<<There is an understatement if I ever saw one. Of course the notion of the "vanguard" making decisions and the masses paying, often with their lives and livelihoods, may be (and by 'may be' I mean most definitely is) one of the major problems with the whole plan in the first place.>>
Classical statement of the risk-averse position. The alternative being to abandon the struggle and let the capitalist system slowly bleed the working class to death over a lifetime of wage slavery.
Right. 'Cause those are the only two options. (Better? No sarcasm warning this time so... oh, wait... darn.)
And no, my position is not risk-averse. My position is averse to letting authoritarians (including socialist ones) make all the decisions while the people they rule pay the generally and frequently detrimental consequences. My position, more succinctly, is tyranny-averse.
You know, it's easy to see why communism has never been able to materialize the way folks like Tee, like Chavez, like Stalin would have wanted (and still want of course). The masses have to be so ignorant, dare I say stupid, to fork over all their freedom, so a group of "know better than you all's" can tell them how they're to be, how they're to work, how much they can eat, how much they can water their lawn, how much money they'll be allowed to keep. And God forbid that the "Vanguard" make some bone headed decisions that cost not just what prescious little freedom they might still have in the corner of their basement, but their very lives. Not to mention their family's
As I
opined earlier,
and noted no refutals, Communism is no better than Nazisim. Both require a vastly superior obediency from their masses, both require an oppressive government, whether its its run by a Fuhrer or a "Vanguard", and both have no hesistancy in liquidating any resistance