You seem to be implying I would have a problem with that..Quote:
Yup. From now on we are allowed to show the middle finger everytime anyone brings up Hitler.
Printable View
You seem to be implying I would have a problem with that..Quote:
Yup. From now on we are allowed to show the middle finger everytime anyone brings up Hitler.
Hitler is just as bad as Stalin... Hitler did things that should not be spoken of...
But at least he did not win WWII
Obviously you have never heard of the Holocaust. I have seen my family tree on my mother's side- they are eastern European Jews- and there is an entire section that is cut off during 1943-45. Dozens of people. So don't tell me that I do not undestand what it feels like to know that millions of my people were killed by a monster. I know what it feels like. And, admittedly, I despise Hitler. But I do not simply go around shouting "Facism is evil!" I at least try to provide a reasonable explanation as to why it is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zharakov
But thank you for toning down.
That is why I sadi manny... I knew there would be some Jewish people here.
I don't think you'll get much argument about that, Zharakov. We all pretty much agree here. Well, except for one person, it seems. And I thought Russiancsar was a countryman of yours.
If he is...
Well, then we are diffrent Russians...
Before Lenin died around the 1920's he didn't want Stalin to become the dictator and I don't know how it happened but it did happen. From what I read Stalin killed more than 20 Russians during his reign in Russia. Before Germany invaded Russia Stalin had purged the Red Army and most of his generals where inexprienced and that is one of the reasons that Russia lost in the beginning and I've also heard that Russia was planning an invasion of Germany I don't know if it is true if anyone knows they can say. The only reason Stalin won against Hitler is because of sheer numbers and help from the Allies. Stalin was indeed a bad man indeed but he did help Russia turn into the Super power it was during the Cold War. I also read that Stalin was planning another purge before he died.
Joke Quote I don't know what it is but I read it somewhere
Stalin and Hitler were both in a huge pool of blood. Hitler was up to his neck and the blood was about to Stalins stomach. Hitler says you killed more of your people that I did and yet the blood is only to your stomach and it is up to my neck. Why? Stalin says because I'm am standing on Lenin's shoulders
Hope this helps some people
~:cheers: :duel: :duel:
I think that this fact as a politician is irrelevant, is like saying look mom this sir is evil he scares me!!! Please it's nonsense, no actions of politicians can be trully judge as personal unilateral decisions totally detracted from reality, perhaps he knew what he was doing...In the other hand if we're talking as an human, i didn't know him, and i suspect that no one did, so it's stupid to try to judge him by the art of politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
Nah man I'm not Russian so I wouldn't understand
Stalin was bad extremely bad I don't see how his actions could be justified he was cruel evil and despicable long live capitalism ~;)
Communism never worked right because humans are power hungry and Communism is based on everyone is equal which is why Communism could and will not ever be a good government
:bow:
PJ -Actually it doesn't. What it proves is that people can choose in such ways that they can be described as 'bad' or 'evil' if you will. It does not prove that Stalin HAD or was BORN WITH those choices already pre determined, like you stated. There is also no way you can prove it. People are free to choose, Stalin was not following anything inherent, because no ideology can have any inherent qualities. It is shown by the way ideologies change and move with time, surely if things were so inherent in ideologies then capitalism would still used in the same mold as when it was first thought of and it would be used in pretty much the same way all across the globe. It isn't on both accounts, because ideologies are subjective to the person using it, meaning your comment of communism being inherently evil is rubbish.Quote:
Not true. The existence of people such as Stalin refutes that claim.
2)
You will not see me denying that there has been some nasty dictators who have used communism and changed the boundaries of the movement for their own means, of course that has happened. But what you stated was -You are implying that because of communism as it is, it is not Stalin who really is to blame for his actions at all, for he is simply the by product of a greater being, and if it wasn't stalin it would have been another person. Which is wrong. Not only have I showed you how it cannot be the ideology and has to be the man, but just because there is dictators doing similar things to Stalin elsewhere on the globe present and past, it doesn't mean that if there was no Stalin the same things would have happened in Russia. You provide NO proof for your claim, you are simply providing names of fellow people.Quote:
If it wasnt Stalin, it would have been someone else. He was simply the result of an evil ideology.
For instance, when Reagan died, there was much celebration by you and others about how he personally defeated Communist Russia. Now the argument about the besides, if he did do that, it would be wrong for me to state that 'someone would have done it anyway' as I am sure you would agree, in fact as you and others stated at the time with your celebration of him. Not only were the old phrases like 'one in a million' and 'the only one who could of saved us, and did' etc used - or phrases to that extent - but you were perfectly willing to claim praise for actions taken by Reagan as his and his alone, not some separate, mystical 3rd person.
Again, with figures such as Churchill during WW2, he is praised time and time and time again as the one who saved the UK and stood strong at the point of time we needed it. You, indeed, claim this as well. Again it would be wrong - surely you agree - to simply, flatly, state that 'someone would have done it anyway' and take all credit from Churchill's actions. The fact remains that he did the actions and there is no reason and no grounds to postulate about what if's or what would's, because they weren't and we simply do not have the foresight to see what would happen anyway. Stalin, Reagan and Churchill are all the same in this respect, I am sure you can find a bunch of comparable situations to Churchill and Reagan - in fact they are fairly comparable in themselves, right? - and state how 'someone would have done it anyway', but the fact remains that it is a nothing statement, a statement not based on anything other than an airy fairly opinion. Just because two are in praise and the other is in damnation, it does not mean the facts change and you can suddenly declare that 'someone else would have done it anyway'.
3)
The deaths caused directly by Communism in the past and present is more than other forms, maybe, true. But Capitalism bleeds people, it drains and then brushes them under the carpet as a figure in govt bureaucracy. How many thousands die every year in America alone simply because they cannot afford things, things which not only the rich have excess of but which the state could provide quite easily? How many people die in far away countries - from the point of view of us in the west - to provide our consumer juggernaught, fuelled by Capitalism, with cheap products. How many people are abused and live in complete and utter misery due to this saintly Capitalist way? On top of that you have the wars, secretive ones and otherwise fought by Capitalist countries against others, merely for economical or political means. Why is it that if a Communist country were to do the same it is an atrocity but suddenly a Capitalist one does the same and it is a brilliant, self defensive, strategic move? There is no difference, the only one is the people who count one and discount the other.
The fact remains that there are problems with all our systems, it is terrible and sad, but it remains a fact. But I state again, why is the one with the belief in equality, freedom and fairness for all men, women, colour and creed 'evil' yet the one aimed at self preservation, money, greed and individualism 'good'. You tell me.
4)
You clearly didn't know how to prove your statement and you go back down well trodden lines of 'genocide', 'killing', 'inherent evil!' It must be real nice to live in such a well defined world where you can put Communist into 'evil' and Capitalist and Fascist into 'good', without actually proving it to yourself, but you are living a deceit of yourself, woven by your own hand.Quote:
Do the genocides that have taken place in every communist country ever in existence not speak for themselves?
Why is it PJ, you believe Fascism is so brilliant, yet when people state the Nazis you can - presumably with a straight face - state how 'I don't support that type, but a different type', yet with Communism it is the 180 degree reverse? It baffles me everytime, every single time...
Regardless of that, you still haven't answered my point with your lovely little statement about genocides, as I have tried to state, genocides happen under every regime. 'Evil' things and horrible people rise up out of every type of system it doesn't mean something is an 'inherently bad' or 'evil ideology' it simply means that genocides happen because people a) let it happen and b) make it happen. Throwing off statements like you do, does not PROVE anything, it is simply a rubbish statement, you might as well not make it.
I asked you to prove how Communism - have you read the Communist manifesto? Have you read Adam Smith?... - is an evil ideology and you simply haven't.
I also like the way you would not answer my last point.
As opposed to the United States which was created after the American Revolution and the document which declared the independence which began the revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russiancsar
What was the line again?
Oh, yeah.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Darn communists. They ruin everything! Even the Declaration of Independence!
All men are created equal what you do with your life is in your hands not the staesQuote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
DAMN COMMUNIST TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
Exactly, my friend. And if you'd like I can start trotting out example after example of communist writers who said exactly what you just said, from Proudhon to Bakunin, even Marx, and Kropotkin and beyond. In fact, I could make the case that the basic tenet of communism is exactly that - that each person is equal and responsible for his or her actions. What others do with the idea doesn't make the idea itself wrong. Even in our own country, the difference between the federalists and the republicans, between Adams and Jefferson, was huge; and that was just within their own times. I guarantee you that the difference between Jefferson and Bush, or even Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton, is even greater. For all the Pol Pots and Stalins, there is also the Barcelona of the late 1930's or the kibbutzim of the socialist utopian Jews who settled in the Levant 40 years before the Balfour Declaration was even conceived or the Paris Commune. On the other end of the spectrum, capitalism produced the fascists like Mussolini and Hitler and the Japanese zaibatsu. The ideology is only a beginning point. What one does with the idea is not the same as the idea. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
All people keep saying the same, wow this must be real. Not it's not, in fact no state whatsover achieved communism, as the respectfull interpretation of Lenin stated, but there was one state that Marx called the most important revolution (because if i'm correct he believed that the French Revolution was the worst wasted opportunity to orient society to a reconciliation) it was the Commune of Paris, so like it seems that many keep ignoring it i'll post a little link....enjoy. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russiancsar
It even has interpretations from the anarchist, i love it!!! ~D
I think I answered you Redleg and Ghost in the previous post bar a few points -
I do not believe the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', as the fact that, that situation is not always the case proves that it cannot be right. There are heads of business and government who wouldn't dream of corruption and have no record of it, unless you add ad hoc bits onto the statement, it is therefore completely wrong. If you do decide to add ad hoc arguments onto the phrase then you loose completely any legitimacy in the statement and therefore useless.Quote:
I would think it was perfectly clear. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It set the conditions for the corruption. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People are not governed by their emotions or doctrines or pre determined choices in their heads, they simply choose what they want when they want via a bit of social conditioning in certain circumstances - therefore a doctrine such as the one you state Redleg can never be right. We are our choices not a phrase.
Firstly you start off by answering my question with seemingly a Capitalist system in mind. The whole point of Communism is that there is not business in the way we have business, so the whole thing about profit, being paid etc, is useless. The whole society is made up differently to how ours is, you cannot go around using Capitalist models mixed in with Communist ones to critique Communism.Quote:
4. It is an evil ideology plan and simple. It sounds good in theory, until you start to analyze it. ex: A Business owner starts a business. SInce, he started it, he takes most of the risks, so he should reap the greatest profit. HIs employes should get paid according to what he thinks is fair, for after all, they are not risking a lot simply working. The communist idea is flawed in the fact that in neglects how much risk the owners put forth. Another thing is, you have no personal freedom. Communism eliminates private property making everything state owned and controled. The idea is good in which everyone shares, but their is no person. It is just a mass. There is no uniqueness which cuts down on creativity.
Secondly, I also do not think you understand the goal of Communism. the whole idea of Communism IS personal freedom. Do you not know the last 3 lines of the Communist manifesto? They are pretty famous....
Getting rid of freedom it is not.Quote:
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!
Perfection my friend, perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Ethics aside, Stalin's policies almost certainly weakened Russia and lay her open to Nazi conquest. The early reverses in the war can be almost entirely attributed to the shortage of experienced military leadership (Stalin killed like 1/3 of the entire officer corps), and the fact that Stalin wanted to do things HIS WAY, without listening to his advisors.
Once things got bad enough, he started listening, and the war turned around.
But seriously, knocking off political rivals is one thing, crushing rebellions through massacre is one thing, but slaughtering entire sectors of your population for very dubious, if not silly, reasons, is not excusable or productive from any perspective.
DA
I agree with you, but if the revelions were of individualists or capitalists that may want to rise again then they must be stoped. Period. Socialism towards communism is not a "pink" world (neither is capitalism), but it's the most reasonable mean to achieve communism, at least that i may know. Maybe all capitalists will be willing to just give up to their oversized subjective rights and give some profit....mmmm i think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Does not the fact that he had the freedom to choose to do good or evil, and chose to do evil prove that he was inherently a bad person? It would be different if he was just following orders, and his life was at stake if he didnt do evil, but he chose to, and reveled in it.Quote:
Actually it doesn't. What it proves is that people can choose in such ways that they can be described as 'bad' or 'evil' if you will. It does not prove that Stalin HAD or was BORN WITH those choices already pre determined, like you stated. There is also no way you can prove it. People are free to choose, Stalin was not following anything inherent, because no ideology can have any inherent qualities. It is shown by the way ideologies change and move with time, surely if things were so inherent in ideologies then capitalism would still used in the same mold as when it was first thought of and it would be used in pretty much the same way all across the globe. It isn't on both accounts, because ideologies are subjective to the person using it, meaning your comment of communism being inherently evil is rubbish.
Does not his enjoyment in killing others point to an inherent evil?
I in no way said that Stalin was not to blame. I said that the communist system brings to leadership the most evil people in society. I cannot believe you are not acknowledging the fact that every country that ever attempted communism produced a dicator. Thats a bucketload of proof right there.Quote:
You are implying that because of communism as it is, it is not Stalin who really is to blame for his actions at all, for he is simply the by product of a greater being, and if it wasn't stalin it would have been another person. Which is wrong. Not only have I showed you how it cannot be the ideology and has to be the man, but just because there is dictators doing similar things to Stalin elsewhere on the globe present and past, it doesn't mean that if there was no Stalin the same things would have happened in Russia. You provide NO proof for your claim, you are simply providing names of fellow people.
Yes, because there were not Reagan spawns coming out of every democracy on earth like there were aspiring stalins in every communist country. Only Thatcher was as strong as Reagan. Reagan was in fact one in a million, all the communist leaders were pretty much the same. Death, poverty, corruption.Quote:
For instance, when Reagan died, there was much celebration by you and others about how he personally defeated Communist Russia. Now the argument about the besides, if he did do that, it would be wrong for me to state that 'someone would have done it anyway' as I am sure you would agree, in fact as you and others stated at the time with your celebration of him. Not only were the old phrases like 'one in a million' and 'the only one who could of saved us, and did' etc used - or phrases to that extent - but you were perfectly willing to claim praise for actions taken by Reagan as his and his alone, not some separate, mystical 3rd person.
Do you have any numbers? You seem a little confused about the situation in America and abroad. You cannot really be trying to find relativity between the communist genocides and some vague claims of people starving in America can you? Capitolism has given new hope to millions of people around the world. If you think life was all roses and honey before the sweatshops in China, read a little about the Cultural Revolution. Capitolism has its faults, but cannot in any way be compared to communism on any plane of relativity.Quote:
The deaths caused directly by Communism in the past and present is more than other forms, maybe, true. But Capitalism bleeds people, it drains and then brushes them under the carpet as a figure in govt bureaucracy. How many thousands die every year in America alone simply because they cannot afford things, things which not only the rich have excess of but which the state could provide quite easily? How many people die in far away countries - from the point of view of us in the west - to provide our consumer juggernaught, fuelled by Capitalism, with cheap products. How many people are abused and live in complete and utter misery due to this saintly Capitalist way? On top of that you have the wars, secretive ones and otherwise fought by Capitalist countries against others, merely for economical or political means. Why is it that if a Communist country were to do the same it is an atrocity but suddenly a Capitalist one does the same and it is a brilliant, self defensive, strategic move? There is no difference, the only one is the people who count one and discount the other.
Because the former resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people! Greed might not be pretty, but it sure isnt a gulag.Quote:
The fact remains that there are problems with all our systems, it is terrible and sad, but it remains a fact. But I state again, why is the one with the belief in equality, freedom and fairness for all men, women, colour and creed 'evil' yet the one aimed at self preservation, money, greed and individualism 'good'. You tell me.
If the most people ever killed by a social system doesnt convince you, I dont know what will..Quote:
You clearly didn't know how to prove your statement and you go back down well trodden lines of 'genocide', 'killing', 'inherent evil!' It must be real nice to live in such a well defined world where you can put Communist into 'evil' and Capitalist and Fascist into 'good', without actually proving it to yourself, but you are living a deceit of yourself, woven by your own hand.
Because fascism and communism are not the same. The principles behind fascism promote a strong society, the principles behind communism promote a broken and self-defeating society.Quote:
Why is it PJ, you believe Fascism is so brilliant, yet when people state the Nazis you can - presumably with a straight face - state how 'I don't support that type, but a different type', yet with Communism it is the 180 degree reverse? It baffles me everytime, every single time...
Would you deny that communism in even its very best form seeks to destroy a standing society? Isnt that what the revolution is about? That leads to nothing but death and destruction. No other ideology has such a destructive fundemental principle besides possibly anarchy.Quote:
Regardless of that, you still haven't answered my point with your lovely little statement about genocides, as I have tried to state, genocides happen under every regime. 'Evil' things and horrible people rise up out of every type of system it doesn't mean something is an 'inherently bad' or 'evil ideology' it simply means that genocides happen because people a) let it happen and b) make it happen. Throwing off statements like you do, does not PROVE anything, it is simply a rubbish statement, you might as well not make it.
I have read more than you assume. I also have the strange ability to read between the lines. Behind all the utopian propaganda, lies an evil ideology that cannot be sustained without the death of all those opposed to it.Quote:
I asked you to prove how Communism - have you read the Communist manifesto? Have you read Adam Smith?... - is an evil ideology and you simply haven't.
Oh but I did. If you cannot defend your ideology without dragging in mine as a completely off-topic red herring, you may want to reconsider your own. Ill be happy to discuss fascism in a thread about fascism. ~:)Quote:
I also like the way you would not answer my last point.
Pol Pot tried the same thing in Cambodia. Mass murder accomplishes only one thing - mass murder. Hitler tried it. The Japanese made a run at it in Manchuria. Mao tried it. Mlosevic and Mladic tried it. The Romans did it in Carthage. The U.S. did it during the sad episode of Manifest Destiny. Rulers seem to have a fascination with taking this perceived shortcut to their goals. Kill off those who disagree. It has never worked. It will never work. I may be biased though. Instead of finding the problem in the powers wielding a particular idelogy; I've come to believe that the problem is in the power itself. In my view, the problem is rulers, not what rule they apply. When power is allocated from the top down, rather than the bottom up, the end result is always bad. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Thanks! I'll stay out of your other discussion, I think. Your opponent will rub me the wrong way and I'll find myself stomping around the room doing my impression of John Cleese in one of the Fawlty Towers episodes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
For a strong leader that builds his country without mass murder I would have to defer to Lee Kuan Yew
Stalin was a sympton of communism going sour. Concentrated power makes people blind.....
Even dont want to read through all the comments as the answer is easy to know if you and your parents have lived ender its $%& rule. Just because him and his surroundings my country was fallen backwards for 50 years, 10% of population were killed or just dead from hunger in Syberia and its hard to find any family here who has not somehow suffered from it. And we still are fighting with problems caused by that annection. And half of europe does the same. What about building up - it all was built for ruling the world not for people. As the joke was told - if you worked in radio fabric and tried to connect all the details, you always got a tank :) Mostly everything what was builded up was made to built regimes in Cuba, Africa, Asia etc on the shoulders of locals. There were two evel regimes during WW2 and unfortunately world destroyed just one of them. And what els about building. Also western europe now suffers from that building, because of immigration and cheap workers now. Dont forget that in 30ties life standarts and development in eastern europe was the same level in many countries as in west. Look at that now. Its a result. Argh, post makes anger in the morning :)
Maybe but I was just throwing comments out - a mere surface arguement. But I will go into spefics on this one point for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Just so I understand what you are refering to by "ad hoc." According to what I understand of the arguement style -Quote:
I do not believe the 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely', as the fact that, that situation is not always the case proves that it cannot be right. There are heads of business and government who wouldn't dream of corruption and have no record of it, unless you add ad hoc bits onto the statement, it is therefore completely wrong. If you do decide to add ad hoc arguments onto the phrase then you loose completely any legitimacy in the statement and therefore useless.
Do you mean that in your assertion about ad hoc. Since you stated that I will try to stay away from anecdotal observations that show that power does indeed corrupt and just link the Manifesto to Stalin's evil or would you like me to link it to another individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by from an arguement style fallacy website for ease of typing
Since the statement is an adage - I don't think its necessary to use an ad hoc arguement to rescue the postion. .
Now you can find fault with the adage and my use of it in regards to my statement of I would think it was perfectly clear. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It set the conditions for the corruption. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. However lets pursue the course of action that you mentioned - staying away from the ad hoc arguementive style the best that I can.
Now I not going to link the whole document - but I will quote some of the key passages that lead me to my conclusions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Communist Manifesto
Now one must understand why Marx used the term despotic and what he meant by it. The conclusion of the Manifesto that I have come to accept as being valid is that Marx advocated the forcing of society into communism by starting with a socialistic state - and using the state authority to force change through despotic means until such a time that class distinctions have disappeared. Could I be incorrect with this conclusion - maybe but that is what I have come to conclude based upon reading Marx's work. Not all of them by the way but the Communist Manifesto and several other works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Communist Manifesto
So one must understand what despotic means. My understanding of despot happens to follow the definition of the word as found in Webster's dictionary.
2 a : a ruler with absolute power and authority b : a person exercising power tyrannically
Now would you classify Stalin as a despot? Since I do classify him as a despot who used the communist doctrine as envisioned by Marx - I shall continue with the discussion. If you find fault with this statement that is fine because its my opinion - not necessarily fact.
Now would you call the mass purges conducted by Stalin as a corruption of power by the individual? I know I do. Are there other examble of Stalin being corrupted by power - sure but lets just go with the use of mass killings because of his will to do so. Lets not go into his life style verus all others in the USSR.
So Stalin had absolute power as specified in the Communist Manifesto - because the manifesto calls for use of despotic inroads to achieve certain goals.
Its my belief that Stalin was corrupt before he came into power - and in being given absolute power he became corrupt absolutely.
But again you stated you do not believe "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" so what type of arguement would you like me to pursue if I can not cite ancedotal evidence of spefic instance of indivduals being corrupted by the power they gained.
People are indeed governed by their emotions as well as many other things. What do you think the concept of love and hate is.Quote:
People are not governed by their emotions or doctrines or pre determined choices in their heads, they simply choose what they want when they want via a bit of social conditioning in certain circumstances - therefore a doctrine such as the one you state Redleg can never be right. We are our choices not a phrase.
From people much smarter then I - not sure what it says but I draw the conclusion that emotions are involved somehow in the process.
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~carl/papers/FrankelRay.ISRE00.pdf#search='Are%20people%20governed%20by%20their%20emotions'Quote:
5. External signaling function: Emotions signal and coordinate individuals’ intentions in an improvised, shared narrative. Since emotions supply the motive force to effect goals and intentions, the social function of outward emotional displays is to communicate heuristically an individual’s putative motives, goals and intentions, and thus to regulate the behavior of others
(Campos, Mumme, Kermoian & Campos, 1994). Emotional exchanges thereby govern the distributed processing in which multiple individuals coordinate a shared, improvised response to circumstances. Emotional event by emotional event, response decision by response decision, relational turning point by relational turning point, people improvise a shared narrative that both
governs and informs their relationships with each other. In improvised narratives, people can cooperate to share both pains and joys, amortizing, by proxy, harms and benefits over the pool of cooperating individuals. People can also compete for status, in order to promote, at others’
expense, the avoidance of their worst emotions and the attainment of their preferred emotions, competing, by proxy, for their own competence. In the same way that individual decision making can be characterized by an emotionally based form of Prospect Theory (Zeelenberg, 1999), social status behavior is arguably characterized by an emotional variant of Game Theory.
First, no it doesn't make him evil, good and bad in politics are very realitive values, you seem to believe in moral utopias after all...Second: aha now you seem to know what Stalin was feeling when he ordered the mass murders as you call it... :no: Could it be indiference instead of enjoyment?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
IAaaa and capitalism doesn't, you're blind. The problem with communism is that it requires despotism at the first to force the reconcilation, so in that point both teories go to the opposite extremes, one being all for society and the other all for the individual. Capitalism for instance grants power to a reduced group of man that can be corrupted the same as one and act behind all governement. To me it makes not difference, except that the despotism of the proletariat (maybe we should actualice this term) had the purpose of create an equal and free society, capitalism only has the purpose of keeping a classist system.Quote:
in no way said that Stalin was not to blame. I said that the communist system brings to leadership the most evil people in society. I cannot believe you are not acknowledging the fact that every country that ever attempted communism produced a dicator. Thats a bucketload of proof right there.
I see again unilateral assumptions. This maybe the reality of despotism in some point, but are you denying that capitalism kills by hunger and poverty? In fact this are the best weapons of mass destruction, and you don't even see your system questioned.Quote:
Death, poverty, corruption.
No because communism is best and in fact cames from a visionary. Capitalism bringing hope? Ha i think that you see the world of "roses". Following and report from the UN 33 millions of people starve of hunger every year only in South America, tens of thousands die of hunger per year, i think that's a pretty big number, but if you want to say that this is because of the corruption then say it i'll refutate you over and over.Quote:
Do you have any numbers? You seem a little confused about the situation in America and abroad. You cannot really be trying to find relativity between the communist genocides and some vague claims of people starving in America can you? Capitolism has given new hope to millions of people around the world. If you think life was all roses and honey before the sweatshops in China, read a little about the Cultural Revolution. Capitolism has its faults, but cannot in any way be compared to communism on any plane of relativity.
When then you're against society. But the deaths doesn't indicate anything. Why don't you try to understand what you read? Anhiquilation of people is subsiadiary in any system, the state itself is the problem and not the economic model. At least the teory of communism pretends to end with the state forever (many others criticize it for that, but that are points of view)Quote:
If the most people ever killed by a social system doesnt convince you, I dont know what will..
Ohhhh...Are sure you readed the facist teory? Facist comes from "facere", and it's the worst kind of right wind model ever, if you want to see it that way. It purposes the control of every single human being and brainwash, but not looking for a best society, but keeping the classist system. The state in this case is so strong that they think they can control people's minds...this was in fact one of the purposes of Mussolinni, of course it's a way of speaking, Mussolinni was an intelligent guy, control people's minds means control what they read, what they do in privacy, thus changing the social reproductive system of the nation. It's the most similar to the represented in "1982" the movie.Quote:
Because fascism and communism are not the same. The principles behind fascism promote a strong society, the principles behind communism promote a broken and self-defeating society.
Definetily you misinterpreted all. Communism is all about society. In fact in the legislation system that Marx proposed, there would not be any subjective rights during the despotism, just the law (objective) that belongs to pure social relationships, so it's sort of the contrary. An communism in it's best form is in fact society distributed between the individuals, knowledge of all things that you know to survive and relate in society are in the individuals achieved that moment, thus making the state innecesary.Quote:
Would you deny that communism in even its very best form seeks to destroy a standing society? Isnt that what the revolution is about? That leads to nothing but death and destruction. No other ideology has such a destructive fundemental principle besides possibly anarchy.
IOhhhh, sir evil ideology don't touch it bites!!! Please no ideology is evil, just persons can be, and only if you consider ethics in the middle. And utopian propagandaaaa!!!! **** if you look a little on the French revolution and the promises made you'll know that we're living in constant propaganda of an stangnant state, the classic Leviatan of Hobbes, only that individuals like you seem to accept it.Quote:
have read more than you assume. I also have the strange ability to read between the lines. Behind all the utopian propaganda, lies an evil ideology that cannot be sustained without the death of all those opposed to it.
Under which government systems are these people starving?
Proof is in the lack of pudding. ~;)