Polish communist says doesn't care Pope dying

[ckramer]

The controversial spokesman for Poland's past communist rulers said on Saturday he will not regret the death of Pope John Paul -- a man credited with inspiring a peaceful revolution which ended Polish communism.

"I cannot say I will regret his passing. As a godless atheist I never cared much for the church or the papacy. I disliked the fact that the Papacy bore down so heavily on Poland," Jerzy Urban told Reuters in a telephone interview.

link

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Good for him

Of course, he'll be viciously attacked, both in Poland and here on DU.

[magnussun]

54. He should be attacked

He should be sharply rebuked. Remember the communists have butchered tens of millions of people. Stalin killed more than Hitler, but communists can still operate while Nazism is illegal in Europe?

M

[Stella_Artois]

98. No it isn't

Its illegal in Germany.

[magnussun]

58. Atheists

"Of course, he'll be viciously attacked, both in Poland and here on DU."

Here on DU? Most of the people in this thread are defending the man and communism, a system of government that produced more dead bodies than the National Socialists could even dream of. Come on! Defending communism? How about a fair analysis of how wonderful National Socialism would have been if Hitler weren't its leader?

I take no issue with atheists, as long as they don't attack me for being a Christian. Here's the problem: You allow the right wing to define Christ's church and hate us because we have faith. You take your frustrations out on us, without respect for the fact that we are individuals trying to reclaim our faith from the Christian Wahabbi wing.

I am here because I was under the impression that democrats were more tolerant of diverse views on world issues. Am I wrong? Are democrats as intolerant as conservatives?

M

[Charlie Brown]

68. That's a lot of smoke you're blowing our way

You don't seem prepared to acknowledge the excesses and brutality of the Christian Church over the centuries (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). Indeed, one could levy the exact charges you do against the Church. One could even point out that many of the most heinous Nazis claimed to be devout Christians (Rudolph Hess and Joseph Goebbels) and used their knowledge of Christianity to promote anti-semitism.

Defending Christianity? Come on!

"I am here because I was under the impression that democrats were more tolerant of diverse views on world issues. Am I wrong? Are democrats as intolerant as conservatives?"

You seem to be the one who is ridiculing what Urban had to say, and those who are standing by him.

[Zuni]

72. Joseph Goebbels was also a communist once

Before he became a Nazi he was communist. And he was always somewhat socialist, even as a Nazi. He often said that communism was always preferable to capitalism.
He was part of the left wing of the Nazi Party, like Ernst Roehm, the SA and others.
Many members of the Nazi Party, especially early members were former communists and took the Socialism in National Socialism very seriously.

[Charlie Brown]

74. Yes, and Bush claims to be a Christian

clearly, he is representative of what all Chrisitians believe and do.

[Zuni]

83. You said Goebbels was a Christian

so I pointed out he was also a leftist. You used this point to bash the Catholic church, so i pointed out that he was also leftist, but apparently you did not get the point.

And Hess was a loony toon.

[Charlie Brown]

86. What is your point?

That everyone with left-of-center politics is sympathetic to Nazism? Forgive me if I find this similar to Freeper ideology. Anyway, many of these people also claimed to be Christian. Does this make any Christian guility of the same crimes?

[Zuni]

91. I was pointing out the fallacy of your anti-Catholic argument

we are all left here on DU and I know of no DUer sympathetic to Naziism.
I was trying to show you that Goebbels might have used religion, but he also used Left wing populism to win Nazi converts

[Charlie Brown]

94. alright, I'm sorry, then

I didn't mean to irritate Catholics or anyone else. It's late, and I'm turning in.

[Zuni]

96. Have a good night

No harm done. Everyone on DU is a little weary from the arguments of late

[JohnKleeb]

79. Don't forget the Stresser brothers too

Gregor and I forget the other one's name.

[Zuni]

81. Strasser

Gregor was actually a rival of Hitler's for leadership of the Party. He was very popular among the left wing of the party.

[JohnKleeb]

82. later was killed on the night of long knives as I recall

A movement to stem out the left wing movement within the party. Goebells was originally a Strasserite if I recall. I had no idea he was originally communist but he wasnt of the corporate wing of the nazi party. he was in the wing that took SOCIALIST as you said very important.

[Zuni]

85. There was no real 'corporate' wing

There was the deals hitler made with industrialists, but they were motivated by need for cash. The majority of the Nazi Party were not pro-capitalist.
Hitler tried to keep them secret, because he still used the populist rhetoric in speeches. And later, many of those industrialists were double crossed when Hitler and Goering (and Goering was truly a member of the RW of the Nazi Party. Many nazis called him Herr Reaktion) nationalized their industries. The Nazi Government was never pro-capitalist. It was a stop gap measure to raise money.

[JohnKleeb]

88. Gotcha, thanks

he did indeed use pro populist rhetoric, hint hint WORKERS party.

[Charlie Brown]

89. Yeah, those labor unions are clearly Nazi front organizations

better shut'em down.

[JohnKleeb]

92. My point is he used WORKERS party to appeal to working people

Labor Unions arent nazi front organizations, do NOT put words in my mouth like that. That wasnt my point, I am very pro labor myself but I do know that Hitler tried to get working class appeal by putting workers party in his party name.

[Zuni]

93. Where are you getting this from?

John Kleeb said nothing of the sort.

We were discussing how the Nazis used populist rhetoric to win converts

[JohnKleeb]

95. Thank you and I am going to bed

[LoganW]

114. WTF are you talking about?

You think nazi "national socialism" is indeed socialism? Are you aware many nazi groups in the US call themselves crap like "National green party socialists"?

Nazi propagandize everything - including what they call themselves.

Most of westen europe is socialist. Last time I check they kill FAR less people than the US. In fact, every EU nation doesn't even have the death penalty nor do they engage in pre-emptive wars, and they certainly have more freedom than we do. GLBT people, for instance, aren't 2nd class citizens in socialist EU nations.

[magnussun]

109. I fully acknowledge this

"You don't seem prepared to acknowledge the excesses and brutality of the Christian Church over the centuries (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox). Indeed, one could levy the exact charges you do against the Church."

You don't understand. Wherever there are no checks and balances, freedom dies and tyranny of the few rules. Regardless of what type of government it is. I have posted on numerous occasions my fear of religious rule. Trust me on that. I am fully versed on the excesses of the middle ages and the church. But that was well before world war 2. There is not one country in the world where Christians are doing what communists are at this moment. You can try to make us out to be worse than communists, but in fact people were not as evolved and educated in the middle ages as they were last century. It's comparing apples and oranges.

"One could even point out that many of the most heinous Nazis claimed to be devout Christians (Rudolph Hess and Joseph Goebbels) and used their knowledge of Christianity to promote anti-semitism."

They were not true Christians, and some say they were Pagans.

"You seem to be the one who is ridiculing what Urban had to say, and those who are standing by him."

I indeed am critisizing him. My objection is to the false assumption that atheists are persecuted here and denied their free speech because there's a Christian lynch mob. Where? I haven't seen that, but I have been treated rudely just because I stated I am a Christian. Free speech is good and well, but civility is required. I would never make light of, or state my indifference to the death of someone you cherished. It is inhuman, anti-social behavior. It is hate-filled, mean-spirited, insensitive and callous.

Kathy

[Rhiannon12866]

70. Very well said.

This man is a hero to me, though I have lost faith and now consider myself an agnostic. I just don't know. But Karol Witawa, both as man and Pope, led an extraordinary life. He fought the Nazis and saved Jewish children from the death camps and also fought against the Communists and helped Solidarity bring democracy to Poland. He was a uniter, not a divider, visiting countries throughout the world where he was not always welcome, like Cuba. George Bush* may praise this Pope, but this man vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, condemned the abuses at Abu Ghraib and cited Bush*'s similarities with the anti-Christ. I may not be religious, but this man is a hero to me, and I mourn his passing. And I also mourn the lack of compassion on DU. You're not wrong. Liberals are both tolerant and compassionate.:shrug:

[LoganW]

113. Hmmm

From your profile

"I am an unorthodox Christian, sometimes conservative, but definitely open-minded. Free Republicans"

but then say

"I am here because I was under the impression that democrats were more tolerant of diverse views on world issues. Am I wrong? Are democrats as intolerant as conservatives?"

Interesting.

Yes, poor christians. White, male, heterosexual, christians have it SO hard in this country. Can't even walk down the street with out being persecuted by the atheists can you?

[Dave Reynolds]

120. Um ,correct me if I am wrong,

but would not "tolerant of diverse views on world issues" include tolerating and/or defending communism? By the way, communism is an economic system, just like socialism and capitalism.

[not systems]

2. Heresy!!!

How dare anyone criticize the Pope.

:crazy:

[glaeken777]

3. well, he's certainly in touch with his anger...

n/t

[Malva Zebrina]

evil, commie, godless, unfeeling atheist!

Hmm--and where is Poland now?

Helping a insane fascist Christian who is often depicted with a halo around his head in photos, who is welcomed in many Christian churches and lauded as the ruling with the hand of god, whose banner has been taken up, additionaly, by immoral Catholics, to invade and murder women and children by the hundred thousand, while dipping it's hands greedily into the stuff that belongs to the Iraqi people and handing it all out to the rich buddies. For this it is generously rewarded with American dollars.

Not defending communism, just pointing out the incredible turn around.

[mmonk]

41. as a Catholic (albeit agnostic type)

you don't mind painting with a broad brush, do you?

[mmonk]

66. also,

how does the pope figure in the bush war machine he is against? Maybe you should be put in the category of Stalin or Mao.

[Malva Zebrina]

101. where does the Pope come in

Someone said he eliminated communism from Poland--I point out that the country in which communism was eliminated,Poland, is now , imo, immoral for joining in with Geroge Bush's invasion, atrocities, and murders in Iraq even while the Pope issued a papal statement against the invasion.

Last time I looked, Poland was a country, mainly Catholic, by some 95% and if you think that is painting a broad brush, words fail me.

I merely point to the irony.

Many Catholic Churches in this country involved themselves fully in the last election and focused in on abortion rights as a reason for believers to not elect John Kerry.

Even though Kerry is a Catholic, his sensible and fair response to a question asked in one of the debates, as to his duties as a president leader of a diverse culture re abortion, was not good enough for those who want to tell others what to do with their lives and will not be satisfied until legislation is brought about that eliminates choice.

The irony there is that, in the midst of a brutal and savage slaughter of a war,where some 100,000 innocent people, half women and children, were murdered using trumped up lies as an excuse, an unjust war, according to their Pope's teaching, was ignored by the priests who were narrowly focused on eliminating abortion rights and, to me, taking away the crux of humanity, the right to make decisions for one's own health and have that decision followed out using a clean and a safe environment, is immoral.

[MindPilot]

4. oh boy more fodder for the echo machine

stand by for another round of atheism=communism from the religo-media

[mutus_frutex]

5. I'm pretty much in the same situation..

I'm more worried that the future will probably be worst than of anything else..

[jonnyblitz]

6. of course those of us who don't care for the pope are commies

there's the proof. :eye:

[Frederik]

7. Good to hear that there still are atheists around

[RPM]

8. good for him....

i saw someone here at DU say they were happy at PJPII's administration for, among other things, helping to end communism.

i thought that was a bit peculiar...

[ButterflyBlood]

14. so it's peculiar to celebrate the fall of an oppressive regime?

n/t

[RPM]

15. no - its peculiar for someone with leftist leanings...

to celebrate the fall of communism.

i'll give you the the fall of the soviet union was the fall of a oppressive regime. But the fall of 'communism' was not the fall of a oppressive regime. In fact, communism, as an idea, itself is not oppressive, rather it was certain governments' ways of enforcing its principles. Communism is no more inherently oppressive than any other social system, including capitalism.

[ButterflyBlood]

16. when people say "communism" they basically refer to the Soviet Bloc

and name a country that was part of that that was not an oppressive regime.

[RPM]

17. people are idiots

communism <> soviet bloc

they need to be more precise in their speech

[RPM]

21. btw - nice strawman...

...name an eastern bloc country that wasn't oppressive.

Here's one for you: name one country that hasn't been oppressive - communist or otherwise.

Even the good ol' U S of A has got a lot of oppression in its history...

[Crunchy Frog]

19. I don't think there's anything peculiar at all

about people with liberal leanings celebrating the peaceful fall of a repressive regime.

Silly me, I used to think it was only freepers who assumed that all liberals and Democrats were pro-communist.

[RPM]

20. some of us on the left flank of this party still hold to those ideals n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

23. The vast majority of people in the Democratic party

never believed in the ideals of communism. If we did, we would be members of the CPUSA rather than the Democratic party. Oh, and rejection of communist ideology does not imply uncritical acceptance of unrestrained capitalism or lack of belief in social justice. We just don't happen to believe that the values of social justice were embodied in the murderous totalitarianism of the Soviet bloc communist regimes.

[RPM]

22. Are you an anarchist

All regimes are oppressive - see #21 above and try to name a regime communist, capitalist or otherwise that hasnt been.

Even the Catholic Church has engaged in its fair share of oppression.

So, from the sounds of it, you want all oppressive regimes, which means all regimes, to be overthrown...

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Thank you for putting alot of words in my mouth

and jumping to alot of conclusions about me based on very little information.

No, I am not an anarchist. I don't believe that anarchy is a viable system, meaning that I think that it will inevitably break down and be replaced by a very repressive system.

Yes, all systems have some degree of repression in them, but some have a good deal more of it than others. In general, I think it is a good thing when a system that is very repressive is overthrown (by its own people) and replaced by a system that is not as repressive. When the opposite scenario happens, I think that is a bad thing.

I don't believe that it is possible to achieve absolute perfection in this world. The only thing that we can do is attempt to improve things. This is generally achieved by gradually and incrementally decreasing the level of repression in society and increasing individual rights, liberties, dignity, and the overall level of humaneness in society.

This is what I believe in. This is why I am a liberal, a progressive, and a Democrat.

Oh, and I am not a Catholic, so if you were trying to goad me by attacking the Catholic church, you won't succeed. I agree that throughout much of its history the Catholic church has been a major source of oppression and repression. Much less so in the modern era, mostly because it doesn't have the kind of power that it used to have, and it has competition with other denominations and with increasingly secular societies; a good thing.

[RPM]

27. not goading you...

just raising the point that many different institutions are repressive.


sorry i touched such a nerve

[Crunchy Frog]

37. No need to apologize as no nerve of mine was touched.

It seems though that I may have touched a nerve of yours and if I did, I apologize.

I completely agree with your point that many institutions are repressive. I believe that my only area of contention with you concerns whether some types of repressive systems should be given a pass because they espouse supposedly "leftist" ideals. Also, I'm able to see that there are degrees of repressiveness and that some systems have far more of it than others. It seems that you may not agree with that point. Perhaps you really believe that say Sweden is just as repressive a society as Saudi Arabia for example. While I'm willing to acknowledge that some degree of repression exists in both of those societies, I'm not ready to see them as being equivalent in their levels of repression.

Once again, I apologize if I touched a nerve.:)

[VegasWolf]

35. Use of the existential word "ALL" makes moot your point immediately.n/t

[JVS]

39. I would like to interject a couple points since we've started down this...

path.

1) I do not think that it is a coincidence that the fall of communism has been followed by a period of impoverishment of the Western working class. Unpleasant as it may be for some on the American left to come to terms with, Communism provided a very good "bad cop" for the plight of the common Westerners and provided a much needed pressure on Western capitalists to provide a good standard of living for their subjects, lest we should have become oriented toward Moscow. An excellent example of the loss of such a counterweight is that in post-WWII Germany the conservative goverment was commited to the concept of the Social-market economy, which held that the market forces must be strictly regulated in order to make the economy serve the society. Now, in the post-soviet era Germany is headed by a Socialist and Green coallition government which is rapidly dismantling the German social welfare net. Similarly in America we bemoan the destruction of Roosevelt's New Deal, but often forget that cooperation of the more conservative end of our political culture may well have been spurred by the success of the first five year plan.

2) If we are to believe that JPII contributed to the downfall of Communism, and we are also to believe the incredible accusations of writers like Robert Conquest or publications such as "The Black Book of Communism", then we must be willing to apply the same statistical and causality analyses to JPII. Considering the massive amount of destruction of human life that the former Soviet republics, along with all but the most fortunate of the former East-bloc countries have suffered, his legacy is not as pleasant as many assume. The elderly Russians who have been killed by cold because in capitalism the government doesn't pay the pension holders, the women of the Tajik and Uzbek republics who are seeing the re-establishment of Islamic law, the Moldovan women who are kidnapped and sold into sex-slavery, there is much suffering as a result of his handiwork. This is even before going into how his strong opposition to birth control (He even convinced an earlier Pope not to drop the ban on birth control) has contributed to an environment rife with under-supported children and sexually transmitted disease. Do not be deceived, this man has caused much grief. All while claiming to support a "culture of life".

[magnussun]

55. Communism and Nazism

"i'll give you the the fall of the soviet union was the fall of a oppressive regime. But the fall of 'communism' was not the fall of a oppressive regime. In fact, communism, as an idea, itself is not oppressive, rather it was certain governments' ways of enforcing its principles. Communism is no more inherently oppressive than any other social system, including capitalism."

Do you apply that same consideration to National Socialism? It's socialism on a national level. In and of itself, and minus the Jew-hating, it wasn't such a bad idea either.
What makes a government oppressive is when extremists take it over.

Please do not take my comments out of context.

M

[oldcoot]

104. Differences between fascism and communism

There is a big difference between fascists such as the Nazis and communists and socialists. True communists and socialists believe that everyone should be treated equally. Fascists reject the idea that all human beings are created equally. The Nazis, for example, believed in the superiority of the Aryan "race" and male superiority. They also hated communists and used them as scapegoats. Communists were even among those exterminated during the Holocaust.

Although fascists loath communists and socialists, they do include include some aspects of class struggle into their rhetoric. This fact makes it easy for people to confuse socialism and some forms of fascism.

[Crunchy Frog]

106. Under fascism, man exploits man.

Under Communism, it's just the opposite.

[magnussun]

110. Communism's bosses

"There is a big difference between fascists such as the Nazis and communists and socialists. True communists and socialists believe that everyone should be treated equally. Fascists reject the idea that all human beings are created equally. The Nazis, for example, believed in the superiority of the Aryan "race" and male superiority. They also hated communists and used them as scapegoats. Communists were even among those exterminated during the Holocaust."

What about the 20 million Stalin killed? The communist idea of "equality" was enforced by killing the progressives. How is that any better than Hitler killing Jews and communists? Killing your own people takes a little more chutzpah than killing the perceived enemy.

"Although fascists loath communists and socialists, they do include include some aspects of class struggle into their rhetoric. This fact makes it easy for people to confuse socialism and some forms of fascism."

Hitler was a national SOCIALIST. As to class struggle, those commies who railed against the "bosses" ended up being the "bosses," restricting the freedom of dissidents and living a life of luxury themselves. The former "bosses" in the Soviet Union used their privelege to buy up the resources after the fall of communism. The former "bosses" are todays' OLIGARCHS.

Furthermore, these lovely communists used the word peace, while waging war and butchering innocent people. How is that any different than capitalists who do the same thing? Communists use the class struggle and capitalists use the freedom struggle to manipulate people into allowing them into power so they can rule over the peons and control them for their own oligarchal ends.

M

[LoganW]

115. Have you never read a history book?

"Hitler was a national SOCIALIST"

Yea, I bet he was. That must be why rounding up socialist/communists and shipping them off to camps was a top priority.

You know WHY the nazis sent communists to camps? Because they were an OPPOSITION party.

All of western europe is socailists, and they are far ethically superior to the capitalists that rule this country.

[Crunchy Frog]

116. Now, can you tell me why

the German Communist party refused to join forces with the German socialist party to prevent Hitler coming to power?

What do your history books say about that question?

[rayofreason]

111. Communism and Fascism - evil cousins

Both communism and fascism are perverted offshoots of liberal democratic ideals. Each claims to be a eschatological movement whose fullfillment will usher in a utopia. Each claims to speak for "the people" so that their enemies become "enemies of the people." Both movements are willing to kill vast numbers in the belief that the goal is so noble the killing is justified. Both claim to grounded in rationalism and "science." But, in reality, what you have is a perversion of science, from the Fascist twisting of natural selection in evolution into a crude social darwinism to the communist fantasies about the "scientific" nature of dialectical materialism. Remember that both ideologies have their roots in the latter half of the 19th century when scientific hubris in european thinking reached it height. It was the age before Quantum Mechanics and Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem demolished the purely rational positivistic-deterministic view of reality and the Great War evicerated the european soul. Finally, both movements rejected any notion of the divine, in keeping with the anti-clerical rationalism of the French Revolution. And without any room for God, the God-shaped hole that Sartre refered to became filled with a pitiless human cruelty masquerading as God, God-like only its untrammled excercise in the power of death.

Rejection of pieces of Fascim or Communisim are not enough. It is essential to reject the core of both ideologies that reduce human beings to ants, pawns of history, whose fates are social, not individual, in nature. We must raise up the dignity individual, embrace the original goals of the Enlightement, and be steadfast in our support of consensual government.

[stepnw1f]

9. Oh Brother... the Commies.... whaaaaaa

Hey righties.... go back into your "Nuclear Bunkers".

[Zuni]

73. Go back to your Gulag

I guess you have no idea what communism was really like. My family came from the USSR. It wasn't a joke.

[makhno]

107. So, when did the Soviet Union achieve communism?

I thought socialism was the last stage it ever got to, per Khrushchev or Brezhnev, I forget.

What your family went through wasn't a joke. The joke is all the pikers who think Soviet state-capitalism somehow represents the successful practice of communism.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. God there are a lot of knee-jerk responses on this thread

"Good for him!" "Why is communism a bad thing?"

Boy, I love reactionary DUers who apply the immediate and opposite extreme to evey situation. Rampant U.S. capatalism = bad, so therefore, Soviet-style communism = good. You DO realize that, in defending a "Polish communist," you are defending a highly repressive authoritarian government, and that by implying that the fall of the Iron Curtain was a bad thing, you are displaying an extreme ignorance of history?

[entanglement]

99. Yes, but details like that

hardly matter. You see, enemy of Pope = good, friend of pope = bad
:sarcasm: And we blame the Right for seeing the world in black-and-white

[w4rma]

11. It appears that the Communist former leaders of Poland lost their power

because of stupidity, arrogance and hubris rather than anything the Pope did.

[Silverhair]

12. That's OK. Very few will mourn when Jerzy Urban dies either.

Do not underestimate the value of an inspirational person, and for Poland, to have a Polish Pope at that time in history had definate moral value. He was a factor, NOT the only factor, but he was a factor in the Poles standing up to their oppressive communist gov't, and bringing it down, and with it the entire soviet empire. So it is natural that a Polish communist would despise PJPII. I doubt that PJPII cares much about Urban's feelings in the matter.

[Stunster]

13. Jerzy Urban

was regularly lampooned by Polish citizens for years, not least because the Commies could hardly have found a more extraordinarily ugly, moon-faced, huge-eared buffoon to be their media lie-person in the waning days of Poland's military dictatorship.

I suppose that being such an object of scorn, loathing, and ridicule has left him bitter.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Well, you have to admire the guy's sensitivity.

And people still wonder why Communism didn't survive.

[rayofreason]

25. Amazing

I find it amazing that even here, in the DU, one finds defenders of communist dictatorships. Clearly, none of these defenders ever lived in such a country. Nor did I, though I have a long association with the former Soviet Union, with many close friends there, friends close enough that we could have open (and dangerous) discussions, such as the real meaning of Stalin around a dinner table in a Moscow apartment. People who lived in that rotten excuse for utopia do consider that the USSR was evil, and were amazed when Reagan said so publically. Those without a real connection with people who have lived under communist dictatorship (unmediated by secret police eavesdropping or mouthpieces of the government) just have no clue.

So you find statements like on this site like "In fact, communism, as an idea, itself is not oppressive, rather it was certain governments' ways of enforcing its principles. Communism is no more inherently oppressive than any other social system, including capitalism." Name a communist dictatorship that has not been horribly oppressive. I remember "Democratic Kampuchea" and how so many, like Noam Chomsky, were falling over themselves to sing the praises of the revolution. Is there another example in history where a group of thugs has come to power in a country and in the pursuit of creating what they think will be an earthly utopia proceed to slaughter 1/3 of the population of that country?

Communist dictatorships a brittle because they rely of a vision of humanity based in 19th century pseudoscience (history as predictive science? suitable for Hari Seldon, and not much else), enforced by industrial-scale repression and cults of personality that are scarcely imaginable to those who do not live in them. Ask anyone from North Korea, where people are told that they live in the richest, greatest country on Earth and that Kim Jong Il is the perfect human. Expressing a contrary opinion is a crime punishable by being sent to a labor camp. How would DUers react if tomorrow all new media outlets were forced, on pain of death, to run stories about the "perfection" of George Bush, and that saying anything contrary is a crime punishable by immediate arrest and imprisonment. That is what you have in the DPRK, no hyperbole - plain reality. But these pathologies are so brittle, so that when the facade breaks, and people no longer believe, it is only a matter of time before the fall. For all the faults of western society, there is no such brittleness in the constituion of social structure and government. and plently of open critisim of politicians like Bush. I remember the joke I heard in the 80's about the bed that sleeps three people - it is called "Lenin is with us" (Lenin s'namyi). Any Russian speaker who spent time in the CCCP will recognize the phrase and get the joke. And joking about it meant the beginning of the end of the system.

So this is why didn't western societies collapse, and former communist dictatorships moved in the direction of consensual government and market economies. The deep dark fear of the hard left is that given a chance there is not a single population in the world, especially in those remaining states that claim to be socialist, that would not also junk their dictatorship (communistic, theocratic, kleptocratic thuggery, or any combination thereof) and adopt consensual government and a market economy. And we don't hear about countries that freely are striving to move in the other direction, do we?

I think that it is a good bet that 50 years from now not a single government that is in opposition to consensual government will be left in the world and that government of the people, by the people, for the people will be everywhere on the Earth. No nirvana, but a way to advance human dignity, as long as you can convince others, without force, to go along with your ideas.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. You'll get flamed as a troll

But FWIW, I think you have written a well-reasoned and valuable post.

DU is deathly afraid to criticize the sacred cows of the far left, which is a pity, because the extreme left is as dangerous as the extreme right, ideologically speaking (not in practice, because they are currently not in power, unlike the extreme right).

Well, I'm not a leftist. I'm a liberal. As a liberal, I abhor any government that operates upon suppression of dissent and rigid control - be it fascist or communist or some other totalitarian tyranny. I believe in liberty, the freedom of a people to determine their life and their government. Repressive "leftist" regimes are as big a threat to freedom and the human condition as repressive rightist regimes are. I find Bush so odious because he seeks to curtail liberty and the freedom to dissent at home while trying to force democracy (or scavenge for oil, depending on your level of cynicism- mine's pretty high where the neocon cabal is concerned) at gunpoint. But brutal communist regimes get NO pass from me.

I never thought I'd see the day when those on DU side AGAINST Lech Walesa and Solidarity. What a sad, sad day.

[Charlie Brown]

28. Why do you say that?

"DU is deathly afraid to criticize the sacred cows of the far left, which is a pity, because the extreme left is as dangerous as the extreme right, ideologically speaking."

It seems like a majority of these responses are critical of what Urban had to say, without addressing whether his point - that the Papacy unfairly singled out Poland - is valid. Why should it bother people that not all Pols were fond of John Paul?

"Well, I'm not a leftist. I'm a liberal. As a liberal, I abhor any government that operates upon suppression of dissent and rigid control - be it fascist or communist or some other totalitarian tyranny. I believe in liberty, the freedom of a people to determine their life and their government."

You sound like a libertarian to me. How do you rationalize your fondness for freedom with "liberal" ideas like an income tax and non-discrimination laws - both institutions that control what others do. I think you and Communists have a lot in common, whether you will admit it or not.

If you believe in "the freedom of a people to determine their life and their government," then the October Revolution and the Cuban Revolution are definitely examples of that line of thinking.

"But brutal communist regimes get NO pass from me."

I think communism has benifitted countries like Vietnam and Cuba, where the governments have overcome generations of corruption and imperialism to make significant gains for human-rights and progress, particularly in health-care. The US embargo on both countries have not helped, but under the circumstances I think both countries have come a long way. Modern Russia, on the other hand, is just as corrupt and dysfunctional as it was under the Soviets, and the former SSRs like Kyrzgsztan have descended into chaos. You might be surprised to know how many former Soviets have nostalgia for the orderly days of the USSR.

[rayofreason]

31. freedom of a people

So, you think that the Bolshevik coup against the parlimentary government of Kerensky was related to "the freedom of a people to determine their life and their government"? That Bolshevik coup ushered in one of the most brutal dictatorships in the 20th century, a dictatorship that thinking people in the former USSR reject as a catastrophe.

Yes, many yearn for the days of order, and are so prey for various neo-facist movements who like to blame the West or Jews or others for the problems of Russia. They are the same folks who are appalled at the "loss" of the "near abroad" - places like Ukraine and Georgia that have in truth exercised "the freedom of a people to determine their life and their government." On whose side are you on - the Rose and Orange revolutions or the brown shirts?

You mention Vietnam and Cuba. Why is it that when pointing to the victories of socialism the examples are always in those states where communist dictatorship control of information still holds sway? Why does no one ever point to examples of achievement in the many communist states that have collapsed? If there were valuable things that came from those revolutions we would have seen the results with our own eyes once we could look without the censor's eyeglass.

Mark my words, when Castro is gone, and his charisma can no longer hold the place together, the system will collapse and the Cuban people will rush to embrace a market economy and consensual governement. Then the real stories about life in Cuba will get out, just as happened in the former soviet empire. And in Vietnam, the day will come when the killing fields are exposed. Those who pointed to Cuba and Vietnam as exemplars will have to look elsewhere, to sing the praises of latest illiberal revolution that takes on the trappings of anti-westernism and socialism with the refrain "I swear that this one will be different!"

Illiberal regimes cannot produce liberal societies. Traditional, corrupt societies may enter into long periods of violence and repression in their historical development of reaction to modernism, but do not embrace those developments. Just pray that the nightmare will soon end and that the pot of gold end of the rainbow will be a peaceful, democratic revolution of whatever wavelength the people desire.

[Heyo]

33. Wait a second...

"communism has benifitted countries like Vietnam and Cuba,"

What?!

:wow:

Heyo

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. Communism has benefited countries like Vietnam and Cuba?

Allright, let me ask one of the many people who "disappeared" or were detained for daring to speak out against the policies of their government. Let me ask Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Vietnamese Catholic priest who, due to international pressure, was recently released from a ten year jail sentence that he incurred by speaking publicly against the government.

ANY nation that imprisons its citizens for criticizing the ruling cabal is NOT LIBERAL, no matter how many mental hoops you want to try and jump through.

[Charlie Brown]

46. By that notion, there are no "liberal" societies on earth

There are equal abuses of this sort in pretty much every country.

If you're here, I'm sure you support secularism, welfare, equality, and corporate penalties, which all have a lot in common with communist ideology. If not, why are you here?

There are undoubtedly those who abuse the communist system for power and greed, just like there are those who abuse Christianity for the same reason. I hear no one denouncing Christianity because of the pretenders in its ranks (well, actually, I do, at this board). I guess communists and Christians have something in common.

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. The problem is that ideological communism doesn't exist in the real world

And so you could argue that ideological democracy doesn't exist in the real world, either, which is a valid point. That said, past and present communist states have a terrible human rights track record. Say what you will about America's or the West's faults, but in the modern U.S. and Europe, people don't get thrown in jail for expressing dissent. We are all free to call Bush every name in the book without fear of reprisal. Citizens of totalitarian regimes do not have that luxury.

Of course I believe in welfare, equality, and corporate fairness. My father is a union laborer, so labor issues and economic fairness is very important to me. I think many socialist ideas are well-founded, and if that makes them communist ideas by extension, then so be it. I did not say that Marxism as originally designed is all bad, though I do not believe I would ever advocate a completely communist state, because I believe that it discourages enterprise and merit. However, yes, many socialist ideas are good. That said, communism as a form of real government has yet to work in the real world - it inevitably devolves into authoritarianism. Any form of government that requires an overbearing governmental grip over one sector of society usually ends up leading to oppression. I do not think this makes me a libertarian, because as you pointed out, I am in favor of *some* federal regulation of the economy, i.e. wages, fair trade laws, ergonomics, labor laws, welfare, etc. I just don't think communism will ever work, because it presupposes a utopia that cannot exist given human nature.

You make a good point about the abuse of communism by its practitioners and your comparison to Christianity is a good one, but it actually illustrates what I'm saying, in that there has never really been one church that has fully realized the true meaning of Christ's teaching. Similarly, no communist nation will ever truly realize Marx's vision of an equal society. Some may come closer than others, as with religion as well, but none could ever achieve that utopia. In a world filled will imperfect people, utopia is but a pipe dream.

[rayofreason]

29. Thanks...

Maybe I'll get flamed, but I have an abiding hostility to illiberal regimes. My basic principle of government that that it should be based on a respect for the individual, that we all have a right to make a choice about what opinions we wish to hold, and to express those opinions without fear of reprisal. Government policy should be based on convincing a majority to go along with you. It may mean that you don't always get what you want (especially if you live in a traditional society), but building "progressive" policies on the bones of those you could not convince, not even with a bullet, is a total betrayal of humanistic philosophy.

I am an optimist. Despite many detours, on the average the world will get better for an increasing number of people, societies will advance, and a universal vision of the worth of individuals will prevail. For thousands of years, almost every society of any notable complexity was ruled by the autocratic principle, sometimes religiously-based, sometimes not. Now even the autocrats have to clothe themselves in the language of consensual government, complete with 99.9% affirmation in "referendums." It is simply not acceptable in the world today to say "My word is Law" or "I have slaves in abundance", however true either statement might be. That by itself is a great advance over the situation just 100 years ago when Tsar Nicholas could unselfconsciously describe his rule as autocracy as mandated by God.

[magnussun]

61. Thanks rayofreason and wildeyedliberal

For your moderation and well-reasoned posts. You are free thinkers, true traditional liberals intelliegent enough to think for yourselves and brave enough to say it out loud whilst a lynch mob awaits to pummel you.

M

[puddycat]

30. I think you are laboring under an illusion that we are a "free" people

you think we are free? really? Its like George Carlin says, we think we are free because we have a choice of many different kinds of mustard, but few real political choices or other freedoms.

For instance, you think you are free? You want to be independent? Try having a cow in your backyard for milk. You can't do it unless you live in the country. Your neighbors would be exercising their little fascist tendencies and reporting you to the local government pronto.

We have the illusion of freedom. That is all.

[rayofreason]

38. freedom

Freedom does not mean that you get to do whatever you want. The cow is the yard is a good example. In some societies it is allowed, in others not. But the bottom lines is that all societies have rules. And I do mean ALL societies, all species. Every social animal is constrained. So "little fascist tendencies", by which you seem to classify the enforcement of social norms, are the evolutionary basis of all social animals. A basic problem with Marxist conceptions of society is that they do not take into account evolutionary biology (among other things) and so provide us with a shadow, fantasy human, easily organized by class as the product of dialectical materialism. This shadow human comes into conflict with real, flesh and blood humans, and the response of the communist dictator to the resulting cognitive conflict is to repress the real, flesh and blood human rather than abandon the shadow human and the ideology that created him. Religious infantilism at its worst.

Having said that, in societies with consensual government it is the most possible to actually separate yourself from society and live a totally "free" life. Of course, being "free" as defined by not being bound by social norms also means that you cannot expect to take advantage of society and its products (modern medicine, sanitized food and water, etc.). In the US or Canada you can go off and live as a mountain man, and as long as you don't bother anyone you are not likely to be bothered. But again, than means no kidnapping a mate, or taking advantage of anything created by others (i.e., stealing food from a garden), or any interaction other other humans. As soon as you interact with others you become a social animal and to deny the biology of social animals is a fantasy. In Europe it is far more difficult to me a mountain man because of the population density, but you can get away with it in the wilds of Scandinavia or Russia. You have much less of a chance of doing this in societies ruled by dictators who really worry about controlling people. In such societies a wild man is a threat to the state.

You claim that we have "a choice of many different kinds of mustard, but few real political choices or other freedoms." Wrong. What you don't have is the freedom to compel others to accept what you might consider "real political choices or other freedoms." What you do have is the freedom to try to convince others that your point of view is one that they too should embrace. If they don't choose the embrace your ideas, it is not because you are not free, but because they are.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. You're very eloquent

And very right. :applause:

[Charlie Brown]

48. Now let's apply this to the marriage debate

"What you don't have is the freedom to compel others to accept what you might consider "real political choices or other freedoms." What you do have is the freedom to try to convince others that your point of view is one that they too should embrace. If they don't choose the embrace your ideas, it is not because you are not free, but because they are."

Alright, what if someone doesn't think gays should be allowed to marry. It threatens the family, or whatever. Do you believe it's the right of the majority to withhold rights from the minority. That would be an exercise of their "freedom," would it not?

[rayofreason]

56. gay marriage

To some degree, yes. I personally have no problem with gay marriage (I have a close relative in a long-term gay relationship), and in time a majority won't either.

But you do point out the danger of majority rule and the need for the protection of a set of basic rights as an irreducible aspect of law. We have that in the constitution, though, as with everything, there are differences of opinion. For example, what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure? That standard has evolved over time, and now we must consider how we fold things like genetic information into the concept.

So the question of gay marrige will evolve over time like everything else. But you can't push tolerance down someone's throat. Debate, openess, respect for differing opinions, and respect for people, these are the tools for change in liberal societies.

[magnussun]

65. Civil society requires reasonable rules

"you think we are free? really? Its like George Carlin says, we think we are free because we have a choice of many different kinds of mustard, but few real political choices or other freedoms."

WE are freer than most.

"For instance, you think you are free? You want to be independent? Try having a cow in your backyard for milk. You can't do it unless you live in the country. Your neighbors would be exercising their little fascist tendencies and reporting you to the local government pronto."

So, those who can't open their windows or doors in the summer or don't like smelling cowturds from next door are fascists? I live in the country and have a horse and a cow. They are on the other side of the ranch, but I still smell the turds and get the flies. Also, cows get out and end up on the highway. That's a personal safety issue. When people are confined to a small area, they must respect each other's rights to live in peace. A CHICKEN crowing next door at sunrise when you work the night shift aint too kosher. Nor are boom boxes. If you want more freedom, live in the country.

"We have the illusion of freedom. That is all."

There I'll agree. We vote something in, the courts shoot it down.

M

[Redstone]

40. Damn. That was well-written...

and true.

Anyone who thinks that communism is anything more that a monstrous joke is seriously deluded.

Anyone who thinks that comunism is wonderful should spend some time living in a communist state, then return and tell us how wonderful it was.

Thank you for your post.

Redstone

[Charlie Brown]

45. I think many people here are confusing communism with autocratic despotism

If you believe in a planned economy and the collectivization of property, then you are, according to the traditional definition, a communist. We, here, support many reforms that incorporate elements of this philosophy (welfare, secularism, corporate penalties). How is this a "sick joke?"

Very few communists support gulags, purges, and thought control. These measures were introduced by megalomaniacs like Stalin and Mao, who simply craved power. Indeed, you can find these abuses in pretty much any civilized society, including the US. But you very seldom hear the horror stories of right-wing regimes like Pinochet, Marcos, or Franco.

"Anyone who thinks that comunism is wonderful should spend some time living in a communist state, then return and tell us how wonderful it was."

By that same logic, no one could oppose the Iraq War who hadn't actually been to Iraq. We'd have to take Bush's word that Saddam was worse than Hitler and needed to be overthrown. Indeed, that sentiment is eerily reminscent of the Freeper line: "If they like Saddam so much, why don't they go and live there." I'm sure you don't agree with that.

[rayofreason]

52. Liberal communists

You wrote that "Very few communists support gulags, purges, and thought control." Yet in all the countries where communists seize control, those who do not support gulags, or purges, or thought control find themselves purged, sent to gulags, and their independence of thought crushed. It seems to be a Gresham's Law of politics, where the most ruthless end up running the place.

Stalin was no accident, Lenin was a murderous SOB, and Trotsky would have gone in the same direction given the chance. And while right-wing regimes like those you cited have killed tens of thousands, this pales in comparison with tens of millions of people who perished for being "enemies of the people." An ordinary kelptocrat might use mafia techniques to retain power in order to steal or to have power for power's sake, but the aims are limited - personal gratification being foremost. The days of such regimes are numbered. On the other hand, to create utopia on Earth, no amount of killing is an obstacle. It is the very seduction of the Marxist religion, the limitlessness of the quixotic quest for the classless state that opens the road to unspeakable horror. And still many find the need to believe, a need for an apocalyptic vision as a counterpoint to the injustice that they perceive in the world today. If you believe that the world is irredeemably corrupt, then only a purge that wipes out that which is, root and branch, will do. Salafist Jihadism is in that same intellectual stream.

Judge communism as a political philosophy by it's fruits, not by it's unfulfilled fantasies.

[magnussun]

71. I think I love you!

I am a HETERO SWF, thin, 36, cute too. Never married, no children. I like to fish and ride horses. Have two spolied cats I love dearly.
I just said that to make the commies mad. But seriously..

Your posts are most excellent, and true. I left FR because no one there seemed capable of rational and thought-provoking debate. You do not insult anyone, yet put your points across very eloquently on this issue.

Might I also point out that the Soviet Union absolutely laid waste to the environment. Communists aren't true liberals. They don't believe in freedom, they believe in thought control.

M

[rayofreason]

97. Thanks...

...for the kind words.

I am happily married, ten years older than you, with 2 great kids.

I do not think that in reasoned discourse there is a need to insult people, though at times an intellectual skewering might be called for.

BTW, what is "FR" that you refered to?

Thanks for mentioning the destruction of the environement in the USSR. The scale is unimaginable to people in the West. The destruction of the Aral sea is only one of the nightmares visited on the long suffering Soviet people.

http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/earthshots/slow/Aral/Aral

Even crazier was the idea to divert the Lena river away from it's northward flow to the Arctic and redirect it to central Asia for irrigation. After all, what is ecological disruption on this scale compared to the creation of the New Soviet Man, denizen of the Worker's Paradise? What hubris they had!

[magnussun]

108. FR

FR is Free Republic. And all the good men are taken.

It's amazing how these Communist Party USA people glamorize the Soviet Union and Cuba, etc.. while claiming we neglect the people and environment. I once saw a documentary showing the Russian leadership ("bosses") shooting Siberian Tigers from helicopters. They closed the park off to the public for "conservation" reasons. Where true freedom exists, the media can report this and people can boot them out. The only place communism can work is on a commune or in tribal or family groups.

M

[ckramer]

119. "Judge communism as a political philosophy by it's fruits, ...."

... not by it's unfulfilled fantasies."

Your are right and I'm not defending communism here. I'd just like you to explain why the 'free-est' country in the world ended up invading a country based on lies and killing 100,000 Iraqis?

And how do you judge that "by it's fruits"? LOL!

Isn't that ironic?

[magnussun]

69. collectivization of property

"If you believe in a planned economy and the collectivization of property, then you are, according to the traditional definition, a communist. We, here, support many reforms that incorporate elements of this philosophy (welfare, secularism, corporate penalties). How is this a "sick joke?"

I don't know, but you aint collecting my property. I need it as a buffer zone.

As to communism or any form of government that is unchecked, abuses will occur. Checks and balances must be maintained.

M

[Crunchy Frog]

42. I largely agree with what you have to say

and I hope that you didn't see my post as a defense of communist dictatorship. It was intended as just the opposite, though it was through a (rather poor) attempt at sarcasm.

I spent years studying the Soviet bloc and celebrated its downfall just as much as anyone.

I'm not sure that I share your optimism about the march of humanity towards enlightened consensual governments. In fact, I fear that our country is marching in the exact oposite direction right now, which is why I'm here at DU in the first place. I would be very happy, however,if you turn out to be right.

[rayofreason]

53. Agree

No, I took you comments as being in defense of liberal societies.

Keeping them that way is a task for all of us, and open debate at places like the DU is part of that process.

Whether my optimism is well placed, only time will tell. But that optimism is founded in the history of the past 2 decades. Who would have thought that the fall of the USSR could have happened as peacefully as it did? Events in Ukraine and Georgia are even more cause for optimism. And we may even see a fundamental shakeup in the Arab lands, with a general move toward consensual government. It could all go to hell of course. The Israelis and Palestinians could go back to war, but the emergence of consensual politics among the Palestinians may allow the cycle to be broken. But we do have to look on a decadal or longer time-scale, because along with progress there will always be one or more steps back. Being immersed in history as it happens does not allow for much perpsective. It reminds me of what Chou En-lai said when he was asked what he thought about the French revolution - "It is too early to tell."

[JVS]

32. Keep up the good fight!

[Catholic Sensation]

59. and which "good" fight is he fighting?

The right to be unapologetically stupid?

[JVS]

62. The fight for the right to free speech and the right not to give a shit

[Milspec]

34. I don't think I will care much when Jerzy Urban Dies

But of course I will not hear about it when that happens.

[VegasWolf]

36. Why should it be more special than when anyone of his flock die, you know

all those people who gave up their hard earned money the the Catholic
religious corporation? Why is this different than the passing of
any CEO?

[magnussun]

75. religious corporation?

Catholics are the most charitable of all religions in the world. Hardly a corporation to be likened with a CEO.

M

[JVS]

47. All the talk of "freedom", but Urban's freedom has been violated by the...

Polish government recently on this issue
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2005/01/25/world/poland-pope-050125

[Charlie Brown]

49. I'm sure the folks here will be cheering this ruling

After all, he was just a dirty commie, and this is "freedom" in action.

[JVS]

50. Long live freedom!

[JohnKleeb]

60. NM he has a right to say what he wants to say

but if Urban's old bosses were in power, you know he would have no problem with closing down a newspaper that would have posted favorable coverage of the pope. Urban's emplyoers tyrannized the Polish people for 40 years around. Many communist regimes including that one had an awful human rights record. Extreme left can be just as bad as extreme right as was the case with Stalin and Mao. I don't see how you guys can defend communist regimes and in other parts of the site slam the pope for his anti gay views yet condoning the many communist regimes that are terrible to gay people.

[JVS]

63. So you are Ok with Urban not being allowed to speak freely?

If the new Polish goverment pretends to be democratic, shouldn't it have free speech?

Ah, you edited

[JohnKleeb]

64. I didnt realize what you said

He has a right to free speech but you know damn well he was on the same side of closing opposition newspapers during the cold war. I have no idea why people are acting like Urban is some good guy, he's not, he was a propagandist it seems to me pure and simple.

[JVS]

76. Unfortunatly, when democratic governments restrict the speech of old goats

like Urban, they come off looking hypocritical and give creedence to the old authoritarians' arguments that the democratic government doesn't support the freedom that they claim to. Also, concerning his more recent comment, I think it is perfectly justifiable for an Atheist and Polish secularist not to care for the Pope, so I don't see why people are keen to bash him other than they expect somekind of artificial display of loyalty from the man

[JohnKleeb]

77. He can say all he wants to

but you know damn well the athiest communist government of poland would have censored newspaper articles in favor of the pope.

[JVS]

78. That is irrelevant

[JohnKleeb]

80. plenty relevant, edit: goin to bed

you guys are acting like communism is all great and this guy was a talking head for a dicatorship that would have done the same thing. He didnt have a right to be censored for his article for sure but he is a hypocrite pure and simple, and communism especially in poland was not a good thing.

[JVS]

87. I'm not going to discuss this further with you John, because I act...

as an individual and you are saying "you guys" as though there are others who are acting in concert with me. If you are unable to argue on an individual basis, but desire to make me answer for the words of numerous posts in this thread (many of which I've not even bothered to read) then we have left the realm of rational discourse.

I have the following parting comment.

If we are to claim that democratic governments are better than communist dictatorships, then we must be willing to hold them to a higher standard of conduct. Censoring free speech, especially related to religion or lack thereof, is unacceptable behavior for a Democratic government. In fact, it is the kind of lowbrow behavior that we would expect from a tinpot puppet-state that was run by the USSR (i.e what Poland used to be)

[JohnKleeb]

90. I am not condoning what the government did what so ever

In fact, I think it was the wrong thing to do.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Wow, I never realized that Mini Me was living in Poland.

Either that or Mini Me has a twin and they were separated at birth.

[Lilith Velkor]

57. 1.3 billion Chinese communists...

Well, you know the rest.

[Zynx]

102. It's a stretch to call China Communist.

A BIG stretch. Arguably, they are fascist with increasingly little redistribution and more nationalism. Both systems are terrible at guarding human rights and providing economic growth.

[Lilith Velkor]

117. It's also a stretch to think they care about the Pope.

But at least they like fascism enough to prop up the US economy. For now.

[mmonk]

67. Some people get their gods through religion,

some through the state.

[Dirk39]

84. O.K.

Hello from Germany!

The Christians fight poverty for more than 2.000 years now. The results are not very impressive. Not to start a body count.
The pope dreamt of some kind of third way between capitalism and the so-called communism (stalinism).

"Communism" was toppled in Poland. Two decades later, Poland has an unemployment rate of nearly 30% and nearly 60% of the people live in poverty, under far worse conditions than before.

That every christian, who grew up under the conditions of stalinism, hates all communists doesn't surprise me at all.

The statement of Jerzy Urban doesn't surprise me either.
To introduce him as a "spokesman for Poland's past communist rulers" is a bit poor demagogy, isn't it?

And I guess, there's still no obligation to care about the catholic church or any of their representatives. He did simply express what he feels, without making any tasteless remarks.

What's somehow funny and absurd in many statements here, is that everybody, who does dare to not share the "damnation" of communism as a whole, is attacked for everything that was ever commited in the name of communism, while the historical and moral desaster, Christianity and Capitalism are so far, is never mentioned.

This pope was the best ever, so far, although this doesn't mean too much, regarding the history of Catholicism; and Urban's statement is comprehensible, tool.
Dirk

[despairing optimist]

118. Thanks for your balanced perspective

I share your opinion about this thread. So many generalizations for and against communism, and much avoidance of the 600-pound gorilla in the middle of the living room. It may be due to liberal myopia or the fact that at the end of the day, as Noam Chomsky likes to say, the center-right is mistaken for the left here.

For those of us who aren't beholden to any particular ideology and are merely hoping for a better life for everyone in the world as well as a rational solution to provide it, we may not want to keep Christianity and capitalism beyond the limits of argument. But we're not supposed to say that. It's not playing the game.

Welcome to American politics and to DU.

[Pharlo]

100. From another point of view...

From further down in the article:

"In a democratic Poland, Urban launched "Nie" (No) , a provocative weekly notorious for lampooning the Catholic Church, right-wing politicians and moral authorities such as the Pope.

In January Urban was fined by a Polish court for insulting the Pontiff in a 2002 article that mocked him as the "Vatican's Brezhnev" -- the famously decrepit Soviet leader."

Paraphrase a segment of the first paragraph to read:

" ...a provactive weekly notorious for lampooning the Christian Fundamentalists, right-wing politicians and moral authorities such as Jerry Falwell."

Hmmmm....

Sound familiar.

They called him. They asked his opinion. He gave it.
AND, he didn't lie.

Honesty.

Such a rare commodity from American politicians and mass media we are becoming unable to acknowledge its worth when spoken by non-Americans.

[Crunchy Frog]

105. I think it's a bit disingenuous

to classify Jerzy Urban as simply an honest man giving an honest opinion, and even making him out to be some kind of free speech martyr.

He was in fact the official government spokesman under the Communist regime and as such, he defended acts of repression far greater than anything that he has suffered recently.

As official government spokesman, he viciously attacked Father Jerzy popieluszko shortly before his kidnapping and murder, and made insensitive comments afterwards. The guy is in fact, an asshole pure and simple. Now I believe in people's absolute right to be assholes, but I don't have a problem with pointing out that they are assholes.

I do think that it was very wrong that he was prosecuted and fined for simply saying something unpopular. In fact, I'm very disappointed in the direction that Poland has taken since achieving its independence, particularly with respect to its position on the Iraq war and kissing Bu$h's ass. That doesn't make someone like Jerzy Urban a good guy though.

[rayofreason]

112. No wonder communists hated him

Pope John Paul II was always undermining their fragile, pathetic rule. A report today adds a wrinkle I had not heard of before. JP2 gave Solidarity $32 million when it needed it most!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1552432,00.html