Where did you get that information from? According to my understanding, Communism is utopia, because it stands for the elimination of country, therefore the tools of countries, such as military and police. How do you achieve a slave-state without army and police? Where did you heard that communists want to destroy independent work and action? It's supposed be "one can take whatever he needs". It's utopia, because it's perfect, and human beings are far from perfect. It can't be realized because it's too good for human beings, not the other way around. Although some countries claimed so, there is NO real communist country in the world, and there is NO real communist party in power. So many commie talks from some of you guys. Have you ever read anything from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels?
Having read much Marx and Engels (as well as much of Ayn Rand), both your interpretation of communism and Roxran's (well Ayn Rand's anyway - roxran has no idea at all what he's talking about) are too extreme. Communism does not imply by necessity destruction of all independent activity/thought. But it does imply destruction of private property. Many other social philosophies would effectively argue this leads to, at a minimum, serious complications to individuality and independent thought. Of course, I'm biased... (but I'll let you guess in what way )
No guessing here, but that is precisely my referral on what I meant by contrast as it related to objective comparison...Thanks for your support!
Good point - I'm pulling a FB. (Which I just mocked him for. *hangs head in shame*). I'll save my philosphical arguments regarding collectivist ideology for a "real" thread.
Oh you're very welcome. You won't catch me supporting collectivism. Of course, that has nothing at all to do with your psychotic ranting about the "new-dems" or your idiotic articles. But - by all means, let me know when you need help again wrt the irrationality of leftist governmental philosophy. and now I'm really done here.
Thanks for the support again...come back when you have more to add to support what I have already referred to...
Everyone is biased, as long as one admits it, the impact of ones bias could be reduced. The real communism was always a joke to me. I used to be considered a trouble maker for any political classes from Middle School (Junior High in China), because I loved to argue with teachers about it, and make fun of it. As a social system, it's unrealistic; but as a economical reference, it has its value. Since there is no real communism, no real communist country, nor real communist party, in the world; nor would there be any at all, the only reason left for people to attack anything related to that term, is the attack itself. It's just an excuse and political tool. It almost becomes a knee-jerk reaction, if you could label anything communism related, you could accuse that of evil, worse than Nazi, although there is really nothing can be said of real communism. There is nothing democratic or free in this kind of thinking alone.
Thus my "roxran has no idea what he's talking about comment". Ok - now i'm really done here, and this time I mean it. But i like this kind of debate - hopefully a good thread will pop up where this can be intelligently continued.
This from Olbermann's quote of Murrow I made in the other thread. It fits nicely here, and if Roxran or anyone else wants to discuss it, he may do so in the Olbermann/Rumsfeld thread. I'm done with this stinkpot.
I gave my idea very clearly,...The distinction of Capitalism versus Communism was supported by you of all people, and to that I have appreciation...Irregardless of how you feel of my pyschosis or idiotic articles...It feels good to serve the point...
Communism in action to today is just another form of totalitarianism by a political party. China is a capalistic nation...it has been becoming more so one since the 70's.
I can't argue with that too much...I still would love to see democratic leadership with the mindset of a Truman...It would help me become less "psychotic"...
Do you like Truman because he was a democrat or because he was a president who used atomic weapons? In today's political climate, Truman would just be a typical republican from the state of Missouri. Just another John Ashcroft or Kit Bond. Who is the craziest? A) George W. Bush B) Donald Rumsfield C) Dick Cheney D) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad E) Roxran F) Creepyfloyd
I'm the craziest no doubt,... but I liked Truman because he was old school democrat...To me, there is a differance between old and new...I agreed with his stance of national security, personal security and I favor much democratic issues within the country...The sad thing is you are right....A great Democratic president who would be bombasted by the far left if he was in position to lead today...what a shame... Many historians consider him to be the most "decisive" American President ever...That is the leadership style most needed...
I'll just settle for an old school Republican. Right now Nixon looks pretty good next to George W. Bush.
I pretty much agree, one of the few things I agree with him is the post 9/11 mindset, and to that I think he could have done better on decision-making...Don't spread the word on this either...