galt+Jan 12 2004, 12:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Jan 12 2004, 12:23 AM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 12:18 AM
only a cappie would use fiction as an argument.
only a commie would believe fiction [/b]
So you aknowledge that those are only fiction?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by New Tolerance+Jan 12 2004, 12:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (New Tolerance @ Jan 12 2004, 12:26 AM)
Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 12:23 AM

[email protected] 12 2004, 12:18 AM
only a cappie would use fiction as an argument.
only a commie would believe fiction
So you aknowledge that those are only fiction? [/b]
No. They are the unalterable word of god.

[New Tolerance]

No. They are the unalterable word of god.

holy shit.........

[synthesis]

I think what&#39;s trying to be said here is that it&#39;s sort of silly to recommend novels as an ideological counter-argument. We would recommend to you authors such as Chomsky, Blum, Malatesta, et cetera; the logical recommendation from your end of the spectrum would be works by Smith, Hayek, von Mises, and so forth.


holy shit.........

I&#39;m pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[A Pict]

chomsky, the last time i checked was but a linguist.


Why would what he had to say have anything to do with reality on this subject?

[RedComrade]

Chomsky&#39;s writings provide unbeatable documentation of the many crimes of imperialism. His What Uncle Sam Really Wants should be required reading for every man and woman, it is both short and easy to read and provides a great introduction into the study of Imperialism and its tragic results. He applies the same scientific fervor that won him fame as a linguist to the pursuit of justice and the documentation of the knowledge required in this noble endeavour. To dismiss Chomsky as a mere linguist is an insult both to your own intelligence and to the legacy of a brillant man. Here is an archive where some of his works can be read for free:
http://www.zmag.org/chomskybooks.htm

[synthesis]

Originally posted by A [email protected] 12 2004, 12:51 AM
chomsky, the last time i checked was but a linguist.


Why would what he had to say have anything to do with reality on this subject?
Chomsky gets almost all of his information from declassified C.I.A./MI6 reports, and also from sources such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

[Urban Rubble]

According to the geniuses at Protest Warrior Chomsky is a holocaust denying self hating Jew. They actually say that.

[New Tolerance]

I&#39;m pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

lol, I was just joking.

[Comrade Zeke]

Idiots&#39;s guy to Communism
1999,dont know the author
Good book check it out&#33;
Comrade,Zeke ;)

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 12 2004, 01:40 AM
According to the geniuses at Protest Warrior Chomsky is a holocaust denying self hating Jew. They actually say that.
Capitalist ignorance knows no bounds. Chomsky did write the foreword to a book that denied the Holocaust, but he explicitly said that he was certain that the Holocaust did occur and was as bad as it is claimed to be. The foreword had little to do with Holocaust denial; it dealt with the civil liberties issue of de-nazification, particularly that of the Robert Faurisson case.

I was going to fully explain it, then I figured I&#39;d just as well let the man speak for himself. Show this link to those idiots the next time they decide to obscure the issue.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp...-article-810228 (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp.py?people/c/chomsky.noam/nation-article-810228)

[Germanator]

chomsky, the last time i checked was but a linguist.


Why would what he had to say have anything to do with reality on this subject?

Last I checked, Paul Newman was but an actor, not a spaghetti sauce extraordinare, yet amazingly he is able to pull both off. Coincidentally, Noam can also multi-task.