Speaking of following without question...

Fionn: I think you're assuming a LOT from my original statement on this thread if you assume that I meant "communism bad; capitalism good". I'm disappointed to read that you've lumped me in with "a large part of a large nation [that] has signed up unquestioningly to so simple a view of a complex question" based solely on your assumptions about my original statement. Where in that statement did I say that all of the ideals or theories of communism were all bad??? Where did I say anything about capitalism??? Answer: Nowhere.

Let's take another look at the context in which I wrote my original statement: the two posts preceding mine. Mrrzy made a statement that the Pope is not "so much in service of others as ...in service of the Catholic Church". Big Mick then contended that JPII had indeed spent his life in service of others. I then agreed with Mick and said, "The term 'service' can mean many things. Look at Wojtyla's role in the downfall of communism in eastern Europe, for example." What I meant by that was that it has been my impression that John Paul II felt that his work in the Solidarity movement – in the pulpit and underground – was done in the service of humanity. As you yourself say, Fionn, no one likes to be ruled with an iron fist... nor to suffer from all that it entails. JPII was instrumental in opening that fist rather than smashing it – i.e. in bringing about a non-violent end to the Soviet empire. Who knows how many lives were saved because it did not end in a bloody revolution? Sounds to me as if he did a good deed there!

Now, as to the post-Soviet-collapse situation in eastern Europe, I think it should have been handled differently to avoid the problems that ensued, but nobody consulted me at the time! I do NOT necessarily think that a capitalist economy is all good; the thing about capitalism is that human greed drives it, but it needs a lot of governing to steer it so that it doesn't run over people. You'll have noticed that the US (I'm guessing that that is the "large nation" of which you speak) isn't completely successful at steering its capitalist economy, either! So maybe another economic system would be more ideal.... but every economic system is subject to greed and corruption and divisiveness and discontent. The thing that I wonder about the "higher proportion of discontented people" you mention is this: are there more people who are discontented now than there were under the Soviet regime, or are there more people who feel free to voice their discontent now that their current governments allow them to do so?

One definition of communism in the OED is "a theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants" (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/communism-oed.html). To me it sounds lovely in theory. It would be nice if it could work in practice; however, it does not take into account human greed. As soon as any member of that society decides that his or her wants outweigh anyone else's, the balance is thrown off. When that member is a leader of the community, the greed has a good chance of manifesting itself as oppression. It's the oppression I find objectionable, not the higher ideals of cooperation and community as evidenced in the theory.

See, Fionn, that's where your assumption that my original statement has anything to do with McCarthyism is dead wrong. McCarthy had no right, in the US government, to oppress people in any way for their political views. I most certainly do not agree with, nor approve of, what McCarthy did. People here are supposed to be allowed to voice their discontent without being ostracized or accused of treason; heck, this country already fought its own bloody revolution over that!

Lastly, I'll state again that I do not think that crooks and other criminals should be protected from prosecution. I kinda thought you'd noticed that on the thread about that convicted murder who was appealing with an insanity defense that I did not find credible. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the thread, or I'd link to it for those unfamiliar with it. You've seen, too, my reaction to the Andrea Yates child-murder case, where I thought there was enough evidence to indicate that Yates had a bona fide mental illness; in that case I still don't feel she should have been protected from the long arm of the law, but I wish the law had taken that illness into account and sentenced her to mandatory treatment instead of incarceration. ...But as for people who engage in banking fraud and corporate fraud, by all means they should be brought to justice. I said nothing to the contrary in my original statement, and in fact I acknowledged later on in this thread that JPII's service to humanity did not extend to all areas.

I don't know what else to say to dissuade you from the notion that I "sign up unquestioningly" to any view. I think that many of my posts to Mudcat give adequate testimony to the fact that I do give a lot of thought to the opinions I hold. If you knew more about my off-Mudcat self, you'd know just how personally I've explored my questions about communism and capitalism, but I'm not inclined to bare my soul to the internet world about that. If you want to chat about it in a PM, Fionn, please contact me.

Sharon

P.S. – Sorry, everyone, if I've led this thread too far astray. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion...