response 3 of 76:

Jul 18 20:28 UTC 2003

What happened when Franklin died, besides his being put on a dollar bill
almost no-one uses?  (Which I do realise may have been well after he actually
died.)

response 5 of 76:

Jul 18 21:48 UTC 2003

that's what i thought.

response 9 of 76:

Jul 19 02:36 UTC 2003

Re #6: Thank you, Jeff!

response 11 of 76:

Jul 19 16:04 UTC 2003

I hope that communist motherfucker dies soon.
He is on Fidel Casto's payroll.
He's a racist.
He also is a known homosexual and child molester.

response 19 of 76:

Jul 23 03:07 UTC 2003

Re #15:  Regardless of what Communism is, if there had never been an
implementation of it on a national scale which had not led to mass
oppression and worse, a person who still advanced it would be seen
as a would-be oppressor.  Anyone making excuses for it would be seen
as a person of questionable intellect or integrity.

Oh, wait...

response 21 of 76:

Jul 23 06:03 UTC 2003

In the item where I originally argued that there were two communisms, we were
discussing the 1930's IIRC.  Whatever the merits of Russ's argument now, it
clearly made no sense in respect to people who were communists in the 1930's,
when the world had much less experience with the outcome of attempts to
construct communistic governments.

In the present discussion, the subject is Nelson Mandela, a different ball
of wax entirely.  My impression is that communist movements in the third world
countries are mostly about the overthrow of oligarchies.  In many such nations
a small group of very rich and powerful people control nearly everything,
while the vast majority are very poor, with virtually no middle class in
between.  Populist movements in such nations naturally tend to talk about
taking the wealth away from the small number of rich people and distributing
it among the vast pool of poor.  This is an idea that fits quite neatly into
the communist philosophy, so such movement are nearly always characterized
as "communist" either by the participants or by onlookers.

I have sympathy with that desire.  Certainly it will never be possible to have
a functional democracy in countries like that unless you can make the
distribution of wealth more even.  As is, if you give the people the vote,
they will vote to take the money from the rich, so the rich use their vast
power to ensure the poor don't get a real vote.

So, if redistribution of wealth is communism, then I don't think a country
like this can possibly approach democracy without approaching communism. 
Apparantly the US government thinks so too, which is why we have such a long
track record of supporting totalitarian dictators to keep the communists down.

Of course, though communism is the obvious solution grasped at by the poor,
it doesn't seem to work in practice.  Whoever gets put in charge of
redistributing the wealth, is in control of the wealth, and thus becomes the
new dictator.  So communism fails to actually solve the problem.

Still, I can't fault Mandela for wanting to take wealth and power away from
the ruling whites and distribute it among the people.  That is what somehow
has to happen in that country.  Communism is likely not an effective vehicle,
but then, what's better?

response 23 of 76:

Jul 23 13:56 UTC 2003

What you really want is to have the local economies develop in a way that does
not just lead to even more money for the rich few.  You need a middle class
to develop.

Here's my plan:  three generation US visas.  You let half a million or so
worthy poor emmigrate to America, where they are treated as full America
citizens, as are their children and grandchildren.  But their great
grandchildren have to move back to their ancestrial country and live there
for at least 30 years.  That way they get a middle class, and a large number
of people who aren't willing to put up with any government any crappier than,
say, Bush's.

(Everyone is excused from explaining why that idea is stupid.  Better ideas
are solicited.)