In article , John Kasupski
writes:

However...I think the USSR was defeated
primarily because communism as a system of government tends to ignore
the human nature of the governed as well as the political, social, and
economic conditions that exist at any given time.

Agreed - but that's not inconsistent with what I wrote. Once the average
Soviet
began to see what capitalism and freedom could do (in the form of things
like
rock'n'roll and McDonald's) they wanted that stuff.

I wasn't disagreeing with your comments, merely expandiong on the
topic. Not that McDonalds should stand as a symbol of all that's great
about America or anything, but that does fall under the heading of
economic conditions, along with the designer jeans and other stuff not
available in a society where people waited in line for hours for a
simple roll of bathroom tissue.

The point I was trying to make is that the collectivist systems could not offer
anything to compare with McDonald's and blue jeans - and they knew it.

And it's not just 'communism' - it's any collectivist system that routinely
requires people to place the good of "society" or "the group" above their
own.

In a sense, though, this is what civilization depends on, isn't it?

Just the opposite!

Civilization depends on people realizing that their own good is better served
by being part of a society. The reason capitalism flourished was that it
offered a way for people to work together and mutually profit. The reason
America's take on it flourished is the emphais on protecting the individual
from the group. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but better than an
overcontrolled collectivist system that demands as a primary rule that the
individual sacrifice for the group.

Communism is at odds with religion - dooming it to failure because it
is human nature to look for answers to questions that science cannot
answer and thus only religion can provide.

Depends what you mean by "communism". If you're talking about economic
capitalism ("workers own the means of production") there's no reason
religion
and economic communism can't coexist. But if you're talking about
ideological
communism, where the collective mindset is supposed to replace individual
logic, religion is incompatible because it may set up a different set of
values, ideals, and authority figures.

I had in mind the communist ideology typified by Marx, Stalin, and
Lenin. Although the Chinese brand of communism certainly would seem to
me to fit the descriptiom just as well.

That's really totalitarian socialism. But what matters is that they are
collectivist systems.

IOW, ideological communism sets itself up as the 'religion'. And in many
ways
it's very similar: Many (not all) religions require blind acceptance of
"items
of faith" - ideological communism requires unquestioning acceptance of what
is
"the good of the people". Many (not all) religions say they are the *only*
way
for humans to live morally - same with ideological communism.

Which works until people become smart enough to know better.

Note that not all religions work that way.

Most of all, many religions require their adherents to "sacrifice" various
earthly delights because they are "wrong" or "for the good of others" - just
like ideological communism.

Why certainly! Why have people wasting their time enjoying life when
they could be serving the state (or the supreme being) instead? ;-)

Exactly! Replace the afterlife paradise with the workers' paradise of future
generations.

Communism fails to reward productivity thus removing the incentive to
be productive. This leads to the economic failure of the system.

All collectivist systems do that - some more than others. A nuclear family
is a
collectivist system of a sort. But in a healthy family, the rewards for
productivity are not removed, though they may be delayed.

The best description I've seen of why collectivist systems fail is in "Atlas
Shrugged" where the collapse of the Twentieth Century Motor Company is
described - and the reasons for it.

I haven't read that, but in my opinion such systems fail basically on
account of human nature...assuming that the people concerned are
intelligent enough to ask themselves the question, "Just why am I
doing this?"

I think you'd get a lot out of the book, despite its flaws. Worth the read.

OTOH, some forms of economic 'communism' do indeed work - when they really do
allow the workers to control the means of production. For example, consider
partnerships and companies where the stock is owned by the employees. Each
employee or partner contributes to and benefits by the success of the group,
and has a measure of control.

Imagine a company where every employee owned stock in the company, and no
nonemployee did. And each employee had a vote on its management. That's the
'communist' principle in action, without all the ideological stuff attached.
Such companies do exist and succeed - in capitalist countries.

Not only that, but I think most civilized people have some pretty good
concept of right and wrong, so when they see their communist
government and leaders doing things they know are wrong...well, let's
just say that such governments don't help their own cause much by
perpetrating various atrocities on their own people.

I disagree! A lot of people who consider themselves 'civilized' have
perpetrated far worse atrocities on other people.

I know that for me, the lying was much worse than the act itself. I think
it
would have been much better for all if he'd done one of two things:

1) Said "That's a personal matter - it's none of your business - next
question"

OR

2) Said "Yeah, sure, I shagged her silly. Most of you would have too,
given
the opportunity. Big deal, live with it."

I'd have been impressed with the guy if he'd have simply had enough
cojones to say something like, "Yeah, she did it, it was great, eat
your heart out." Lying about it was definitely the worst part of the
whole affair as far as I'm concerned.

We're saying the same thing.

Yes. Does that disappoint you? :-)

Not at all!

Eisenhower was rumored to have been romantically linked (to be polite
about it) with a female sarge who drove his staff car...

Kate Sommersby

which would
not only be adultery but also violate military protocol since officers
aren't supposed to be romantically involved with enlisted personnel.

Agreed but that was only a rumor. The Monica deal was proven.

Kennedy supposedly had Marilyn Monroe, Clinton had Gennifer Flowers
and later Monica Lewinsky, while for Nixon, there was his dog
Checkers. (snicker)

bwaahaahaa - what about LBJ?

Alice Glass. AKA Alice Glass Kirkpatrick. Though supposedly that was
when Johnson was in Congress, not the White House.

Impossible. Her initials did not spell out "LBJ". Johnson could not be involved
with anyone or anything on a personal level if their initials were different
;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY