K-9 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Che Guevara was revolutionary Marxist, a communist and a murderer. You can't get to communism without first being a socialist state. So this dude, a former vice chairman of Morgan Stanley and the head of AIG's financial products division didn't know about Che when he was going to this small Cuban themed party held in London? So I guess AIG was run by a bunch of idiots. And those Che wearing college students haven't been brainwashed by their professors that Che was a good revolutionary for the common people or do they just buy a this shirt to look cool? Link, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It depends on what your definition of elite is. Depends what your definition of is, is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Depends what your definition of is, is Could you define "definition" for me, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Could you define "definition" for me, please? You know, that' really what it's all about. "And how close does my definition have to be to the true definition?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 You know, that' really what it's all about. "And how close does my definition have to be to the true definition?" What do you mean by "close", though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 What do you mean by "close", though? What do you mean by "mean by"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 What do you mean by "mean by"? That would be conditional on your interpretation of "?"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 And those Che wearing college students haven't been brainwashed by their professors that Che was a good revolutionary for the common people or do they just buy a this shirt to look cool? Ok I'm a college student, and here's my opinion...95% of those who own the shirt own it because they think it looks cool. We're all too ambivalent to be brainwashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Ok I'm a college student, and here's my opinion...95% of those who own the shirt own it because they think it looks cool. We're all too ambivalent to be brainwashed. I'd always assumed that, too. "Excuse me...why do you wear that shirt?" "Dude's wearing a beret and sunglasses. He's cool..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'd always assumed that, too. "Excuse me...why do you wear that shirt?" "Dude's wearing a beret and sunglasses. He's cool..." "Because Rage Against the Machines told me to think for myself!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 "Because Rage Against the Machines told me to think for myself!" One of the worst bands of all time IMO, never got the appeal. At the radio station I work at, almost everybody is obsessed but I just never understood it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Also, like about 50% of college students, I am willing to bet that the dude with the Che T-shirt has NO IDEA who Che really was and what he stood for - kind of like you. It isn't hard to figure out what Che stood for. He fricking fought in revolutions all over Latin America. He was a fecking filthy Communist, and mercifully, he's dead. Just like Castro will be soon. Just like Stalin and Lenin. All worhtless sacks of flesh and blights on the history of mankind, and all long gone. Thankfully, their evil ideology died with them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It isn't hard to figure out what Che stood for. He fricking fought in revolutions all over Latin America. He was a fecking filthy Communist, and mercifully, he's dead. Just like Castro will be soon. Just like Stalin and Lenin. All worhtless sacks of flesh and blights on the history of mankind, and all long gone. Thankfully, their evil ideology died with them as well. The ideology wasn't evil, just the men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The ideology wasn't evil, just the men. The men were evil, but that doesn't mean the ideology wasn't. That's like saying Fascism isn't evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The men were evil, but that doesn't mean the ideology wasn't. That's like saying Fascism isn't evil. The idea of fascism is to control...the idea of communism is for nobody to control. Problem is, we're humans, and humans need control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The idea of fascism is to control...the idea of communism is for nobody to control. Problem is, we're humans, and humans need control. Say again? Fascism is socialism. Communism is also socialism. Neither are anarchy, which is the "system" that embraces nobody in control. Any socialist model, be it democratic in nature or totalitarian in nature is doomed to fail because it firmly clamps a lid on human achievement. And that, my friend, is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 ...the idea of communism is for nobody to control. Problem is, we're humans, and humans need control. What a tool you are, communism is for nobody to control. Tell that to Stalin and Khrushchev who had total control of everything. nobody to control hahahahahahahahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 What a tool you are, communism is for nobody to control. Tell that to Stalin and Khrushchev who had total control of everything. nobody to control hahahahahahahahahahahaha i said THE IDEA...obviously guys like that abused the philosophy for their own gain...and don't call me a f*cking tool you assbag, work on your reading comprehension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Say again? Fascism is socialism. Communism is also socialism. Neither are anarchy, which is the "system" that embraces nobody in control. Any socialist model, be it democratic in nature or totalitarian in nature is doomed to fail because it firmly clamps a lid on human achievement. And that, my friend, is evil. Fascism is not socialism. Neither is communism. Naziism is fascism and socialism. But just because Naziism combined elements of both ideologies, it does not mean that the ideologies are thus the same. What a tool you are, communism is for nobody to control. Tell that to Stalin and Khrushchev who had total control of everything. nobody to control hahahahahahahahahahahaha Stalin and Krushchev were socialists, not communists. And Sage is right about communism in the ideological sense...which is why a truly communist state will never exist. It's a theoretical principle, not a practical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 1. Having elite people run a country is a good thing Perhaps, but since you cannot find a Liberal who is truly elite, without being an elitist, and you don't want elitists anywhere near running the country, it doesn't really matter now does it? Obama trying to make Vets pay their own insurance = best example of elitist thinking. And it was ALL his idea. Also, I wouldn't be referring to Chirs Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and O-teleprompter as "elite", especially this week. 2. Obama is not a socialists. He doesn't claim to be. Socialists do not embrace him, his policies are not socialist. Apparently you aren't paying attention...to anything...the last 3 weeks. Can we at least expect you to back this up given the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary? you can't trust people Which is why Marxism and Lenin's interpretations should NEVER be a model for government, since they are based on a very few people being in charge of everything. If you can't trust people in general, at the very least you should have lots of them involved, so that they tend to catch/cancel out each others BS. The last thing you want is a central committee, and therefore the last thing you want is Marxism. Link, please. Once again something that is common knowledge from any Western Civ class...well, if they are actually teaching facts anymore...is called into question. Dude, Che was a mass murderer, just like every other socialist leader has been. It's hardly our responsibility to educate you, especially on something you can find easily by using google. These attempts to cast doubt on a commonly known fact by asking for a link is pure lame-ass BS. The last time on this, the usual idiots told me I needed a link to prove that Chicago politics was completely corrupt...do you need a link for that now, retards? The ideology wasn't evil, just the men. NO, the ideology is, by definition, evil. Link for Evil(for K-9). Both socialism and evil "describe intentional negative moral acts or thoughts that are cruel, unjust or selfish." The entire history of EVERY SINGLE truly(don't give me that Sweden BS, they are only socialist when they can't compete, but they buy naming rights for football stadiums when then can compete) socialist country is cruel, unjust, and selfish and there are 1000s of examples. Specifically, socialism seeks the coercion of "the masses" by the few "intellectuals", because the masses are supposed to be too dumb to think for themselves. This is both cruel and unjust. Taking something from somebody else, especially when it doesn't belong to you = socialism, and attempting to justify that behavior based on no other reason than "you have it" is the purest form of selfishness there is. Socialism does that on a mass scale with no regard for equitable treatment based on personal achievement. But, according to you, we are supposed to believe that socialism passing God(right around 1984) as the #1 reason for mass murder, is just a coincidence? How come every time socialists gain power, millions of people die? By accident? Say again? Fascism is socialism. Communism is also socialism. Neither are anarchy, which is the "system" that embraces nobody in control. Any socialist model, be it democratic in nature or totalitarian in nature is doomed to fail because it firmly clamps a lid on human achievement. And that, my friend, is evil. Word. i said THE IDEA...obviously guys like that abused the philosophy for their own gain...and don't call me a f*cking tool you assbag, work on your reading comprehension The "idea" supports forcibly taking people's possessions away from them. That's stealing. And the "idea" says it's OK, because the people that own things probably didn't work to build them from scratch, and inherited them instead. Let me tell you I have built everything I have from scratch, and nobody gave me a damn thing. I paid for most of my own school on scholarships/merit, and I created the company I work for. You come anywhere near me or my schit and tell me that you have an "idea" that it's OK to take from me, you better bring a pallet of body bags as well. Because your "idea", by definition implies doing violence to me, you better be prepared for my reciprocation. Fascism is not socialism. Neither is communism. Naziism is fascism and socialism. But just because Naziism combined elements of both ideologies, it does not mean that the ideologies are thus the same. Mostly true. But fascism is predicated on socialism = fascists believe that the state is all important, as opposed to the "working class" (as if I don't work twice as hard, and produce 10 times as much, as some union guy every week). But, both share the common view that it is the government's responsibility to provide vocation for it's people, because both advocate governmental control of every aspect of people's lives and/or the government being the central focus of people's lives. Stalin and Krushchev were socialists, not communists. And Sage is right about communism in the ideological sense...which is why a truly communist state will never exist. It's a theoretical principle, not a practical one. Bullschit. Every socialist is, by definition, a "Communist in Progress", meaning that they swear up and down that all their efforts are geared towards trying to get to Communism....so that's why it's "OK" to murder more people than the Nazis. This means whatever retarded thing they do is both above question because "they know better" and is completely justified as long as it's a means leading towards the Communist end. You cannot be a socialist, unless you are an "eventual Communist". Socialism was defined by Marx as the "in-between" stage moving from capitalism to Communism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts