At the heart of Stalin people merely accused of being a dissident could be arrested, trials which were held were known as show trials, the verdict was a forgone conclusion.

Under the domestic violence protection acts, the alleged victim can make an accusation of domestic violence and have the alleged offender removed from the house. Feminists have done such a good job of propaganda that offender=male.

If the alleged offender admits culpability they are free to go, if however if does not, he will be subjected to soviet style re-education to admit culpability regardless of guilt or innocence.

Tao,

Perhaps rise to the plate and consider this…

Marx envisioned the abolition of all states and governments, and as a consequence, an end to war (how to motivate workers in a state which is both free and property less seemed to have eluded the Marxist states of the 20th century).

The goals out lined in Marx’s manifesto were widely understood to be 1) complete equality of all citizens, 2) abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, mines, railways, etc.), 3) the replacement of a market economy with one in which everyone got whatever they needed in return for such labor as they were able to give – to free an underclass of exploitation, a noble aim, eh? Communism was to abolish “eternal truths, it was to abolish all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore was act in contradiction to all past historical experience." Surely, implied here, is a certain despoiling of culture.

The manifesto was a quintessentially revolutionary document that called for the abolition of private property, the replacement of marriage by a "community of women," concentration of political power in the hands of the proletariat and the replacement of the state by "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." The Communist revolution was the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; little wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
Tthe imaginations of the intellectually powerful were captivated to create, as in Russia, a totalitarian ‘state’ (theoretically, run by the proletariat).

I would suggest, there are no democratic societies, or industrial societies or post-industrial societies that are not based on private property and economic markets. Arguably, those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being.

Communistic society with its own human delineation denies something essential – a denial, as given by Marx, “..Communism is not "against human nature" because there is no such thing - only the social values produced by certain kinds of economic organization.

Maximus, thanks for that but don't get too excited. I do think that the problem lies mostly with a section of the feminist movement (those wanting top dog status rather than equality) and with some who want the old roles back (dad at work, mum at home looking after the kids etc).

Both create and support the lies. I suspect that a lot of more moderate feminists have bought the lies about genderisation of child abuse and DV because the lies are so well spread.

I try and talk to those, the evidence is available (especially on the child abuse issues). I don't think that you are going to get the moderate feminists asking the right questions or examining the evidence while you attack all feminists.

I recognise the dangers in what is being pushed by some, I just don't see the need to make enemies of those who either don't support them or who only support them because they are acting on mis-information. Those I'd rather have on side working towards a a fair system that protects the innocent and stops the abusers whatever their gender.

R0bert

Relda,

I have no problem with you suggesting that I am in awe of Marx and Marxist theory. I find it difficult to see how anyone who attempts more than a cursory study of Marx and his work cannot be awestruck by the insight, breadth of knowledge, intellectual clarity, and body of work of the man.

First - your assertion that Marx was wrong about changes in the class structure under capitalism. According to Marxism a class is a group of people sharing common relations to labour and the means of production. At the two extremes there are the people who own the means of production and buy labour, the bourgeoisie, and the people do not own the means of production and are therefore forced to sell their labour, the proletariat. In the middle there are combinations and variations of these two characteristics, the middle classes (e.g. small business owners employ others but also work in their business themselves).

However, a person’s relationship to the means of production is objective – you own it, or you don’t. We can have subjective ideas about being middle class, i.e. we earn such and such, therefore we are middle class, or we are highly skilled, and therefore can command a higher salary, or start our own business, contract out … whatever. However these are just that, ideas – that somehow there is SOME OTHER WAY to beat the rat race, but in reality, there are only two relations–you own it, or you don’t. You can be a highly paid manager, engineer, IT guru, and be sacked tomorrow-you are no different from the factory worker who has just been sacked–except you have some savings (probably more debt) and dress better.

There are as well, different layers within working or middle classes, who identify their economic interests with those of the bourgeoisie e.g., the manager whose role it is to increase the profits of a company, so slashes jobs or conditions of workers etc.

As-Marx-said:-"These-social-relations-between-the-producers,-and-the-conditions-under-which-they-exchange-their-activities-and-share-in-the-total-act-of-production,-will-naturally-vary-according-to-the-character-of-the-means-of-production. “ Wage-Labour-and-Capital

Been a bit busy, I’ll get to the rest of your points later.

When I began studying nursing at the SA College of Advanced Education in the mid-1980s, students didn't touch a nursing topic for the first 12 months. Our first semester was devoted to a concentrated course in Marxist-Engelian theory.
It was put to us directly that, in a health system already overtaxed, it may be ok for some people to suffer, if their suffering served the common good. That is, health services were best directed to where they would do the most good for the most people. (They didn't define who should miss out!)

I would consider this the most profound change I have experienced in Australia ... the change from a health system whose fundamental role was to serve the individual welfare of each citizen equally, to one which deals with its citizens collectively, as "good overall outcomes" or "average health statistics".

We already are reaping the bitter sweet harvest. Anyone who works in aged care knows who misses out in a socialist health system ... the most powerless.(Interestingly, in SA, it has been a Canadian couple among the biggest "facilitators of change" in this direction in aged care.)

I'm not convinced, though, that "indoctrination" is the main motivator. It seems to me a lot of people will parrot any kind of dogma where good money and job security are at stake!

Good on you, James Hickey.

Lucy

Relda,

“how to motivate workers” , “eternal truths”, “despoiling of culture”, “community of women” , “radical rupture with traditional property relations”, “those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being”, “communistic society with its own human delineation denies something essential” etc.

I’m not really sure what exactly you are getting at. One would have thought that, having extracted some quotes from the Communist Manifesto, you might have read the rest which explained them. Nevertheless, my response follows:

Are you suggesting that our earliest human ancestors climbed down from the trees, walked on two legs, exchanged wedding bands, signed marriage certificates, staked out their quarter acre blocks, built mcmansions, had 2.3 children, sold their labour to capitalists, and lived happily ever after to this day? Are these eternal “essential” truths of human nature?.

The only thing that could possibly be eternal about humans is their DNA which strives to reproduce itself, and even that didn’t exist, and will not exist, eternally. It doesn’t even remain unchanged.

Given that humans existed for tens of thousands of years (40 odd on this continent) without private property, and only a few hundred of those under capitalist “private” property relations, a statement like “those who make war on private property, make war on human autonomy and human well-being” seems pretty preposterous. And funnily enough, for those 40 odd thousand years, humans were “motivated” to work to ensure their survival. That DNA is marvellous stuff.

Being so concerned as you are with “culture”, one would imagine you have observed that there are many differences of beliefs about “eternal truths” between cultures, different religious beliefs, different forms of “families”, different notions of “property”. Doesn’t this suggest that there are in fact very few, if any, “eternal truths” about human nature i.e. most are socially constructed. As you so aptly quoted “Communism is not “against human nature” because there is no such thing – only the social values produced by certain kinds of economic production”.