View Full Version : Left Wing Club
I saw a conservative club in the backroom. I am politically left, so I am going to start a Left Wing Club. Politically, I favor socialism with a democratic platform.
All right!
If you think that you are a liberal, socialist, communist, pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, or simply leftist in political or economic views, please say "I want to be a member" and you are in!
I will keep a tally of the members every two days and post their names on the first thread!
The club welcomes all types of lefties (You do not have to support all left wing issues, as long as you have pro-left sympathies, you are more than welcome.)
Current Members:
poirot
IliaDN
KafirChobee
Gertgregoor
https://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8998/adavfahne4lk.jpg
https://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3278/che3mc.jpg
Gawain of Orkeny
07-17-2005, 23:57
Not again
This is the forth version of this club. I started a conservative , leiberal and moderate club a longtime ago. The only club that has never changed is the conservative one . Though we did have to rebuild it after we changed sites. The liberal and moderate clubs come and go but us conservatives are rock solid. We know what we believe in. ~;)
Uesugi Kenshin
07-18-2005, 00:50
I don't really think a club is needed, but whatever. So whats on the agenda?
The liberal and moderate clubs come and go but us conservatives are rock solid. We know what we believe in. ~;)
See, the little winking thing on the right changes this whole statement from a self-congratulating bit of smuggery (with a nice smear against everyone who isn't an avowed conservative) into a witty piece of "tweaking."
That was the intent, right? You should see how G is behaving in the Moderate Club. God forbid he allow anyone to have the last word. In any shape or form.
Unasked-for advice: If you want to maintain your club, and not begin it with four pages of all-about-Gawain, just stop responding to his slanders.
Oh, and I guess I should follow that with a wink smiley. Because that makes a sweeping slander witty.
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 02:51
Does this club support the original form of marxism or just the more tested versions no used in dictatorships ??
PanzerJaeger
07-18-2005, 03:24
Again.. :no:
bmolsson
07-18-2005, 03:36
Again.. :no:
Be positive. It might give us some really cheap consumer products with junk quality that we can import on borrowed money...... ~;)
Well, I'm a bit of a leftie, but I wouldn't have the first clue what these clubs are for... Do we discuss how our political preferences are superior, or do we just badmouth the old white men in the other club?
Thanks for the assistance.
The reason the various 'left wing' clubs have not survived is because I think most of the regular lefties on the board - including myself - find the idea of a separate club for a separate political ideology, on a public board meant to be for all, fairly laughable. Plus I personally think it flies in the face of what you would expect from lefties, leave the old mens, private entry clubs to those who traditionally are great at it - the elitist Conservatives. They love membership clubs because they love to divide people into boxes and live in such a society, we should be about the complete opposite.
Anyway, if there is a good discussion put forward, I will post a few things I guess - I post enough in the Conservative club anyway, always is amusing.
And Lem - we are all used to Gawain by now, normally you learn to just ignore him and a few of his fellow Conservatives.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-18-2005, 04:35
And Lem - we are all used to Gawain by now, normally you learn to just ignore him and a few of his fellow Conservatives.
OMG the nerve of some people. Jag How many times did I post in the Liberal club or proggressive circle. Less than ten. Meanwhile look at your own shamless gate crashing at our club. Youve posted there more than I have.
Gawain - I have no problem with you posting here, notice the rest of my post on what I think about clubs here.
But sometiems you do make some statements and lead threads to places you have to ignore.
King of Atlantis
07-18-2005, 04:39
~:grouphug:
Btw, this thread should get organized like our moderate club..
Gawain of Orkeny
07-18-2005, 04:42
But sometiems you do make some statements and lead threads to places you have to ignore.
Your getting all self rightous again and making inflamatory statements to boot.
First you insult me
And Lem - we are all used to Gawain by now, normally you learn to just ignore him
And then more un named people to boot
and a few of his fellow Conservatives.
I could say I learned to ignore you a longtime ago but that wouldnt be true or a proper statement to make. Also you should stop speaking for others.
Once in this thread I spoke for others and that was because the last time a lefty club came around, if I reemmber correctly, soem of their responses were silimar to what I stated.
You seem to have a problem with what I said about you - I didn't know I meant so much to you. ~:cool:
~:grouphug:
Btw, this thread should get organized like our moderate club..
Agreed. Also we should have someone forming a Conservative club on similar membership lines.
Have you guys not noticed the Conservative club already in existence?
Yes, But the First Post should contain a list of declared members.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-18-2005, 04:53
Once in this thread I spoke for others and that was because the last time a lefty club came around, if I reemmber correctly, soem of their responses were silimar to what I stated.
I never stuck my nose in there other than to congratulate you guys. There was no talk of ignore me there.I had something you seem to lack. Respect for the wishes of others. Though I must admit we were constantly telling eachother to ignore your taunts in our club.
You seem to have a problem with what I said about you
I had no problem with it but you must admit it was uncalled for and could be seen as trolling.
I didn't know I meant so much to you.
Well now you do. I really do respect you on most issues. You put much thought behind your posts though I think you are sometimes too smart for your own good.
Fair enough, I apologise Gawain, it could have been seen as trolling.
However I think the posts were fairly fair. :p
Yes, But the First Post should contain a list of declared members.
Who cares, let them run their imaginary club how they like. The fact remains it isn't a club when anyone can post there, just like this and any other thread cannot be considered a club of any sort, except an .org/backroom club.
Agreed JAG. Who am I to tell someone to run their club, so suggestion retracted. And of course postings should not be restricted as this would not allow new members and ideas. The "Moderates" does have some guidelines i.e. Declaration of "I am a Moderate"
PanzerJaeger
07-18-2005, 05:14
Gawain runs a tight shift in the Conservative Club. Its very organized, we have a president, sergeant at arms, and some other ranks.
The conservative club has remained in existence because people like Gawain, Redleg, X(however you spell the rest of it), and some others enjoy hashing out conservative policy.
Left wing issues seem to be more emotional most of the time(barring abortion), but right wing issues are based on logical determinations, therefore theres a lot that must be discussed.
Left wing issues seem to be more emotional most of the time
Oh dear...
~:handball:
All right!
If you think that you are a liberal, socialist, communist, pro-abortionist, pro-same sex marriage, or simply leftist in political or economic views, please say "I want to be a member" and you are in!
Azi Tohak
07-18-2005, 06:03
If anyone's read my posts here in the backroom, you all probably think I am a conservative...But I must say JAG has a good point (or three).
But I am pro-choice and pro-same sex marriages (I have too many gay friends to think to deny them the same rights I've got)...
Maybe I'm just confused... :embarassed:
Azi
Tachikaze
07-18-2005, 06:05
Left wing issues seem to be more emotional most of the time(barring abortion), but right wing issues are based on logical determinations, therefore theres a lot that must be discussed.
I guess emotions are leftist features, including: compassion, charity, altruism, egalitarianism, sensitivity to injustice, and love.
Good on you poirot. However, as I formed the "moderates" Club, I will not join this one, also I can not join the Conservative's either.
Good Luck with your club.
Well, I like some ideas in communism theiries, so you can sign me in.
PanzerJaeger
07-18-2005, 06:35
Tachikaze, good to see you still posting around these parts.
Yes, you are right, we put pragmatism above idealism. :bow:
I guess emotions are leftist features, including: compassion, charity, altruism, egalitarianism, sensitivity to injustice, and love.
Well said that very honourable man trying to hide in the corner - and unfortuantely for the whole tavern, doing a good job of it.
The left also speaks with more emotion because the causes which attract and appeal to us are far more important than profit margins.
Crazed Rabbit
07-18-2005, 07:17
Oh, and I guess I should follow that with a wink smiley. Because that makes a sweeping slander witty.
Plus I personally think it flies in the face of what you would expect from lefties, leave the old mens, private entry clubs to those who traditionally are great at it - the elitist Conservatives. They love membership clubs because they love to divide people into boxes and live in such a society, we should be about the complete opposite.
You forgot the ~;) JAG!
~;)
Crazed Rabbit
Good on you poirot. However, as I formed the "moderates" Club, I will not join this one, also I can not join the Conservative's either.
Good Luck with your club.
Thank you, and looking forward to support from moderates as well
rasoforos
07-18-2005, 11:30
Good to see that some things havent changed....
...well it isnt good, its rather bad actually
Anyhows...here is what i think:
If somehow you are mad enough NOT to want to look like, talk like and build a golden shrine to Nixon or Kissinger it doesnt necessarily make you left-wing. Its not only the left-wing who is opposed to what american conservatism is , the whole bloody world is opposed to it. Based on that assumption we should have a 'rest of the planet' club....and then things would get really really silly ~D
The 2 Eurocents from a socially left-wing and economicaly right-wing person...
It would be cool, if someone will explain the main idea\purpose of this club ...
Gawain of Orkeny
07-18-2005, 14:24
Yes, But the First Post should contain a list of declared members.
How can ther first post contain a list of declared members when you dont have any yet? By the way the Conservative club was the only onw with a published list of members and yes it was on the first page and done from the start. It also has a premise which I still havent seen fron your organisation. You are no where near as organised as we are. Thats why you are hearing this.
It would be cool, if someone will explain the main idea\purpose of this club ...
Its pretty simple they saw the conservative club and thought hey lets start our own without even knowing why the conservative club exists.
KukriKhan
07-18-2005, 14:28
Laurel and Hardy
Abbott and Costello
Asterix and Oberlix
Gawain and JAG
It true: the classics are the best. :book:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-18-2005, 15:13
:bow:
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-18-2005, 19:53
I personally think it flies in the face of what you would expect from lefties, leave the old mens, private entry clubs to those who traditionally are great at it - the elitist Conservatives.
Totaly agree! :bow:
I'm a left-winger also. In my opinion we don't need memberships and such dividing things. We could post here, set our perspective and keep this thread alive. The conservatives and moderates could also post. We can't refuse this. We could gain from their perspective and overcome our big defect, fragmentation.
Anyway, long live the LWC! ~:grouphug: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
Totaly agree! :bow:
I'm a left-winger also. In my opinion we don't need memberships and such dividing things. We could post here, set our perspective and keep this thread alive. The conservatives and moderates could also post. We can't refuse this. We could gain from their perspective and overcome our big defect, fragmentation.
Anyway, long live the LWC! ~:grouphug: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:
Do you mind if I add you to the membership list? We are still in the process of organizing. The club is still in its infant state. I am welcome to any suggestions, comments, or criticism.
First - if it is important for you - can start membershp list right now and then add there with a help of "Edit" function.
Second - WHAT IS GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS CLUB?
Tachikaze
07-19-2005, 06:54
Tachikaze, good to see you still posting around these parts.
Yes, you are right, we put pragmatism above idealism. :bow:
I didn't realize I was missed. Makes me feel, *sniff* like part of a family. ~:grouphug:
Actually, I haven't been absent, just posting more nonpolicial stuff (which takes less thinking time) in the Frontroom.
The pragmatism vs. idealism issue is an interesting one. Actually, I feel that both sides have their areas of pragmatism and idealism.
To me, it's an odd paradox, however. There is a greater ratio of Christians among the Right (let me know if I'm wrong), yet, the Left seems to be guided more by a kind of spirituality, often alluded to as "idealism" by the right. There is a kind of faith, even among those who are self-proclaimed atheists, that the Right doesn't seem to share.
These feelings are just vague notions I get when I read posts in this forum. I can't even specify what the "faith" is in. I just see it as a common thread through the messages. I would suggest that they may be sensitive to what the Chinese call tao, or the flow of the universe/nature. They know in their hearts what's right, and it guides them in their decisions. They feel imbalance, a shift too far in one direction that leads to instability.
This is not to say they aren't pragmatic or logical. In fact, I would say the Left is teeming with analytical types who philosophize about their views. When leftists argue against the evils of excessive capitalism, they most often explain their views in terms of the cause-and-effect of alienating large proportions of society by creating a huge imbalance of haves and have-nots. By creating a world of those who control wealth and those who serve them for subsistence.
That sounds like a pragmatic concern to me.
First - if it is important for you - can start membershp list right now and then add there with a help of "Edit" function.
Second - WHAT IS GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS CLUB?
You have already been added to the list in the first thread. The general purpose of this club is to provide a balance against conservatism and let the world know that liberals and lefties still flourish. It is a place where comrades and comrades can join hands.
Many of you argued against organized liberalism. I disagree. The fragmentation among liberal ranks in the U.S. has resulted in the likes of Bush taking power in the White House.
Ressurection
P.S. We won't let this thread die ...
Oops ... somebody is coming maybe the angry mod ... I would better hide :toilet:
scooter_the_shooter
07-19-2005, 15:55
Am I left wing enough ~:joker: Just joking good luck with your club. ONe thing so i am not just spamming your club.
Many of you argued against organized liberalism. I disagree. The fragmentation among liberal ranks in the U.S. has resulted in the likes of Bush taking power in the White House.
We voted bush for a few reasons.
1 you don't switch leaders in the middle of war
2 America does not want a liberal the voting proved that
PanzerJaeger
07-19-2005, 19:14
The pragmatism vs. idealism issue is an interesting one. Actually, I feel that both sides have their areas of pragmatism and idealism.
To me, it's an odd paradox, however. There is a greater ratio of Christians among the Right (let me know if I'm wrong), yet, the Left seems to be guided more by a kind of spirituality, often alluded to as "idealism" by the right. There is a kind of faith, even among those who are self-proclaimed atheists, that the Right doesn't seem to share.
These feelings are just vague notions I get when I read posts in this forum. I can't even specify what the "faith" is in. I just see it as a common thread through the messages. I would suggest that they may be sensitive to what the Chinese call tao, or the flow of the universe/nature. They know in their hearts what's right, and it guides them in their decisions. They feel imbalance, a shift too far in one direction that leads to instability.
This is not to say they aren't pragmatic or logical. In fact, I would say the Left is teeming with analytical types who philosophize about their views. When leftists argue against the evils of excessive capitalism, they most often explain their views in terms of the cause-and-effect of alienating large proportions of society by creating a huge imbalance of haves and have-nots. By creating a world of those who control wealth and those who serve them for subsistence.
That sounds like a pragmatic concern to me.
Possibly the faith you speak of is humanism.
Conservatives are not faithless however. On issues like abortion, even with non-Christians there is a strong sense of moral superiority. Whether thats true is opinion of course.
Tachikaze
07-20-2005, 07:47
Possibly the faith you speak of is humanism.
Perhaps. Gotta think about that.
Demon of Light
07-20-2005, 11:07
A long, long time ago I actually started a thread for this sort of club. I did so after I noticed that Gawain's thread was being treated with suspicion and a general lack of participation. Guess what though? The new thread generally suffered from a lack of participation. So much the better if you can keep this going but previous attempts have been plagued by an overall lack of interest.
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 15:31
I have a question for all you lefties here. What are your opinions on gun control??? I have yet to find a pro gun liberal. My search continues. ~:cheers:(us right wingers cant be the only pro gun folks out there)
I have a question for all you lefties here. What are your opinions on gun control??? I have yet to find a pro gun liberal. My search continues. ~:cheers:(us right wingers cant be the only pro gun folks out there)
Of their must be a law against having personal weapons because:
1.There is no use of guns in the ideal society;
2.If the society is not ideal - the guns might be used for bad purposes;
3.And don't tell me about protecting yourself with a gun ( if you are a GOOD guy ), those things are generaly used by BAD guys.
:bow:
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 15:44
Wouldn't an ideal society be able to trust its people with guns.
Dont give me that bs about bad guys having them. 1 in 3 houses in the US has
a gun. And thousands of normal people carry them every day for defence in my country.
any way are any lefties pro gun out there??
Franconicus
07-20-2005, 15:44
If the left ones have weapons they usually use them to try to create an ideal society (it usually fails) and fight the right wingers. ~:cool:
Franconicus
07-20-2005, 15:46
Wouldn't an ideal society be able to trust its people with gun.
Dont give me that bs about bad guys having them. 1 in 3 houses in the US has
a gun. ANd thousands of normal people carry them every day for defence in my country.
any way are any lefties pro gun out there??
I once read that one of seven or one of three male Americans is or was in jail. I cannot remember the number but it was frightening high.
It is inline with your and IliaDn's posts. ~:cool:
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 15:47
Does anyone know a lefty who is pro gun.
Does anyone know a lefty who is pro gun.
And how will you use a gun?
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 15:52
Gun owners are law abiding people owning one makes them one because. You cant have felony and own a gun. And guns used in crimes are usually stolen or from the black market illegally.
And to prove there are good people with guns i will show you some sites. (please dont join and cause hell for these people though) They just like to talk about guns not argue. (there is a political section though)
i will only post them if you promise no to join there and go piss everyone off.
I go target shooting and hunting. i am not some killer lurking in the shadows with an ar15 :dizzy2:
Ser Clegane
07-20-2005, 15:54
Does anyone know a lefty who is pro gun.
Depends how you define "lefty" I would say. Ichi seems to "left" of a lot of the Conservative Club guys and he is generally "pro gun" (although "pro gun" seems to be an as generic trem as "lefty").
I think you yourself consider Demonarchangel as being "left" and IIRC he is as pro gun as a person can get.
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 15:56
what ever happened to deamon i have not seen him on here for a long time.
Ser Clegane
07-20-2005, 15:56
what ever happened to deamon i have not seen him on here for a long time.
AFAIK he is currently here in Germany for a kind of summer job.
Gun owners are law abiding people owning one makes them one because. You cant have felony and own a gun. And guns used in crimes are usually stolen or from the black market illegally.
And to prove there are good people with guns i will show you some sites. (please dont join and cause hell for these people though) They just like to talk about guns not argue. (there is a political section though)
i will only post them if you promise no to join there and go piss everyone off.
I go target shooting and hunting. i am not some killer lurking in the shadows with an ar15 :dizzy2:
Of course I won't be a troublemaker. :bow:
But as for my question what will you do if someone attack you ( with fists ) in the street?
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 16:04
Shoot them. If you carry a gun though by law... if some one comes after you, like that, you have to run away only if they cornered me could i shoot them. So it depends on how they attacked.
and here they are
check the library at the firing line
http://thefiringline.com/
http://thehighroad.org/
IMHO it is better to beat them causing less damage.
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 16:08
There is a chance of them getting my gun if i do that.
Ser Clegane
07-20-2005, 16:10
Please guys - if you want to start a discussion on guns, do so in the dedicated threads like in this one (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=847214#post847214) .
No reason to turn this one into a new gun discussion.
Thanks :bow:
Ser Clegane
scooter_the_shooter
07-20-2005, 16:13
ok i will shut up now :bow:
Franconicus
07-20-2005, 16:20
First real discussion in the Left Wing Club is about guns. Oh Baby it's a wild world ~:confused:
The funniest thing is that half of the official members participated in it ( see the members list on the first page ).
LOL! You can be a member of the Left Wing Club if you are in general politically left. In other words, you do not have to support every left wing issue. And all are welcome to post!
Just one question:
Do you consider communism to be possible>
Franconicus
07-21-2005, 16:08
What do you mean. Everybody here has his own definition about communism. I like William Morris (News from Nowhere) most!
What do you mean. Everybody here has his own definition about communism. I like William Morris (News from Nowhere) most!
Utopic.
Quote: "Socialism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.
It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.
Socialism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens those that are successful with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.
As Europe becomes more socialist you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system."
No such things were normal in the USSr, or in the nowadays China.
PanzerJaeger
07-21-2005, 17:54
No such things were normal in the USSr, or in the nowadays China.
The things I stated were present in communist Russia.
Russia's economy was driven into the ground and its culture was completely changed. There was a great degree of incompetence and lazyness on the part of many Russians, as there was very little incentive to do any work - unless they had the misfortune of having their life threatened.
I dont know if China could be regarded as a socialist country - it was a stretch to compare the USSR, but it did have many socialist policies.
In any event, Chinas ancient culture was by and large destroyed and the cultural revolution was a disaster. And only as China has begun to embrace capitolist ideas has its economy started to grow.
The things I stated were present in communist Russia.
Russia's economy was driven into the ground and its culture was completely changed. There was a great degree of incompetence and lazyness on the part of many Russians, as there was very little incentive to do any work - unless they had the misfortune of having their life threatened.
Well than I must admit you don't know history of my country:
1. There was not any rise of "unemployment" ( more than that yhere was a raise of employment ( correct word? ) during 45-70)
2. As for incompetence and lazyness those began in 80-90.
Do you know that the USSR was the firet country which stopped using product cards after WW II?
Franconicus
07-22-2005, 08:22
What would you say about this statement:
"Capitalism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.
It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.
Capitalism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens the poor with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.
As Europe becomes more capitalistic you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system."
PanzerJaeger
07-22-2005, 15:37
Well than I must admit you don't know history of my country:
1. There was not any rise of "unemployment" ( more than that yhere was a raise of employment ( correct word? ) during 45-70)
2. As for incompetence and lazyness those began in 80-90.
Do you know that the USSR was the firet country which stopped using product cards after WW II?
A rise in employment doesnt automatically correlate with a rise in productivity. A comparison of American companies and Russian government run industry would show the merits of capitolism.
Also you didnt address my other two points. Russia's economy could not survive under extreme socialism and the culture of Russia was completely changed by the communist years. (whether thats a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant.)
What would you say about this statement:
"Capitalism in all its form is a dangerous ideology that should be countered at all times.
It not only endangers the wealth and economy of nations, but the cultural makeup as well.
Capitalism breeds dependency, irresponsibility, and laziness and threatens the poor with taxes and laws aimed at social engineering.
As Europe becomes more capitalistic you will see unemployment rise, economies stagnate, and an ever increasingly entrenched class system."
I would say its simply an incorrect assessment. Where ever free market capitolism has been introduced, there has been a sharp improvement in the economy standard of living.
Socialism, taken to its extremes, tanks an economy.
Franconicus
07-22-2005, 15:55
Panzer,
I have an American collegue. Once he told me about his grandfather. He was working for a mining company in the mountains somewhere at the eastcoast. There was only one way to get to the mines, a railway, built and owned by the company. There was only one way to live, in the houses of the company. You could only buy in the company stores and the company sold you also your equipment. The company gave you not money but cards to pay at the company stores. He had to borrow money to buy the equipment and he was never able to pay everything back.
I would call this capitalism. But it did not increase the standard of living at least not for the workers. And created dependency.
Do not get me wrong. I am not talking about the US as it is today. I am talking about capitalism.
PanzerJaeger
07-22-2005, 16:22
Yes, unfortunately those company towns were a big problem in the height of the coal mining industry.
However, that is not capitolism, but a very unique subversion of it. As America has shown, such things are not tolerated for long in a responsible capitolist country.
Any economic structure can be taken advantage of. What is telling is that America has been able to overcome the shortfalls of capitolism and continue to be successful, whereas Russia could not make socialism work.
KafirChobee
07-23-2005, 16:42
OK, sign me up. As long as you don't mind someone who has been called a loon (lunacy), liberal scumbag, pinko traitor, nigerlover, softminded twit ..... on and on by our conservative breathern.
Topic? I own a few, 12 gauge Winchester pump (hunting), AK47 (heavy barrel, sniper set up - for popping caps, fun), an AR-15, and a small caliber hand gun (22) for killing vermin (armadillas and such that like to burrow beneath the foundation of my home).
In Florida it is now legal (Jeb signed the Bill months ago) to shoot (and kill) anyone that you feel threatened by. I was appalled by the outlandishness of such a bill, (it was proposed to get one person off of being charged with the murder of his neighbor). Now, we can all legally murder our neighbors as long as we can get a few others to agree the offending neighbor was a threat. Isn't it a wonderful idea? Passing laws that support murder.
:balloon2:
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 00:29
So if a man pulls a knife says "I am gonna get you" you dont think you should be allowed to shoot him??? where did you come up with this logic :dizz :
Gawain of Orkeny
07-24-2005, 00:43
Panzer,
I have an American collegue. Once he told me about his grandfather. He was working for a mining company in the mountains somewhere at the eastcoast. There was only one way to get to the mines, a railway, built and owned by the company. There was only one way to live, in the houses of the company. You could only buy in the company stores and the company sold you also your equipment. The company gave you not money but cards to pay at the company stores. He had to borrow money to buy the equipment and he was never able to pay everything back.
I would call this capitalism. But it did not increase the standard of living at least not for the workers. And created dependency.
Do not get me wrong. I am not talking about the US as it is today. I am talking about capitalism.
Sounds more like communism to me to be sure. "I lost my soul to the company store". I love that song.
King of Atlantis
07-24-2005, 05:40
I would call this capitalism. But it did not increase the standard of living at least not for the workers.
Doesnt sound like capitalism at all. Capitalism is about competition. It doesn't sound like in this town there was any competition as everything was owend by the company.
So if a man pulls a knife says "I am gonna get you" you dont think you should be allowed to shoot him??? where did you come up with this logic :dizz :
No.. You inform the authorities and let them sort it out. You shouldn't go around shooting everyone you disagree with / argue with / get threatened by. That is vigilante justice of which we thought we got rid of in western society centuries ago. It seems however there is an increasing streak in the US for retributive justice done by citizens themselves, as well as citizens thinking they are judge, jury and prosecutor.
Well count me in aswell, I think that on most points I'm left ( a socialist i think) but not on all topics.
Edit: about the gun topic, I'm against guns because I don't think you need one, it will only make things worst.
for example: I've seen a program about this on belgium telly, I can't remeber the numbers but I do know that:
-family tragedies (that's what we call them in Belgium; you know a man kills his children and wife and commits suicide) happen more in families with guns.
this is the same for normal suicides.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-24-2005, 13:10
No.. You inform the authorities and let them sort it out.
Is that before or after he slits your throat? ~:confused:
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 13:19
No.. You inform the authorities and let them sort it out. You shouldn't go around shooting everyone you disagree with / argue with / get threatened by. That is vigilante justice of which we thought we got rid of in western society centuries ago. It seems however there is an increasing streak in the US for retributive justice done by citizens themselves, as well as citizens thinking they are judge, jury and prosecutor.
So if you are carrying a gun (you are allowed in most states in america) A mugger phyco etc has a knife says "i am gonna get you"and comes after you. You dont shoot.
wth are you gonna do, call 911 and wait 15 minutes. I am sure he will sit on the side walk and wait for the police :help:
And it would be best for society if he was dead or seriously wounded because.... If he does it to you and gets away with it, he will do it again.
Is that before or after he slits your throat? ~:confused:
most don't if you act cautious and think before you act.
Perhaps some will but allowing guns will make it also much easier for them.
btw: most criminals would attack you before you know what the hell happend so you can't use your gun anyway.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 13:24
No you cant have a felony and own guns. So no must wouln't. If you outlaw them there will still be some and only criminals would want them. So its best that we let us decent people have them.
All i want to do is go hunting and target shooting. But the government keeps passing all these laws and bans etc. Most gun owners are law abiding people. But they wont leave us the hell alone.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-24-2005, 14:26
most don't if you act cautious and think before you act.
Maybe the guys a physco and just wants to kill you. Then what? You cant reason with everyone. Sometimes it comes down to you or them. Ill take me and my gun everytime thank you. One day liberals will return to living in the real world.
No you cant have a felony and own guns. So no must wouln't. If you outlaw them there will still be some and only criminals would want them. So its best that we let us decent people have them.
All i want to do is go hunting and target shooting. But the government keeps passing all these laws and bans etc. Most gun owners are law abiding people. But they wont leave us the hell alone.
When guns are outlawed only crimanals and the police would have them, and it will be allot more difficult for criminals to get them. Just let the police do the crimefighting and the judge dicide the punishments.
Here you can own a gun and go target shooting (there is a shooting club in my neighbourhood) but you can't take your gun to your house. And you can go hunting with hail guns (altough there isn't much to shoot).
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 16:55
I am a decent person i have done nothing wrong. I will NOT let them take my property. When they come to take them they can have the bullets first. Alot of americans feel this way.
Maybe the guys a physco and just wants to kill you. Then what? You cant reason with everyone. Sometimes it comes down to you or them. Ill take me and my gun everytime thank you. One day liberals will return to living in the real world.
well a psyco or not, psychos aren't stupid, I bet they'll ambush you or attack you from behind BEFORE you'll be able to shoot them. They don't come right to you and say: hello I am going to shoot within 1 minut starting from...now.
No they do so by surprise. And then they pick your gun to.
So they will start of with a knife and because of you, woohoo, they have a knife.
Ser Clegane
07-24-2005, 17:52
When they come to take them they can have the bullets first. Alot of americans feel this way.
Quite frankly and IMHO, people with that mindset lack the maturity to own a gun
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 17:53
If you are afraid of guns thats not our problem don't by one.
Why cleange because they are willing to defend their constitutional rights. They wont let the government over step their boundaries. Many people think like me here
http://thefiringline.com/
I am a decent person i have done nothing wrong. I will NOT let them take my property. When they come to take them they can have the bullets first. Alot of americans feel this way.
Yes we wouldn't doubt that but alot of other americans don't feel that way.( no, not only the bandits)
you can always buy an alarm call the police or hire security guys (with no guns, or at least no deadly guns)
Here you can own a gun and go target shooting (there is a shooting club in my neighbourhood) but you can't take your gun to your house. And you can go hunting with hail guns (altough there isn't much to shoot).
I wouldn't mind this would you. I wouldn't even mind nondeadly(is this a word???) guns to scare of intruders.
And there's also the suicide problem, the guy wich has the gun can be psycho too and ofcourse you can always shoot somebody out of mistake (thinking he's a thief while he wasn't, or that "terrorsist" from london. if trained policemen can make such a fault why wouldn't you?)
anyway, am I in?
srry for bad English
I wouldn't mind this would you. We speak the same language but this I connot understand ~;)
Ser Clegane
07-24-2005, 18:04
Why cleange because they are willing to defend their constitutional rights. They wont let the government over step their boundaries. Many people think like me here
http://thefiringline.com/
Sorry, but adolescents who say that they would rather kill somebody than having taken their favourite toy away are not really the type of folks I would like to give a deadly weapon to.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 18:07
If they ban them that takes away our constitutional right. And once they take one that open the doors to take others. Look act what the patriot act did.
Guns are only as dangerous as the person you give them too.
At least browse the site some. Keep an open mind to it. When the lefties post some hippy site i at least look at it a little.
Ser Clegane
07-24-2005, 18:12
If they ban them that takes away our constitutional right.
If you feel that your constitutional rights are infringed, people in most democratic countries tend to take another approaches than a fight to the death.
It is exactly this "from-my-dead-hands" mindset that makes a lot of people think that gun ownership might better be a bit more regulated.
Guns are only as dangerous as the person you give them too.
I think that's what I was saying.
If they ban them that takes away our constitutional right. And once they take one that open the doors to take others. Look act what the patriot act did.
If they would ban them, can´t they change the constiution. Or isn't that posible in the US? ~:confused: But if they did that then wouldn't take away your constitutional right because it isn't in the constition anymore so you wouldnt have to fight the government ~:)
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 18:19
If they changed the constitution to take it away it is still taking it away. Most americans want the constitution to stay the same. Thats why we dont like activist judges.
And if they can change the second. then they can change the first which is even more important.
If they ban them there won't be a revouloution or anything. Most people will just not turn them and keep them.
scooter_the_shooter
07-24-2005, 18:32
well i am not even a lefty so i shouldnt even be posting here so this is my last one.
good luck with the club ~:cheers:
The Stranger
07-24-2005, 20:02
hehehehehe not so fast you Ceasar.............
Franconicus
07-25-2005, 08:10
Utopic.
You know William Morris?
Franconicus
07-25-2005, 08:14
Yes, unfortunately those company towns were a big problem in the height of the coal mining industry.
However, that is not capitolism, but a very unique subversion of it. As America has shown, such things are not tolerated for long in a responsible capitolist country.
Any economic structure can be taken advantage of. What is telling is that America has been able to overcome the shortfalls of capitolism and continue to be successful, whereas Russia could not make socialism work.
Right. But I talk about pure cap and pure com. My example was pure capitalsim and I think we agree it was bad. The US overcame it and that shows that it doesn't have pure cap. ~;)
What you had in the USSR was not pure com. You know to me it wasn't com at all.
Franconicus
07-25-2005, 08:16
Doesnt sound like capitalism at all. Capitalism is about competition. It doesn't sound like in this town there was any competition as everything was owend by the company.
No it isn't. As soon as one is strong enough competition is gone.
Franconicus
07-25-2005, 08:20
I am a decent person i have done nothing wrong. I will NOT let them take my property. When they come to take them they can have the bullets first. Alot of americans feel this way.
~D ~D ~D ~D
Anotherone who thinks that a gun makes a man!
~D ~D ~D ~D
Anotherone who thinks that a gun makes a man!
~:cheers:
scooter_the_shooter
07-25-2005, 19:46
When did I say that? Just because I don’t want the government to come onto My property and take MY things I think "gun makes a man" how the hell did you come up with that ~;)
I don’t run around in camo pretending to be Rambo at the shooting range ~D
You lefties are crazy you claim you want small government but then you want more taxes and a number of things banned..... Oh yeah that a real free society ~:.
Quit watching michael moore and learn some real facts.
And in a civilized society people should be trust worthy enough to own a firearm.
................
Guns do NOT kill people.
Laws need to be passed that go after those who try to do the killing.
............
This is my last post here for real this time ~:cheers:
Azi Tohak
07-25-2005, 23:11
No, guns don't make a man. Standing up for what you think is right is what makes you a man. I have no more tolerance for a threat than ceasar010 does. If ceasar010 thinks that he has a right to weapons, then he will defend that right. As soon as he is old enough.
You have no right to take that away.
Azi
Gawain of Orkeny
07-25-2005, 23:48
"Grabs Azi Tohak and ceasar010 by their ears and drags them back to the Conservative Club" Sorry for the interuption here. Lets see how long this converstation lasts without some rednecks coming in here and messin up the place. ~D
Guns don't only make a man, they make up for small penis sizes as well! ~D
scooter_the_shooter
07-26-2005, 01:00
Jag this says alot about you anti gun people... read ALL of it ~:cheers:
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
dont even respond to this until you read it.
I have no interest in reading all that boring material, I am sure it will shorten my life at least 5 years if I even attempt it. ~:cool:
scooter_the_shooter
07-26-2005, 01:19
Jag if you read that i will read some of that commie garbage of equal size. ~:) Come on post some of that propoganda.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
Read that, it isn't anything to do with the left, it is a philosophical book, but I reckon it would help your outlook a lot.
Read that, then i'll consider it, eh?
Oh and nice to see you at this club again, for your 5th 'last post'. ~D
scooter_the_shooter
07-26-2005, 03:13
I cant keep having "last post" here so if you want to continue this do it through pms.
And when you say you will "consider" reading what i posted that means you better read it ~D
PS I am about 1/3 to 1/2 through that thing and so far the only part I like is this.
Certainly, many people think that in what they are doing they commit no one but themselves to anything: and if you ask them, “What would happen if everyone did so?” they shrug their shoulders and reply, “Everyone does not do so.” But in truth, one ought always to ask oneself what would happen if everyone did as one is doing; nor can one escape from that disturbing thought except by a kind of self-deception. The man who lies in self-excuse, by saying “Everyone will not do it” must be ill at ease in his conscience, for the act of lying implies the universal value which it denies.
But the whole comparing god to a paper knife I didn't like.
He doesn't really compare God to a paperknife, he uses both in an example about what he means by what he previously said. It is a good example as well.
Franconicus
07-26-2005, 07:54
When did I say that? Just because I don’t want the government to come onto My property and take MY things I think "gun makes a man" how the hell did you come up with that ~;)
I don’t run around in camo pretending to be Rambo at the shooting range ~D
You lefties are crazy you claim you want small government but then you want more taxes and a number of things banned..... Oh yeah that a real free society ~:.
Quit watching michael moore and learn some real facts.
And in a civilized society people should be trust worthy enough to own a firearm.
................
Guns do NOT kill people.
Laws need to be passed that go after those who try to do the killing.
............
This is my last post here for real this time ~:cheers:
What I was trying to say is that it takes more than a gun to kill a man. So if someones want to rob you and he has a knife and you have a gun you may end dead. And you may wish you hadn't a gun!
It is a pitty that you do not want to post here anymore. That is what the LWC is about. Come in, find a singel confused Neo Con, shoot your arguments at him, see him crap his gun and enjoy your day ~D
no don't go Ceasar010!!!! don't!! ~;)
just a question but are all neocons pro-gun?
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-26-2005, 20:41
just a question but are pro-WMD?
Yes! I'm a pro-WMD! I have a various collection of disease WMD anthrax, Ebola, Bubonic Plague, Cholera, Tularemia, Brucellosis, Q fever, Machupo, VEE, and Smallpox!
I have also naturally-occurring toxins, including Ricin, SEB, Botulism Toxin, and many Mycotoxins!
My favorites are the chemicals! I have collected already Sarin, VX, Hydrogen cyanide, Mustard gas, Lewisite and Phosgene!
I'm looking forward to complete my collection with a hydrogen bomb! This is my dream from childhood!
Banning of WMDs is crazy!
You see:
I don’t run around in cities pretending to be Osama at the shooting range ~D
Also:
I am a decent person i have done nothing wrong.
Try understand that simply:
All i want to do is a collection . But the government keeps passing all these laws and bans etc.
For you crazy lefties:
If you are afraid of WMD thats not our problem don't by one.
WMD are only as dangerous as the person you give them too.
And WMD used in crimes are usually stolen or from the black market illegally.
Quit watching michael moore and learn some real facts.
And for those who still argue, I will conclude that:
in a civilized society people should be trust worthy enough to own WMDs.
PS
Sorry Ceasar010 I couldn't resist! ~D Nothing personal so!
Fellow lefties have fun and think!!! ~:cheers:
Kagemusha
07-26-2005, 20:59
Are you for real that you have Sarin and VX nerve gas?I hope you are joking,but If you are not, you just told us that you are criminal.
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-26-2005, 21:12
f you are not, you just told us that you are criminal. :stunned: :stunned: :stunned:
Sorry but you didn't see the irony here!!!
Read previous posts!
Kagemusha
07-26-2005, 21:15
Sorry. :bow: Its just my lowsy sense of humour.I dont interfere your conversation furthermore. :bow:
PyrrhusofEpirus
07-26-2005, 21:34
Apology accepted!
Have a nice day! ~:cheers:
Kagemusha
07-26-2005, 21:35
Apology accepted!
Have a nice day! ~:cheers:
You too! ~:cheers:
Cold beer for the new club members.
~:cheers:
just a question but are pro-WMD?
Yes! I'm a pro-WMD! I have a various collection of disease WMD anthrax, Ebola, Bubonic Plague, Cholera, Tularemia, Brucellosis, Q fever, Machupo, VEE, and Smallpox!
I have also naturally-occurring toxins, including Ricin, SEB, Botulism Toxin, and many Mycotoxins!
My favorites are the chemicals! I have collected already Sarin, VX, Hydrogen cyanide, Mustard gas, Lewisite and Phosgene!
I'm looking forward to complete my collection with a hydrogen bomb! This is my dream from childhood!
Banning of WMDs is crazy!
You see:
I don’t run around in cities pretending to be Osama at the shooting range ~D
Also:
I am a decent person i have done nothing wrong.
Try understand that simply:
All i want to do is a collection . But the government keeps passing all these laws and bans etc.
For you crazy lefties:
If you are afraid of WMD thats not our problem don't by one.
WMD are only as dangerous as the person you give them too.
And WMD used in crimes are usually stolen or from the black market illegally.
Quit watching michael moore and learn some real facts.
And for those who still argue, I will conclude that:
in a civilized society people should be trust worthy enough to own WMDs.
PS
Sorry Ceasar010 I couldn't resist! ~D Nothing personal so!
Fellow lefties have fun and think!!! ~:cheers:
Not irony at all but hyperbole. Irony is defined as
Irony: the discrepancy between what is said and what is meant, what is said and what is done, what is expected or intended and what happens, what is meant or said and what others understand. Sometimes irony is classified into types: in situational irony, expectations aroused by a situation are reversed; in cosmic irony or the irony of fate, misfortune is the result of fate, chance, or God; in dramatic irony. the audience knows more than the characters in the play, so that words and action have additional meaning for the audience; Socractic irony is named after Socrates' teaching method, whereby he assumes ignorance and openness to opposing points of view which turn out to be (he shows them to be) foolish. Click here for examples of irony.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/lit_term.html
hyperbole is defined as
a figure of speech that is an intentional exaggeration for emphasis or comic effect. Hyperbole is common in love poetry, in which it is used to convey the lover's intense admiration for his beloved. ...
http://www.britannica.com/search?query=hyperbole&submit=Find&source=MWTEXT
And you liberials claim to be thinkers. Yea right.
Guess what that use of language is.
Al Khalifah
07-28-2005, 15:23
.... so much for the left wing club then.
Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 15:26
Why is it that conservatives are so many and so loud in the backroom? ~:confused:
It get's frustrating. I now decree that this will be the therad to bash them relentlessly. With Ser Clegane's permission of course. :bow: ~;)
Franconicus
07-28-2005, 15:30
God loves idiots! That's why he made so many of them ~D ~D ~D
Just kidding! There are so many cons because they haven't reached the lefties' intellect so far. That is no reason to bash them. Patience! Teach them if they ask you to.
And they are so loud because they have to compensate their ignorance. ~;)
God loves idiots! That's why he made so many of them ~D ~D ~D
Just kidding! There are so many cons because they haven't reached the lefties' intellect so far. That is no reason to bash them. Patience! Teach them if they ask you to.
And they are so loud because they have to compensate their ignorance. ~;)
~:cool:
P.S. ~:cheers:
Ser Clegane
07-28-2005, 16:00
I now decree that this will be the therad to bash them relentlessly. With Ser Clegane's permission of course. :bow: ~;)
Permission officially denied :stare:
Byzantine Prince
07-28-2005, 16:46
There are so many cons because they haven't reached the lefties' intellect so far.
Agreed.
And they are so loud because they have to compensate their ignorance.
Agreed.
Permission officially denied
Is it ok if I just agree with other people's bashes? And then maybe add some little hited ones of my own? ~D
The forum is getting filled with more and more Conservatives - but the interesting thing is most of them are very young and very Christian. Says a lot about the whole ideology really.
Anyway, I am being horribly stereotypical and I apologise, but still it is quite true. :book:
The forum is getting filled with more and more Conservatives - but the interesting thing is most of them are very young and very Christian. Says a lot about the whole ideology really.
Maybe it says more about the failures of the "left wing" mentality in upholding their basic idealogical values. It could because of instead of presenting logical and insightful public policy - the "Left Wing" has resorted to personal attacks on people who disagree with them and relaying solely on emotional appeal to bring about their desired politicial endstate.
It could also because of the percieved failure of communism and socialism with the collaspe of the Soviet Union.
Anyway, I am being horribly stereotypical and I apologise, but still it is quite true. :book:
True in what way? The only part you got right is that you made a horrible stereotype. Sterotypes often are based upon an individual's own inablity to cope with another's viewpoint. And is a form of intolerance to another's idea.
[sarcasm on] Fine outstanding models of "liberial" thinking that you all are being.[sarcasm off]
It could because of instead of presenting logical and insightful public policy - the "Left Wing" has resorted to personal attacks on people who disagree with them and relaying solely on emotional appeal to bring about their desired politicial endstate.
I assure you that at least 25% of the LWC members have nothing in common with those attacks.
I assure you that at least 25% of the LWC members have nothing in common with those attacks.
Oh I believe that - however it doesn't distract from my point - which is in response to Jag's attempt at sterotyping and an observation of his previous posting behavior. That and a few other individuals.
But then I am the pot calling the kettle black myself.
Since when has personal attacks been ideologically pigeon holed? That is like saying only those who want war masterbate.... Just doesn't make sense.
Since when has personal attacks been ideologically pigeon holed? That is like saying only those who want war masterbate.... Just doesn't make sense.
Makes more sense then you seem to think. By attacking others directly instead of attacking their ideas you are not addressing the issue or the politics of the idea - you are instead attacking only the individual. Many that would be consider "left wing" perform just this tactic when attempting to demonize or otherwise discredit someone because of thier politicial believes. (now the right is not innocent of this tactic either - but the "left wing," has always done this - and its gotten worse.
A prime examble would be the latest attack on Blair blaming the bombings in London on him.
Then there is the attacks on Blair being a lapdog to President Bush.
The attacks not on President Bush policies and tactics - but on his person.
But like I said the right is not innocent either - for instance the Personal attacks on Chirac and Chavez.
And other such personal attacks on people in politics. Many that are "left wing" attack not the policy - but the individual. And its not "pigeon holing" the concept - its showing the weakness of the "left wing" mentality of instead of providing arguements to counter the policy they attack the individual who makes the policy or advocates the policy. Such methods might just be turning people off of the "left wing" because its more mud slinging then politicial disagreement.
The problem with such tactics is that they never address the issues and distort the overall idealogical and policitical difference.
Maybe it says more about the failures of the "left wing" mentality in upholding their basic idealogical values. It could because of instead of presenting logical and insightful public policy - the "Left Wing" has resorted to personal attacks on people who disagree with them and relaying solely on emotional appeal to bring about their desired politicial endstate.
Becease we live in a ever changing world both left and right wing are changing, you cant convince me that the conservatives are still upholding their idealogy, I always thought it was to conserve things from the past, but this is something conservatives only can keep for a while.
For example around the 1850s the conservatives in the Netherlands where the monarchist wanting to keep the government as much a absolute monarchy as possible. Later conservatives want the keep slaves, apartheid, colony's, no womens sufrage. Now they are fighting against gay mariage and abortions for example. So conservatives also as much or more failing in upholding their idealogical values as socialists.
It could also because of the percieved failure of communism and socialism with the collaspe of the Soviet Union.
The collapse of communism in the Sovjet Union only made clear that pure communist state will never work.
Becease we live in a ever changing world both left and right wing are changing, you cant convince me that the conservatives are still upholding their idealogy, I always thought it was to conserve things from the past, but this is something conservatives only can keep for a while.
And I believe you would be correct in that.
For example around the 1850s the conservatives in the Netherlands where the monarchist wanting to keep the government as much a absolute monarchy as possible. Later conservatives want the keep slaves, apartheid, colony's, no womens sufrage. Now they are fighting against gay mariage and abortions for example. So conservatives also as much or more failing in upholding their idealogical values as socialists.
I would suggest that at least one of you gets the gist of what I was writing about in my response to Jag's attempt at sterotyping.
The collapse of communism in the Sovjet Union only made clear that pure communist state will never work.
Yea you might be right - but its a fun poke in the eye at socialists and communists in general.
Franconicus
07-29-2005, 07:34
The collapse of communism in the Sovjet Union only made clear that pure communist state will never work.
Sorry to cloud your bright idea - but calling the SU pure communism is like calling the Nazis humanists. ~:eek:
The collapse of communism in the Sovjet Union only made clear that pure communist state will never work.
You are forgetting other communist states.
Al Khalifah
07-29-2005, 16:48
You are forgetting other communist states.
A communist state? Isn't that an oxymoron, how can there be a communist state when in a communist society there is no state, since a state would imply hierarchy and nationhood.
A communist society would be a community, not a state.
Al - you are correct, in the end there would be no state, but as the theory goes, the state would be gradually dismantled by the proletariat, so it is fair to say there is some form of communist state.
Sorry to cloud your bright idea - but calling the SU pure communism is like calling the Nazis humanists. ~:eek:
So it didn't work thats what I meant.
A communist state? Isn't that an oxymoron, how can there be a communist state when in a communist society there is no state, since a state would imply hierarchy and nationhood.
A communist society would be a community, not a state.
If you prefer using a word playing - the question will be:
What about other social states ( republics )?
Al - you are correct, in the end there would be no state, but as the theory goes, the state would be gradually dismantled by the proletariat, so it is fair to say there is some form of communist state.
Gertgregoor is cool
~D
so it would be a paradox.
A communism society would be a great society but doomed even if "perfectly" arranged not because it's bad or something but because people are.
Don't see me as a righty but I think socialism is good but real pure communism is doomed. tough I'd be really pleased if you'd prove me wrong.
sorry for bad English.
Don't see me as a righty but I think socialism is good but real pure communism is doomed. tough I'd be really pleased if you'd prove me wrong.
Tell me why is doomed in your opnion?
Because it will never be fully supported, some people who'll have to live with les wouldn't want to, some people would get some benefits since very system has it's holes. Then envy people get mad because of it,
then peoplewho do harder jobs will have to earn as much as people who have an easy job. What about people who don't hvae a job at al will they recieve money? will they get as much money as the working ones? if they get less it won't be real communism because it isn't their fault they don't have jobs? If they recieve as much money, working people would be envious(spelling?) and mad,...
it's not the idea that's bad but humans aren't always that fair and good you know.(now, don't go calling me Machiavelli!! ~;))
and many more reasons I'd wish I could explain but my lack of English doesn't let me.
Edit:spelling,
I said I'd be glad if you prove me wrong so why do you think communism wil work and what would you do with these motivation problem.
1. As for the full support: either you can't say that other regims have FULL support of the population;
2. IMHO in communism each will do the the job he is suited to ...
3. Are you speaking of the utopical communism? If so - then it won't be reacheable just because it is an IDEAL ( can you name the IDEAL democracy? );
4. IMHO socialism is worthy enough to struggle for - what would you say?
1. As for the full support: either you can't say that other regims have FULL support of the population;
2. IMHO in communism each will do the the job he is suited to ...
3. Are you speaking of the utopical communism? If so - then it won't be reacheable just because it is an IDEAL ( can you name the IDEAL democracy? );
4. IMHO socialism is worthy enough to struggle for - what would you say?
1:indeed but the difference is communism will have to have about 99% of the population to have the support otherwise it wouldn't work.
2:to bad there aren't enough jobs hum...
3:well that's my point, you could have a semie-communistic community but not a real one. We aren't living in a democratic state anyway.
4: that's what I'm thinking about a socialism but not the cuban way ofcourse ~;)
The Stranger
07-31-2005, 17:08
#2 that's whats wrong. some people wont do things untill he gets ordered to.
farmers put their tomatoes in boxes, put them next to the road to wait for the truckers to come and pick m up. the truckers wont come. in capitalism the farmers will take their tomatoes away from the road and store them somewhere safe. in communism they'll leave it there, cuz he it isnt my job.
So ... communism is an utopia - so you will need ideal peaople to create such a republic ...
But socialism ( which is a step on the ledder to ideal communism ) is real enough and is worth to sttrugle for ...
So ... you can bring socialism in your country just taking it as unideal communiim.
Resuming: you can't reach utopical communism, at least for now, but you can follow the ideas of socialism, which is few stepes from the real communism.
The Stranger
07-31-2005, 17:29
yes you can indeed.
yes you can indeed.
Why don't you make sarcasm club in the Frontroom?
The Stranger
07-31-2005, 17:44
i dont know, i'm going to get warned and i cant have that. btw i've officially stopped spamming.
officially ... but (I don't have to finish this sentence now, do I.)
...
or was your post sarcastic?
...
I'm confused...
btw: no, do we agree that socialism would be the best? or what?
officially ... but (I don't have to finish this sentence now, do I.)
...
or was your post sarcastic?
...
I'm confused...
Just tell what you wanted. :bow:
Kagemusha
07-31-2005, 17:55
One thing that i cant understand with Socialism is:How do you keep balance?Lets say today we split all the money equally between each other,tomorrow someone has more then somebody other. :bow:
The Stranger
07-31-2005, 17:58
that isnt socialism is it??? now i'm confused.
and YES I DONT SPAM ANYMORE ACCEPT IN TYOLT, OWS AND IN WAG
One thing that i cant understand with Socialism is:How do you keep balance?Lets say today we split all the money equally between each other,tomorrow someone has more then somebody other. :bow:
Do not mix socialism with communism.
Redistribution of wealth in a socialist system does not necessarily have to come about by physically taking money, property and goods off those with the most and giving it to those with out. It can be done via gradual steps which in themselves bring about a fairer, more equal society.
An example of this is a minimum wage.
Kagemusha
07-31-2005, 18:11
Maybe i just dont understand the concept enough,give me a example of socialism in use.Socialdemocracy is a familiar concept to me,because my country has been build on those principals.But i have always associated Socialism and Communism as one. :bow:
Redistribution of wealth in a socialist system does not necessarily have to come about by physically taking money, property and goods off those with the most and giving it to those with out. It can be done via gradual steps which in themselves bring about a fairer, more equal society.
An example of this is a minimum wage.
There you go Kage.
Kagemusha
07-31-2005, 18:20
To Iliadn:I dont understand.I live in Finland.Ever heard of Nordic wellfare state.Or do you use China as an example of working Socialism?To JAG.I support minimum wages.But isnt it pretty far from ideal of Socialism?
Or do you use China as an example of working
Correct.
It isn't far from socialist at all, it is a democratic socialist ideal. If you cannot overthrow the system, you use the existing system to grdually change the system. The minimum wage is one of the biggest policies to this effect.
And China is not a socialist state, unless someone wants to show me how it is, apart from stating that it is 'socialist', what things does it do to actually be seen as a socialist state.
Kagemusha
07-31-2005, 18:28
To Iliadn:That case im even more confused.Chinas foreign trade resembles pretty much of free trade.The reason that China is intresting to foreign industry is that the wages are so low that the Western countries cant compete.And poverty is real issue in China.Their wellfare system is fare from ideal.If we are talking this kind of government model.I like to stay away from it as possible. :bow:
To Iliadn:That case im even more confused.Chinas foreign trade resembles pretty much of free trade.The reason that China is intresting to foreign industry is that the wages are so low that the Western countries cant compete.And poverty is real issue in China.Their wellfare system is fare from ideal.If we are talking this kind of government model.I like to stay away from it as possible. :bow:
Exactly. They are a state based, capitalist regime. Heavy interference by central govt on their business' and economy but none the less, still a capitalist economy. They have no regard for their subjects and as far as I am aware there isn't a welfare state to speak of.
China? omg noooo!
if China's a working socialist country Hitler was a kangoroo who could fly.
It's not even socialist.
If you're defenition of socialism is selling evrything for almost nothing to compete, giving most people unhealthy jobs without giving them a good paycheck,...
that's sound more like the average capitalistic European country in the 1900 hundreds.
but then with hi-tech stuff and ofcourse not evry chinese has such a crappy destiny. but it's just an example, a bad example but an example ~:)
damn I'm bad in debating in English.
Kagemusha
07-31-2005, 18:47
Exactly. They are a state based, capitalist regime. Heavy interference by central govt on their business' and economy but none the less, still a capitalist economy. They have no regard for their subjects and as far as I am aware there isn't a welfare state to speak of.
I personally believe that our Nordic model which is pretty similar to the German model,is good.Not perfect but good.I think that in order to support our citizens we need to have a strong exporting industry,to support our economy.This industry should rely on high quality of products rather then cheap production costs.If international markets were protected everywhere our Northern Nations would be really poor,because all our capacity would be spent to food production because the weather conditions here.
Im also pretty confuced how US justifyes its laws to shield their markets from Cheaper products exported from other countries.Isnt that against capitalism?
China? omg noooo!
if China's a working socialist country Hitler was a kangoroo who could fly.
It's not even socialist.
If you're defenition of socialism is selling evrything for almost nothing to compete, giving most people unhealthy jobs without giving them a good paycheck,...
that's sound more like the average capitalistic European country in the 1900 hundreds.
but then with hi-tech stuff and ofcourse not evry chinese has such a crappy destiny. but it's just an example, a bad example but an example ~:)
damn I'm bad in debating in English.
China is officialy social.
What about Taiwan?
then those Chinse leaders have real strange defenition of socialism if you ask me.
Taiwan: I wouldn't know, I don't know that much about it.
but almighty JAG will.~;)
China was the official socialist-ally of the USSR.
Cuba was you're ally to was it? And yeah, they were a real socialist country.
The Stranger
07-31-2005, 19:02
china was too
Cuba was you're ally to was it? And yeah, they were a real socialist country.
1. Use spell check;
2. Turn off your sarcasm.
Those countries were officilly socialistic, as well as some African states, but it doesn't mean there was REAL socialism there.
Maybe there are not much chances to find TRUE socialist country now, but there are some which are on their way.
Franconicus
08-01-2005, 08:27
~D
so it would be a paradox.
A communism society would be a great society but doomed even if "perfectly" arranged not because it's bad or something but because people are.
Don't see me as a righty but I think socialism is good but real pure communism is doomed. tough I'd be really pleased if you'd prove me wrong.
sorry for bad English.
You are wrong! ~;)
Meneldil
08-01-2005, 08:39
Right now, the 'more socialist' states are with no doubt the Scandinavian countries, then probably the Western European countries (UK and Irlande excepted).
And unlike what some people think, socialism doesn't slow down economic growth, because I'm fairly sure Norway, Sweden, Finland, Danemark and Spain know a decent growth of their GDP.
Oh, and if by Communism, you mean "all people live with the same resources", that's just BS. Some people will always deserve more than others, either because they are more intelligent, more willing to work, more charismatic, while some other are just lazy/stupid/whatever.
Franconicus
08-01-2005, 08:47
1:indeed but the difference is communism will have to have about 99% of the population to have the support otherwise it wouldn't work.
2:to bad there aren't enough jobs hum...
3:well that's my point, you could have a semie-communistic community but not a real one. We aren't living in a democratic state anyway.
4: that's what I'm thinking about a socialism but not the cuban way ofcourse ~;)
1. Once communism works the pop. will support. Problem is to get it going. But that is the same problem you have with democracy.
2. There is enough work. So why should there be unemployment?
3. Why shouldn't there be an ideal world? I still believe it could and will be. Do not give up too soon!
4. There are so many different opinions about the ideal communism. Cuba isn't, I agree!
I don't really think a club is needed, but whatever. So whats on the agenda?
To oppose backroom conservatives, as well as other things like politics etc.
Franconicus
08-01-2005, 11:55
The LWC should do as every Socialist Club: Let's discuss how the ideal society. How is your personel ideal?
Read the ideas of your humanitas thread + some communistic and democratic ideas + main requirement - people will behave GOOD.
A bit childish answer, but so is the question.
How is my personel ideal?
Socialism within a democratic platform. Reduce military funding and channel it into education, social welfare, and medicare.
Legalization of same sex marriages. Uphold the right to abortions. Limit gun ownership.
Franconicus
08-02-2005, 08:11
That's it? It seems to be a very American way to think!
What do you mean with Socialism?
Ser Clegane
08-02-2005, 12:07
Just found a very interesting article on Spiegel Online:
American Capitalism vs. European Social Markets (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html)
I considered starting a separate thread for that one, but figured that such a thread would probably devolve into the typical US vs. EU discussion of which we had enough already, IMO.
It seems to fit quite well in the "Left Wing Club" as something to think about or to discuss ~:)
Sjakihata
08-02-2005, 12:17
A society ideal for me, is true freedom. Something which NO state have been able to give, yet.
Franconicus
08-02-2005, 12:27
It is an excellent article! It is a pitty that we cannot discuss it with our conservative friends. But you are right, better keep it inside the club. No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns ~;)
That's it? It seems to be a very American way to think!
What do you mean with Socialism?
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyone
Crazed Rabbit
08-03-2005, 07:26
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
Where capitalism stumbles, however, is in fairly distributing the fruits. It's complete fiction that the "invisible hand" will distribute the fruits. The fact is that if you let the market economy go unfettered without any controls, it will run wild and result in a "winner take all" society-- and that's what you have in the US and, increasingly, the United Kingdom.
Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits. If one thinks one is not getting enough money at one job, they can go to other companies and seek out higher wages. If paying a higher wage is worth it to the companies, they will pay. If it isn't, they won't pay, and thus people are free to seek out the best deal for themselves.
Not only this, but this guy seems obessesed about 'the winner take all' system, as though there were a bunch of aristocrats lording it over the peasants and no middle class. In actuality, everyone benefits from capitalism. And, the income gap decreases during periods of economic growth in the US.
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyone
So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?
A society ideal for me, is true freedom. Something which NO state have been able to give, yet.
Socialism most definately is not freedom. It regulates what trades you can make with people, whether it involve employment, housing, services, and dictates how you travel, what you allowed to do, how you can live your life, etc.
It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns
I don't wear my guns...openly ~;) .
Crazed Rabbit
Just found a very interesting article on Spiegel Online:
American Capitalism vs. European Social Markets (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html)
I considered starting a separate thread for that one, but figured that such a thread would probably devolve into the typical US vs. EU discussion of which we had enough already, IMO.
It seems to fit quite well in the "Left Wing Club" as something to think about or to discuss ~:)
Brilliant article - and the other articles by him are equally as good and I look forward to reading the others in the coming days - thank you very much for the link.
What he states about the american way and European way working together is exactly the kind of society I want and exactly why I always idolise Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries so much, as they reach this goal so well.
I don't think he gives the UK enough credit though, believe it or believe it not, the UK is moving in the direction of a mixture of both models. Under Thatcher we had the most right wing, free market Prime Minister we have ever had and thus we moved quickly and extremely towards the US model. Since Labour has been in power however, there has been the necessary consolidation period and then in the past ~4 years a significant - if somewhat slower than people like me would like - movements back towards a more social model. We have introduced more benefits again, we have introduced more spending on public services and we have tried to introduce the belief in an equal, community based society. It is true the govt still firmly believes in privatisation and getting people into work, even if it means lower benefits than mainland Europe, but that is where the two system meet. It is an interesting time to be interested in politics over here, more so with the fact that Labour are still well supported by a clear majority of people in the country so we can really get the reforms through and entrenched.
Anyway, as I said very interesting articles and I think he is spot on. A society where social justice meets individual prosperity and benefits meet strong job opportunities is surely what we would all want.
Crazed Rabbit
08-03-2005, 07:33
more so with the fact that Labour are still well supported by a clear majority of people in the country so we can really get the reforms through and entrenched.
36% is a majority? How do you calculate that? :dizzy2:
Crazed Rabbit
The 36% is not indicative of the level of support we hold.
Firstly at the election many people vote - I believe it is as much as 30% of their share of the vote in areas - tactically for the Liberal Democrats, to keep the Conservatives out. Which of of course makes the support of the Labour party look less.
Secondly at elections many people did not vote because they - rightly - believed that it was in the bag for Labour. Or they protested against Blair for Iraq - note not Labour and not their policies at home.
As well as this there are not many policies Labour has introduced which has not been supported by a majority of the public - in opinion polls etc - there have been a few notable exceptions, but apart from that they have been supported.
Then there is the obvious look at the Conservatives and you see they have not gained any popularity since Labour entered office. That should - and is - be taken as a sign of Labours relative popularity compared to their opposition.
Ser Clegane
08-03-2005, 08:20
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
I don't intend to sound patronizing, but when it comes to the understanding of economics I have more faith in Jeremy Rifkin (considering his credentials) than in you (please correct me if I am wrong - but have you studied economics?)
I think most people realized by now that this
Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits
is rather some kind of mantra that tells us how the "market" should work in an ideal world. Reality usually looks different.
You see the same flawed logic on stock markets. Ideally the capital markets would always set a afir value for listed companies . I think we all now that reality looks slightly different
Franconicus
08-03-2005, 09:21
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
Sorry, Rabbit, but your understanding is at least as remarkable as his.
Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits. If one thinks one is not getting enough money at one job, they can go to other companies and seek out higher wages. If paying a higher wage is worth it to the companies, they will pay. If it isn't, they won't pay, and thus people are free to seek out the best deal for themselves.
I had economic lessons at university. First thing the teacher said was: The only purpose of economy is to create products. The fair distribution is not an issue of economy. You can measure if someone needs a good with his willingness to pay for it. That means if a millionaire is willing (and able) to pay for his 5th ship, he needs it. If a poor woman cannot afford to buy bread for her children, she does not need it.
Certainly you are free to chose another job. But that does the distribution of wealth not fair. There are no equal opportunities.
Not only this, but this guy seems obessesed about 'the winner take all' system, as though there were a bunch of aristocrats lording it over the peasants and no middle class. In actuality, everyone benefits from capitalism. And, the income gap decreases during periods of economic growth in the US.
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.
So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?
'Property is theft' ~;)
Socialism most definately is not freedom. It regulates what trades you can make with people, whether it involve employment, housing, services, and dictates how you travel, what you allowed to do, how you can live your life, etc.
What kind pf Socialism do you mean? Anarchism for example does not regulate anything.
It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
First: European economy is not Socialism.
Second: European economy is not ruined.
I don't wear my guns...openly ~;) .
Crazed Rabbit, please get in touch with the guard at the entrance ~;)
Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...? ~:confused:
Franconicus
08-03-2005, 14:54
Here is a riddle for a 'lefties'! Who wrote these words?
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
Franc - easy, such a legend the man was. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote that and much more besides.
Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...?
Most humanists would probably be of the left, that is for sure. As to it being a 'sect' of the left, I am unsure.
Why do humanitas are considered to be lefties?
Sjakihata
08-03-2005, 19:51
They are not amongst themselves, but they are by conservatives. Simply, because humanism oppose cruelty, such as death penalty etc.
So in the eye of the conservative the humanists are whimps or liberals. Everyone not agreeing with a con is a liberal - in their little world.
So in your opnion such things as death penalty oppose socialism, and socialist can't kill his enemy?
Sjakihata
08-03-2005, 23:17
dude, that wasnt what I said, was it?
Oh, and socialism is more economic. We also need to look at the social issues. You can believe in the socialist monetary system, and still believe in death penalty.
Social policy and economics, two different things.
Although, generally I believe most socialist oppose the death penalty, taken from personal experience, and isnt valid as such.
Crazed Rabbit
08-03-2005, 23:49
I don't intend to sound patronizing, but when it comes to the understanding of economics I have more faith in Jeremy Rifkin (considering his credentials) than in you (please correct me if I am wrong - but have you studied economics?)
I've taken micro and macro econ AP (advanced placement) classes and got a 4 and a 5 on the AP tests (out of 5).
I think most people realized by now that this
is rather some kind of mantra that tells us how the "market" should work in an ideal world. Reality usually looks different.
You see the same flawed logic on stock markets. Ideally the capital markets would always set a afir value for listed companies . I think we all now that reality looks slightly different
Yes, but the flawed logic will correct itself. Those who judge company's worth correctly will be rewarded, those who don't won't have as much to spend next time, but will be wiser.
The fair distribution is not an issue of economy. You can measure if someone needs a good with his willingness to pay for it. That means if a millionaire is willing (and able) to pay for his 5th ship, he needs it. If a poor woman cannot afford to buy bread for her children, she does not need it.
Certainly you are free to chose another job. But that does the distribution of wealth not fair. There are no equal opportunities.
I think we aren't using the same meaning of 'fair distribution'. I consider fair distribution to be people being paid according to what they have earned, while you, I think, believe fair distribution to be the goods being handed out according to need. The problem with your interpretation is that it does not encourage people to work harder and thus earn more, but rather to be needier and get more.
And I don't understand how being able to pay for a good means one needs it.
Finally, the economy, as I am sure you know, is a vastly complex thing. Yet some people think they can control it and bend it to their will, just by adding some laws.
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.
Somehow, I just don't buy that. Do you think noone makes between $25k and $150k a year? I may just live here, but...
Crazed Rabbit
Ser Clegane
08-04-2005, 08:15
I've taken micro and macro econ AP (advanced placement) classes and got a 4 and a 5 on the AP tests (out of 5).
Oh ... that surely puts you into the position to judge his understanding of economics.
Yes, but the flawed logic will correct itself. Those who judge company's worth correctly will be rewarded, those who don't won't have as much to spend next time, but will be wiser.
Not really - during the hightech-bubble time most money was actually made by incorrectly judging the values of companies - and being lucky enough that there were enough people to believe in the hype for a ,long enough type.
An extreme bust-to-boom (and vice-versa) economy and (at best) "correcting the flawed logic" after the damage has been done hardly has enything to do with "always fairly distributing the fruits".
I hope they teach you more than catchphrases in AP classes.
Franconicus
08-04-2005, 08:25
Franc - easy, such a legend the man was. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote that and much more besides.
I thought you knew it! What else do you know about PJP?
P.S.: I quoted him, because most people here seem to think that Socialism = Totalism. I wanted to show that this is wrong!!
dude, that wasnt what I said, was it?
Just cleared it out.
I thought you knew it! What else do you know about PJP?
P.S.: I quoted him, because most people here seem to think that Socialism = Totalism. I wanted to show that this is wrong!!
Maybe people sometimes think so, because of quite unideal examples they saw.
Stefan the Berserker
08-05-2005, 15:25
I think on democrathic Socialism / Socialdemocrathy as the Unification of Workerunionists, moderate Socialists, Antifacists and leftwing-Intellectuals in one Party whoose political value is solidarity.
http://library.fes.de/library/netzquelle/bilder/fahne.jpg
Freedom, Equality, Fraternity! - Unity makes us strong!
However we have always trouble with RESOS damageing our Image and ability to do the work we are expected for.
However if we, in this case I mean the IUSY-Team whoose Chairman I am, have finished the Elections this September we'll get bowled with the planned DKMS-Action.
I think on democrathic Socialism / Socialdemocrathy as the Unification of Workerunionists, moderate Socialists, Antifacists and leftwing-Intellectuals in one Party whoose political value is solidarity.
Would never work. One thing the left is unfortunately too good at is infighting and splintering. Solidarity is so meaningless anyway.
Stefan the Berserker
08-07-2005, 18:18
Would never work. One thing the left is unfortunately too good at is infighting and splintering. Solidarity is so meaningless anyway.
We have always problems with the RESOS (REactionay SOcialistS). That is frequently known.
That can be called splitting, or keeping our politics in a clean red. Socialism in its native form is an Idealist Philosophy.
Solidarity is so meaningless anyway
Nope, Solidarity is the key to understand Socialism and the creation of the Socialist International. It is the major diffrence between us and Liberalism, is that the Socialist does primary not attempt to improove his own Position but instead steams the whole Commonwealth.
The International Ideal is about creating acceptable conditions for as many human beeings as possible, however the Parties who are Members have too much differed from that thought.
The Collcetive mentality is indeed a thing Socialists chare with Conservatives, while Liberals are selfish individualists.
Would never work. One thing the left is unfortunately too good at is infighting and splintering. Solidarity is so meaningless anyway.
I think Stefan 's right. It might be hard to keep it working but I don't see a better way. What would you want? one man who rules them all? (hum... I know this line from somewhere... oh yeah, one ring to rule them all :p)
or would you have no "rulers" (couldn't come up with a better word) at all.
Both wouldn't work I think, so a socialist democrathy seems the best solution to me.
So, how would you do it then JAG?
Franconicus
08-09-2005, 08:23
Solidary is very important. But I think trying to unify and standardize Socialism is paradox. Let there be diversity. As long as you know good and bad, who needs it.
Seems I missed a lot of here.
Stefan the Berserker
08-11-2005, 22:07
Solidary is very important. But I think trying to unify and standardize Socialism is paradox. Let there be diversity. As long as you know good and bad, who needs it.
The Reason for the Existance of the International is not standardisation, it is used for correspondence of democrathic Socialist Parties on matters of foreignpolicy. "Foreigntrade" is the Keyword to explain why.
Louis VI the Fat
08-11-2005, 23:08
http://library.fes.de/library/netzquelle/bilder/fahne.jpgLiberty, Equality, Fraternity! ~:cheers:
Just out of curiousity, who waves that flag?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! ~:cheers:
Just out of curiousity, who waves that flag?
It would be great to have this flag as a symbol in the very first post, but unfortunatly it is not mine ( post ) - so I can't edit it.
The Reason for the Existance of the International is not standardisation, it is used for correspondence of democrathic Socialist Parties on matters of foreignpolicy. "Foreigntrade" is the Keyword to explain why.
Welcome on board! ~:cheers:
Gawain runs a tight shift in the Conservative Club. Its very organized, we have a president, sergeant at arms, and some other ranks.
Ahahahahahah... hahahahahaha
that's a good one..
ahahahahahaha..
oh stop..it's hurting hahahahahaha
This is as far as I have got in this pointless thread. I think there are a few more pages but none can top this.
Ahahahahahah... hahahahahaha
that's a good one..
ahahahahahaha..
oh stop..it's hurting hahahahahaha
This is as far as I have got in this pointless thread. I think there are a few more pages but none can top this.
IMO it is not more pointless then the other clubs here.
Stefan the Berserker
08-12-2005, 17:27
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! ~:cheers:
Just out of curiousity, who waves that flag?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/39/Adav-fahne.jpg
Here a better Picture. It is the Banner of Ferdinand Lassalle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle), which was the first used Flag of the ADAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADAV) the successor of the SPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD).
It shows the german translation of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!", the Motto of the French Revolution, the symbol of shaking hands with the date of the beginning of Lassalle's presidentship and the german sentence "Unity makes powerful!" on red ground.
The Banner was designed by workers from Katowice and was homemade by 1864, then handed out to Lassalle as a gift. The original survived the time and both world wars, being exhibited in a museum in Wroclaw in present days.
However you can find copies of the banner everywhere in Germany, for example pubs oftenly exhibit a copy together with other worker banners (we have many of them) or catholic banners. However we germans do have an general illness to like banners of any kind...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/3/39/Adav-fahne.jpg
Here a better Picture. It is the Banner of Ferdinand Lassalle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Lassalle), which was the first used Flag of the ADAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADAV) the successor of the SPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD).
It shows the german translation of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!", the Motto of the French Revolution, the symbol of shaking hands with the date of the beginning of Lassalle's presidentship and the german sentence "Unity makes powerful!" on red ground.
The Banner was designed by workers from Katowice and was homemade by 1864, then handed out to Lassalle as a gift. The original survived the time and both world wars, being exhibited in a museum in Wroclaw in present days.
However you can find copies of the banner everywhere in Germany, for example pubs oftenly exhibit a copy together with other worker banners (we have many of them) or catholic banners. However we germans do have an general illness to like banners of any kind...
Maybe the founder of the thread will place it in the first post?
good flag!
aren't those 3 words one of best words that exist?
vrijheid, gelijkheid en broederlijkheid...
If somebody still visits this place here is my quetion: can communism be reached through nationalism, or not?
Soulforged
08-18-2005, 08:19
There is no reason for saying no. But the thing is that eventually all forms of separation have to be wiped out, and i mean actual separation, like a Constitution, government, frontier. Not ideal separation, nationalism in it's good way should be accepted.
Franconicus
08-19-2005, 14:09
No, nationalism is so stupid! I believe that true comm. means that you love all men regardless their nationality.
Not those nationalism that was in Germany, but another one - supporting root population of the country, giving them various priveligis (sp?), and NOT opressions (correct word?) against foreigners.
Not ideal separation, nationalism in it's good way should be accepted.
~:cheers:
Added the flag and a poster of Che Guevarra (for the artistic touch) to the first post. Thanks
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.