ardee, November 3 at 8:16 am #

Your voyeurism is a rather a sad admission.
************************************************

Nope. I’m not sad. In fact, I’m pretty happy.  It’s not an admission—it’s simply putting a silly argument in perspective.  Since I’ve been in plenty of them, I’m kind of an expert.

I’ll bet you don’t go to sports events or movies either.  After all, they are all voyeuristic!

Googling Gehenna, we get the Jewish Encyclopedia and everything I ever
wanted to know about Judaism.  Well not everything it seems.

Yes, the first sentence under the entry for Gehenna, is “The place where
children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the “valley of the
son of Hinnom,” to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii.
10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14).”

Nothing at that sight, however, on Moloch though.  So then on to another
google offering called the Concordant Studies:  The Gehenna of Fire, and there
we see that Moloch was a competing god of the Ammonites who insisted on
the sacrifice of children by burning.  Why am I not surprised at that
demonization?  If you read the history of religions you would see that is a
common practice.  It even works today with politicians.

Judaism is a religion of fear, along with the other two Abrahamic religions, that
shows how really nasty is that god Yahweh.  Beginning with Abraham who
would have sacrificed his son, but as it is written, was given a reprieve at the
last minute. 

Is it time to talk about religion in general?  If so, this will become a longer
forum than the one at the War of Language!  There was a very interesting
Charlie Rose interview with the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church,
Bartholomew, on last evening.  I tried to find the interview on the ‘Net but was
unable to. I only caught a few minutes of it and it seems like there was some
talk about that church being amenable to getting together with their brethren
in the Roman Catholic Church.  I find this a very curious turn of events. 
Perhaps not so curious when realizing that churches are in a continuous mode
of losing membership and collectivizing could be the only way they can survive
as an institution.  We witness the overture from the Pope to the Anglicans in
England.  What is startling are the results of an 18-year study of the changes in
an identity with a religion, ARIS.  See article at USA Today, Nov. 3, 2009.

What is interesting is that while there are increases in 32% of the states, 8%
show no change, and 60% have lost membership in the years between 1990 to
2009.  The highest increase is not surprising in the state of Texas for Catholics
and other Christians.  But for other Christians, only Rhode Island has had an
increase while the rest only 2 out of 50 states stayed the same but 46 states
have lost membership in that group of Christians.  For those who declare no
religion every single state shows an increase from 3% in Arkansas and
Mississippi to 22% in Vermont and 20% in New Hampshire.  This shows a
staggering trend.  What do you think it means?

When they are not consumed by the need to survive, that indelible need set in
their genes, images and illusions drives the human spirit.  These natural
abilities are what is at the bottom of all beliefs and the capacity for the mind to
make sense of them.  Religions are only one manifestation of those images and
illusions.  Language, literary and the visual and performing arts are other signs. 
The need to create supernatural explanations for the phenomena experienced
by humans has become relieved and mitigated over the millennia by the also
natural inclination “to know” and investigate their world from which the
sciences developed.  While absolute knowledge or truth is elusive, what
becomes more reasonable to believe is bound to change by those who accept
rational explanations.

In Gehenna don’t they sacrifice children to Moloch, the same “owl” god worshipped at the bohemian grove?

Inherit The Wind, November 1 at 8:14 pm #

Hey! FT! Pass the popcorn!  It’s much more fun to watch RD fight with She than with MarthaA.  With She, RD’s got his hands full—she’s easily a match for him.

****************************

Your voyeurism is a rather a sad admission.

A few years ago a woman brought me a short film of a stripper and photos of
her face from various angles so that I might Photoshop her face on the
stripper. At 24 frames per second the three minute film was a logistical
nightmare so I wrote a program to drag and drop photos that would
automatically match the parameters of the pictures. It worked so well that she
suggested that I go commercial with the program. Since I had no need for that
much money I declined but your eloquent defense of capitalism and low
opinion of men has inspired me. Oddly enough one of my ideas does have
commercial value, the porn industry is very interested.

By Shenonymous, October 5 at 8:59 pm #

Even if I am the only one on TD to stand up for capitalism, then that is what I
will do, being the iconoclast that I am.

Thank you ITW.  Now that I think about that hell business, you are right! 
I clean forgot about Gehenna.  I think I’ve only seen the word a few times in my
whole life.  Who gets to go there?  Not Jews right?  Way…elll maybe Bernie
Madoff gets to go there seeing that he shystered so many Jewish folks out of
their money?  (One of them is a good friend of mine and mannn is he upset.) 
Or maybe only Jews get to go there???  My goodness, seems like there would
have to be a Holiday Inn both in Gehenna and in Heaven.  Maybe you could give
me a flash course on Jewish Heaven?  Is there such a thing and what do you
have to do to be invited?  You do have to be invited, right?  Or maybe a good
article that explains it?  I feel like I need better educated in all of this. 

I mean if the Anglicans are going to join the Catholics, mannn…that increases
the combined numbers astronomically and all the money the Anglicans will
bring into The Church, just thinking about all that sanctimonious corporate
power sends chills up and down my spine.  I always wondered, on Judgment
Day, as religions think there will be one, will Judaism or Christianity prevail?  If
we are to conclude and wager as Pascal did, it might be a good idea to know
which religion holds the cards.  Course I don’t think Pascal was right.  Oh oh, I
am forgetting the Islamist bunch.  It is not going to be a pretty thing.  I’m
going to take Melvin Koznosky’s attitude…What?  Me worry?

Hey! FT! Pass the popcorn!  It’s much more fun to watch RD fight with She than with MarthaA.  With She, RD’s got his hands full—she’s easily a match for him.

(BTW, She—there is a Jewish Hell—it’s called Gehenna, but unlike Christians and Moslems, it’s not talked about much).

Oh I meant to say:
Good “turn off the daylight savings time” Sunday morning…..
You get an extra hour of sleep.  Dream well.

Boo hoo, ardee, your apology did come in but it didn’t show up in my
email until after I had posted my smartaleck remark.  So oaky if you don’t want
to accept my expression of regret.  (And do notice I have not put even one
microounce of sarcasm here.)  But also notice that along with your apology you
added a snippy tag of our own about my snippiness that neutralized your
apology making it disingenuous.  Being adamantly unforgiving is a serious
thing.  The “I did it first” attitude can be a hindrance to mature interaction. 

Your sister must have learned to be haughty and arrogant from somewhere. 
Babies are not born that way.  You also might consider what was your part in
the sibling fracture besides her being rich and insolent. 

Signing off here for any further interaction with you, unless you dare an
undeserved criticism of me somewhere down the line.  Of course I will be the
judge of whether it is undeserving or not.

Okay, here is my apology to ardee.  Hey aarrrrdeeeee, I’m
ssssoooorr r r r yyyy, with icing on it.
**************************************
Too freaking late, I apologized first. With a bit more sincerity too…..I will be very careful in future not to include humor in my responses to you..Didnt they once have a telethon for the humor impaired?

I do not get along with my own sister, much less an artifially created one. She is a jillionaire and thinks that merits special treatment. Silence is so special, which is what I give her, for Xmas, birthdays and every day in fact.

Gee, Folktruther, you are such a grouch.  Do you think I care if you are
bored?  If ardee and I want to piss at each other while you and ITW
piss at each other, well we will just have a lot of piss around here.  Do you
think this is your own private outhouse?

I’ll tell you something in secret though, Folktruther, I rather like
ardee except we get into this pissing contest every so often.  I don’t
know… it is sort of like my brother and me.  Yeah, he reminds me of my
brother.  Most of the time we get over it and find something good about each
other, but other times, it is the shrew against the shithead.  You, especially you,
have to admit, I am a great shrew.  Watchagonnado? 

Oh aw okay, I’ll stop it so you and ITW can do your thing together.  Wait! 
wait!  I think I noticed you two are getting along all of a sudden.  No, not you
and ITW, it was christian96 and West Virginia. That’s right.  Hey
that is so swell.  Like keen.  Like ducky keen.  It is truly wonderful to see a
friendship blossoming.  Well maybe you can cultivate a better friendship with
ITW.  It’s up to you since you are the older of the two.  But I still think the
two of you have calmed down with each other a good bit.  I don’t see the
rancor there anymore.  That’s a good thing.

Okay, here is my apology to ardee.  Hey aarrrrdeeeee, I’m
ssssoooorr r r r yyyy, with icing on it.

Is this really necessary, friends.  I/m trying to have an interesting argument with Inherit.  Pissing matches are boring.

Tell you what, ardee, you can go fuck yourself, again, and in the usual
manner in which you always do.  I don’t need euphemistic phrases to say what I
want to say!  Why I am the best shrew I know!  Did you know humans descended
from tree shrews?

You may go perform an anatomically impossible task upon yourself you witless shrew.

Do you have a reading impediment ardee and do you also have your own
esoteric idea of a joke?  You always claim to be joking when in fact you sound just
stupid at times, making sloppy errors of who you are quoting to sloppy errors of
understanding content of what has been said.  If it is tedious you are looking for,
just look in the mirror.

If you were joking, please advise exactly what your inside-to-yourself joke was? 
What I was directly addressing is that you are also included in the vituperation
spewed out by ThomasG/MarthaA unity, or do you attempt to ignore it? 

I am not fucking joking.  Before you put your fucking jokes on TD you might check
yourself over from head to toe to see if all your parts are patched together right.

Shenonymous, October 31 at 1:30 pm #

I bet you have many wild dreams, ardee.  No apology was made.  Do get
a grip.  Save your rhetoric for those who wear buckets on their heads.  They
have expressed their hatred for you too or are you trying to ignore it?

Dammit She, you are tedious to a fault. I was making a fucking joke, are you becoming a fucking joke?

Oh and what do you imply with the “too”, above, that you share their “hatred”? Someone with a bucket on their heads is unlikely to understand a retort anyway, one might conjecture. I do my best, I use humor where applicable, I guess you broke your funny bone.

I bet you have many wild dreams, ardee.  No apology was made.  Do get
a grip.  Save your rhetoric for those who wear buckets on their heads.  They
have expressed their hatred for you too or are you trying to ignore it?

Faust would understand the Pope better than most.  If there is a Christian hell,
(the Jews don’t have one, isn’t that interesting?), the Pope for selling his soul
for beefing up the membership in his Church, he will find his throne there is
much warmer than the one he is sitting on right now.  Selling out the church to
Marxism is indubitably a sin.  A search in their book of sins might not mention
Marx.  But then, whoever wrote the Book of Sins, when it comes time to update
it,  would put Marx’s name in there since he was an atheist.  Funny how many
confessed Christians appropriate Marx’s ideas.  Did you know there is Leftist-
Fascism?

Inherit, the neoliberal capitalism that marx critiques is similar to present neoliberalism, except the corportions are much bigger, which he predicted, and finance capitialism rules.

But what you call Chinese capitalism, the planned-market sytem, is a fundementally different power system.  There the party controls the state that owns the banks and large corpoations, which in the US the banks largely control the state through their buying the pols.  In that sense, if you consider the planned-maket system capitalism, there has been a fundamental power change.

Shenonymous, October 28 at 6:39 am #

We all have our own style, ardee.  Snippy?  Some people are uppity, but I
am snippity… and uppity.  Why I try to be the best snippit there is!  It is better
than being a sniper and they abound on these forums.
*********************************************

I accept your apology…..

Folktruther, October 30 at 6:34 am #

Actually, I agree, Inherit.  Marx’s major contribaution to theory was seeing the problem of capitalism in an historical context.  His solution, worker’s revolution, was not hitorically viable, and only occurred once, in Russia.
*********************************************

Remember: Marx’s views were formed in the 1840’s and the Manifesto was published in 1848, when revolutions were going on in both France and Germany (what would be Germany).  That was 161 years ago. 161 years before that was 1687!  Capitalism, as we know it, had not yet been born.

So…in 1848 capitalism was very, very young, and was coping with the end of feudal lord system—even in 1815 Jane Austen was writing about a society where “Land lord” meant the local baron, and “tenant” meant peasant farmers—not too different than it was 1000 years earlier.  Mercantilism, of course, had arisen, and, of course, industry included textile mills and mining.  Systems for pumping mines were less than 100 years old. It was all very new.

My point is that the capitalist world Marx saw as a young man writing in 1848 (not the bearded anti-Santa Clause of the photos) was a very different world than the one we saw growing up and see now.

Actually, I agree, Inherit.  Marx’s major contribaution to theory was seeing the problem of capitalism in an historical context.  His solution, worker’s revolution, was not hitorically viable, and only occurred once, in Russia.

Folktruther, October 27 at 12:44 pm #

I’m accustomed to the usual American drivel about marxism, exempliefied in Ihherit’s post.  No one, however, could exceed the density of the sheer misinformation in Heeronymous post.  I congratulate you.
***************************************************

You wanna buy the Vatican?  Wait—I think I have the deed for it right here! Isn’t that amazing?
(Whoops—it’s in English…let me run it through Babblefish to put it into Italian…No, wait! Let me run it through again into Latin…now where’s that aged parchment?)

You can put this deed right next your proof-of-ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge.

FT, you shouldn’t drink and post.

More importantly, what the Vatican is doing is stating the obvious: Marx was the first to apply economic analysis to history. This was, by itself, a mark of genius. It doesn’t matter that his analysis was flawed, or that his solution was insane/inane.

IOW, Marx’s brilliance was in seeing THE PROBLEM, not the solution.

We all have our own style, ardee.  Snippy?  Some people are uppity, but I
am snippity… and uppity.  Why I try to be the best snippit there is!  It is better
than being a sniper and they abound on these forums.

Do you have any more examples, ardee?

Sorry for the error, in a rush at the time…But you post yet another example of why it is very difficult to exchange with you. Your snippiness is unwarranted and unnecessary.

The oldest Christian churche that of Byzantium, wash sold to the Turks by the Vatican, they divided Europe as lather on Stalin Churchill and Rosenveldt dit.

In this discusion about Karl Marx and his thinking, some come up with all kinds of dictators and so called liberators of the people, nothing to do with socialistme, I know some groups of people in Europe who live on a free basis, together in an structure as socialistme, some groups are Christians, but wy not, an good beliefer is an socialist, look to Ben Goerion, with his Kibboets, look to the Ami’s, and they are more or less ontouchseble by banks and so kapitalisme, they are free to live as they like.

On would think the Catholic Church would have learned by now. What’s it been? Fifteen hundred years or thereabouts since founding? Depending, I guess, on who or which came first. (Armenian Orthodox, so an Armenian Marxist informed me long ago.) The Church just recently officially let Galileo out of his room, where he’s not bodily been since four centuries ago. Turned out the sun is at the center of this nine-(or is it eight or ten now)planet operation and not the Church, which long tried to pass for the entire planet. But tyranny never learns as it never seems to tire, no matter the form tyranny assumes. And so the Church persists in embarrassing itself. In particular, Sans and variety of popes, all of whom know just about nothing of Marx, let alone his thought.

That the Church is just now acknowledging Marx in some fearful minimalist fashion is akin to a rat finally looking up to spot a lion, who’s still growling. Maybe the rat finally heard the lion before looking up to spot it. Still, the rat dreams of its itself as bearer of the high-minded truth. (Marx held that “truth” has always been a matter of who was in charge. The final truth yet to be discovered when all were in charge of and for one another. Ontologically, to be is for humankind to be social—first and last. (It doesn’t get a whole lot more obvious, but then keeping the obvious under wraps has long been the Church’s business.) And then, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Not exactly a commodity-consumer’s motto. No masters/no slaves, including the wage kind. Marx is not generally recognized as a psychologist as astutely observant as ever were Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, or even Freud or Erickson.

Perhaps a few centuries leap forward for the Church, though not really. And so who cares? Most especially in the case of a hypocritically capitalizing institution whose upper management still regards Catholic Workers as practically heretics (for practicing what Jesus actually taught?) and Liberation Theology (still, apparently) as absolutely heretical.

Meanwhile, back at the actual center of power, pushers of more than one opiate—actual sources of alienation—are still wheeling and dealing and rolling in what they most strongly worship and adore. So much for holier-than-thou claims to IM-materialism.

It would be ludicrous to say that Bolivia’s recent socialist government has been
successful.  Plagued by major disagreement over governmental administrative
operations such as the size of the majority needed to adopt changes to
individual articles, questions about regional autonomy, indigenous rights, state
structure, even where the capital of the country would be located, resulted in
division between regional and ethnic factions.  2007 violence ended in deaths
and chaos.  Forced approval of a constitution without the support of the
opposition, caused riots for two days and more dead. 

Referendums upon referendums didn’t settle anything and a movement to
recall Morales caused him to fire up his supporters giving him an election win
of 67% of the voters (but what isn’t known is the number the body of voters
represented). 

Nevertheless after the failed recall referendum, conflict increased considerably,
roadblocks, marches, strikes, occupation of government buildings, and a clash
between the peasant supporters of Morales and the followers of the prefect
Fernandez ended in several deaths.  Hardly evidence of a successful socialist
project.  Morales has in effect developed a tyrannical stranglehold on the
government, a sure sign of power mongering. And despite his anti-corruption
platform, graft and nepotism run unchecked.  Bolivia is ranked 102 out of 189
countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2008 Corruption Perceptions
Index.  Morales will be re-elected in December because he changed the rules
through a new constitution approved in a referendum; he is using the
“democratic” framework to concentrate power through intimidation and
massive rural confiscations.  I think enough said of Bolivia.

Don’t you mean Venezuela = Chavez. ardee?  If you are going to throw
(alleged) facts at me, please at least be accurate. There is no excuse for
sloppiness.  It is pure bravado to do that.  Want to try the corrupt Daniel Ortega
in Nicaragua?  Nevertheless, about Venezuela:

Chavez’s strategy depends on a chain of political franchises across the country. 
He sells potential allies the right to exploit his “21st-Century Socialism” brand
in exchange for political kissass. Each franchisee tailors the product to local
circumstances, which might call for aggravating local ethnic tensions (the
Andes), fomenting nationalistic resentments against neighboring countries
(South America), and inventing anti-American ghosts (Mexico and the
Caribbean). Twenty-first-century socialism is tactically allied with non-Latin
American autocracies, such as Iran and Russia.

It took Chavez’s relentless ideological removal of the legal status of republican
values and private property, and the establishment of a method for bringing
about dictatorship through fraudulent democratic means, to consolidate his
revolution. After coming to office in 1999, he used referendums and elections
to do away with checks and balances. He drew up a new constitution that
provided the “democratic” framework with which to replace the National
Assembly, the National Electoral Council, and the courts.  If you want to look
tyranny in the eye, take a look at Hugo Chavez. 

Every Chavez government institution works toward controlling and instilling
fear in the population. The entire electoral system is pointed at creating a
mirage of majority support.

His tendency for fascism installed fingerprinting machines used at polling
stations allowed authorities to trace anti-Chavez voters.  Taking 3/4 of the
media, Chavez shut down 285 radio and TV stations. Then the courts are
another part of his “democratic” dictatorship.  Venezuela’s dismal economy, a
drop in oil production due to corruption and inefficiency, and fatigue with
revolution in other countries suggest that Chavez may face substantial
obstacles in the future.  So much for socialism in Venezuela. 

Do you have any more examples, ardee?

Some are speeking about an Utopia,maby its not possible to crèate an real socialistic society, but well maby its possible to give something to the people who have nothing, its not reasonable that their are men who make 200 million a year, what to do with so much monye, I think thats where the problem starts, their will come a moment they think they can bye the whole world, they geth ill, their minds start to wobble, and than the go in to politics, and afther 1 or 2 generations it are real good American citizen, high society, good famelies.

Chavez = Venezuela.

The U.S. Military is a pretty good example of a socialist state within a capitalist country.

Blackspeare, October 27 at 1:05 pm #

C.C.D….

You make a good point.  It’s pretty well proven that Marxism/Communism doesn’t work in a democratic environment——it has to be authoritarian.

Blackspeare confuses opinion with fact, and proven is in the eye of the beholder I fear. There has been no true communist govt , nor socialist either, one true to the principles of Marxism. The failure of those govts, as the USSR for example, were precisely because they became elitist and failed to adhere to the principles of Marx. So nothing is “pretty well proven” excepting that Blackspeare thinks highly of his opinions….

Shenonymous

Bolivia= Morales

Nicarauga=Chavez

Naw, we ‘Merkins ain’t gointa be Marxists anytime soon, or anytime at all.  You be
dreamin.  And Folksytroother you are at it again being as shallowy vague as
always unable to say what was misinforming in my post.  You continue to pop off
the steam that is between your ears.  It is comforting to know we can always take
up our eternal quarrel where we last left off.  Perhaps I am misinformed, that
remains to be seen, but you are uninformed.

P.T.,

Thanks for that link. I encourage others to check it out. I wouldn’t characterize
the piece as Marxist, unless one defines any lucid, critical look at late-stage
capitalism from an historical perspective as such.

In that case, we’re all going to be Marxists soon.

C.C.D….

You make a good point.  It’s pretty well proven that Marxism/Communism doesn’t work in a democratic environment——it has to be authoritarian.  Capitalism/Plutocracy works for a little while until a vast under-class is created that screams for change.  And so it appears that the best system that can be sustained is a combination of the two.  The Europeans have accomplished such with Democratic socialism and it appears to work well in the Scandinavian countries——maybe its the cold weather!  The object is to do the most good for the most people and all that’s needed is a tax structure that provides for the welfare of those less fortunate——its really that easy.  People don’t need hundreds of millions to live well——tens of millions will do nicely!!!

If the pope is going to sell the Vatican, a good idea to get enough money to compete with other capitalists, I call dibs on St Peter’s.  An incredible ediface in my opinion.  We might have to take a second morgage out to afford it, though.

I’m accustomed to the usual American drivel about marxism, exempliefied in Ihherit’s post.  No one, however, could exceed the density of the sheer misinformation in Heeronymous post.  I congratulate you.

See how one little bolding element can ruin an entire forum?  My apologies and
thank goodness this is a young forum and the eternal bolding will end with this
post.

The Vatican is just as heir to scratching for survival as any other self-sustaining
organism.  It will sell its soul for a couple of rubies or only one diamond.  But
what it does and it would seem the intellectuals within the Catholic
business/ideologic system is keenly aware, it is signalling its death knoll.  By
delivering Marxism into its robes, and prostituting its values by trying to
seduce the Anglicans, Catholicism is gasping its last breath as any force in
human parable.

The tale of history has shown that communism, or extreme socialism does not
work for the masses.  While it is prudent and intelligent to question any form of
control whether it is communistic or capitalistic, fascistic (and baronial) or
democratic, since corruption leeches in from those who would always take
advantage of the disadvantaged, it is also vital to stay grounded in reality that
to have a healthy society individuals need to be able to feel a sense of personal
achievement.  Leveling the population to the same materiality and median
mental growth is the quickest way to be able to take control of the materials
resources of that population and allows for the arch controllers to grab that
wealth without any resistance. 

Leszek Kolakowski, Polish philosopher and historian was well known for his
critical analyses of Marxist thought clearly described in his “Main Currents of
Marxism,” considered to be one of the pivotal books on political theory in the
20th century.  Having belonged body and soul to the communist party of
Poland, his keen insight and observations from that vantage point led him to
see the absolute folly of the communist project that invariably leads to
totalitarian cruelty. 

There is a great misapprehension that socialism leads to a utopian life where
all share equally any wealth generated by that society.  It assumes that workers
will put more of their energy into a system where all enjoy an equal share of
the wealth generated by the production of material resources.  Regardless of
the likes of Noam Chomsky who for decades have advocated socialism,
socialism is not working despite those countries today who agitate for a
socialist economic governing base

For reality’s sake, just to clarify the state of communism/socialism around the
world today:

South Africa, in spite of strong protest from the poor, is still controlled
by the neo-liberal African National Congress while the Communist Party in
South Africa attempts to redeem its ideology.  Capitalism rules because the
nature of the human being wants compensated for its work and energy
expended to achieve a certain life.  It does not want to pay allegiance to a
central state that doles out what it decides individuals need. 

In Asia, the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics found
old time communism did not work.  China redefines its evolved economic
policies as a wealthy class grows exponentially because it has the resources to
do so.  The common population has not benefited to any measurable degree
from their oppression.  Over the long haul it might as services and businesses
become desirable by those who have the money.  Greed will turn the country
into an industrial giant and capitalism will be the new corrupt form of economy
just as communism was corrupt.  It not the system, but the men who prostitute
them, it is human nature to debauch any system where they can make a buck.

Bolivia has gone communist today, and takes an anti-American attitude
while Hugo Chavez becomes its totalitarian socialistic dictator who attempts to
put in to law his permanent status the emperor of Bolivia.  This is a fascist
governmental structure which cannot be avoided in any imposed socialistic
form of governance.

European communism - While the Left Party in Germany is a large factor,
it is still only the fourth largest party in that country’s parliament receiving
only 11.9% of the vote a loss from the 2005 considered the worst loss for
social democratic politics since WWII.  In Greece, the leftist communists
took only 7.5% of the vote, enough to make some noise but not nearly
sufficient to make any large noise.  Ireland has one seat in the Dublin
European constituency, again while giving some voice does not command any
majority to say a whole lot.

England, or the United Kingdom[/] the Socialist Party can only ‘aim’ at
offering an alternative to the conservative, capitalistic, Independence Party. 
Only the election in 2010 will tell how much traction the SP will achieve.