<< You don't like the marxists beginning of a plan, because we haven't
succeeded yet. � >>
In response to that comment Joan replied-
"If I remember correctly, marxism has had over a half century on one
continent (at least) and most of the natural resources of that area with
which to succeed, if it was going to succeed anywhere. Or was it simply
the wrong century? Or were there hints of corruption within the
leadership--kinda like capitalism, don't ya know? Is it possible that
marxism does not make sufficient allowances for human frailty?"
Joan, there is the small matter of the trillions of dollars spent to
destroy the communist effort to take a different path. So I believe
that the effort to construct a new society was partially successful, but
went down to military defeat in the end.
Humans are frail and corruptable in our more than corrupt world. One
could be a good Christian and just say that human nature is sinful, and
that the only solution is to be born again in Christ. Or one can
join a historical movement to try to change things for the better.
In saying the above, it is not to deny the corruption and failures that
occurred within the Soviet Union and/ or China.
The old pro-capitalist argument goes more or less like this..... If you
did not succeed perfectly in your opposition, then of course you were
totally imperfect in how the effort was made. Therefore stick with
what is in place, which is capitalism. Reform the bad in it,
instead. Marxism is totally bankrupt, not like the successful and
sustainable capitalist world we live in.
The truth is, capitalism defeated the slave rebellion. Spartacus was
defeated also. But maybe we should try again? Right?
Because capitalism is not so sustainable after all.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
