Democracy or Communism?

[James]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]
Which definition of evil do you think applies?[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I think you might be missing my point.

"Evil" is, first and foremost, a pretty subjective term. Moreover, it seems to be frequently used to apply some kind of supernatural status to something. This is the primary definition for the word, over at dictionary.com:

"Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant."

So, the word "evil" tends to be used in a moral context. The reason that this annoys me (apart from looking like a "me too" type of thing), is that it tends to negate constructive discussion about the issue. As I mentioned earlier, the "ideal" of communism is not necessarily evil in and of itself -- that is to say, you could argue that it has a valid moral foundation (ie: caring for everyone equally).

However, as has been mentioned, it is the application of these principles that simply hasn't worked.

I think that above all else, the frequent labeling of things as "evil" annoys me because it's so [i]simple[/i]. It's a way of dividing things into two categories -- good and evil. But as I've said many times, the world is a complex place and things are not always so simple.

I saw Bowling for Columbine again yesterday and I remember that splicing of black and white war footage, with the text down the bottom. The thing that annoyed me about that was that it was being presented in a completely black and white fashion -- it was being filtered in a simplistic way, when there are actually very complex situations there.

So this is not just something that conservatives do. It's also something that leftists do. In other words, both ends of the spectrum like to simplify things that aren't simple.

That's kind of a long response, but hopefully you know what I mean now. If anyone wants to call communism "evil" that's their right -- and I'd agree that, based on my own morals, the concept of communism isn't exactly right. But I really don't like it when people come in and say "it's evil, end of story". That kind of kills the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion about it, with any level of depth.[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Communism has sound principles, except for the key ingredient: Humans.

Somebody always wants to be king of the dung-heap, and having everyone as equals is a difficult concept. At the other end of the scale, why would you want to work incredibly hard as a doctor, when you could work slack-days as a garbage collector, and recieve the same amount? Only in an autonomous society could Communism work. People are two things. Lazy and greedy. I'm not saying this as a negative shading on all people, but people want to get the most possible output [in this case x] with the least input [in this case y]. If x is a constant [which it is, because everyone gets the same] then y can be anything. Even if y is a paltry figure, they'll get the same x. Which is why communsim won't work in a human society. It doesn't encourage effort, intitiative, or any other positive qualities of Capitalism.

Not that Capitalism is necessarily that great either.[/size]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
So this is not just something that conservatives do. It's also something that leftists do. In other words, both ends of the spectrum like to simplify things that aren't simple.

That's kind of a long response, but hopefully you know what I mean now. If anyone wants to call communism "evil" that's their right -- and I'd agree that, based on my own morals, the concept of communism isn't exactly right. But I really don't like it when people come in and say "it's evil, end of story". That kind of kills the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion about it, with any level of depth.[/color][/QUOTE]

Fair enough; however, I think that this matter isn't as complex as people say. How many times have communist societies been built in the world, in different cultures and situations in history? And how did they all turn out?

Communists like to say that there's never been an example of "true communism", and that Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Min and Castro are just dictators misusing the idea. Is it just a coincidence that the same idea is constantly the tool of dictators and tyrants? And if none of their varients are "true" communism, what is?

Communists also like to say that it's the human drive for competition that ruins communism. It's the human drive for competition that advances society in any way; why would we want to completely eliminate it? That argument doesn't fly either.

You've heard that one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing multiple times, expecting different results? It's not really a good fit at all, but that reminds me of communism. How many different societies have to be screwed over by this "Utopian" ideology before we can admit it's flawed? (Not that More's "Utopia" was worth living in in the first place.)

Granted, I'll admit I'm not unbiased on the subject. I went to Eastern Europe as a child, and saw what the communist system did to people. Not countries or economies, but people. It was horrid. Now I live in Florida, and the parents of several of my friends chose to jump on a shoddy raft into the Mediterranian rather than live in their "paradise".

So perhaps such experiences have warped my perceptions. But you never see communists hopping aboard a raft to Cuba.

[Brasil]

DeathBug, I find your comments here to be very, very naive.

[quote name='DeathBug']Communists like to say that there's never been an example of "true communism", and that Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Min and Castro are just dictators misusing the idea. Is it just a coincidence that the same idea is constantly the tool of dictators and tyrants? And if none of their varients are "true" communism, what is?[/quote]
I by far am not a Communist, nor communist, and even then, I can say with confidence that the Communism you see in China, the USSR, and Cuba is [i]not[/i] "true communism" in the sense of what Marx was professing. The fact that only dictators and tyrants have used those ideas is irrelevant and doesn't change anything about Socialism or Marx's communism, and also doesn't condemn Marx's teachings, because like it or not, the Communism we see in the world today is a mis-application of Marx's ideas.

[QUOTE]Communists also like to say that it's the human drive for competition that ruins communism. It's the human drive for competition that advances society in any way; why would we want to completely eliminate it? That argument doesn't fly either.[/QUOTE]
Read Marx. Read what he had to say. Read about where he was living during that time when he began developing these economic principles. Marx's Socialism arose out of Marx's disgust with the labor conditions of England circa the 1850s. Think about the labor conditions for a few moments.

You had fathers working from sun-rise to sunset, slaving away (hard labor). They came home and had energy only to eat, relax, and then go to bed to do it all over again the next day.

Mothers were on the factory lines. Children were.

There were accidents; workers continually were losing fingers.

You want to talk about competition advancing society? I think the entire lower and middle class population of 1850s England that are stuck in that rat race economic competitive system might just disagree with you that competition in economics was helping them in any way at all.

[QUOTE]You've heard that one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing multiple times, expecting different results? It's not really a good fit at all, but that reminds me of communism. How many different societies have to be screwed over by this "Utopian" ideology before we can admit it's flawed? (Not that More's "Utopia" was worth living in in the first place.)[/QUOTE]
You want to talk More and Utopia? Fine, lol.

Even More himself didn't totally believe in Utopia. It was the solution, but even he wasn't about to go saying he had arrived at the answer. If you were to read Utopia and pay careful attention to the structure of the dialogue between Hythloday and various others, most of which are critical of Utopia, you will find an incredible balance in the dialogues. No side is favored over the other.

When writing political satire, it's incredibly difficult to write fair, balanced, and objective dialogue, especially when you agree with one side, like More with Hythloday.

More's entire political, social, and economic philosophy can be distilled to one word:

Balance.

Also, if you were to read Utopia, and then read Marx's writings, you'd find that the ideas are pretty similar. Marx envisioned an equal society; More did, as well. Their writings show that.

[QUOTE][b]Granted, I'll admit I'm not unbiased on the subject[/b]. I went to Eastern Europe as a child, and saw what the communist system did to people. Not countries or economies, but people. It was horrid. Now I live in Florida, and the parents of several of my friends chose to jump on a shoddy raft into the Mediterranian rather than live in their "paradise". [/QUOTE]
Then why are we having this discussion with you? lol You're not receptive to the idea, because you already have a preconceived notion of what "true communism" is.

[quote]So perhaps such experiences have warped my perceptions. But you never see communists hopping aboard a raft to Cuba.[/quote]
A bit more than warped, I'd say. And why would Socialists, communists, etc, go to Cuba, anyway, when it's clearly a case of Socialism Gone Bad (ignoring the fact that it's not exactly a prime vacation spot)?

[James]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]

So perhaps such experiences have warped my perceptions. But you never see communists hopping aboard a raft to Cuba.[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I frequently argue against Communism here at OB. You are preaching to the choir; I am [i]not[/i] opposing your view of Communism.

I am simply saying that I'm tired of people constantly classifying everything as "evil". It's lame.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Siren']DeathBug, I find your comments here to be very, very naive.[/quote]

Yet, at the bottom of this post, you're going to tell me that my views are biased by my experiences. So, which am I? Naive or experienced?


[QUOTE]I by far am not a Communist, nor communist, and even then, I can say with confidence that the Communism you see in China, the USSR, and Cuba is [i]not[/i] "true communism" in the sense of what Marx was professing. [/QUOTE]

I never said that it was. My point is, communism's been tried many times by many different societies, yet "true communism" has never been produced. Why? Perhaps it can't be; I believe it can't. The system is inherantly flawed.

[QUOTE] The fact that only dictators and tyrants have used those ideas is irrelevant and doesn't change anything about Socialism or Marx's communism, and also doesn't condemn Marx's teachings, because like it or not, the Communism we see in the world today is a mis-application of Marx's ideas.[/QUOTE]

I think it's foolish to dismiss these facts out of hand. The worst human-rights attrocities of the last century have been committed in the name of communism. Famous communist leaders read like a Who's Who list of crazy dictators. Ignoring history is dangerous.


[QUOTE]Read Marx. Read what he had to say. Read about where he was living during that time when he began developing these economic principles. Marx's Socialism arose out of Marx's disgust with the labor conditions of England circa the 1850s. Think about the labor conditions for a few moments.[/QUOTE]

I have read Marx, and I'm fully aware of what the working conditions were during his life. I'm not at all supporting those conditions. I'm saying that his solution was flawed then, and continues to be flawed when presented to day.

And if you want to bring Marx into this, personally, he was a sod.

[QUOTE]You want to talk about competition advancing society? I think the entire lower and middle class population of 1850s England that are stuck in that rat race economic competitive system might just disagree with you that competition in economics was helping them in any way at all.[/QUOTE]

But, here's the important part: after the runaway economics and lassiez faire was reigned in, society had advanced, technologically and socially.


[QUOTE]You want to talk More and Utopia? Fine, lol.[/QUOTE]

I know More didn't believe in the idea of Utopia; why would he? It was a judgemental and stagnant society that squelched individuality.

[QUOTE]Also, if you were to read Utopia, and then read Marx's writings, you'd find that the ideas are pretty similar. Marx envisioned an equal society; More did, as well. Their writings show that.[/QUOTE]

Of course they're similar; like you said, they were working under the same idea.


[QUOTE]Then why are we having this discussion with you? lol You're not receptive to the idea, because you already have a preconceived notion of what "true communism" is.[/QUOTE]

You're saying that my notions are shaped by my life experiences? Gasp! Of course I'm biased, and of course it's due to my prior experiences; why does my mind have to be a blank slate before I can be said to be worthy of discussion? why wouldn't a person who has experience with something be welcomed in the discussion of the topic?

And I have no perception of "true communism", per sae, because we've all agreed that "true c ommunism" hasn't been achieved. My view is that the attempts to reach it have been so disasterous that perhaps it's time to admit the concept isn't feasible or worthwhile. Again, how many times does it have to fail before it can be called a bad idea?


[QUOTE]A bit more than warped, I'd say. And why would Socialists, communists, etc, go to Cuba, anyway, when it's clearly a case of Socialism Gone Bad (ignoring the fact that it's not exactly a prime vacation spot)?[/QUOTE]

That there was me being snide; I'm rather irriated by US communists who enjoy the luxeries created by moderated capitalism and are deathly critical of it.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Yet, at the bottom of this post, you're going to tell me that my views are biased by my experiences. [b]So, which am I? Naive or experienced?[/b]

You're saying that my notions are shaped by my life experiences? Gasp! Of course I'm biased, and of course it's due to my prior experiences; why does my mind have to be a blank slate before I can be said to be worthy of discussion? why wouldn't a person who has experience with something be welcomed in the discussion of the topic?[/quote]
Think back to the little 3-page debate you and I had on NCLB.

You were basing your view on experiences, but that doesn't mean you were [i]experienced[/i]. That's the key distinction you're dancing around here, lol.

Anyone can have life experiences, but that doesn't mean they're going to be experienced, in the sense of being able to present a solid argument.

That's why your statements are naive, even though you have had experiences.

[QUOTE]I never said that it was. My point is, communism's been tried many times by many different societies, yet "true communism" has never been produced. Why? Perhaps it can't be; I believe it can't. The system is inherantly flawed.

I have read Marx, and I'm fully aware of what the working conditions were during his life. I'm not at all supporting those conditions. I'm saying that his solution was flawed then, and continues to be flawed when presented to day.[/QUOTE]
Inherently flawed, yep. But, and this is an important but, with the right people, and the right mindset, it will work. We just haven't seen it work, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm not arguing for Marx's Socialism or anything here, but I am requesting that you at least ponder the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is possible and we just haven't reached that level yet.

[QUOTE]I think it's foolish to dismiss these facts out of hand. The worst human-rights attrocities of the last century have been committed in the name of communism. Famous communist leaders read like a Who's Who list of crazy dictators. Ignoring history is dangerous.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about ignoring history. That was never my point. What I am saying, though, is that we need to understand that the history of the application of Marx's Socialism has always been severely skewed, and we should not be judging Marx's Socialism on the mis-application by a few power-hungry dictators, just like we shouldn't judge religion based on the mis-application by a few lunatic terrorists. You dig?

[QUOTE]But, here's the important part: after the runaway economics and lassiez faire was reigned in, society had advanced, technologically and socially.[/QUOTE]
And what were the targets of Marx's criticisms? And what was his goal?

[QUOTE]I know More didn't believe in the idea of Utopia; why would he? [b]It was a judgemental and stagnant society that squelched individuality[/b].[/QUOTE]
Read the portion about the religious heretic and you'll change your mind there. Utopia was based on balance, and their religious tolerance is evidence of that. The heretic wasn't going to be imprisoned because he held a different religious belief. He was going to be imprisoned because he was causing a public disturbance.

[QUOTE]Of course they're similar; like you said, they were working under the same idea.[/QUOTE]
A fair and balanced society, yeah.

[QUOTE]And I have no perception of "true communism", per sae, because we've all agreed that "true c ommunism" hasn't been achieved. My view is that the attempts to reach it have been so disasterous that perhaps it's time to admit the concept isn't feasible or worthwhile. Again, how many times does it have to fail before it can be called a bad idea?[/QUOTE]
And like I've been saying, don't judge Marx's Socialism on how it's been skewed, because...let's face it. Marx would freak out if he saw what dictators like Castro were doing.

[quote]That there was me being snide; I'm rather irriated by US communists who enjoy the luxeries created by moderated capitalism and are deathly critical of it.[/QUOTE]
Oh. Okay.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

So is the argument now over whether or not Marx's utopian communism can in theory succeed? Sure, it can, as long as its subjects are not human, lol. Communism (Alex, please, there's only one, stop distinguishing with the capital 'C', it's not even close to proper, your 'C'ommunism is Socialism, pure and simple) can only survive if people stop desiring luxury. If they stop desiring power. And that's not gonna happen because it's part of human nature. As an economist, Marx also completely ignored the basic fundamentals of supply and demand, making his economic applications of communism really bogus. It is too optimistic to believe everyone can be a worthwhile contributor to society with Marx's ideal social structure.

I think DeathBug makes a good point in basically saying that, Alex, your unwavering resolve to believe that communism can become to exist forces you to basically not acknowledge what is inherently wrong with it in the first place. Unless you can make a convincing argument that communism is not flawed in, just for instance, its not taking into account the ubiquitous human corruptibility that exists, then we will not share your stance.

[Brasil]

Dmitry, I'm not arguing that Socialism is possible everywhere. I'm not even arguing that Marx's take on things wasn't flawed. It is. I'm not about to argue otherwise, and I haven't been arguing otherwise. I'm critical of the idea just as much as anyone else, because I'm very much aware of what human nature is like. It's a problem that Marx didn't take it into account, believing that humans are naturally good and honest workers. Most of us [i]are[/i] selfish little bastards, lol.

But even though most are selfish little bastards, not everyone is, and that's why I'm saying that given the right people (not everyone, haha), the right mindset, and the right conditions, Socialism will work how Marx envisioned it. Now, yes, realizing those conditions and such is going to be extremely difficult, and I don't argue against that for a second, but it's still possible, just incredibly slim.

If Socialism were possible on a national or international scale, I'd be all for it. But as it stands now, it's only possible in small groups, until we get the pesky power hunger in check.

That's all I'm saying here. With the right people, Marx's Socialism will work. Where those people are, I have no idea, but with this big a world we're living on, I think there are people like that who are [i]genuinely[/i] (meaning, not putting up some Idealistic front) hard-working and good.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Heh, well I suppose you can think of it that way. The scary thing is, what if those sincerely good people DO create a communist society as Marx envisioned it. How much time would pass before it would start to break down? I think it would take not only the right attitude, but a supreme amount of willpower. Well, there have been countless allegorical (and otherwise) books on the subject, and I guess they've done similar critical thinking, heh.

[Brasil]

It's like the deathmatch in EoN, lol. With the right people and the right conditions, it works. If we hear of a group of people who have gotten it (Socialism...not Everything or Nothing, heh) working, I think that will be monumental for a few reasons.

One, it's going to get Marx the props he deserves, you know?

Two, it's going to show that Marx's Socialism is in fact possible, and set an example...a guideline, a structure, for what the Marxist Socialist society should be.

Three, it will give many people a sense of hope for a truly equal society.

Sustaining the community initially will be difficult, certainly, and there's the risk of collapse more or less all the way through, but if done correctly, adhering to Marx's principles exactly, with a concerted effort on everyone's part...I think it would become extremely successful. I think Thomas More's Utopia is a work that should be considered a reference guide for the community, because it is probably one of the most balanced and well-planned/written/etc texts I've ever read concerning the perfect society.

[Guest Garelock]

Personally, I don't see the point in this thread.

To be honest, there's nothing wrong with the IDEAL of Communism. It's just the idiots who used it to fuel their political engines. But the ideal is perfectly fine. The same goes for Democracy. To be honest, I don't see why so many Democrats can stand behind the Democratic party 24/7. The Republican party are ran by nothing more than idiots in my opinion but the Democrats have done worse at times.

Want a good example? I live in South Carolina. A democratic governor here had the Confederate flag put up on the state dome. Still think that Democracy is always good? I don't think so. I could give many more examples against Democracy because sometimes, it simply doesn't work. To be honest, I don't think any ideal would work, I think they all are flawed. It's just the question of picking the lesser evil...

[DeathBug]

Garelock, decmocracy and the Democratic party in the United States aren't related other than by name. Democracy, in the instance we're speaking of, is the ideal of people choosing their government by a voting process. The Democratic party, on the other hand, are a bunch of...

I'll stop myself before I get off topic.

Hey, if Marx's initial idea of communism is "true communism", can we call the communism that's killed millions of people "Real communism", since it's the only one that's actually existed?

[Guest Garelock]

What form of government hasn't had thousands upon millions of people killed? Rather it's the Democratic way or the Republican way, to Socialism and Communism, innocent people have always suffered under just about every form of government. Still, I say, choose the lesser evil.

Go ahead, say what you want about the Democratic party. The Democrats aren't what caused America to be the most hated country in the world now...

[DeathBug]

Communism is in the lead by a long, long distance. It killed more people than the Holocost.

Second, only the Democrats were blind enough not to realize that America has been the most hated nation for over a decade now.

But that's another thread.

[Guest Garelock]

Actually, America itself is in the lead of having more innocent people killed. Rather you count the Native Americans who had their land stolen and in return, they were killed, rather you count the countless slaves brought to America who were also killed, rather you count the long list of wars America has had, rather you count the religious killings America has had and if you count killings in America PERIOD, it's a far cry from what you call a death toll. Communism isn't the reason why people are dieing, it's the PEOPLE using Communism that is the reason; don't blame the ideal, blame the people.

I'm a Christian but does that mean that even Pagan and Witch or Warlock alike should hate me? Under that religion, thousands of people were killed from England, to all of Europe to America and back to Europe again. See what I mean? Don't blame Christianity for the religious crusades, blame the people involved. That's why I don't hold Communism itself accountable.

And YES the Democratic party has realized that America is the most hated country in the world. That's why we're focused solely on world peace. At least I know I am. Anyone that talks to me knows that I hate conflict with other countries; it's an established fact.

[DeathBug]

It's an apples-and-oranges comparison to say that a country has done something better/worse than an ideal.

Besides, your facts are wrong. How can a country with slightly more than a 200 year history be responaible for more death than European or Asian countries that have existed for centuries?

[Guest Garelock]

It's very simple, that is, the answer to your question. America simply had more people killed at a faster rate than what any other country could do. You don't believe me? Take the near genocide of the Native American race. There's only a handful of them left in America now. Let me guess, they're disappearing because the buffalo in America are as well? That's just a quick example of how America can destroy people's lives and yet, America has the nerve to criticize other countries...Afterall, nearly every state America has now was all Native American land. That clearly proves the death toll numbers for those poor people.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Millions of people don?t die because of feudalism, communism, democracy, or any sort of economic policy. That may be the root of some of their discontent; but it was Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc that killed people, not their economic or government policy. Fascism could exist peacefully as easily as a republic. It?s mostly about what the people/leader of a nation prefers.


[QUOTE=Garelock]What form of government hasn't had thousands upon millions of people killed? Rather it's the Democratic way or the Republican way, to Socialism and Communism, innocent people have always suffered under just about every form of government. Still, I say, choose the lesser evil.

Go ahead, say what you want about the Democratic party. The Democrats aren't what caused America to be the most hated country in the world now...[/QUOTE]

I thought you were off to a good start Garelock, you are right about all government?s having blood on their hands. Then you lost me at ?The Democrats aren?t?? Oh boy.


[quote name='Garelock']Actually, America itself is in the lead of having more innocent people killed. Rather you count the Native Americans who had their land stolen and in return, they were killed, rather you count the countless slaves brought to America who were also killed, rather you count the long list of wars America has had, rather you count the religious killings America has had and if you count killings in America PERIOD, it's a far cry from what you call a death toll. Communism isn't the reason why people are dieing, it's the PEOPLE using Communism that is the reason; don't blame the ideal, blame the people. [/quote]

America is not in the lead by a long shot. The genocide of Native Americans were a combination of : disease, actual fighting, and pure genocide. We stole the land from the Native Americans, yes? but we didn?t discriminately eliminate a fourth of those that died (most died because of disease). Slaves weren?t killed so much as they were kept alive. Their dignity and humanity was stolen from them, though there weren?t so many deaths occurring from slavery to even hold any bearing to your argument. The wars we fought were destructive yes, but America wasn?t the leader in any aspect. More innocent British civilians were bombed to death than American civilians. How about the Chinese? Those people were MASSACRED when Japan invaded. Ever read the ?Rape of Nanking?? The greatest death toll was Russia, by far. Let?s take Stalingrad, for example: 1.2 million people died in those few weeks of battle at Stalingrad. The US by comparison only lost approximately 52,000 servicemen. Garelock, as much as it would please your political viewpoints; I regret to inform you that the United States hasn?t fought any war strictly due to any religious motivation. How about the 600,000 people in central Africa that died in a tribal genocide? What about the one million Armenians massacred by the turks during WW1? What about the estimated 2 million innocent people killed by Sadaam Hussein?

Sorry: America can?t touch those numbers if she wanted too.

You are right about one thing: it?s the people behind the government/economic system that are responsible for the killing.

Mao is probably the most murderous person on earth with possibly more than 50 million deaths under his name alone.. that tops the serviceman casualty list for EVERY NATION INVOLVED IN THE WAR. If Mao and Stalin are ?communism? personified? I can see where some people draw conclusions.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
I'm a Christian but does that mean that even Pagan and Witch or Warlock alike should hate me? Under that religion, thousands of people were killed from England, to all of Europe to America and back to Europe again. See what I mean? Don't blame Christianity for the religious crusades, blame the people involved. That's why I don't hold Communism itself accountable. .[/QUOTE]

The religious conflict in England was a politically motivated genocide between a Papal Catholicism and Protestants? the King determined the Country?s religion. I understand, and I wouldn?t hold communism any more responsible as I?d hold Christianity responsible.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
And YES the Democratic party has realized that America is the most hated country in the world. That's why we're focused solely on world peace. At least I know I am. Anyone that talks to me knows that I hate conflict with other countries; it's an established fact.[/QUOTE]

I?m glad to know your word is established fact. And that your opinion is so inflexible that it can be quoted as ?fact?.. concrete, unchanging. Maybe, with a little living an experience, you shall count open-mindedness amongst your attributes. This polarization between parties is ********? if it?s going to exist we should have more political parties. Everything being restricted to ?Democratic? or ?Republican?.. *sigh* don?t you know that both parties are invested in the interests of not only the world, but our nation? BOTH parties voted for the War in Iraq, BOTH parties voted to fight Terrorism DESPITE how they might appear towards our European ?allies?. We are at peace with Europe, despite the social unrest between our nations; we are at WAR with militant Islam as far as I?m concerned. I?m sorry France, our sovereignty takes precedence over your UN vote, maybe you?d understand that if terrorists crashed a plane into the Eiffel Tower?

[quote name='Garelock']It's very simple, that is, the answer to your question. America simply had more people killed at a faster rate than what any other country could do. You don't believe me? Take the near genocide of the Native American race. There's only a handful of them left in America now. Let me guess, they're disappearing because the buffalo in America are as well? That's just a quick example of how America can destroy people's lives and yet, America has the nerve to criticize other countries...Afterall, nearly every state America has now was all Native American land. That clearly proves the death toll numbers for those poor people.[/quote]

Once again, Native American?s died by the tens of thousands. Yes, it was genocide to some extent. Yes, we relocated and interned these people. Yes, we fought with them in offense and self-defense. Yes, our diseases killed the greatest number of them. But that?s not even a tiny tick in say? the 70 or so million aborted babies. Hey, let?s not turn this into an abortion thread, but to those of us against this practice, is this not genocidal, is this not any less Hitler, Mao, or Stalin?

[Brasil]

[quote name='DeathBug']Hey, if Marx's initial idea of communism is "true communism", can we call the communism that's killed millions of people "Real communism", since it's the only one that's actually existed?[/quote]
DeathBug, you're missing the point entirely.

Others have already mentioned how communism never killed anyone. To blame an Ideal for chaos is like blaming Christianity for the Crusades, and we all know you're not that dense, lol.

Now, Marx's initial idea of communism is both "true communism" and "real communism." There's no difference between the two terms there. They're one in the same.

The communism that you're talking about is [i]not[/i] "real communism." It's "[i]fake[/i] communism," because it's a twisting and mockery of what Marx was saying, and a [i]false and misleading[/i] application of Marx's ideas.

[Guest Garelock]

[QUOTE]I thought you were off to a good start Garelock, you are right about all government?s having blood on their hands. Then you lost me at ?The Democrats aren?t?? Oh boy.[/QUOTE]

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic way of doings things ISN'T what caused America to be the most hated country in the world. It's the idiots that run the Democratic party that caused this. Again people, don't blame the ideal, blame the people who use the ideal as an engine to fuel their initiative.

[QUOTE]America is not in the lead by a long shot. The genocide of Native Americans were a combination of : disease, actual fighting, and pure genocide. We stole the land from the Native Americans, yes? but we didn?t discriminately eliminate a fourth of those that died (most died because of disease). Slaves weren?t killed so much as they were kept alive. Their dignity and humanity was stolen from them, though there weren?t so many deaths occurring from slavery to even hold any bearing to your argument. The wars we fought were destructive yes, but America wasn?t the leader in any aspect. More innocent British civilians were bombed to death than American civilians. How about the Chinese? Those people were MASSACRED when Japan invaded. Ever read the ?Rape of Nanking?? The greatest death toll was Russia, by far. Let?s take Stalingrad, for example: 1.2 million people died in those few weeks of battle at Stalingrad. The US by comparison only lost approximately 52,000 servicemen. Garelock, as much as it would please your political viewpoints; I regret to inform you that the United States hasn?t fought any war strictly due to any religious motivation. How about the 600,000 people in central Africa that died in a tribal genocide? What about the one million Armenians massacred by the turks during WW1? What about the estimated 2 million innocent people killed by Sadaam Hussein?

Sorry: America can?t touch those numbers if she wanted too.

You are right about one thing: it?s the people behind the government/economic system that are responsible for the killing.

Mao is probably the most murderous person on earth with possibly more than 50 million deaths under his name alone.. that tops the serviceman casualty list for EVERY NATION INVOLVED IN THE WAR. If Mao and Stalin are ?communism? personified? I can see where some people draw conclusions.[/QUOTE]

And after all of what you said, how do you justify even one innocent death? You can't compare numbers to numbers here. If one innocent person is killed, to me, it's like killing a million people because life is life and death is death; period. America has done its wrong too so we as Americans have NO ROOM to talk about anyone. Saddam may have stolen someone's life but America took my ancestors' freedom and sense of pride; that's the worst thing you could take from someone. And you don't have a right to tell me about how many people were killed in slavery; I think I would know how many of my own people were killed.

And pretty much, we have a history of bombing the living hell out of people. With D-Day alone we've pretty much accumulated one of the highest death tolls in world war history. On top of that, I've yet to see a country that has managed to completely and I mean COMPLETELY obliterate two whole cities with a single, powerful bomb; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All those innocent people had to suffer because one harbor was attacked. Was it necessary? No it wasn't, just like a lot of the wars America has been involved in.

AND PLEASE, don't you EVEN say that this war had nothing to do with religion or oil. Lets be honest, America has no room to talk about weapons of mass destruction; we've got the mother load of those so we all know it had nothing to do with weapons. I'd trust Saddam Hussein with those kinds of weapons before I'd ever trust America with them. Has Saddam ever bombed out two cities so badly that it took nearly 20 years to rebuild them and a grand total of over 10 billion dollars? No, Saddam was a very brutal person, there's no denying it. But America doesn't have a right to criticize Saddam or any other person that is seemingly brutal. The fact is that America has done its wrong too so criticizing another country is down right hypocritic.

[QUOTE]I?m glad to know your word is established fact. And that your opinion is so inflexible that it can be quoted as ?fact?.. concrete, unchanging. Maybe, with a little living an experience, you shall count open-mindedness amongst your attributes. This polarization between parties is ********? if it?s going to exist we should have more political parties. Everything being restricted to ?Democratic? or ?Republican?.. *sigh* don?t you know that both parties are invested in the interests of not only the world, but our nation? BOTH parties voted for the War in Iraq, BOTH parties voted to fight Terrorism DESPITE how they might appear towards our European ?allies?. We are at peace with Europe, despite the social unrest between our nations; we are at WAR with militant Islam as far as I?m concerned. I?m sorry France, our sovereignty takes precedence over your UN vote, maybe you?d understand that if terrorists crashed a plane into the Eiffel Tower?[/QUOTE]

Why don't you try telling everyone else that? I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic and Republican parties will be at large for at least a good 50 to 70 more years. I never said that I agreed with the war or how the war would be conducted; I was always against the war. I say that we have terrorists on our own soil. How about the KKK? Or new black panthers? Or the average street gang? Those aren't terrorists too? How do we plan to fight something that we can't even get rid of on our own shores? You want a good example? Does Orangeburg, South Carolina sound familiar to you? That's where I live and on the news nearly everywhere is a story about yet another killing. This time, it was a 14 year old girl who was found in the Orangeburg State Park with a rope around her neck and a bullet hole to her head. It's pretty much established that it's a racial crime. No one seems to think that it's terrorism but to me, that's terrorism in its worst form. I say that until we do something about all the killing that's happening right over here, we don't need to worry about other countries. I mean, California alone has more murders than Iraq does right about now.

[QUOTE]Once again, Native American?s died by the tens of thousands. Yes, it was genocide to some extent. Yes, we relocated and interned these people. Yes, we fought with them in offense and self-defense. Yes, our diseases killed the greatest number of them. But that?s not even a tiny tick in say? the 70 or so million aborted babies. Hey, let?s not turn this into an abortion thread, but to those of us against this practice, is this not genocidal, is this not any less Hitler, Mao, or Stalin?[/QUOTE]

Again, I don't get why people even get on abortion. First, and I'm not trying to be mean Drix, you're a nice person and all; I can respect your opinion because at least you make sense. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread at all...

Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion. Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='Garelock']The fact of the matter is that the Democratic way of doings things ISN'T what caused America to be the most hated country in the world. It's the idiots that run the Democratic party that caused this. Again people, don't blame the ideal, blame the people who use the ideal as an engine to fuel their initiative. [/quote]

I would contest it?s the people who hate America that are the idiots *shrug*.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
And after all of what you said, how do you justify even one innocent death? You can't compare numbers to numbers here. If one innocent person is killed, to me, it's like killing a million people because life is life and death is death; period. [/QUOTE]

Let?s be realistic here? you can be an idealist about life, sure, but you cannot if you do not hold contempt or any sort of justice against agents of death. Wars, when fought, are for a REASON. So, all of the people that died during the Civil War shouldn?t have? There should have been no Civil war? How about WW2? So we should have allowed the Holocaust, Nazi expansion into our allied nations, and Japanese conquest of our homeland? Every life is worth something, but the in the grand substance of things, the millions killed under a single hand hold their millions of significance even when compared to one life. I know I would rather a million people die rather than, say, my sister? but listen to your self! You say a single death is the same as a million? That sounds ridiculous?. Especially considering that there have been millions of sacrifices that are reduced to nothing by that statement alone.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
America has done its wrong too so we as Americans have NO ROOM to talk about anyone. Saddam may have stolen someone's life but America took my ancestors' freedom and sense of pride; that's the worst thing you could take from someone. And you don't have a right to tell me about how many people were killed in slavery; I think I would know how many of my own people were killed. [/QUOTE]

Who is America holding her sins against? Europe? We are held accountable on our own accord, as we hold those accountable for their actions. I don?t know about you? but I would much prefer being ALIVE without my sense of pride and freedom? at least then, I can do something about it.

Sounds like you are pissed about slavery? man, I forgot that you were a slave? Were you? Who are you holding the contempt of slavery towards? Me? Everyone who isn?t black? Isn?t it this kind of contempt that continues to separate the white and black communities? I never owned a slave, my family were abolitionists during the Civil War? they fought for the Union and for the abolition of slavery.

Why don?t I have a right to be objective about death tolls? Because I was never a slave? Because my white, Austrian, ancestors were never slaves? (uh oh? they were !) That?s absurd. You and I both know the number of slaves killed was miniscule in comparison to the number of Native Americans. How about the current homicide rates? Who?s killing the average black young male? Another young average black male is, statistically speaking.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
And pretty much, we have a history of bombing the living hell out of people. With D-Day alone we've pretty much accumulated one of the highest death tolls in world war history. On top of that, I've yet to see a country that has managed to completely and I mean COMPLETELY obliterate two whole cities with a single, powerful bomb; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All those innocent people had to suffer because one harbor was attacked. Was it necessary? No it wasn't, just like a lot of the wars America has been involved in. [/QUOTE]

D-Day? You mean casualty rates? Our European theatre casualties were less than that of the Italians? relatively few Americans died in comparison to , say, Russians. D-Day was rough (especially on Omaha) , but that?s only about 3 thousand casualties in a single, gigantic invasion of a fortified beachhead?. Are you retarded? Oh yeah... your next point answers that question soundly?

Two bombs, not one, destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Here?s a situation where you can trade the life of around 80,000 deaths to a possibility of millions upon millions of deaths if we were to invade Japan itself. Do you honestly think Japan would have surrendered without the Bomb? How many Americans would have died invading Japan? How many more civilians would have died? Don?t you understand that the bombs didn?t kill such a significant number of people? More people died in previous firebombing than the A-Bombs. As for the ?one harbor? being attacked was the central command point of our ENTIRE PACIFIC FLEET and Japan?s effort to DESTROY OUR NAVY! Wow, doesn?t sound like a little attack when you look at it realistically.

You are saying that WW2 wasn?t necessary? I hope you mean the initial attacks, because you should have told Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito that? As for our involvement, we are talking about the survival of the free world as we knew it, doesn?t sound unnecessary to me.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
AND PLEASE, don't you EVEN say that this war had nothing to do with religion or oil. Lets be honest, America has no room to talk about weapons of mass destruction; we've got the mother load of those so we all know it had nothing to do with weapons. [/QUOTE]

Drive to your nearest gas station? how much does gas cost? What? It?s still like 2 dollars per gallon? Thanks for the Free Gas Iraq! Oh wait, we gave the government their economy back! Go figure! Russia?s got more Nukes than we do.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
I'd trust Saddam Hussein with those kinds of weapons before I'd ever trust America with them. Has Saddam ever bombed out two cities so badly that it took nearly 20 years to rebuild them and a grand total of over 10 billion dollars? No, Saddam was a very brutal person, there's no denying it. But America doesn't have a right to criticize Saddam or any other person that is seemingly brutal. The fact is that America has done its wrong too so criticizing another country is down right hypocritic. [/QUOTE]

America was in a WAR with Japan. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he was nothing more than a lunatic who would certainly attack the U.S. if given the opportunity. Of COURSE we have the right to criticize whom we wish! We are responsible for our errors, just as we hold our enemies responsible for theirs.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Why don't you try telling everyone else that? I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic and Republican parties will be at large for at least a good 50 to 70 more years. [/QUOTE]

Where the hell did you get that number?

[QUOTE=Garelock]
I never said that I agreed with the war or how the war would be conducted; I was always against the war. I say that we have terrorists on our own soil. How about the KKK? Or new black panthers? Or the average street gang? Those aren't terrorists too? How do we plan to fight something that we can't even get rid of on our own shores? You want a good example? Does Orangeburg, South Carolina sound familiar to you? That's where I live and on the news nearly everywhere is a story about yet another killing. This time, it was a 14 year old girl who was found in the Orangeburg State Park with a rope around her neck and a bullet hole to her head. It's pretty much established that it's a racial crime. No one seems to think that it's terrorism but to me, that's terrorism in its worst form. I say that until we do something about all the killing that's happening right over here, we don't need to worry about other countries. I mean, California alone has more murders than Iraq does right about now. [/QUOTE]

So quantifying death has no substance, yet when it comes to crime there can be a ?worst form??. *sigh* I?ve talked to you before on this information, don?t you understand that we DO fight the KKK, Black Panthers, and gangs? California does not have the homicide rate that Iraq had before we invaded.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Again, I don't get why people even get on abortion. First, and I'm not trying to be mean Drix, you're a nice person and all; I can respect your opinion because at least you make sense. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread at all...

Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion. Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.[/QUOTE]

Who?s shooting innocent children? American Soldiers? I would just love to hear you say that?s why we are over there.. to shoot innocent children. Don?t you understand that sometimes you need to FIGHT in order to survive? Do you think we could have talked our way out of WW2? How about the innocents slaughtered by Hitler? They did not fight, they were not capable of it. Being anti-holocaust did NOTHING? it took the total elimination of the Wermacht and Hitler to stop that genocide. Saying you are anti-death is one thing? but we have an OBLIGATION to stand up to tyranny.

[Zeta]

Garelock

[QUOTE]Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion. Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.[/QUOTE]

A man is carrying a deadly disease that is transmitted just by touching another who has threatened to go and spread it. You choose to kill him. You are taking the life of an individual but are saving the lives of millions. Aren't you both here? You are pro death to kill the man who could possibly wipe out millions, but are saving the lives of the million, meaning you are pro death. Is that not both?

Imagine if the US hadn't of used the atomic bomb. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death, every single one of them. I've seen movies with kids no older than 10 being taugh how to shoot and kill someone. Everyone was going to fight the US invasion of the Japanese mainland. Imagine the deaths on the Japanese side. Imagine the deaths on the side of the Allies. The death toll would far exceed that which was caused by the atomic bomb. That is why the bomb was dropped. For a quick way that would minimize as much deaths as possible on both sides. Sure they killed a lot of people, but nothing compared to had the US actually invaded their homeland.

You fail to realize that we [i]try[/i] to minimize as much casualties as possible. You make it seem that we just bomb the heck out of a town for the heck of it. We try to target the war facilities, but not all times are things in our favor. Especially during World War II when dropping bombs usually consisted of a gun look down from the plane. Did we go into Berling and just bomb the crap out of things non-military? What did the Germans do during the Blitz? They just bomb London. Not for war things. They bombed it to terrorize the people.

From what I am getting, you believe that WWII was war we did not need to get involved in? Think logically. We weren't in the war for a good long time. But the war was so large it was spreading. It wouldn't matter if we wanted to be in it or not, it eventually would come to us. Which it did. Would you rather us just sit back and let them attack Pearl Harbor and do nothing about it? Please.

No one is saying that things on the homefront are not terrorism. But again, look at the bigger picture. Do they hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Do they bomb naval ships? Bomb trains? No they don't. I think it is fair to say take care of the bigger problem first. That is my opinion anyways.

Edit: Crud, Drix beat me to it. :wigout:

Now, I was really informed on Communism awhile back but I do not remember as much as I hoped, but this is what I think. In theory, Communism is a great idea. With people all having jobs and what not, there would be no unemployed. The part I don't agree with is the tidbit saying something along the lines of "should be brought about by force onto the world", sorry I don't know the exact. ^_^;; Anyone know what I am talking about? But naturally I prefer the freedom that comes with Democracy.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Nothing personal DeathBug, but you being biased severely diminishes your opinion's, hm- what's the word. Your opinion's.. weight, I suppose. It doesn't mean as much if you admit to not being objective. Now, you are a very intelligent person- so I respect your opinion- I just don't really find it to be valid to agree with, as you are biased.

I have nothing further to say to you because Siren and James pretty much covered it. It's funny we're considering this as true democracy and true communism have, so far, never existed in it's purist, most idealistic form. I guess I might be implying this doesn't have much of a point- but, that's arguable.

Hmm. There are some odd misconceptions about world history here.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The wars we fought were destructive yes, but America wasn't the leader in any aspect.[/quote]

Philippine-American War. 250k-1m civilians killed, 4 thousand and some odd number American servicemen killed in action. U.S. actions included scorched earth campaigns, torture and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']More innocent British civilians were bombed to death than American civilians.[/quote]

The British and Americans had a reprisal to that. Research the history of Dresden, specifically in early 1945. An eye for an eye.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The greatest death toll was Russia, by far.[/quote]

Nothing personal, but Russia was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa. Of course the greatest death toll was their's- the Great Officer Purge damaged the army to the point they barely beat *Finland* in the Winter War- they only way they won was through outnumbering them something like 10 to 1. Stalin brought the losses onto his own army due to his paranoia and trust of Hitler- his paranoia caused the Great Officer Purge and he trusted Hitler to honor the non-aggression pact for a few more years- he had signed it in the first place to buy time for his army to grow stronger. He didn't get enough of that time- they had a Quantity > Quality army fighting a Quality > Quantity army. The two didn't cancel each other out as the Russian losses in the first two years show.

[quote name='Garelock']Saddam may have stolen someone's life but America took my ancestors' freedom and sense of pride[/quote]

Right..

[quote name='Garelock']All those innocent people had to suffer because one harbor was attacked.[/quote]

That one harbor had the majority of the American Navy there. The attack was not aimed at the harbor- ignore the location, if you would. The attack was aimed at obliterating the American Navy so the Japanese Navy would dominate the Pacific and be able to seize American possessions in the Pacific. The prize they wanted to take was the American Carriers- the core of any fleet at the time and to this day. Somehow, as if the Americans knew of the attack coming, all of the Aircraft Carriers were out of the harbor at the time doing various miscellaneous tasks. The Japanese scored a victory, but they did not achieve their goal and that eventually came back to bite them.

[quote name='Garelock']And pretty much, we have a history of bombing the living hell out of people.[/quote]

Most nations do. It was a core component of the German Blitzkrieg offensive, just to give you an example. Modern, quality warfare doctrines generally use close air support. Aside from that, most of the major nations involved in WW2 were involved of strategic bombing to some degree.

[quote name='Garelock']On top of that, I've yet to see a country that has managed to completely and I mean COMPLETELY obliterate two whole cities with a single, powerful bomb; Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[/quote]

The trade off is that you have never seen Japan be invaded by hundreds of thousands of Allied troops who are forced to defend themselves from the Government-trained Japanese civilians. You've never seen half a million or more Allied troops dead and millions of civilians killed all across the islands. Don't be ignorant.

[quote name='Garelock']AND PLEASE, don't you EVEN say that this war had nothing to do with religion or oil.[/quote]

Yes. Many wars are fought for resources- why is that surprising? The implications of the invasion do seem to have a double agenda, but there is not much tangible evidence towards that. Let people buy into the "March of Democracy" if they want to.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Russia's got more Nukes than we do.[/quote]

Yes. American nuclear technology is focused on quality > quantity. Our nuclear capability is equal to or greater than their's because our nukes are more advanced. Sheer numbers mean nothing when you are talking about anything Russian.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']and Japanese conquest of our homeland? [/quote]

Wrong. The Anti-Cominterm pact divided the world into three sectors. Germany got Europe, Italy got Africa and Japan got Asia and the Pacific. There was no way that Japan could even try to invade America while still engaged in China.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Nazi expansion into our allied nations[/quote]

Hitler didn't want war with the Allies. He had great respect for Britain and America. His goal was the destruction of what he considered to be the greatest danger to humanity- Communism. Ironically, this later became America's prime directive too. How odd history is.

You'll note that France and Britain declared war on Germany and not vice versa.

[quote name='Zeta']They bombed it to terrorize the people.[/quote]

As I said, history of Dresden. Early 1945. Enjoy yourself. Oh, be sure you understand what a firestorm is. Quite nasty, those.[/color]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Garelock']And after all of what you said, how do you justify even one innocent death? to me, it's like killing a million people because life is life and death is death; period.[/quote]
And Taking over the world is like taking over half a square inch of land in remote siberia, cause mine is mine and yours is yours;period.

[quote name='Garelock'] Saddam may have stolen someone's life but America took my ancestors' freedom and sense of pride;[/quote]
Now you're asking why we didn't just kill your ancestors?

[QUOTE=Garelock]
And pretty much, we have a history of bombing the living hell out of people. With D-Day alone we've pretty much accumulated one of the highest death tolls in world war history. On top of that, I've yet to see a country that has managed to completely and I mean COMPLETELY obliterate two whole cities with a single, powerful bomb; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All those innocent people had to suffer because one harbor was attacked. Was it necessary? No it wasn't, just like a lot of the wars America has been involved in. [/QUOTE]
The bombs were to end the war; not to kill. We had to show hirohito we meant business. What else could we have done? Begged him? "Please, Mr. Hirohito, give up all 1 million square miles you spent the last 6 years acumulating and surrender. Please."

[quote name='Garelock'] America has no room to talk about weapons of mass destruction; we've got the mother load of those so we all know it had nothing to do with weapons.. [/quote]
We were trying to take them away from a lunatic. Just because you have an assault rifle doesn't mean you will let a baby have a pistol.

[quote name='Garelock'] I'd trust Saddam Hussein with those kinds of weapons before I'd ever trust America with them[/quote]
America's had them for years... and haven't had to use them. And you'd trust someone whose military orders include, "burn all the oil wells!"

[quote name='Garelock']How about the KKK?[/quote]
You're right. when have we ever tried to stop the KKK? We've never made a law...Oh, yes we did.

[quote name='Garelock']Again, I don't get why people even get on abortion[/quote]
Okay, let's say you are a girl and you get raped. If you get pregnant and don't have the money to support a child, what do you do? Even if you have the child and give it away, you have a living reminder of when you were hurt.

[quote name='Garelock'] Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.[/quote]
Or you're pro death for life.

[quote name='Garelock']innocent children shot at [/quote]
Since when do they use a gun?

[quote name='Garelock'] Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion.[/quote]
Until you look at the big picture instead of taking everything by itself, I don't even want to hear your opinions.