Dear Poirot,

Your answer to the question of the number of corpses under the Marxist governments is human nature. Of course it is. However, human nature expresses itself in many ways. Making piles of corpses is one way. Since Marxism apparently encourages that particular mode of production it seems logical to conclude the world is better off without Marxism. We are all going to die. I prefer to die in bed.

imajulianutter,

Are you trying to argue that conservatives aren't right-wing, or that fascists aren't right-wing?

Poirot and Acolyte Rizla

What was wrong with feudalism:

- It relied on serfdom and the oppression of peasantry
- Its power was based on extreme violence, including the death penalty for what we would consider minor infringements.
- Its values were based on unquestioning allegiance to authority
- It was profoundly unequal and hierarchical, with the aristocracy having more rights, power, privileges and resources powers than ordinary folk (if you think inequality is a problem nowadays, look at the differences between peasants and royalty in the middle ages)
- For ordinary folk there was no equality before the law. The law was what their regional squire, lord or baron decided.
- It thrived on ignorance, superstition, illiteracy and social stasis
- It entailed grinding poverty; strenuous, boring, repetitive work dawn to dusk, and dreadful living conditions (malnutrition, food insecurity, rudimentary health care, low life expectancy)

The romantic vision of pre-industrial conditions for ordinary folk is light years from reality. That’s why so many people moved to the cities when industrialisation began, and that’s why Marx saw capitalism as an improvement on feudalism.

I have nothing against modern-day rural life, and at times have enjoyed living in the country. But modern-day rural life is very different from feudal society. Modern rural communities have access to services and resources beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors, and their lives are far easier, more comfortable and more secure.

The Acolyte Rizla,

I have already stated my belief and backed it up.

'I don't know of any liberal/conservative party that endorses nationalisation of Banking functions, Infrustructure, Unions and the means of production of food and essential supplies... which was the policy of the German National Socialists and is what they did.'

It quite clearly shows the fundamental difference between the National Socialists and Liberal/Conservatives

It seems you dispute this statement, but don't show how it is not correct. All I've done till now is ask you to back up your assertion.

You've dodged and weaved like a spot-lit rabbit and now you ask,

'Are you trying to argue that conservatives aren't right-wing, or that fascists aren't right-wing?'

Pay attention.

'Adolph Hittler was the leader of the National Socialist Party of Germany. He didn't lead the National Conservative or Liberal Party of Germany.'

'I don't know of any liberal/conservative party that endorses nationalisation of Banking functions, Infrustructure, Unions and the means of production of food and essential supplies... which was the policy of the German National Socialists and is what they did.'

I'll add now, personal endeavour and freedom generally are typical policy traits of Liberal/Conservative parties. That is the reverse of socialists and particularly National Socialists.

You are in disagreement with that... but haven't produced any information showing my belief to be incorrect. Until you do I'll continue with my supported belief rather than blindly adopt your, dearly clung to, unsupported assertion.

imajulianutter,

O...kay

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fascism

I'll add now, personal liberty seems to be anathema to all the conservative and so-called 'liberal' parties I'm familiar with.

Feel free to continue with your uniquely erroneous view that fascism is a left-wing platform. I'll be over here with the rest of the world, sniggering quietly at your profound ignorance.

David and all,

I'm prepared to make some concession, though I maintain that too often conditioned thinking prevails over critical thinking.
I agree that Marxism has often been treated as akin to a faith and I'm against that.
Marx's thought was influenced by the Darwinist progressivism of the times. Where I fundamentally disagree with Marx is on leaving humanity's fate to the forces of social evolution. I also think that the concept of evolving socialism cum communism is problematic, and that egalitarianism attenuated is another route to nihilism, as Nietzsche argued. Indeed egalitarianism is itself a runaway ideology that should be reigned-in and kept within manageable as well as ethical constraints that are tempered by practicalities. I'm against consigning humanity's fate to any economic/social functionalism, and that's both communism and capitalism.
Humanity has evolved to the point where we need no longer be subject purely to blind evolutionary processes. We are of course doomed to such forces ultimately, but we could live more sustainably in the meantime by at least imposing limits on personal wealth. The fact that we are never going to achieve absolute equality doesn't mean we should eliminate the grosser instances of excess.
I don't think we should trust to any operating system--as if economics was independent of our natural dispensation, or human fulfilment.
I am willing to concede that materialism has a tendency to devalue ideology, and life and ideology are inseparable, I think; ergo materialism has a tendency to devalue life.
Sociology and economics have a tendency to devalue life, though they feign a devotional patronage.
I think life and economics should be based on husbandry.