Once Karl Marx had come up with his ideals for communism around the late 19 century the idea was greatly favored by the common person for its obvious appeals even though there have never been any true communism nations including the great former U.S.S.R. who america ignorantly called communist even the name says otherwise "United Socialist Soviet Republic", the russian "communist" factioneers that led the overthrowing of the Czars used communism for show so that the people would accept the new goverment that was really socialist, and its strange that the once super power nation U.S.S.R had a sort of alliance with Cuba another socialist nation masqerading as communist, and now that same situation now exist between China and North Korea. But the same situation wil probaly happen again the U.S.S.R had a horrible economy and China has an equally bad one and when and if it falls it will be because of the same economial reasons with no war at all and the small socialist nation will continue Cuba is still socialist. And probaly wont be changing till Fidel Castro dies, though now its future is questionable with Bush on another rampage he now suspects Cuba of producing biological weapons and trading them with "rouge states" like Iran though in my personal opinion Bush doesnt want a war with Cuba it could cause serious problems with other "communist" states as North Korea war even.
now Fascism very similar to Hitlers Nazism, though fascism came first in Italy Elements of fascism:
--The individual should distrust reason and simply obey
--Denial of equality – the strong have an obligation to destroy the weak
--Violence is an essential tool
--Government by an elite as the average person is incapable
--Totalitarian – total state control of the lives of the individuals
--Racism and Imperialism justified in that certain nations are elite and are obligated to control
--Permanent mobilization – soldier valued above all other citizens
--Anything is justified if it serves that states ends
--Fascism emphasizes victory, glorifies war, is cruel to the weak, and is irrational and intolerant.
--By providing a uniform, someone to blame, someone to hate and a leader, fascism restores self-respect
Its starnge how both Mussolini and Hitlrs rise to totalitarianism was relatively bloodless it probaly asiest for Hitler unbenounst to most the Nazi's were actually voted in to office before hitler only later did hitler run for president then later named himself chancellour of germany, these forms of totalitariansim were in some ways more absolute in their control than any of Monarch ot Imperial rule, even though the age of total rule is just over as people are nore educated on average it is still not the majority, a great book "Animal Farm" clearly points out how the ignorant can be confused with propaganda
though what I find afully strange is howmore and more the idea of democracy is "popular" but a vast majority of these same people dont exercise their right to vote so what I say what difference would it make if you couldnt vote its not like they use it as it is,
the more you look at there is few differences between Nazism/Fascism and socialism/ "communism" think of it like this
on a line from left to right, on the far left there are the Radicals then comes the Liberals and in the middle are the Moderates then there are the Conservites then on the far right there are the Reactionaries, on the far left are the Nazis and on the far left are the Communist or Socialist, and from that you think both parties are very different but not so, now think of that list on a circle the farther you go left the closer you get to the right and the farther you right the farther you get to left, so now whats so different in the way that Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin ruled compared to that of Mussolini or Hitler (Besides Hitlers own agenda at genocide)
after looking at an online poll of which was better Nazism or Communism the results were kind of surprising the number that said Communism was better was just barely 4 votes higher than those that said Nazim ws better, and this was on a poll that had around 350 votes
Communism can only exist in small countries the big ones only get torn apart thats why Cuba is still as it is China may only survive the "trend" because of its deep seeded control system
In theory Communism is supposed to be fairer but in the end they both end up repressive and neither really cares about idealogy or anything of the sort, far more innocent people were killed by Communism because it has no real goals, Nazism on the other hand has an almost direct goal
(btw I puposely didnt vote in the poll because my idea of which was better is somewhat twisted, they both had the bad lots of it but they both had some good, can a mod add to the poll "Neither of them good")
Helios Inferno Karl Marx stole his ideas from Adam Weishaubt, as you should know. The basic principles of the Illuminati match those of Communism, with a slight difference. In the Illuminati regime, there are no more poor. All people present are enlightened, and do not need motivational forces like money, or other capitalistic drives, they work to become better and smarter.
Nazism is almost identical to fascism, apart from the killing of jews, and other minorities.
Due to my own visions no the future, however I will have to go with 'Communism', since that comes closest.
HU I dunno, my understanding always was that Nazism was simply Fascism plus extreme discrimination of the non-Aryan races. Could you go into the differences in further detail maybe? :D
Also, Communism and Fascism when taken to their extremes are really basically the same, but since you're probably not talking about that then I'd say Communism - with a non-corrupt administration it might even work up to a certain extent, and at least it doesn't encourage war and violence.
Communism is a hopeless dream. Fascism is a ruthless setback to human civilisation.
Socialism I don't know a lot about. I'm not sure but I think that its a general idea that in order to get a state to do it turned into communism. I don't think socialism includes forcing upon people anything.
Some of you may have heard of the Israeli "kibbutzim". It used to be very popular in the 70s to go volunteer there I am told. What these kibbuzim are are small settlements where members are accepted in on the condition that they accept the kibbutz's socialist methods. In a kibbutz people get equal pay and if you don't work you get kicked out, not arrested. Still, there were other restrictions for kibbutz members and eventually the institution more or less crumbled to pieces. There are still some kibbutzim which exist today, but most (including the settlement I live in), are not defunct.
What this story comes to show I think is that even when socialism isn't turned into a totaliterian regime like communism it still doesn't survive - maybe because it limits people's choices too much and maybe because people are selfish shits, you decide.
Anywho, in conclusion, all suck. I'm all for anarchy. Marxism, Socialism and Communism
I did whole essays on this subject for history, and I did not like it. I can only tell you one thing that Das Kapital is more boring than watching crossroads.
In both political currents, the ideal situation is Utopia. Both currents view a class-less society as a Utopia, and both currents attempt to achieve that.
Marxism. Karl Marx believes the masses, the poor masses get fed up with being poor (1984, the power is in the proles). They will revolt and a new government will take all power, and immediately redistribute it. This way, everyone will have equal power and wealth, and the class-less society will be gone. The government will have minimal power, since there is no real need for governing.
Socialism. Socialists believe in a more democratic way. They believe that by taxing the rich and giving to the poor they can also establish a class-less society. Less spectacular, but doesn't work either. It still exists in most democracies though.
Communism. Marxism succeeds on but one factor. Marx believes that man, at heart, is good. He may be right, but his theory crumbles on this fact. Once the government has all power, they won't give it back. This is basicly communism. Although people might suggest they are trying to establish Utopia, they are really just the same as the Capitalists.. Exploiting the poor.
HU Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Marxism, Socialism and Communism
Communism. Marxism succeeds on but one factor. Marx believes that man, at heart, is good. He may be right, but his theory crumbles on this fact. Once the government has all power, they won't give it back. This is basicly communism. Although people might suggest they are trying to establish Utopia, they are really just the same as the Capitalists.. Exploiting the poor.
HU
"Power corrupts and Absolute power absolutely corrupts", I too think Karl Marx may be right but certain insticts will always control us, given a situation of power no one I mean no one will want to voluntarily give up that power, so far anyone put into a seat of power will be corrupted to an extent thats why Socialism fails beyond all means, when the socialist took over from the Czars there was not much difference in their total control, just that in one got its leader through family relation, almost since russias begginings they have had a totaliterian leadership only now have they changed because all of them have failed, the same is true for China whether or not that will change only time will tell
Originally posted by freeyourmind
Anywho, in conclusion, all suck. I'm all for anarchy.
Anarchy can never prevail its just natural for them to want some kind of goverment deep down most people want to be controlled (read sig) people want some control but not all, people hate Totalitarianism and they hate Anarchy thats why Democracy is so appealing because its right in the middle First thing first.
Communism aka Socialism
Socialism is the ideal Communism is this idea, put into action So in Actual fact, these two should not be placed together, or to be called one, and meaning the other. There is no AKA between Communism and Socialism
Anarchy can never prevail its just natural for them to want some kind of goverment deep down most people want to be controlled (read sig) people want some control but not all, people hate Totalitarianism and they hate Anarchy thats why Democracy is so appealing because its right in the middle
The basic definition of anarchy is “not governed.” Anarchism understands the ownership of private property and the institution of government as two aspects of the same problem — a circumstance in which a few control and dominate the lives of the many.
My personal opinion is that, because Anarachy has many forms, Syndicalists is problery the one form of anarchy that could succeed. Many times, people think of anarchy as "free from oppression of the goverenment, riots, chaos ect" Where in fact, anarchy is just like communism, run only by those who accept it.
All chaos, has order. ok heres dictionary definition for everything, instead of beating around the bush answers
1.com·mu·nism
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
2. so·cial·ism
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
3. fas·cism
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
4. Na·zism also Na·zi·ism
n.
The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
5. an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
there you go. and before anyone gets on my case for these definitions, i am just trying to be objective here. they are no my definitions
helios, its "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" thats the quote
and no government will ever work with the way human nature is, and thats a fact. there always going to be someone trying to go against the grain. also, even anarchy couldnt work, all the disorder resulting from anarchy would destroy everything. TOTO-anihilation (cats and dogs ;))
thats just my 2 cents
dont chew me out and then spit me back, its not nice, and definately disgusting.
(gotta have a little humour :p ;)) Hunter-Gatherer tribes, not dissimilar to our ancient ancestors...either that or DPDism Originally posted by DPD
Hunter-Gatherer tribes, not dissimilar to our ancient ancestors...
Hunter-gatherers were the original Capitalists! i voted communist. i find it the better of the 3. Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Hunter-gatherers were the original Capitalists!
SHHHHHH!!! You weren't supposed to tell anyone. Now that the secret is out, I'd say the best form of government would be one that encourages people to eat Jello for dessert on Wednesday Night. Hmm, how about some kinda hippy government? Or is that anarchism? :0
Wahhay. 1000th post. I'm a pathetic, sad little forum junkie freak type person dude. I guess it could be anarchy, but its really more utopia or what communism "really" is where everyone has equal status
and happy millenium post no wait thats years ?:D? I'm not sure whether a class-less society is a Utopia. Personally, I do believe that for the faith of the greater, there must be a fascist government (FYM knows what I mean ;)) to make sure the people get what they want.
I truly believe that a country under a Great Dictator (Great in the sense of Great for his people) can work better for the people than a democracy. However, we are so judging about other systems of government...
Anarchy rules... Actually.. It doesn't. Anyhow, a hippy environment is much like the environment the Illuminati wants to go to, but these involve huge psychological, socielogical changes in people, which I am not capable of describing, sadly. Google it! ;)
HU ok, obviously I don't understand the topics on the level that all of you do, so feeel free to argue with my view.
Communism is not a system of goverment. Communism is an economic system where the idea is to live in harmony, industry supporting industry with a general form of control. That control is meant to be only economic and not as a central goverment, nor is communism meant to interfere with the expression of Democracy.
Communism works on paper but fails in practice because of two factors that I have observed, there may and probably are more. (you may differ with my view on the first one.)
Men are naturally evil, or at least society has a certain penchant for sculpting them that way. Communism would require a group of minds on par with Thomas Jefferson in control of both the economic system of a state and the central goverment.
Communism does not offer incentive for man to pursue a bettering of himself through hard work, because there would not be an "american dream" to await him. An award system such as gives men a glimmer of hope for wealth in capitalism would probably not work, or not even exist, in a communist economy.
Every goverment that has been considered communist is wrongly labeled. All past and current "Communist" states have been pure and simple facism.
Socialism seems to me to be the goverment system equivilant of communism. But there again I believe it fails for the sames reason communism fails. Men are inherantly evil, or i guess you can just say we need a realllllly reallllllly broad sweeping social reform and a reversing of the hedonistic tendancies of our society so that enough people are "good" and "aware" that it can work.
Anarchy is the method of reform. Small reform can take place without anarchy but the only method for serious change to occur is chaos. Anarchy delivers that chaos. It can be small and quick, or large and drawn-out. Large as in the French revolution, or small as in haiti. Either way it was in truth anarchy. Luckily new goverments are often established quickly, as in our case.
and for my finishing thoughts....
In Communism, fascism, and socialism, man exploits man.
In our God-blessed country, shining as a golden example to the world of the great system of Capitalism and Democracy, it is the exact opposite.
If given the choice between goverment without newspapers and newspapers without goverment, I would take the latter every time. ---- Thomas Jefferson! boooya! ' In our God-blessed country, shining as a golden example to the world of the great system of Capitalism and Democracy, it is the exact opposite.'
I must agree with you.
In Communism man exploits man,
In Capitalism man exploits man.
Thank you for sharing that with us. Fruther, there is no 'our' here, we are not all from democratic countries here, and I am thankful of it. How quickly democratic nations are to judge others.
Communism is indeed a form of Economy, but it also refers to the governments implementing it.
Socialism is not necesarily a stream of government that implements Communism, it also refers to a stream within democratic governments, that stand up for the lower class, but through democracy instead of revolution.
I thought I might learn something, so I checked dictionary.com,
One of the entries went as followed:
Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I can see how you compare this to communistic countries, but it can also be easily applied to the US. I have gone in to great depth on this in other threads, and have no interest in polluting this thread with posts that will not convince your ideas/ideals about your sweet golden country.
The soldiers of Nazi-Germany also believed their country to be Great. Hitler rose through power by democracy, and he to ended up in a special current of Fascim, Nazism. Perhaps you should reconsider posting pro-american posts here, since I for one am tired of hearing the self-centered, arrogant propaganda many americans fill their heads, and that of their children with.
Mr U sorry for the "our" part, missed that point.
I think you missunderstand. I'm not being pro-american. I was actually making fun of America with that quote. I added the extra to illustrate a point. I'm not pro -american. I actually despise what my country has become. I was bashing god/religion, capitalism, and our mockery of a democracy all in one sentence. I think you misunderstood my intent.
I was also simply pointing out the downfalls of communism and why it hasn't worked. I would personally see the world in a communist economic/socialist system, but not everyone thinks like i do, so it would never work. That's why i said we would need people who could think like thomas jefferson.
Its actually an insult to me for you to imply I love my country. F*ck America. I am NOT pro-american. did you hear me praise america in anyway other than Thomas jeffereson? I can easily bash america if you would like and point out how false our so called democracy really is if you would like. but I didn't see the words domocracy in the subject heading.
read my previous post again, and this time look at it from the right perspective. from one of a peed off 17 year old who thinks america is a hedonistic piece of crap.
ps. I like how Nmn put it in his last post. I was adding what i thought. Hmm.. I don't hate america. I just hate people who think America is great, and by the 'great knowledge' you showed by telling us Communism isn't a government system (see NMN's post!), I presumed you were a person who believes America is great.
The only problem with America I have today is it's government, not the people themselves. Although they might think they are responsible for their leaders, they have stopped having voting power a long time ago.
Anyhow, back on topic, I do believe communism is possible, but not in the current state. I believe that when industry and agriculture becomes more and more automised, and the worker class becomes more and more obsolete, eventually, the need of money will dissipate.
If we actually make it that far. Diseases are spreading more and more in the world, and I anticipate a very powerful virus taking out billions, whiping out probably more than 50 % of the world's population. This will only force the need of automisation in the primary and secondary market, and stimulate economical growth and prosperity, untill money becomes obsolete.
Once that happens the entire structure of government will have to change, our entire economy will have to change to a communistic system, while our government remains at probably a republican image.
Communism doesn't work, true, but what we should ask ourselves is whether Capitalism does work.
Mr U Money will not be obsolete till these current types of goverments are, money is power but so is knowledge but the people with money power fear those with knowledge goverments are originally founded by those with some knowledge but in the end the power ends up in the hands of the idiots with money
Its like the foundation of america originally founded by people with knowledge and a dream for a good country but now over 300 years later its now run by george W. Bush enough said,
Economy just what it represents is money without it there would be no economy, before any Utopian state can ever exist it would mean a complete collapse of all economic sysytems worldwide and onyly then could a Utopia be born Fine, if you want to bring up capitalism then here we go.
Capitalism is a system that caters to human nature. Greed and hope. The system is not great. But I doubt America, or any other capitalist country, could have had the slightest chance of getting where they are now under any other system.
Capitalism's main fault, in my not-as-informed-as-i-should-be opinion, is that greed on the part of the richest leads them to soon take over democracy, hollowing it worse than simply diluting the vote by having too much population growth could do. And ignorance doesn't help at all. Americans are pretty stupid. Compared to a lot of the world we may be living the high life and be pretty smart, but we arn't the best.
For one, have you every heard of Switzerland starting a war?
I do like your idea on the future economic system, and how communism could eventually work.
The average american, the idiot, thinks communism is a wicked thing that want to destroy democracy and enslve them, taking away their non-existant voting power. The average american would have said communism and been thinking Nazism and china and korea.
I honestly would prefer it if you did hate america. Whatever honor America may once have possessed is long gone. And that american idiot was just about every person in america during the "Cold war", they all hated something they knew absolutely nothing about "The ignorant always fear what they dont know", this "trend" of ignorance is just starting to change I say people aremore aware than they used to be but they are still very naive about their own goverment I don't believe it has anything to do with honour or not. Generally, I believe that hate towards a nation is wrong, and foolish. Sure, the US as a country has done some wrong things, but if you are right, and the voting is a illusion, than you will agree as well that Americans are not directly to blaim for the effects.
Personally, I did not know that America every obtained any honour, since they did not respond in WW2 untill they could test their new bombs, and Hitler was actually getting strong enough to pose a threat.
Before that, America had killed a whole lot of indians, and other native tribes.
The buildup in WMD's recently, the inability to acknowledge basic human or children rights, ignoring any UN resolution or treaty makes the US a pinpoint for hatred, but like Gandhi I do not believe that the world will not be healed by hate, just like the forest will not stop being on fire, by setting it on fire. Eventually, the fire will stop, indeed, but with catastrophical results.
The US is a dangerous nation, but nothing to hate, it is more likely the nation I laugh at for it's hypocritical morals and principles. Say this, do that. 'The president broke no promise he was intending to keep.'
Hate them? No. Love them for who they are, humans.
Mr U Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
I don't believe it has anything to do with honour or not. Generally, I believe that hate towards a nation is wrong, and foolish. Sure, the US as a country has done some wrong things, but if you are right, and the voting is a illusion, than you will agree as well that Americans are not directly to blaim for the effects.
Personally, I did not know that America every obtained any honour, since they did not respond in WW2 untill they could test their new bombs, and Hitler was actually getting strong enough to pose a threat.
Before that, America had killed a whole lot of indians, and other native tribes.
The buildup in WMD's recently, the inability to acknowledge basic human or children rights, ignoring any UN resolution or treaty makes the US a pinpoint for hatred, but like Gandhi I do not believe that the world will not be healed by hate, just like the forest will not stop being on fire, by setting it on fire. Eventually, the fire will stop, indeed, but with catastrophical results.
The US is a dangerous nation, but nothing to hate, it is more likely the nation I laugh at for it's hypocritical morals and principles. Say this, do that. 'The president broke no promise he was intending to keep.'
Hate them? No. Love them for who they are, humans.
Mr U
America did not respond till they did in WW2 because they were trying to stay out of the war and they did not yet see hitler as a threat yet, they also didnt know about his gas chambers and concentration camps either truth is it was secret for quite some time, they didnt actually get into the war till the Pearl harbor attack (1942), and The Manhattan project started some time later in the year
There are actually many reasons for the start of the project, another is they new of Hitler's search to build his own atomic weapons, and it is no doubt that if the war had lasted longer he would have gotten them as the nazi army was actually mor advanced than the "Allies" it could probaly be said that the only reason the allies won was becuase of sheer numbers
But the fact that the US does not agree to any treaty at the moment is not what really wories me, its the fact they we may have to use them, If the phrase have to can ever be applied to using nukes, but right now I trust them with the US than i would almost any other country Ich habe es nicht gewusst? Please, the US was all to familiar with the practises of Hitler in WW2, just like they were familiar with the actions of Churchill in the 1920's. The US never intervened since one, Hitler did not pose a thread, and two, it wasn't economically worth it.
In the end, they thought about the opportunity to launch Big Berta, and they went into war. Nothing impressive though, as Russia suffered much more casualties than the USA, and the US even bombed some French villages, killing French resistance groups.
Hitler despised Nukes and never built them, or wanted to kill him. He used V3 rockets to bomb london, yes, but nukes, no. The US had all the nuclear strength.
It has been set before, Helios, that the US is the only country ever to fire a nuclear missile with offensive means. No other country has ever used them! Yet you remain faithful that they should be allowed to have them!?! The US government is sadistic, they know it, we know it, and yet we and they tolerate WMD's in the US. As said in this or another thread, WMD's are never justified in no matter what scenario.
The greatest 'terror', a terrorist attack, can not be avenged (And vengeance is mine saith the lord (too bad Bush didn't quote that in his 9/11 speech)) by nuclear arms. Do you truly believe a nation like Syria or Egypt or whatever will ever attack the US with nukes? Ha! They will die before they can say 'wow man, that was big'.
No government is suicidal! The US can play police since they are to big to have any real opposition. Japan is afraid, the EU is afraid, and the UN do shit. Result, US has free play, and can ignore treaties, that protect our world. These laws are with reason called universal, yet the Greates Nation in the world does not acknowledge them.
It is unfortunate that I value my life too much to crash myself upon his oval room.. How we hatesss him...
Mr U Dude you hit the nail on the head that time, but if you ask me if Russia attacked the US with everything they got not only would it take em out straight up, but it would give them a taste of their own medicine! The US is a giant propaganda machine, it's basically the bully of the UN, cos it's bigger than everyone else, it thinks it's better. Now, I don't wanna brag about my country, but England is way better than the US politically speaking, we have basically no direct enemies, unlike the US, we have a stable economy, unlike the US, we have relatively sane, albeit US ass-kissing ruler who sort of values our opinion, unlike the US. Unfortunately, this post goes against my personal philosophy:
"Not my flag,
Not my country,
Not my president,
Not my PROBLEM!!!"
NOFX rock! I wonder If anyone has ever seen Hitler as a Radical Christian after all he was in a sense, we all know of his ghenocidal acts against the Jews. This was soely because he blamed them for germanys defeat in "WW1" and the death of Jesus, so once he was in power over Germany he set about to kill all of them in Europe, and over 6 million or is it 60? were killed. Anyway if that wasnt extremist what is? One thing is for sure it makes these confrontations in the middle east seem like nothing.
and on a side note, funny how everyone sees hitler as such an "evil" man yet Stalin killed many more in his country Originally posted by Helios
I wonder If anyone has ever seen Hitler as a Radical Christian after all he was in a sense, we all know of his ghenocidal acts against the Jews. This was soely because he blamed them for germanys defeat in "WW1" and the death of Jesus, so once he was in power over Germany he set about to kill all of them in Europe, and over 6 million or is it 60? were killed. Anyway if that wasnt extremist what is? One thing is for sure it makes these confrontations in the middle east seem like nothing.
and on a side note, funny how everyone sees hitler as such an "evil" man yet Stalin killed many more in his country
Where did anyone state that Hitler was more evil than Hitler? Perhaps we value Stalin to be more evil than Hitler.
Hitler was not just a Christian, he also believed in reincarnation and that he was actually helping the jews by murdering, as he believed they would be reincarnated as the Aryan race. In any case, Hitler was clinacally insane due to a disturbed childhood. Nevertheless, he was a great statesman, one of the greatest ever. He pulled an entire country from economical depression to a world leading economy. The man was brilliant. Insane, but brilliant.
Mr U well, it is the government i don't hate, it is the men that represent the government i hate. communism has never worked before, it may be working for a while, like it was in Russia but newly called the Soviet Union. but after Lenin died, Stalin just fucked it up for everybody. like i say, it isn't the government that wrong, it is the men who lead it. humans are courrupt, when they get power they want more. i hate our government with a passion, so much propoganda bullshit, with Bush and all of his supporters, are just completely frickin' blind that we are controlling the world, no wonder they hate us. but, anarchy is something i would bet my life on that it won't work. so what do i think is the right government, well the type that gives me a choice to choose my rights and my leaders.
View Full Version : Fascism/Nazism -- Communism/Socialism
What's your life philosophy? - After life...
|