On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:56:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"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
[snip - bifurcated fallacious ad hominem attack]

That's not how I understood Alex' comment. He merely pointed out how
some Marxist ideals are being achieved in a democratic manner.

This differs markedly from classical Marxism.

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

That's an interesting point.

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 ??
[snip - fallacious ad hominem attack]

No, rather that Marxist ideals provided [at least] some inspiration or
influence in the development of political policy.

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

Both of these are, in fact, ideologies. Not in the same sense as a
religion is, of course, but they do qualify as ideologies none-the-less.

Ideology: A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis
of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism."

Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define+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

Why wait? Are you not willing to do that now?

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

Democracy isn't over yet. Like Marxism, it comes with a great measure
of intent, and seeing democracy through to completion will make for a
more even-handed comparison down-the-road. Comparing the results of
one system with the intent of another leans toward being a false
dichotomy fallacy.

The fact that communism scales very effectively to larger populaces
than democracy does should be taken into consideration as well when
comparing these two ideologies.

--
Fidem Turbāre, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Son... put down the crack pipe, place your hands over your head, and
back away s-l-o-w-l-y."
-- Harlow Victor Allen Campbell (a.k.a., Mr. HVAC; May 29, 2013, in
response to a serious misunderstanding about lawyers)