Like my other site, this one has had an upgrade on the guestbook, so past entries made prior to this one have been reinserted, and the time and date of their original posting has been placed in the body of the entry, just above the time and date recorded by the guestbook clock, which will all be today's date. Every entry made from this one onwards will have the correct time and date recorded by the guestbook clock, which is in Eastern standard time.

Also, please note that this guestbook is HTML friendly, and any visitor who posts an entry can use HTML tags to format their entry.

Thank you to everyone for visiting the site, and please feel free to do so again in the future:)

---Chris N

Emma, what you are describing as "socialism," i.e., the 'state capitalism' in the nations that claim to be "communist" or "socialist," such as the economic system in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc., is not actually socialism, but a form of bureaucratic capitalism that in no way, shape or form resembles genuine socialism. Communism is not the "extreme level" of socialism, as you say, but the two terms were actually used interchangably by Marx and Engels in their writings.
My history research is faulty in no way whatsoever, because throughout my essays on my site, never do I say that socialism was established in a certain place, only to later become something else (it was never established anywhere on Earth to date), and always have I made the latter point clear numerous times.
In 1917, Russia lacked the technological capability to establish genuine socialism, as its production infrastructure was still steeped in rural feudal conditions, which were hardly ripe for socialism. Thus, under the guidance of the revolutionary named Vladimir Lenin, a new form of class-divided society, which was modeled on capitalism, and NOT on genuine socialism as expounded by Marx and Engels, was instituted to industrialize the country. The nation was euphemistically referred to as a "worker's state" by the new ruling hierarchy, which was totally ignoring the fact that genuine socialism cannot exist in a technologicially backward country, or in a nation with a political state or that still runs on money, and which is based upon the nation being divided into a tiny owning class and a vast majority of people who work for these small owners in exchange for a tiny fraction of the value that they produce, and with the owning class doing no useful work, but instead keeping the lion's share of the wealth produced by others for themselves. All of these things applied to the Soviet Union from the very start, and continued that way till its end. The former Soviet Union did NOT start out as genuine socialism only to later "turn out differently," or mutate into a different political creature; it continued throughout its 70 year history with exactly the same economic system that it started out with, which was so similar to capitalism that it's often called "state capitalism" (though we usually refer to that system as Leninism or Stalinism). The same can be said for China, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations that attempted to jump over the natural capitalist stage of economic development, which resulted only in a system that was virtually identical to capitalism, except that the ruling class consisted of bureaucrats that exploited the workers directly, rather then a small group of private plutocrats who used bureaucrats as puppets to enforce their class rule over the workers, as in the U.S. and other nations who directly referred to themselves as capitalist.
The use of the words "communist" and "socialist" in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere to describe their economic systems were quite incorrect.

It is quite clear, Emma, that you did not read the essays on my site at all, because I covered all of this in detail in several of the essays, including my FAQ section, which covered these points of yours in the very beginning. What you said in your guestbook entry was simply the common misperception of what socialism is and was, and I pointed out this flaw on the text that appears on my main page!

If you would truly wish to see genuine socialism come about, then all you have to do is find out what the real thing is (and you can do this by actually reading the essays on my site, starting with What is Socialism? and the FAQ section), and shed the commonly held illusions about what it is or was. Socialism has never existed in any nation on Earth, and thus it cannot be accurately said that socialism was established but proved to be corruptable. A system that is run and controlled by everyone in society instead of an elite few, and in which economic power is not concentrated into the hands of a tiny elite (which it always was in Russia from day one), then there is no material basis for class divisions to begin, and a system based upon cooperation will not result in people fighting to achieve dominance over others. The latter only happens when artificial scarcity is imposed upon people, and they live under a system of competition with an economic need to walk over each other in order to achieve material goods and comforts. The belief that capitalism will be here forever, or even that it can somehow be made to work for all of society instead of just a privilaged few, is what is truly an unrealistic way of thinking. If you have studied history extensively, you will see that every reform ever attempted to "tame" capitalism, and make it work for everyone (the most elaborate in history being the creation of the New Deal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression), failed terribly due to the economic realities of the system. A casual study of history, and past world economic systems, from their birth to their later decay and eventual death, make it very clear that capitalism shows no sign of being more stable then any of them, and that it's going through a period of deterioration very similar to that of the world powers of past systems, such as the Roman Empire during the ancient slave economy and the British monarchy during feudalism, including very similar symptoms of decay in the social strata (such as an increase in violence, increased usage of recreational drugs and other escapes from reality from the population, the proliferation of a wide array of new and sometimes bizarre cults and spiritual groups to help the working class "cope" with the deteriorating social conditions, the ruling class finding it necessary to enact harsher laws to control society, an increased amount of despair, nihilism, cynicism, mental illness, suicides, etc...the current world order has all the signs of a society in decay). The idea that capitalism will somehow cheat history and live on forever is far more unrealistic, and a far greater case of facetious wishful thinking, then the fight to achieve socialism, the eventual establishment of which is very logical and scientifically sound considering the capabilities of our industrialized society of producing an abundance for all.
Contrary to your last sentence, if I felt that fighting for genuine socialism was truly unrealistic, then I would definately give up the fight for it! The idea of capitalism's eternal survival is the largest pipe dream in existence! Hopefully, you will read up on the subject (perhaps on my site), and one day join the fight, if you would truly like to see socialism established one day as you intimated.

Thursday, May 3rd 2001 - 06:19:07 AM

All I have to say is simply, dont you realise, and if you
have done your history research, Socialism has never worked
in this world. Infact, it has never remained as socialism.
It has always been taken to its extreme level, communism.
You can commit your whole life to immplementing the marxist
ideology, but you must come to the conclusion that it wont
work. I myself would love to see such a thing become of the
world. It is just, unlike the system inwhich we are
educated to. Im not saying give up your fight, but what I
am saying is, be realistic.

Sunday, April 22nd 2001 - 01:09:11 AM

I like you website very much. I completely agree with you
my friend. I will be sure to tell others with an open mind
such as myself about this site, and send them to read it.
I myself will join you in the fight against capitalism, for
it is a worthy cause to fight for, and i know many others
who would feel the same way. Please continue with your
site, it is excellent!!!

Monday, October 16th 2000 - 09:06:13 AM

Well, Brian, I do appreciate your taking the time to view my site and sign my guestbook, and I also appreciate and respect the tactful manner in which you state your opinions and disagree with me, as this displays a degree of professionalism and good manners in you that other people are sorely lacking in (note Shawn's response elsewhere in this guestbook). It takes a truly strong mind to give an objective and non-hostile response to a set of viewpoints that you disagree with. I fully understand that you do not at this time know what to think of socialist views (and, btw, they are not "my" views, but socialist views, which I happen to support), but this is to be expected, as you are confronting an ahead of its time, alternative political viewpoint that is all but silenced in the corporate controlled press, and you have been bombarded with pro- capitalist ideology your entire life, and throughout the fulcrum of your education.
Also, you are accustomed to living in a capitalist environment, and if you will permit me to be a bit blunt, the fact that you are a business major in college certainly may contribute to your acceptance of capitalist social relations. This stubborn resistance to change, even beneficial change, has been a common feature throughout human history. No less a personage then Thomas Jefferson himself made this wry observation in the Declaration of Independence concerning the difficulty in convincing the general public for the American Colonies to oppose the obsolete system of feudalism and embrace a new, more progressive economic system: "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
His very next line reads thusly: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." This latter quote is the exact same point that socialists today are attempting to make about capitalism, though obviously, as per Jefferson's observations, the system has not yet reached the point of decay where it will convince us to "provide new guards" for ourselves, though it is rapidly approaching that point. Thus, the revolutionaries of today are facing the same problems in convincing the majority of society to throw off the bonds of an outmoded economic order as the revolutionaries of Jefferson's time did, and his obvious irritation over this situation prompted him to make this point in the most important document ever written in the history of our nation next to the Constitution itself. This problem is every bit as evident today as it was then.
Obviously, Adolph Hitler wasn't exaggerating in the least when he described in his book Mein Kompf how powerful the tool of propaganda is in "educating" the masses into believing and accepting socio-political tenets that are completely contrary to their best interests, and totally irregardless of the amount of contrary evidence existing right in front of them, and this included the likes of doctors, philosophers, historians, writers and educators, all of whom you'd think were capable of reasoning against such fallacious rhetoric. However, the vast majority of learned individuals in Nazi Germany willingly supported Hitler's reign of terror, proving that one's level of intelligence and/or education doesn't necessarily mirror their ability to overcome social conditioning, and also proves, regarding Hitler himself, that it's quite possible to be a terrible person while remaining a surpassingly "excellent" politician, and this clearly illustrates the true purpose of politicians.

As for your comments that it will be numerous generations before the people seek to create a new economic world order, I fully admit that the current level of apathy and miseducation of the working class definately lends credence to your statement, and I often wonder myself about whether or not our class will open its collective eyes before capitalism disintegrates, first into mindless social anarchy, to be immediately followed by harsh totalitarian countermeasures by the state, thereby secondly resulting in a fascist police state.
However, no one can truly say when the sleeping giant that is the working class will wake up. Tt was the great Amercian writer and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson himself who once lamented, concerning the issue of chattel slavery, that "no man living shall ever see the end of slavery." Well, guess what? He said this a mere six years before chattel slavery was eliminated from America with the defeat of the Confederacy after the Civil War. Wasn't he surprised to see chattel slavery end in his lifetime! However, as brilliant a man as Emerson undoubtably was, he had been raised all his life to accept chattel slavery as a finality, and to believe that it was a permenant part of the economic landscape, just as it had been for the past several generations. The fact that you and the rest of the working class have been raised to accept wage slavery as an eternal system is an identical situation. So, we actually cannot say when capitalism will breathe its last breath, though I do agree that from the way the working class appears today, it does indeed seem like it will be a very long time before they wake up, and it is certainly true that it's in no way inevitable that they do before Industrial Feudalism (i.e., a fascist police state) rears its chains over our necks.

As for your assertion that you are a "full-blodded capitalist," I must correct you on that point, as you obviously did not read my section on What is Capitalism? that describes what a capitalist is. A capitalist is not a state of mind, or someone who has a certain economic viewpoint, but is defined as one of the few individuals in the world who owns such a significant portion of productive or distributive property that he/she does not have to work at all, but lives by exploiting the labor power of others, and these hallowed ranks do not include yourself, my friend (nor myself, nor the vast majority of the nation or the world). What you meant to say, I believe, is that you are a "full-blooded" (i.e., inveterate) supporter of capitalism as a system. This is your right, of course, yet it is quite unfortunate, and is a terrible example of how even a person of such high character and decency such as yourself can be misled via a lifelong dose of propaganda into accepting a system which imposes poverty, starvation, crime, violence, alienation and environmental devestation upon the vast majority of the population for the enrichment of a few, when we currently have the scientific knowledge to easily free everyone on the planet from want at nobody else's expense (and horribly, this pro- capitalist view is shared by many, many individuals of far greater intelligence and education then either of us). More kudos to Hitler and his keen insights on the power of propaganda (and you know how much personal pain it causes me to give a person like him any type of compliment, but if the man didn't know what he was talking about on that topic, then he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did in devestating the world, and people like him provide sound examples for the rest of us to learn valuable lessons from).

Of course, some may choose to say that I'm being vain for implying that those who do not share my own political viewpoint are somehow misled, and since the majority clearly do not, then perhaps that is evidence that I am the one who is misled, correct? In response to this fair question, and as someone with a huge amount of faith in the quality of the human race, I would like to believe that no moral and ethical person with the slightest love or concern for their fellow humans and the sancity of the Earth itself would ever support such a system as capitalism, with all of the horrors that system wreaks upon the human race and the world itself, when such a system was no longer necessary, without at least some degree of miseducation, brainwashing and culturally enforced apathy, and I am a firm believer that I'm not a foolish idealist for believing that humanity is basically a good lot (the Romantics of the early 19th century had similar views...just read the works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Blake and Mary Wolstonecraft Shelley for some prime examples). I do believe that you will eventually "come around," though, Brian, especially after you leave college and experience several years in the "real world" struggling to become a member of the capitalist class through purely legal and ethical means, without a huge amount of money to start out with, just as I once did. Then, you will learn the true secret of making a lot of money (and it sure ain't one of those get rich quick programs you see on those evening infomercials that routinely interrupt our viewing pleasure): the secret to making a lot of money is to have a lot of money from the start! It lends lot's of credibility to an old saying my grandmother is fond of (and she's NOT a socialist): "money goes where money is."
Hmmm, I wonder what the basis of that saying is? Maybe common experience of lot's of people? Nah, it couldn't be! This is by no means meant to break your confidance in your abilities, but to explain to you a very harsh but absolutely true economic reality of the current system that you support.

And as per your statement that I'm trying to "convert" you to socialistic views makes me sound like a politician or Christian religious leader who is seeking personal power over others, and trying to convince a large group of befuddled people that I'm "the right man for the job," said job being to have control over their lives and economic destinies. I am trying to enlighten, not "convert," as no genuine socialist is in any way seeking personal power, but is instead seeking the abolition of economic power of any person or group over anyone else, and to establish a system of economic freedom and equality, and putting anyone, including myself, "in charge," is courting disaster, and not freedom of any sort. True leaders lead by example, and not by power over others, though I am in no way suggesting that I myself either desire or are "capable" of being such a leader; the socialist movement has no leaders as capitalism defines them, but are united as equals with an equal say and democratic voice in our affairs. The capitalist notion of "leadership" is undemocratic, and the mere fact that we elect a few masters who are hand-picked by the wealthy and approved by the very undemocratic Electoral College, and who we ourselves cannot remove from office any time the majority of us should choose to do so, does nothing to clarify their status as "democratically" elected leaders.

Your last sentence, however, I regret to say is frought with a lack of understanding of what socialism is, so perhaps you should re-visit the site, and also read more, as you do not seem to have read very much at all. You said that you can live in a "socialist democracy" that featured a confluence of "private and government interests," things like health care and "power generation" (utilities?). This sounds like you are making the common error of mistaking genuine Marxian socialism with reformism, which its adherants often refer to as "socialism." This shows me that one of the sections of my site that you definately didn't read was the one on Pretenders to Socialism, which describes reformism and all the other political tendencies that have masquaraded as socialism over the past century. A socialist Industrial Democracy would have no "private interests," nor would a politcal state continue to exist, which is what I take it that you meant would represent "government interests" (and shows me that you also didn't read my sections on What is Socialism? or The Union Question, either of which would have clearly explained what an industrial government would be like, and a general outline of how it would function). You still seem to think that socialism would be similar to capitalism, which it wouldn't be. If private ownership continues to any degree, then you can expect that health care, food production, education, utilities, shelter and other necessities will never be distributed in equal or even moderately sufficient amounts to everybody, as a system based on private ownership distributes commodities on the basis of ability to pay, not on the basis of need, as a system predicated upon social ownership would. Also, the phrase "mix of private and government interests" is very oxymoronic...the two are not mutually exclusive, but are actually closely intertwined under capitalism, as many believe. Whenever private "interests" (i.e., ownership) has been the economic law of the land, the political state has always taken a back seat to it, and has always served its interests, and not that of the "common good," as you seem to believe is possible, or is the purpose of the political state. Examples of this are too numerous to mention in their entirety, but some good ones include Sweden, France and (formerly) Great Britain. The workers who welcomed such measures of a "mix of private and government interests" (commonly referred to as "nationalization") soon learned who was really the beneficiary of such policies. In fact, a political state would have NO purpose in a true socialist economic democracy, as its sole purpose is to enforce class rule, of which there would be none under socialism. So your assessment implying that private and government interests are seperate interests is not correct; when private interests exist, the government that develops around it does not consist of the will of the entirety of society. Instead, it results in the creation of politicians whose will and decisions (regardless of whether they are elected by the workers or not, though many are simply appointed) are above that of the majority of society, and who make decisions designed to serve the dominant social class who routinely contribute to their campaign coffers, and to preserve the status quo that affords them their power and privilage over others. I suggest that you visit my site again and actually read a few of the sections, starting with the FAQ, and going from there to What is Capitalism? and What is Socialism?

I believe, my friend, that your time (as well as that of every other worker in the world) would be better spent attempting to establish socialism, and thereby achieving a sane and humane system under which everyone would benefit and be free from want, and thereby achieve the success that you crave, rather then engaging in nigh futile attempts to drag your way into the capitalist class yourself and go from being one of those who get exploited to one of those who do the exploiting. The former effort would be a far more noble endeavor then the latter, and since you profess to admire noble endeavors (and I know you do), engaging in the capitalist rat race would do a huge disservice to your high ethical character, and last I checked, noblity is defined as engaging in endeavors for the common good, and not in selfish exercises designed to enrich only yourself (as becoming a capitalist would). Of course, I admit that you have no choice but to attempt to achieve success the capitalist way at this time (as do we all), but that doesn't mean that you cannot put some good effort into fighting for the more humane side of the issue. If everyone did so, we wouldn't be living under capitalist tyranny right now. As for your desire for a good challenge, wouldn't the fight to achieve socialism be a great and more noble challenge then fighting to become a member of the capitalist class? Believe me, the former would be no more difficult to achieve then the latter (as you will surely discover eventually). Further, socialism will provide each of us with a large amount of challenges, which would consist of bettering ourselves and society in general by working diligently in our choosen professions, as opposed to the ignoble "challenge" under capitalsim of struggling to acquire as much personal wealth and power as possible in a lifetime, and seeing how many people you can walk over and destroy before they can do the same to you, or the system batters you into submission (which it inevitably will). Both can be quite tempting, I admit, but let me ask you, which of the two is more noble?
Obviously, the decision on which course to take is completely up to you, though I am sure that your moral character will truly win out in the end, and I expect nothing but the best from you, and I do not believe that I will end up disappointed.

Once again, thank you for visiting and for your comment, but next time, please read some of the sections before posting. May the hammer of Thor ever be at your side whichever path you choose, my friend!
[An appropriate statement for both a Pagan and a socialist to make, as the symbol of the Socialist Labor Party will attest...in Norse mythology, Thor was the god of the working class, so it is quite appropriate that the SLP should choose his legendary weapon, the mighty hammer Mjolnir, as its political symbol).

---Chris N

Sunday, October 15th 2000 - 04:27:58 PM

Thursday, October 12th 2000 - 05:06:54 PM

Of course, I fully respect
the First Ammendment rights of Shawn and his fellow
capitalist-lovers to express their opinions (which is why I
left it in here), particularly since it illustrates the
points I make about how capitalism distorts our social
values and clearly displays for all my visitors the type of
morality it encourages in people. A detailed response to
Shawn's revealing diatribe can be found in the FAQ section
of the main site.

People, keep sending in your opinions, I
will respond to ALL of them in the FAQ section, be they
good or ill-willed.

--Chris N

Thursday, September 21st 2000 - 10:09:31 AM

Saturday, October 2nd 1999 - 07:08:02 PM

[You're a laugh riot, John;)--Chris N]

Wednesday, June 30th 1999 - 08:55:54 PM