Thatcher and the EU

The problem with that theory is that there's always some d******d who mouths the rhetoric, takes over and promptly turns into Stalin.

I think the flaw is even bigger than that. It's not just leaders that will corrupt that type of non-capitalist society. Workers will do the same. Greed will naturally affect some of the people who want to be above everyone else, and as a result, the system will breakdown from within, even if the leaders do it right.

and we can talk about utopian communism all we want...it never has existed!!!

Bingo. The word Communism, when used by most people, refers to Soviet-style government, regardless of what it originally may have meant or what it should mean. This is similar to how Democracy is used to describe our government even though we're actually a Republic.

 

LOL.

 

She has always been quite radical, but this quote shows that she has gone nuts. The "Iron Lady" should stick to ironing.

Also, one should ask her where foot-and-mouth disease, BSE and most of all British food (Haggis...uuuh) have come from...

 

I agree that it has never existed, and could never exist, but I don't think the theory is any more irrelevant than the theory of ideal capitalism. I would say the fact that we talk about them both regularly suggests they are relevant. I think that understanding both more clearly would help prevent some of the mythification (so to speak) and misuse of the terms.

I thought we just agreed that it never existed. I agree that man is incapable of living in an ideal communist society. You and I would probably agree that this is because of man's sinful nature. In a way, ideal communism is like Old Testament. It suggests that the world be a much better place if only we would adhere to a moral code. But we can't, not consistently. We always falter. To me, this is a realisation that leads us to question if there is more to life. It can lead us to question our own shortcomings. What is life really all about, if we can never live up to the standards we know are just? The bible says the law was created so that we would know that we are sinners and seek Christ. Marx said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Sounds great, right? But if we examine this we have to admit that we can never really achieve it. Then we're faced with the question, why? And what does this reality mean for us?

I think this should be a concern. It leads to a misunderstanding of the issues. It creates demons where demons don't exist and diverts attention away from the real problems. McCarthyism is an obvious example, but you can look much further. How much attention and how many resources have focused on "fighting communism" in the last 50 years, when we both agree that it never existed? So why was this term used? The major rival and threat to the West was the USSR, and it used the term, so it became a useful propaganda tool for the West. It's easier to unify your people if you have a lager than life demon to fight, so "communism" was demonised, and made into an idol, for the purpose of propaganda. Thatcher, I suspect, is trying to dupe the plebs with this kind of rhetoric, goading them into a certain kind of groupthink. In reality, communism may be no worse an evil than "capitalism", the worship of mammon.

1 Timothy 6
Love of Money
3) If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4) he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5) and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. 6) But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7) For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8) But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9) People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10) For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Oh yeah, 400! I'm a senior member now!

 

All,

I would disagree that a "utopian communism" has never existed. It could be argued that both Paris in 1871 and Spain in 1936 experienced some degree/version in the modern world (even though they were not really Marx inspired). Both, of course, were ended violently, so no one knows how long they would have lasted, and SPai realy suffered for it with the Franco years.

 

What, does he come and hang out at their Super Bowl parties or something?

 

Rimbaud: I should have said that I don't believe it can last over a long period of time. Good intentions can last a while, but before long temptations and abuses will creep in and the system will break down. This seems to be the plight of every human organisational structure, even when that structure consists of little or no structure.

Max: My problem is that when we talk about Communism we often link the Soviet style of government and Marxism together. This only confuses the real issues. Here's how Webster's defines the word.

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and
are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary
Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the
official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system
of government in which a single authoritarian party
controls state-owned means of production c : a final
stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
withered away and economic goods are distributed
equitably d : communist systems collectively

So it's either a totalitarian system of government, and a very brutal one in the case of the USSR, or one where there is essentially no government structure at all, the ultimate democracy. Huh?! It makes one think that the Ministry of Truth must be alive and well somewhere. Perhaps the Soviets started this. Perhaps Stalin saw this as a useful "big lie" to control his people, but why are we playing along? Why did we foster and perpetuate the myth of "Evil Communism?" It seems to me that we are at best talking down to our people by doing so, and at worst creating our own deceptive propaganda tool. Either way, it's not the truth.

w.r.t. money, I agree that money is not inherently bad. It's more like an ultimate temptress. The bible says specifically in three of the Gospels, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." But it goes on to say that all things are possible with God. I think the test is the one mentioned just before this passage.

Mark 10
The Rich Young Man
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[4] " 20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

As Christians, unless we are prepared to do this ourselves we are not placing God before our money. This can be quite a challenge for all us comfortable, educated, middle class folk. I don't think we are all called to do this, I should add, but we should all be prepared to. Some are called to be responsible stewards of capital, and to use it for doing good things. But I don't think we are ever called to have an extravagant lifestyle. Sadly, many who call themselves Christians are much more concerned about their tax rates and increasing their personal wealth than they are about the plight of the poor and weak and sick of the world. But before I get too negative, there are others who genuinely do have a heart for people and live by the spirit.

 

I suspect he was being literal. He did ask Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test of faith, after all. I suspect that he knew that this man put his money first, so he asked him to give it up. I think we're all faced with this question at some point, not always about money, but about something we're very tempted by.

I don't want to defend government inefficiency. Waste does nobody any good in the long run, except perhaps to teach a valuable lesson or two. I agree that it is very important to have personal contact with the charities and particularly the people you're helping. Often the greatest gift you can give is not the money, but the care, concern and love that you show to less fortunate and broken people. But in practice, this approach alone allows many people to fall through the cracks. It's also, I'm fairly sure, not as efficient for implementing broad scale programs. The government can't provide the human touch that is so important, but the government has a responsibility to provide its people with basic material minimums. "A society is measured by the manner in which it treats its least privileged members," and much of this responsibility falls on the government, and it is our job as citizens to see that the government lives up to that responsibility. A government should provide, IMO, good heath care, adequate and safe shelter, food, clothing, and access to education to every citizen that can't afford it for themselves. To allow our citizens to live without the essentials of dignified life, and to keep them from the tools that would allow them to get back on their feet, is inhumane and shames us as nations, both the US and Canada, IMO. Even from a purely economic standpoint, I don't think that it makes sense to allow our humans assets to rot, instead of invest something in them to make them productive, or at least not a drain on society. Yet even in Canada with our "strong" social programs, there are far too few people who will think even this far about the state and plight of the poor.

lol! Do you mind being lumped in with a Christian lefty? I think we do agree on a lot of the principles. I suspect that we may disagree on how our societies should work toward them.