"Alex W." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:12 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

wrote in message
news:20130530210207.2e2ce1f09f91fd87b05e8ef2@fidem turbare.com...
On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:34:18 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:



I wasn't advocating complete Marxism, therefore your assumption
that I "didn't study enough history" lacks credible justification.


Is "a little Marxism" like being "a littel bit pregnant" ?

No.


Actually, it is
There is no such animal in EITHER case
Both are binary conditions
Either you are pregnant or not
Eitehr you are a marxist or not

Not quite correct.
Most of the hard-left political parties in Europe have now
accepted that they can only ever achieve their Marxist
paradise through democratic means.


What you really mean to say, is that they are playing the "democratic means"
game until they can have enouhg power to do the rest in standard Marxist
ways
If you believe otherwise your are both naive and gullible.


This differs markedly from classical Marxism.


Actually it doesn't, since Classical marxism is quite open to ANY means to
achieve the end


Other groupings use Marxism as the basis for trying to
introduce specific policies -- for instance on the economy
or in labour law -- without pushing for out-and-out Marxism.


So you admit that the hard-liners have realized that one path will not
succeed, and that having decided to try a different path, they are less
marxist for it, even though the end objective is the same ??

Are you really that naive and gullible ?







History also shows that "a little marxism" also has a tendency to
grow bigger over time.

How it grows depends primarily on the leadership. If they desire a
greater amount of control, then oppression will be retrofitted into the
social evolution. If they are more loyal to their followers, then the
social evolution will head in a very different direction.


Wrong again
Marxists accept the notion that they know better than anyone else what is
good for the "masses", It follows that marxists will try to impose their
beliefs by justifying it that it's for the good of all


OK, but we can say pretty much the same about any ideology,
up to and including capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism is NOT an ideology.
Democracy also not an ideology


How many countries have we in the West actively meddled with,
sometimes to the point of illegal regime change or outright
invasion, because we are convinced that we know better than
the natives that our ways are correct?


Go ahead and answer your rhetorical question
I'm willing to be that I can show you to be wrong on all counts




Democracy, on the other
hand, tends to be less effective as the size of the populace grows. It
doesn't mean that one is better than the other, rather that the
ideologies are just better-suited to certain environments.


Funny how Democracies have not only scaled better but also have survived
better
Why do youthink that is ?

Survival isn't a good argument since modern democracies are
barely a century old. In historical terms, we're very much
youngsters.



When compared to all flavors of Marxist implementations which are ALL
younger than the (modern) democracies you try to disparage, your argument
fails abyssally.for being moot.

The ONLY thing the marxists systems have CONSISTENTLY achieved were a
litanny of horrendous results
1) MASSIVE abuses of civil and human rights
2) MASSIVE democides
3) MASSIVE ecological disasters
The scale is not even comparable when compared to Modern Democracies
Particularly when you consider how occurrences in those democraices were
addressed and resolved