perfidy

Wright College is currently on Spring Break, so I might be rather prolific on the postings this week. 

The Marxist Conundrum 

I'll offer a few points of clarification, as I'm more than happy to answer your questions in this regard. First, the religious imagery is not unintended. Marxism, as part prophecy, is a form of religion. It has a prophet, its own dogma, and its own scripture. Marxism bears a close resemblance to religious philosophy. It is, in many ways, a political and economic religion. Strange, given that according to Marx himself, religion is the opiate of the masses. But he meant Christianity, really.

I'm sure the environmentalists you worked with either were Communists or considered themselves such, depending on how you look at it. But like some faux Communists in power, they deviated from the scripture in a way that negates their self-definition. As Marx argued that nature existed to be dominated by man, and as the environmentalists you worked with either ignored or broke with that belief, their self-definition becomes dodgy. At best, those environmentalists represent a serious schismatic deviation. Did these folks with whom you worked ever discuss the inconsistency between environmentalism and Marxist doctrine? Or did they just carry around the Manifesto without actually reading it? Of course, the Manifesto is not the be-all, end-all. It's the equivalent of the book of Genesis. 

As to those in power, I do not dismiss people from the definition of Communist simply because they were in power and killed people. Trotsky held power for some time, and his ruthless suppression of the Krondstadt Rebellion certainly qualifies as a slaughter. But Trotsky continued to work toward global revolution and advocated the withering away of the state, whereas Stalin said one state is good enough and the state should be increased, not withered away. Lenin is highly debatable, what with NEP and the Cheka and all. 

My point, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that Communism only occurs with a global revolution and the withering away of the state. Anything less is short of the mark. I submit that there is no such thing as a Communist government. State governments are bourgeois institutions, like marriage, nationalism, and currency. There wasn't supposed to be a government because Communists were supposed to get rid of bourgeois institutions, including and especially individual state governments. The Vanguard of the Proletariat was only supposed to tend the ship while simultaneously reducing the role of the state in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Part of the problem with Marxist doctrine and dogma is that the Vanguard of the Proletariat is supposed to seize power from the bourgeoisies and then do their best to get rid of it. That like many, if not all, aspects of Marxist doctrine, run counter to human nature. People in power hold on to power, not give it up, as Marx prophesied. I understand that as a devotee of political science, it might be difficult to accept. But state governments are bourgeois, and irrelevant. Marx prophesied that state governments had to fall. There is no such thing as a Communist state government. It's all about class. 

So it might be splitting hairs as far as you're concerned, but anyone who leads a state government cannot be a true Marxist or Communist. Stalin et al were Totalitarians, not Communists. Stalin looked an awful lot like the Czar, and Mao looked an awful lot like the Emperor. I would even quibble with calling them Socialists. 

As to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it wasn't intended as a dictatorship in the repressive Totalitarian sense. The idea was that everyone would have a hand in societal decision making, essentially dictating what occurred, instead of just a small handful of wealthy elites. 

Fox News 

No, it's not just because of their slant. When I compare what Fox News says versus other broadcast sources, Fox frequently turns out to be wrong. 

Ba'ath Party 

Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I'm going to do some research and then I'll get back to you. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I want to really investigate this thoroughly with historical methodology and historical secondary sources as opposed to journalism. Thanks for providing the article link. I'll mention here, though, that complaints I hear about liberal media (in the modern American sense of liberal) and the domination of liberal media don't stand up to news sources like that one, Fox News, Scripps Howard, the National Review, etc. Seems to me there's plenty of not liberal media. 

Weapons and Camps 

Like I said, the one in the north of Iraq wasn't in territory that Hussein controlled. The camp south of Baghdad still yields no evidence that it's specifically al Qaeda. Maybe terrorist, but not necessarily al Qaeda. The Gwynne Roberts article does indicate connections, but I'll want more corroboration. Possible chemical weapons stores are not actual chemical weapons stores. At this point, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I'd think that the Americans just planted it like a cop throwing a baggie of crack into a car trunk. I'm very suspicious. It's easy to lie, even in print or on TV. I want to hear it from NPR, CNN, Reuters, and the AP before I accept it.