i could make "a thread for fascists" and fill out the right with hitler and bush, how about that?

9/27/2005 11:05:00 PM

9/27/2005 11:33:22 PM

^ Funny how you preach that the Libs should get over the election and all you post are pre-election pics.

that and, THA BIG GIRL

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 11:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2005 11:44:29 PM

dont be mad b/c you love Micheal Moore and the UN so much. FALIURES.

9/27/2005 11:49:25 PM

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

gasp

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


I HATE Michael Moore, I just hate you more.

9/27/2005 11:51:45 PM

Quote :

"FALIURES."

9/27/2005 11:53:49 PM

why do you hate him? i thought he was going to help you guys in the election? so much for that

9/27/2005 11:59:25 PM

who are "you guys" when you respond to me? Tell me, what political affiliation am I?

9/28/2005 12:00:23 AM

Quote :

"FALIURES."

9/28/2005 12:00:40 AM

i think your first reply to this thread sums that up

so tell me, those of you (whoever you are) that admire communism, what do you think about your flagbearers such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, the T-Shirt King Che, and others who have sponsored violence, terrible economic policy, and destruction in their countries?

9/28/2005 12:04:40 AM

wow, so let me get this straight, are you saying that Micheal Moore was supposed to help the commies win the election???

I was unaware they were running.

I'm assuming that you are dumbd enough to take my first post seriously.

9/28/2005 12:06:24 AM

then what are you?

9/28/2005 12:07:13 AM

I affiliate myself with no party, mostly because I don't believe in blindly following what a party preaches to be correct. The far left are idiots, the far right are idiots. some of the moderates on both sides I can agree with.

9/28/2005 12:09:50 AM

i still want some real communists to answer that question for me

9/28/2005 12:33:34 AM

^THen PM Kris.

9/28/2005 12:38:26 AM

your supposed to be posting pictures!

9/28/2005 2:10:16 AM

9/30/2005 5:02:11 PM

Quote :

"So well written, I get goosebumps whenever I read the last page. "

Too easy.

9/30/2005 9:11:58 PM

Yeah, just like capitalist women.

OH SNAP

9/30/2005 9:37:44 PM

Quote :

"what do you think about your flagbearers such as Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, the T-Shirt King Che, and others who have sponsored violence, terrible economic policy, and destruction in their countries?"

I'll go through them one by one.

Mao: I feel Mao was slightly mislead, he subscribed to a form of communism that was a bit more hard-lined than mine, but he was still a great man. He did great things for china, turing it from nothing more than an imperial mouthpiece and a nation of dope pushers to a world superpower and an economic powerhouse. His main mistake was the split with the USSR, this caused his economic failures and the famines that ensued after natural disaster. Mao was more of a stalinist unlike kruskev who was a more akin to lenin. He was a tyrant and a mislead communist, but he still did some good things, much like stalin.

Stalin: Another hardliner, a tyrant, and also a bit mentally disturbed. He did some bad things, but every nation has dirt in thier history. You have to keep in mind that it was by this man's resolve that the entire globe is not under fascist rule. Say what you want about his "atrocities" but without him GB would have fallen, the Nazi's would have controlled the entire eastern hemisphere, probably would have later set up base in mexico and taken easily taken america. He also helped push the USSR up to the status of one of only two world superpowers. He and Mao were misguided, they were tyrants and had their own personal ego problems leading to their cults of personality.

Lenin: Lenin was a great man, his only mistake was allowing stalin to gain such power within the party while he was alive, but their wasn't much way to avoid that. He was very humane, granted he was involved with a rather bloody revolution, but that doesn't really make him an evil man. I wouldn't really even call him a dictator: "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all. I am just like everybody else."

Lenin was a great man.

Castro: I've talked about castro several times in several different threads. He is a great man. He has survived countless execution attempts. He took cuba back from the mafia and gave it to the people. He distributed his own lands to the poor. He removed the corruption that plagued his government. He removed the crime, the prostitution, the gambling, the drugs, and all the other evils of the "mafia playground". He replaced them with education, medical care, and a much larger literacy rate than the US.

Che: Not really a communist "leader", he was really just a revolutionary. I'd say he was more of a trotskyite and an anarchist. He was still a great man, but he doesn't get his credit for leading anything that wasn't a band of armed revolutionaries.

10/3/2005 12:45:37 AM

As long as you ignore the countless millions of dead produced by communism in less than a century of existence, what Kris just said sounds pretty good.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 1:52 AM. Reason : YOU LIKE DRUGS!!!1]

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2005 1:50:54 AM

Should I dare list the number of atrocities commited by capitalists?

I'd say not a one on that list can claim to have killed more civilians, women, and children in a more cruel way than truman.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ^I do like drugs, that certainly doesn't imply that I think they are good]

10/3/2005 2:59:10 PM

Quote :

"I'd say not a one on that list can claim to have killed more civilians, women, and children in a more cruel way than truman."

That's rich. And I'm sure that our use of the Bomb stems from some inherent evil in the capitalist system, not that we got it first.

Overall, capitalism has probably killed more people, but then again, capitalism has been accepted by more people for a longer period of time, so it's to be expected. We had a head start. In the course of less than a century, Communism was responsible for the deaths of how many tens of millions of people? You guys were trying to catch up pretty fast, thank God we stopped you before you won the body count game.

Quote :

"I do like drugs, that certainly doesn't imply that I think they are good"

Do as I say, not as I do, right?

10/3/2005 4:25:50 PM

Quote :

"And I'm sure that our use of the Bomb stems from some inherent evil in the capitalist system"

And yet somehow any atrocity commited under a communist regime is automatically blamed on the inherent evil of the communist system itself.

I think Russian restraint during the cold war during obvious US agression shows the Soviets unwillingness to use the bomb.

Quote :

"Communism was responsible for the deaths of how many tens of millions of people?"

What exactly are we counting here? Communism didn't take a gun and shoot anyone. Are we blaming deaths due to famine? Most of those are to blame on natural disasters, and would have been as worse if not moreso had they been capitalist.

Quote :

"You guys were trying to catch up pretty fast, thank God we stopped you before you won the body count game."

What exactly did you stop here? China is still communist, cuba's still going strong despite your best efforts, and Russia is on a rather grim state of affiars economically, I wouldn't surprise if they jumped the fence right back in a few years. Then we've got the EU, a Engelian model of socialism, traveling farther left by the minute. What exactly did you win? Was it a prize?

Quote :

"Do as I say, not as I do, right?"

I don't do drugs anymore, I still like them. But that doesn't change the fact that they breed crime and all other sorts of bad things. I may have enjoyed drugs, but even when I did, I most certainly didn't think they should be legalized, it would be bad for society.

10/3/2005 4:40:04 PM

i havne't posted in here in months and i saw the title and immediately knew that ^ post was coming.

10/3/2005 4:46:28 PM

guns economic/political ideologies dont kill people, people kill people

10/3/2005 4:52:55 PM

Quote :

"guns economic/political ideologies dont kill people, people kill people"

10/3/2005 10:07:08 PM

Quote :

"Mao: I feel Mao was slightly mislead, he subscribed to a form of communism that was a bit more hard-lined than mine, but he was still a great man. He did great things for china, turing it from nothing more than an imperial mouthpiece and a nation of dope pushers to a world superpower and an economic powerhouse. His main mistake was the split with the USSR, this caused his economic failures and the famines that ensued after natural disaster. Mao was more of a stalinist unlike kruskev who was a more akin to lenin. He was a tyrant and a mislead communist, but he still did some good things, much like stalin."

Mao was a terrible planner, but a great executor of said plans. just look at the great leap. ill agree that his split from the ussr was ill-advised, and had he died before the cultural revolution, he wouldnt be nearly the villan he is today. as for the economic prosperity, that was all Deng Xiaoping and Socialist Modernization. If Xiaoping had not supressed the democracy demonstrations in the 80's, he would deserve to be looked at as one of the greatest world leaders.



[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2005 5:32:59 PM

I can't believe someone is actually trying to defend communism. Communism and the stage before it, socialism are complete failures. What incentive is there to succeed if you cannot attain anymore than anyone else? What is the point of working if you are not rewarded for the fruit of your labors? It doesn't matter how hard you work, you won't get anymore than the other guy who does just enough to get by. People always speak of equality under communism. Yeah, there was eqaulity. Everyone was equally miserable and had nothing. At least with capitalism you have a chance to better yourself through hardwork and dedication. You might not ever make it, but there is always a chance. With communism there is no such chance.

11/11/2005 7:40:18 PM

11/11/2005 9:15:33 PM

What a crappy digital picture. The lines are not sharp and the scan lines are clearly visible. Whoever designed it should be sent to a Chinese work-camp.

11/11/2005 9:38:22 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe someone is actually trying to defend communism. Communism and the stage before it, socialism are complete failures. What incentive is there to succeed if you cannot attain anymore than anyone else? What is the point of working if you are not rewarded for the fruit of your labors? It doesn't matter how hard you work, you won't get anymore than the other guy who does just enough to get by. People always speak of equality under communism. Yeah, there was eqaulity. Everyone was equally miserable and had nothing. At least with capitalism you have a chance to better yourself through hardwork and dedication. You might not ever make it, but there is always a chance. With communism there is no such chance."

youre 18, and have only learned about history through the US "we won the cold war and commies arent cool" lense. I'll let you slide.

Oversimplify much?

Dont even fucking say anything about China, their socialist modernization plan is why you have 90% of the stuff in your room. no democracy =/= socialism.

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 4:30 AM. Reason : .]

11/12/2005 4:28:53 AM

Does =/= mean "not equal to" or "!="?

Quote :

"their socialist modernization plan is why you have 90% of the stuff in your room"

Now that is an overstretch. If it wasn't for China then the army of world-wide capitalists that made all that stuff would have simply gone elsewhere, maybe Alabama, probably a floatilla in the Pacific Ocean.

Nevertheless, you are right: Commies are definitely cool when they busy themselves implementing one of the most-free system of capital in the world! A Chinese Free Trade Zone may be limited in size, but inside corporations have more freedom than even in Hong Kong! Those commies are fucking Brilliant!

11/12/2005 10:32:06 AM

Quote :

"youre 18, and have only learned about history through the US "we won the cold war and commies arent cool" lense. I'll let you slide. Oversimplify much? Dont even fucking say anything about China, their socialist modernization plan is why you have 90% of the stuff in your room. no democracy =/= socialism."

You're right. I did oversimplify. The systems in countries like Russia were not communist, but more like authoritarian socialism. In a true communist "state" there would be no state (government) and everyone would be equal, happy, and live in harmony and all that hippy dippy utopian bullshit. Thing is for communism to take place the government would have to disappear and the workers would own the means of production. Under socialism (the intermediate stage as the economy transitions from capitalism to communism) the government gets bigger and bigger as it provides more human services and raises taxes to help eliminate the economic disparity between the classes by default making communism impossible. Communism also doesn't take into effect human emotions (such as greed and jealousy). If one person fails or refuses to take part in production then the entire system begans to unravel as other people become jealous at him/her for taking advantage of the system. Not to mention the fact that everyone wants more than the other person has which also by default makes communism impossible as it requires people to work in harmony with each other rather than competing. Communism is just a theory and could NEVER happen on a large scale basis.

11/12/2005 10:38:12 AM

11/12/2005 12:52:42 PM

^ He just wants to shake hands.

11/12/2005 3:48:17 PM

apparently we're assuming that greed and jealousy are desireable emotions which people should not try to suppress.



that said, past faliures (and beleive me, id never want to emulate past socialist systems) cant stop us from coming up with a better version of this system, which is possible.

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/12/2005 3:55:03 PM

^ That is your opinion.

In my thinking, I'd prefer a free system over a command system regardless of which one ultimately worked better.

11/12/2005 5:45:11 PM

Quote :

"FALIURES."

11/12/2005 5:51:11 PM

Unfortunately, all humans are not altruistic in their motives. Extreme communism isnt the answer, nor is extreme capitalism. The most democratic means of running an economy is what I desire, but at the same time, there needs to be some kind of responsibility, as well as motivation to modernize.

11/12/2005 6:13:57 PM

Democracy is a horrible ultimate goal! Democracy is simply tyranny by another name. Only a fool puts his life and prosperity in the hands of other people, regardless of how many they represent.

The most just and free means of running an economy is what I desire.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. - H. L. Mencken

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/12/2005 7:35:13 PM

and social darwinism is a great goal, let 90% of the people suffer and die away

11/12/2005 9:03:28 PM

Quote :

"Mao: I feel Mao was slightly mislead,...but he was still a great man. He did great things for china,... He was a tyrant and a mislead communist, but he still did some good things, much like stalin."

Please elaborate about these "good things" Mao did for China. You can't just make a statement like that and conveniently leave out any examples.

Unless, ignorant fucks like you consider the killing of more than 30million citizens a great achievement, you won't be able to cite any examples.

11/12/2005 10:30:57 PM

well, Mussolini made the trains run on time (figuratively).

I'll let Kris answer that, b/c I personally subscribe to the theory that Mao wasn't interested in communism taking hold at all, he just wanted to make a system that kept him on top and kept people working under him in the name of the common good. he was power hungry.

"If Mao had died before the Cultural Revolution, he would be looked at much fonder in China today"

-David Henry Hwang

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/12/2005 10:42:10 PM

Well if David Henry Hwang says so, then it must be.

Actually Mao killed less people during the Cultural Revolution. It was his Great Leap Forward that killed 30 million Chinese.

I had to re-read it. I missed the last "in China" part.

Quote :

"If Mao had died before the Cultural Revolution, he would be looked at much fonder in China today""

Well no shit... I don't think the communist in China liked the Revolution, do you???



[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/12/2005 11:06:24 PM

Quote :

"and social darwinism is a great goal"

I never subscribed to the theory myself, but I once met someone that was all for it.

We are discussing the difference between a society directed by majoritarian rule or self rule. As examples, "Rule of the Legislature" such as in Revolutionary France vs "Rule of the Law" such as in a constitutional monarchy.

I find it very possible for a democratic vote to call for the impoverishment or execution of disliked individuals, such as voting to "eliminate the immigrants" or "get those fat-cats!" Under such a democratic system, you are suffering/dead if a mere majority, 51%, of the elected officials hate you.

In a free system, anyone is free to trade or deal with anyone they choose and no individual can be "robbed or murdered," at least legally, regardless of what percentage hates you. Worse case scenario, as long as someone thinks you should survive then you will. Worse case scenario, you can subsist on secret charitable handouts.

No system is perfect and all suffer from corruption, so I recognize that a free system is only marginally better than democracy when it comes to worse-case scenarios.

I guess my point was that "Social Darwinism" is an idea independent of the economic system in question because both of our systems involve winner takes all competition, the difference is a free system competes in the marketplace while a democratic system competes on the floor of the parliament. Which location do you feel you have more participation?

11/12/2005 11:46:08 PM

Quote :

"Please elaborate about these "good things" Mao did for China."

Mao did some great things for china during his earlier years, he was still a Stalinist and Luigi is right that he used communism to help keep himself in power. But he did fight to keep out the Japanese imperialists. He saved several innocent chinese from the rightist massacres. Even the Americans were impressed by him and sent over the Dixie Mission. And he did unite china.

He did some terrible things, but he's no hitler.

11/13/2005 8:38:16 PM

yeah, pre-1949 Mao did some good, whether people admit it or not. People in this country like to hold up Chiang Kai-Shek as a hero b/c he fought Mao and had to flee, but no one remembers that ran a fascist chinese state in the 30s where he killed dissidents and did nothing for chinas drug problems. the japanese invasion was the only thing that interrupted this.

now from the great leap on, yeah, mao is up there with stalin.

11/13/2005 8:42:59 PM

Pretty much, I chop off stalin's defense in much the same way, right after WW2. I think their mental states had to do a lot with it.

11/13/2005 10:53:17 PM

I despise Chaing Kai-Shek equally, maybe even more. Not only for the reason you mentioned. After he illegally occupied Formosa, he brutally suppressed the natives and made them slaves in hopes of re-invading China. America set back and watched and supported him as he murdered thousands of Formosans. The Soong's, Sun Yat-Sen, etc.. were nothing more than bandits and thieves, including Madam Chiang.

Quote :

"Even the Americans were impressed by him and sent over the Dixie Mission"

The Americans also fought along side of the Mujahideen against Russia in Afghanistan. Just because America will ally with a group when their objectives align, does not justify their cause. That's one of the biggest lessons America has yet to learn. We are too short-sighted.

Quote :

"And he did unite china."

You have watched Hero too many times. Why is it that you think China should be united? This is the same propaganda that they use to justify the occupation of Tibet, Xin-jinag, and possibly soon Taiwan. In all of China's dynastic history they were only united briefly several times. The people from one province to the next speak different languages and are mutually unintelligble.Was Hitler great because he tried to unite a large land mass?

Quote :

"He did some terrible things, but he's no hitler."

He wasn't Hitler, you're right. But if you use death as a metric, he surpassed Hitler. However, most people that died under Mao was not because he wanted them to die. But still there were a lot of people that he had killed on purpose. Besides, if that is the best you can say about a man I wouldn't defend him.. Pres. Bush did some terrible things, but he is no Hitler... Does that mean we all should like him?

[Edited on November 13, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/13/2005 10:55:14 PM