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
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.
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.