Moi Cac ban bam vao link sau de doc nhung y tuong ve Cong San va` tai sao cai ly thuyet vo tuong nay khong dung vung trong bat ky xa hoi van minh cua loai nguoi

Karl Marx is Dead , the communist system never works

-- (Sau Bi Da France @ Sai Gon.Net), February 10, 2005

Answers

Karl Marx is Dead"Quit with the theories and give me practical experience."

DA GODDESS and Val Prieto take on communist Carl Muhammed of ANSWER.

The reason communism is so appealing to these people is that it takes the burden of personal responsibility off their shoulders. If they can't get bread or milk for their children, it's okay. It's not that they didn't work hard enough....it's that the system hasn't provided for them adequately. Can't afford heat for your home? That's okay. Other people are without as well. (Not the leaders, of course. But other people.) It's not even close to being a fair fight.

Posted by Smash on December 22, 2004 | Link | Liberty | TrackBack

Comments I would argue that such a system could not even work on the level of a single neighborhood or even a small town. If you need a practical example use the pilgrims. They tried the communal thing with a few hundred people and it flat-out failed until the whole system was dumped.

Posted by: Denisac on December 22, 2004 11:11 AM Carl just figures when the Marxists win, he'll be on the front of the gravy train, not the front of the death march to a re-education camp as had happened to "freedom fighters" in South Vietnam and Cambodia, not to mention Yugoslavia and other countries taken over by the Soviet Union after WW2.

Posted by: PCD on December 22, 2004 11:35 AM Yes, it's difficult. After the last 2 years of debating liberals (unwitting communists for the most part :)), I am convinced that they insist on - and maybe even require - living inside of their fantasy reality, and the fantasy envelope is like a force field that gets stronger the more you push on it.

Posted by: Cincinnati_Bob on December 22, 2004 01:30 PM That so many risk their lives to escape socialist hells and then have this guy extolling the glories of Marx is beyond me. Some kinda nut, I guess.

Posted by: J-P on December 22, 2004 02:07 PM Intersting this quote showed up. The below quote supports it, where is talks about the personal responsibilty issue. This came to me in the form an email from a friend sending me a newsletter from the Federalist Patriot:

"Why do fringe liberals, Muslim terrorists, European socialists, and communists all hate Christianity? What is the common thread that joins them? They desire to control others, and they despise the fact Christianity promotes freedom based on personal responsibility. One can't have Christianity directing people's lives. The autocrats will direct our lives. They especially hate Christmas as it is the most visible manifestation of Christianity and is celebrated by more people than any other holiday. The fact that Christ and Christmas are still so feared and hated can mean only one thing; Christ really was who He said He was. The argument of hurting someone's feelings or making them feel uncomfortable by celebrating Christmas is one of the most powerful liberal weapons used against Christmas. They put the feelings of the few above the many, and that is not democracy. Their actions are hypocritical, as liberals demand our tolerance of all of their abominable behavior. The politically correct insist we should value everyone's culture. As Christianity is the majority culture in our country, should it not also be valued? Are we observing an overdose of progressive hypocrisy? Just how long are we going to endure the liberal intolerance of our values? ... If we allow Christmas to be taken from our public life and our educational system, if we allow our Constitution to be turned against us, if we fail to be a light of liberty unto the World, we will also deny freedom to a desperate World that will slip further into darkness. Just like the War on Terror, the battle for Christmas will be long and difficult. A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!" -- Donald May

Posted by: Curt on December 22, 2004 08:49 PM Over on her site Joanie now has an entry starting to take up a collection to send Carl (one-way) to Cuba. I noted that it would only take 150 - 200 people to raise sufficient funds.

I've suddenly had a thought though: Dennis Miller. Yeah, his show is on basic cable so it doesn't have much budget, but he could probably come up with the funds needed to get Carl on his way.

You, Smash, know Hugh Hewitt, and Hugh knows Dennis, so there are two ways we could use the power of Blogosphere to send Carl to Cuba! I know it's last minute, but there's still even time to get maximum alliteration and send Carl to Cuba for Christmas!

Posted by: KCSteve on December 23, 2004 06:58 AM During grad school I stayed in a co-op with 8 bedrooms, and communal cooking and living spaces. As about the only non-lefty there, I of course got into spirited debates from time to time. But at 8 rooms, usually 10-12 people, everyone had a few chores to do and it was your turn to cook dinner every few weeks.

It worked, but it was not without angst; at 10 people there was about a 50% chance that someone who seemed great when you first met him would turn out to be a do-nothing, maybe pay the rent maybe not but do chores? no way kind of guy. So this leads me to my theory that 1 in 20 people are more or less useless.

Comunism works in America every day. It's called family. Once you get beyond the numbers and emotional bonds of a family, out to the "brotherhood of men" as it were, the slackers get the advantage. You don't have Mom and Dad to keep the supposed adults in line, and the done fors start mooching off the doers. The doers then pick up their copies of Ayn Rand, and things go downhill fast.

The tragedy is, spoiled little kids with no real challenges in life move away from mummy and daddy, discover life is hard, and really want Uncle Sam to be their new mommy. The more their parents made, the more likely they were to be socialists. There really was a strong correlation. Or as I see it, the more they were sheltered from the real world growing up, the more likely they were to believe ideology over facts, and see communism as it should be, not as how it has been in every single example ever tested on the face of the earth.

Because let's face it, communism is a seductive philosophy. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Sounds great as long as you don't ask "who decides?"

Posted by: Dr_Mike on December 23, 2004 08:40 AM Thank you, Smash.

You know, I'll do whatever I can to send Carl and his ilk to Cuba...or any other communist country. But, here's the clincher. I want to know that his wife is willing, that she understands that taking their children to someplace like that will be it for them. If she's all for it, fine. Let's do it. I want to be certain that there is no need for them to return here.

Posted by: Da Goddess on December 23, 2004 09:17 AM Yes, it's difficult. After the last 2 years of debating liberals (unwitting communists for the most part :)), I am convinced that they insist on - and maybe even require - living inside of their fantasy reality, and the fantasy envelope is like a force field that gets stronger the more you push on it.

And these same types used to scream at me for "living in a fantasy world" because I read SF and played D&D.

Amazing how I got denounced as a thought-criminal and Goldsteninst- Republican stooge when I kept pointing out that they're just playing a different role-playing game: live-action Star Wars (Luke Skywalker leading the Good Guys (TM) against the Evil Empire (TM) of Emperor Bush and Darth Ashcroft...)

Dr_Mike:

I can confirm that rich Yuppie Puppies are the most True Believers in Marxist-Leninist Ideological Purity. I saw it first hand when I was on the fringes of the "Liberation Theology" movement in the Eighties. The most radical Party Ideologist types were 18 years old, driving new BMWs, and living in Exclusive Planned and Gated Communities (TM).

Posted by: Ken on December 23, 2004 09:56 AM "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Those who compare communist theory with capitalist reality are making a false argument. Instead, you have to force them to confront the terrible reality of virtually every attempt at communism in the 20th century and to compare that with capitalism. Many of them will attempt to wiggle around the point by saying something to the effect that communism would've worked "if only the right people were in charge." By that, they mean themselves.

In theory, communism sounds wonderful. Reality has proven otherwise, as millions of dead bodies prove. Communism is yet another attempt at creating a utopia while forgetting that the literal meaning of the word "utopia" is "no where."

Posted by: Larry J on December 23, 2004 10:36 AM KCSteve, Hewitt isn't the type to want to send Communists or Socialists to their philosophical home.

Nope, if Hugh wanted to send somebody somewhere, it would be me the next time I called his show with "Kodachrome" playing in the background.

Steve, you'd have more luck getting a copy, from Generalissimo Duane, of the 10 Biggest Clinton Scandals of 1994. I have one because I helped create it.

Posted by: PCD on December 23, 2004 11:24 AM "Comunism works in America every day. It's called family. Once you get beyond the numbers and emotional bonds of a family, out to the "brotherhood of men" as it were, the slackers get the advantage. You don't have Mom and Dad to keep the supposed adults in line, and the done fors start mooching off the doers. The doers then pick up their copies of Ayn Rand, and things go downhill fast."

In all the Communist countries it also "worked". Instead of Mom and Dad there was/is the Big Government with state police to keep people in line. Because the government is not your parent, the punishments are more severe: time outs and spankings get replaced with Gulags and executions. Then the idealism of early revolutionaries disappears, and the government officials start implementing their policies not for the common good, as they understand it, but for their own benefit, even if it conflicts with their own understanding of common good. Although, usually they adjust their understanding of common good to be beneficial for them, so there is no conflict. As for the theory of Communism sounding good, no, it is not good. Any theory that cannot be taken to its logical conclusion is a flawd theory. In case of Communism, anybody responsible for the distribution of final goods is necessarily authoritarian. The same is true for anybody responsible to make sure that everybody does his/her fair share for the society. Thus, Communism always leads to dictatorship, even within a family. In my family I have a benevolent dictator (my wife) and senior adviser (myself). Our poor daughters just have to do as they are told. Eric.

Posted by: Eric on December 23, 2004 02:01 PM I can remember being told that during the early days of American History that some of the settlers also practiced a communal type of living. Share and share alike. It didn't take long for them to figure out that there were people who did all the work and there were others who lived off of that labor and didn't do anything. I know that there are those who feel that if communism is adopted in this country, they will be leading the pack. If memory serves, all the early communists in Russia were put to death as soon as the movement was established.

As to Christians, I believe that one reason why so many hate Christians is that a true Christian has his/her loyalty elsewhere. These Christians can not be used or threatened or bribed. Hence, there is no way to control them. So, they become a threat to those who want to control and rule the world.

Posted by: David on December 23, 2004 04:27 PM "From each according to his Ability; To each according to his Need"

This fine-sounding sentiment has at one time ensnared a quarter of the human race. It's sole problem, the one reason that it does not work: There are only TWO jobs worth having in this neat little socialist utopia:

1) The Party Member who decides who does what and who needs what, because I can ALWAYS justify a little extra for the Vangard of the Revolution [i.e. guys like ME] [look up: 'nomenklatura']

2) The guy in the fine leather trench coat with black shoulder boards, who stands close by to 'keep order'. The only a lunatic would short-change the men who keep the lumpenproletariat in line! [look up: 'KGB']

Have you ever noticed that when a Leftie says "Society Must Do . . ." he means "The Cops are gonna Make You Do . . ." ? A vision of a society with NO meaningful institution other than the State is the hallmark of the true Socialist/Marxist. If he is also planning to kill somebody to make it happpen, than he is promoted to Communist/Maoist. Conversely, if she thinks it can be done without harming anyone, she is Barbara Streisand.

It will take a century to eradicate this ideology.

Posted by: OldFan on December 23, 2004 04:31 PM Whats even more interesting is the historical fact that the only truly "cooperative" communities that lasted more than two generations without the use of terror were all monasteries, and very religous orders at that.

Posted by: Louis Spielman on December 23, 2004 06:51 PM "From each according to his Ability; To each according to his Need"

Is flawed from the start and I would want no part of it even if it worked,. A lot of success is not from ability, but just hard work. The guy who works two jobs to get the down payment for a house or to send his kids to college is doing it for his family, not the guy down the street. And "need", just tell those would-be Marxists that all they need is two pair of jeans and two tees, the rest should go to someone else and hear them scream.

Posted by: Sam on December 25, 2004 07:28 AM Why send Carl to Cuba where he can get a tan? Send him to North Korea,a bit more expensive but well worth the effort. BTW I didn't read one iota of marxism in his replies,another Salon Revolutionary.

Posted by: PeterUK on December 25, 2004 01:42 PM

-- (Tien Phong @ Red Fox.Com), February 10, 2005.