The point often overlooked in the Communist Manifesto is that the communist utopian state only comes about after the struggels of capitalism produce equality.

Marx, unlike later socialists, was a big believer in industry and it's ability to transform workers from serfs to equals, largely along the idea that industry and technology reduce scarcity which leads to an egalitarian utopian state.

I think however the water diamond paradox effectivly disrupts the utopian ideal. There where always be things that are scarcity, regardless of their usefullness, and that rarity will inform their value, which in turn feeds inequality as those with stars upon thars will always be that much more equal than everyone else. In essence under the soviet system, the scarcity of access lead to a unequal system, which ofcourse was the cause of most of the Soviet's woes.

To put forth my secret theory that Rupert Murdoch is a secret liberal seeking to bring down the right from within.

Does anyone watch Fox News Non-Ironically?

It strikes me every day that it's really just newsfeed for the daily show.

Their agitprop is so agitated as to render the propaganda rather meaningless.

Sure it's firey and gets your blood boiling, but do any actual voting americans follow this kind of nonesense?

The recent years voting records would suggest otherwise.

One thing that one should always consider about the fall of the Soviet System, was that it was unnecessary.

Had the Soviets drill and pumped out the massive oil wealth in Siberia they likely could have kept the experiment running for another hundred years. In that time, the U.S. likely would have run out of money first (imagine if the Soviets had kept it together until 2009?) and Capitalism would be the failed ideology that lead to the downfall of a great empire.

However, this higlights the central differnce between a more controlled economy and a more free economy.

The government official who ran the soviet oil monopoly was aware, as most were that there was likely oil in Siberia, but that it was costly to get at, and there was always the chance there wasn't any oil, or not enough oil to make it worth the effort.

As such, the official opted not to move agressivly with regard to Siberian oil, because if there was oil he wouldn't hav ea change in his status (he was already the head of the monopoly, already had his governmnet issued Zub Limo and single family home) and if it proved a debacle he would lose all he had.

Without a personal profit motive, the oil simply wasn't worth the risk, and so it wasn't exploited, and so the Soviet System fell.

By contrast, in China, they have learned from this, and have found ways to maintain the profit motive without sacraficing the central economy.

The laws of greed, profit, and the market, are kind of like global warming, in the sense that your acceptance of their existence has no bearing on their reality. So even in a Communist system, persons still make their choices based upon personal profit, their compensation just takes differnt forms. As such, when someone sees their ability to profit peaks, they lose interest in further innovation. This is both the difficulty, and purpose of antitrust litigation. If a company gets too big it ceases to innovate, but if it knows the government will cut it off at a certain point it will cease to innovate as well.

Finding the proper balance between an ordered economy, and free innovative market is likely harder than balancing needles on end, but one thing we can be certain of, if there is no money in it, people won't go along with it.

Putting aside the old idea that when one mentions the Nazis one has lost the argument, let's examine your question.

You suggest that by my logic you can't call the Nazi's final solution Mass Murder because not everyone was muredered.

That is false, because the intetion of the final solution was to murder these people, that the method used was starvation or forced labor until death is not a concern. Essentially, baring the allies intervention the final solutions intent and outcome was to kill.

By contrast with enhanced interogation, the intention is not necessarily to torture, but to extract information using various questionable techniques. It is fair as I said to call some and perhaps even many of the techniques torture, but that there is room for debate on most of the techniques if they arise to the level of torture or simply what might be called agressive, violent, or harsh interogation.

Torture is a word carrying a conotation that may not be accurate, to suggest it be used when it is inappropriate primarily for political reasons, is no differnt than suggesting weaker words be used for political reasons. With each technique and how it's applied you can decide if that is torture, but the program as a whole was not a torture program.

The techniques used were wrong, likely illegal, and certainly ineffective, but that does not make it torture, some techniques were torture but said techniques were neither the hallmark nor the bulk of the program.

What you have is persons for political reasons picking the parts of the plans that were torture, pushing them forward, and then calling the entire plan torture in a hope of conjuring a desired image in the mind of the reader that moves forward their political agenda.

That is what blogger and other marketers of opinion do. That's fine in and of itself, but it's not journalism.