Right-wing

[Edric O]

Ho started a guerilla war against French in 50's, after de facto succesful fight with japanese invasion. Vietkong army was his work, all commanders his people.

And since when is fighting for the liberation of your country from a foreign colonial empire a BAD thing?

Marx used darwinism too. But in even more primitive scale. Not strength of intellect, money or spirituality, but strength of pure numbers. His logic was weird, he tought that if the "proletariate" is the largest, it should prevail over puny "capitalist" caste and assimilate or annihilate them. THEN we can talk about "brotherhood" or "equality". State would never know what I need, also I won't to fill my needs by myself, not by others.

You obviously don't have the slightest clue about Marxism. I have already told you about this many times, yet you persist in your error and continue to hold a completely twisted and utterly incorrect definition of Marxism. When I try to tell you that you're wrong and should actually learn what it is all about, you keep saying that you know Marxism better than the Marxists... or even Marx himself, apparently. ::)

But anyway, Ace does have a point:

BTW I'd like to point out how more than one left-winged person has taken it upon themselves to distrupt the point of this thread to their own ends while its counterpart remains undisturbed (last I checked).

We are going off-topic. (and that is why I have refrained from continuing my argument in this post, and just corrected a couple of false/misleading statements)

[Warlord Ripskar]

When was butchering innocent men, women and children, forcing people to collect unexploded munitions and smuggle weaponry intended for terrorist attacks a bad thing?

Hmmm. let me think... :O

[Edric O]

1. He did neither of those things to any innocent people.

2. Those "terrorist attacks" were against foreign occupation forces that held his country as their property and his people as their servants.

Your beloved royalists enslaved half the world, Ripskar. But thankfully, nothing can defeat the people's will to be free. Death to all kings, emperors and tyrants! Power to the people!

[Caid Ivik]

And since when is fighting for the liberation of your country from a foreign colonial empire a BAD thing?

Maybe we can accept sometimes even bombing all churches in town just because they were built by foreigns, but not if they start to conquer other land. Vietkong was aggressive army, South Vietnam wasn't only victim. Ho saw in every European an imperialist, but the biggest was he himself. Ripskar hit the right point. Do you think those Vietnamese live free now? Maybe in african countries the decolonisation bring some liberty, just it became an anarchy.

No, some people DO NOT KNOW how to lead the state. Those, who can, should teach them. Decolonisation was too fast, if it would last for about 200 years more, it may bring some effect. My subscribe tells all.

Long live the Imperium!

You obviously don't have the slightest clue about Marxism.

Again your spamming "argument", that I know nothing ;D If you don't have any idea to base your argument on, then say rather no comment.

[Edric O]

Maybe we can accept sometimes even bombing all churches in town just because they were built by foreigns, but not if they start to conquer other land. Vietkong was aggressive army, South Vietnam wasn't only victim. Ho saw in every European an imperialist, but the biggest was he himself. Ripskar hit the right point. Do you think those Vietnamese live free now?

They are far more free than they ever were under the colonial boot of France, or under the fascist South Vietnamese regime kept up by the Americans.

The Vietnamese despised the oppresive government in the South, and its American overlords. It was the SOUTH Vietnamese who formed the Viet Cong! They liberated themselves.

No, some people DO NOT KNOW how to lead the state. Those, who can, should teach them. Decolonisation was too fast, if it would last for about 200 years more, it may bring some effect. My subscribe tells all.

Long live the Imperium!

You DISGUST me. You are a pathetic white supremacist with delusions of grandeur. "Some people do not know how to lead the state" - what utter crap! You think that they are inferior to you, don't you? You SUPPORT colonial empires. You want to see your beloved European nations dominate and enslave the rest of the world, on account of them being "barbarians". Millions of deaths and countless atrocities were done by the "civilizing" Europeans that you love so much!

But the nations of Asia, Africa and South America are now free, precisely because imperialist racists like yourself were defeated by the heroes of freedom! In the words of Che Guevara:

Hasta la victoria siempre!

(and yes, I have lost my temper for a while there - people who support slavery have that effect on me)

Again your spamming "argument", that I know nothing ;D If you don't have any idea to base your argument on, then say rather no comment.

Caid: Marxism is what I say it is, and nothing else.

Edric: Your idea of Marxism is utterly incorrect. That is NOT what we stand for! Go and READ what Marxists actually wrote before you talk about it!

Caid: No. I know better. I don't need to read anything. Marxism is what I say it is, and if you're saying any different then you're just trying to run away from the argument.

...I give up...

[Dante]

Don't lose hope entirely Edric. We do agree on some things. The utter loathing of the belief that people are inferior due to colour, sex, age, nationality, etc. And the abhorrence of discrimination of any kind.

(Don't bring up hatred of humanity in relation to this, that's hating everyone indescriminately).

[Dude_Doc]

Edric, how many times do we have to tell you that a socialist government will never ever in human history, work better than democracies?

[Edric O]

Dude_Doc, what are you talking about? I support a Communist Democracy. I know very well that no political system works better than Democracy (because no one except the people themselves can decide on the good of the people).

Dust Scout, I'm glad we agree on this. I find discrimination and elitism to be utterly sick.

[Warlord Ripskar]

Isn't it odd how rebels all too soon fall into old patterns if they are victorous? It's not so much a trap in course of revolutionary political systems as it is a delusion waiting for for anyone who seizes power.

Republican leaders are defined by their ideology, monarchs being born to rule have no such definition. That is your primary misconception and reason that monarchies are closer to the people than revolutionary governmental forms. Ambition is irrelavent in the context of a Prince as opposed to the Revolutionary leader who aquires his position as a result of corruptible ambition. Furthermore as the successful revolutionary leader is defined by his ideology he susequently becomes the embodiement of the revolution in the eyes of the people. To oppose the leader is to oppose the revolution thus opposition groups become enemies of the revolution. All too often they are executed thus begining the cycle of genocide that characterises the republican states. As the embodiement of the revolutionary ideology the leader becomes the only person capable of leading the republic and as all opposition becomes

counter-revolutionary there can be afforded no room for effective opposition thus the government becomes a dictatorship.

[Caid Ivik]

They are far more free than they ever were under the colonial boot of France, or under the fascist South Vietnamese regime kept up by the Americans.

The Vietnamese despised the oppresive government in the South, and its American overlords. It was the SOUTH Vietnamese who formed the Viet Cong! They liberated themselves.

You DISGUST me. You are a pathetic white supremacist with delusions of grandeur. "Some people do not know how to lead the state" - what utter crap! You think that they are inferior to you, don't you? You SUPPORT colonial empires. You want to see your beloved European nations dominate and enslave the rest of the world, on account of them being "barbarians". Millions of deaths and countless atrocities were done by the "civilizing" Europeans that you love so much!

But the nations of Asia, Africa and South America are now free, precisely because imperialist racists like yourself were defeated by the heroes of freedom! In the words of Che Guevara:

Hasta la victoria siempre!

(and yes, I have lost my temper for a while there - people who support slavery have that effect on me)

You say the same way. Just with more pathetism and more uncontrolled yells, based on hypothetical rumors. Is there a difference in export of democracy, liberal free-trade state of tolerance and export of communistic "dictature or proletariate", centralised state of one ideology with religion based on two icons, Marx and national revolutionniare. Anyway, it's same Europe, both. Just communistic revolters were more brutal, using nationalism and racism of attacked nation, disrupting economy and traditions. Without any sign of free elections, free media, free market, sometimes even free movement. They are making a shame to our civilisation.

This isn't about racial or national inferiority, it's about education. I have aristocratic, maybe too conservative thinking about it. Of course, even in those states may be now people who know what does the word "law" mean, but they live most of their adult time in jails. After so much experiments, it looks like hardcore marxist democracy is unreal. You can say that all those "national liberators" were like Stalin, just abusing the idea. But then - which of their countries is REALLY free?

Caid: Marxism is what I say it is, and nothing else.

Edric: Your idea of Marxism is utterly incorrect. That is NOT what we stand for! Go and READ what Marxists actually wrote before you talk about it!

Caid: No. I know better. I don't need to read anything. Marxism is what I say it is, and if you're saying any different then you're just trying to run away from the argument.

...I give up...

Ehm, you should use at least real quotes. You know, I see in his books also those things you don't want to.

You should count me those, who are actually "real marxists" and who are "abominated marxists". It is changing too often and I'm losing sense of what I can quote ;D

[Dude_Doc]

Dude_Doc, what are you talking about? I support a Communist Democracy. I know very well that no political system works better than Democracy (because no one except the people themselves can decide on the good of the people).

Human communism is not used for this nor any other good reason. Either a country is democratic or communist, pretty much like you can call a nation a "facsist-democracy".

Over to the point. What did the revolutionaries gain on their revolution? Power. Power to do whatever they wanted with the people. When everybody is payed equally, nobody knows how much money they are supposed to have. The state takes it. And what did the state have before the revolution? Nothing. They were beggars out in the streets.

Another scenario was when the USSR tried to invade Europe. To get more people. Not for propaganda, and not for equality. But for more power. To take control of more people means that you have to share money to them too, in turn lowering the income of everybody else who's already in the union. Seeing the pattern?

We, here in this misery country, have a so called "democratic socialist" government. And don't say it's your dream, because we have the highest taxes in the world. One party-leader even refused to pay tax, and secretly lived without being taxed for about 5 years. Guess if she earned much.

The question I am asking is what guarantees do the people have that such thing won't happen? I am living in your "vision" now, but our country is faaar away from democratic-socialism. More like state-takes-it-all,-su_kers kind of country.

[Edric O]

sn't it odd how rebels all too soon fall into old patterns if they are victorous? It's not so much a trap in course of revolutionary political systems as it is a delusion waiting for for anyone who seizes power.

Republican leaders are defined by their ideology, monarchs being born to rule have no such definition. That is your primary misconception and reason that monarchies are closer to the people than revolutionary governmental forms. Ambition is irrelavent in the context of a Prince as opposed to the Revolutionary leader who aquires his position as a result of corruptible ambition. Furthermore as the successful revolutionary leader is defined by his ideology he susequently becomes the embodiement of the revolution in the eyes of the people. To oppose the leader is to oppose the revolution thus opposition groups become enemies of the revolution. All too often they are executed thus begining the cycle of genocide that characterises the republican states. As the embodiement of the revolutionary ideology the leader becomes the only person capable of leading the republic and as all opposition becomes

counter-revolutionary there can be afforded no room for effective opposition thus the government becomes a dictatorship.

In other words, revolutionary republicans may become corrupt after their revolutions are successful, but aristocrats don't have that problem, because they are corrupt from the very beginning!

And as for "monarchies are closer to the people than revolutionary governmental forms"... now this is what I call utter crap! Are you honestly trying to tell me that Louis the 14th (a.k.a. "L'Etat, c'est moi" - "I am the state") was closer to his people than, say, George Washington? LOL.

You say the same way. Just with more pathetism and more uncontrolled yells, based on hypothetical rumors. Is there a difference in export of democracy, liberal free-trade state of tolerance and export of communistic "dictature or proletariate", centralised state of one ideology with religion based on two icons, Marx and national revolutionniare. Anyway, it's same Europe, both. Just communistic revolters were more brutal, using nationalism and racism of attacked nation, disrupting economy and traditions. Without any sign of free elections, free media, free market, sometimes even free movement. They are making a shame to our civilisation.

Ummmm... what exactly are you trying to say here? I can't quite understand your post... It seems that first you try to defend your imperialist position by saying I am no different from you (which is a misunderstanding at best and a vicious lie at worst, seeing how I completely despise imperialism of any kind), and then you rant about the "communism" that we had in Eastern Europe, which was in fact stalinism. (and I hate stalinism just as much as you do)

This isn't about racial or national inferiority, it's about education. I have aristocratic, maybe too conservative thinking about it. Of course, even in those states may be now people who know what does the word "law" mean, but they live most of their adult time in jails. After so much experiments, it looks like hardcore marxist democracy is unreal. You can say that all those "national liberators" were like Stalin, just abusing the idea. But then - which of their countries is REALLY free?

Again, I can't understand what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to bring up the old "communism hasn't worked anywhere" cliche, then remember the fact that communism has only been tried in backwards and impoverished countries, ravaged by years of war...

Ehm, you should use at least real quotes. You know, I see in his books also those things you don't want to.

You should count me those, who are actually "real marxists" and who are "abominated marxists". It is changing too often and I'm losing sense of what I can quote. ;D

Like I said, I give up. You have this fixed idea in your head that Marxism is "evil", and no matter how hard I try to explain to you what Marxism is really all about, you stubbornly refuse to listen.

You also never seem to understand the difference between communism and stalinism...

Human communism is not used for this nor any other good reason. Either a country is democratic or communist, pretty much like you can call a nation a "facsist-democracy".

LOL, that's just stupid. For your information, Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. Therefore, they complement each other. A communist democracy is a system in which the people truly have the power, because they have complete control over the government.

Over to the point. What did the revolutionaries gain on their revolution? Power. Power to do whatever they wanted with the people. When everybody is payed equally, nobody knows how much money they are supposed to have. The state takes it. And what did the state have before the revolution? Nothing. They were beggars out in the streets.

Another scenario was when the USSR tried to invade Europe. To get more people. Not for propaganda, and not for equality. But for more power. To take control of more people means that you have to share money to them too, in turn lowering the income of everybody else who's already in the union. Seeing the pattern?

WHAT? You're not making any sense. First of all, the point of the revolution is to gain FREEDOM. Freedom from slavery and exploitation. Secondly, the USSR was not communist.

Thirdly, the USSR did not invade Europe. Nazi Germany did. (news flash: Red Alert 2 is NOT real)

And finally, just for your information, the newcomers have their own incomes, you know... you don't just spead the same money to more people - you also get more money to share. But in any case, this was just a mathematical correction, seeing how you seem to be talking about an imaginary world where the USSR started some sort of a war in order to get more people into the "union"... (WTF??)

We, here in this misery country, have a so called "democratic socialist" government. And don't say it's your dream, because we have the highest taxes in the world. One party-leader even refused to pay tax, and secretly lived without being taxed for about 5 years. Guess if she earned much.

The question I am asking is what guarantees do the people have that such thing won't happen? I am living in your "vision" now, but our country is faaar away from democratic-socialism. More like state-takes-it-all,-su_kers kind of country.

Errr, hello? You're contradicting yourself. First you say that you're living in "my vision", and then you say that it is NOT, in fact, democratic socialism. Well, if you're "faaar away from democratic-socialism", then you're obviously not living in "my vision", are you?

But anyway, you don't seem to understand how things work. High taxes mean good schools, well-equipped hospitals and clinics, and help for the poor and the elderly. They mean a high level of social welfare, and little or no poverty. You probably take all these things for granted, and that's why you complain about taxes so much. You should visit some countries with lower taxes and see what crappy public services they have, and then you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Dante]

High taxes could also mean none of those things and some very fat nobility waddling around...

[Dude_Doc]

But anyway, you don't seem to understand how things work. High taxes mean good schools, well-equipped hospitals and clinics, and help for the poor and the elderly. They mean a high level of social welfare, and little or no poverty. You probably take all these things for granted, and that's why you complain about taxes so much. You should visit some countries with lower taxes and see what crappy public services they have, and then you'll see what I'm talking about.

And wasn't your vision to live in a democratic-socialist state? If you want to make one for the world, then explain to me how the hell a little miserable country with petty 10 million sitizens can't even live under one?

And you say we have good schools and hospitals? Not a chance. The schools here are just a big joke. More and more "private-schools" are being opened, people are leaving public schools. You know why? Because public schools is like a monkey-house. No order. No good teatchers.

Thirdly, the USSR did not invade Europe. Nazi Germany did. (news flash: Red Alert 2 is NOT real)

Oh, okay. I'm soo wrong. That BIG HUGE NEWS POSTING, WRITTEN IN BIG (AND NOW TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH): "SOVIET PLANS TO INVADE SWEDEN FOUND", and NOT only written in one small "go-to-hell" newspaper, but Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's No. 1 newsblade.

Yeah, probably just some dream I made...

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, you are very like those birds talking one thing they've heard and not thinking about it. And if someone looks on it from the other view, you tell them how idiotic they are, how they cannot understand, how they are uneducated... Maybe you should read something from Johnson, Weiszacker or Adenauer and stop limiting yourself by what says Marx. When I say free market is a good thing, I don't need your insults to know commies are against it.

With imperialism, I was pointing on the "world revolution". Here isn't imperialist the most powerful state, but the most powerful ideology, a party. If you stay with Lenin, you stay with Kominterna, so you may understand (at least this...). Same are exports of culture to less civilised or at least differently civilised parts of the world. And isn't this exactly the imperialism?

In the second part I was talking about effects of capitalistic, free imperialism compared to countries hit by the left-wing revolution. You call it clich

[Dude_Doc]

EdricO, you are very like those birds talking one thing they've heard and not thinking about it. And if someone looks on it from the other view, you tell them how idiotic they are, how they cannot understand, how they are uneducated... Maybe you should read something from Johnson, Weiszacker or Adenauer and stop limiting yourself by what says Marx. When I say free market is a good thing, I don't need your insults to know commies are against it.

Exactly. The only thing we've heard from you, Edric, is how "bad" and "evil" we all are, that the poor and starving people is our fault, that todays systems does not work and so on. You sound exactly like the demonstrators who walked outside my house a month ago: "Freedom for the People", "crush evil capitalism and restrict free trade". You can talk about your own country, if you are having a miserable time living there, I won't care, and I don't think anyone else will too.

[Warlord Ripskar]

In other words, revolutionary republicans may become corrupt after their revolutions are successful, but aristocrats don't have that problem, because they are corrupt from the very beginning!

And as for "monarchies are closer to the people than revolutionary governmental forms"... now this is what I call utter crap! Are you honestly trying to tell me that Louis the 14th (a.k.a. "L'Etat, c'est moi" - "I am the state") was closer to his people than, say, George Washington? LOL.

I told you you had an incorrect preconcieved cartoon like notion of what a Monarchy was and here you quote it exactly. Monarchy is not corrupt from the beginning.

Every republic bar one to my knowledge has either fallen to genocidal dictatorship or avoided that fate by the assassination of the revolutionary leader. That one repulic is the US, somehow they deposed Washington, though they failed to remove the charateristic marks of republicanism, ie the personality cult of the revolutionary leader. The fact that the US alone avoided the common fate of republics should tell you something about the nature of republics.

You yourself are marked by the persoanlity cult as evidenced by your reaction to the inclusion of Lenin and Ho Chih Minh on the list I made earlier.

On the subject of Ho Chih Minh, I was not refering to events in Cambodia, or even South Vietnam. Ho Chih Minh seized power in North Vietnam without resort to any election, and without any opposition of note.

What happened to the North Vietnamese opposition? Did they just, disappear?

Doesn't it even cross your mind to question the fact that North Vietnamese opposition to Ho Chih Minh was as quiet as the grave?

An individual royal is as susceptible to ideology as the next man, but there is no requirement for a royal to subscribe to any ideology as there is with any republican leader. It is the Tyranny of Ideology that creates the conditions for dictatorship and its attendant genocide.

The monarch's role is not to impose an ideology on the subects as does a republican, but to serve the intrests of the kingdom. One quality is required of a monarch, DEVOTION TO DUTY.

That is why the House of Windsor still exists, dereliction of duty condemned the French royalty.

Another aspect of republicanism is Total War. Britain and France fought each other for centuries under their respective monarchies, but the republican leaders were the ones that turned those glorified skirmishes into the march to conquer all Europe.

It was a republican that began WW1, that slaughtered thousands across the planet.

[Edric O]

Well well well, what do you know? The rightists are ganging up on me. Not that it's anything new... The ruling classes have always been mortally afraid of communists, because we fight to liberate their slaves. I suspect that they also fear us because they know that they can never win, and the time of their oppressive rule is slowly running out.

Warlord Ripskar:

You have a wonderful way of bringing up the tiny faults of your opposition while ignoring the gaping errors of your own system.

Many republics have fallen to dictatorship throughout history, but monarchies *ARE* dictatorships. A king is a dictator. There is no difference between the two. They are both leaders who rule without the approval of the people. And both kings and dictators are guilty of EXACTLY the same kinds of atrocities. Republican dictators have only killed more people because they ruled in an age of mass killing machines. Kings never had such advanced technology.

But since you are arguing that we should return to feudalism and absolute monarchy, and since we all know what humiliating defeat your beloved feudalism has suffered at the hands of capitalism, I think I should better let the capitalists tear you apart. After all, they were the ones who put your pitiful kings where they belong: in the history books, right next to the others forms of barbarity that dominated the world in the Middle Ages.

Your puny monarchs, Ripskar, have been brought down by the people they opressed and tortured, and whose families they murdered. I will let THEM do the talking:

Libert

[SurlyPIG]

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!! Damn it Edric! >:( This thread was supposed to be for RIGHT-WINGED DISCUSSSION. You know, people posting their viewpoints, their ideas, maybe share their thoughts about SOLVING some of the problems caused by right-winged systems. I asked you once before to save your propaganda for a different thread and just let us speak with each other for once without having everything we say taken straight out of context, twisted around, shoved back in our faces and ridiculed while the point of what we were trying to communicate was entirely ignored! What do I see now? Every poster in this thread being accused of being an opressive slavemaster, and all of it being followed up by communist slogans in a thread called RIGHT WING...Good grief.

[Edric O]

Dude_Doc:

And wasn't your vision to live in a democratic-socialist state? If you want to make one for the world, then explain to me how the hell a little miserable country with petty 10 million sitizens can't even live under one?

Last time I checked, neither me, nor any communists, nor indeed ANYONE that I personally know was in power in Sweden. Dude_Doc, I have no CLUE about your ruling party. So what on Earth do I have to do with it?

And you say we have good schools and hospitals? Not a chance. The schools here are just a big joke. More and more "private-schools" are being opened, people are leaving public schools. You know why? Because public schools is like a monkey-house. No order. No good teatchers.

Then the tax money are not being spent properly. Which means that whoever is in charge is NOT, in fact, left-wing. Either that or they're just plain incompetent.

Oh, okay. I'm soo wrong. That BIG HUGE NEWS POSTING, WRITTEN IN BIG (AND NOW TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH): "SOVIET PLANS TO INVADE SWEDEN FOUND", and NOT only written in one small "go-to-hell" newspaper, but Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's No. 1 newsblade.

Yeah, probably just some dream I made...

Uhhhhhh... WHAT? First of all, I don't read Swedish newspapers. Second of all, what the hell are you talking about? Russian troops never set ONE FOOT on your soil. Maybe some crackpot made some stupid plan, but they never actually took it seriously, did they?

And besides, I don't even support the USSR...

Exactly. The only thing we've heard from you, Edric, is how "bad" and "evil" we all are, that the poor and starving people is our fault, that todays systems does not work and so on. You sound exactly like the demonstrators who walked outside my house a month ago: "Freedom for the People", "crush evil capitalism and restrict free trade".

Funny... all YOU talk about is how "bad" and "evil" WE (communists) are, and how all the poor and starving people (including innocent children, of course) somehow deserve their fate, and that it's really all THEIR fault. ::)

Oh, and by the way... since you have demonstrators like that (which are people who actually CARE about their fellow human beings, unlike you), then you're obviously still a very much capitalist country. (otherwise they wouldn't complain about capitalism, would they?) So please don't give me any more of that "we're a socialist country and it's bad" crap.

[Edric O]

Yes, Ace, I agree that the thread is going WAY off-topic. (but since when is "libert

[SurlyPIG]

Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to post here. You may be responding to others but they were responding to you. Like I said before, you shouldn't have posted here in the first place...

Play with fire and get burned.

And did it ever occur to you at any point that you might be going too far for a thread that was supposed to be about right-winged discussion? I don't see how posting "Libert

[Warlord Ripskar]

Absolute monarchy?

No as I stated and you blatantly ignored I argued for Constiutional Monarchy, but I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

The principle difference between monarchies and republics as I have stated time and taime and time again is IDEOLOGY.

The IDEOLOGY of revolution is corrupt, the IDEOLOGY of governmental systems is corrupt, it is the IDEOLOGY that causes the genocide.

It was not any form of repression or autocracy that causes rebellion, we have a thousand examples of republican dictatorships involving repression and autocracy to show that. What causes rebellion is neglect, dereliction of duty. The aristocracy of France left their estates in the reign of Louis XIV thus neglecting the neccessities of the population.

itwas not repression but lack of visible leadership that allowed the uprising to begin and exactly the same thing happened in Russia and all the other banana republics.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, I don't want to insult you, just persuade. As always, as everyone I am arguing here.

International revolution was firstly led by Kominterna, founded by Lenin and Trockij. Yet this band made only minor uprisings in Germany and Hungary, also only by populistical talking and of course some antisemitism, which is everywhere in socialism. Stalin used easier way, abusing a world war, which was to make it "morally good". And after him came Che Guevara to preach commangelion (Capital...) to countries of the third world. Preach with a thousand of red paladins, which secured the new "believe" will be succesful. Communism is centralised, must be or it will perish.

This thing I have pointed, that communism lives only in falling countries. Why? Because it is a POPULISTIC theory. Civilised, functional, capitalistic, democratic, FREE, unoppressed state wouldn't do such suicide as revolution, sacrificing wealth and quality for "equality", which isn't also sure. See Italy, until their economy is strong, communists won't have more than some mayor posts.

Marx had no idea how the economy works, he never saw how people work, nor how their factories are led. He was talking like capitalist's only sense of life was just trying to have as much capital as we can. Best sentence there is like he talks about buying much goods - he presumes it is for us the hardest sin, because it is making the capital smaller ;D

Communism encourages the free spirit: first to loot, then to make another revolution.

[Caid Ivik]

Libert