Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[overlordFT]

lol. Liberilism is starting to sound like socialism. All heil Stailin!

lol. Ignorance.

I suggest you do some basic research about socialism, Stalin and liberalism before you go around associating them like that.

1. Liberals are, in the majority, left leaning or socialists.

2. Stalin was not a socialist, and in some ways, I'm not sure he could be called a communist(Unless you believe in the flawed Amerikkkan McCarthyist definition of what a communist is)

3. As a communist, I'm tired and sick of people going around and acting like Stalin is the poster boy for communism. And, tbh, I'm quite at loss that you associated Socialism with Stalin.

[Servant Corps]

Stalin was a socialist. Does the words "Socialism in one country" ring any bells to you?

Just because you may disagree with Stalin's political ideology does not mean that you can't call him not a "communist" or a "socialist".

Further, by saying Stalin is not a socialist, you are pretty much going against Maoism, which does, in fact, believe in Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.

Lastly, Liberals are not socialists. Liberals love private property. Socialists don't.

Even more lastly, overlordFT, I think megaman was making a joke. See the word "heil" for instance, which states that he is viewing Stalin as a fascist.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Or just a petty ignorance.

Which is typical for average Eaglelander (note: the term could also applied to my country) with their F*CK THE ENEMY!!!!!!!!!1 WE ARE THE TRUTH!! THE MESSIAH!!! mind-set.

(Oh, by Eaglelanders, I mean TheRepublik TheEmpire)

[Yanlin]

I'm not a political scientist, but I'm pretty sure that Stalin, Lenin and all those other "communists" completely fucked the definition over to their side so they could instill their regime. What you saw in the USSR was not communism. It was... Eh... What's it called? Totalitarianism? Basically a massive capitalistic regime where the government is the only corporation and it owns everything. The only benefits they gave their people are mandatory ones required for the efficient operation of the country. Much in the same way a corporation gives healthcare benefits to their employees.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

[..]a massive capitalistic regime where the government is the only corporation and it owns everything.

Actually, Yanlin, that's what called communistic.
Yeah.

[Rezan]

It appears Yanlin does not know what capitalism is. A capitalistic system can still be totalitarian. Totalitarianism depends upon someone ruling somewhere with an iron fist, such as, say, Burma, or pre-second-Gulf-war Iraq.

Communism was about giving everybody a job and food on the table and liberating the masses from their oppressors. Communism backfired because the "supervisors" could not be trusted. Corruption was too hard to control; as the worker only worried about work. You should read Animal Farm - it offers some insight on the matter.

Corporations are about making profit for its shareholders. Nothing else. In the US, the corporation even has the rights of a human being (though none of those pesky drawbacks like liability or a conscience).

They're quite different entities; the corporation and communism.

[Servant Corps]

I'm not a political scientist, but I'm pretty sure that Stalin, Lenin and all those other "communists" completely fucked the definition over to their side so they could instill their regime. What you saw in the USSR was not communism. It was... Eh... What's it called? Totalitarianism? Basically a massive capitalistic regime where the government is the only corporation and it owns everything. The only benefits they gave their people are mandatory ones required for the efficient operation of the country. Much in the same way a corporation gives healthcare benefits to their employees.

Communism is the ideal economic system, but it takes time for it to be accomplished. What Lenin, Stalin, etc. were doing is trying to reach this ideal Communist system through industrial and economic development. They were communists, in the sense that they were wanting to acheive a communist utopia, but the USSR itself was a Socialist nation, in transition from evil capitalism to good communism. I think one term the Communist Party of Russia did use to describe this sort of transition stage was "state capitalism".

EDIT: Anyway, I like more discussion on the OP rather than on Communism.

[Leafsnail]

I'd still hesitate to call what happened in the USSR as anything even beginning to approach communism.  For instance, there's no reason why you can't have a democratic communist government.  There are no classes in a communist society, and there most certainly were in the USSR.  In addition, Stalin's frequent and seemingly random purges also didn't fit in.

We would probably have a rather different view of communism if Trotsky rather than Stalin had taken over.  Like, ambitious and virtuous but rather crap, as opposed to oppressive and totalitarianist.

[Yanlin]

I still hold my statement. USSR was not communistic. At all.

Think about it. A room and board for everyone for free. Free healthcare. Free transportation. Only luxuries cost money. Even the poor can afford a 2 room apartment issued by the state. Those with more money are taxed higher to fund welfare. Spreading it around. Take from those with excess and give to those in need.

Incidentally, Robin Hood was one of the first Communists.

However, this relies on a well regulated and non-corrupt government. The USA constitution is perfect for this. The 1st and 2nd amendments are the most important part. Empower the people. Give them the ability to replace the regime if they don't like it. Make it as bloodless as possible.

THAT'S what I think communism is about.

Capitalism is good as well. I think capitalism is a system where you have the wealth concentrated in the hands of few who use it to support the many. Essentially, the people work and get paid. They use the money to buy stuff to live and prosper. Room and board cost money which they earn.

This however means those that cannot work, cannot pay. Cannot live. Under this system, homeless people cannot get a job at all. Consider this. Who would hire them?

Remember. All extremists are well-intentioned in their minds. Even Osama. They all want what they think is best for the world. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, George Washington, McCain, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Etc.

But for most of them, the "Best" is actually not the best. I'm still talking about extremists. Take Muslims for example. They want to convert or eradicate the whole world and rule it. For better living conditions for all under the guidance of Allah. Inshalla.

Another example: Christians. (Still talking about extremists) They want to save the entire world. They strongly believe that the path to heaven is through the worship of the holy trinity and The Lord. (God)

George Washington: Examine the facts. He and his whole "Sons of Liberty" organization were terrorists. But history is written by the victors.



Again, I may not know exactly what Communism and Capitalism mean, but as far as I'm concerned, the system I described for communism is an excerpt from my personal beliefs on how governments should work.

NOTE: It's only PART of what I believe. It only really makes sense if I say all of it, but I don't think you want to read 3 pages of political ideology and I don't think I want to type it up.

"I honorably disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it."

[Megaman]

George Washington: Examine the facts. He and his whole "Sons of Liberty" organization were terrorists. But history is written by the victors.

George didn't found the sons of liberty, he was just the CIC(Command in Chief) and the first prez.
P.S: the son's of liberty wasn't one orginisation, eventually there was one in almost every colony, however it still wasn't one orginisation.

[Yanlin]

I'm not sure exactly who, but the entire organization was basically a terrorist organization. That makes every member of it a terrorist. Thus, it even extends to Washington. Even though he didn't found it.

But it helps to lump all of them under one banner.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

The Sons of Liberty would be a terrorist organization in that it is connected to several incidents that would today be called terrorist attacks, but 1) the Sons of Liberty is mainly a blanket label for the young men and women who resisted British taxes and laws during the run up to the revolutionary war, and no structured organization beyond local gatherings and emergent leaders likely existed for people to be formal members of, and 2) even if it was a true terrorist organization, this would not automatically make its members terrorists through guilt by association, only those that can be identified as being positively involved in terrorism through the organization, and finally 3) even if we were to implicate people by association, this would not apply to George Washington, as he was not one of the Sons of Liberty, but more of an inactive sympathizer to the same general ideals.

George Washington was as elected official in the Virginia legislature living a fairly quiet life during this time period, and never got involved in any rabble rousing -- he was the sort of aristocratic man whose demeanor lent him to commanding armies, not angry mobs. For this reason, Washington's rebelliousness was limited to changing the crops on his farm from tobacco to wheat, so that wasn't selling to the British anymore.

[Yanlin]

I'm not sure about the whole history. All I know are the facts. Subsequent to the decleration of independence, over 8 million native Americans have been brutally murdered and over 2 million people were enslaved.

Something like that. I'm not sure on the exact stats.



Not to mention that tea from Britain, even after taxes, was still cheaper than the smuggled tea. The tea party made no sense.

The taxes for the Americans were rather low and fair for the increasing cost of keeping them guarded. The British aren't the evil galactic empire in this war.

All I have to say, is that US of A was founded by terrorists. Libertarian Liberal terrorists.

Libertarian crime squad! We need a catchphrase!

[mainiac]

When debating a term such as "liberal" please keep in mind that it's meanings extend to more then half of the political affiliations in modern politics, many of which contradict each other. 

That is all.

[Rezan]

All I have to say, is that US of A was founded by terrorists. Libertarian Liberal terrorists.

Israel was also founded by terrorists, coincidentally. Strange how these terrorist nations tend to get as many weapons they can, then meddle in other countries' business... It might be a trend.