Liberals or Conservatives?

nationalisation is just one principal of communism. alone, it is not communism.

 

My own? Wow this come'n from someone who has read "lots" on communism? Did you ever get past the first page on the Communist Manifesto?

 

you seem to insist on saying that in reality communism is something that as far as i can see, is quite simply not communist. Please do show me where i am wrong, but dont just tell me i need to read more. I have read plenty and will continue to do so. I dont appreciate just arguing petty things like that, i prefer actually arguing points and issues.

 

You still miss what I'm trying to say. You argue the "theory" that Marx came up with. I'm arguing "reailty" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM . That is what happens when communism is "put in practice" Let me use the anarchy example again

Anarchy in a ideal world will work perfectly however in reailty It can never work. Why? Humanity must be COMPETLY reformed or destroyed for something like anarchy/marxism/sociolism/communisim to work. In theory, on paper, or in a person's mind alot of things work. However put into practice with human traits suddenly being added into the mix things don't worked as planned.

The funny thing about Communism is two people can have two diffrent ideas on it but both be equaly correct.

Like I said. You argue theory and I argue practice.

 

Yet the extent of your post is maybe 3 or 4 lines?

 

In response to your first post:
Marxism has never properly been implemented. I would love to see a federalized Marxist state set up where it is not embargoed or physically attacked by capitalist nations, as i am sure it would work.


And in response to the second post:

there you go again. nto taking my points, but merely picking on the non-political things i say.

 

First off Marx called it Communism

Also If you read my post with out worry of your precious belife system being attacked you'd realize I've more or less said I liked the THEORY of it. I'm talking about the Practice of it. I'm not argue'n the politcis of it. And honestly you haven't said anything very political. I'm more or less aruge'n the philosphy behind it.

Like i've said many times over. In theory alot of things work in practice it dosen't.

 

but when you argue what you call communism 'in practise', you're simply arguing somethng that is not communsim. That is fact.

 

But its called Communism ... Thats exactly my point. Communism in practice dosen't work human traits mess everything up. Simply all I'm saying. Some how you think i'm trying to argue politics.

 

I'm going to have to step in. I think what chris is trying to say is that there is no way you can know if communism works in practice because essentially it has never been tested. And the human nature argument smells. It is an excuse not to think. Captialism does not allow for human nature, it is the most utopian vision of all.

 

However the only probelm withat that is Communsim has been tried...And it failed. and Like I said in a previous post. Two pepole have two competly diffrent Ideas on communism but both equal correct.

 

But you're just not listening, nor thinking. I might not necessarily agree with Chris, but he is arguing that what has been implemented in the past, that is what has been tried, was NOT TRUE COMMUNISM. So therefore we have no real way of concluding that communism implemented in the proper way ultimately would not work. I am an anarchist, so I ASSUME it wouldn't work. But thats all, I dont profess to KNOW that it doesn't work, because it hasn't been tested. Anyway, capitalism doesn't work either...it exists and survives, but doesn't work IN PRACTICE.

 

It wasn't Marx's idea of communism and I know that. Please Reread some of my post. I'm arguing "communism" that was IN practice. not Marx's Theory of Communism. Never once have I said anything against what Marx said. Even the link I posted was about Peoples Republic of China not Marxism. I'm simply saying that the current Communism IN PRACTICE at the moment and IN the past hasn't worked. You can say It isn't communism but it is. They fly under the communist banner however incorrect it is. I suppose i should of said "the peoples republic of china that clamis to be communism but really isn't want marx was talking about"

 

So you're basically arguing against chris and disagreeing with him at the same time. No wonder we're all confused. Anyway, the current communism IN PRACTICE at the moment isn't much different to old communism. Ok, so it may be communism, but its not the type of communism chris is advocating. I'm going to leave this argument until he comes back because its really his fight.

 

Thats what I've been trying to say more or less. I'm not arguing the type he is advocating. I guess I didn't make it clear enough and I aplogize.

 

I think its best if we just all agree to disagree . You can take it as a cop out if ya won't i'm just tired of argue'n over something like this. The fun has long worn off. hats off to ya chris

 

I'm glad you guys are discussing Communism, carry on.

But I'm more interested in my original post of "Conservatives Vs Liberals (Democrats)". I can see that the Liberals are winning the poll and that doesn't surprise me one bit and I anticipated it.

Let me give you all a perfect example of why I don't agree with Liberalism.

Al Gore gave a speech recently (Feb 12th) in KSA, in which he apologized for Americas mistreatment to Arabs post 9/11. He told a mainly SAUDI audience that the U.S government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the 9/11 attacks. He claims that they put Arabs in unforgivable places and mistreated them for small things like over staying their visas or being there illigally.
Now this is the insane part! All the hijackers during 9/11 were from KSA and were staying in the States illigally, over staying their visas.
Now a human rights watch group says they detained 70 plus Arabs post 9/11, you know how many were found not guilty of anything? 13! So the U.S, after the worst terror tragedy on their own soil errored on 13.

Now there's a rumour that the seminar that he made this ridiculous speech that criticizes the U.S for being too tough on Arabs was actually sponsered by Bin Ladens family.
The Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Which is Saudi Arabias largest construction company and is run by Osama Bin Ladens brothers and cousins.

Al Gore is a raving lunatic as is the entire left side, if he'd have made President you'd have him dealing with all the Muslibombics.

That is JUST ONE example of why Liberalism is too weak to work.

Carry on with your debate.

 

.......

 

I'm a Socialist.

 

Anaconda man, as much as I like you that is the biggest load of crap i've ever heard. The stupidity of one liberal - and admittedly there are idiots on both sides, gives no justification to say liberalism is 'too weak' to work.

Perhaps AC's post is an example of the reason for the great polatiry between the two sides. Liberals all think of conservatives as war-mongering, freedom haters who side with the conspiratory neo-cons. Conservatives think liberals are pathetic bags of gas who know nothing who side with terrorists.

What a load of shit, from both sides. Lets get reasonable shall we.