Comments on: Climate change crisis. The case for socialism

By: chris

chris — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:06:22 +0000

No, Comrade, we don’t need a world body telling country one to do, people need to make the decision on their own, buy more hybrid cars, then car companies will make more of those, the market will shift. Implementing these controls will destroy the economy, besides we do have time, just because gore says it does not make it true.

By: Jack Coleman

Jack Coleman — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:32:04 +0000

Agreed, Stalin was a greater criminal than Trotsky. As to your claim about citizens in “virtually every country,” those of the former Soviet bloc are all too aware of the connection between socialism and thuggish regimes.

By: Bob Morris

Bob Morris — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:29:35 +0000

Sigh. In virtually every country but the US people understand that socialism doesn’t mean you support thuggish regimes.

You did know that Leon Trotsky was appalled by Stalin and that Trotskyites were instrumental in getting the truth of what Stalin was doing out to the world at large, right?

From Peter Camejo

The factual information on the crimes of Stalinism and truth about the internal regime in the USSR put out by the Trotskyist movement in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s is now accepted by almost everyone. In fact, all research has confirmed that the factual description of the internal reality of Stalinist society by Leon Trotsky was completely accurate. In judging Leon Trotsky historically this is quite important. Trotsky defended telling the truth to the world. He fought his whole life for what he saw as in the interest of working people worldwide, regardless of the consequences to him personally.

By: Jack Coleman

Jack Coleman — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:34:16 +0000

(cue voice of SNL’s Tommy Flanagan) - Yeah, socialism, that’s the ticket. Seeing how it worked so well in the Soviet Union, and let’s not forget the workers’ paradise in North Korea. We should all be so lucky to live in countries such as these, run by “highly competent” and, ah, “non-corruptible” people. Needless to say, whenever anyone is trying to save the world, how can that person be corrupted?

By: Bob Morris

Bob Morris — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:29:23 +0000

I don’t think it can or should be mandated by force. The blowback would be too extreme and it wouldn’t work anyway.

It has to be something like the unspoken agreement that we all stop at red lights because this allows us to drive without getting killed. Yes, this is mandated and the government can enforce it, but mostly it works because everyone agrees such regulation benefits everyone.

Somehow we need to do that sort of thing on global warming.

By: DJ

DJ — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:53:34 +0000

I quiver in fear when I hear the phrase “world wide government.” Coming as I do from the “Live free or die” state, I’d much rather change voluntarily. Still, I recognize that most people (and industries) don’t feel the same way: they’d rather someone forced them to change. We could reduce U.S. emissions by a third or more without much effort at all– and without any government mandate– but it’s “too much work” so we won’t.

As to where you’re going to find cometent and uncorruptible people– and a steady source of them for years to come, in the face of global power– I don’t know. It hasn’t worked very well on a national level. In that sense, smaller government (not larger) is more effective.

So you’re trying to balance two different and opposing concepts: large authoritarianism (with teeth) vs. small, competent democracy. Good luck.