Originally posted by STRATOSPH3R3Whoa! That question is waaaay out in the "Statosphere"...no pun intended....ask it in simpler terms, please, as the valium/klonopin mix tonight is making me quite stoooopid...😛
How can you equate use of or the threat of violence, whether it is by an individual or an organisation with the intent of intimidating governments, to a theoretical economic system?
Originally posted by chancremechanicThe Communist ideology didn't do any of that. The same way that Capitalism isn't supposed to mean people steal your pension fund.
I think I see your point, but it is not a good analogy. Communism resulted in millions of deaths in the Gulags, political system, etc., while Capitalism, which is wonderful if greed is not involed, is turning the U.S., and the world for that matter, in haves and have-nots...slow death....good point, though...
The USSR wasn't Communist. It was closer to an elected dictatorship.
It's the people that mess it up, with their greed or pride or superiority complex.
Originally posted by shavixmirI hate to burst your bubble but Communism and Fascism are more similar than you think. I can illistrate this point wit the following example. Mussulini the dictaTOR OF Italy during wwi was a communist. between WWI and WWII he became a Fascist. if the poitical scale is a flat line as you suggest and communism and fascism being at polar opposites then please explain to me at what point he was a liberal, conservative, moderate, and so on.
Did anyone hear Georgie boy the other day?
Like usual he was on TV, looking like a chimp, yet at the same time oozing the intelligence of a donkey (a dead one. I really don't want to upset Shrek fans).
And what does this baffoon say? Let me semi-quote you (because I can't be arsed to look up the exact quote):
"Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the same ...[text shortened]... a scene from the Big Lebowski (which I can't quote here, because they'll ban my post).
Originally posted by chancremechanicPun intended or not was amusing, so I'll try and rephrase the question.
Whoa! That question is waaaay out in the "Statosphere"...no pun intended....ask it in simpler terms, please, as the valium/klonopin mix tonight is making me quite stoooopid...😛
How can you compare the use of violence (terrorism), by an individual (ie terrorist) or an organisation (eg: al Qaeda) with the purpose of threatening a government, to that of a theoretical economic system (communism) developed by Marx & Engels?
Originally posted by chancremechanicCommunism makes greed against the law. It doesn't work for the same reason Prohibition doesn't work -- it tries to legislate human nature.
...while Capitalism, which is wonderful if greed is not involed, is turning the U.S., and the world for that matter, in haves and have-nots...slow death....good point, though...
Capitalism aligns with human nature (i.e. greed or desire) and actually relies on it.
I like Abraham Lincoln's viewpoint: government should do only those things that the market does not do well or does not do at all. Providing security and justice for all equally. Protecting natural resources. Providing a free grade school education I'm tempted to add. Emergency aid/health care.
The have/have-not thing is a puzzle. We need to ask the Swiss how they manage it.
Originally posted by DelmerThe day I see a banana tree walking is the day I kill myself. I always thought that that was one of the main features of plants. They don't get up and walk away.
Shav's an excellent photographer. Message him and ask him to post a video clip. Or even a still of a plant with one foot (root?) raised would probaby be adequate.