Originally Posted by Ronin-Talgar";p=&quot

Well the use of the word 'comrade' was rather grating wasn't it? Whilst Schwarzwald may very well know about what you speak before you do so, Rockyreagan, I don't- whats a Jackobin?

Anyways, whilst I probably agree with Schwarzwald on most of his views in regards to communism and capitalism, I am rather alarmed by what seems to be a rather militant mindset in regards to its installation. I'm thinking that in its past, many of communism's flaws' -its militarisation, heavy state control, lack of democatic elements- are partially due to the situation that gave birth to their various revolutions.
It is not that such problems are indicative of communism itself, as many of its detractors would say, but that other factors besides the economic theory and neccesary practice result in the undesirables of communism.
The Revolution would be done with strike and/or a coupe; no violence unless met with violence.

-Any revolution can merely be a way for those wishing power to gain it, regardless of what their real attitudes towards what they espouse to gain support. Stalin for instance didn't seem like a mental giant, and acted rather
pragmatically enough for one to think he wasnt interested in anything other than his own self advancement.
True but this was not the case with Lenin & Trotsky who practiced what they taught even after the Revolution.

-The extreme hostilty of the rest of the world towards the Bolshevik revolution, and the violent nature of the opening years of their regime, required a very controlled and ruthless nature to survive. I'm not trying to justify any of their actions here, everyone is self responsible, but it was this furnace that formed, warped perhaps, the Bolsheviks. Would it be fair to say that all other socialist rules have come into being under similar conditions?
No because Cuba's revolution happened with almost no resistance.

-No communist regime has come into being from in a democratic tradition, or a democratic mechanism. Not surprisingly this has resluted in lots of frowned upon non democratic elements. Any socialism that I would support could only be acheived through peacful democratic means.

My point is that much of what communism is justly attacked upon are things that would probably be common to any revolution. If the world were predominately democratic/socialist and hostile to capatalism, if an isolated capatalist nation was born, I imagine that it would be highly restrictive and militaristic, lacking in democracy as communism has been so far.
Just to support this idea, look at the emergence of McCarthyism in response
to communism- an attempt to censor and control those opposing the system surely? This state control was common to both systems, albeit far lesser in America, but then the system was safer.

Anyway main point: always remember thet communsim has so far been introduced by autocratic means- thus it was rather autocratic. Until we have an example of a democratic installation of communism we can't be sure whether autoocracy is thje natural bedfellow of communism.
The problem is that people moved to far away from Lenin's teachings.

Not the main point: Due to capitalism, a substantial amount of today's democracies have a strong Timocratic element- Rich people get elected, after spending lots of money. Even if its not codified, right now you need wealth to get elected:simple as that.
Its funny how communism is derided as being a system that allows peopele to not do any work, when it is supposed to be everyone working, and it is capatlism that has created bizarre differences in wealth, that can not possibly be justified by an effort equals wealth argument. Capitalism that has created a class that does no work but live better than those that do. Strange.

Originally Posted by Headless-Pixie";p=&quot

Honestly? You actually predict there will be a Marxist revolution if insurance is privatized?

Originally Posted by Ronin-Talgar";p=&quot

"The Revolution would be done with strike and/or a coupe; no violence unless met with violence. "

Right when a revolution occurs it is the authorities that make it bloody. Havent got a very strong democratic streak in you do you?
Ignoring for a moment that this was what the Bolsheviks did anyway, why wouldnt this new regime be struck by the same problems as any soutocratic takeover? I mean if you are about to turn power back to the people anyway, in a situation where you needed a coupe in the first place then they will probably vote back to Capitalism. Or atleast away from the revolutionaries. Can you say, Duma? The Duma was during the Tsar's empire before the Revolution. Can you say study?

"True but this was not the case with Lenin & Trotsky who practiced what they taught even after the Revolution"

Indeed. Stalin got the boots though, and he had help getting them. In what you propose similar silver-tounged power mongers would rally to your cause.

"No because Cuba's revolution happened with almost no resistance."

It has still required, or atleast been, an autocracy. It was still un democratic and experienced such outside pressures as I mentioned.

"The problem is that people moved to far away from Lenin's teachings. "

Lenin was still an autocrat who made sure he held power and the Bolsheviks came out on top. He dissolved the Duma for one thing when they voted against his party. Ruthless as all hell in the civil war right?
I'm not familar with any of Lenin's teachings on Democracy in the revolution, but fairly confident in his actions on the matter.

"No its not, Marx warned about this and Lenin pointed it out; its up to the People now. I predict that if insurance is privatized and Canadian medicine illegalized the Revolution will come."

Not sure what you are answering but you seem a bit hopelessly optimistic. I would have hoped that America would rise, if ever, when a president steals the election. But then theyt are Capatalists so maybe a squeezing of the more material will do it.
Personally i think that America is too lazy for revolution. Too fat.