by jorb » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:58 am
I do not wish to engage in a conversation over the finer points of socialist theology, but what I fundamentally oppose, and what my comments fundamentally pertain to, is totalitarian state control and planning of the social, economic and political life of a nation and its denizens -- such as was practiced in the Soviet Union -- if that then is or is not "true communism" is completely irrelevant. No historical society describing itself as socialist has deviated from the model presented by the Soviet Union, and if you wish to propose the existence, possibility or practicability of some other -- presumably better, since all experiments to date have been miserable failures -- form of "true communism" then the onus of proof really rests with you. Try not to kill too many people should you decide experiment with it.
In that sense Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Chavez and their respective "ideologies" are very hard to tell apart. The various socialist sects -- from Lenin to Luxemburg -- have almost without exception been named in direct reference to their intellectual figurehead -- Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. -- a telling sign that there is very little to be had from them other than one cult of personality or another. They resemble to no small extent the various sects of the protestant reformation. Luther and Zwingli claimed to disagree, but when the topic of disagreement is something as ephemeral -- and dependent on a very broad corpus of common premises -- as transubstantiation, the position that they are nearly indistinguishable becomes reasonable. Sure, there might be 1000 or 1001 angels on the pinhead, but -- really -- who gives a shit?
"The psychological trials of dwellers in the last times will be equal to the physical trials of the martyrs. In order to face these trials we must be living in a different world."
-- Hieromonk Seraphim Rose