Communism vs Capitalism

[Acriku]

1. Well, let me put it this way: Atheism is growing (as a percentage of the world's population, not just in absolute numbers) at a record speed. So, obviously, religion as a whole is in decline. I was talking about the stagnation of Christianity in particular because this is the religion that interests us, and because most of the new atheists are ex-Christians.

A lot of ex-christians that I've come into contact with have become atheists because of how bad their fundamentalist christian community was. They recognized the hypocrisy, extremism, and all-around silliness, and have thus dropped christianity. But that's what I've seen.

[Edric O]

A lot of ex-christians that I've come into contact with have become atheists because of how bad their fundamentalist christian community was. They recognized the hypocrisy, extremism, and all-around silliness, and have thus dropped christianity. But that's what I've seen.

This is something I'll never be able to understand. Yes, I know that many Christians are absolute hypocrites or just plain idiots, but what does that have to do with Christianity? How can anyone reject a set of beliefs for such superficial reasons?

Personally, I never judge ideas and beliefs by the behaviour of the people who claim to follow them. I judge them by their own merits.

Many sets of ideas and principles, especially Christianity and Communism, have suffered a great deal because of the actions of self-serving hypocrites.

[Acriku]

The difference between you and them is that your relationships with other Christians does not consist entirely of, or with a majority of such fundamentalist christians. When the whole institution is a certain way, from your point of view, why would you think it would be otherwise?

[Caid Ivik]

1. If before 50 years it was 10% and now it is 15%, well, it is 50% higher, but still not very much. For again, losses are especially in smaller churches, which now reap harvest of their heresies. You know, spread of islam would be even higher if they had a one official church.

2a. You see, they failed. No need to describe why, only important thing is that they failed. As any fanatical uprising, it ended in bloody oppressive regime.

2b. You know not what is a slavery. In last NG was a good article about it. Even if you think you aren't paid by your worth, you are paid, and you can't be sold, held or beaten. You can shit at it and raise own food on field, if you want. That's a diametral difference between slavery and employment. You talk about communists, which are pushing the "evolution"? Ok, then I can call as communist anyone who wants a higher wage: we can start with thieves, then thieving red regimes (USSR etc.), maybe we can add all those stamgasts who sit whole day in pub suffering over government. It is interesting how you want strict differentiation when I talk about Stalin and how you have no problem with generalising socdems, unioners and red fanatics.

3. One can become too fat and then he needs more than the others. I would say that sharing system would easily fail on such things. And there are many others. You know, the motivation can be here only if they would create a common mind. You must rewrite soul, that's a hard task. Forcing people to love someone - that's nothing new.

4. Guevara fought an ideological fight. No cool serving the patria like Rommel, but he rallied men and fought for a cause - like i.e. Muhammad. If Guevara fought for Cuba, then he would be written to history as iredentical agent, red imperialist. As Hitler fought his war to spread the ideology of german superiority, Guevara fought to spread his own teaching of value of work. Hitler had in his own view a good intention: thinking of Germany was to conquer the world, and for his fellows it was considered as a good intention. Guevara's intention, crushing the capitalism, is also destructive in one and constructive in other way. But still, if he looked on the thing which will come, he had also good intention in his view. Only difference was at scale.

[Edric O]

1. LOL, so we're all evil heretics who deserve to be smited by the Lord for the terrible sin of not recognizing the authority of your allmighty Pope? Riiiiight... ::)

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough, but I'd like to remind you that I bow to no one. It's called having a free spirit. You should try it some time.

2a. Oh, I see... so you mean that all those tiny little things like the historical context, the political and economic system before the revolution, the level of technology and industrialization (or lack thereof), the leaders of the revolution and their relations with each other, etc. don't really matter at all, do they? ::)

If you don't care HOW, WHEN, and not even WHY the Soviet Union failed, it becomes painfully obvious that your understanding of its history (and the history of communism in general) is shallow at best and completely non-existant at worst.

You seem to be able to demolish your own arguments much better than I can. I'm glad you're not on my side.

2b. Of course there's a difference between slavery and employment. Any marxist will tell you that. Slavery is an ancient form of exploitation. Serfdom is a medieval form of exploitation. Employment is a capitalist form of exploitation. Slavery is worse than serfdom, which is worse than employment. But despite their superficial differences, all 3 of them are just different versions of the same thing. That's why we often call employment "wage slavery" - because it's essentially the same as slavery, although in a very dilluted form. If employment is X, then serfdom is X^2, and slavery is X^3.

And let me remind you that a "generalisation" means a general statement which is flawed. So when you accuse someone of making a generalisation, you have to actually point out why his general statements are flawed.

I already explained it to you many times why stalinism was not socialism or communism. Do you need me to explain again?

3. That's pure communism you are talking about. And I never said it would be easy to achieve that kind of system. But even though it will be very hard (and it will take a long time) to get to a point where society works along the principle "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", history proves that such a society IS possible - because it has been done before. And the first who did it were the early Christians.

There is no need to "rewrite the soul", or anything like it. If you paid any attention to what Jesus has taught us, you would have noticed that the only kind of social system which fits His teachings is communism. The "communist soul" is the same as the Christian soul.

4. So you're saying that fighting fanatically for "the fatherland" (even when you know that the fatherland is ruled by a bunch of lunatics) is somehow inherently better than fighting for a noble ideal?

You accuse Che Guevara of fighting (and dying) for what he believed in, yet you don't accuse your own capitalist freedom fighters of the same thing. Yes, it's true that the nazis also fought for what they believed in. Then again, so did George Washington. So did Abraham Lincoln. So did Rosevelt and Churchill in WW2.

Why exactly are you so quick to compare Guevara with Hitler, and not with Lincoln or Rosevelt? After all, from the point of view of "fighting for what you believe in", there is no difference between them. Well, except for the fact that Guevara actually fought in the front lines side by side with his soldiers.

[Caid Ivik]

1. In fact...there is something true on it. National churches are small organisations, usually very close to government. They have too low theological resources to maintain progress, you know, to catch up with time. In christianity we have one stronger worldwide Church, thank God, which is used by other as resource of most inovations. Especially we have to thank John XXIII, without that council would be all churches dying. He finally opened gates to the others. If a church can't fit the time, describe problems of present, then how it can have stable numbers? This has nothing about myths of papal majesty or remembrances on renaissance warrior popes. It is a fact that last fifty years were differences at numbers too visible.

2a. We talk about more than 50 countries, not only USSR! And USSR was already industrialized, foreigners changed feudal state to classic marxistic capitalism (don't forget Marx' germanical talkings about russian inferiority were about half-century before revolt). And WW1? Revolution would be also violent, don't you think? It is weird that i.e.Czechs didn't revolt, altough there was powerful capitalism and country was de facto untouched by war. Marx' theories already failed.

2b. Well, thinking of ancient times was rather else. I am suprised how such dialectically thinking man as Hegel could not consider that. You know, slaves were not a part of society. People thought about them as things, they were some "black man-like beasts good only to work", usually taken from natural tribes considered as barbaric. But in feudalism it was rather else. Ages were though, serfdom was considered as only way to survive. Baron protected his servants, and they paid him for it. And what really twists your theory, servants usually had own slaves. In middle ages less, but before them they had. We can talk with occam razor, but then we won't find the core of problem. And about generalising, don't make yourself you don't understand me. You are just playing with grouping separate factions very unhonestly.

3. So, those jokes like free will, personal responsibility and salvation trough sacrifice were erased from romanian orthodox teachings? Well, then I must reconsider point 1... ::)

4. If it's better or worse, it has nothing to do with fact it is different. Rommel was a mercenary, he fought because it was his duty, employment. With time it brings some feeling of honor, but that you can see anywhere, even taxi riders have a guild. But Guevara fought for his own pleasure, maybe he set some chimaera into far future, but when he walked with AK-47 it was only an abstract thought. This is far from Churchill, who from start called for one target: crushing Hitler and then turning to previous system which proven itself functional; but also Churchill was like Castro to Guevara, only an ideologist, but in fact also a politician doing just his work, employment! His generals fought for king and country, their personal view on nazism was unconsidered. They just wanted to defeat the enemy and thus accomplish what they are paid for. Also Roosevelt is for other chapter...

[Edric O]

1. Yes, let's analyze the evolution of the various Churches from the point of view of historical materialism. ;D

But seriously, I see that you've finally made a logical argument in favour of your claims. That's encouraging. However, I have no way of either confirming or disproving your point, because I don't have any data about the individual popularity of each Christian Church. I don't know whether you Catholics are doing better or worse than the rest of us. But from what I've seen recently, I'd say you're doing worse. At least in Western Europe and America...

So anyway, do you have any statistics to show me?

2a. The trouble was that all other countries of the old Soviet bloc either used the Soviet model for their revolutions (and therefore made the exact same mistakes), or had their regimes imposed directly from Moscow, which was even worse. So the only place where socialism failed was the USSR, because that was the only place where socialism was actually attempted in the first place.

Russia was barely out of feudalism in 1917. Industrialization had just begun, with extremely tiny steps. The bulk of it took place much later, under Stalin's regime.

A violent revolution is one thing, but a violent revolution AND a World War AND a civil war AND a foreign invasion is a bit too much... Any country would be crippled after that. Russia was a poverty-stricken, backwards agrarian country devastated by 6 years of bloody war. And as if that wasn't enough, Lenin also made a couple of fatal errors. It would have been a real surprise if socialism hadn't failed...

2b. I don't see your point. What you said was mostly correct (except for the feudal lords protecting their serfs part - in reality, the serfs always suffered more than anyone else when their lords went to war, and there was never any "bright side" to serfdom), but you haven't actually contradicted anything of what I said. So have we settled this issue or not?

Like I said before: If employment is X, then serfdom is X^2, and slavery is X^3.

3. Free will is vital to socialism and communism. Revolution is an act of free will. And so is democracy. So far from being a difference, the importance placed on free will is yet another similarity between Christianity and communism.

The same applies to personal responsibility.

As for salvation, that's a religious concept, which has nothing to do with politics. A political/economic system is a part of this life, not the next.

And by the way, isn't it a part of Catholic doctrine that the saints are role models which should serve as good examples for all believers? Well then, I suggest you follow the example of the Apostles:

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

4. Wow, so you can even read the thoughts of a man who died before you were born! ::) You know exactly what Che Guevara was thinking when he was holding his AK-47, and you can sense that he got some sort of pleasure from living in the jungle and putting his life in danger all the time! ::)

Anyway, except for your absurd comments about Che Guevara's mind, I agree with the rest of what you said in that paragraph. But notice that I did not pick Churchill and Rosevelt randomly. They were not military leaders, they were politicians and ideologues. And so was Hitler. So by pointing out the flaws in the comparison between Guevara and Churchill, you have also pointed out the flaws in your own comparison between Guevara and Hitler. A military commander is one thing, a politician is another. Not to mention the major differences in their ideas and principles...

So, since you basically agreed with me, I think we can also declare point 4 closed.

[Acriku]

I wanted to reply to Edric's post about incentives of communism. I don't see how a government that takes on so many people can retain the incentive to "better themselves and express their creativity." Also, the incentive you mentioned before this one does not account to an effective incentive. First off, different jobs take on different amounts of physical labor, and different amounts of mental labor. How can one person continue to work their ass off mentally and physically when some kid working at a McDonalds gets the same thing, with less work mentally and physically? For the better of humanity is a good reason, but I doubt many people will abide by that unselfish cause.

[Edric O]

What, a McDonald's? In communism?? :O *runs away in terror* ;D

But anyway, I get your point. You're asking why would people want to do the difficult jobs if they can get the same things for doing easier ones. Well, first of all keep in mind that this is communism we're talking about, so there is no government to speak of. Also, this is happening several hundred years in the future, so it's reasonable to assume that all the really crappy jobs are done by machines. And finally, it's very important to remember that communism is a system in which everyone's material needs are satisfied.

Once we've settled that, we can analyze your argument: You're basically asking why would someone want to be a rocket scientist when he can just make hamburgers all day. Well, for me the answer is simple: Making hamburgers all day is boring. It's a boring and unrewarding life. Definately not a life I'd like to live. Some people will naturally disagree. And that's good, because it means we'll always have someone to make hamburgers. But the people who feel the same way I do will be the rocket scientists, the doctors, etc.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Western Europe (excl.Italy and Spain) and northern America. You see - protestant countries. How many catholics are here I don't know, in Italy and Spain we are very strong, in spanish America are numbers raising. If i.e. number of French catholics is getting lower, it doesn't mean worldwide crisis for Church. We've set a good way after last council, from then is Church again strong. Strong in where it should be. But it is nice how you first abandon religion as a phenomenon, then you lower quota for christians, now catholics, and it seems it is a thing of only few, altough powerful, states.

2a. Hungary and Slovakia were industrialized. Germany was also industrialized. There were unrests even in victorious lands. And if we don't count Mussolini's revolt, all have failed. Russia had a good position: new industrial centres weren't hit, front did not even hit Leningrad. Many soldiers dismobilized themselves, so they were powerful ally against monarchy. And Lenin had support from Germany. Those had to be extremely bad errors he made to shit it.

2b. I talk about idea of serfdom. Ideology is a way else. People could not work and land and still also fight, so they became servants. This was even in ancient Rome, not only middle ages. With professional army is this system obsolete (see Byzantines - they were minimally feudal), but without it, how could state live?

3. Revolution is a thing of free will abominated to anarchy. Only freedom is freedom of conscience. And I am responsible for things I've been given by God. I don't need a communism to take responsibility for me. About saints, don't forget that even Jesus had not worked after he started to preach. Ascetical life was presented only to show, that they don't take nothing for this more they deserve - to prevent conceit. Communism is other, here you have to work, to produce. There can be no saint in communism, maybe just a martyr...

4. He thought about an antiutopical system, which will raise in the land after he will loot it enough. I would like to see it. His idea was twisted and destructive. With few people around him, how could he even think it can be succesful? People are not bugs to play with.

[Acriku]

Once we've settled that, we can analyze your argument: You're basically asking why would someone want to be a rocket scientist when he can just make hamburgers all day. Well, for me the answer is simple: Making hamburgers all day is boring. It's a boring and unrewarding life. Definately not a life I'd like to live. Some people will naturally disagree. And that's good, because it means we'll always have someone to make hamburgers. But the people who feel the same way I do will be the rocket scientists, the doctors, etc.

Hmm, fulfill my lifelong dream of making cars all day everyday, or work for the Waste Management company riding the back of a garbage truck gathering garbage? I seriously doubt that if people didn't need to, the much-needed yet horrible jobs will never be filled. People do the grunt work because they have to to gain a living, but if everybody is already guaranteed a living, there's no need for the person's well-being for it. It just doesn't work.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Well, what can I say? You've managed to convince me that things aren't as bad as I first thought.

But there is one final problem I'd like to point out to you: The countries with the highest numbers of atheists also happen to be the most advanced countries (economically and technologically) in the world. The countries where religion is at its strongest (including your vaunted Latin America) are mostly 3rd world countries. In short, it seems that atheism is taking over the future and we're left with the past. Doesn't that even slightly worry you?

2a. All those industrialized countries you mentioned would have been almost perfect for making the transition to socialism in 1918. But their revolutions were crushed. None of them failed. They were crushed by capitalist armies. That's a completely different thing altogether.

As for Tsarist Russia, the fact is that it was among the least industrialized (if not THE least industrialized) countries in Europe. The vast majority of its population worked in agriculture, and serfdom had only been absolished in the late 19th century! And even though WW1 left all the major industrial centers intact, the civil war didn't. And both wars horribly decimated Russia's population.

Like I said, Russian socialism never had much of a chance to begin with.

2b. No one ever became a serf by choice, Caid. They were always forced into it by their local feudal lords, usually because they couldn't pay their debts. And then their children would be born into serfdom, and there would be no way out for them.

3. Oh, so now you're saying that "too much" free will is "bad"? Funny, I was under the impression that you were praising free will just a few posts ago. I strongly suggest that you make up your mind. As for myself, my position on this matter is clear: the more free will, the better.

What you said about Jesus and the saints is perfectly true, but also perfectly irrelevant. My point is that the values preached by Jesus (compassion, love for your fellow man, charity, brotherhood, etc.) are exactly the same as the values of communism. Also, the Apostles and the first Christians lived in a basically communist society (as we can see from their own description of it).

4. Here, educate yourself on what Che Guevara really wanted and fought for. Read his own words.

[Edric O]

Hmm, fulfill my lifelong dream of making cars all day everyday, or work for the Waste Management company riding the back of a garbage truck gathering garbage? I seriously doubt that if people didn't need to, the much-needed yet horrible jobs will never be filled. People do the grunt work because they have to to gain a living, but if everybody is already guaranteed a living, there's no need for the person's well-being for it. It just doesn't work.

Wait, didn't you read what I said in the first paragraph? I made a point out of the fact that since we can only expect this kind of communist society to appear several hundred years in the future, it's reasonable to assume that all the really crappy jobs are done by machines. So the "garbage man" is the guy designing a new model of automated garbage truck.

[Acriku]

Yes I read that, but I didn't think you were seriously putting your entire ideology on the hopes of automated garbage trucks.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Not exactly. Take Japan, that's a deep religous land (altough not from our view), and still competing West. I am not worried that there are atheists on the earth. Everyone has some motivation, and when he will start thinking about it, he must create a higher target, other way is to drown in deprimation. Without religion you can't fully live. One native saying tells, as bird flies and fish swims, human prays. Only problem is to maintain christianity and islam as largest religions.

2a. In Russia, Lenin had support of many selfdismobilized troops. If those revolts would have enough support even in more industrialized countries, effect would be same. See France, it was hit by war much more than Russia, and here was nothing. And about serfdom - see Britain, here you have officially feudalism even nowadays!

2b. Not exactly. Children could abolish agricultural life and become a mercenary in lord's guard. If they fought bravely, they could rise at ranks and once become lords too. For a militaristic world such as it was, it was the best choice. Past times weren't democratic, you had to do what you thought as the most logical. It was a fight for life. But I think we've missed the point, and that's evolution of slavery, feudalism and capitalism, I think. So let's leave Europe and go rather souther: how would you describe medieval muslim societies?

3. What you do preach now is anarchy. But know ye that only true freedom is clear conscience.

4. Ah, then sorry for misunderstanding. It seems he is just a nationalist...

"Cuba's victory lies not in Soviet rockets, nor in the solidarity of the socialist world, nor in the solidarity of the whole world. Cuba's victory lies in the unity, the labour, and the spirit of sacrifice of its people." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/03/28.htm

...or classic partistic leninist

"They follow their vanguard, composed of the Party, of the most advanced workers, of the advanced men who move along bound to the masses and in close communion with them. The vanguards have their eyes on the futures and tis recompenses, but the latter are not envisioned as something individual; the reward Is the new society where human beings will have different characteristics: the society of communist man." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm

Thanks for a lesson ::)

[Edric O]

Yes I read that, but I didn't think you were seriously putting your entire ideology on the hopes of automated garbage trucks.

You mean the hope of better technology... And I'm not relying on it. As any communist will tell you, our immediate goal is socialism. Communism will only come much later. And it will require a certain level of technology, just like capitalism requires a certain level of technology.

[Edric O]

Caid:

1. Japan and the "Asian Tigers" are the exceptions... And they're part of Eastern civilization, so it's no wonder that they are immune to the rise of atheism in Western civilization.

And you talk about "maintaining Christianity and Islam as the largest religions" as if it's child's play... Well, Islam certainly doesn't need any help, seeing how it's the world's fastest growing religion and all. But Christianity sure does... And how exactly do you plan to help it?

2a. Exactly. If things would have been just a little different, if more workers (and especially more soldiers) would have joined the revolutions... we might have been victorious. But they didn't, and the only revolution that wasn't crushed by a capitalist army happened to be a revolution in a country which was simply not ready for socialism yet...

As for France, keep in mind that even in the countries which didn't have outright revolutions, there was still major unrest and rioting. And France had plenty of that.

2b. First of all, the status of serfs was different in different places. I wasn't aware that serfs were allowed to pursue military careers, but I suppose your feudalism wasn't exactly the same as our feudalism. In any case, there's no denying the fact that feudalism was a tyrannical and oppressive system, and that no one was a serf by choice.

Second, I don't understand what you mean by "medieval muslim societies". Are you talking about countries like Saudi Arabia? They are the last bastions of feudalism (or, to be more exact, a mixed feudalist/capitalist system) in our world. Their aristocrats are far more like capitalist businessmen than feudal lords.

3. No, what I preach is free will. And I also preach free speech. You conservatives used to be scared by them in the 19th century, but I thought you had accepted them by now...

4. You're welcome. But I suggest you stop trying to stick various labels on Che Guevara, because you'll soon find out that he doesn't really fit any of your "typical communist" categories. Like most real communists, he took ideas from various marxist thinkers, added his own political ideas, and created his own personal philosophy.

[zamboe]

Che Guevara was a terrorist. The worst kind.

And I am happy I can say "was".

After cuban revolution, he entered in to a country - Bolivia- in a ilegal way with a different name and using a passaport from Uruguay, along with other cuban terrorists, moved to an isolated area and started killing the local farmers if they didn't join them. Typical of him.

Fortunately he was eliminated by the local/legal army in a short and fast operation.

[Edric O]

The generally accepted definition of a "terrorist" is an armed rebel who kills innocent people. Che Guevara never killed unarmed civilians. And I'm not aware of any incident involving Bolivian farmers.

Che Guevara lead guerrila armies in several countries, including some African ones. But his war was always against the government, and his troops fought government troops. Whether you're on his side or not, you have to admit he was a legitimate combatant.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Of course, religion of Japan is far more different. As well as their culture, despite of globalisation. But we have i.e.Italy or Spain, powerfully rising economics, and yet religious. Also progress of South America isn't best, but improves. And here we have a future stronghold.

2a. Simply, workers were not enough exploited to start a revolt? Bah, this theory I've presented once too, as marxism must first create the anti-system and then think about revolution ::) And France became finally democratical in 70s of 19th century with support of Prussia, so don't waste time with their spirit of freedom.

2b. Every castle needed some guard, and you can't say all were of lord's family! In fact, there was a choice as well, but not so wide as today. As for those days' traditionalism, one choice was absolute: remain being a peasant, thus ensuring some food. Mercenary has no such insurance. About muslims, here had many servants also slaves, so this is rather complicated.

3. Greatest champions of freedom called themselves conservatives too. Churchill, de Gaulle, Truman, most of disidents after war, Bush... You have free will. Even free speach. But not all possibilities are free, we are not gods.

4. Every human has own thoughts. But he was bound to Cuba so much, that I think he just wanted to spread Castro's power. That's what I see on it. And he wanted to set same government as on Cuba - or here. And our system of Party wasn't best.

[Edric O]

1. If we have to "retreat to a new stronghold", that's a big sign that things aren't going quite so well for Christianity...

2a. A revolutionary situation isn't as simple as "being exploited enough to revolt". History is full of examples of people who were horribly exploited, but who did not revolt. For one thing, no one will revolt unless they feel that they have a good chance of actually winning.

And your theory is illogical: If marxists have the power to decide a country's political and economic system, that means they have already won! So why would they want to create the conditions for another communist revolution?

As for France, keep in mind that they had 4 revolutions in the space of less than 100 years. I'd say that's enough to prove the strength of their "spirit of freedom", as you put it.

2b. Of course that the rank-and-file soldiers and castle guards came from peasant families, but seeing what miserable lives those soldiers had, I wouldn't exactly call this military career an "opportunity"... And keep in mind that the commanders were always from the nobility.

3. "Bush, the great champion of freedom"! Hahahahahahahaha!! ;D That's just hillarious...

But anyway, it's funny that you mention all the conservative WW2 Allied leaders as "champions of freedom" and conveniently forget that a large part of the underground resistance movements against nazi occupation were made up of communists.

We've all had our champions of freedom in the past. But what I'm talking about is the present, and the conflict between my ideas and yours. And as I was saying, I will always defend free will and free speech from your authoritarian ways. You cherish authority; I cherish freedom.

4. Yes, that's reasonable to assume, and I pretty much agree... Che Guevara spent so much time fighting to establish socialism in new countries that he never took the time to look more carefully at the soviet model and see its errors...

Well, I guess we can call this point closed.

[Caid Ivik]

1. Religion isn't like an army, it can't just move to other region. We have already a stronghold in some european countries (Italy, Spain, Poland...), but also a new one in South America. South American way will flow to USA and Canada and reestablish what small churches have spilled. By the way, it is estimated that spanish population will raise to nearly 20% in USA until 2015.

2a. Maybe much of that you call "exploitation" isn't as horrible. Let my chief has larger income than me, if he wants... We can't look on every possibility of taking more, like people's saying: better sparrow in hand than pigeon on the roof.

2b. Even nobility could die. See Richard I.: one arrow and English needed new king. When a unit lost all noble leaders, best soldiers were raised to this status. It wasn't as closed as it seems, just harder. As well as their life wasn't best - but if you fought bravely, you could raise even in this.

3. Well, Tito first eliminated all bourgeois commanders and then started his own war. Why he was silent when serbian monarchists tried to take over? Here, half of slovak army under command of generals Golian and Viest (my grand-uncle, by the way; both were commanded from London) was making preparations, when independent russian partisans made such mess they had to start too quickly. Of course, when Red Army came they eliminated Germans, but maybe those 60 000 dead in battle for Dukla would be less... When later someone said the work of Moscow-commanded partisans was more damaging, he ended in prison for state betrayal. THIS is that free speech they were fightning for?

[Edric O]

1. Time will tell... that's all there's left to say on this issue. You are optimistic; I am a bit more cautious.

2a. Just because the slaves happen to be treated well by their masters, that doesn't make slavery morally justified. Similarly, just because the various socialist reforms adopted over the past 70 years and the mixed economy have reduced capitalist exploitation in the West to a level where most people don't feel it any more, that doesn't mean that exploitation is justified.

2b. You're talking about highly improbable exceptions, not about the norm. Sure, the son of a serf could get to live a better life, if he was extremely lucky... just like I could find a million dollars lying in the street tomorrow. But the odds are ridiculously small, so it doesn't prove anything.

3. Unfortunately, the freedom they were fighting for ended up being crushed under the stalinist boot...

And Tito's partisans didn't fight alongside the monarchists because they weren't allies, obviously. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

[Caid Ivik]

1. If WE will actively help it, christianity will rise as well. Study it, spread the believe, and live as you teach, what else you can do?

2a. Don't put here slavery. Slaves weren't even considered as humans, it is so far from today's view on human that we can't talk about it by such way. You can end your work anytime, if you wish. Slave would be killed for it.

2b. Highly improbable? Think about second crusade, or 14th century plague. These actions were slaughters of nobility. Not saying about many civil wars. There was much time. Also there was one more way - monastery.

3. Those communists were in fact controlled from Moscow. I would say such view on spanish republicans brought army to rule for next 40 years...

[Edric O]

1. Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along! The fate of Christianity is up to US. We must do our best to spread the faith, while at the same time practicing what we preach and fighting against the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in the Church these days.

2a. Being unemployed might not kill you (actually, without the socialist element called welfare, it WOULD kill you), but it won't leave you in a very pleasant situation, either. Employment is essentially just a very dilluted and more civilized form of slavery. That is why I made that comparison.

2b. The plague didn't selectively target the nobility, Caid. All people suffered from it, from the poorest beggar to the richest king. As for the crusades and other wars, there was this little thing called "inheritance". When a nobleman died, his estate was taken over by one of his relatives, not given to a lucky serf!

Serfdom cannot be morally justified.

3. Tito sure as hell wasn't controlled from Moscow. Remember how much he and Stalin hated each other, and the diplomatic split between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia?

But in the case of other "communists", you are absolutely right. Stalin constantly worked to consolidate his power by helping his loyal puppets take over as many communist groups as possible. He tried to turn the entire communist movement into his personal tool. That is why I think Stalin hurt communism more than any other man ever did.