Printable View
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.
Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.Quote:
Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.
Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
Lets change this thread to are noname12's avatar and sig a provokative incitement?
It would be rather pointless to rehash the three pages.
Skweeky started with a point, but it got rather lost, which is why I suggested starting over.
I've seen better from you chalice, than the sniping you've contributed to this thread.
:ninja:
This is a good point.Quote:
Originally posted by chalice+1 November 2003 - 00:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 1 November 2003 - 00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.
Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
Lets change this thread to are noname12's avatar and sig a provokative incitement? [/b][/quote]
Nah...let's not, I don't think he's the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_<
well...
What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)
MN, so it's alright for yourself to snipe?
It seems to me your trademark " ;) " excuses all.
If a topic fails to reach your brow, look over it.
Are you saying I wouldn't understand it if it wasn't explained with cows? <_<
:lol: :lol: :lol: mooooooooo
i *will* keep posting onion links until i get a convert :lol:
Quote:
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@1 November 2003 - 00:03
i *will* keep posting onion links until i get a convert :lol:
Quote:
instead of being hated and ostracized by the world at large as socialist countries usually are
However, there are no Marxist countries, and never has been...and that is the way they are attempting to live.
"Communist" States, although starting off as trying to attain Marxism, ...never do, and arent "Socialist", within a very short span of time either. After all, shooting your citizens for disagreeing is not "Socialist" by any stretch of the imagination. :P
No "true" Communist country has ever existed....after the initial period of establishment.
I would deny strongly, therefore, that most "Socialist" countries are hated and ostracized...
It's not a "trademark." It's a habit I was forced into long ago on a BBS. Thus, anything that could possibly be mistaken as curmudgeonry ends up with one.
:ninja:
Patronised by a habit. There's something biblical there.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@1 November 2003 - 00:45
It's not a "trademark." It's a habit I was forced into long ago on a BBS. Thus, anything that could possibly be mistaken as curmudgeonry ends up with one.
:ninja:
I'm not sure i argee with this but i once heard it argued the earliest form of cummunisim was found in the Bible after the day of pentecost where the early followers sold their possession and life in something a long the lines of a hippy communion
Nah...let's not, I don't think he's the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_< [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by mrcall1969+31 October 2003 - 23:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@1 November 2003 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969
Quote:
@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.
Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12's avatar and sig a provokative incitement?
The avatar... I explained why I like it and it was made by friend pol (thanks)
The sig is nothing more then a sig, if you are going to base what you think you know about me on my sig then you are not worth speaking to.
As for attention, if I needed it I would have said I support the soviet union, although those with a Brain know I dont as I am a JEW and RELIGION IS BANNED IN COMMUNISM. Think about that one.
I like the idea of Communism minus the banned religion, which basically is socialism, give or take a few ideals. You have problem with that live with it :)
I did not ask for any of this attention to my sig and avatar, if you look back you are the one thats been hounding from the beginning after them.
I think I threw us off, but in the end I did try to show the similarities, you can base a new arguement on that one.Quote:
Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 23:40
well...
What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)
Didnt add marxism because I still dont know much about that subject.Quote:
Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:50
Ladies and Gentleman.
I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.
Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.
Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.
Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.
Not that much difference.
Soviet Union Shall neither Crush you or Inflate you. You shall give into the Union or be paid equally regardless.
The end.
Thank you. :)
I think I threw us off, but in the end I did try to show the similarities, you can base a new arguement on that one. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by noname12+1 November 2003 - 02:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 1 November 2003 - 02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 23:40
well...
What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)
Hate to raise the argument but what is an arguement?
How's that for sniping, MN?
Meh, Arguement, debate same thing.
The avatar... I explained why I like it and it was made by friend pol (thanks)Quote:
Originally posted by noname12+1 November 2003 - 12:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 1 November 2003 - 12:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:37
Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@1 November 2003 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969
Quote:
Quote:
@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.
Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12's avatar and sig a provokative incitement?
Nah...let's not, I don't think he's the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_<
The sig is nothing more then a sig, if you are going to base what you think you know about me on my sig then you are not worth speaking to.
As for attention, if I needed it I would have said I support the soviet union, although those with a Brain know I dont as I am a JEW and RELIGION IS BANNED IN COMMUNISM. Think about that one.
I like the idea of Communism minus the banned religion, which basically is socialism, give or take a few ideals. You have problem with that live with it :)
I did not ask for any of this attention to my sig and avatar, if you look back you are the one thats been hounding from the beginning after them.[/b][/quote]
Through reading this thread i have been depressingly underwhelmed by the excessive ignorance and insensitivity that noname12 has displayed here.
noname12 :: you are parading symbols and images around the board which are potentially offensive and disturbing. as these symbols are the most striking and consistent thing we see when reading your posts so it is likely to be much of the base from which we build our understanding of who/what you are, that's just the way it is
FYI :: jo stalin oversaw the murders of about 43 000 000 people in the soviet union mostly through excessive forced labour in the 'gulag' camps,
he evicted [exiled] the entire populous of chechnya for about thirty years,
he exiled and killed returning POWs from WWII,
he engineered famine as the most cost efficient method for genocide of uncooperative peasants,
in short he makes saddam or pinochet or milosevic look like kindergarten cop.
he is at least as reviled as hitler or pol pot, and his imagery and symbolism could easily be seen as being as offencive as displaying nazi symbolism.
The complete lack of understanding of what symbols you display might mean,
especially from someone advertising their religion as judaism,
is particularly pathetic as i am sure you might find it uncomfortable being in a elevator with a few skin heads with swastikas and national front tattoos on their necks
http://www.fathermonty.org/skinheads.jpg
symbols, by portending far more than they depict, are awesomely powerful, this is something you should know [or work out pretty damn quick]
until you go and read some history for yourself, an 'L' on your forehead might fit better. before parading you ignorance as fact any more i would seriously recommend taking the time to read as widely on the topic as you can.
and you should read Solzhenitsyn, 'gulag archipelago' and 'one day in the life of ivan denisovich' at least.
if you hadn't wanted your sig and avatar to draw attention why have you used them?
you could always change them or not use one
but definitely change how much you know about the symbols you use [ie. what they mean to other people]
maybe try a ché guevara t-shirt
i had been amused [i actually LOL] at what i had read of you in other threads but finding here that you have no idea what it is that you're pedalling negates that amusment entirely :angry:
:: on the topic i agree with rat faced that the marxist/communist/socialist state has never actually been tried,
not only because of the power politics and turmoil withing the revolutionary governments, but also because of the besieging of nations trying to institute socialist policy [see. chile, china, cuba, indonesia, iran, malaysia, USSR, vietnam, and more...]
this external interference means that failure was almost a forgone conclusion
also marx saw a disenfranchised urban industrial populations as the bed from which revolution could grow, while all attempts to form a state through marxist revolution have planted their revolt in rural peasant populations,
so there hasn't yet been a 'marxist' revolution as the prerequiste conditions his ideal requires have not preceeded any of the communist/socialist revolutions that have come to pass, i have always thought that the urbanisation of the working class increased the level of literacy within the community thus enabling considerably more complex organisation and education within the revolution.
not to mention the fact that the urban worker has a greater industrial skill base from which to work.
This links to an excellent excert from a new book by noam chomsky, it's about the history of US policies of terrorism against Cuba under castro, EVERYONE SHOULD READ IT!
:: http://www.grandesychicos.com/images/cubaflag.gif :: Viva Fidel! Viva Cuba! :: http://www.grandesychicos.com/images/cubaflag.gif
:lol: All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.
If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.
Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?
Meh, being jewish doesnt stop me from have any opinion I wish, and if I wanted to put hitlers picture in my sig, are you going to stop me?
Go find something else to complain about rather then my sig.
As for all the other things said below, if you indeed find a flaw in what I wrote, point it out ;) I believe pretty much every thing was covered in the revised version of my views due to a nice talk with some one who would make you look like a slack jawed hick who knows as much as Bush :lol:
Communism is from Marx, Marx was a Jewish thinker, He studied religion umong other things such as economics and bla bla. He found that the West cannot run under Religious views any more giving birth to his views. Communism was indeed his child, Socialism was umong it although socialism in this case can be completely derived from the Jewish belief of 90% Economy 10% Spirituality. But Socialism was first perfectly implimented by Islam which was 50%/50%
Oh yeas As I said previously IF they where all implimented in there true meaning they would work :rolleyes: Communism could have been implimented in Russia, it could have worked and would have made the Union a super state that non could rival with. But when the Wishes of Lenin where ignored and Stalin brought in every thing pretty much went down the toilet. And just incase you ask, I find Stalin to be a interesting person, has brains but made such a mistake, I think he is worth my attention for further studies.
Now did I miss anything?
Read above to see the references to the figures, lenin, trotskishi and so on.
Did I miss anything else?
Thank you for finding my posts ammusing, May you laugh at many more including this one :)
.... Isnt fidel castro a human rights violator :blink: :lol:
Finish posting Already, I need to leave <_<
Meh, I must go, I will ready your Insults later :)
i don't really care if you keep your sig or not.Quote:
Originally posted by noname12@1 November 2003 - 16:33
:lol: All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.
If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.
Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?
Meh, being jewish doesnt stop me from have any opinion I wish, and if I wanted to put hitlers picture in my sig, are you going to stop me?
Go find something else to complain about rather then my sig.
As for all the other things said below, if you indeed find a flaw in what I wrote, point it out ;) I believe pretty much every thing was covered in the revised version of my views due to a nice talk with some one who would make you look like a slack jawed hick who knows as much as Bush :lol:
Communism is from Marx, Marx was a Jewish thinker, He studied religion umong other things such as economics and bla bla. He found that the West cannot run under Religious views any more giving birth to his views. Communism was indeed his child, Socialism was umong it although socialism in this case can be completely derived from the Jewish belief of 90% Economy 10% Spirituality. But Socialism was first perfectly implimented by Islam which was 50%/50%
Oh yeas As I said previously IF they where all implimented in there true meaning they would work :rolleyes: Communism could have been implimented in Russia, it could have worked and would have made the Union a super state that non could rival with. But when the Wishes of Lenin where ignored and Stalin brought in every thing pretty much went down the toilet. And just incase you ask, I find Stalin to be a interesting person, has brains but made such a mistake, I think he is worth my attention for further studies.
Now did I miss anything?
Read above to see the references to the figures, lenin, trotskishi and so on.
Did I miss anything else?
Thank you for finding my posts ammusing, May you laugh at many more including this one :)
.... Isnt fidel castro a human rights violator :blink: :lol:
i'm only concerned that you inform yourself about the images that you iterate.
so keep on reading and researching stalin :: don'take one persons word for it, find out for youself from as many sources as you can find.
your revised posts were a decent coloquial paraphrasing, but were far from thorough or strictly historical.
you do know that stalin had trotsky murdered with an ice pick in mexico. don't you?
my gripe is that you shouldn't spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend
castro like many heads of state has probably infringed on the ideals of human rights
for a cat in a giant joseph stalin shaped house you sure like chucking rocks around
go thenQuote:
Originally posted by noname12@1 November 2003 - 16:49
Finish posting Already, I need to leave <_<
Meh, I must go, I will ready your Insults later :)
don't let me hold you up
think of them as constructive criticism as i'm not concerned with insulting you,
unless that is what will motivate you to gain better understanding of the history you're playing with.
Noname12Quote:
All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.
If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.
Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?
Well actually, no you wont.
We have already had an argument with someone regarding Hitler and Nazi'sm in his sig....and he used your use of Stalin as a defence.
ie If you used Stalin, why cant he use Hitler.
We replied to him, that Nazism is instantly recognisable, while someone would have to know something about politics to recognise Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.
As such we have to wait for someone to complain with regard to Stalin...we didnt have to wait for someone to complain about Hitler.
So...if you sig disappears at some point...you'll know that someone has complained ;)
Why would someone complain about his sig? Who find Stalin offensive in the 21st century? surely he's a thing of the past. Hitler is still relevant, 'cos he kinda symbolises racism, but what does stalin symbolise now?
Anyway, i don't see the point of arguing about his sig, if he's as ignorant as you guys seem to think he is, then surely he is just like one of the guys we seen shouting for the national front, or BNP; just another bigot. Is it worth arguing with such a bigot? of course if you got nothing better to do, it's a free country.
As for Marxism, communism stuff, i must first say i didn't study "capital", "communist manefestal", or "history of communism", or any of the theory books by Lenin, trosky, Stalin, Mao, or Deng.
But, I don't really think communism would work in the real world, 'cos, surely the whole point of living is to get one over your fellow men, to beat the rest. That's why we have celebs, why we admire (or hate) successful people like Bill Gates; and why we want to be doctors, engineers...
What would be the goal of the individual in a communist world? what would one strive for?
Is this not a little out of order? His sig is either allowed, or it isn't. Surely a complaint is only equal to a member's desire to use it. What if someone were to put a Leeds United logo in their sig, and a Manchester United supporter were to be offended, would it be taken down? I find Christianity to be offensive, and it has possibly been responsible for more innocent deaths than any dictator. In fact, the refusal of the catholic church to allow birth control, abortion, or even sex education, is still killing people to this day. Should you not ban religious iconography? If no-name wishes to use images of Stalin, he should be allowed to, or no-one should use anything offensive.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 November 2003 - 20:42
So...if you sig disappears at some point...you'll know that someone has complained ;)
:)
google for "essenes"Quote:
Originally posted by blackhatknight@1 November 2003 - 01:10
I'm not sure i argee with this but i once heard it argued the earliest form of cummunisim was found in the Bible after the day of pentecost where the early followers sold their possession and life in something a long the lines of a hippy communion
Mediaslayer excellent comment.
Let me develop my point a little further this was, to my knowledge, the first communist community and indeed others may disagree, but with a word only meaning what two people agree it to be by communism I mean a profound social, political and economic move towards equality
This incident of the community is documented in chapter 4 of ACTS chapter five begins by discussing the incident between Ananias and Sapphira how sold property but held back some money for themselves, when it was in the nature of community to share all worldly possessions (those familiar with the story will know there is much speculation over these events and it is not my intention to discuss them) but rather highlight the point that communism, anarchy and other extreme left wing political structures all suffer from one fundamental flaw, they relay on the good nature of man kind which I believe is innately absent from him.
Consequently I align myself with soft left wing and more right wing political structures, and I do this reluctantly for the romantic in me does not want to give up all hope in his fellow man.
It is also worth noting that many people have recieved explainations of what right wing and left wing are by means of a horizontal line with left wing at one end and right at the other i would argue this is also a misrepresentation of the systems, when i explain it i draw a circle allowing extreme right wingers and left wingers to meet on the same ground which i would describe as dictatorship which has result out of both left and ring wing system, and as pointed out already stalin stands as an excellent example of this
EDIT: spelling and last paragraph added
You draw a circle? But there is quite a difference between extreme left wing and extreme right wing. They hate each other, and the left have a dictatorship which is in theory not supposed to last (dictatorship is justa process toward total communism); while the right wing have a dictatorship that's supposed to last a thousand years.
Of course, i think this right wing, left wing stuff is absurd for the 21st century. What about the good religious ppl who love their fellow men? (by this i don't mean they are gay). Neither the left nor right tolerants all religions.
w00t its not been removed :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 November 2003 - 11:42
Noname12Quote:
All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.
If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.
Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?
Well actually, no you wont.
We have already had an argument with someone regarding Hitler and Nazi'sm in his sig....and he used your use of Stalin as a defence.
ie If you used Stalin, why cant he use Hitler.
We replied to him, that Nazism is instantly recognisable, while someone would have to know something about politics to recognise Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.
As such we have to wait for someone to complain with regard to Stalin...we didnt have to wait for someone to complain about Hitler.
So...if you sig disappears at some point...you'll know that someone has complained ;)
All I can say is to you that complaints, I have found many sigs to be beyond any of my tastes but I dont care its called freedom to opinions and that freedom includes there right to blast it.
If some one was to put hitlers picture up, I wouldnt complain, I dont care, if some one likes hitler there problem not mine.
As for the rest of every thing, I feel I have answered what was needed with help of a friend, although I do admit in the beginning I did not understand communism as I truly thought but I still feel I have managed to argue my point without sinking to insults, I only did that when they questioned my beautiful avatar and sig, which if does cause so much offence I may just put Ariel sharons picture instead. :)
Now let this go back to the original arguement or let it be closed, I do wish to learn more about this marxism because until recently I had no idea what it was and would like to argue it further.
I have put across my views of the similarities between Communism and Socialism and I have argued how I believe Socialism is the product of Jewish and Islamic political systems.
Those who wish to argue this point please do. If you wish to argue my sig and avatar choice I will more then gladly accept PM's from you and if the case is well put with out childish insults I will remove it to something more tasteful but for now I believe it shall remain.
Thank you.
And thanks Billy Dean :)
Quote:
my gripe is that you shouldn't spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend
Ok, what sort of proverb amalgam is this? Surely I am missing some reference or inside joke here. (This has the potential to be my new signature, unless, of course, the mods receive too many complaints.)Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@1 November 2003 - 08:01
castro like many heads of state has probably infringed on the ideals of human rights
for a cat in a giant joseph stalin shaped house you sure like chucking rocks around
I will take the liberty of adding a ".", after "human rights", but I'm still left a little baffled by that final line.
Will be back to check on this later, I'm going outside to inspect the shape of MY house.
Keep on sprukin'--Well, I cannot find the word in any dictionary, but it appears that our man on the street down-under has heard it. It appears to be equivalent to "hawking"-to offer for sale by calling out in the street.Quote:
"spruke" was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Must have been an English word that visited Australia and liked it so much it never came back.
I shall watch with interest also.
I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn't like to ask.
:unsure:
I do feel that interesting though Noname's signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.
A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK's case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.
Incidently, I think Nonames's avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin's observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.
This is your opinion and a good one at that please note my opinion is that there is no difference one can be so far right wing (capitalist and democractic to the point there is one is argueable, or lack for a better work soviegin leader) or so far left wing they end in dictatorship (the poeple's choice is so emboided by one set of pople and eventually one person), which is the same end result (in my opinion)Quote:
Originally posted by Will_518@1 November 2003 - 17:16
You draw a circle? But there is quite a difference between extreme left wing and extreme right wing.
I must answer though I tried to resist, thank you biggles for taking a lighter tone with me :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@1 November 2003 - 22:38
I shall watch with interest also.
I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn't like to ask.
:unsure:
I do feel that interesting though Noname's signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.
A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK's case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.
Incidently, I think Nonames's avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin's observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.
For those who do know me, they would understand my intentions of both the avatar and sig and bouth quotes underneath them. Every one has there oen intentions but also I might add that those who do know me would know that it is not made for contreversy nor harm nor attention but a little smart ass'ness.
But I might add some Soviet posters instead of tanks.
Thank you.
@blackhatknight-f.y.i. if you look back to my very first post in this thread, you will see i'm not really participating in an intellectual discussion of communism/marxism/socialism, although some haven't noticed that yet(judging by the replies). I don't feel like arguing, so I'm just posting jokes or what not.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@1 November 2003 - 21:05
Quote:
my gripe is that you shouldn't spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend
Keep on sprukin'
@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won't recognize. :) :D :rolleyes: :) :)
the thing is....
I do know something about history, and I find a picture of Stalin quite offensive, even when it's meant ironically. I'm not going to ask someone to change his sig though, everyone to their own I say ;)
My father was a "spruker". He worked the east end of London in the 50's.Quote:
Originally posted by MediaSlayer@2 November 2003 - 14:35
@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won't recognize.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, Del Boy (Only Fools and Horses) was a spruker.
:)
Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:
Communism is not worth discussing, as it's success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.
Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".
Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.
Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.
The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.
Private property, because it means material independence from the State.
Socialism, and it's big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence. ;)
The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@2 November 2003 - 21:00
Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:
Communism is not worth discussing, as it's success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.
The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.
Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".
Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.
Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.
The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.
Private property, because it means material independence from the State.
Socialism, and it's big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence. ;)
The actually reason of the banning of religion came when Carl Marx first pointed out that the christian authority was failing and could no longer sustain power, He also did come to the conclusion that the world in it current state was not ready to accept a view which was full on religious or that which was different to christianity.
He did however come with an idea that would both give a certain amount of control and reliability. As I said he did indeed suggest communism but a Student of his said there was no reasonable way of implimenting it and that Socialism is the best route and easier for the people to swallow.
Communism in it self can be worked if it was done by trotski's idea,s of slowly introducing it... thats the way all radical changes and ideas have been accepted through first adding suger with the medicine then giving the real bitter stuff.
If communism was implimented fully to its origin then there is no reason to believe it wouldnt be succesful and as for it not worthy of debate as it is such a big part of our history, longer then WWII it is more then worthy of discussion, debate and study.
But the argument is not my sig nor the implimentation, let us make a new thread about those, one for morality and sigs in internet life ( :lol: ) and one for implementation of the Communism theory. For now the argument is the similarities, I move that some one makes a second version to this cutting out all my useless drivle and just add the appropriate remarks of this arguement.
Edit: Sig has been changed... I wonder who's going to complain next :rolleyes:
Quote:
Socialism derives it's viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it's habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.
You are talking about Communism here, im sure. Not Socialism.
Socialism was 1st tried as part of a Religious belief, and the movement in general doesnt attack any Religion, whereas Communism (State Capitalism) does.
The only way that you can say the "Family" is attacked, is that the well off have to contribute more towards those that cannot manage...well, they are families too. So some upper Middle Class family cant quite manage to send their Kids to University, so that some other Kids can eat. Oh, hang on....they can, as they would also be helped by the State, unless they want to get into a "Named" University and join the "Old School Tie" Brigade. Again, Communism (State Capitalism) appears to encourage what you are saying.
Private Property? Well, my father bought his council house at a discount from a Socialist Council, under a Socialist Government. That appears to be encouraging private property, not discouraging it. Of course under Communism (State Capitalism) the State owns all property...
(Before all the UK lot start saying "Right to Buy" was brought in by Thatcher... This was pre Thatcher, under a Labour Government..... "Right to Buy" was brought in to regulate what was already happening all over the country. It was the Tory councils, in general, that werent allowing people to buy their council houses prior to the RTB regulations)
I think this is another "Symantics" argument.
What the USA have called Communism, isnt. Its State Capitalism. The USSR ceased being a "Socialist State" in 1929. China, i cant ever remember being "Socialist".
As has been said again and again on this thread...... no true communist/marxist state has ever existed, and although the intent was to create "Socialist" states, the Communist States didnt do this.
.....however many European States have been, and still are "Socialist".
They have things like universal free Health Care, Education, and better unemployment benefits and retirement benefits than the USA, and most pay less overall taxation to achieve this.
What was your argument again?
Erm....this is so obviously crap, that there is no need to comment.Quote:
The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.
Considering how long ago the Stalin regime was, when the USSR "Fell" 90% of the population werent even alive when he was around...