My brand of Socialism

Stalin used the same rationale when he murdered millions of his own people, as did Hitler with the Jews, as did........etc! Who decides what this practicality is that you say represents morality? Who is more likely to? You guys really don't think this out much do you!?

 

We have all heard the capitalist rhetoric about how all totalitarian systems are the same. Thus the nazis and the commies are both the same. History has many facits. It's not all one way or the other. So whereas Stalin may have killed millions of his own people, he also fought the Nazis tooth and nail and largely because of the Russians under Stalin we won the war.

 

If you are having trouble seeing how a system in which the citizens do not believe in God can be moral, just think of it as secular humanism instead of communism.

 

The Russian people fighting the germans in WWII was more for territorial survival against expansionist aggression under a nationalistic zealot, not for the survival of communism. The Germans didn't care so much as to which nationality owned the land or which form of government they practiced, it was ownership of the land that counted. I say this because he used historical reasons to occupy Austria-Hungary, the Czechs and Poland, but when he expanded out from there, he had no other motive other than nationalistic greed. Russians fought for their freedom! What Stalin did after that was for his own paranoid survival. You easily dismiss Stalin's purge because of this. It's not relevant! And you didn't answer the question I had asked which would have answered your own statement: call it secular humanism or whatever, who then chooses what constitutes the moralism you write about? This country was based on Judeo-Christian principles of freedoms, tolerance and compassion, and because of that it can and has expanded that base to be more representative of both faith AND secular bonded people. Socialism and Communism are constrictive and dictatorial in who can do what, when and where. And this is what you want???? Again, you guys don't think this out much!

 

Quote from Timetraveler: "I say this because he used historical reasons to occupy Austria-Hungary, the Czechs and Poland, but when he expanded out from there, he had no other motive other than nationalistic greed."

Who is this "he" you are talking about. Are you afraid to say "his" name. I'll help you. "His" name was Hitler!

And, I do not easily dismiss Stalin's purge. I don't dismiss Stalin's purge at all. What I am saying is that political and economic systems, in fact any kind of system at all, is not just one way or the other.

And I'm not interested in what the Germans "cared" about.

And, I don't really care "why" the Russians fought the Germans. They fought them, and that's good enough for me.

And as for the question of "who then chooses what constitutes moralism." Answer it yourself.

Don't get so heated up Timetraveler, it's only a discussion and frankly everyone else seems to have dropped out of it.

 

Morality and Ethics were created by people, why do those two have to be mentioned all the time? They mean nothing really.

 

not uniquely of socialism but universal to all forms of hierarchy. none of which bennifit anyone other then themselves other then to the degree they make possible the social organization neccessary for infrastructure to exist.

such social organization can, however exist, without, formalized hierarchy as such at all. the problem then becomes the suseptabilty of such organization to usurpation by heirarchies, whether from within or without.

this however could also be provided for. indiginous cultures needed to have had better networking with each other.

something of the sort may again someday be possible.

at any rate, without oxygen in the air for all of us to breathe, and without the web of life to support the vegitation that creates it, the point would become moot. which is why i'm an ECO-socialist, anarcho pacifist.

the pacifist part because destroying anything isn't going to get us there, and destroying anything violently will only make and keep us addicted to the error of what we are otherwise led to expect violence to achieve.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I prefer not to put a label on what I am or am not or what one thing is or is not, including political and or economic systems. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only thing that is right and moral in this world is standing by your friends and loved ones and the people you know and like; that is if you are fortunate enough to know anyone, or to have friends, loved ones, and people you like in your life.

I hope I haven't contradicted something I said in former posts.

 

the avoidance of causing suffering is a universal self interest.
if you don't like calling it morality and ethics, then don't.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Look what you did Crud! You started something and then cut out for either parts unknown or greener pastures; who knows which? What kind of man are you?

 

stalin was a ****. sorry to say it. but he killed more people than hitler did.

communism, for the most part, is a joke. how can you expect a government to equally distribute the wealth without cheating? theres no way. authority corrupts 100% of the time.

 

If you wanna be a fucking communist, go live in a commune.

Don't try to impress those of us who actually love liberty with your corrupt Centrally Planned Socialist Society as one Big Fucking Antfarm ideals.

 

Whatever entity has the biggest clubs/spears/bows/guns/bombs ,historically has ruled/does rule any area in which they take an interest ,with the attendant atrocities,inequalities,mob rule,bad governments,etc,ect.The live and let live nobodies ,such as ourselves and billions of others ,have forever suffered at the hands of those for whom power is the only aphrodisiac.It's interesting and sometimes enlightening to believe and/or discuss the various forms of organization humans have endeavored to better control or better accommodate their citizens.However-the Game is huge now--worldwide,in fact.Watch some news--check "the latest"--it's obvious who has the biggest "clubs" and equally as obvious where we're headed as so-called humanity.It amazes me just how much intelligence on one end of the spectrum there is and how much ignorance at the same time on the other.There has to be something very,very, wrong with sentient beings that can discover science as we have come to know it,use and perFECT languages, form massive organizations ie:governments,armies,charities,ect--and yet 30,000 children starve every day around the world- wars raging everywhere--the environment being degraded,millions homeless----hell,people are still getting hacked to death with machetes!A form of government that will work?For whom?For us?Bullshit.Those who could "change the rules"for humans(and our fellow creatures)are doing quite well,thank you.Better take care of those you love,keep your powder dry and put your shit shields on,for it's 'a coming.Oh yeah--have a nice day.

 

asshat...ur namesake is SO fitting.

u have no idea what liberty IS. u WILL however, when u ARE liberated.

peace little sheep.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Communism is the exact opposite of Liberty.

The sooner you figure this out, the better.

I think it's both hilarious & ironic that you call me a sheep, when you & I both know that for Socialism/Communism to work, all citizens must think & act alike. Just like a sheep.

That's not freedom in any shape or form.

Liberty means having social, economic, political, artistic, religious, and intellectual freedom.

Not living under the oppresive whims of a Centrally Planned State Government disguised as "The People".

 

asshat,
i'm not arguing for any political system.
i'm telling u ur an idiot if u think u have any liberty/freedom.

 

Currently this is true.

Ron Paul, 2008.

 

fuck ron paul up his stupid fucking arse.
don't for one second believe ANY politician has YOUR best interest at heart. they're all corrupt and worship the almighty dollar. human life is disposable waste to them.

 

Any type of socialism sounds like a good idea to me. Who isn't tired of commercialism? I'd imagine if someone time-travelled back to the 1950's and saw how much more relaxed and less commercialistic society was they would inevitably want something different. It seems time and again the only answer is socialism.

 

The problem I see is that so far, most of the Socialist and Communist countries in the past have had terrible human rights records. Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, and others have used the "Socialist ideal" as an excuse to kill millions who did not fit into the grand scheme. Socialism will work only if it is supported by the entire population willingly. Otherwise it tends to give rise to dictatorships, stagnant economies, and lack of innovation.