112 replies to this topic

[Crankymonky]

OK, there was something on this thread that maybe me all confused, someone was socialism was a form of government.

Edit: Evil, what I meant was that those 8.3 women should be able to have an abortion.

The fact that many children do not reach foster care-mainly speaking of teenage pregnancies

Most of that foster care stuff more related to the 1700/1800 Britain...Next to none.

Crankymonky

Double Edit: Calling Merlinski and Accord, I need backup, the "abortion abomination" sign carrying people are coming-Evil and Vintage

Edited by crankymonky, 10 June 2004 - 03:30 PM.

[Evil]

So, Evil, how did Marx plan to give everyone equality.

Through gradual dissolving of government power, every man was believed to be equal because he had as much as any other man and was not a part of a puppet pedestal established by a government. Though the concept would theoretically(sp?) take years and years to complete, leaders were (supposed) to take steps by undoing the government as social programs spread money, land, and industry to the people themselves.

The problem with communism is people. People need to be motivated, communism didn't do that because of the indifference in the money made by the people. Stalin did motivate though. With the use of the "terror famine" and the unjust murder and imprisonment of millions, Stalin managed to "inspire" plenty.

But the problem really was the bastardizing as I've said before, of the process and the theory. Men like Stalin and Krushcev took and abused the "Communist Manifesto" and used Marx and Lenin to disguise their tyrannical true selves.

I have not read "The Communist Manifesto" and don't really know what Karl was trying to start

That makes two of us. I've just read a lot about the subject and the Cold War. What Karl attempted with his theory was (essentially unattainable) utopia.

All I know is the basic princilple behind communism (equality) and the present day forms of it.

It's form now is totalitarianism/dictatorship/tyranny and all those other fun ones.

Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and China's Chicom.

Essentially they took communism, disguised it, said they were giving their subjects "equality", and for the most part established a forced poverty on the majority of their people, and horded their country's worth for themselves and a select few.

Thanks class, you've been great.
-Professor Evil

[Chrysophylax]

EVIL: you seem to know a lot about communism.

I have in my hands a list of 205...no, 87...no, 51 communists or communist sympathisers among us on this forum. I suggest we take action.



I hope somebody got my joke.

[Evil]

When I say that Soviet leaders took Marx and Lenin and disguised themselves accordingly, I mean to say that the purists (Marx the originator, Lenin the advocate) were used to invoke nationalism much like Castro did in Cuba with Che Gueverra. They took them as icons, and falsely portrayed themselves as men of the same communist calibur.

Edited by Evil, 10 June 2004 - 06:40 PM.

[Jappo]

I have a Political Spectrum (the way I am taught in school) here that I just made up for anyone confused.

http://www.geocities...ppo_sk8n/ps.bmp

It is supposed to bend to show that even though Fasicm and Communism are opposite, they still have some stuff in common. I also don't want people to think that Conservatives are Fasict, its just thats the way the spectrum is organized.

[Vintage]

Jappo, since when does conservatism lean towards a dictatorship. Conservatives want limited government involvement.

Definition for Fascism off of Merriam-Webster's website.

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So, you are saying that Conservatives want a dictator? Hardly. We want less government involvement in economic and social issues, putting more power in the hands of the people and businesses.

~Vintage

[reversedracula]

If we have comments from PROFESSOR Evil... he probably earned his doctorate somewhere... could it be that we're dealing with!?!? ::puts pinky wryly to his lip:: DR. EVIL?

[Evil]

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Mmmmyessss.

[merlinski]

Through gradual dissolving of government power, every man was believed to be equal because he had as much as any other man and was not a part of a puppet pedestal established by a government. Though the concept would theoretically(sp?) take years and years to complete, leaders were (supposed) to take steps by undoing the government as social programs spread money, land, and industry to the people themselves.

Incorrect, Professor Evil.
Marx believed that Capitalism was necessary as the step before communism. This would subjugate the proletariat to the increasingly powerful bourgeosie (sp?), and at the same time industrialize the nation. When the proletariat got fed up, they would violently overthrow the bourgeosie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Throughout his lifetime, many "Marxists" urged a move towards your kind of "Marxism", where the steps are gradual. Marx himself opposed this movement, and the reformers who supported it, until his death.

So now official definitions are relative? I think you are brilliant (by the use of the word brilliant, I refer to my personal relative meaning: "stupid")

To quote Evil: "This is a non-name calling debate, fucker".

Dictionary.com is far from the official definition of an entire socio-economic theory. If college professors (who know more than you) can't agree on a definition, why should dictionary.com be able to settle their quarrel? I've studied communism in great depth with my AP Euro teacher (who, btw, is somewhat of a communist). We spent a while in class going over the evolution of socialist thought from the early 19th century up to the application in Russia and Leninism/Stalinism. It's not a single theory that is as simple as you would like to think. I know it makes you comfortable to stick to your website, 1-line definitions, but I just wish you would be able to comprehend that socio-politico-economic theories aren't that simple.

The problem with communism is people. People need to be motivated, communism didn't do that because of the indifference in the money made by the people. Stalin did motivate though. With the use of the "terror famine" and the unjust murder and imprisonment of millions, Stalin managed to "inspire" plenty.

I think that the only way to achieve successful communism is also the only way to achieve successful democracy - choice of government by the people of a country. Russia didn't quite achieve this because the revolution and reaction had pretty much nothing to do with the average Russian citizen, who was a poor farmer far detached from St. Petersberg. Until you have the truly national choice to change, you can never have a successful government.

Edited by merlinski, 11 June 2004 - 04:17 PM.

[Vintage]

To quote Evil: "This is a non-name calling debate, fucker".

I didn't call you a name. If anything, I said you were brilliant. I was just showing how useless it is if no one agrees on a definition for everything.

If college professors (who know more than you) can't agree on a definition, why should dictionary.com be able to settle their quarrel?

Exactly. It's useless when people can't agree on a definition for communism. Sure there are alot of details in how it works, but a definition is handy to state a principle bluntly.

You don't want to give someone a 12 page essay on communism, when it can be described bluntly as a dictionary can.

~Vintage

[Jappo]

Jappo, since when does conservatism lean towards a dictatorship. Conservatives want limited government involvement.

Definition for Fascism off of Merriam-Webster's website.

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

So, you are saying that Conservatives want a dictator? Hardly. We want less government involvement in economic and social issues, putting more power in the hands of the people and businesses.

~Vintage

OK I thought I made this clear:

I also don't want people to think that Conservatives are Fasict, its just thats the way the spectrum is organized.

Fasciscm is very right wing, and conservatism is about the central of the spectrum.

Edited by Jappo, 11 June 2004 - 06:37 PM.

[Evil]

This would subjugate the proletariat to the increasingly powerful bourgeosie (sp?), and at the same time industrialize the nation.

I'm pretty sure I said that, or if I didn't say it like you did, it was my intent to portray the same idea.

your kind of "Marxism"

Merl... don't ever say that again.

I think that the only way to achieve successful communism is also the only way to achieve successful democracy - choice of government by the people of a country.

I don't know (and I emphasize DON'T KNOW) of any nation that has elected a communist leader or party into office. I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

[merlinski]

I didn't call you a name. If anything, I said you were brilliant. I was just showing how useless it is if no one agrees on a definition for everything.

Ok, I'm sorry, it was my mistake.

You don't want to give someone a 12 page essay on communism, when it can be described bluntly as a dictionary can.

I see why it simplifies the debate, but it becomes an issue for me because my view of communism is slightly off the dictionary.com version.

I don't know (and I emphasize DON'T KNOW) of any nation that has elected a communist leader or party into office. I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

I'd agree that no nation in the world right now, or in the past, is or has been ready for communism.