You have to be careful not to get communism confused with Communism, its polar opposite. Communism, as defined by Marx, was a state where no government exits at all. It’s the end point of the social progression often called dialectical materialism. Communism as redefined by Stalin, otoh, is a totalitarian form of government where the government is huge and intrusive and controls many aspects of peoples’ lives. In ideal communism, the sort that’s being discussed here, there is no centralized controlling apparatus. In fact there is no apparatus at all. Everyone simply produces according to his or her ability and consumers according to his or her need. And you’re taking Paul out of context. He is speaking to a specific Christian community in Thessalonika about problems they were having within their community. Clearly he wasn’t saying that no man who does not work will ever eat because were know that there are men who don’t work and who do in fact eat. He was speaking to how members of this community should behave, not about the justness of any social policy. For an understanding of what Christianity say about charity in general see what Christ himself said on it. From Matthew 25: 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' And Paul’s comment says nothing about capitalism in any event. In both ideal communism and the corrupt Stalinist version of communism people are expected to work.
No that's from being a sixth degree blackbelt in Judo. How stonecold your assisin aura is part of the belt test. I heard that his sixth degree is rank is honorary and was awarded to him when he became president of Russia. I believe he was a 3rd degree blackbelt before so he's no slouch. Personally I've always thought it would be great to take him on since I think he's in my weight class.
I wish this had been posted in the "China Beats UN World Hunger Figure" thread since the point of that thread was to argue a self-declared Communist country with less freedom than India is doing well so freedom, democracy and Capitalism aren't that great. The only way the PRC has been able to do so well addressing world hunger is that they've moved away from socialists economic planning. While they haven't embraced democracy I would also say freedom is greater in the PRC now in terms of personal economic and life decisions since the government isn't deciding where people work at or what work they do. Communism in theory is more moral than Capitalism and would work in a society of angels. The problem is that there's never been a society of angels.
Totally agree. Its good to have a sense of loyalty but it shouldn't be at the expense of accomplishing overall goals. What this admin has done is reward cronies for loyalty rather than look at ability. So we get Condi Rice and John Boltens promoted while someone who knows diplomacy like Powell gets shown the door.
I wouldn't say objectivity and fairness are absent in your post whenever PRC is in the discussion, but your focus seems to be lost yet again. This is not far fetched on the basis that if people believe the mass can be reborn Christians -- real ones I am talking about, then why not a society of angels.
I would say the same could be applied to you in the same regard. Anyway was that not your point to make some argument that freedom and democracy aren't so great since a so called Communist country had done better at addressing hunger than India which has a higher degree of democracy and freedom? Dubious said it far more eloquently than I could. People can believe that the mass can be reborn Christians and create a society of angels but pardon me for being skeptical if that ever can happen. Not to pick on our Christian posters here but I think even they would agree there has never been a Christain society of angels or is there likely to be one on Earth.
True Communist or not, isn't it a fact that there exists live examples where states (don't forget Cuba) with far less freedom, democracy, and lassie-faire capitalism did much better in addressing hunger? These Indian protesters agree with me. To be frank, I didn't expect PRC did so well by UN standard. My visits to China left me with impressions that the CCP government hasn't been able to mend the ever-growing wealth gap between its rich and poor. Apparently (and shockingly), India seems to be far worse in that regard. It's just as illusional to suggest DFC can solve all sorts of problem.
if only I could have put money on the "I looked into his eyes" quote coming back to make him look like bad. bush is outta control
I don't know why India's divide is shocking to you - India has had the world's most intricate and pronounced system of class divisions for thousands of years in the caste system. The only issue I woudl take would be that the gap "is growing" much more in India. I would think that since India's wealth was probably already highly concentrated, far more so than China's, as a mathematical matter it's difficult for it to grow much faster in terms of % concentration.
50 years of cultural revolution will pretty much wipe out your wealth gap. If you take all your lawyers, doctors and intellectuals and make them subsistance farmers or factory workers you just lower the overall average.
Pat Buchanan, much like Scottie Pippen, seems 'befuddled' by all this... I never thought I would live to see the day Pat Buchanan would become a 'voice of reason' and 'moderation' in the political arena... Why Are We Baiting Putin? by Patrick J. Buchanan "(N)o legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply management or attempt to monopolize transportation," thundered Vice President Cheney to the international pro-democracy conference in Vilnius, Lithuania. "(N)o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements." Cheney's remarks were directed straight at the Kremlin and President Vladimir Putin, who is to host the G-8 Conference in July. Cheering Cheney on is John McCain, front-runner for the GOP nomination, who has urged President Bush to snub Putin by boycotting the G-8 summit. What the GOP is thus offering the nation right now is seven more years of in-your-face bellicosity in foreign policy. What does McCain think we would accomplish – other than a new parading of our moral superiority – by so public an insult to Putin and Russia as a Bush boycott of the St. Petersburg summit? Do we not have enough trouble in this world, do we not have enough people hating us and Bush that we have to get into Putin's face and antagonize the largest nation on earth and a co-equal nuclear power? What is the purpose of this confrontation diplomacy? What does it accomplish? Eisenhower and Nixon did not behave like this. Nor did Ford or Bush's father. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" once. But the Soviet Union we confronted in those years was hostile. Until lately, today's Russia was not. Yet the Bush boys are in their pulpits, admonishing the world's sinners every day. What is their beef with Putin's policy? In January, Putin decided to stop piping subsidized gas to Kiev and start charging the market price. Reason: Ukraine's president, elected with the assistance of U.S. foundations and quasi-government agencies, said he was reorienting Kiev's foreign policy away from Russia and toward NATO and the United States. If you are headed for NATO, Putin was saying to President Viktor Yushchenko, you can forget the subsidized gas. Now this is political hardball, but it is a game with which America is not altogether unfamiliar. When Castro reoriented his policy toward Moscow, Cuba's sugar allotment was terminated. U.S. diplomats went all over the world persuading nations not to buy from or sell to Cuba. Economic sanctions on Havana endure to today. We supported, over Reagan's veto, sanctions on South Africa. We have used sanctions as a stick and access to the U.S. market as a carrot since we became a nation. What, after all, was "Dollar Diplomacy" all about? Cheney accuses Moscow of employing pipeline diplomacy – i.e., using its oil and gas pipelines to benefit some nations and cut out others. But the United States does the same thing, as it seeks to have the oil and gas of Central Asia transmitted to the West in pipelines that do not transit Iran or Russia. "(N)o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor," declared Cheney in Vilnius. How the vice president could deliver that line with a straight face escapes me. Does Cheney not recall our "Captive Nations Resolutions," calling for the liberation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which, though free between the two world wars, had long belonged to the Russian empire? Does he not recall conservative support for the breakup of the Soviet Union? Does he not recall conservative support for the secession of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, and more recently Kosovo, from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia? What concerns Cheney is Moscow's support for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Georgia's president was also elected with the aid of pro-democracy NGOs, mostly funded by Uncle Sam. All these color-coded revolutions in East Europe and Central Asia bear the label, Made in the U.S.A. When Cheney says, "No one can justify actions that ... interfere with democratic movements," he is hauling water for Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, and similar agencies, which Putin wants shut down or kicked out of Russia for interfering in her internal affairs. We Americans consider the Monroe Doctrine – no foreign power is to come into our hemisphere – to be holy writ. Why, then, can we not understand why Russia might react angrily to our interference in her politics or the politics of former Russian republics? The effect of U.S. expansion of NATO deep into Eastern Europe, U.S. interference in the politics of the former Soviet republics, and U.S. siting of military bases in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia has been to unite Russia and China, and undo the diplomacy of several successive U.S. presidents. How has this made us more secure? If we don't want these people in our backyard, what are we doing in theirs? If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.
i think given india's new and large middle class the hundreds of millions of people that are utterly destitute seem relatively poorer than they did before.
