Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Traitorfish]

when debating in another thread I was trying to explain a certain phrase some marxists use here. They don't refer WW1 and WW2 as World Wars but "Sharing Wars" (sometimes "Imperialistic Sharing War") Does english speaking world have a smililar terminology?

No, I haven't encountered that before. I think I understand the concept, but this is an interesting way of describing it.

Five questions:
1. Do you think communism on a large scale can ever work without resulting in something like the USSR, the PRC, Cambodia, or NK? Surely even a red must admit that these nations cancelled out any good that they might have achieved.

I don't think that the USSR, PRC, DK or DPRK came about as the result of an attempt to introduce communist society on a large scale. The USSR emerged during the waning of the revolutionary wave of 1917-1920 as the state capitalist bureaucracy entrenched itself against the working class- Stalin's takeover representing the advancement of this process, rather than its initiation as the Trots would have you believe- the genuinely emancipatory force of the revolution, the soviets, having been emptied of all genuinely democratic and therefore working class process during the Civil War. The PRC, DK and DPRK, even more straightforwardly, represented the establishment of left-nationalist regimes by an indigenous intelligentsia, possessing no working class content and, in fact, moving swiftly and strongly against the working class when it showed signs of independent activity.

The particular rhetoric and formal ideology in which these regimes dressed themselves are a product of historical circumstances, much as Napoleon still posed himself as the great national liberator even at the height of his imperial power, they provide no insight into the character of the regimes themselves. They may have posed themselves as "Communists", and undertaken a number of collectivist and "left-wing" reforms, but they lacked all but the most tangential relationship to the "real movement" of labour; Communist but not communist, you might say.

2. Would you sacrifice the freedom of the individual, for the good of the state? If not how would you implement communism? If yes, then what else are you willing to sacrifice for the state?

Speaking for myself, I would describe communism as entailing opposition to the state as such, so the answer would have to be "Nothing at all, ever".

3. Which would you prefer, every one have $10, or one person has $7 another $13, another $24, another $35, and another $48?

I don't care. Communism is not, nor has it ever been, about wealth differentials.

4. Do you think that representation has a place in communism?

No, representation is an anti-democratic form of political organisation which permits a stratum of professional intermediaries to impose themselves between individuals. Political organisation must be fundamentally direct.

5. How do you explain popular resistance to communism?

As popular resistance to authoritarian state-capitalism.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

No, I haven't encountered that before. I think I understand the concept, but this is an interesting way of describing it.


I don't think that the USSR, PRC, DK or DPRK came about as the result of an attempt to introduce communist society on a large scale. The USSR emerged during the waning of the revolutionary wave of 1917-1920 as the state capitalist bureaucracy entrenched itself against the working class- Stalin's takeover representing the advancement of this process, rather than its initiation as the Trots would have you believe- the genuinely emancipatory force of the revolution, the soviets, having been emptied of all genuinely democratic and therefore working class process during the Civil War. The PRC, DK and DPRK, even more straightforwardly, represented the establishment of left-nationalist regimes by an indigenous intelligentsia, possessing no working class content and, in fact, moving swiftly and strongly against the working class when it showed signs of independent activity.

The particular rhetoric and formal ideology in which these regimes dressed themselves are a product of historical circumstances, much as Napoleon still posed himself as the great national liberator even at the height of his imperial power, they provide no insight into the character of the regimes themselves.


Speaking for myself, I would describe communism as entailing opposition to the state as such, so the answer would have to be "Nothing at all, ever".


I don't care. Communism is not, nor has it ever been, about wealth differentials.


No, representation is an anti-democratic form of political organisation which permits a stratum of professional intermediaries to impose themselves between individuals. Political organisation must be fundamentally direct.


As popular resistance to authoritarian state-capitalism.

Okay, so what you are saying is that there is no organizing force in a communist society... I must be missing something because that just sounds like anarchy. Hmm, Have you read Rousseau? Try replacing the term state in my second question with Rousseau's Sovereign. Also is an individuals freedom and property safe under communism?

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, so what you are saying is that there is no organizing force in a communist society... I must be missing something because that just sounds like anarchy.

There be an organising force, the working class, it simply wouldn't constitute itself in terms of a state. (Some might say that it wouldn't constitute itself in terms of a state that we recognise, but I tend to think that this model involves an unsatisfactory conception of the state.) And that is a lot like anarchism, yes, but if you'll remember that communism and anarchism began as currents of the same movement, and have maintained a fairly lively exchange ever since, that shouldn't come as a surprise.

Hmm, Have you read Rousseau? Try replacing the term state in my second question with Rousseau's Sovereign.

The concept of an indivisible general will is pretty much incompatible with communism, so again the answer would be "no".

Also is an individuals freedom and property safe under communism?

Yes and no, respectively. Individual freedom is basically the whole point of communism, while the abolition of property is understood as its necessary precondition.

 

[Agent327]

Speaking for myself, I would describe communism as entailing opposition to the state as such, so the answer would have to be "Nothing at all, ever".

That´s not Communism, that´s Anarchism.

I don't care. Communism is not, nor has it ever been, about wealth differentials.

You might wanna check your copy of Capital on that one...

 

[Traitorfish]

That´s not Communism, that´s Anarchism.

The two aren't what you'd call mutually exclusive.

You might wanna check your copy of Capital on that one...

Why, what does Marx say that would contradict me?

 

[Agent327]

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men.

(Granted, not from Capital...)

Not too mention that a number of Communist labour movements might heartily disagree with you.

The two aren't what you'd call mutually exclusive.

Theoretically maybe not, in practice however very much so.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Five questions:
1. Do you think communism on a large scale can ever work without resulting in something like the USSR, the PRC, Cambodia, or NK? Surely even a red must admit that these nations cancelled out any good that they might have achieved.

I quite obviously do. I can't think of anyone who would want to turn their country into Red Cambodia. By the way, I would not put USSR, China, DPRK, or Khmer Rouge in the same category with any other country on that list.

2. Would you sacrifice the freedom of the individual, for the good of the state? If not how would you implement communism? If yes, then what else are you willing to sacrifice for the state?

For the good of the state? That would be the complete antithesis of communism. That would be fascism.

For the good of other people? Absolutely. It is, in fact, a necessary part of any social contract.

3. Which would you prefer, every one have $10, or one person has $7 another $13, another $24, another $35, and another $48?

I don't see what this question has to do with anything.

4. Do you think that representation has a place in communism?

Democracy is to communism as oxygen is to the body.

5. How do you explain popular resistance to communism?

Reactionism. People naturally resist forces that erode their power and privilege.

That´s not Communism, that´s Anarchism.

Why yes, yes it is. Communism is basically a type of anarchism. Which is not to say that anarchism is communism.

You might wanna check your copy of Capital on that one...

The opposition is to differentials of property, not of wealth in the abstract sense. Wealth in capitalism only translates to power differentiation because money is what allows one to obtain that which oppresses, which is Private Capital. If such power difference is impossible, then a millionaire is politically no different from a modest man.

 

[Traitorfish]

The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men.

(Granted, not from Capital...)

Yes. And? What about that suggests that the communist project is orientated against wealth differentials?

Not too mention that a number of Communist labour movements might heartily disagree with you.

Do you have any examples?

Theoretically maybe not, in practice however very much so.

Depends what practice. Anarchists were highly supportive of the Russian and German soviets of 197-1920, and the Left Oppositionist in POUM were entirely on board with the anarchist-lead Catalonian syndicates of 1936-37.

 

[Agent327]

I´m sure you know what happened after that...

Yes. And? What about that suggests that the communist project is orientated against wealth differentials?

You´re arguing that Marx had no problem with workers getting poorer and the bourgeoisie becoming richer?

Do you have any examples?

You have never heard of Communist-supported strikes to increase wages?

I don't see what this question has to do with anything.

It´s about income differentiation.

Democracy is to communism as oxygen is to the body.

Nice in theory, but in practice?

Reactionism. People naturally resist forces that erode their power and privilege.

But according to Marx the poor will get poorer; that would mean they are deprived of power and privilige. So theoretically, they should support Communism. In practice they do not. Ofcourse, in practice the poorer only get poorer given certain conditions.

Why yes, yes it is. Communism is basically a type of anarchism.

Theoretically, yes. Historically, no. (See above.)

The opposition is to differentials of property, not of wealth in the abstract sense. Wealth in capitalism only translates to power differentiation because money is what allows one to obtain that which oppresses, which is Private Capital. If such power difference is impossible, then a millionaire is politically no different from a modest man.

I feel a Utopia comin´ on... Anywho, one of Marx´s key theses in Capital is that the poor shall get poorer. I don´t see how that is not about wealth and the distribution thereof. (It also follows that the less poor the poor get, the less likely they will support Communism. Marx also didn´t see coming that economic theory would learn to include his Labour Value theory into the general discipline of economics.)

 

[Traitorfish]

I´m sure you know what happened after that...

Yes. What's your point? That the divisions within Marxism are deeper than those between Marxism and anarchism? That much is obvious.

You´re arguing that Marx had no problem with workers getting poorer and the bourgeoisie becoming richer?

Of course he had a problem with it, he just didn't view levelling everything off as the solution. Because it really isn't.

You have never heard of Communist-supported strikes to increase wages?

Yes, but higher wages isn't the end-in-itself of communist agitation. It's communism, as the term "communist agitation" sort of implies.

Nice in theory, but in practice?

If the practice isn't democratic, it's not communism. And I don't mean that in a shallow "ah, but, see, Stalin did it wrong" sort of way, I mean that communism, taken in its most fundamental sense as a state of communality, means the abolition of mediating structures intervening in and breaking up direct human relations- states, markets, capital- and that cannot be anything other than democratic. Democracy isn't just an ideal which we attempt to apply to communist forms of organisation, it is the thing in itself, utterly inextricable from it.

Anywho, one of Marx´s key theses in Capital is that the poor shall get poorer.

Nah. Marx never makes that argument past maybe 1860. An increasing rate of exploitation, sure enough, but that's different. And even if he did, its pretty secondary in Capital, which is a much deeper critique than just moaning on about how rich folk done got all the monies, true as that may be.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It´s about income differentiation.

Which both of us have stated is not particularly important, and even bothered to explain why.

Nice in theory, but in practice?

When speaking of theory, practice is irrelevant.

In practice has never happened. The Paris Commune existed for a few weeks.

But according to Marx the poor will get poorer; that would mean they are deprived of power and privilige. So theoretically, they should support Communism. In practice they do not. Ofcourse, in practice the poorer only get poorer given certain conditions.

First, lecturer on what is in Capital, Marx did not say that.

Second, there is much more to society and the minds of people than an elegantly simple theory. Look up Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony.

Theoretically, yes. Historically, no. (See above.)

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

I feel a Utopia comin´ on...

We are not utopians, thanks.

Anywho, one of Marx´s key theses in Capital is that the poor shall get poorer.

As TF has thankfully taken the time to answer, it is not.

I don´t see how that is not about wealth and the distribution thereof. (It also follows that the less poor the poor get, the less likely they will support Communism. Marx also didn´t see coming that economic theory would learn to include his Labour Value theory into the general discipline of economics.)

I suggest you give the post of mine that you quoted slightly more thought. And perhaps a few more reads through, particularly the part directly above.

 

[Agent327]

Yes. What's your point? That the divisions within Marxism are deeper than those between Marxism and anarchism? That much is obvious.

That doesn´t follow. What does follow, is that communism and anarchism are mutually exclusive in the long run, despite occasional short term cooperation.

That might be because increasing income levels (i.e. increased labour value) renders communism an inviable alternative. The main problem with communism is that it flourishes primarily in poor societies that have a limited degree of industrialization.

If the practice isn't democratic, it's not communism. And I don't mean that in a shallow "ah, but, see, Stalin did it wrong" sort of way, I mean that communism, taken in its most fundamental sense as a state of communality, means the abolition of mediating structures intervening in and breaking up direct human relations- states, markets, capital- and that cannot be anything other than democratic. Democracy isn't just an ideal which we attempt to apply to communist forms of organisation, it is the thing in itself, utterly inextricable from it.

I´m sure you are aware that communist organizations have a bad track record when it comes to democracy - in whatever form. That apart, democracy itself seems pretty utopian; it works on a small scale primarily - the problem being, that communism requires a degree of organization, and organizations tend not to have ´democracy´ as its prime target.

Nah. Marx never makes that argument past maybe 1860. An increasing rate of exploitation, sure enough, but that's different. And even if he did, its pretty secondary in Capital, which is a much deeper critique than just moaning on about how rich folk done got all the monies, true as that may be.

Well it isn´t. As mentioned, Marx did not foresee that labour value would be integrated into economics as a whole (which in itself is a point in favour of Marx, not Marxism). So, an increasing rate of exploitation also does not occur.

As for Utopia: theories that only work in theory, are pretty utopian. In present day societies, communism simply isn´t a viable alternative.

As per communism ceasing to be communism when when certain communist theories aren´t applied, there is an interesting analogy to Christianity: they all claim to serve the one true God (and none of them do).

Increasing income may not be of interest to communism, it is to the people concerned. Ignoring that basic fact is rather utopian, yes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So what is your point Jeelen? That anarchists and communists have fought each other a lot in the last hundred and fifty years? That communists have tried to create socialist societies which people pointed boogey-manning fingers at saying "look at what communism is!" and that turned out to be lackluster? No one here is arguing with you about that. So please stop presenting these facts to us as and lecturing if we are ignorant children who've stumbled upon a bad word and a silly idea that we don't understand. I will remind you that this is our thread and that it is a question and answer thread. You may Ask A Red, but you may not Lecture a Red or Yell At A Red. There are plenty of other threads for that purpose, and if not, then feel free to start one.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Democracy is to communism as oxygen is to the body.

That is a non answer. Democracy does not equal representation.

@Traitorfish: How do you propose too implement your communist society? You are effectively suggesting we through a bunch of people into anarchy and hope they get along. What if Joe the evil capitalist doesn't want to give up his land? What then? Do you force him to give up his land? If so how do you do this if he does not agree without enforcing government? You would seem to require truly amazing people and abundant land and resources. Also how is money not property? If you have money and not property what good is it?

I'm not going to bother arguing your point on property because we differ on premises there.

 

[Agent327]

So what is your point Jeelen? That anarchists and communists have fought each other a lot in the last hundred and fifty years? That communists have tried to create socialist societies which people pointed boogey-manning fingers at saying "look at what communism is!" and that turned out to be lackluster? No one here is arguing with you about that. So please stop presenting these facts to us as and lecturing if we are ignorant children who've stumbled upon a bad word and a silly idea that we don't understand. I will remind you that this is our thread and that it is a question and answer thread. You may Ask A Red, but you may not Lecture a Red or Yell At A Red. There are plenty of other threads for that purpose, and if not, then feel free to start one.

What is your point exactly? People can ask questions, but may not question your answers? And who´s yelling?

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish: How do you propose too implement your communist society.

Short answer? I don't, because that's utopianism. Long answer, well, splat.

You are effectively suggesting we through a bunch of people into anarchy and hope they get along.

Um, no. Communism is a form of organisation which emerges from class struggle, a new communality that through its own formation abolishes capitalist society. There's none of this Bakunian "blow things up and hope for the best" logic in the slightest.

What if Joe the evil capitalist doesn't want to give up his land? What then? Do you force him to give up his land? If so how do you do this if he does not agree without enforcing government?

We would ignore him. Communism is the supersession of private property, not just a form of extreme nationalisation. The terms in which he would express his claims to exclusive possession would have no more currency than a European monarch claiming to be everyone's feudal overlord.

You would seem to require truly amazing people and abundant land and resources.

How so?

Also how is money not property? If you have money and not property what good is it?

I don't understand; who said anything about money?

I'm not going to bother arguing your point on property because we differ on premises there.

It's a Q&A thread, you're not supposed to argue.

What is your point exactly? People can ask questions, but may not question your answers? And who´s yelling?

We more than welcome critical responses to our answers, but that's not the same thing as trying to start an argument. "Question" "Answer" "Ah, but what about X?" is perfectly acceptable; "Question" "Answer" "No, you're wrong and here's why" is not. You wouldn't try to start a debate during a question-and-answer session, so why here?

 

[FredLC]

1. Do you think communism on a large scale can ever work without resulting in something like the USSR, the PRC, Cambodia, or NK? Surely even a red must admit that these nations cancelled out any good that they might have achieved.

Conceivably, yes, though I do not know of any real path to achieve that at the moment.

Going in more detail, this question, as I see it, sparks two possible concerns; the first is the old "is communism against human nature" argument, which I dealt with in depth here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=287545&page=9

(sorry that I keep bringing up this link, but my post there was comprehensive and many of the questions are repetitive)

The second aspect is organizational. Is it possible that the only way to conceive communism is with dictatorships? In that regard, we have a rather more interesting topic. First, I see an inherent contradiction in any description of collectivist dictatorships, because collectivism is the politics of sharing everything (even things we normally don't, like means of production), while dictatorship is the politics of concentrating everything (even things we normally don't, like political power).

Therefore, it's very hard to describe such system in any terminology that makes sense. "Dictatorial collectivism" (a term that encompass communism) is an oxymoron IMHO, not better than saying "square ball" or "dark light", and flies in the face of not only material dialectics, but also of any form of conceivable communism that isn't so called due to misnomer.

(notice that I don't discard leftist or left oriented dictatorships - though the formation of any elite tends to, with time, form a conservative group that wishes to perpetuate power - but that is a discussion for a different thread). As so, I don't really consider any of given examples as forms of communism, but rather, as perversions of it.

Specifically in the case of the USSR, and the analysis of it's fall into a dictatorship, many factors have to be taken in account for what happened that are utterly ignored in the common frame of these discussions:

1 - there have never been there the "phase of enrichment" from Marx's prevision. Without that, there has never been the enlightenment of the proletarians that communism necessitates. The red jargon worked not as a new flag, bud just as a modern version of good old fashioned power struggle between middle class intelligentsia and the failing royal structure of old;

2 - As the new intelligentsia came to power without a fully conscious middle class, the distribution of power had to be limited to small regional leaderships, instead of being divided into the miniscule but all encompassing "soviets" (or local communities) as earlier envisioned. Therefore, the problem of concentration of power that is inherent in strugles between small elites got reinforced by a practical need;

3 - Again the lack of the enrichment phase were to cost dearly to the revolution. Because the new state had to substitute it with the infamous five-year plans that required distant, brutal and concentrated decision-making powers, in order to "compensate", with the planning of the best application of resources, the lack of the regulating mechanics of the free marked. Bad enough, this path was reinforced by the isolation the Soviet Union suffered in international commerce, from fear of other nations that it's ideals would spread to their working classes as well;

4 - The isolation in commerce were a severe pressing factor, but perhaps worse was the political isolation and hostile attitude. Granted, the messianic desires of a world revolution was somewhat of a provocation (though I'd say that, as the west so dearly value the "marketplace of ideas", the different ideas from east should not be feared, but I digress), but it forced the militarization of the soviet block - and as we all know, military structures are highly hierarchal. This politic lead to such joyous eras in the 20th century as the rise of fascism (and WWII) as well as the Cold War, but these are symptoms of the struggle to keep the red flags in check.

So, it's impossible to tell what would have happened in the Soviet Union should those factors never existed. Perhaps it would have held a more mild political stance. Perhaps it would have been worse. Counterfactual history is somewhat of a futile exercise, but it seems logical that the path the USSR took was at least as circumstantial as it was inherent.

I don't know enough about the other examples to offer similar analysis, but I would be surprised if no similar influences had took place. So yeah, in short, I don't think we have reason to expect that future communist movements, if any at all will ever come, will be dictatorial.

2. Would you sacrifice the freedom of the individual, for the good of the state? If not how would you implement communism? If yes, then what else are you willing to sacrifice for the state?

The premise of this question is incomprehensible. Communism's core idea (at least in material dialectics) brings about the demise of the state and a form of enlightened anarchy. Socialism does presume the existence of the state, but short-lived while the organization necessary for communism is implemented.

To give any meaningful answer to this question, I'd need first that you specify what sort of communist plan you are talking about, because you can't be talking about Marx's.

3. Which would you prefer, every one have $10, or one person has $7 another $13, another $24, another $35, and another $48?

Despite all you have heard in the past, in communism and socialism, even with corruption of the leftist regimes of the real world aside, it's not true that every people have the same income. We have seen athletes, scientists and intellectuals that had more resources at there disposal than the average Ivan. Garry Kasparov and Yuri Garagin, to use famous examples, were people who had their talents recognized and were given special resources and training.

So, in communism and socialism, even in real life, systems of rewards were in place - and nothing in the theory forbids special rewards for special talent. What the theoretical build of the system determines is not a forced low average, but that no channel be permitted that would allow someone to gain not for the expression of their superior capacity, but arbitrarily, for being in the sweet spot of a chain of wealthy transfer (such as the dominion of the means of production).

So, your question is rather loaded, for it asks communists to justify something that has little to do with what they propose. You are mistaken the fact that, in real life, the rewards of capitalist counterparts were greater than that of communist workers, with a rather silly means of handling society resources.

That said, one more thing needs to be understood here: Whether a system of "everyone having $10" is "better or worse" than another in which " one person has $7 another $13, another $24, another $35, and another $48" is something that needs to be analyzed taking variables in account.

Let's skip the obvious (and rather silly) question of what position you occupy in the "variable income" system, and imagine an impartial judgment. Still, knowing which is working better to the society as a whole depends on evaluating what channels of investment of resources are in place, as well as knowing how many people occupy the wealthier spots in the second society. In other words, in a universe of 10.000.000 people, I'd "rather have" a society that every one has $10 than one in which 600 people has $13, 300 has $24, 150 has $35 and 75 has $48 - and in raw numbers, the former society would be much wealthier.

4. Do you think that representation has a place in communism?

It's impossible to organize a modern country without some form of representation. Our numbers are just too great. Even the most vicious form of dictatorship is, in some level, representation, albeit illegitimate.

5. How do you explain popular resistance to communism?

From within or outside the countries in which people lived the left-oriented dictatorships of the 20th century? 'Cause the answers vary to that factor.

In the populations that suffered it, I don't really know the extent of such resistance. Perhaps people who live in the former block can enlighten us on that. But I find obvious that there is a degree of discontentment with the people that oppressed them. If they truly identify that group to communism, than I suppose there is a reason right there.

As for the western world, well, much has to do with propaganda. I had mentioned it in the link I gave you, but Noah Chomsky short video posted by Cheez in #962 handles this more eloquently than I did.

Anyway, that propaganda was shameless, is a fact. My best point here is saying that religion was not such a big issue in USA politics before it wanted to separate itself from the "Godless Communists", and it's no coincidence that Fascism was born in the same country that holds the Vatican. To make sure that the worker class would not rise, the non-communist countries linked their very core Christian values with the very antithesis of the Soviet Union.

My mother studied in a Nun's school as a child. She says that her teachers used to say that communists did, quite literally, roast and devour little children in their countries, and oriented her to pray that they never take over Brazil.

Quite ironic considering the Church's standing record on pedophilia...

Regards .

 

[Tahuti]

From another thread:

The answer, essentially, is yes. Socialism is the reaction to capitalism, its antithesis. Communism will be a synthesis of what the two opposites do best (efficacy and equitable distribution), a socially stable product.

I'm curious how Communism will achieve the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, since I take it putting the means of production in the hands of small, democratically ruled polities is Socialism, not Communism. Or am I confusing your brand of Communism with the Anarcho-Communism espoused by Traitorfish?

 

[Traitorfish]

(For the record, I'd locate myself in the broad tradition of the council communists rather than of the anarchist-communists. Less moralising, more class struggle, ken? )

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm curious how Communism will achieve the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, since I take it putting the means of production in the hands of small, democratically ruled polities is Socialism, not Communism. Or am I confusing your brand of Communism with the Anarcho-Communism espoused by Traitorfish?

I would say that if those small polities are sovereign, then it would be a character of communism and not socialism.

I believe in a very strong socialist state that functions with increasing tiers of democracy, from the factory floor and the town commissioners all the way to the executive. It is structured, yes, but consensually so.

Please ask any further questions in the new thread, Ask a Red III!