next »

[moon over parma]

There's the fairy tale communism Marx wrote about, and then there's things like Corporate communism, where hte "commune" isn't a thing created by the people, but for the people, I. e. Cuba, China, old Russia - where hte few control the many and there are only sate-approved ways of doing things. In the UNited States, beign a bogus "two party system," and where our president is not actually "elected" by the people (so long as an electoral gollege is in place the United States will never be a tru democracy, same applies to teh bogus, "two party system"). Seeing as how America's newspapers and radio stations and major broadcasters (i. e. networks) are in teh hands of 5 media companies, and seeing as how the era of the "ma and pa" stores have dwindled into oblivoin and small cities are little more than chain stores owned by a handful of conglomerates, and producs on shelves are mostly from giant companies (regional companies continue to slide into oblivion) - it  is very much akin to what existed in communist countries.

When coporations liek Haliburton have such an obvious hand in foreign and domestic policy (see hurrican Katrina for more information) then "the state" is little mroe than a coporate tool, and any way you slice it, it's closer to the real world "communism" that actually exists, as opposed to the fat German blowhard idealist's little "manifesto" could ever be, especially in thsi day and age.

Live int he U. S. for the next year, Lotus Eater, and get back to me. Yo ucan try to apply what you observe through INTERNATIONAL NEWS, but unless you're in the thick of it, watching the bizarro world go down, then you're only on the outside looking in, and that's isn't always so eye-opening. Today, the U. S. A. is becoming the U. $. $. A. (tm).

[The Clan]

Today, the U. S. A. is becoming the U. $. $. A. (tm).

Here, here!

[moon over parma]

Today, the U. S. A. is becoming the U. $. $. A. (tm).

Here, here!

Let me preface my comments by saying I mean no offense with this;  I wonder how much worse the deterioration of the United States seems when you have a family to support, than in my own situation. I have to look out for myself. I can only imagine the nightmares raising a family in America today would represent.

[Lotus Eater]

There's the fairy tale communism Marx wrote about, and then there's things like Corporate communism, where hte "commune" isn't a thing created by the people, but for the people, I. e. Cuba, China, old Russia - where hte few control the many and there are only sate-approved ways of doing things.

Live int he U. S. for the next year, Lotus Eater, and get back to me. Yo ucan try to apply what you observe through INTERNATIONAL NEWS, but unless you're in the thick fo it, watching the

bizarro world

go down, then you're only on the outside looking in, and that's isn't always so eye-opening. Today, the U. S. A. is becoming the U. $. $. A. (tm).

OK - I can see where our differences in definition of 'communism' come from.  I did point out that mine was a THEORETICAL definition - your Marxist dream.  And I did point out that this wasn't operational anywhere.

The ownership/control of much by a few, supported by the labours of many is not essentially communist but feudal - so we could upset a few leaders by pointing out to them that they have essentially remodelled feudalism.  I already point out that Australia is way more socialist than China, which gives rise to much confusion.

The

bizarro world

you speak of, is echoed in Australia - just talk to Packer and Murdoch - albeit on a smaller scale.  Why do you think so many Australians are disgruntled with the way international and internal affairs are being conducted by the current government?  Why do you think so many of us were so shamed by Howard's blind following of Bush?

And from International News I can see the influence Halliburton has on international affairs - and it's current move to UAE to stop any investigation of it's affairs.  Surely I don't need to live that to analyse it? 

If we only analysed what we lived, no history would ever be written.

[moon over parma]

If we only analysed what we lived, no history would ever be written.

If we analysed what we lived more often, history wouldn't be fabricated. After all, isn't that what history is? Fabrication? Embellishment? The whole thing about history books being written by "the victors?"

The mosst influential media magnate in the U. S. - as I'm sure you're aware of - is Rupert Murdoch. Sadly, I don't think his dragon lady wife (who's bat shit crazy! If you haven't researched her background, then it's worth it for the comedy alone!) will be his downfall. Even if she was to bring 'em down, I shudder when I ponder how Wendy Deng and his kids view the world...

[Lotus Eater]

Murdoch's older children are imbued with the 'riches = power' syndrome. But they aren't so keen on wife No 3. Could be very interesting when he decides to actually take his hands off the wheel. Problems have already surfaced about the family trust. Lachlan has already gone out for a while to build his own business, Elizabeth and James are also keen to move into the running seat some day.

But - we grew up on Murdoch and his machinations.

I'm not certain we can analyse what we are living while we are living it.  Firstly, there is too much we don't know - official secret gov't files e.g. are closed for 25 years in Australia.  Secondly, I think we are easily swayed by peer pressure, group think, major injustices to ourselves or our families that are actually minor in the scheme of things. (e.g. Hitler's view of Jews led to the holocaust - if those who believed as he did wrote history, then we would have a different history again).  Thirdly, the impact of those actions, beliefs changes with passing years - worsens, ameliorates etc.

We do need to analyse what we can, BEFORE we make decisions.  We especially need to analyse as much as possible of our government's decisions, prior to voting day!  But we also have to accept that there will be much we don't know, can't know until a broader view can be taken.

Taking it down to a small example - family history.  As a child we analyse our mother's discipline of us as harsh (after all everybody else's mother lets them watch TV at night and doesn't make them learn 8 times table).  But as we grow further away from that part of our history, we know more about our mother's own difficult life, we begin to understand her desire for us to succeed, and we also see that 8 times table is of use to us in our further studies, and we gain a better understanding of what 'harsh' actually is.  So our analysis of the history that we lived at that time is faulty.

What we can do is take the anecdotal accounts and other original source material of that time and fit them into the broader scheme of history, creating, hopefully with some rigorous scholarship, a clearer view of all of the threads that contributed to that history.