Communist Manifesto

[khazadman]

they were all the same in that all power and money was basically controlled by the political elite.whether it was imperial russia,the soviet union,or the national socialists.it's just your average german lived better than your average russian,georgian,or lithuanian.
and the italian fascists were the comic relief of the axis powers in the second half of the great war(i view them as one war with a long break in hostilities and a swapping of team members).

-------------------
a government that stays out of the way of the people and allows them to reach their full potential is the best form of government.

[Thoran]

I think communism failed for many reasons... but fundamentally it comes back to "human nature"... there was a good discussion a while back regarding socialism and the individual, it contained solid input from both sides of the table and applies to this discussion...
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...&f=10&t=006210

IMO, the idea of Communism was a noble one... don't get caught up in the "Us vs. Them" propeganda, or the governments that the movement eventually created... just look at the intent of the movement and I think you'll agree.

Next look at how religon is USED by governments today... in fundamentalist states religon is indeed the "opiate of the masses". Even here in the US you listen to GW using the word "EVIL" every other speech and drawing religous connotations every chance he gets... wanna know why? Because people who believe in something with "religous furvor" are BLIND SHEEP! You steer them whatever way you want and they follow happily.

I am a religous person, but I firmly believe that the seperation of Church and State was the single greatest concept that our forefathers (here in the US) gave us... religous faith and political power are an incredibly potent combination... and NO human being should wield both.

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[khazadman]

but i am not religious and i believe in a concept of evil.you don't have to be religious to know right from wrong.the problem in many western countries today is people are afraid to express an opinion on anything for fear of being called judgemental.

[K T Ong]

The egalitarian ideals championed in communism are truly noble IMO. The trouble with communism (again IMO) is not that it is inefficient as a means of building up the material wealth of a nation (as compared to capitalism), but precisely that (like capitalism) it posits no higher ideals for humankind besides the acquisition of material wealth. There's a lot more to life than just making money. And all this money-making is bringing our entire planet's biosphere to grief, be it said -- communism being in fact as guilty of that as capitalism by virtue of its exclusive concern with material wealth (okay, plus how it's distributed).

On a lighter note, has anyone here tried the game Red Faction? This game's full of communist references. [img]smile.gif[/img] I like it.

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by khazadman:
but i am not religious and i believe in a concept of evil.you don't have to be religious to know right from wrong.the problem in many western countries today is people are afraid to express an opinion on anything for fear of being called judgemental.

---

Right and wrong does not equal good and evil. To say a person is "Evil" is to paint that person in a religous context. To say a person has done wrong does not do this. If you think that GW doesn't know the EXACT difference between those two usages then you're a much more trusting person than me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

Communist Manifesto
February 26, 1848

Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on the eve of the revolutions of 1848, the Manifesto provided ideas for socialist and communist movements.

---

Ummm, Happy Anniversary?
[img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by K T Ong:
The egalitarian ideals championed in communism are truly noble IMO. The trouble with communism (again IMO) is not that it is inefficient as a means of building up the material wealth of a nation (as compared to capitalism), but precisely that (like capitalism) it posits no higher ideals for humankind besides the acquisition of material wealth. There's a lot more to life than just making money. And all this money-making is bringing our entire planet's biosphere to grief, be it said -- communism being in fact as guilty of that as capitalism by virtue of its exclusive concern with material wealth (okay, plus how it's distributed).

On a lighter note, has anyone here tried the game Red Faction? This game's full of communist references. [img]smile.gif[/img] I like it.

---

I think a lot of people get hung up on the idea of "wealth". Money and wealth are just a way of keeping score... the way they're interpreted in the world as it exists today is as SUCCESS. Every construct of nature has the ultimate goal of propegating... succeeding. To fail in this is to be eradicated. The difficulty I see is that now in order to succeed (to not eradicate ourselves) we need to change our internal drive to succeed (which is currently geared towards making as many of us as is possilbe... and the logical derivatives of this... like hoarding wealth to insure the success of our line) into a drive geared towards sustaining this world. I find it ironic that the drive that has allowed us to succeed so stunningly as a species might also be our undoing... UNLESS we can redirect it towards conservation of the resources we've until now been driven to dominate.

[John D Harris]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
I think communism failed for many reasons... but fundamentally it comes back to "human nature"... there was a good discussion a while back regarding socialism and the individual, it contained solid input from both sides of the table and applies to this discussion...
http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...&f=10&t=006210

IMO, the idea of Communism was a noble one... don't get caught up in the "Us vs. Them" propeganda, or the governments that the movement eventually created... just look at the intent of the movement and I think you'll agree.

Next look at how religon is USED by governments today... in fundamentalist states religon is indeed the "opiate of the masses". Even here in the US you listen to GW using the word "EVIL" every other speech and drawing religous connotations every chance he gets... wanna know why? Because people who believe in something with "religous furvor" are BLIND SHEEP! You steer them whatever way you want and they follow happily.

I am a religous person, but I firmly believe that the seperation of Church and State was the single greatest concept that our forefathers (here in the US) gave us... religous faith and political power are an incredibly potent combination... and NO human being should wield both.

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

---

Thoran, I believe the constitution, our forefathers, gave us Freedom of the Church FROM the State, Not freedom of the State FROM the Church. In others words the State can't tell the People How, What, Where, Why, or Why not to Worship. But the People can tell the State How, What, Where, Why, or Why not.
Wasn't it Abe that said of the people, for the people, by the people.
Seperation of Church and State is a good idea, But it is not what the Constitution says. I beleive it says "Congress shall make no laws respecting religeon, of the practice there in". The US Supreme Court has intrupted it to mean Sep. of Church & State, But then again that was the orginization that gave us the "Dred Scott Decision".

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John D Harris:

Thoran, I believe the constitution, our forefathers, gave us Freedom of the Church FROM the State, Not freedom of the State FROM the Church. In others words the State can't tell the People How, What, Where, Why, or Why not to Worship. But the People can tell the State How, What, Where, Why, or Why not.
Wasn't it Abe that said of the people, for the people, by the people.
Seperation of Church and State is a good idea, But it is not what the Constitution says. I beleive it says "Congress shall make no laws respecting religeon, of the practice there in". The US Supreme Court has intrupted it to mean Sep. of Church & State, But then again that was the orginization that gave us the "Dred Scott Decision".

---

I didn't mean to imply that the state was being protected from the church. Rather I see it as a necessary seperation of two potent forces that have proven over time to draw the worst sort of people when mixed. Indeed the intent was to provide a state that was free of the religous prosecution that many of the time were escaping. In order for this basis to be satisfied, I find in unlikely that a scenario could be devised that would see the state endorse a concept like "good" and "evil" (the religous context of course... a decidedly Western concept) in a way that was consistant with the likely intent of the constitution. Perhaps that's why the courts have taken such a strict line in interpretation... anything less would be a slippery slope, much more open to the particular prejudice of the judge(s).

Personally I see the interpretation which is currently gaining favor (to uphold the rights of all to practice in their own way... as long as it's not sanctioned by any public body) as a reasonable balance between the sides. What I extremely dislike is our president using christian terminology when discussing groups of people that don't necessarily follow our belief system. It feels munipulative and again I think it's designed, not heartfelt. As a person I support his right to say anything he wants... but he's also the President of this country, and as such he reflects on us... and right now I feel he's not showing us in the best light. Perhaps he felt the need to fight fundamentalist "fire with fire", but in doing so he's lowered himself to pretty close to the level the other side is at... listen to the propeganda from both sides... some of it was hard to tell apart!

[WOLFGIR]

Hmm, I just had to butt in here

Seriously people, pure Marxism, Communism or capitalism will lead to downfall of man. Both fails because mankinds needs and nature are not taken into it. Man can not be only competing or only the equal.

Sorry to say this to all of you 100% sure people but see the downfall in all societies and see that most structures lives on the downfall of the people that can´t handle it and that leads to an underground feeling spreading that society is the enemy of people.

This is sooo very general written a newsagent could turn green with envy guys and gals but look around you and see what you prefer.

Personally I like a mixture of most things, government owned companies and free competition and a good social structure as a safety net. In the middle is actually were most people can find a common line of satisfaction.

So enough for politics for one day.. urrk politics.. geesh..