Marx, Lenin, and Mao; were pure genius.

[kelvin90701]

These great thinkers of Communism, could not produce a viable system. In essence they got it wrong. Why then do modern Communist propose they are smarter than these great thinkers and can do a better job?

[synthesis]

Because they made very clearly defined errors that will be corrected, "the next time around". We will, in essence, learn from their mistakes.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 6:18 am on Mar. 28, 2003
Because they made very clearly defined errors that will be corrected, "the next time around". We will, in essence, learn from their mistakes.

Do you seriously believe there will be a "next time".

[synthesis]

Do you seriously believe there will be a "next time".Excuse me? Democratic socialism is still a very viable form of implementing our goals.

[kelvin90701]

So can you promise that the next time there will be no secret police? You can not. By no means are you even close to being a genius of the same level as Marx. Is anyone alive and communist today as smart as Marx. If he did not get it right, then how do you suppose a lesser man can get it right.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 6:21 am on Mar. 28, 2003

Do you seriously believe there will be a "next time".Excuse me? Democratic socialism is still a very viable form of implementing our goals.

So called "democratic socialist" states are either not democratic or not socialist.

[synthesis]

So called "democratic socialist" states are either not democratic or not socialist. When you make baseless comments like these, people tend not to take you seriously. Back yourself up or your statement is worthless.


If he did not get it right, then how do you suppose a lesser man can get it right. Marx got it right, but Lenin didn't; that's my view, anyways. I don't think Leninism works as a viable method of implementing socialism. And I don't believe in a concept of 'lesser men.'

[Chiak47]

Kelvin,
To be fair we have a secret police presence now.At least here in America.Now granted they (hopefully) don't go as far as the KGB went ,but none the less we do have them.

[kelvin90701]

If he did not get it right, then how do you suppose a lesser man can get it right. Marx got it right, but Lenin didn't; that's my view, anyways. I don't think Leninism works as a viable method of implementing socialism. And I don't believe in a concept of 'lesser men.'
[/quote]

I argue that Communist today are "lesser men" compared to Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Then if great men can not produce a viable communist system. The lesser men alive today have a poor chance of doing better than these geniuses.

[RedCeltic]

kelvin90701

I'm Just curious as to just how much of Marxist theory you are familiar with. Because to tell you the truth, I somehow doubt that you have read enough of Marx to be making such a bold statement.

I mean... There is a reason why economists study Marx in college. It is said that nobody understood captialism as well as Karl Marx.

As for Lenin, I agree, he was wrong on many things.

[Liberty Lover]

When you make baseless comments like these, people tend not to take you seriously. Back yourself up or your statement is worthless.

Must I explain it to you a little further? Capitalism is a prerequisite of democracy. "Democratic Socialist" nations that have one-party political systems are simply not democratic. "Democratic Socialist" nations that alow multi-party elections employ capitalist principles.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 6:43 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[lostsoul]

i think each person was dealing with something different, lenin, stalin, mao, fidel, kim jung...etc...each one had a different set of obstacles which by them failing and us studying we can learn. Our fallen brothers are not really fallen if we use their failures to guild us to success.

Personaly i don't think there will be a huge world wide communism growth like in the past in my lifetime, but i know if we all work hard enough it will definitly happen one day, if not for us then for our children. But it will happen, look at the cut throat nature of capitialism, its going to evenually cut its own throat, and thats if other nations don't liberate themselfs first. Capitialism only works when its exploliting others, if the 3rd world countries librate themselfs then caps wil have no one to expolit and just fuck themselfs up.

America knows this thats why they will go threw any extent to stop this happening anywhere in the world, but the fact that such different countries like china, russia, cuba, vietnam, etc...could make it means that anything is possible. Wheather its in the worlds largest country, to the worlds more populous country, to a country so close to america, it can and will happen.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 6:37 am on Mar. 28, 2003
kelvin90701

I'm Just curious as to just how much of Marxist theory you are familiar with. Because to tell you the truth, I somehow doubt that you have read enough of Marx to be making such a bold statement.

I mean... There is a reason why economists study Marx in college. It is said that nobody understood captialism as well as Karl Marx.

I totally agree with you. Marx understood the economy of capitalism all too well.

Is there a communist alive today who is more gifted than Marx, Mao, or Lenin? If not, then communism has less a chance of success than these men.

[synthesis]

Must I explain it to you a little further? Don't bother. It's obvious that you're ignorant of anything to do with what's being discussed.


Capitalism is a prerequisite of democracy. False. Capitalism is the inherent opponent of democracy - for how are corporations and businesses, maquiladoras and sweatshops, that are privately owned, democratic? Obviously, they are not. Socialism is not only a prerequisite of democracy, it is equal to democracy because it seeks to restore democracy to the means of production.

[synthesis]

"Democratic Socialist" nations that have one-party political systems are simply not democratic. "Democratic Socialist" nations that alow multi-party elections employ capitalist principles. Absolute bullshit. Back this worthless, erroneous statement up with anything but your own imbecilic rhetoric.

[Liberty Lover]

False. Capitalism is the inherent opponent of democracy - for how are corporations and businesses, maquiladoras and sweatshops, that are privately owned, democratic? Obviously, they are not. Socialism is not only a prerequisite of democracy, it is equal to democracy because it seeks to restore democracy to the means of production.


False. Capitalism is actually a social (political) rather than economic system. Traditional definitions focus on private ownership. But what does private ownership imply? Ownership, to have any meaning, must be based on rights. Otherwise you own something only in name while someone else tells you what to do. Capitalism is the system that recognizes and protects individual rights. It defines the only function of government as defending those rights through an objective system of justice.

[synthesis]

This forever seals your public image as one of total ignorance of socialist goals. Socialists don't intend to deliver the means of production unto the state. We intend to bring democratic control by the workers, rather than autocratic, nepotic control by the bourgeois, to the means of production.


Otherwise you own something only in name while someone else tells you what to do. Capitalism is the system that recognizes and protects individual rights. It defines the only function of government as defending those rights through an objective system of justice. You're just talking out your ass.

(Edited by DyerMaker at 7:40 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[notyetacommie]

False. Capitalism is the system that recognizes and protects the CAPITALIST's right. And it wouldn't be called CAPITALISM if it wasn't based on how CAPITAL as an economic issue works.
If capitalism "defines the only function of government as defending those rights through an objective system of justice ", then it failed. Would you dare to say that your capitalism is NOW engaged in defending the rights of, say, Iraqi people? No, from what I see, it defends the wrongs of oil tycoons. And it hasn't started just today. Capitalism HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS- murderous. How can you get rich in an honest way, i.e. not trampling on somebody else's rights? Inheritance? In most cases it still violates someone else's rights.
After getting rich in a mischievous way, a capitalist strives to defend and increase his wealth BY ALL MEANS.
Example? Your dickhead president!!!

[notyetacommie]

My last post was addressed to Liberty Lover, of course!

[Liberty Lover]

We intend to bring democratic control by the workers, rather than autocratic, nepotic control by the bourgeois, to the means of production.

That sounds like utopian communism. How do you intend on achieving this goal. The dictatorship of the proletariat? Never has worked, never will work.

[Liberty Lover]

Would you dare to say that your capitalism is NOW engaged in defending the rights of, say, Iraqi people?

They are defending ideals of liberty, amongst them are democracy and free enterprise.

No, from what I see, it defends the wrongs of oil tycoons.

Are you going to provide any evidence of this assertion?

get rich in an honest way, i.e. not trampling on somebody else's rights?.

By hard work

Your dickhead president!!!

I don't have a president.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 8:21 am on Mar. 28, 2003)

[synthesis]

How do you intend on achieving this goal. Through democratic socialism, of course. Don't you listen?


The dictatorship of the proletariat? I just said that I dislike Leninism. You display a remarkable propensity for completely ignoring what I say.

[Liberty Lover]

Through democratic socialism, of course.

If people wanted socialism why do they not vote for socialist parties?

I just said that I dislike Leninism. You display a remarkable propensity for completely ignoring what I say.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a marxist idea.

[synthesis]

If people wanted socialism why do they not vote for socialist parties?

If most people like the system we have now, why does the majority of America not vote?

BTW, I'm leaving for two days after I post this, so you'll have to wait for a response.

[Liberty Lover]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 8:31 am on Mar. 28, 2003
If most people like the system we have now, why does the majority of America not vote?


I thought the majority of people in America had to vote for the election to be considered legitimate?

Everyone has to vote in Australia and none of our houses have a member of an openly socialist party.

[notyetacommie]

Yet

[Liberty Lover]

LOL

[notyetacommie]

Notyetacommie:get rich in an honest way, i.e. not trampling on somebody else's rights?.

Liberty Lover:By hard work


By hard work you can achieve SOME degree of wealth, which is limited by your lifetime and a number of other factors. You cannot earn a $billion without anyone working for you, i.e. without employees, who will get lLESS than they actually earned, or otherwise you will have no profit. Thus, YOU will deprive these people of what is THEIRS. This is a crime. Stealing even a part of the outcomes of other people's work is a crime. And it is something that is happening in your capitalist world all the time.

Your government sent the troops to the country that hadn't done anything against yours, it only took Bush to slap fingers to make them do it the way they did, with no regard to the opinion of those who demonstrated against this war. This makes me think that Bush is your president as well, no matter how illegitimate he is.

[Liberty Lover]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of the misery."

[notyetacommie]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings, the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of the misery."

Do you honestly think that it is only possible to equally share misery?
And what do you call blessings, anyway, the right to oppress someone who is weaker than you?
Or the crime I was referring to?
So, logically your answer is like this:
Blessings=Crime
Equality=Misery.

Do you hope to convince anybody in this way?

Anyway, have you personally lived under socialism to claim it is the equal sharing of misery?

I have, and I can tell you that the vast majority of the people were a hundred times better off under socialism than now. I am speaking of Russia. There were ways for people to earn more money. For instance, those who lived in the north generally earned times more than the average, and they could afford more, but they had to live in more difficult conditions in terms of the climate.

Now Russia has 18 billioniers. Nearly all of them got rich buying the stock of STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES virtually for pennies, in line with the criminal policies of the Yeltsin government. The interior of the Earth, that used to belong to the people, now belong to a bunch of corrupted criminals. If you say it is fair I would think you lack reason.

Speaking of "democracy" and liberty that you love so much, we lost it in 1993, when "democratic" Yeltsin shot the People's Deputies Congress. It was around that time, I think, that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was banned. So democracy in Russia started wonderfully, the freedom of speech flourished, and the government started to be controlled by criminals.

But the time will come and we will get our freedom back from "democrats" and capitali$t$.
Speaking about the thread, who was that person that organized the anti-imperialistic demonstrations all over the world? Can he/ she be compared to Marx/Lenin/Mao?
The answer is: there wasn't just a single person, it was people who walked out to the streets. And, as more and more people in the world realise that socialism is the future of this world, more and more states will take the socialist model of development.

The reason you personally are here is because you also take interest in this model, as well as all these "right-wingers". You are probing the socialist ideas with provocative remarks because you know socialism is destined to succeed, and you would really like to know what it is BEFORE it comes to your country.

The protestant ethic- "get rich through hard work"- has killed much more people over time than Stalinism. Just remember the witch burning and compare it with the remarks of a new-born Christian Bush, and you will see that the driving forces are the same. You describe somebody as a witch and then make your protestant brethren destroy him. AND GET RICH In THE MEAN TIME!!!!

But, as witchburning as it was belongs to history now, capitalism will also be ancient history some day.

[von Mises]

Well, I have to comment on the proposterous arguments of some of you here.

First of all, if you are really under the impression that the US or any other country is capitalist you're clearly wrong. True capitalism can only exist with a minimal state or in an anarchy. So all your accusations have nothing to do with with capitalism and I urge you to read more about thus subject to understand what it really is. These are only brainwashed punchlines put forward by anti liberty people.

Secondly, the US government is more socialist than you might imagine. This needs little to comment on.

Slavery has nothing to to with capitalism, or would you call all muslims capitalists as slavery is still present in those countries nowadays?

And to return to the topic, already in the 20's of last century it is explained why socialism is planned chaos, and why it can never work. So this topic is viable, has there been any really intelligent economist tackled the objections of Von Mises yet?

Notyetacommie,

If you envy Bill Gates, then you should have taken the risk. People aren't enslaved by corporations, they have a contract in which the company agrees to pay a wage in return for your efforts.

And surely you know that in a truly capitalist world you are free to start up a company based on socialist principles. Can I do the opposite in your world?

[notyetacommie]

von Mises, thanks for your arguments. Though I have to ask you if you actually HAVE read my post to the end. Does it have anything to do with Bill Gates? Of course I don't envy Bill Gates, as he also gets added value for all he did, while no one is for some reason paying royalties to the descendants of that wheel-inventor, who no doubt did more to the humanity than Bill Gates.

Slavery has something to do with capitalism, and you know it. Speaking about computers, where are nearly all of them assembled? In USA? In Britain? No, in the countries where people have a simple choice of working for the wage the multinationals offer them or starving.

von Mises: And surely you know that in a truly capitalist world you are free to start up a company based on socialist principles. Can I do the opposite in your world?


It depends on the principles you are employing. In USA, well, yes, maybe you are free to run a company by SOME socialist principles, but will you get free education for your children in turn? Or free healthcare?

Of course, in "my world" you will not be allowed to earn as much as Bill Gates while the people in other part of it are starving. Of course you will not be allowed to own natural resources, as they should be owned collectively. Remember, air is also a natural resource. Would you like it to be owned by a corporation?
Of course, you will not be allowed to live without working, making your money work for you.
Apart from this, yes, you will be allowed to run the enterprise the capitalist way.

[kelvin90701]

Hey Commies, the orginal post is does Communism have a chance of producing a viable system at all? Since the great minds of Communism got it wrong? Who is alive today that can be called a genius in Communism? Can an "average" mind today do better than those geniuses who have past on?

[redstar2000]

Can "average" minds succeed where "genius" fails?

Consider the matter of human flight. The world class genius Leonardo da Vinci looked into the matter pretty carefully...but was unable to build a working prototype.

A couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, on the other hand, did build a working prototype and we date the modern era of human flight from their efforts.

So the answer to your question, kelvin90701, is yes...given appropriate conditions, the "average" can outperform the "genius".

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the analogy. Think of the USSR and China as the crude device of Orville and Wilbur Wright...it couldn't stay in the air for more than a couple of minutes.

Future communist societies will have the same relationship to the USSR and China as tomorrow's supersonic jet liners and spacecraft have to that awkward machine that barely made it off the ground on a windy day in North Carolina a century ago...and changed the world.

:cool:

[peaccenicked]

sorry mispost

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:34 pm on Mar. 28, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:56 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Can "average" minds succeed where "genius" fails?

Consider the matter of human flight. The world class genius Leonardo da Vinci looked into the matter pretty carefully...but was unable to build a working prototype.

A couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, on the other hand, did build a working prototype and we date the modern era of human flight from their efforts.

So the answer to your question, kelvin90701, is yes...given appropriate conditions, the "average" can outperform the "genius".

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the analogy. Think of the USSR and China as the crude device of Orville and Wilbur Wright...it couldn't stay in the air for more than a couple of minutes.

Future communist societies will have the same relationship to the USSR and China as tomorrow's supersonic jet liners and spacecraft have to that awkward machine that barely made it off the ground on a windy day in North Carolina a century ago...and changed the world.

:cool:


I beg to differ. The Wrights were geniuses, they were no da Vinci. Their genius is apples and oranges. Da Vinci had a problem with attention defecit disorder. Da Vinci did not concentrate his effort at flight. The Wrights on the other had did concentrate all their effort at flight. Da Vinci had enough technology to achive controlled flight, but not powered flight. The Wrights used technology to achive controlled glider flight that was no more advanced that Da Vinci. Both groups had canvas and wood when they lived, but it was the Wright's genius that put the canvas and wood into a controlled flying glider.

[kelvin90701]

A super sonic Communism of the future? They still have to work out the bugs of Communist carts pulled by donkeys.

This is the super sonic future of a free market:

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/corporate/career/
http://www.fed.org/onlinemag/dec98/briefcase.html

The Harvard MBA are studying it right now.

[redstar2000]

kelvin90701, I see that you "argue" just like all defenders of capitalism; when all else fails, just change the definition of the words being used.

If "genius" means anything you want it to mean depending on the circumstances, then why even ask the question in the first place?

Were I to build a successful communist society, then "all of a sudden" I would become a "genius".

If your definition of "genius" is long-term success, then you should have made that clear from the beginning.

But if you did that, then you'd end up with idiotic conclusions; e.g., Stalin was much more of a "genius" than Marx.

Of course, you didn't really want an answer to your "question", did you? You were just "trying out" a hook from which to hang your anti-communist outlook. It turns out to be a pathetically weak one...but I'm sure you have others.

:cool:

[kelvin90701]

So do Communist claim Stalin as a hero? I believe that Communist avoid Stalin like the plague, but you could not have a Stalin unless you had the Communist before him. That is the end result of Communism every time, you get a Stalin. Can you give me an example of a Communist state that did not have walls to keep the citizens in? They may have not started will walls, but the result will always be walls to keep citizens in.

[redstar2000]

Looking for another "hook", kelvin90701?

Cuba has no walls and anyone with the price of an airline ticket can leave any time they wish. On a couple of occasions, Cuba has even invited American boat owners to come to Havana and take away substantial numbers of anti-communists.

You're not being serious, kelvin90701. You're just tossing out random chunks of mis-information in the faint hope that at least one of them will "connect".

You not only convince no one, you're getting to be just boring. Chiak47 is at least amusing.

:cool:

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:23 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Looking for another "hook", kelvin90701?

Cuba has no walls and anyone with the price of an airline ticket can leave any time they wish. On a couple of occasions, Cuba has even invited American boat owners to come to Havana and take away substantial numbers of anti-communists.

You're not being serious, kelvin90701. You're just tossing out random chunks of mis-information in the faint hope that at least one of them will "connect".

You not only convince no one, you're getting to be just boring. Chiak47 is at least amusing.

:cool:

Boat owners pick up anti-communist, because no one can afford a plane ticket. Why do you buy a plane ticket if you can not afford to buy meat. When I think of the donkey cart, I think of Cuba.

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 3:32 pm on Mar. 28, 2003)

[Pete]

Kelvin, you missed what he said. The Cuban Government invites the boat owners to take the people, they do not show up and 'steal them'.

[Chiak47]

The thieves,liars and cheats.He also released the mental institutions and prisons didnt he?

Now this is hearsay.I am too busy watching FOX news and eating a sandwhich too be doing any google searches right now.


Kelvin lays the facts down and you call him boring.I live off my wife and you call me amusing.Jesus Christ why don't you run in a election,Red?If you win.You will have the masses so damn confused with screwy policy and bunk purges nobody will notice your Friday dress in drag day at the office.

Maybe you can catch a bullet like a couple other "progressive" socialists did and deserved.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:38 pm on Mar. 28, 2003
Kelvin, you missed what he said. The Cuban Government invites the boat owners to take the people, they do not show up and 'steal them'.


Oh I'am sorry I did miss quote you. Yes The Cubans invite boat owners so the Government can get rid of people in their prisons, or people they want to get rid of but don't want to leave.

How do you explain the people willing to risk their life by floating on inner tubes and a gallon of water with hopes of reaching Florida? Your right, Cuba does not have walls. I sure those people floating on inner tubes would have favored to fly on an airline.

[Chiak47]

Ahh yes you can leave on plane but the price of a ticket is what one earns in a lifespan.

[redstar2000]

Chiak47, are you complaining that the Cuban Government sent America it's "thieves, liars, cheats, and nutballs"? Where else would they be more at home? And, in fact, here is where they wanted to come...knowing they would never be lonely.

Yes, chiak47, you are amusing...and the fact that you live off your wife only makes all your homophobic references even funnier. All these images you post of guns and death and generals...and then it's time for you to wash the dishes? That's some serious compensation going on there.

kelvin90701 is clearly semi-literate and wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass...he simply changes the subject every time his "argument" lands him in the soup.

But you, chiak47, you with your self-image of an "internet rambo" fighting for Jesus & America...you are funny!

"Maybe I can catch a bullet"...if you toss it to me real softly. :cheesy:

:cool:

[Chiak47]

Holy shit I killed a keyboard with pop.
That was funny as fuck...Red..

Hey no better place than America.
Give us your poor nutty and violent.
Dishes..Nope kids get an allowance.Dishwasher.
Internet rambo...I'm the one getting threatened to be purged around here.
I was mearly suggesting you further your cause by running for office.And I explained I am not a real religious man.
So the stereotypes go out the window again..


BTW you have to admit you would appropriate funds for Friday drag day,being a progressive and all.


Thanks now get your commie buddies in china to build me a new keyboard for .10 cents a hr.

[von Mises]

von Mises, thanks for your arguments. Though I have to ask you if you actually HAVE read my post to the end. Does it have anything to do with Bill Gates? Of course I don't envy Bill Gates, as he also gets added value for all he did, while no one is for some reason paying royalties to the descendants of that wheel-inventor, who no doubt did more to the humanity than Bill Gates.

Bill was just used as an example.


Slavery has something to do with capitalism, and you know it. Speaking about computers, where are nearly all of them assembled? In USA? In Britain? No, in the countries where people have a simple choice of working for the wage the multinationals offer them or starving.

I live in Europe and most PC's are assembled in Ireland, hardly a 3rd world country. Slavery has more to do with feudalism than capitalism. And since capitalism is founded in the principle that all transactions are voluntary you're not correct.


It depends on the principles you are employing. In USA, well, yes, maybe you are free to run a company by SOME socialist principles, but will you get free education for your children in turn? Or free healthcare?

No because there is no right for free education or free healthcare, for this will always violate individual rights. Now I know that most people here don't give a damn about individual rights especially when they're not in line with the collective, but for me they're fundamental.


Of course, in "my world" you will not be allowed to earn as much as Bill Gates while the people in other part of it are starving. Of course you will not be allowed to own natural resources, as they should be owned collectively. Remember, air is also a natural resource. Would you like it to be owned by a corporation?
Of course, you will not be allowed to live without working, making your money work for you.
Apart from this, yes, you will be allowed to run the enterprise the capitalist way.


Come on, notyetacommie, you know that people aren't starving because of capitalism.

I was referring to property rights actually. Would I be allowed to keep the profits or are you going to tax them for let's say 95%?

(Edited by von Mises at 4:15 pm on Mar. 28, 2003)

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:04 pm on Mar. 28, 2003


Yes, chiak47, you are amusing...and the fact that you live off your wife only makes all your homophobic references even funnier. All these images you post of guns and death and generals...and then it's time for you to wash the dishes? That's some serious compensation going on there.


Dude, I want to be Chiak. Work is for chumps.

Chiak, does your wife have a sister? No don't dodge the tough qestions.

[kelvin90701]

Redstar. Does communism have a chance today? I do not see any brilliant communist leadership or authorship alive today? I offer than the average men of communism alive today will screw up even bigger than Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

[Chiak47]

She has a whole shit load of them.
Most live in San Fransisco.1 lives here in Chicago.
All are from a typical "progressive" home.I mean that in a good way.I have to work hard to curve the ideals mine was spoon fed.She says the same about me.

[kelvin90701]

Any of them single? If I hooked up with one of them, would she buy me a Barret BMG in hot pink?

Hey commies. See it is all your fault. This is what Chiak and I are left to talk about.

[Som]

Really an odd premise for a thread, That somehow since two or so theorists got it 'wrong', then somehow thousands others can never get it right. Of course that doesn't apply to Marx, as marx never really proposed a specific system of socialism, so whether or not marx would approve of or hate mao and Lenins ideas and practice is really not possible to say.

Its a sort of warped logic that basically needs to pretend there aren't other 'geniuses' with entirely different visions of a socialist future.

It also assumes that just because these specific leaders came to power means that somehow their intelligence regarding political and economic systems is all that much greater. It just means their good at gaining power.

There are plenty of other great thinkers of socialism whose ideas just haven't been put into practice. New ideas are still being thought up, new ways of doing things, practicle games so on.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 6:03 am on Mar. 28, 2003
These great thinkers of Communism, could not produce a viable system. In essence they got it wrong. Why then do modern Communist propose they are smarter than these great thinkers and can do a better job?


They did create viable systems so in essence they got it right. The only thing they did wrong is to die. I do not suggest I can so a better job, I only want to emulate what they did.