DC Tom Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I think A.N.S.W.E.R had a big presence at this recent rally.Check out these photos. Very telling, very sad.... http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/ ANSWER is almost always the group behind every anti-war rally. I know in DC they've been behind every organized anti-war rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 How about this question - If socialism/Marxism/Communism is such a good idea, why do people that believe in these principles consistently have to kill people in order to convince them? Why does socialist doctrine have to be IMPOSED rather than accepted? Could it be that these ideas are essentially horseshit, and that it's obvious to most people? No, I'm sure that we are all just too stupid to understand this genius - therefore we have to die. I'll skip over most of what you write, some of which I actually agree with, for the sake of brevity. Communism, socialism, Marxism is/are all very different things depending on when they happened and where. I really don't know what "communism" is. I do not think peaceful little Karl Marx would have agreed at all with what happened in Russia with the wicked Bolshevik take over there. I'd consider that a dictatorship that used egalitarian propaganda to cement its rule. And really, for as bad as soviet Communism was, it did have the very positive benefit that it built up the country so that it could defend itself against capitalist Germany. While the Soviets killed wholesale, what would the Germans have done to them had not the communist developed a modern industrial society that could build a war machine capible of stopping the Wehrmacht? We already know, don't we. So it was not all negative. In many ways "Communism" was born of worst abuses of capitalism. Its was anti-imperialst in many places. In Vietnam it was certainly that way. That's why the people did accept Communism. It was a unifying force agaisnt the foreign threat. You are correct to point out the millions killed by communist governments. I disagreed they were killed for some egalitarian ideal. I'd say its more they were consumed in countries drive to moderize, mainly for defense. Were these people stupid? Brutal, ruthless and bloodthirsty as they may have been, but they were not stupid. Let's not forget that capitalism was nearly as bad as the communism you describe. The African slave trade was as capitalist as you can get. The subjection of the native Americans was driven by the need of Europeans to expand their hold on land that was to be used in the market based economy. Andrew Jackson, a bloodthirst ethnic cleaner is still on our money, ya know. How many millions were murdered in the Congo in pursit of riches? The Opium wars against China to keep the markets open there are another example of capitalist aggression. And before you start on some ignorant rant that I hate capitalism or something, I'll clarify that it is the best system there is, but it has flaws, also. Communism was not all bad. It served a purpose for some people, and hopefully its gone, as is the environment that it grew up in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 In many ways "Communism" was born of worst abuses of capitalism. Its was anti-imperialst in many places. In Vietnam it was certainly that way. That's why the people did accept Communism. It was a unifying force agaisnt the foreign threat. Speaking of revising history. Capitalism and communism theories were put into practice at roughly the same time to guide Europe's & America's transition into the industrial revolution. The abuses that you speak of were transitionary stages of the death of the agrarian societies and opening up of the information to the lower classes. Communism just sounds better to the masses because it offers a free lunch and that's why you still have adherents, despite nearly two centuries' worth of experience that communism does not work in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Communism just sounds better to the masses because it offers a free lunch and that's why you still have adherents, despite nearly two centuries' worth of experience that communism does not work in the real world. It did much more than that, though. It offered to "free" them from imperialism. Sure it was totally corrupt for the most part, but the people in so many places were living in sh-- so of course they were going to listen. When you are starving and someone offers a solution, you jump at it. Or when you are threatened with foreign domination, you give up your freedom for the common good. We have seen that here on a much smaller scale after 9-11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 It did much more than that, though. It offered to "free" them from imperialism. Sure it was totally corrupt for the most part, but the people in so many places were living in sh-- so of course they were going to listen. When you are starving and someone offers a solution, you jump at it. Or when you are threatened with foreign domination, you give up your freedom for the common good. We have seen that here on a much smaller scale after 9-11 Perhaps you can enlighten me which imperialism it is that the founders of communism were fighting in France & Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Perhaps you can enlighten me which imperialism it is that the founders of communism were fighting in France & Germany? I'd say the "inventors" of the Communist ideal had far different motives than Lenin, Stalin, Moa or Ho Chi Mihn. Marx was a dreamer and thinker, while the later group were opportunists. But let's face it, early industrial society was no wonderland, like our own burned out paradise we live in now. Cronic underemployment, harsh working conditions, mass poverty etc. were basic parts of early industrial society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 But let's face it, early industrial society was no wonderland, like our own burned out paradise we live in now. Cronic underemployment, harsh working conditions, mass poverty etc. were basic parts of early industrial society. Compared to what? Stop with the idiotic benchmarks that liken industrialization to killing utopia that the world lived in before 1800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Compared to what? Stop with the idiotic benchmarks that liken industrialization to killing utopia that the world lived in before 1800. Compared to today, like I said. Never said that at all. You are the one who needs to stop, stop reading what isn't there. Agraian society was bad, too. I'd say more but what's the point? I stand by what I have already wrote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Compared to today, like I said. Never said that at all. You are the one who needs to stop, stop reading what isn't there. Agraian society was bad, too. I'd say more but what's the point? I stand by what I have already wrote Then, why didn't you compare 1800 with 1600, since in your mind it's perfectly logical to compare life in 1800 with life in 2007? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Then, why didn't you compare 1800 with 1600, since in your mind it's perfectly logical to compare life in 1800 with life in 2007? Sorry, I was busy picking my teeth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Sorry, I was busy picking my teeth I would have thought it was your nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I would have thought it was your nose. There's a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 There's a difference? Guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Compared to today, like I said. Never said that at all. You are the one who needs to stop, stop reading what isn't there. Agraian society was bad, too. I'd say more but what's the point? I stand by what I have already wrote Define "bad", please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Define "bad", please. poverty, oppression and no coffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 poverty, oppression and no coffee Skipping over the glib coffee reference (which I do appreciate)... Then what historical era hasn't been bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Skipping over the glib coffee reference (which I do appreciate)... Then what historical era hasn't been bad? Apparently, for MG, today sucks, yesterday sucked and tomorrow's likely going to suck. Great outlook. I thought *I* was a miserable bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Apparently, for MG, today sucks, yesterday sucked and tomorrow's likely going to suck. Great outlook. I thought *I* was a miserable bastard. I think someone once said that things that are different, are not the same, as well as being mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Skipping over the glib coffee reference (which I do appreciate)... Then what historical era hasn't been bad? Good question, and the answer is that its all relative. A lot of it has to do with perception. See, industrialization created a wealthy and a middle class[times were good for them], but it also created a huge working class. So to many--but certinly not all--in the working class, times were bad, hence, the appeal towards communism in their ranks. There is a huge historical debate about the first 50 years of industrial revolution in England. Did things get better or worse? After 50 years they did get better, most agree. Now what about before the IR? Also relative. Would you rather be a Roman Senator or a slave of the Romans? So it, depended on who was ruling who, the weather, population growth, all sorts of things. In the 1600's in England, for instance, there was a problem with overpopulation, which caused all sorts of problems. But when compared with today, agricultural society was awful. But to a king or nobleman of that time, things might have been good. Obviously today, here in America, things are great. I think anyway. That answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Apparently, for MG, today sucks, yesterday sucked and tomorrow's likely going to suck. Great outlook. I thought *I* was a miserable bastard. I have no idea how you reached that misplaced conclusion. The Sabres won last night, best game on the year IMO, so I am happy see------> :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts