Neither side wants communisim. The Repubs couldn't make as much money and the Dems wouldn't have the freedom to bitch and moan.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
You and I both know what Michael Savage is about, d. As for the so-called republicans here, I don't think they're representative being that places like this are a hotbed of chest-thumping BS, from both sides. As for Rush, Hannity and Coulter, they've said far worse about liberals. It's easy to put them in the same camp with the Michael Savage's of the world. For them it's ALL about money and ego
We already have a moderate amount of socialism. Communism has never existed. At least in the sense Marx talked about. What politicians and pundits call "communism" isn't the communism of Marx, but an ideology or economic plan held by an opposing political party (e.g. in the former USSR, the Communist party). Usually critics of communism conflate the economic theory of Marx laid out in Capital (a multi-volume work), with the economic policies of those failed "communist" states. But if you really want to understand what communism is supposed to be, then you should read at least Capital vol.1, not that you have to agree with what Marx says. Just don't take someone's word for it (Vic, for example) that he knows what he is talking about.
Well, you are in luck. If we change our history, DNA, and apparent need for violence, anarchy could be possible. What am i talking about, there is no chance of humans ever giving up being the followers and mindless zombies. /sarcasm We all need a little guidance and restriction. /end.sarcasm I do sincerely believe that to be a true anarchist society we would have to undergo a complete overhaul. We would need to have our media, schooling, economy altered in a way that can allow for self governing properties. Meanwhile the so-called "leaders" of the free world collaborate on why we should not do this, we will continue to have the illusion of seperation of government and church, seperation of government and people, and last but not least the illusion of seperation of political parties.
I have stated this once and i'll state it again. "There is no difference between Democrat and Republican". They are all trying to f*** you. They certainly were never taught the "reach around" and will not justify the use of lubricant. /sarcasm Since, most petroleum based products have had their prices increased./end.sarcasm If the general American citizen cannot see what is happening to him/her. Then this country is doomed to fail, as all the other civilizations before it did, in the same manner. I for one, would love to see the American public pick up a book and become educated. Rather, than be spoon fed lies. WAKE UP! Pull your heads out of your favorite politicians ass, and smell something other than their scent of deceit.
Mike
I hate it when people mix up forms of government with forms of economic systems. It appears that the OP meant for "Republicanism" to refer to the government currently dominated by the Republican party. He then wants you to choose between this form of government and the economic system called communism.
Or is the OP saying that "Republicanism" is a form of economic system? If so, what are the characteristics of the form?
A more clear poll would give as choices (if you want to choose between economic systems)
1) Capitalism
2) Socialism
3) Communism
or
(if you want to choose between forms of government)
1) Democracy
2) Republic
3) Oligarchy
4) Monarchy
5) Dictatorship
Or is the OP saying that "Republicanism" is a form of economic system? If so, what are the characteristics of the form?
A more clear poll would give as choices (if you want to choose between economic systems)
1) Capitalism
2) Socialism
3) Communism
or
(if you want to choose between forms of government)
1) Democracy
2) Republic
3) Oligarchy
4) Monarchy
5) Dictatorship
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Actually the OP is a troll who was taking a very thinly veiled swipe at the Republican party by asking if we'd be better off under Soviet Union style communism than we currently are under a Republican administration. (Or more specifically THIS Republican administration)
But since he is fairly inarticulate and not bright enough to understand the terms he used in his poll question, it comes off rather awkwardly. He is actually trying to compare an elected administration against a system of government.
He completely overlooks (ignores? is unaware of?) the fact that the current administration operates within a system of government and is not, in fact, a governmental system of its own. Basically he confused the terms republican and republicanism.
His question should have been: How many would rather have Soviet style Communism than the current Republican administration? And, frigteningly enough, about 20% of the people here think the country would be better off.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Utopia communism does not, has never, and will never exist. Stalinist communism is the end result of communism ALWAYS. The reason is the same as why anarchy does not work. Power vacuums create the worst of dictators.Originally posted by: RichardE
Utopia Communism, not Stalin communism.
Liberal, or democratic, socialism is a contradiction in terms. Given the unlimited power, the people can be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator. Hence the expression, "mob rule."
The current Bush Administration is not true republicanism, but more akin to a South American-esque fascism, and as such has more in common with any socialism (and socialism more in common with it) than any true liberalism.
Thanks for yet another pointless (and completely wrong) personal attack, t:roll:
What communism is supposed to be is irrelevant. It is a pipe dream that will never happen. I consider Marx's utopist vision of the "worker's paradise" to be on the same level of fantasy as the Christian "second coming" of Christ. And with similar inevitable results when people are deluded enough to believe in such utopist bullsh!t.
"Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness."
-- George Orwell, Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun, 1943
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Eh, to each his own, but dang, I thought my taste was dated
Anyhow, my french is aucun bon, and my GF isn't home to help me translate.
You know music is good when people keep listening to it at least 10 years after it's been released.
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
All government systems created by man no matter how good will eventually fail because they come up against our individual greed and selfish nature which no form of manmade government has been able to withstand.
Those in charge of these systems once they succumb to their own selfish nature exploit the system and the people they govern for their own desires, but the wiser leaders among the exploiters when they hear the people grumbling in order to avoid revolution or lose their positon of power blame the system or some external factor for their failings and promise us a new system or new law that will fix all the problems with the old one.
Unfortunately many today fall for those promises since they want to be told our problems come from some external enemy or system when all we have to do is look in the mirror to see where the problem lies.
Jeremiah 6:13
For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
Those in charge of these systems once they succumb to their own selfish nature exploit the system and the people they govern for their own desires, but the wiser leaders among the exploiters when they hear the people grumbling in order to avoid revolution or lose their positon of power blame the system or some external factor for their failings and promise us a new system or new law that will fix all the problems with the old one.
Unfortunately many today fall for those promises since they want to be told our problems come from some external enemy or system when all we have to do is look in the mirror to see where the problem lies.
Jeremiah 6:13
For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
More true in dictatorships in monarchies, but the whole notion of separation of powers is towards preventing any bloc, even one man, from polarizing the entire government body. Also, one can have worthwhile leaders as dictators or kings as well as bad ones. On the whole you're right but I think it's more complicated when you introduce constitutions and separate branches into the equation.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Maybe *IF*
1) It could get religious whako's such as Bush out of office...
2) Reform health care? Social health Care Like in Canada? Yeah... I'd go for that...
3) Reform SS... Don't know but I wish the top 1% would keep their fingers out of the pot. We don't need another war memorial...
4) Could reform from killing people and spending GOBS of cash going to wars....
Then yea! I'm all for it!
Bring it on!
1) It could get religious whako's such as Bush out of office...
2) Reform health care? Social health Care Like in Canada? Yeah... I'd go for that...
3) Reform SS... Don't know but I wish the top 1% would keep their fingers out of the pot. We don't need another war memorial...
4) Could reform from killing people and spending GOBS of cash going to wars....
Then yea! I'm all for it!
Bring it on!
Originally posted by: Vic
Utopia communism does not, has never, and will never exist. Stalinist communism is the end result of communism ALWAYS. The reason is the same as why anarchy does not work. Power vacuums create the worst of dictators.Originally posted by: RichardE
Utopia Communism, not Stalin communism.
Liberal, or democratic, socialism is a contradiction in terms. Given the unlimited power, the people can be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator. Hence the expression, "mob rule."
The current Bush Administration is not true republicanism, but more akin to a South American-esque fascism, and as such has more in common with any socialism (and socialism more in common with it) than any true liberalism.
Thanks for yet another pointless (and completely wrong) personal attack, t:roll:
What communism is supposed to be is irrelevant. It is a pipe dream that will never happen. I consider Marx's utopist vision of the "worker's paradise" to be on the same level of fantasy as the Christian "second coming" of Christ. And with similar inevitable results when people are deluded enough to believe in such utopist bullsh!t.
"Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness."
-- George Orwell, Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun, 1943
Utopia could exist if a leader who disposed of all the disenters than followed the dream, while at the same time ensuring that people from birth were brought up to believe the way it is, is the way it was suppose and always will be.
Outside influenced, which brings the introduction of non-communistic ideals is always the failure of a state. If one could become a leader without greed, dispose of all disenters and begin a process of brainwashing the children from birth to be hyper-patriotic to the point where any idea besides the governments is rejected, you could have Utopia communism.
Of course the beginning of this is not idea, but all revolutions have growing pains.
"The Repubs couldn't make as much money"
Big misconception, Look at the blue states, California, New York, MI, MA. Tell me those States aren't among the richest per capita.
BTW, the States most generous (charitable donations) Yep, Red states. Most of them in the deep South.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter