:: ))

Look. What people do not understand about the communist manifesto is that they were not saying this is good, they were saying that the easiest way to create hell is to start with the poor, as if the course of history dictates there will always be a riotous bunch of cut throats who can be easily swayed with very little resources.

To a degree, this guy could be considered the prototypical communist. Why? Because he will commonly kill you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko

I say if you want to be a communist, we will treat you like how the course of history dictates it! You want a class system? How about the good schools which get good grades get BRAHMAN status while the bad schools like in Bedford Stuyvesant or Detroit get UNTOUCHABLE status.

Start off with collective punishment a la Saddam Hussein. Things like tazering for gum or binding and gaging them for disrupting the classroom or bat beat downs for fighting or napalm to the school shootings. That would get them cracking books real quick.

No like the rest of the elite progressive left, they are hypocrites to the nth degree. They can shout all their denigrations of America because they are firmly ensconsed in their jobs-usually either as tenured professors, teachers or working for the government.

Heck if Craig really believed in what he teaches, he move to Africa of S. America and work there.

"The history of all existing society," [Marx] and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf … oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a "society of status" to a "society of contract." Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millennium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History's class struggle — "capitalism" — with its own combatants: the "bourgeois" and the "proletarian." The former was a professional or a business owner, the latter a manual laborer. Marx's "classes" were not political castes but occupations. Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" — a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."

Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism — the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources — as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune while Jones is still stuck in that subway, it's not because of the "class" into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. That's why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others can't even get published. It is the choices of the masses ("the market") that create the inequalities of fortune and fame — and the only way to correct those "injustices" is to control those choices.