: : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Your way off base here. I never intimated that. Your putting words in my mouth.
: : I said, in response to your question, that there was no competion in a debate between Capitalism and the alternatives, particualarly Socialism and Communism. I was not referring to this debate room. Who emigrates from the US after all to Cuba? Or N. Korea? It's a non-starter. The only way that those who push for Socialism and Communism can win is by shooting the opposition in their beds. See the quote from Marx.
: How about all the countries where Communists or Soicialists have come to power through teh ballot box? Are you just going to pretend they don''t exist? Lots of Communist governments have been democratically elected. Marx himself said that in England, teh US and Holland, communsim would come to power through the ballot box or not at all. And by teh way., 'the forcible overthrow' of the bourgeois system can be interpreted in amny ways. To me it means that the party of the people, when it wins a majority in Congress or whatever, ought to pass laws that nationalize property and redistribute it; in otehr words, we should use the force OF LAW to redistribute property. If the ruling calss then starts bombing hospitals or murdering single mothers to protest their loss of property, then they are the onew sho have initiated violence. Force need not mean armed force, Frenchy.
If Marx meant what you claim he meant, why didn't he refer to the ballot box? Did he not know the difference between the ballot box and force? Your interpretation is bogus and disengenuous. He said precisely what he meant. Just look at the many times that force has been used to acheive a Marxist utopia.
: : C'mon, if I really felt that way about this site, why would I spend as much time here as I do?
: : Maybe your a little more wrapped up in this then (oooops...) you believe you are.
: : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$While I'm at it; The comment I made about the dime, remember? Again, you mistook my comment for something it wasn't, and in the context of my post I don't see how that is possible.
: : I meant "If you want to start a Socialist/Communist community, fine, use your own money to do it with. Don't be screwing over the tax-payers to create your utopia on earth." And, as I recall, I asked rhetorically wheather or not LBJ's War on Poverty succeeded.
: : To you these points may be dreck, but to others they are proof that socialism/social engineering is a loser.
: : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$And further, while I'm at it.
: : I posted that quoted by Marx in response to Lark's statement of Oct. 14, 1999; "As an ardent believer in freedom of speech I believe that you should be allowed to hate but don't ever think of acting on it."
: : Here's what I thought of when I read that; During the Viet-Nam war it was the leftists who were blowing up buildings on college campus' and blowing up draft offices, and blowing up corporate headquarters and inciting violence in ghettos. The left will and has used violence when ever it suited them. Marx advocated it's use to attain political goals. Lark may not be old enough to remember Nam, but I know full well what the Left can do. Has done.
: Vietnam again? I suppose you preferred the violence of the Right when they killed 3 million Vietnamese. Any terrorist acts the Left committed in the US (and I don't really approve, I would prefer passive disobedience myself) were in reposne to teh atrocities committed by the Right.
Your position then is classic amongnst the Left: I'll decide when violence is necessary because I know better than everybody else.
The Right killed three million Viet-Namese? Seems that I recall something about the N. Vietnamese invading the South. Think that those deaths would have taken place if Ho Chi Minh hadn't invaded? Ever hear about self-defense?
Yes, Viet-Nam now, Viet-Nam tomorrow and Viet-Nam always. The Leftists of this country showed their true colors in that conflict and no one should forget their pusillanimous behavior towards the duty owed to their own country and their contributions to helping the enemy in time of war.
Particularly the "intelligentsia" of that era.