ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 18140
Sep 23 09 9:22 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: No, it's not communism. More socialism, leaning on Communism. But the idea of "the government is there to take care of it's people" is socialist.
WhoKilledBambi wrote: No, it's not communism.
Sep 23 09 9:25 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: Lord, I ask an honest question... That does make sense. However. Like I said, teaching children to sing a song in honour of their president does not seem on the level of pledging allegience to Lenin every morning. It strikes me as a way to teach them to respect their leader, not follow him indefinitely. Even so, I think it's a bit much. Just playing devil's advocate a bit. We already have "Hail to the Chief". . .
WhoKilledBambi wrote: Lord, I ask an honest question... That does make sense. However. Like I said, teaching children to sing a song in honour of their president does not seem on the level of pledging allegience to Lenin every morning. It strikes me as a way to teach them to respect their leader, not follow him indefinitely. Even so, I think it's a bit much. Just playing devil's advocate a bit.
Posts: 3312
WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: No, it's not communism. More socialism, leaning on Communism. But the idea of "the government is there to take care of it's people" is socialist. No, not at all. In socialism, there would be no one strong leader, especially when it is leaning towards communism. Actually socialism is when the government is RUN by the people. Communism is where there IS no government, only people. Taking care of the people is social democracy.
Posts: 11945
Sep 23 09 9:28 PM
Sep 23 09 9:29 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: No, it's not communism. More socialism, leaning on Communism. But the idea of "the government is there to take care of it's people" is socialist. No, not at all. In socialism, there would be no one strong leader, especially when it is leaning towards communism. Actually socialism is when the government is RUN by the people. Communism is where there IS no government, only people. Taking care of the people is social democracy. If you look at examples of "Communist" governments that have existed in the past, a leader always has emerged. I suppose I was drawing the comparison there. Even in the USSR after Bloody Sunday and the abdication of the Romanov's there was a ruling parliament (I'm not sure if that's not the right term). We will never have true Communism because humans need leaders to follow and it's that simple. To me Communism in its purest form is an unreachable goal.
Sep 23 09 9:30 PM
charleyharvey wrote: ^ People are greedy and people will always ALWAYS screw someone else to get themselves a bit more. Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows this, so you're right, barrel. Sleep or no sleep.
Posts: 9196
Sep 23 09 9:31 PM
Sep 23 09 9:32 PM
WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: No, it's not communism. More socialism, leaning on Communism. But the idea of "the government is there to take care of it's people" is socialist. No, not at all. In socialism, there would be no one strong leader, especially when it is leaning towards communism. Actually socialism is when the government is RUN by the people. Communism is where there IS no government, only people. Taking care of the people is social democracy. If you look at examples of "Communist" governments that have existed in the past, a leader always has emerged. I suppose I was drawing the comparison there. Even in the USSR after Bloody Sunday and the abdication of the Romanov's there was a ruling parliament (I'm not sure if that's not the right term). We will never have true Communism because humans need leaders to follow and it's that simple. To me Communism in its purest form is an unreachable goal. you are right in saying that it has never been achieved. It may never be. But the governments who were labelled as communist were called that because it was the end goal (in theory). They were, however, Stalinist, Maoist, etc. Not communist. So lets keep our terminology correct. It only encourages raging lunatics like PD when we use the terms communism and socialism incorrectly.
Sep 23 09 9:33 PM
xxthephoenix89xx wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." ^Pride and honor and loyalty to a country. "Mmmmm-mmm Obama" ^Pride and loyalty to a human. Leaders are not people I would consider myself loyal to, simply because if they start acting stupid, I want them OUT of power. Loyalty is NOT a good thing when it applies to ONE person's ideas. Anyone can have a dumb idea, and as a responsible nation, we are to point out and protest those ideas, not be loyal to them because 'our great leader said it so it's true.' Another thing, I think that it should be required that kids at least stand in respect to the pledge. You don't want to recite it? Fine. But you need to respect your country, its history, and what it stands for. If you disagree with everything about it and you hate it that much... go somewhere else.
Sep 23 09 9:34 PM
Sep 23 09 9:35 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: charleyharvey wrote: ^ People are greedy and people will always ALWAYS screw someone else to get themselves a bit more. Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows this, so you're right, barrel. Sleep or no sleep. And that's why Communism, while on paper seems like such a nice idea where we look out for each other, will NEVER work on a functioning basis. Communism is supposed to be the absence of greed, but it's impossible to rewire human brains to work any way other than they are meant to. Humans had to be greedy in order to survive, and a hierarchy needed to exist in order for groups of people to live. We're just hardwired to follow strong leaders and the strong are hardwired to look out for number 1.
Sep 23 09 9:36 PM
WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: charleyharvey wrote: ^ People are greedy and people will always ALWAYS screw someone else to get themselves a bit more. Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows this, so you're right, barrel. Sleep or no sleep. And that's why Communism, while on paper seems like such a nice idea where we look out for each other, will NEVER work on a functioning basis. Communism is supposed to be the absence of greed, but it's impossible to rewire human brains to work any way other than they are meant to. Humans had to be greedy in order to survive, and a hierarchy needed to exist in order for groups of people to live. We're just hardwired to follow strong leaders and the strong are hardwired to look out for number 1. The argument (which I don't agree with completely) is that human greed (or the willingness to act on greed, depending on who you talk to) is exemplified or caused by feudal and capitalist needs. *shrug* It all depends on who you talk to.
Sep 23 09 9:37 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: xxthephoenix89xx wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." ^Pride and honor and loyalty to a country. "Mmmmm-mmm Obama" ^Pride and loyalty to a human. Leaders are not people I would consider myself loyal to, simply because if they start acting stupid, I want them OUT of power. Loyalty is NOT a good thing when it applies to ONE person's ideas. Anyone can have a dumb idea, and as a responsible nation, we are to point out and protest those ideas, not be loyal to them because 'our great leader said it so it's true.' Another thing, I think that it should be required that kids at least stand in respect to the pledge. You don't want to recite it? Fine. But you need to respect your country, its history, and what it stands for. If you disagree with everything about it and you hate it that much... go somewhere else. Agreed. Or be proactive and try to change what you honestly think is wrong. That's why we have the Constitution, and that's why the Constitution can be amended.
Sep 23 09 9:39 PM
barrelracer89 wrote: WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: charleyharvey wrote: ^ People are greedy and people will always ALWAYS screw someone else to get themselves a bit more. Anyone who knows anything about human nature knows this, so you're right, barrel. Sleep or no sleep. And that's why Communism, while on paper seems like such a nice idea where we look out for each other, will NEVER work on a functioning basis. Communism is supposed to be the absence of greed, but it's impossible to rewire human brains to work any way other than they are meant to. Humans had to be greedy in order to survive, and a hierarchy needed to exist in order for groups of people to live. We're just hardwired to follow strong leaders and the strong are hardwired to look out for number 1. The argument (which I don't agree with completely) is that human greed (or the willingness to act on greed, depending on who you talk to) is exemplified or caused by feudal and capitalist needs. *shrug* It all depends on who you talk to. I think that greed is the motivator for greed. . .nothing else. People will always want more, no matter what ideals you apply to them.
Sep 23 09 9:40 PM
Sep 23 09 9:41 PM
charleyharvey wrote: But isn't it harmful to a nation for it to be full of people whose political views are nothing but destructive and who hope only for negative things to happen? It seems logical to me that a country would try to repress the spread of the mindset where people think it would be ok for their country to be destroyed. I'm not saying I agree; just you can hardly blame them.
WhoKilledBambi wrote: barrelracer89 wrote: xxthephoenix89xx wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." ^Pride and honor and loyalty to a country. "Mmmmm-mmm Obama" ^Pride and loyalty to a human. Leaders are not people I would consider myself loyal to, simply because if they start acting stupid, I want them OUT of power. Loyalty is NOT a good thing when it applies to ONE person's ideas. Anyone can have a dumb idea, and as a responsible nation, we are to point out and protest those ideas, not be loyal to them because 'our great leader said it so it's true.' Another thing, I think that it should be required that kids at least stand in respect to the pledge. You don't want to recite it? Fine. But you need to respect your country, its history, and what it stands for. If you disagree with everything about it and you hate it that much... go somewhere else. Agreed. Or be proactive and try to change what you honestly think is wrong. That's why we have the Constitution, and that's why the Constitution can be amended. Again. What if you don't believe in states. And you are (like me) actively involved in groups to further your ideology? You still have a right to sit down. I think as long as you're not disrupting the class (and this does not include your teacher having a fit about you sitting), then it shouldn't be an issue. I get taken to church every now and then, and I don't kneel, stand or bow my head to pray. I don't disrupt anyone. No one cares. How is this any different?
Sep 23 09 9:43 PM
WhoKilledBambi wrote: charleyharvey wrote: But isn't it harmful to a nation for it to be full of people whose political views are nothing but destructive and who hope only for negative things to happen? It seems logical to me that a country would try to repress the spread of the mindset where people think it would be ok for their country to be destroyed. I'm not saying I agree; just you can hardly blame them. But it's not negative (most of the time) People of most ideologies simply want people to live better lives. (there are, of course, exceptions) They just disagree on how this should be achieved.
Share This