|
Post by Kitten on Jun 10, 2004 18:34:59 GMT -5
Assumptions, assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by angelofsuicide on Jun 12, 2004 8:20:01 GMT -5
ok first off id like to say im so glad everyone decided to join this disscussion, thats f*cking great, secondly what f*cking diffrence does it make if america became a communist country ( not that it will ever happen)> The way things are going our soicety will destroy its self. Its our capolitst view points that have lead our leaders in the conquest for world power. To conrol the oil is to contol the money to control the money is to control the world in a sense Power is a drug your right. the more you have the more you want if everybody shared everything there would be no homeless and starving and there would be no power hungry republicans tring to contol all of the earths natural resourses right. Not that that would actually ever happen once more Mr bush would crash a airplane in to the world trade center himself b4 america became a communist country. Anyways I once more look forward to reading more feedback on this topic and appricate eve3ryone who took the time to read my rant. That f*cking rules. Everyones idead and belief is there own and i look forward to reading more casue knowladge is power and power is a cool drug . he he
|
|
|
Post by xpurestxfeelingx on Jun 12, 2004 19:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kitten on Jun 12, 2004 20:39:00 GMT -5
U.S. reminds me of the Roman Empire. And we all know what happened to the Romans.
|
|
|
Post by xpurestxfeelingx on Jun 12, 2004 21:07:59 GMT -5
hmm... will George Bush fiddle as America burns?
|
|
|
Post by littleskinny on Jun 13, 2004 13:34:40 GMT -5
I don't get this thread. Can someone start over for me, summarise the key themes and arguments (without spelling mistakes)....then maybe I can join in....?
|
|
|
Post by Kitten on Jun 13, 2004 16:44:31 GMT -5
There is no point to this thread, just pretend that you're high and start rambling away!
|
|
|
Post by littleskinny on Jun 14, 2004 11:01:06 GMT -5
oh I see. I never trust my own instincts...I figured that was the case, but I still had to ask, didn't I.....
|
|
|
Post by LORDMORNINGSTAR on Jul 2, 2004 16:52:59 GMT -5
The kitten is right "communist" is the lable used by an already inflicted mind, not to mention impossible, communism fell with russia and ain't makin no come back anywhere on the globe its a proven failure, when Fidel Castro breaths no more red china will be the last, their the only ones to have kept themselves moderately on top of things and thats only due to the fact that they've become partially capitalist. Not that I don't agree that this is a shit house run by an complete self serving rich, right wing, christian asshole. And before I end transmition "communisim" has never truly been communist!
|
|
|
Post by Forsaken on Jul 2, 2004 21:57:39 GMT -5
A lot of what you said is true, but you forgot that Vietnam and North Korea are also communists.
|
|
|
Post by LORDMORNINGSTAR on Jul 6, 2004 11:06:26 GMT -5
NOT AT ALL, their simply not very assertive on the global level.
|
|
|
Post by littleskinny on Jul 6, 2004 11:15:49 GMT -5
not assertive, but still massively influential.
|
|
|
Post by LORDMORNINGSTAR on Jul 6, 2004 12:15:56 GMT -5
Glad I could drag you back in to this one skinny, I didn't mean to discount them from the global arena but as for being communist they haven't any future, and in all probability china will remain the sole propriator of " the new faith" unless of course kore and vietnam follow China's example and create a more flexible communism.
|
|
|
Post by littleskinny on Jul 6, 2004 12:49:52 GMT -5
I agree with both points. I'm not sure what you mean when you say they won't have any future. I assume you mean that to be qualified with "unless they adapt, as China has" I think the difficulty we - the world - have is in definitions - "communism" is, as you've said, no more pure than liberal democracy, in that systems vary enormously across the globe. Yugoslav communism was incredibly distinctive... unfortunately a hopeless case study, depending on your view of the reasons behind the collapse. What is "pure" communism? And do we have somewhere we can look to?
|
|
|
Post by LORDMORNINGSTAR on Jul 6, 2004 15:28:28 GMT -5
Pure communism has never completely existed, not even in "Marx" himself. His ideas no matter how benevolently illustrated in text would never bloom the way he visualized because he failed to take into account the the true nature of man and the systems we've created, in order for communism " the revolution of the new faith" to take a foothold "you" as a citizen are supposed to denounce the tired and corupt model with which you've been brought up under, including religion etc... For a rural farm boy to make this change I'd have to say, he'd have to have undergone some pretty vile treatment inorder to wish to cut all that out of his life. Even at the begining once they crushed the tsar and started to lay the working foundations of thier governing, the proletariat were given their businesses to look after themselves and were quickly taken back by the growing beaurocracy within the party itself. If the proletariat were to inherit freedom and equality why was it maintained by a once again corupt/greedy bunch o'beaurocrats. Well because he must have really belived in the good of man, and we aren't, at least it dosen't seem so. libral anarchy is "every one, male & female, all in all human... we get together and work for ourselves shit! we know what we're supposed to be doing, I tend furiously to my affairs, you tend to yours, and they theirs, If we are all doing what we're supposed to then nothing is f*cking up. when a problem arises "we" attack it together, when a system fails we work together in order to better understand the forces at work which prohibit our progress. The human, good, evil and everything between, we are not the future we are the present... and we are fading fast.
|
|