That was something of a joint effort, if I recall correctlySaelune said:Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.
That was something of a joint effort, if I recall correctlySaelune said:Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.
Lenin wasn't a "strongman" in the traditional sense, because he was one of the founders of the revolution. The Soviet Union was founded out of the ashes of a corrupt monarchy. I never said Every single leader of communist nations is evil, I said every communist GOVERNMENT eventually resorts to evil, because as the years go by the strongman becomes the only way to force people to submit to a system that can't keep any of it's promises.RandomNameRandom said:That is true communism is impossible, as noble as the ideals are communism cant happen because by nature people only care about themselves and possibly the person they intend to mate with and even that is a maybe.Travis Higuet said:The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.RandomNameRandom said:Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.Travis Higuet said:Probably not as many as communism.Saelune said:Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.
Although this strongman thing is kinda of an odd idea, Lenin motivated people through his eloquent words that gave people hope. Not through an imposing nature. Also you can't really argue against revolutionary leaders acting for the name of the people, democracy in america started in the name of the people, and even the horrible politicians today claim their decisions are "for the people"
"The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."Matt Oliver said:we must remember our past so we do not make the mistakes they did, and to give us a sense on where to go from here.General BrEeZy said:i dont give a bloody thought to the past, and neither should anyone else. keep your eyes on the present and construct a better future.
in modern times, i'd direct almost all of my anger to the dick who made Spam E-mail. stupid F**KING ******, i'll rip his effing guts out if i meet him!
oh yeah, the corrupt politicians and world leaders around the globe are pretty bad too. i dont know enough people to make these kinds of judgements to myself let alone to the online community, so im stopping here.
What ridiculous trash. Tobacco companies don't kill anybody. They sell a product. They have not once ever forced anyone to buy it. If you are stupid enough to use it until it kills you, then that's your choice. Saying tobacco companies kill people is no different than saying they were killed by OREO cookies, or Mcdonalds. Almost anything can kill you if you are to stupid to know it's or your own limits. You can even die from drinking to much water. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions.thatguy1 said:![]()
"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."
Sorry, but apart from some pretty sick things you said ("I doubt the jews were up to sharing their jobs"? Really? Can't we throw some clichee of stealing polacks in there,while we are at it?) how were Stalin and Mao not products of their enironment? If I am not totally mistaken, there were some reasons for the revolutions in Question.rutger5000 said:Sorry I have to go for popes here. No offence to current popes and catholics, but the old ones were sadistic powerhunger greedy bastards. In my opinion they did unreversable damage to the world. Otherwise I'll have to go to Stalin, but I doubt his influence will remain longer then 200 or 300 years. No wait Mao Zedong is probably worst destroying most of an over 3000 year old culture, and killing milliones in the process.
Hitler definitely was an awefull guy, but he doesn't make my top ten. He was a product of his environment, Germany was ill treaded, people were hungry and poor and I doubt the jews were up to sharing their jobs and above else he was a raving lunatic. As horrible as it may sound I can not see him as one of the most evil persons ever existed.
Very well said sir, I honestly couldn't have put it better myself. I love the deep-down internal contradictions that nobody seems to notice about the communist ideal, but I digress. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Sword of Truth series?Travis Higuet said:You neglect the fact that without the owner, the factory wouldn't be there in the first place. The workers you talk of could have gotten together, pooled their resources, and opened up a factory in which they were all co-owners, and yet they did not. If not for the hated capitalist, there would be no factory, and there would be no jobs. Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created. You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky. What we have is what we've created for ourselves. If you dislike the terms of your employment, you are free in a free market system to "sell" your labor elsewhere. If you think you know how to run a factory, or any other business for that matter better than the people who are running them now, then do it. Get in the market and compete. Nobody is stopping you. I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for? If labor union owned factories are in all ways superior, then the free market would reflect that. Their overhead would be lower, the quality of their products greater, and the price to consumers more affordable. Unfortunately for the true believers of the left, those things are almost never true. And when they are, congratulations, you've just successfully competed in a free market. What makes you think your state regulated economic equality will be more "fair"? In a capitalist system, wealth and power can be earned by anyone. When wealth and power are controlled by the state, it's all about who you know. Only "party" members, and friends of those in power have access to wealth and power. Your argument that these are abuses of communism is tired, and irrelevant. If they are abuses, then they are inevitable abuses. I defy you to identify for me a communist revolution in all of human history where these so called abuses have been absent. Those with power in communist systems NEVER live the same as those without it. People like you get all starry eyed talking about the great communist utopia that's just around the corner, if only we give it another chance. If only smart people with no hidden agenda can oversee the next communist revolution, it will work out. This time it will be different. It won't be. Communism sounds fair, and ends in mass graves, because it tries to make humans into something they are not. Humans are not ants, and they never will be, thus communism will always fail, hopefully before the mass graves part. Capitalism sounds unfair (to people like you) but in reality, it gives everybody the chance to make the best of their situation. Nobody is guaranteed success in every endeavor, but nothing stops you from trying again. Not everybody has to be an owner in capitalism. Employers need employees. The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. Capitalism is even forgiving in its fairness. Fail once, and you'll get another chance. Fail at that, and you can have another. Nobody is stopping you. The left will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You reap both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make. It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness. You think I am against charity? You would be wrong. I give, because I can, and because I like to help people. When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given. When I give, it must be because I choose to do so. When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself. Whether the thief is a knife wielding punk on a street corner, or a representative of the IRS makes no difference. Another point of clarification, I am not against taxes collected pursuant to the execution of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress as laid out in the constitution. But when money is collected to buy the votes of the entitlement class, then it is not a tax, because no such tax is authorized by our constitution. It is theft.RandomNameRandom said:Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.Brett Dumain said:While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).RandomNameRandom said:Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.
The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).
I am quite far from being religious myself, but I would respectfully point out that the Bible itself has a lot of really good messages in it about love and being accepting and understanding(so does the Qur'an, and most other religious texts, for that matter, and before someone tries to contradict me: jihad just means 'struggle' as in the struggle to survive and worship as a Muslim, the idea has been used, perversely, by radical clerics, especially in the last century, to mean preemptive violence, which is not how the vast majority of muslims interprets that word).Saelune said:Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of Japanese and American, military and civilian lives. Japan started the war, and they could have surrendered at any time. The American high command was preparing an invasion of mainland Japan to end the war. This would have resulted in an estimated half million American military casualties, and around 3 to 4 times as many Japanese military casualties. On top of that would have been millions of Japanese civilians dying to indirect fire from both sides and starvation. The damage done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible price for the Japanese to pay to end the war that they started, but as much as you don't like to hear it, millions of lives were saved. The targets were even specifically chosen because of relatively low populations, and genuine military significance. The target could have been Kyoto. Kyoto had thus far been relatively untouched out of respect, and because there was little heavy industry.spartan231490 said:"The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."Matt Oliver said:we must remember our past so we do not make the mistakes they did, and to give us a sense on where to go from here.General BrEeZy said:i dont give a bloody thought to the past, and neither should anyone else. keep your eyes on the present and construct a better future.
in modern times, i'd direct almost all of my anger to the dick who made Spam E-mail. stupid F**KING ******, i'll rip his effing guts out if i meet him!
oh yeah, the corrupt politicians and world leaders around the globe are pretty bad too. i dont know enough people to make these kinds of judgements to myself let alone to the online community, so im stopping here.
Just had to throw that in there.
OT: The most evil people are likely people you've never heard of. But, if I had to pick a well-known individual. I would pick whoever was president of the US during WWII. Firebombing of Dresden killed 40,000; and there were firebombings that killed more. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. A lot of innocent civilians were killed to end that war. If I had to pick someone from very recent history, I'd say George W. Bush. It is my belief that the things he did will lead to a major, global economic disaster within the next decade. And he had no reason to believe that it wouldn't. That's evil.
You obviously have never studied Marx's work and I doubt you have attempted to understand it outside of your biased perspective. On another note, people often use the death tolls of people like Stalin to discredit Socio-economic systems like communism. However it is important to to know that structural violence, that is where people are subject to poor conditions against them due to the Socio-economic system they live in, causes far more death and suffering than any brutal dictator. Things like poverty where 15,000+ poor children die every month. There are over a billion people starving on this planet while 1% of the richest of the population hold over 40% of all the wealth and resources.Brett Dumain said:Karl Marx. That broke self hating Jew has been responsible for the starvation, murder, and forced imprisonment of over 100 million people over the course of the last century.
Death-rates due to cancer are still significantly higher in those portions of Japan than other points in the advanced world. The same effect could have been accomplished by nuking a completely unpopulated area and then dropping single false bombs in several Japanese cities. It would have proven the point just as well, and I doubt they would have even needed to drop the other bomb. I find this ironic, because usually I argue for the dropping of the bombs, because it was the quickest road to victory. Honestly, I don't really think that the american gov't should have been all that concerned with Japanese lives. Their job is to protect american people, and Japan started the war, so ending the war while sacrificing the least American lives should prolly have been their goal. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't, at the very least, inhumane, if not evil.Travis Higuet said:The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of Japanese and American, military and civilian lives. Japan started the war, and they could have surrendered at any time. The American high command was preparing an invasion of mainland Japan to end the war. This would have resulted in an estimated half million American military casualties, and around 3 to 4 times as many Japanese military casualties. On top of that would have been millions of Japanese civilians dying to indirect fire from both sides and starvation. The damage done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible price for the Japanese to pay to end the war that they started, but as much as you don't like to hear it, millions of lives were saved. The targets were even specifically chosen because of relatively low populations, and genuine military significance. The target could have been Kyoto. Kyoto had thus far been relatively untouched out of respect, and because there was little heavy industry.spartan231490 said:"The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."Matt Oliver said:we must remember our past so we do not make the mistakes they did, and to give us a sense on where to go from here.General BrEeZy said:i dont give a bloody thought to the past, and neither should anyone else. keep your eyes on the present and construct a better future.
in modern times, i'd direct almost all of my anger to the dick who made Spam E-mail. stupid F**KING ******, i'll rip his effing guts out if i meet him!
oh yeah, the corrupt politicians and world leaders around the globe are pretty bad too. i dont know enough people to make these kinds of judgements to myself let alone to the online community, so im stopping here.
Just had to throw that in there.
OT: The most evil people are likely people you've never heard of. But, if I had to pick a well-known individual. I would pick whoever was president of the US during WWII. Firebombing of Dresden killed 40,000; and there were firebombings that killed more. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. A lot of innocent civilians were killed to end that war. If I had to pick someone from very recent history, I'd say George W. Bush. It is my belief that the things he did will lead to a major, global economic disaster within the next decade. And he had no reason to believe that it wouldn't. That's evil.
Every communist government to date has resorted to violence or suppression to keep the people down but my main point is that these governments were never truly communist, rather they hid their totalitarian nature behind a facade of supposed communism, I try not to try to convince people to be communist considering that I myself am not communist because I know that true communism is impossible, I actually support modern socialism like that in countries like Finland.Travis Higuet said:Lenin wasn't a "strongman" in the traditional sense, because he was one of the founders of the revolution. The Soviet Union was founded out of the ashes of a corrupt monarchy. I never said Every single leader of communist nations is evil, I said every communist GOVERNMENT eventually resorts to evil, because as the years go by the strongman becomes the only way to force people to submit to a system that can't keep any of it's promises.RandomNameRandom said:That is true communism is impossible, as noble as the ideals are communism cant happen because by nature people only care about themselves and possibly the person they intend to mate with and even that is a maybe.Travis Higuet said:The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.RandomNameRandom said:Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.Travis Higuet said:Probably not as many as communism.Saelune said:Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.
Although this strongman thing is kinda of an odd idea, Lenin motivated people through his eloquent words that gave people hope. Not through an imposing nature. Also you can't really argue against revolutionary leaders acting for the name of the people, democracy in america started in the name of the people, and even the horrible politicians today claim their decisions are "for the people"
Also, no, my post was not copied and pasted. I attempted to preemptively destroy and disable your ammunition stockpiles *wink*. I love debate, and I also hate communism. I've therefore had this discussion a thousand times. My apologies if not everything I said was directly applicable to your particular viewpoints. I was arguing against communism in theory, not merely it's representative in front of me.
I'd like you to think about this. Why do the words "self interest" put a bad taste in your mouth? Do you think humanity has more to offer the universe than ants? Personally, I do. I doubt there would be much art or creativity in a world where the dominant species was hive minded, and worked only for the betterment of the whole. I am not saying that as humans we shouldn't care about humanity. I am saying that as humans we should be free to live, create, and provide for whomever we choose to provide for. For me, it is my wife, my two children, and then myself, in that order. Beyond that, I give to charity, and I help those I can within my social circle.
I pay taxes specifically for the government to provide what services they are obligated to provide as per the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution. Congress has no authority beyond that, and any taxes collected towards execution of authority beyond that, I consider stolen. The constitution isn't some dusty outdated guideline. It is the foundation of all law in this country, and has the force of law itself. Any law created in contradiction to the guidelines of our constitution is invalid. There is a process by which our constitution can be amended if that is necessary. Such was the case with the abolition of slavery, and the granting of universal sufferage. If you and those like you feel that our constitution is lacking, then feel free to add to it in the manner laid down by law. Neither you nor your avatars in government however have the authority in any way to simply ignore it. This is a nation of laws, not the whims of men.
Sometimes, I get on a roll, so.... just keep in mind, I'm talking to everybody. It's a group discussion. I realize that you may not even be an American, and even if you were, that we weren't talking about the constitution. Like I said, I get going, and I bring it all to the table. hehe
plus..... its really late.....
This. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Tobacco is not evil. Its a shrub. Tobacco doesn't kill smokers, smokers kill smokers. Same argument for everyone posting about communism, soviet Russia wasn't Marx's fault, his ideas were not evil. The real villain is Stalin, who used these ideas for his own ends. But I'm still adamant that Michael Atkinson is worse.Travis Higuet said:What ridiculous trash. Tobacco companies don't kill anybody. They sell a product. They have not once ever forced anyone to buy it. If you are stupid enough to use it until it kills you, then that's your choice. Saying tobacco companies kill people is no different than saying they were killed by OREO cookies, or Mcdonalds. Almost anything can kill you if you are to stupid to know it's or your own limits. You can even die from drinking to much water. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions.thatguy1 said:![]()
"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."
What about second hand smoke? also, look at the movie, they compare death tolls. Alcohol doesn't even come close to cigs. It's also nowhere near as addictive.hiks89 said:what about alcohol companies? they dont just kill you they kill anyone you are around...thatguy1 said:![]()
"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."
I seriously doubt that the inhabitants of Hiroshima were a direct risk to American civilians at that point of the war either.spartan231490 said:Also, that doesn't address the firebombing of many German cities. While the German's also pushed the war, they were no direct risk to American civilians in any numbers, so I can't really justify American's bombing the fuck out of German civilians. Admittedly, that's how war was fought back then, both sides did, and a whole lot of innocent people died, but that doesn't make it right.