Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is
a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As
for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of
"communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition
you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states
fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

--
Ed Huntress

Lenin imposed rigorous communism after the Bolsheviki took over but
quickly found that the untested theories of Marx and Bakunin weren't
practical.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/war_communism.htm
"War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of
Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for
themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state."

That is the fundamental flaw, the bounty the takers "deserve" from the
makers vanishes as the makers become takers too. Then totalitarian
control inexorably follows to force all but the most clever takers
(nomenclatura) to work harder.

Naturally the socialist ideologues couldn't accept that they were
wrong:
"How did the people react to War Communism? Within the cities, many
were convinced that their leaders were right and the failings being
experienced were the fault of the Whites and international
capitalists."

Marx himself expected the State to initially control the transition to
pure communism.
http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpr...unin-vs-marx/v
"Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed
that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to
the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state
socialist)."

State-controlled socialism was an integral step in the Marxist
dialectic progression, not a deviation from it. Lenin converted to
state capitalism in his New Economic Policy to recover from the abject
failure of doctrinal communism. Stalin initially continued it until it
too fell apart under the inept management of bureaucracy that
inevitably valued their own plush jobs over the welfare of the masses.

-Lev Bronshtein

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:14:43 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is
a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As
for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of
"communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition
you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states
fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

--
Ed Huntress

Lenin imposed rigorous communism after the Bolsheviki took over but
quickly found that the untested theories of Marx and Bakunin weren't
practical.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/war_communism.htm
"War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of
Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for
themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state."

That is the fundamental flaw, the bounty the takers "deserve" from the
makers vanishes as the makers become takers too. Then totalitarian
control inexorably follows to force all but the most clever takers
(nomenclatura) to work harder.

Naturally the socialist ideologues couldn't accept that they were
wrong:
"How did the people react to War Communism? Within the cities, many
were convinced that their leaders were right and the failings being
experienced were the fault of the Whites and international
capitalists."

Marx himself expected the State to initially control the transition to
pure communism.
http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpr...unin-vs-marx/v
"Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed
that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to
the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state
socialist)."

State-controlled socialism was an integral step in the Marxist
dialectic progression, not a deviation from it. Lenin converted to
state capitalism in his New Economic Policy to recover from the abject
failure of doctrinal communism. Stalin initially continued it until it
too fell apart under the inept management of bureaucracy that
inevitably valued their own plush jobs over the welfare of the masses.

-Lev Bronshtein

Yeah, that sounds like what really happened. Marx's biggest
theoretical flaw was a misunderstanding of human nature. Lenin
recognized the flaw, and from that time, repression became part of the
Marxist-Leniniist hybrid.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:14:43 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is
a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As
for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of
"communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition
you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states
fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

--
Ed Huntress

Lenin imposed rigorous communism after the Bolsheviki took over but
quickly found that the untested theories of Marx and Bakunin weren't
practical.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/war_communism.htm
"War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of
Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for
themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state."

That is the fundamental flaw, the bounty the takers "deserve" from the
makers vanishes as the makers become takers too. Then totalitarian
control inexorably follows to force all but the most clever takers
(nomenclatura) to work harder.

Naturally the socialist ideologues couldn't accept that they were
wrong:
"How did the people react to War Communism? Within the cities, many
were convinced that their leaders were right and the failings being
experienced were the fault of the Whites and international
capitalists."

Marx himself expected the State to initially control the transition to
pure communism.
http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpr...unin-vs-marx/v
"Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed
that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to
the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state
socialist)."

State-controlled socialism was an integral step in the Marxist
dialectic progression, not a deviation from it. Lenin converted to
state capitalism in his New Economic Policy to recover from the abject
failure of doctrinal communism. Stalin initially continued it until it
too fell apart under the inept management of bureaucracy that
inevitably valued their own plush jobs over the welfare of the masses.

-Lev Bronshtein

'Socialism is the gateway to communism"

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ke...communism.html

Btw...one should never forget this article...many are still in
office....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010...-their-caucus/





"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:32:48 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:14:43 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is
a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As
for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of
"communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition
you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states
fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

--
Ed Huntress

Lenin imposed rigorous communism after the Bolsheviki took over but
quickly found that the untested theories of Marx and Bakunin weren't
practical.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/war_communism.htm
"War Communism was a disaster. In all areas, the economic strength of
Russia fell below the 1914 level. Peasant farmers only grew for
themselves, as they knew that any extra would be taken by the state."

That is the fundamental flaw, the bounty the takers "deserve" from the
makers vanishes as the makers become takers too. Then totalitarian
control inexorably follows to force all but the most clever takers
(nomenclatura) to work harder.

Naturally the socialist ideologues couldn't accept that they were
wrong:
"How did the people react to War Communism? Within the cities, many
were convinced that their leaders were right and the failings being
experienced were the fault of the Whites and international
capitalists."

Marx himself expected the State to initially control the transition to
pure communism.
http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpr...unin-vs-marx/v
"Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed
that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to
the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state
socialist)."

State-controlled socialism was an integral step in the Marxist
dialectic progression, not a deviation from it. Lenin converted to
state capitalism in his New Economic Policy to recover from the abject
failure of doctrinal communism. Stalin initially continued it until it
too fell apart under the inept management of bureaucracy that
inevitably valued their own plush jobs over the welfare of the masses.

-Lev Bronshtein

'Socialism is the gateway to communism"

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ke...communism.html

Btw...one should never forget this article...many are still in
office....

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010...-their-caucus/

Louden lateer admitted that these are not members of a socialist
organization, but rather are members of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus.

So, you're perpetuating a lie once again, Genner. Have you reached
your quota for this month? I think that Keller is ahead of you.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
...
China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.
--
Ed Huntress

China keeps creeping closer to National Socialism, aka Fascism:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...haracteristics

"He, vice-chairman of investment banking at the Swiss firm UBS, found
the exhibition so enthralling, and so disturbing for the parallels he
saw with back home, that he spent three days absorbing everything on
Nazi history that he could find."

Spain's Franco showed that the world could tolerate a Fascism that
avoided Imperialism.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:58:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
...
China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.
--
Ed Huntress

China keeps creeping closer to National Socialism, aka Fascism:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...haracteristics

"He, vice-chairman of investment banking at the Swiss firm UBS, found
the exhibition so enthralling, and so disturbing for the parallels he
saw with back home, that he spent three days absorbing everything on
Nazi history that he could find."

Spain's Franco showed that the world could tolerate a Fascism that
avoided Imperialism.

That's a really interesting article. I had no idea there were
liberalizing forces in China with that much financial and political
clout.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:58:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
...
China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.
--
Ed Huntress

China keeps creeping closer to National Socialism, aka Fascism:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...haracteristics

There are about 10 or so versions of Socialism. All of which are
totalitarian to one degree or another.


"He, vice-chairman of investment banking at the Swiss firm UBS, found
the exhibition so enthralling, and so disturbing for the parallels he
saw with back home, that he spent three days absorbing everything on
Nazi history that he could find."

Spain's Franco showed that the world could tolerate a Fascism that
avoided Imperialism.



"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:58:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
...
China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.
--
Ed Huntress

China keeps creeping closer to National Socialism, aka Fascism:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...haracteristics

"He, vice-chairman of investment banking at the Swiss firm UBS,
found
the exhibition so enthralling, and so disturbing for the parallels
he
saw with back home, that he spent three days absorbing everything on
Nazi history that he could find."

Spain's Franco showed that the world could tolerate a Fascism that
avoided Imperialism.

That's a really interesting article. I had no idea there were
liberalizing forces in China with that much financial and political
clout.

--
Ed Huntress

"Liberalizing Forces" labored to build the Great Wall.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:58:05 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
...
China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In
China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership
(today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.
--
Ed Huntress

China keeps creeping closer to National Socialism, aka Fascism:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...haracteristics

There are about 10 or so versions of Socialism. All of which are
totalitarian to one degree or another.

There are theoretically some anarchic versions. For the practice, see
"Law of the Jungle".

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:57:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

"I can partly sympathize with Apple, as I'm nearly certain the latest confusion is the result of Chinese bureaucracy that's impossible to control."

-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougyoun...-6-launch-map/

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

Martin Jaques, former editor of _Marxism Today_, is not a source I
would quote. You may not be old enough to remember David Halberstam's
book, _The Reckoning_, which said the same thing about Japan that
Jaques says now about China in his book, _When China Rules the World_.

Halberstam was much more level-headed and respected than Jaques. But
he was very wrong. I suspect that Jaques is, too.


"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

You're quoting a 16-year-old book published by the Cato Institute, and
the sentence you're quoting is in reference to China's non-membership
in the WTO. They became a member 13 years ago.

I assume you know that Cato is an extremely biased source, right? Read
what they say with a skeptical eye, and don't assume anything they say
is correct. Check their facts before buying in.


Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

They've managed it for around 60 years. Their internal stuggles
haven't unraveled the Party yet.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 *wrote:*

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:*
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer*

--*http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...artin-jacques*

Martin Jaques, former editor of _Marxism Today_, is not a source I*
would quote. You may not be old enough to remember David Halberstam's*
book, _The Reckoning_, which said the same thing about Japan that*
Jaques says now about China in his book, _When China Rules the World_.*

Halberstam was much more level-headed and respected than Jaques. But*
he was very wrong. I suspect that Jaques is, too.*


*
"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "*
*
--*http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc*

You're quoting a 16-year-old book published by the Cato Institute, and*
the sentence you're quoting is in reference to China's non-membership*
in the WTO. They became a member 13 years ago.*

So if these quotes are wrong, then I expect to see a correction published. They stand until then.

I assume you know that Cato is an extremely biased source, right? Read*
what they say with a skeptical eye, and don't assume anything they say*
is correct. Check their facts before buying in.*

Just because rightist groups may be garbage (to use an old Boston term, as John Kerry says) doesn't mean that a broken clock is wrong 100% of the time, either.

*
Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.*

They've managed it for around 60 years.

Polls say the Chinese disagree, Ed. "Most Chinese*for political reforms:*poll" -Indian Express newspaper.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:20:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Ed Huntress

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 *wrote:*

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:*
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer*

--*http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...artin-jacques*

Martin Jaques, former editor of _Marxism Today_, is not a source I*
would quote. You may not be old enough to remember David Halberstam's*
book, _The Reckoning_, which said the same thing about Japan that*
Jaques says now about China in his book, _When China Rules the World_.*

Halberstam was much more level-headed and respected than Jaques. But*
he was very wrong. I suspect that Jaques is, too.*


*
"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "*
*
--*http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc*

You're quoting a 16-year-old book published by the Cato Institute, and*
the sentence you're quoting is in reference to China's non-membership*
in the WTO. They became a member 13 years ago.*

So if these quotes are wrong, then I expect to see a correction published. They stand until then.

You must be frequently disappointed.


I assume you know that Cato is an extremely biased source, right? Read*
what they say with a skeptical eye, and don't assume anything they say*
is correct. Check their facts before buying in.*

Just because rightist groups may be garbage (to use an old Boston term, as John Kerry says) doesn't mean that a broken clock is wrong 100% of the time, either.

*
Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.*

They've managed it for around 60 years.

Polls say the Chinese disagree, Ed. "Most Chinese*for political reforms:*poll" -Indian Express newspaper.

They have been since Tiananmen Square. Good luck!

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

That is a rather inaccurate statement as the present "political party"
has changed the form of the national government and has successfully
controlled the country for a number of years now.
--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

That is a rather inaccurate statement as the present "political party"
has changed the form of the national government and has successfully
controlled the country for a number of years now.

Not to mention controlling the deaths of 120,000,000 Chinese


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On 11/24/2014 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:57:21 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:34:24 +0700, John D. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 07:57:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
On 22 Nov 2014 01:15:15 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

But no one has a case for the USSR not being "Communist." That is a
political party name, and they were the ones who defined it. As for
lower-case "communist," they never even came close.

I knew a Czech blacksmith who (in 1982) opined, "There is no
communism, only state-capitalism."

Well, they never came close to the standard definition of "communism,"
and whether they were truly socialist depends on which definition you
use, too.

"State capitalism" is a pejorative (usually) that has several
different meanings, but the Soviet Union and their client states fit
the core definition: state ownership, with individual enterprises
operated along capitalist lines, including accounting for capital,
materials, sales, operating costs, and profits, with business-like
management structure.

China fits a different version of "state capitalism," but most
economists agree that it fits the general definition, too. In China's
case, there is a combination of state and private ownership (today),
but with heavy-handed state control of all enterprise.

"Beyond a point, the Chinese government has little control over the value of its currency, which is largely determined by market forces."

-- http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...martin-jacques

"China is too big to be changed and too important to be ignored. "

-- http://tinyurl.com/lwhtcbc

Because of these factors, you have to wonder if any "political party" can successfully control China.

That is a rather inaccurate statement as the present "political party"
has changed the form of the national government and has successfully
controlled the country for a number of years now.

Not to mention controlling the deaths of 120,000,000 Chinese

Well, as they say, "if you want to make omelets you need to break
eggs" :-)

--
cheers,

John D.Slocomb

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:46:53 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

i

On 11/24/2014 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:46:53 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington



No, a Makarov pistol is basically a copy of a Walther PP but in 9mm x
18mm, right between a 9mm Lugar and a .380 auto. Some people love them.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:32:03 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:46:53 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.


No, a Makarov pistol is basically a copy of a Walther PP but in 9mm x
18mm, right between a 9mm Lugar and a .380 auto. Some people love them.

That 'un went PSA on ya, did it, Tawm? You're lucky I didn't refer to
a "Big Mac". g

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

Unless you're talking about Concealed Carry Weapons, of course.

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

http://gungeekfrag.tumblr.com/post/1...now-allows-ccw
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...r-Self-Defense
etc.

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

On 11/25/2014 1:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.


No, a Makarov pistol is basically a copy of a Walther PP but in 9mm x
18mm, right between a 9mm Lugar and a .380 auto. Some people love them.

That 'un went PSA on ya, did it, Tawm? You're lucky I didn't refer to
a "Big Mac". g

--

I wonder what the carry of choice in Ferguson will be, The "Race-Baiter
Special"? The personal favorite of Obammy and Holder.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

So Tovarich...is the propaganda working against the evil Westerners?
We made the right decision when we made it appear that the USSR was
finished, when in fact we simply went underground and stayed in
control using our vast group of puppets...soon..victory will be
ours!!!

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

i

Im sure it does. It also means "****s cant work" and many other
things.

In this context however..it means "Carry Concealed Weapon"...which I
grant is something improbable and fantastic..to residents of Illinois
at the moment, but then..it is a despotic nation state itself.

Gunner, CCW for 28 yrs so far


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On 2014-11-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

http://gungeekfrag.tumblr.com/post/1...now-allows-ccw
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...r-Self-Defense
etc.


These gun nuts are confused by the general messiness of Russian
laws. Nothing new was permitted.

http://www.forbes.ru/news/273675-mvd...ubogo-oruzhiya

The less you listen to "Breitbart", the more informed you are.

i
i

On 2014-11-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

So Tovarich...is the propaganda working against the evil Westerners?
We made the right decision when we made it appear that the USSR was
finished, when in fact we simply went underground and stayed in
control using our vast group of puppets...soon..victory will be
ours!!!

You are wrong on the basis of fact, and the above nonsense really is
nothing but empty subterfuge.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

i

Im sure it does. It also means "****s cant work" and many other
things.

In this context however..it means "Carry Concealed Weapon"...which I
grant is something improbable and fantastic..to residents of Illinois
at the moment, but then..it is a despotic nation state itself.

Gunner, CCW for 28 yrs so far

CCW actually exists in Illinois, and I plan to get a permit, except
that I am very busy.

i

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:38:38 -0600, Ignoramus16276
wrote:

On 2014-11-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

http://gungeekfrag.tumblr.com/post/1...now-allows-ccw
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...r-Self-Defense
etc.


These gun nuts are confused by the general messiness of Russian
laws. Nothing new was permitted.

http://www.forbes.ru/news/273675-mvd...ubogo-oruzhiya

The less you listen to "Breitbart", the more informed you are.

i

So Comrade...how many here do you think can read Cyrilic..IE Russian?

Humm?

Now it may have been possible for an upper level Party member to get
a concealed weapons permit..but was it possible for the
lumpenprolitariat to get one?

Hummmm?

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:39:39 -0600, Ignoramus16276
wrote:

On 2014-11-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

So Tovarich...is the propaganda working against the evil Westerners?
We made the right decision when we made it appear that the USSR was
finished, when in fact we simply went underground and stayed in
control using our vast group of puppets...soon..victory will be
ours!!!

You are wrong on the basis of fact, and the above nonsense really is
nothing but empty subterfuge.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

i

Im sure it does. It also means "****s cant work" and many other
things.

In this context however..it means "Carry Concealed Weapon"...which I
grant is something improbable and fantastic..to residents of Illinois
at the moment, but then..it is a despotic nation state itself.

Gunner, CCW for 28 yrs so far

CCW actually exists in Illinois, and I plan to get a permit, except
that I am very busy.

i
Ayup..it sure does. Been available now for what...8 months-10? Except
of course in Chi. Does Chicago even honor any other agencies permits
from inside the states borders?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-w...b_4586023.html

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...08132014-836am


Take the time Tovarich....take the time.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On 2014-11-26, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:38:38 -0600, Ignoramus16276
wrote:

On 2014-11-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

http://gungeekfrag.tumblr.com/post/1...now-allows-ccw
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...r-Self-Defense
etc.


These gun nuts are confused by the general messiness of Russian
laws. Nothing new was permitted.

http://www.forbes.ru/news/273675-mvd...ubogo-oruzhiya

The less you listen to "Breitbart", the more informed you are.

i

So Comrade...how many here do you think can read Cyrilic..IE Russian?

Humm?

I can, and that is why I am telling you that Russia did not permit
"concealed carry".

Now it may have been possible for an upper level Party member to get
a concealed weapons permit..but was it possible for the
lumpenprolitariat to get one?

It never really was.

Russia is a big mess, and maybe it is possible for some elite people
to get concealed permits, run over pedestrians without consequences,
etc, but it is not possible for the vast majority of the population.

i

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
So Comrade...how many here do you think can read Cyrilic..IE
Russian?

Humm?

A Russian lesson for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(Russian_profanity)

On 11/24/2014 9:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:46:53 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/24/2014 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....


What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.

Nah, they still have Stechkins lying around since they realized they
served no purpose.

David

On 11/24/2014 9:32 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

No, a Makarov pistol is basically a copy of a Walther PP but in 9mm x
18mm, right between a 9mm Lugar and a .380 auto. Some people love them.

Although a Makarov PM has some of the same functions as a Walther PP,
internally they are very different. I've disassembled both and the Mak
is quite clever, doing most of what the PP does with about half the parts.

David

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:49:46 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 11/25/2014 1:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
What will be the carry of choice? Got to be a Mak.

Mac10 or Uzi, more likely, though they're not very comfy in
inside-waistband holsters.


No, a Makarov pistol is basically a copy of a Walther PP but in 9mm x
18mm, right between a 9mm Lugar and a .380 auto. Some people love them.

That 'un went PSA on ya, did it, Tawm? You're lucky I didn't refer to
a "Big Mac". g

--

I wonder what the carry of choice in Ferguson will be, The "Race-Baiter
Special"? The personal favorite of Obammy and Holder.

Well, obviously, the "glaring at the cop while running directly at him
and reaching into your waistband with your right hand" ploy isn't
going to be a very popular "carry choice", will it?

I hope the looting, arsonist rioters get swatted but good. sigh
May the black (and white) race-baiters rot in a special hell of their
own, and _soon_.

https://news.yahoo.com/photos/protes...les-slideshow/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...sical-evidence

How about some biased "reporting"?
http://news.yahoo.com/9-essential-fa...150002799.html

http://news.yahoo.com/in-darren-wils...132740762.html
After seeing the video of Brown's attitude and actions during the
robbery just prior to his death, I can see why Wilson had to shoot
him. The guy smacked him in the left cheek when he was in his police
car, fer chrissake. This after the two refused to let the cop by
while they strolled down the middle of the street? sigh

--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:58:44 -0600, Ignoramus16276
wrote:

On 2014-11-26, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:38:38 -0600, Ignoramus16276
wrote:

On 2014-11-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:29:38 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

On 2014-11-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:24:11 -0600, Ignoramus14511
wrote:

Various fine points aside, I do not believe that Russian legislators
approved the carry of guns for self-defense. It was kind of discussed
and never approved.

i

Google "russia allows ccw"

15 million hits.....

This means nothing, as you well know.

ccw means counterclockwise, of course

http://gungeekfrag.tumblr.com/post/1...now-allows-ccw
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...r-Self-Defense
etc.


These gun nuts are confused by the general messiness of Russian
laws. Nothing new was permitted.

http://www.forbes.ru/news/273675-mvd...ubogo-oruzhiya

The less you listen to "Breitbart", the more informed you are.

i

So Comrade...how many here do you think can read Cyrilic..IE Russian?

Humm?

I can, and that is why I am telling you that Russia did not permit
"concealed carry".

But they do now.

Now it may have been possible for an upper level Party member to get
a concealed weapons permit..but was it possible for the
lumpenprolitariat to get one?

It never really was.

But it is now.

Russia is a big mess, and maybe it is possible for some elite people
to get concealed permits, run over pedestrians without consequences,
etc, but it is not possible for the vast majority of the population.

i
But it is now.

Things change. 15 yrs ago..only 15 or so US states issued
CCWs..now..they all do.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke