So then, he turned his estates over to his serfs?

No, he would have given them to the state, for the serfs. In time, when the serfs were able to manage it well, the state would give it to them and wither away. I think that's what marxist doctrine teaches.

No. But he thought about it and that's just as good.

This is my land, that is your land, and I'll thank you to stay on your side of the fence.

The sad thing is the serfs were managing the land quite well before the better sort of people started helping.

Yeah, Robert. Tell it to the Kulaks.

So then, Leo didn't put his money where his mouth was? What a surprise.

Well, Jdkelly, Russia was about even with the U.S. before the revolution, with a strong book market and many millionare serfs. One of the neat things about being a serf was that you paid no taxes. So long a your plot of land was farmed, you were covered. I know a bunch of people who would give up the vote in return for no taxes. How about you?

No Robert, I don't know anybody that stupid and believe me, coming from academe, I know a lot of very stupid people.

Mrs. Erp, why do you say that giving up your vote is stupid? Or is this religious in nature?

Tolstoy was pretty well eviscerated in Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals".

And his chapter was tame compared to Rousseau, Marx, Russell, Sartre, and Lillian Hellman (although I have never figured out why he put her in there - she must have crossed him somehow before she died). There were plenty of better targets he could have chosen from the 1930s on.

Mr. Robert,

I was agreeing with you. As I understand it, the Kulaks were doing pretty well until Uncle Joe took them out.

Rbt. I don't understand the question. Give up my vote? My vote is my voice. My vote is what insures that the state serves me and not the other way around.

Jdkelly, my bad. The myth of the "Evil Kulaks" is hard to stamp out, isn't it.
Mrs. Erp, the russian serfs had a goverment that cared for them, while allowing them freedom, but no vote. Under the Soviets, they had a vote, but they died at the whim of the state. A vote insures nothing. It is the good faith of those who serve in the goverment that insures that the state serves you. If you are talking about a responsive goverment, the more voters, the less responsive the goverment will be. Too many voices destroys communication. Seeing how close Mr. Gore came to stealing the election and how effect last minute smears can be again easter voters has shown me that the voter base needs to be reduced, a lot. For some, voting is a sacrament in their civic religion. I am not one of those people.

Robert, please promise me that you will put your personal feelings about voting aside and vote for Republicans this time round.

Gore almost pulled off his coup d'etat because we weren't vigilant and let Clinton get away with changing the voting rules for military bases and absentee ballots. That's why you must vote. We simply can't let that crowd back in.

Mrs. Erp, thans for your thoughts. I'm sorry if I was not clear. I have no problem with voting, or with the Republicans. I don't see voting as an unalloyed good; it's a responsiblity that should be taken seriously, and I do. I do feel the "Rock the vote" people are doing harm to this country by getting people to treat voting like many treat religion: Go to church on Christmas and Easter, but don't let it affect your lifestyle any. I would point out it was not the voters who stopped Gore, it was the devoted people who make up the political system.

Rbt, thank you for allaying my fears.