"One thing that offends me about your reply is your assumption that I formed my conclusions on communism based soley on "propaganda" and I don't think you were only directing that towards me but anyone who opposes the idea."
I never said that, i said that you were misinformed when you mentioned that "Typical of every example we've seen of communism in practice. Nothing but empty propaganda...". And i mentioned the fact that a lot countries in Africa, and Asia, and the former ussr were far better off with communism than with any prior dictator/king/sultan and are far worse off now that nike and mobil oil in collaboration with dictatorships are running the place, which you seemed unaware of.
"The truth is that I think that Marx's ideas are simply flawed, outdated and his ideas of the relationship between the classes are just too oversimplified. (Like my reply here.)"
Most of Marx's idea's are, i couldn't agree more, what you claim they are. But, a. socialism in it's broad sense is not marxism., b. so are adam smith's ideas, outdated.
"If life is so grand in Cuba why are there boatloads of Cubans trying to flee to the U.S. on a daily basis? I could be wrong but I've never seen a boatload of Floridians desperately trying to reach Cuban shores. Also don't think I've ever seen a ship pull into a Chinese port full of dead Americans who were trying to get to China."
Again you are not answering to the point i made but trying to derail me to a either or dichotomy of cuban/chinese communism as opposed to u.s. capitalism. Yeah, conditions in cuba are not good, but they are far better than when the dictatorship and other mafiosi from the states were running the show. Besides fyi Cuba has been suffering a catastrophic trade embargo for close to 40 years, the fact that they still manage is something close to a miracle. Also, china is no more communist, it's just the communist dictators running a very capitalist country, for the sake of foreign capital interests, not the indigenous population.
I can't see how that's relevant to things as:
a. many social democratic countries in the world doing just fine and having actually a much higher living standard (not in terms of monetary flow only but also in terms of quality of life) such as sweden, france, holland etc. etc.
b. u.s. expansionist imperialism that is hurting both indigenous u.s. population and the world in general. Why would bush be trying to wage wars for "peace" abroad, when he cant manage peace for east harlem or jersey city.
All, in all, why should anyone with any criticism for u.s. foreign policy or with any progressive measures in general, should be branded a commie and be dragged into an endless discussion on the ghulah etc. etc.
Regardless of whether progressive change in terms of foreign affairs is possible or not, i cant see how someone who does not condone imperialist wars is wrong.
The truth of the matter is that the tyrant known as Sadam was a u.s. product, and the u.s. has over the past 10 years shown no respect in the region for human life or the environment of the sake for some people's oil interests, in trying to take out the guy they d installed and used over time. I dont see how i could be wrong in saying that, and i dont see either why a right winger would not view things the same way (i know they do) if he were given a chance to speak honestly.
