I don't see any communist countries around...as I've said, there have never been any communist countries...only despotic rule hiding itself behind flimsy ideological curtains.
Countries with socialist reforms are doing quite nicely for themselves, while the United States is in a spiral down, throwing dollar after dollar at useless milatary project. The United States is ready to become a second-class economic power, falling behind the EU and upcoming powers like Brazil, with its popularly-elected left-leaning president...
Joey. A huge majority of Blacks are not a member of the Right Wing.
Now you're just trying to be dismissive and a jackass. I've never been to a "commie website", YOU, good sir, are just following the "cookie cutter" silly communist paranoia of nearly a century.
Look...you are a man, in his 20s, living in Texas, posting to "YouthNoise." YOUTH. NOISE. A crappy bubble-gum teen "oh, I'm so, like, intelligent" message board. I mean, I'M pretty pathetic for writing here on off moments, but you....you are simply sad.
Socialism/Communism has killed more people than Hitler's armies ever did.
You expect me to look at the world around us, their forms of government, their failed economies, and take YOUR side of the story?
Please.
There are demons in every camp, but capitalism doesn't come close to killing the people communist governments did.
I mean, if all this were true, about communism working and that, and of conservatives being blood-hungry racists, then why are there blacks, mexicans, and other minorities considering themselves "conservative" or members of the Right-Wing?
Anyone want to come up with their own response, rather than a cookie-cutter press release off some commie website.
“Of course American non-Nazi conservatives have never come straight out and supported eugenics and mass-killings, and plenty of them don't want that. I have every reason to hate Republicans, but they've been building a foundation for it for quite some time.”
Having seen my mother’s country of Colombia get torn into a War zone and economically imploded country by leftist terrorists I have every reason to be a fanatical anti-communist. Am I prejudiced towards them? No, that would be making generalizations on a whole group of people based on an extreme few. To turn your logic around, I’m sure plenty of leftists haven’t come straight out and supported the Gulags or Cambodian Killing Fields. And Nazism’s corporatist state benefiting economic, totalitarian social views, and Nordic anti-Christian pagan components are very much contrasted by US conservatism’s free market corporation/private individual economics, restrictive “moralistic” (my perspective anyway) but not oppressive social views, and often monotheistic Christian components. Both systems regardless of the racism of some conservatives or the abuse of power by corporations have such numerous differences that to say that they’re related or similar is just stupid.
”Republicanism is rascism because supporting the party entails supporting of the maintenance of a socioeconomic structure which keeps most minorities in the lower-income strata.”
How is support of vouchers to help inner city children get a better education, opposition to illegal immigration which creates a huge exploited underclass (as I said earlier), and condemnation of the unfortunately higher and still rising rate of illegitimacy and abortions in the Black and Hispanic communities (which leads to continued inequality) racist?
"There are plenty of Republicans who don't wake up everyday thinking about how inferior the darkies are, but they still enforce a system of largely racially-based suppression."
So if they don't visibly harrass, segregate or advocate the murder of non-whites (who include Republicans as hard as it may be for you to believe) how can you compare them to supporters of a regime who would have killed many times more than any Fascist or Stalinist regime out there had they not been stopped by the US (With the support not vitrolic attacking of Republicans, despite the fact that the Democrats and Labor-Socialist inspired politicians were in power at the time I might add ).
”Republicans don't care about inner-city violence as long as they can live in the suburbs or if Jesus tells them to that day.”
Many republicans would actually like to see more aid to the inner city (i.e. Jack Kemp, Voucher advocates, etc.) while others would prefer to see incentives to get private organizations to handle problems there more (ex: Bush’s compassionate conservatism). To say that all of them don’t, that they’re all suburbanites or apathetic Christians is offensive.
”Power (The Goal) can be achieved through actual state control of the economy, or through the ‘Free Market’ American system in which a sliver of the population controls most of the money and is in large part connected to the government. In either system, the power and funding is roughly centralized.”
Yes it’s centralized to benefit corporations and private individuals (who have worked hard and honestly to get where they are most of the time), but it isn’t centralized by the state to benefit the country or to be part of a massive industrial/militarization initiative for the country. Those are biggest differences between a Fascist state economy and a Conservative free market capitalist economy.
”Oh, so Republicans don't say that we must stand behind our President? What about Karl Rove? You know...the presidents CHIEF ADVISOR.”
You are judging the many based on the few. Just because a couple of republicans say that does not make that the majority opinion. Although to be quite honest, not standing behind your president and country in times of war or national emergency (ex: Depression, WWII, 9-11 aftermath) seems pretty stupid.
”Your interpretation of why the United States got into Iraq involves ignoring that none of the conflicts or government takeovers the U.S. has gotten into alone since Korea hasn't had something to with either ‘avoiding Communism’ or benefiting American businesses.”
It doesn’t ignore those obvious occurrences in history. In fact, it just looks at past US motivations logically. If the US could just as easily initiate a coup in Venezuela, get oil for dirt cheap prices and say that it was about both “containing communism and instability” they would likely get away with it just as they always have. But we chose to go to Iraq, which is far more inconvenient for US business. And anyway I know it’s been said thousands of times before, but if the US was so interested in oil in Iraq, why didn’t we just take over the country’s oil fields or avoid a trade embargo there? To take that further, if George W. is such a warmonger, why was it that prior to 9-11 he was almost a complete isolationist?
”Authoritarian-Right regimes in South America we installed, by the way.”
Thank you for stating the obvious. I’m not sure if you read my post, but didn’t you see me write that I’m half-Hispanic
“Of course American non-Nazi conservatives have never come straight out and supported eugenics and mass-killings, and plenty of them don't want that. I have every reason to hate Republicans, but they've been building a foundation for it for quite some time.”
Having seen my mother’s country of Colombia get torn into a War zone and economically imploded country by leftist terrorists (and obviously drug lords) I have every reason to be a fanatical anti-communist. Am I prejudiced towards them? No, that would be making generalizations on a whole group of people based on an extreme few. To turn your logic around, I’m sure plenty of leftists haven’t come straight out and supported the Gulags or Cambodian Killing Fields. And Nazism’s corporatist state benefiting economic, totalitarian social views, and Nordic anti-Christian pagan components are very much contrasted by US conservatism’s free market corporation/private individual economics, restrictive “moralistic” (my perspective anyway) but not oppressive social views, and often monotheistic Christian components. Both systems regardless of the racism of some conservatives or the abuse of power by corporations have such numerous differences that to say that they’re related or similar is just stupid.
”Republicanism is rascism because supporting the party entails supporting of the maintenance of a socioeconomic structure which keeps most minorities in the lower-income strata.”
How so? How is support of vouchers to help inner city children get a better education, opposition to illegal immigration which creates a huge exploited underclass (as I said earlier), and condemnation of the unfortunately higher and still rising rate of illegitimate children and abortions in the Black and Hispanic communities (which leads to continued inequality) racist? Maybe
There are plenty of Republicans who don't wake up everyday thinking about how inferior the darkies are, but they still enforce a system of largely racially-based suppression.
”Republicans don't care about inner-city violence as long as they can live in the suburbs or if Jesus tells them to that day.”
Many republicans would actually like to see more aid to the inner city (i.e. Jack Kemp, Voucher advocates, etc.) while others would prefer to see incentives to get private organizations to handle problems there more (ex: Bush’s compassionate conservatism). To say that all of them don’t, that they’re all suburbanites or apathetic Christians is offensive.
”Power (The Goal) can be achieved through actual state control of the economy, or through the ‘Free Market’ American system in which a sliver of the population controls most of the money and is in large part connected to the government. In either system, the power and funding is roughly centralized.”
Yes it’s centralized to benefit corporations and private individuals (who have worked hard and honestly to get where they are most of the time), but it isn’t centralized by the state to benefit the country or to be part of a massive industrial/militarization initiative for the country. Those are biggest differences between a Fascist state economy and a Conservative free market capitalist economy.
”Oh, so Republicans don't say that we must stand behind our President? What about Karl Rove? You know...the presidents CHIEF ADVISOR.”
You are judging the many based on the few. Just because a couple of republicans say that does not make that the majority opinion. Although to be quite honest, not standing behind your president and country in times of war or national emergency (ex: Depression, WWII, 9-11 aftermath) seems pretty stupid.
”Your interpretation of why the United States got into Iraq involves ignoring that none of the conflicts or government takeovers the U.S. has gotten into alone since Korea hasn't had something to with either ‘avoiding Communism’ or benefiting American businesses.”
It doesn’t ignore those obvious occurrences in history. In fact, it just looks at past US motivations logically. If the US could just as easily initiate a coup in Venezuela, get oil for dirt cheap prices and say that it was about both “containing communism and instability” they would likely get away with it just as they always have. But we chose to go to Iraq, which is far more inconvenient for US business. And anyway I know it’s been said thousands of times before, but if the US was so interested in oil in Iraq, why didn’t we just take over the country’s oil fields or avoid a trade embargo there? To take that further, if George W. is such a warmonger, why was it that prior to 9-11 he was almost a complete isolationist?
”Authoritarian-Right regimes in South America we installed, by the way.”
Thank you for stating the obvious. I’m not sure if you read my earlier comments on this thread (before I even wrote this post no less), but didn’t you see me write that I’m half-Hispanic?
Of course American non-Nazi conservatives have never come straight out and supported eugenics and mass-killings, and plenty of them don't want that. I have every reason to hate Republicans, but they've been building a foundation for it for quite some time. Republicanism is rascism because supporting the party entails supporting of the maintenance of a socioeconomic structure which keeps most minorities in the lower-income strata. There are plenty of Republicans who don't wake up everyday thinking about how inferior the darkies are, but they still enforce a system of largely racially-based supression. Republicans don't care about inner-city violence as long as they can live in the suburbs or if Jesus tells them to that day.
Power (The Goal) can be achieved through actual state control of the economy, or through the "Free Market" American system in which a sliver of the population controls most of the money and is in large part connected to the government. In either system, the power and funding is roughly centralized.
Oh, so Republicans don't say that we must stand behind our President? What about Karl Rove? You know...the presidents CHIEF ADVISOR.
Your interpretation of why the United States got into Iraq involves ignoring that none of the conflicts or government takeovers the U.S. has gotten into alone since Korea hasn't had something to with either "avoiding Communism" or benefiting American businesses.
Authoritarian-Right regimes in South America we installed, by the way.
“Affirmative Action laws are meritocratic. Quotas were the way individual businesses at first and eventually stupid people in general chose to fulfill the requirement that they hire qualified minorities and women. The corruption of AA is racist; the legislation itself is anti-racist. Opposing AA outright means support for the racism that was prior to it. The program needs to be reformed to get people actually obeying what the law says.”
What is so racist about saying that essentially most racially-based prejudice is gone in this country? The most visible descrimination in this country currently in my opinion is elitist, not racist or sexist. The poor (which includes all races) are still denied the opportunity that comes to virtually all other groups in the country. I believe that we should give out scholarship money to poorer students and make, but that racial preferences are ultimately not needed, and in fact generate a good deal of resentment towards minorities. Plus, being half-Hispanic I’m definitely not comfortable with the idea of the government essentially telling me that not only is society not capable of accepting me based on qualifications, but I’m probably too backward to advance in life myself to begin with. That seems pretty racist to me.
“Illegal immigrants are illegal only b/c racist laws declare them so.”
That’s nonsense. Those laws are in place to prevent criminals, people who have no intention of contributing anything to society, the unhealthy (people with serious third world diseases) and other groups that could cause American society harm from getting in. Plus, look at the situation many illegal aliens get into when they apply for jobs: They’re hired for substandard wages and exploited, while working class people who formerly held those jobs are fired. Who wins out in a situation like that? The already obscenely powerful & frequently abusive corporations, government special interests and other social parasites all do but the rest of the population has yet another problem to worry about. I don’t know about you, but the idea of having a growth of a humongous underclass of poor Mexicans and other non-white groups subservient to the rich (frequently white) in society seems much more racist and Oligarchical than any immigration law out there.
“The crime and violence you're talking about have nothing to do w/ racism or lack thereof unless you assume certain races are inherently more criminal.”
You assume too much Socrates. Where did I say that minorities produce criminals? The economic disparities, drug laws, lack of law enforcement (or worse corrupt law enforcement) and other factors have led to the growth of crime in the inner city and lower class minority neighborhoods. And as I stated before being a Hispanic makes me a minority, so why would I be racist towards my own people?
”That's why American ‘conservatism’ is not true conservatism.”
Just because so many in Washington who claim to be conservative are in fact corrupt career politicians who benefit from government bureaucracy does not mean that American Conservatism is a sham. Just as the fact that so many of the American left are rich, pampered hypocrites who are out of touch with the majority of Americans does not mean American Leftist ideology is a sham.
Affirmative Action laws are meritocratic. Quotas were the way individual businesses at first and eventually stupid people in general chose to fulfill the requirement that they hire qualified minorities and women. The corruption of AA is racist; the legislation itself is anti-racist. Opposing AA outright means support for the racism that was prior to it. The program needs to be reformed to get people actually obeying what the law says. Illegal immigrants are illegal only b/c racist laws declare them so. The crime and violence you're talking about have nothing to do w/ racism or lack thereof unless you assume certain races are inherently more criminal.
quote:True conservatism is a free market, traditional values supporting ideology.
That's why American "conservatism" is not true conservatism.
“Wow, JC, you just HAVE to admit that you're wrong, don't you?
You go along on your happy little spiel and say
’because there is nothing in the right that comes even close to Nazism, racist elements and rabid McCarthyists aside.’
But that means that SOMETHING in the right comes close, doesn't it? And because a majority of the American right wing is racist by definition, everything falls apart.”
First of all, while the American right has had Racist and rabidly anti-communist people within it comes no where close to the Eugenicist and socialist-killing monsters that were the Nazis. Secondly, to call the majority of Right wingers “racist” indicates your radical, unfounded hatred of republicans. Are there some racists out there in the Right? Yes, but you could also make the point that there are a lot of Black Nationalist, Anti-Semitic, or anti-White racists in the left as well. To condemn an entire political viewpoint outside of Nazism as inherently “racist by definition” is incredibly arrogant. Anyway, how are they racist by definition? Is it because they oppose Affirmative Action which judges people not on merit but on race-based quotas? Is it because they don’t like the idea of illegal immigrants coming into the United States? Is it because they are deeply disturbed by the violence and crime permeating from America’s inner city? Those are sentiments which a lot of centrist left wingers would actually agree on.
”Your whole argument is based on being too stupid or two near-sighted to see the disctinctions between different systems. Yes, the Nazis took over the country's economy for the state's nefarious purposes, and Social Democracy and Socialism also centralizes some aspects of the government. That distinction is unimportant.”
It is important, because Nazism was an entirely different ideology economically than American conservatism. It had more in common with elements of the Progressive American Left or older Authoritarian-Archconservatives than the American Right. With the exception of Pinochet (who started out as a free marketer then began advocating state capitalism after many of his policies flopped) most fascists worldwide have been state capitalists of the corporatist variety, because that system benefits the government/military more than private individuals. And why do you call me stupid or near-sighted for pointing out the obvious economic differences? If anything, distinguishing between ideologies based on economic and social viewpoints is a indication of a more complex and less distorted view of the world (which ironically many Marxists have, but I guess by your logic they're stupid too). Oh, by the way insulting people in a debate doesn’t make you seem any more correct, just really desperate.
“The important thing is what the entire fascist system is based on. The system is based on power. Power is the ultimate goal, nazism is a militaristic system. The Nazi economy was a war economy, a war economy which did create lots of jobs and straighten some things out in a completely ravaged German economy. However, Hitler and his cronies didn't wake up one day and say ‘Duuuude, let's centralize the economy! And maybe kill some Jews, if we feel like it.’ No, they were powered by Meglomania and the peculiar human lust for power. Both the Nazis in Germany and the fascist in Italy hated the left wing and the communists. (even more than they hated most other people) In a social democracy, the goal is to help the people, not to take over the known world. Fascism teaches discipline and obedience to the state. Republicans tell us that you must support our President. The George W. Bush conglomerate has all the money they could possibly want, and they certainly aren't in it to help the people, or they would be helping the people. The only thing they could want is power. Pure, intangible power. The type of power they want isn't a type of power that will buy them a killer new plasma TV, its the type of power that some psychotic corner of the human brain wants. Its a simply dangerous lust for power. A lust for power that can be satisfied with something like the power to attack any country you feel like, which the whole Iraq war tried to establish.”
You’re wrong. Right-wing economies are not inherently industrial-military complexes. In fact, numerous right-wing figures such as Eisenhower have rallied against government-state supporting economies. You’re stereotyping of republicans is also way off. Most have no problem with war demonstrators and have not gone out of their way to say that people must support the president. Rather, a minority of reactionaries has done that. Furthermore, if you really think that Iraq was purely motivated out of power you are incredibly simplistic in your understanding of world politics. Iraq was about intimidating other nations which the US has a problem with, and establishing a republic in the Middle East which the United States could use to spread its own agenda. It was also about deposing a genocidal tyrant who the United States had foolishly helped put into power, and who demonstrated paranoid aggressive behavior towards his the UN, other nations and even his own people. Those are the biggest reasons for the US involvement in Iraq, more so than WMDS, terrorism, or Oil ever were. I
“The modern American Republican Conservatism constantly veers towards fascism.”
No, it doesn’t. True conservatism is a free market, traditional values supporting ideology. Classical Fascism of the European variety is purely ultra-nationalist, state-capitalist and for radical totalitarian values. Such an ideology has not risen to prominence in a while (unless you count Ba’athism, which had socialist elements in it), instead Neo-Fascist, extreme Authoritarian-Right or racist nationalist ideologies in Latin America and areas of Eastern Europe have been prevalent worldwide.
Inky, haven't you heard of all the anti-war protestors they arrested here for no reason? Or the outing of a CIA agent b/c her husband opposed the war? That's militant policing. The quote you used was about moderan American Republican Conservatism, which is a specific part of American politics, not the whole country. Also, it veers toward fascism has a different meaning than "it's fascist." So I'll agree with comradesmurf on this one. His post put me in a left-wing mood anyway. True socialism can't come from anything but democratic capitalism. But Comrade, conservatives do have their uses. Full socialism will come about after capitalism has made every country bourgeoisie, which will happen through globalization. And right now, conservatives are bigger supporters of globalization; therefore they will bring about socialism faster if they don't destroy democracy.
quote: The modern American Republican Conservatism constantly veers towards fascism.
I agree with a lot of what you say, about Nazi's etc, but you can't really draw the conclution that modern America veers towards fascism. For that to be true it would have to police the people in a militant fashion, in fashism the use of military to force government views is the key.
Saying 'you should support the President' is just republicans being patriotic (although that's not the right word) about their government.
You're arguing that US government has a lust for power, however this alone could not constitute a fascist leaning, because there is no militant policing involved.
What do you mean about the government not helping the people, too? Surely it's doing something for the country, the US as far as I know isn't in a state of collapse.
I'm no fan of Bush, but you're exaggerating the situation too much, in my view.
Wow, JC, you just HAVE to admit that you're wrong, don't you?
You go along on your happy little spiel and say
"because there is nothing in the right that comes even close to Nazism, racist elements and rabid McCarthyists aside."
But that means that SOMETHING in the right comes close, doesn't it? And because a majority of the American right wing is rascist by definition, everything falls apart.
Your whole argument is based on being too stupid or two near-sighted to see the disctinctions between different systems. Yes, the Nazis took over the country's economy for the state's nefarious purposes, and Social Democracy and Socialism also centralizes some aspects of the government. That distinction is unimportant. The important thing is what the entire fascist system is based on. The system is based on power. Power is the ultimate goal, nazism is a militaristic system. The Nazi economy was a war economy, a war economy which did create lots of jobs and straighten some things out in a completely ravaged German economy. However, Hitler and his cronies didn't wake up one day and say "Duuuude, let's centralize the economy! And maybe kill some Jews, if we feel like it." No, they were powered by Meglomania and the peculiar human lust for power. Both the Nazis in Germany and the fascist in Italy hated the left wing and the communists. (even more than they hated most other people) In a social democracy, the goal is to help the people, not to take over the known world.
Fascism teaches discipline and obedience to the state. Republicans tell us that you must support our President. The George W. Bush conglomerate has all the money they could possibly want, and they certainly aren't in it to help the people, or they would be helping the people. The only thing they could want is power. Pure, intangible power. The type of power they want isn't a type of power that will buy them a killer new plasma TV, its the type of power that some psychotic corner of the human brain wants. Its a simply dangerous lust for power. A lust for power that can be satisfied with something like the power to attack any country you feel like, which the whole Iraq war tried to establish.
The modern American Republican Conservatism constantly veers towards fascism.
Joey Dauben, you have never seen how a Communist state works. Why? Because there has never been a Communist state at work. Communism in its original form is supposed to simply evolve from Socialist democracies, which evolve from capitlist democracies, and so on. Which is why you can't get a Communist state by declaring one and killing some people and seizing power. Every state that has declared itself Communist is merely a tightly-knit oligarchy that gives out some crappy handouts now and then. This oligarchy evolved from how the revolutionary parties in Russia had to organize in order to create power with the limited base of support they had. You don't say you live in a communist state, you wake up one day and realize it.
Enough with the anti-UN, anti-EU ****. Both have some flaws, but they have to be continued. Why? Because the point of human government is progress. If we do not at least attempt progress in both science and the human state, then we should all give up, hunt rabbits and pick berries right now. And while the U.N. has many faults, some of them in design and some of them because of the hinderings of conservatives, atleast the idea is to improve the lives of all people.
Conservatism does nothing to put humanity a step ahead, it's simply a tool to reinforce old dogmas and social statuses.
Plus, Bhutros-Bhutros Ghali may be the best name ever.
In my country (Britain), everyone has a right to free healthcare. Of course, the NHS is an administrative nightmare, waiting lists etc. are ridiculous. Which is partly why the government has been encouraging a bit more reliance on private treatment.
Not the best thing I think, better to try to make the NHS work better than shifting to people having to pay for fast treatment, cause that means wealthy people who can afford it end up getting a higher standard of healthcare, which I think is fundamentally unfair. We need more NHS doctors and nurses is part of the problem.
Anyway, homegrown politics, don't expect you guys are interested.
Point is, I don't think being taxed by the state to get healthcare for everyone is a bad thing at all, cause it's not serving the government it's serving the people. Making sure everyone can take care of themselves, type of thing.
quote: You do not have a right to … education. Not in this country at least, but even still, the UN and EU and the Communist countries will have you believe that it is a right, which it is not.
I thought you do have the right to education in the US. Do you have to pay for that then? There are plenty of private schools in Britain but most are state, is that not the same in the US?
Anyways, that's my chatting about my country done! Inky
1. Nazis were state-capitalists/socialists, unlike Conservatives who are free market or at least Keynesian capitalists.
2. Nazis were anti-conservative: They wanted radical social change and the abolishment of all races besides the so called "Aryan Super-Race".
3. Nazis completely rejected basic morality or values outside of those that the state and their secretly pagan ideology supported.
4. Nazis rejected individual rights, among them the right to bear Arms and other parts of the so called “Right wing” agenda.
So given these four facts, how can you compare the Nazis who combined state capitalist policies, a radically different totalitarian society and blatant imperialism to Conservatives who favor the free market, a free if not moralistic society and a foreign policy that ranges from isolationism to a hardliner stance against terrorism? You can’t, because there is nothing in the right that comes even close to Nazism, racist elements and rabid McCarthyists aside. In fact, many elements of Nazism such as Eugenics, rejection of conventional society and an economy that stands as an alternative to socialism or capitalism were planks of various left-wing movements and demagogues early in the 20th century.
Joey, your arguments aren't making any sense (at least not to me).
I agree that liberals and communists are very similar, but communism is for the state while liberalism is for the individual.
You seem hellbent that they are the same, but they aren't from what I have gathered. If you could restate everything a little more clearly, I'd greatly appreciate it. ^__^
But um, I just realized that I called you stupid, so I apologize for that.
Allow me to pinpoint the errors in your thought and views:
quote:Liberalism supports freedom of people to have what they need (education, healthcare) AND do what they want as an individual
Okay, education and healthcare are not rights. You do not have a right to taxpayer-subsidized healthcare or education. Not in this country at least, but even still, the UN and EU and the Communist countries will have you believe that it is a right, which it is not.
Do as they want as an individual? Oh yeah, well, what if the individual wanted to keep his own money? He's not hurting anyone by doing that, so why should he give up his money to the State?
Your "freedoms" only go so far; they only support, endorse and prop a failed and misguided policy towards the State.
Eh? Joey, you know I know communism is about control. Do you remember my earlier posts?
quote: Communist governments end up authoritarian, because they strictly control the people
Is what I said earlier! And liberals, while they do support free healthcare, education etc and the things you said, do not support restricting people to the service of the state. Liberalism supports freedom of people to have what they need (education, healthcare) AND do what they want as an individual: hold their own views, be unrestricted as long as what they're doing does not hurt others. Which is the opposite to the restrictive attitude of communism. But you're right, there is no arguing with you. You're not mature enough to learn from any argument put against you, such is your outrage at being disagreed with (see example below).
quote: you're so twisted and stupid in your views; you sound like a CPUSA cheerleader.
Not good debating, that's just bitter and rude. I'm not, and I don't live in the states, as again would have been obvious if you had read any of my posts, i.e. the one at the top which started the entire topic!
Inky, the term "liberal" in 21st Century America is the same as "progressive" or just another word for Communist.
Notice liberals favor a majority - if not all - of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto; "free education" "free health care" loss of private property rights, an income tax, abolishment of rights of inheritance, et. al.
You cannot say that liberal doesn't mean Communist when given these facts; you can't. And because you do, or will try to, refute what I have just said, that means that you are definitely a liberal. Liberals hate facts. They couldn't stand them if they hit them in the face going 200 miles per hour.
But here you are, trying to say that an oath to the Communist Manifesto is not the same thing as being "liberal."
quote:Communism is about having a work ethic
A work ethic? Yes, a work ethic to the State, where your life is devoted solely making the State happy, making the State rich, making the State your overall virtue; you're so twisted and stupid in your views; you sound like a CPUSA cheerleader. I don't even know if you live in the United States, but it wouldn't surprise me.
A work ethic. Please. It's about control, control, control.
Communism became even more widespread after the Red Scare of the 50s, but words evolved in meaning (aka liberal).
And Socrates, if your Communists are so effing smart, then how come they can't keep an economy going? Ever think about how China is becoming so rich economically? Hmm, maybe it's because they invoked capitalism into their trade habits.
You're a Communist Socrates; you've pretty much admitted that.
But hey, you're entitled to your own views, no matter how misguided they are.
Topics 
