HOME | DD

wilji1070 In reply to ??? [2012-07-14 23:07:19 +0000 UTC]

Mainly, the lack of individualism is the byproduct of William Z. Foster becoming the Premier of the Union of American Socialist Republics. Yet they're STILL better than the Soviet Union. Also, Henry A. Wallace ended up as a Premier too shockingly. He was the Secretary of Agriculture and then the Secretary of Science and Technology

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-15 00:35:20 +0000 UTC]

... Stalin is what destroyed the Soviet Union, he was too greedy and brutal...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-15 14:14:01 +0000 UTC]

True, and because of the UASR, they actually oust Stalin quicker.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-15 14:25:37 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, GOOD!! They should have just listened to Lenin's wishes and let Trotsky lead

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-15 14:56:22 +0000 UTC]

Actually, no, Trotsky's in New York.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-15 17:36:15 +0000 UTC]

I was not speaking of alt history, I was speaking of the REAL soviets

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-16 15:29:25 +0000 UTC]

True, though, I'm not exactly sure how well Trotsky would've led, I mean people think Stalin was the one who created the labor camps when Lenin was the one who did. So I mean, I'm not entirely sure where Trotsky was different from Stalin in the method of leadership. Now, I certainly don't think Trotsky would've had the purges which would have likely put the Soviet Union in a much stronger position.

Of course, I have to wonder how Gorbachev's reforms would have worked had they succeeded. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-16 19:07:40 +0000 UTC]

Lenin created the labor camps, but if you look at when Lenin was "leader" most of the people who were sent to the camps were those who broke the law... under Stalin... it seems pretty much any group he simply did not like was sent to the camps.

Trotsky was more of a philosopher, he looked towards the end game, Stalin's greatest attribute ...and greatest determent was he was an absolutist, there is a chance this group is plotting against you..

Stalin: KILL THE ENTIRE GROUP.. sure that makes sure they will not but it would have gained you nothing
Trotsky: see who within the group is plotting against us, which is treason and kill them... so while Trotsky was no angel... he certainly was not as barbaric as Stalin.

... the Soviet union never collapsed, there is that old grinning Russian aspect, of "the soviets never failed they simply changed their name to succeed" ... which if you looked at the government after the "fall" of the soviet union... most then and now are still "former Soviets" .. they merely changed their name and now still hold power.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-16 19:42:54 +0000 UTC]

See, this is why I enjoy talking with you, I learn things that I quite honestly never knew about people I had thought I had learned about!

Then there's Putin's Eurasian Union idea which is somewhat scary to me. Whoo hoo! Cold War II

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-16 20:28:14 +0000 UTC]

I tend to enjoy learning about the Soviets and Nazis because pretty much half of my lineage came to America around the time [the GErman, Russian and Jewish Lineage... the Native America, Black and Irish lineage was either already here or came around that time just not because of that conflict...

Though there are many countries who still use labor camps for those who break the law, which is how they were utilized, for the most part, then.

If Asia alone every consolidated they would own the world, with over 4B of the 6.9 Billion people... they could easily dominate any market even if just selling to themselves and exporting...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-16 20:51:22 +0000 UTC]

Off topic, but have you heard Fox News is claiming that a Civil War is coming between Makers and Takers?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-16 21:09:09 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, Fox news, especially during Glenn Beck's time has been talking about a civil war for years, .. my stalker, Zane has said there will CERTAINLY be a civil war within 2 years

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-16 21:17:22 +0000 UTC]

Only if they spark the match. Personally, while the idea is entertaining for fiction and all, it's not gonna be some grand repeat of the Revolution, in fact I would theorize it would be disastrous for everyone....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-16 21:34:14 +0000 UTC]

It will not happen, the minute some group starts talking about killing opposition en mass... the national guard, US military will be called in and shut it down rather quickly

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-17 15:40:22 +0000 UTC]

True. What do you make about the possibility of Condoleezza Rice being Romney's VP pick?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-17 17:09:32 +0000 UTC]

I knew she would not be... you say Condoleeza Rice and the first thing that pops in my mind is Bush Administration

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-17 17:11:11 +0000 UTC]

HA! That was my thought too

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-17 17:24:47 +0000 UTC]

Tim Pawlenty according to someone else may be one of the finalist

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-17 17:37:11 +0000 UTC]

Gee... I thought Veeps were supposed to balance the ticket. :I

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-17 18:32:41 +0000 UTC]

lmao, I am just waiting for the debates

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wilji1070 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-17 19:28:48 +0000 UTC]

I'm wondering how those will go down?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to wilji1070 [2012-07-17 20:59:43 +0000 UTC]

Hm, I do not know but I am sure it will be interesting

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sweetaffections In reply to ??? [2012-07-02 07:34:36 +0000 UTC]

Wooot communism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to sweetaffections [2012-07-02 13:36:32 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, thanks for the fave

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sweetaffections In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-02 13:37:36 +0000 UTC]

Lol no prob bro!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CorvusCorax92 In reply to ??? [2012-07-01 06:05:08 +0000 UTC]

Arrogance is a rather odd thing to accuse communism of... Hell, I used to be a Stalinist (or 'anti-revisionist' as I would have said then), and I don't think I ever got that thrown at me! What strange ideas right-wingers get into their heads... I bet the guy who called you that couldn't even tell you what communism actually is, or rather, *could* be, given it's different forms. I get called arrogant now (once by a communist, interestingly enough) as a left-libertarian, but I never did as a communist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

MrEpicJustice In reply to CorvusCorax92 [2012-07-01 11:32:22 +0000 UTC]

Stalinism is just authoritarian-Bonapartism parading as communism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CorvusCorax92 In reply to MrEpicJustice [2012-07-01 12:00:57 +0000 UTC]

I'm well aware of what Stalinism is; as I said, I *used* to be a follower myself. Then I went to Maoism, followed by Trotskyism, then back to what I thought was a 'purer' Marxism-Leninism, then orthodox Marxism, followed by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism (a la the Wobblies)... It was an interesting path, but from there I ended up at some blend of classical liberalism + mutualism + individualist anarchism, with a hint of Hayek, Marx, and Tucker, informed by Humanist ethics: Market anarchism, left-libertarianism, whatever you want to call it, it has many names, and is highly eclectic.

But I haven't revisited Stalin in years... Dark times, indeed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to CorvusCorax92 [2012-07-01 06:10:03 +0000 UTC]

Lmao, he had no concept of communism. While I stated above I am no fan of Stalin, but to each their own. I do laugh that every time I advocate for something that helps the poor ... I get accused of being a communist. I take it Jesus was a commie too going by their standards... I get called arrogant often, Okay I can be at times, who can't? But to say I am arrogant for... asking for a properly funded education system? hahhha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CorvusCorax92 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-07-01 06:25:26 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KnoFear In reply to ??? [2012-06-28 23:56:03 +0000 UTC]

As a Trotskyist, I've had many conservatives call me a "greedy little brat", yet I'm the one on the edge of poverty while they eat 8 chicken wings with 3 dipping sauces from KFC. At least I'm not hogging basic necessities to life. I am not greedy, or arrogant; I believe that a society should work to better itself and the world, rather than to benefit each individual part. Just as in a machine, it is far easier to work as a group than as simple little parts. We can make miracles happen a lot faster if we all desire the same goal.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 01:06:25 +0000 UTC]

Trotsky is one of my faves, which is why he is on my influence map linked above.

I wish as a nation we adopted FDRs second bill of rights, some things such as your health, education, etc should not be run on profits.... While the constitutionality of health care is a step, I look forward to single payer system, which I believe will take about a decade or so to even seriously speak about.


Thank you for the fave.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 01:14:13 +0000 UTC]

No problem

I've been meaning to do an influence map sometime soon, but I have a few projects to finish up first. And I just got a job, so it may be a while. I really don't believe much at all in society should be done for profit, but rather for benefit. We are humans, and as a species it is our duty to protect and serve ourselves. I too look forward to fully universal healthcare, but as you've said it will take time before we can debate about it without unintelligent hicks coming around and shooting us.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 01:34:03 +0000 UTC]

Which is why I would make a terrible commie, lmao which is why I consider myself a liberal, progressive, democratic socialist.. I have no problem with you owning a business, hiring people, making a bit of profit… as long as the workers are not mistreated, paid a decent wage for the work, etc then I am okay with that.

But I do not see the "hicks" going away until the Republicans come to their senses and vote the tea party out of office.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 02:41:58 +0000 UTC]

I don't think you'd make a terrible communist; you'd likely just lack the tenacity and fortitude of belief that we have. Not great for leading a vanguard party, though you'd make a fine addition to a revolution.

And the hicks likely won't leave until Republicans in general are voted out of office.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 04:31:22 +0000 UTC]

I do not believe in equal share, I believe in equal opportunity. Has nothing to do with lacking tenacity or fortitude, because to lack something on the basis of not something I want I am sure you know is not logically sound. I am very tenacious when it comes to things I agree and sought after, which is why I am on the councils of several education reform groups, which is why I am a part of several interfaith groups.. so I would disagree with the lack of tenacious attitude and more so just a general view of a differing of ideals.

Well Republicans never be fully voted out of office, there are pockets of conservatism that will always vote Republican no matter what, there is nothing more useless than someone, without even evaluating the candidates will just give their vote to a party and go down straight ticket.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 14:48:02 +0000 UTC]

I didn't mean general tenacity, so sorry for the misunderstanding. I simply meant that you aren't as attached to a hard-line leftist stance as communists are. I'm certain that overall, you certainly have enough energy and ability to exert your own political ideals.

And while now it may always seem like conservatism will be loved somewhere, you must remember that time heals all wounds. It may take a century, but sooner or later there is a chance that the ideals of the past will be forgotten.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 16:22:04 +0000 UTC]

Nope, which is why I do not consider myself a communist, I have been to some communist countries which are not truly communist since they are usually ran by dictators and people not electing their leaders... I prefer the closer aspect of communalism, which shows a better way of communism practiced than on larger grand scales ... where it seems to get corrupted. I believe communism, and this is my opinion, would have had a much better name if Stalin had never been in power... but that is my opinion, Trotsky was no pacifist, but he also was not a barbarian.

Time may heal all wounds, but reality stands still, .. and the reality is you will always have groups of people who are conservative and who will vote for Republicans or conservative Democrats.... there will never be a congress that has fully 100% one party only and where the other side has none...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 16:26:24 +0000 UTC]

It's true, communism would not have the horrid name it possesses today had Stalin not taken power in Russia. Corruption of power is a significant issue in communism, and that's why I oppose any kind of bureaucracy like the Soviet Union gathered under Stalin. Once there is room for corruption, all the possible evils file in.

And as for the issue of conservatives in government, you are making the assumption that our democratic system can never be changed; should we create a system whereby the representation of citizens becomes different, it may become much harder for Republicans to take power. While your statement is true within the confines of our democracy in its current state, we can't know if our system will last forever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 20:38:25 +0000 UTC]

...well there is always room for corruption, man is not perfect and as such when you have any system run by humans "room' for corruption will always be there...

Wrong, I made no assumption that the system will never be changed, I stated the reality that you will always have people of differing views in this country and have since our 230+ year founding. You will always have people are would be considered more conservative, and those who will be considered more liberal. So, in that regard, I made no assumption that the system cannot be changed, just that you will never have a congress that does not have at least 1 person from a different party.

It is not just the "Republicans, Democrats are no angels either" .. I hope the system as far as a constitutional republic lasts forever here, a pure democracy, for me, is a horrid thing. I do not believe any minority should be at the oppressive behest of a simple democracy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 20:46:36 +0000 UTC]

Ah, now I think I have a handle on your argument in full. Sorry for keeping this going a tad longer than it should have. I agree in truth, as even among communists there are those who are more conservative, those more liberal, some authoritarian, and some libertarian. As such, differing ideals will always lead to debate, and therefore politics will always survive.

And while I may not be completely happy with our constitutional republic, that doesn't mean that I hate it. We certainly have our merits, and democracy is a good thing to have with a population over 300 million people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 20:54:27 +0000 UTC]

yes, that is what I was stating, that in congress, each group will be represented pretty much even if they are a minority.

Yes, I believe the people should have a say in some things, but I do not think rights, such as gay rights, should not be put up to a majority vote. In that Regard, a Republic which in theory is to allow all of the rights to the citizens... is why I support a democratic Republic... So I would hate a system that is a pure democracy where the simple vote of a majority is used to take away the rights of others because they do not fit the majority's moral, or personal views on how something should be.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 20:58:36 +0000 UTC]

I'm with you on that one. There are some things which we as a group should not get to decide on. Civil rights are not something to be voted upon, among other things. A democratic republic certainly fits a just society better than a pure democracy, at least to protect minorities.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 21:06:26 +0000 UTC]

I agree, look at Alabama, the majority of Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal.. I would shutter to think how the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s would have gone if put up to a vote in the south.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 21:08:59 +0000 UTC]

Not well, that's for sure. But then again, that's why our executive branch has some strength alongside the legislative; humans as a group tend to be stupid and irrational. We can't let everybody decide everything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 21:17:54 +0000 UTC]

Exactly, and that is why, conservatives now want to take away that power. Like they kept threatening to sue if Obama did not make Holder defend the DOMA, and now I see, first time in US history that an Attorney General has been held in contempt of congress, what a disgrace

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 21:21:35 +0000 UTC]

Yup. I'll be bloodied on the street before I let that power be taken away.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to KnoFear [2012-06-29 21:26:39 +0000 UTC]

yup, their argument is, if the law is on the books he must defend it... which is not entirely true, Presidents have always chosen what their AG's will focus on and DOMA was a stupid waste of time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KnoFear In reply to AtheosEmanon [2012-06-29 21:27:05 +0000 UTC]

Agreed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Overlord299 In reply to ??? [2012-06-28 12:46:54 +0000 UTC]

I don't think communism is arrogant, just naive. Some of my fondest memories are from my days as a comrade, but then I made the mistake of looking up and say what had happened to the dream. and that was it for me.

Communism is great on paper, it just falls apart when put into practice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1