Labor Unions

The labor unions used to be a plague on the United States. They were extremely violent in the 1880’s and ‘90s, and practically ruled business in the U.S. until Ronald Reagan stopped them with his fortitude. They are still very influential in Europe.

One of the things that I have thought is very interesting is that the main fight of labor unions is not against employers, though that is part of it, but against other non-union employees.
Unionism is based on socialism. They probably wouldn’t say it outright, but they believe in the basic doctrine of Karl Marx’s communism: that the common workers are being oppressed by the employers and/or capitalists. This is based on Marx’s labor theory of value: that an object receives all of its value from the labor put into it. According to Marx, the workers do most of the wealth producing, but they receive very little of the benefits; the employers and capitalists do. Thus there is a great injustice.

Now, that’s not very good economics. There are many other factors in value besides the labor put into the product. Anyway, the unionists believed this basic communist premise, and set about to get for themselves more of what they saw as the profits of their labor. So they joined together and used intimidation to get better wages, fewer work hours, etc. from their employers.

The conflict comes to a head when the unions get those terms of easy work. They attempt to establish a monopoly on the labor in a certain field of expertise. They try to make the employers agree to only accept union members as employees. They exclude and take violent action against those who are willing to work for the standards and wages of the company, rather than the union. When the union calls a strike, they try to prevent other workers (called by the unionists “scabs”, “rats”, or “strikebreakers”) from coming to the company to relieve the labor shortage. This is when violence takes place.

If you look at the episodes of the 1880’s and ‘90s, you see what kind of things labor unions can do when they have the opportunity. You can see some of the crazy ideology that they put forward. Just read some of the accounts of the Great Railway Strike of 1877, or the Haymarket Riot of 1886, or the Homestead Strike of 1892, or the Pullman Strike of 1894. The unions have moderated in terms of violence since then, but the basic ideology is the same.

After WWII until the 80s, the unions had almost established complete control over large companies. They wielded so much power of the strike with all their members that the large companies were forced to bargain out deals or face a massive strike that would devastate their company. This carried on until Ronald Reagan came into office. He decided that enough was enough and that government was going to stand up to these people, at least the government employees.

When the Air Traffic Controller’s Association struck in 1981, Reagan just held out and refilled the posts with spare workers and willing controllers that agreed to work extra hours. After a while, the union members started to come back to the job because they couldn’t hold out without money for long. Then the private companies got the idea and started doing the same thing. Over the years, they gradually broke a large amount of the power of the labor unions.

A Well-Written Article

GavinO just posted a really good article by LiveScience on a bunch of creation-evolution stuff.

I recommend you read it.

Deadly Evolution

Evolution of sin.

Quote of the Month-June

"Marxism is the opium of the people"

Anonymous

The Truth About Galileo

I’m tired of people saying that Christianity is against science because Galileo was killed by fundamentalists. That is a commonly perpetrated lie that many people who don’t know the history believe. Thankfully Axinar seems to know the true story, but maybe some of you don’t.
After many years in the Christian Church, with the development of the hierarchy, and other things that departed from the clear teaching of the Bible, the Roman Catholic church as we know it today came about. This organized church at Rome, with the pope as its head, embraced the teachings of Aristotle, Plato, (to a certain extent) and other Greeks. Aristotle, as is widely known, set forth formally the theory of geocentrism. The Papists accepted this view, and made it an official doctrine of the Church.

However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth revolves around the sun. It implies it several times, (e.g. in Joshua) but God did that so that people before Galileo could understand what He was saying. It would sound silly to an ancient Eastern man to say, “the earth stopped rotating, and therefore the day became longer.” It wouldn’t make any sense. Even we today say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. We don’t say, “2 hours after earthturn I’ll meet you at the park.” We say, “2 hours after sunset I’ll meet you at the park.” We say it even though the sun isn’t actually moving, we are. The Bible contains other references to facts that were not widely believed then. For example, Isaiah 40:22 speaks about the Earth being round.

Anyway, Galileo discovered that the Earth orbits the sun, not vice-versa. He published his works, and was nearly executed by the Papists for “heresy.” Roman Catholics are by no means fundamentalists. They are (in my opinion) not even Christians.
So don’t say anymore that Christianity and the Bible is opposed to science.

A Sad Sign

You know it really shows where this country is when the Motion Picture Association of America gives a film a PG rating for Christian elements in the plot.

Alex and Stephen Kendrick direct Facing the Giants, a movie about the struggles of a football team in the South. There is an evangelical component in the movie that earned it a PG rating for adult themes. Apparently the MPAA believes that Christianity should not be something children are exposed to, along with violence, bad language, and nudity. Yes, that stuff is poisonous. Look at all the lives that have been ruined by the Christian message. Heaven forbid that parents should let their children see THAT!

That’s nonsense of course, but it just shows the direction this country is inching toward.

Mutation Problems

There is a major flaw in the evolutionary theory. It has to do with the ability to pass down a trait that has mutated.

Suppose that (somehow, this in itself is beyond scientific consideration) a mutation occurred in the just the right spot, with just the right genes, at just the right time in an animal to give him a “good” trait. You now have an animal with a structure that resembles the final form we see today (e.g. the long neck of a giraffe). That long neck is by itself on an animal, without any support structures. The “mid-giraffe” does not have a 2ft. long heart to pump the blood all the way up there, nor does it have strong enough legs to carry the extra weight and get away from enemies. Thus, the “mid-giraffe” dies, and the evolutionary trail ends.

So, an evolutionist would say, the genes for the support of that neck would have mutated simultaneously with the long neck. Now, the kind of radiation exposure necessary to generate such mutations in so many spots would kill the animal easily. But let’s suppose that somehow he escaped unscathed from all that radiation. You now have an animal that is alone in the world with a highly developed system. There is no other animal nearby that has the same type of characteristics. The giraffe cannot mate with anyone, so the evolutionary trail ends with him.

So, an evolutionist would say, the mutations happened little by little over a long period of time. But then the support structures would not be there. Then you go back to step 1. You can’t say that all of the changes necessary mutated slowly together, because then the animal still wouldn’t have anyone to mate with. If you say that two animals “co-mutated,” you’re just crazy. It’s impossible that two animals would have the exact same mutations and be able to mate with that kind of genetic load. It’s just impossible.

By the way, where was the source of radiation during all this? I thought the ozone was supposed to be thicker in the past. Fewer mutation-causing ultra-violet rays would have gotten through, lessening the chance of evolution.

The facts just don’t add up for evolution.

The People's Right to Know

One of the media’s favorite phrases that they use to justify all their actions is “people’s right to know.” They apply that supposedly inalienable right to everything. Nevertheless, the people’s right to know is not in the Constitution.

Yes, there is that phrase “freedom of the press,” but that just means that newspapers can print anything they want. It does not mean that reporters can uncover national secrets and probe into anything they want to be able to print an inside scoop. When that happens, usually something is left out that, had it been left in, would have made the story sound less ominous. Reporters and the general public don’t know everything, and therefore cannot understand the entirety of a situation. However the person in charge usually knows about it, and understands it.

Secrecy is a foreign concept to the much of the press. They don’t realize that some things the public just does not need to know. Every detail of how we fight our enemies is not supposed to be in the headlines on every newspaper. Why? Maybe because [[gasp]] some enemies might read our national newspapers, and change their tactics so as not to be caught!

After the Abu Graib incident, the media demanded that all documents be released, all persons involved put under investigation, etc. All this was put under the banner, “people’s right to know.” But now, with more and more documents being declassified that we took early on in the war, it is slowly being revealed that there were WMDs in Iraq. The wickedness of Saddam’s regime is being further discovered. But the question is: Where are all the media demands for further declassification of the documents? They don’t want the documents to be published, because then it will show that they were lying all the time when they hammered into our heads that there were no WMDs in Iraq. It doesn’t fit their agenda, so they won’t look into it. So much for people’s right to know. I guess that principle is case sensitive.

Hypocrisy is rampant. That’s human nature.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has just posted that the New York Times has just commited another example of the "people's right to know" syndrome.

"Natural" Selection

Natural selection, put within the framework of evolution, has some serious problems as I indicated in my post yesterday. However there is a type of natural selection that happened that explains the variety within genera today.

A type of natural selection did take place when (for example) dogs came to the Arctic: shorthaired dogs died of the cold; long­haired dogs lived and produced longhaired puppies. The opposite happened in the trop­ics, but in each case, the result was a loss of information in the genetic code as a result of the isolation of a group in a hostile natural environment. The gene for short hair was eliminated from the genome of the group. This probably happened with many other genera, as creatures got more and more isolated from one another after the Flood.

What the Bible describes as a “kind” I believe is a genus. So coyotes, wolves, dogs, etc. are probably all descendants of a diverse group represented by two animals on the ark that had all the genes we see separated in the various species today. As the group split up and headed for their natural environments, the genes that best suited them for their surroundings got selected out and became dominant among that group; resulting in a separate species.

In all of these cases; however, there was a loss of genetic information, resulting in speciation, the opposite of evolution.

I prefer to call what I just described “Divine selection,” rather than “Natural selection.” God sovereignly guides the movements of creatures into their environments. He sovereignly directs the speciation process of the genes over the course of time. He providentially provides food for them, and equips them to be able to survive in their environment.

Divine selection is a process that came about through the providence of God, not an argument for evolution.

World Cup Disappointment

Well today Ghana beat USA 2-1. That ends a fairly disappointing World Cup for the MNT. They shone pretty well against Italy, but couldn't pull off a win.

The rest of the tournament is still going though. The Final Game is July 9. Some good teams are Germany, England, Netherlands, and Brazil.

We'll have to wait another 4 years, I guess.

Darwin's De-Evolution

In London, they have made a museum out of Darwin’s house. They have idolized him and put his quotes on the walls as certain truth. In one room, they have a copy of Gen. 1 on the wall, saying in big, bold letters above it, “Darwin put these writings to shame.” In reality, Darwin’s ideas are not Gospel truth, and they have been undercut by recent discoveries in genetics and other areas.

Darwin said that in the course of the time, organisms reproduce quickly. They reproduce so quickly that they out-grow their food source. Thus, a struggle for survival takes place. The “fittest,” which have variations that enable them to survive better, eventually dominate the group of organisms, and breed with other “fittest.” Thus, over a period of time, some new “fittest” replace the old “fittest;” and the species progressed. This process is known as natural selection.

First of all, Darwin did not explain the beginning of the group of organisms. He just dropped us into this situation where all the animals are engaged in “the war of nature.”

Second, he did not explain how the fittest got to be so fit in the first place. If evolutionists would worship anyone, they should worship the person who came up with the “benevolent mutation” theory. That one too has its problems of course.

Thirdly, it needs noting that in order to make any significant progress in advancing a species, two animals that are different from each other need to mate and make a new species. The problem with this is that a very important part of the definition of species is that it can breed within it’s own and have productive young (a cycle). Not only is the idea that two very different animals breeding with each other implausible; but also the next generation would have a problem because they would be unique and therefore could not breed and thus die out (a dead-end).

Darwin got around this by saying that the changes took place over a long, long, long period of time. (It seems they keep on changing the earth’s age by a billion years or so every six months. Let’s see, is it up around 4.5 billion now? I can’t keep up with it!) If the “fittest” were progressing at such a slow rate, they wouldn’t be distinguishable from the rest of the species, and would interbreed with the “lesser” forms; which would diminish the species advance.

Also, if there were gradual changes taking place over a long period of time, there would be definite traces of progress and difference in the fossil record. These transitional forms Darwin called “missing links,” which he said must exist because they are fundamental to proving his theory. Therefore, we are told, we must take for granted that they exist. This circular reasoning is very prevalent in Darwinian circles. Besides, we still haven’t found any real missing links. If Darwin is correct, then there should be millions of missing links in the fossil record showing the progression of each and every of all the animals that we see today. They don’t just need one or two here and there, but tons of them everywhere. Darwin predicted in his book that many would show up in the coming years. It’s been 150 years now, and we still haven’t found one. Yes, Axinar, I hate to tell you, but Tiktaalik Roseae and Archaeopteryx have been disproven. Those were merely desperate attempts to clutch at something that would provide a leg for a faulty theory. They are so frantic for some conclusive evidence, that they are willing to accept blindly something like Piltdown Man. True science follows Mendel’s basic laws of genetics, and not wishful thinking.

What Darwin did prove conclusively is what no one doubted in the first place: that there is variation in a species, and that by selecting animals (e.g. sheep) within a group with favorable characteristics and breeding them together, you can get different kinds of sheep. Breeders have been doing it for centuries. What is done by isolating a trait with a “fit” animal is narrowing the gene pool even more, which is counter-productive to evolution. In fact that’s de-evolution.

Oh Yeah, I forgot

Oh yeah, I forgot. There's also a lot of leakage going the other way recently too. Liberals who are afraid of Bush establishing a dictatorship are hitchhiking across the border, causing serious problems for the Canadian economy. There are only so many libs a country can stand at a time before things start going wrong. There are already enough leftists in Canada for their share, but I guess they deserve some retribution. You guys send us the bad guys you receive, and we'll send you our agitators for you to hold for a while.

Another Border

With all the worry about our porous Mexican border, people seem to ignore the northern Canadian border that has much looser security. We should be much more concerned about terrorists from the North than the tightly watched South.

You can cross the border (at least the last I heard) without a passport. The checks are fairly easy to get through, and traffic reasonably thick. The border is a lot longer than the Mexican, with much wilderness in between ports of entry. The Canadian ports of entry are very leaky. I don’t know if you noticed that the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came in through the Canadian border. The plan to bomb LAX on New Years Eve 2000 was going to be carried out by someone who, again, entered from Canada.

Canadian law enforcement is weak. They practice the catch-and-release policy that we used in the ‘60s. The Mounties have a hard time prosecuting caught terrorists and punishing them.

We need to do something about this and stop the flow of criminals before something really bad happens again.

A Little More

If you liked that poster on the previous post, here's another one that applies as well.

The UN

Pretty much everyone in the United States knows that the UN is dysfunctional. However there are some recent developments that are disturbing.

One concern (and that’s stating it mildly) is the recent additions to the UN “Human Rights Council.” The new countries on the committee are: China, Russia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and (as if those weren’t bad enough) Cuba! What a nice list of countries with reputations for being the most brutal and torturous on the planet. I’m sure they would give good advice to France, Germany, and etc. on how to deal with Darfur and other failed situations.

The UN defeats its primary purpose: stopping war. With all the warring countries together, the rogue countries (e.g. China, Russia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba) can bully around, manipulate, and deceive others and get away with it. The UN has not stopped a single war from happening since WWII. It was NATO, not the UN that stopped the Cold War. The UN still hasn’t done anything about Darfur.

The UN is a lumbering old giant that can’t solve problems. The Oil-for-Food scandal, (the program is also known as “Oil-for-Terrorism,” “Oil-for-Palaces,” “Oil-for-alliances with France” etc.) run by Kofi Annan’s son, is good proof of that.

One glimmer of hope is that ambassador John Bolton has the guts to stand up to all the left European countries. The only problem is that he’s at that post only for a little while. The Democrats in Congress didn’t want someone who would institute change, so they stopped him with ridiculous charges at the Senate floor. Then Bush pulled a little-known law off the shelf and dusted it off, making Bolton the ambassador to the UN without the Senate’s approval. Bolton is trying all he can to reform the organization, but there’s only so much you can do within a defective system such as the UN.

The US pays the most into UN coffers, (I think about 20% of their revenue comes from us) but we only get one vote on key issues. The UN constitution is flawed. For that matter the whole organization is flawed.

FairTax

There is an intriguing proposal out there that promises to solve a lot of our economic problems. It’s called FairTax. FairTax replaces all taxes, Social Security, income, estate, etc., with one big 23% sales tax.

According tax advocates, this would get rid of tax loopholes, complicated forms, the IRS, and many other things that annoy us. FairTax would let the economy run fairly free and help families in the long run.

One of the benefits I see is that it penalizes something that Americans are doing too much of: buying. Americans are going into deep debt from just normal purchases. It also loosens the penalty on things people should do: save, invest, make money, marry, etc. If you want to encourage something, you make it less expensive; if you want to discourage something, you charge a lot for it. That’s what FairTax does.

It’s an extremely fascinating proposition, but I doubt it will muster enough of a following to make an impact in Congress any time soon. John Linder is the main advocate right now in Congress, and he’s pushing for the FairTax intensely.

More information is at www.fairtax.org and World Magazine.

Soccer

Since World Cup starts tomorrow, I thought I extrapolate the benefits of soccer in this blog.

For those of you who don’t know everything, the FIFA World Cup is the quadrennial international soccer competition that is taking place in Germany this year. Most people don’t know that the largest and most attended sport event in the world is not the Olympics, but the World Cup. Nations from all over the globe come to the World Cup to show off their skill in a huge tournament. It is the most highly competitive sport gathering on the face of the planet. Two countries, Honduras and El Salvador went to war against each other because of suspicious call at a soccer game.

“Soccer” is the American word for what everybody else calls “football.” Football is the international sport. Most of the other countries are deeply immersed in soccer.

Take the example of Britain. The BBC is broadcasting every one of the games live on TV and the radio. They’re putting wide screens on trucks and driving them around the country. They’re going to put clips in the movie theaters. Brazilians are decorating the streets of Rio de Janeiro with green and yellow, the team colors.

Soccer is fairly unpredictable. There is no country that wins it over, and over, and over again. Brazil, with 5 championship wins, is the only country that has come close to having a football reign of glory. The main competitors this year are from South America, Europe, and West Africa, with the exception of USA and South Korea, both of whom are getting a whole lot better.

Soccer in the United States is on its way to the forefront, though still largely unpopular. This change is partly a result of the MNT (Men’s National Team) becoming a lot better on the international stage. We are now ranked 5^th in the world in terms of goals scored.

Many people have the impression that soccer is a little cute game for s and mobs of kids that run from one side of the field to the other. The saying is “Soccer Moms” and “Nascar Dads.” They think if you can kick a ball, you know everything there is to know about soccer.

That’s a long shot away from the truth. There is a whole lot more to soccer than kicking a ball and running. Just watch some of the amazing plays on www.fifa.com, and you’ll see what I mean.

I hope you’ll take some time in the coming weeks to watch some of the games.

A Small Victory

Here's another positive news story coming out of Iraq:

ABU MUSAB AL-ZARQAWI IS DEAD!

At 6:15 PM yesterday night, two F-16's took off on a mission to a town north of Baghdad. They were guided there by many different intelligence sources including prisoner and tipster info. The sources said that Zarqawi was at a house there following his "spiritual advisor." Bad move. The fighters reached the target and destroyed it with two 500-pound bombs. Iraqi troops moved in and discovered Al-Zarqawi in the rubble.

Al-Zarqawi was one of the most infamous terrorists in the Middle East. He was the director of Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, and an avid hater of the West. His "elimination" (in the words of Iraq's prime minister) will be a blow to the terrorists there, but not necessarily a fatal one. However it is symbolic of our increasingly successful effort to quell the insurgency there.

Taps

I meant to post this one on Memorial Day, but it didn't get done.

I read this article in a paper, and thought it very interesting.

By Norman Lino:

Here's more on taps. We in the United States have all heard the haunting song known as taps. It's the song that gives us that lump in our throats and usually tears in our eyes.

But, do you know the story behind the song? If not, I think you will be interested to find out about its humble beginnings.

Reportedly, it all began in 1862 during the Civil War, when Union Army Capt. Robert Ellicombe was with his men near Harris' Landing in Virginia. The Confederate Army was on the other side of the narrow strip of land.

During the night, Capt. Ellicombe heard the moans of a soldier who lay severely wounded on the field. Not knowing if it was a Union or Confederate soldier, the captain decided to risk his life and bring the stricken man back for medical attention.

Crawling on his stomach through the gunfire, the captain reached the stricken soldier and began pulling him toward his encampment. When the captain finally reached his own lines, he discovered it was actually a Confederate soldier, but the soldier was dead. The captain lit a lantern, caught his breath and went numb with shock.

In the dim light, he saw the face of the soldier. It was his own son. The boy had been studying music in the South when the war broke out.

Without telling his father, the boy had enlisted in the Confederate Army. The following morning, heartbroken, the father asked permission from his superiors to give his son a full military burial, despite his enemy status.

His request was only partially granted. The captain had asked if he could have a group of Army band members play a funeral dirge for his son at the funeral. The request was turned down since the soldier was a Confederate. But, out of respect for the father, they did say they could give him only one musician.

The captain chose a bugler. He asked the bugler to play a series of musical notes he had found on a piece of paper in the pocket of the youth's uniform. This wish was granted.

The haunting melody we now know as taps that is used at military funerals was born.

The words are:

Day is done
Gone the sun
From the lakes
From the hills
From the sky
All is well
Safely rest
God is nigh.

Fading light
Dims the sight
And a star
Gems the sky
Gleaming bright
From afar
Drawing nigh
Falls the night

Thanks and praise
For our days
Neath the sun
Neath the stars
Neath the sky
As we go
This we know
God is nigh.

Posted in The Union on May 29, 2006

Very touching story and words that I never knew before. I hope we will all listen to that song with a greater appreciation for the sacrifices of our soldiers in combat.

Subjective Realism

There is another prevalent view today that is seriously in error. Along with Pelagianism this philosophy also attempts to give man an excuse for not trusting God. The idea: subjective realism.

Subjective realism says that there are no absolutes. There is no absolute law, no absolute values, no absolute morals, etc. In other words, standards are in the eye of the beholder.

This leads to all kinds of abuse by the majority. The majority decides what is right and wrong. That’s why pure democracies are not Biblical or fair.

People can also take this and say that you can’t have any real truth. You just look at things and make conclusions, but nothing is really the truth. Therefore you can do whatever you want, believe whatever you want, and live however you want.

The root of this philosophy is destructive to the foundation of any culture, and it is becoming more and more influential.

It Takes a lot of Talent

It's amazing how much the recent reports by the Department of Labor have been twisted by the media. The reports indicate the lowest levels of unemployment in five years. The mainstream media has "interpreted" the reports to say that job growth has declined. It's all part of the negativity that must come about when a Republican gets into office.

Question: If unemployment levels are down, that means that jobs have been used up. If jobs have been used up, then there are going to be fewer jobs available. If there are fewer jobs available, then fewer people are going to get jobs. Thus, less job growth. DUH!

Real Humor

There is a movie out in theaters this week, and it’s called The Wild. This film comes as another attempt by Hollywood in recent years to try to create a funny, family-oriented film. Like usual, they have not succeeded.

Hollywood’s concept of humor is very limited. To them, the only things that are funny are body functions and bathroom humor. Scriptwriters can’t think beyond those things for some reason. Hollywood has lost the sense of humor that makes things truly funny, and creates such comedians as Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, Victor Borge, and to some extent, Dave Barry.

To me, humor basically consists of making people think about something in a way that they have not thought of it before. It takes something ordinary, and makes it different or emphasizes a part of it that thing that you have not thought of before.

A recent, good example of this is the recent movie Hoodwinked. This film, produced by an obscure company, and directed by a stand-up comedian; takes the simple, well-known story of Little Red Riding Hood, and changes it and develops it into a hilarious tale. The director wanted to produce something that went against the trend of bathroom humor, and stood out as truly funny. It doesn’t have all the gaudy effects of overdone animation, but manipulates the scenes to convey the well-designed plot line.

Go see this movie.

Hollywood needs to come out of its bubble and realize what real humor is, what real plots are, and essentially what a real movie is.

Communism's Failure

Sometimes I wonder why people still cling to communism. Since its earliest days, it has been disproven over and over and over again.

One of the earliest instances I can think of is with the Jamestown colony. The settlers there set up a “common warehouse” system. Everything that was produced or acquired was distributed equally among all the colonists. Thus, no one was rewarded for hard labor, and no one had any incentive for providing food, because they would be fed anyway. You see the result in the many famines and near-death winter experiences. In spite of the failure, this method was tried with many other colonies in the 1600s as well. Communism doesn’t work well.

A few more examples can be seen with the many experimental settlements in the mid-1800s. These attempts were largely communistic in nature, and likewise failed. You always hear these stories about so-and-so founding a communal village somewhere, and it failing soon after beginning. Communism doesn’t work well.

Then you come to the BIG experiments of the 20^th century starting with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. The czars were overthrown, and the U.S.S.R. was founded. This big experiment also deteriorated and rotted until its collapse in 1991, being unable to compete with the free United States under Reagan. Communism doesn’t work well.

China was also overcome by communism, and continues to this day as a communist state. China; however, is an odd case. When Mao Zedong instituted the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, things didn’t go so well. Deng, his successor, had to send students to Western universities to learn how to clean up the mess. After the 1989 event, the Chinese were given more economic freedoms, and China ceased to be communistic. Today China is a convoluted form of a capitalistic state with a dictatorship. Communism doesn’t work well.

The only true communistic states out there today are North Korea and Cuba. Even those aren’t so much communist as t dictatorships. They’re not that successful either. The “worker’s paradise” is a delusion that has never been achieved.

With all these failures, you would think that people would give up on communism, but they still cling to it like an infant to his blanket.