Monarchy

[Soccer 15 SWC]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:43 PM']Here's Lenin, talking about his gentle reform.



~ Lenin in a letter to Georgy Solomon, Dec. 1917
[right][snapback]661731[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Chances are that happened during the revolution. But after you will see he had too give up alot of his Marxist views due to famine and revolt. So lets just agree that a pure Communist state can't work right while a modified version can work under very specific conditions.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Soccer 15 SWC

[Soccer 15 SWC]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jul 28 2005, 12:17 AM']Monarchy is at least as useful as other forms of non-tyrannical government. It's certainly more likely to be cheaper. There can be checks and balances in monarchies (of various sorts) at least as much as there can be in our republic.

I'm sure communism can work on a very small scale. But it takes violence to put it into motion on a large scale because it neccesitates theft, perhaps mre so than any other government.
[right][snapback]662140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think a good example would be England.

[Aloysius]

marxism is evil and condemned by the Church. even the most idealistic and modified version, unless you modify it enough that it is no longer marxism.

problems with marxism include:

denial of private property in favor of communal sharing of property (private property under Catholic Teaching is held as a divinely instituted right of man that cannot be infringed upon in any way without sin against the seventh commandmnet)

class warfare, pitting the poor against the rich when both are called to coexist and deal fairly with each other, classes are not called to be abolished but rather properly understood with a relationship between them

of course there's the part where it couldn't work in real life, but I don't concern myself with that because even if it could Christ's Church has condemned it.

If you alter it away from those points, make it defend the right of private property in a way that no one can infringe upon anyone else's private property without infringing upon the seventh commandment and make it so that there remain classes in peaceful coexistence, you have made it no longer marxism and/or communism.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Soccer 15 SWC' date='Jul 28 2005, 12:31 AM']Chances are that happened during the revolution. But after you will see he had too give up alot of his Marxist views due to famine and revolt. So lets just agree that a pure Communist state can't work right while a modified version can work under very specific conditions.
[right][snapback]662154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Lenin remained a true Marxist revolutionary communist to the end. He picked Stalin as his successor. Hundreds of thousands were killed under Lenin, and he reigned as a ruthless dictator after the revolution. His last major act before suffering his first stroke stroke was to seize total control of the Russian Orthodox Church, and he ordered all their sacred vessels melted down. He never renounced communism or Marxism.

Lenin was not a nice guy. (Though his successor Stalin would prove even worse).

(Correction: I noticed I accidentally miswrote in a former post "Pol Pot in Korea." That should say "Pol Pot in Cambodia" )

Edited July 29, 2005 by Socrates

[BeenaBobba]

I would prefer living under a Catholic monarch over living in the United States in 2005.

[Soccer 15 SWC]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 28 2005, 05:08 PM']marxism is evil and condemned by the Church.  even the most idealistic and modified version, unless you modify it enough that it is no longer marxism.

problems with marxism include:

denial of private property in favor of communal sharing of property (private property under Catholic Teaching is held as a divinely instituted right of man that cannot be infringed upon in any way without sin against the seventh commandmnet)

class warfare, pitting the poor against the rich when both are called to coexist and deal fairly with each other, classes are not called to be abolished but rather properly understood with a relationship between them

of course there's the part where it couldn't work in real life, but I don't concern myself with that because even if it could Christ's Church has condemned it.

If you alter it away from those points, make it defend the right of private property in a way that no one can infringe upon anyone else's private property without infringing upon the seventh commandment and make it so that there remain classes in peaceful coexistence, you have made it no longer marxism and/or communism.
[right][snapback]662937[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]




Well if you put it that way. I see your point. This has got to be the best arguement. And for the record. Even though I made this arguement I wish not live under it since I like my stuff to stay mine.

[Aloysius]

: glad we agree then

the only just 'communistic' system resides in a religious community where people take [i]voluntary[/i] vows of poverty

[Soccer 15 SWC]

Thats something like what i believe Roussou said about humanity taking social contracts. Its a old memory so it could have been said by someone else.

[Aloysius]

oi ve... enlightenment peoplez lol. I'm not so much a fan of them : : but anyway,

you can get all the good stuff they said without all the false-humanism in some good ol' medieval theorists... (it was all in this crazy hidden and somewhat distorted continuity of thought from medieval times)

anyway, the idea of such a strong social contract that would allow for voluntary giving up of something good like private property on a large scale is dubious. a small community can all voluntarily choose to live in that community knowing that the pre-requisite to live in that community is a vow of poverty. an invisible social contract with a government does not accomplish this because there really is not nor can there ever be a real voluntary choice to make such a vow of poverty. moreover, since we promote the idea that private property is a good thing, we cannot hold that everyone in an entire society is called to such a voluntary vow of poverty.

lol... anyway... I didn't mean to rant about stuff again

I do know the theory of social contracts but I don't think it can be applied so strongly.