<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 5 2003, 03:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 5 2003, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> holy rewriting of history batman. the USSR, despite being run by bureaucrats who contradicted Marxism with their actions, became an industrial superpower with 0% unemployment; eradicated illiteracy and put such a lid on crime that even under Stalin, the nation had an incarceration rate <i>lower than that of the USA today</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Killing 100 Million people tends to thin the 'bad crowd' and keep those left in line. :-/ Thats OT. This thread isn't about "Is socialism good?" Its "Why does youth continue to cling to it?"
And Anti-Bomb, thanks for your COMPLETELY WORTHLESS PERSONAL ATTACK OF A POST. Did you read ANYTHING on the site? I explain clearly why I have it. Also, I don't hate the band, I DISAGREE with them.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 4 2003, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 4 2003, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think it's mainly because Youths are idealistic, and socialism is a very idealistic political theory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, and free market fundamentalism isn't?
edit: Man, people still think that socialism = communism, even when that should have been shown otherwise to them in any rudimentery historical/political course.
Unless I'm wrong, Communism is socialism via revolution.
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 4 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 4 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unless I'm wrong, Communism is socialism via revolution.
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As I understand it Communism is a subset of Socialism. Its like how a circle is an elipse but an elipse isn't a circle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killing 100 Million people tends to thin the 'bad crowd' and keep those left in line. :-/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, the population of the USSR in 1937 was like 125 million people. how the hell he managed to kill everyone, and regrow them for consistent census figures, would be pretty interesting LOL
it was more like 800,000--and the vast majority of the political opponents were <i>former members of the Communist Party who had been expelled for opposing Stalin</i>. he also feared Trotskyist influence in the Red Army, which Trotsky had led to victory in the civil war, so he purged the army. apart from that, all executions were of criminals
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I understand it Communism is a subset of Socialism. Its like how a circle is an elipse but an elipse isn't a circle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Communism is the post-revolutionary state in which government fades away. This comes after a governmental, socialist period (to insure military victory in the revolution).
perhaps u should read the communist manifesto, rather than make communists waste their time repeating what's already been said. this was all explained 150 years ago in the manifesto and its all at www.marxists.org
<!--QuoteBegin--uranium - 235+Nov 4 2003, 07:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (uranium - 235 @ Nov 4 2003, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They devise an incredibly unrealistic, impractical, stupid solution that would never work (Let's convert to communism or socialism or anarchy, something like that). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eventually they start making websites about how american news if full of nothing but lies and propoganda to fill your brain with flag-waving happy days. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 4 2003, 11:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 4 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unless I'm wrong, Communism is socialism via revolution.
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mike Wong of stardestroyer.net puts it best:
Socialism: modified form of capitalism in which a significant proportion of the aforementioned economic activity is regulated and actively owned by the government, usually for the purpose of flattening out wealth disparities and providing a social "safety net".
Communism: socio-economic system based on Karl Marx's idea of eliminating the free flow of capital, so that wealth-building becomes impossible. Monetary systems in a communist state exist, but only as a means of quantifying work and purchase of goods, with no possibility of investment.
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 4 2003, 11:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 4 2003, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I understand it Communism is a subset of Socialism. Its like how a circle is an elipse but an elipse isn't a circle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Communism is the post-revolutionary state in which government fades away. This comes after a governmental, socialist period (to insure military victory in the revolution).
perhaps u should read the communist manifesto, rather than make communists waste their time repeating what's already been said. this was all explained 150 years ago in the manifesto and its all at www.marxists.org <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->so·cial·ism n.
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The first definition supports my post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socialism: An economic system in which the goods of society are organized equitably for the common good of all the citizens.
Communism: Political and economic rule by the working class (and all that that entails--read the damn manifesto)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. socialism = dictatorship of the proletariat (clamp down on democracy in times of harsh war). the dictatorship is established by socialism. it withers away once the war has been won, giving way to communism.
don't b*tch to me that that's undemocratic. democratic France and America both clamped down during their revolutions and civil wars:it's necessary.
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 4 2003, 11:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 4 2003, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the real definitions are
Socialism: An economic system in which the goods of society are organized equitably for the common good of all the citizens.
Communism: Political and economic rule by the working class (and all that that entails--read the damn manifesto)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. socialism = dictatorship of the proletariat (clamp down on democracy in times of harsh war). the dictatorship is established by socialism. it withers away once the war has been won, giving way to communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dictionary.com disagrees. But the point of the post was to support my other post, which the first definition does.
dictionary.com clearly didn't read the ****ing communist manifesto and neither did you
all i'm going to say is read the manifesto and after that i am very happy to talk. im also very BUSY and don't have time, as a representative of our movement, to repeat our aims and goals when they have been laid out well enough <a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 4 2003, 11:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 4 2003, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->dictionary.com clearly didn't read the ****ing communist manifesto and neither did you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Enough with your appeal to authority fallacies. The buck does not stop at the Manifesto or Marx because he did not create communism or socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 4 2003, 11:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 4 2003, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> dictionary.com clearly didn't read the ****ing communist manifesto and neither did you <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->socialism
\Socialism\, n.
Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Webster's unabridged.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.
We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Webster's Revised.
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WorldNet 1.6
AS you can see, Marx's definition isn't the only one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Anti-Bomb+Nov 4 2003, 10:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Anti-Bomb @ Nov 4 2003, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's the stupidest thing I've seen, you run a site against a band because of their lyrics? Oh no everyone lets make an anti-Dentyne Ice site because it makes people make out and have sex in public in their commercials!!! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it reflects their ideology
can you tolerate their ideology? If not they had better speak unclearly or have a really pimpin melody creativity beat or else have instrumental versions cuz I'd kick them to the curb
I read the Manifesto. Don't assume everyone is clueless and you're the only one with any knowledge, though some of the things you imed me about have made me doubt it.
Also, Stalin killed <b>50</b> Million people over the course of his leadership. I had the wrong figure, sorry. but still, 50 Million people. Thats about 5 times the size of the Holocaust.
I'll never understand how someone can praise a totalitarian government. If I said "Hey, Stalin is a craphead!", I'd have be 'disappeared'.
Progress?
NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP DERAILING THE THREAD! :-) Why does Socialism appeal to youth?
Thank God the communist "movement" has failed and will continue to for as long as it exists in any shape or form. Such blind beliefs shouldn't be force onto anyone, which they usually are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP DERAILING THE THREAD! :-) Why does Socialism appeal to youth? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll answer your question, when you first prove to me that Socialism attracts "youth" statistically more then any other demographic.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Nov 4 2003, 11:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Nov 4 2003, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP DERAILING THE THREAD! :-) Why does Socialism appeal to youth? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What makes you think it appeals to youth moreso than adults? Have you any idea how many socialists live in Europe?
And BTW:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Shock Some kids want attention so they'll find an idea contray to what has been taught. 2. Rebellion You're supposed to follow a certain mindset, a certain number of kids will want to go against it. Alternative political ideas + stuff you're not suppsoed to do. Revolutionary. How are your socks? 3. Naivete For a certain number of people, they see the injustice in the world and they see that "The Man" hasn't done anything to fix it. They see a counter culture with the right idea ("Solving the world's problems through oppressive statism") and cling to it without really know everything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All of these are also fitting for young libertarians. Only difference is a libertarian rebels against the state, not the corporate collective.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--revolutionary+Nov 5 2003, 12:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (revolutionary @ Nov 5 2003, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->as i've said SO many times before... if you think about it, the issue has been sollllved. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You solved it alright with your capitalist armies, didn't u ever hear about the Russian Civil War and the rise of Stalin? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> don't quote me like that out of context, you fool. when you do that, you nullify your own argument with overwhelming ignorance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't usually hear "Down with the government! Vote for Bush!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People that want Bush in office probably don't care about the size of the gov't so long as it fits their desires. Many Americans didn't care about how the administration wanted an unprecedented increase in gov't with the Patriot Act and other legislation that thankfully was neutured.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, that credit goes to victims of US sponsored terrorism in Nicauragua and Central America.
How about you list some sources, elaborations, and facts. How did the Patriot Act increase government, I mean is trying to protect your sorry self from terrorists an increase in government? Do you feel that it stepped over your constitutional rights? If you do, how? About this US sponsored terrorism: What? When? Why? Who?
It's nice to hear teenage activists make general and sneaky attacks certain groups and the government without detailed information or facts, but it gets boring after a while.
Like when I say, "Damn welfare, my money going to people who don't even want to get a job!" everyone with some knowledge of politics can know where I stand and why and it is pretty hard to dispute this, well, no one is trying to. But when you say, "Our government is killing babies in Central America!" that is hard to piece together because of few things to support it. See, when people make accusations, they need evidence to support those usually.
The problem with modern communists is that they usually aren't even on the same page as the rest of the political groups. Democrats and Republicans argue about abortions, while crazy communist teenagers run through the street spray painting COOL red stars and talk about how the government is corrupt and stuff (or do I mean KORRUPT!).
Also, it would be nice of you to either quote or at least address my whole post. Taking small tidbits out of my post and responding to them kind of confuses me and everyone else.
Edit: I just noticed the "unprecedented" in your Patriot Act comment. That got me laughing. I guess you weren't here when the whole 9/11 thing happened.
You're pretty hard to follow since you're bumbling back and forth on different issues, and with <span style='color:orange'>you should know full well that you could've gotten your point across more respectfully without having said that....</span> I find it hard to take you seriously. Perhaps you should think about presenting evidence before going off on a rant about little communists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, Stalin killed 50 Million people over the course of his leadership. I had the wrong figure, sorry. but still, 50 Million people. Thats about 5 times the size of the Holocaust. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got my numbers from the soviet records that have been opened. you got yours from liars, traced back to mostly Nazi propagandists, who were spreading rumors of man-made Stalinist famines and how they were going to stop Stalin, "liberate" the Ukraine, and add it to the Reich.
i was gonna write more replies but everyone here is just talking ****, like Bosnian, i couldnt even reply to that, it is just painful to read. if u want, PM me and we'll have an AIM conversation. anyone, please, PM me.
ther are like 50 things i have to quote and it's gonna be like the last thread probably, where i win some argument, and then the people come back and argue the same thing, and when i show them my old argument, they LIE (yes u u235) that they "never argued that" and that im "not addressing the main point" and im sick of this ****
but if u want, PM me and let's have an IM conversation, that worx a lot better.
and Zig i'm sorry if i misinterpreted what you wrote, but u should have written more, i bet i'm not the only one who wasn't clear on it. whatever im sorry if i got u angry man. peace.
Why does Socialism/Communism appeal to me, a youth?
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature.
Misconception about European Socialist Parties: Socialism has (in Europe, at least) a broad definition. All (democratic) socialist parties are in favour of artificially adjusting the wealth of their citizens. This means progressive tax rates ( the more you make, the more you pay over marginally more income). This means a wellfare state, giving subsidies to people without jobs etcetera. It does not mean, however, that they want everyone to be exactly equal in wealth. They strife to give everyone the same chances in life, and therefor sponsor education. These parties are not undemocratic (not even in favour of a different democratic order), and do not want to limit civil rights.
Comments
Killing 100 Million people tends to thin the 'bad crowd' and keep those left in line. :-/
Thats OT. This thread isn't about "Is socialism good?" Its "Why does youth continue to cling to it?"
And Anti-Bomb, thanks for your COMPLETELY WORTHLESS PERSONAL ATTACK OF A POST.
Did you read ANYTHING on the site? I explain clearly why I have it. Also, I don't hate the band, I DISAGREE with them.
Oh, and free market fundamentalism isn't?
edit: Man, people still think that socialism = communism, even when that should have been shown otherwise to them in any rudimentery historical/political course.
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I understand it Communism is a subset of Socialism. Its like how a circle is an elipse but an elipse isn't a circle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol, the population of the USSR in 1937 was like 125 million people. how the hell he managed to kill everyone, and regrow them for consistent census figures, would be pretty interesting LOL
it was more like 800,000--and the vast majority of the political opponents were <i>former members of the Communist Party who had been expelled for opposing Stalin</i>. he also feared Trotskyist influence in the Red Army, which Trotsky had led to victory in the civil war, so he purged the army. apart from that, all executions were of criminals
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I understand it Communism is a subset of Socialism. Its like how a circle is an elipse but an elipse isn't a circle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Communism is the post-revolutionary state in which government fades away. This comes after a governmental, socialist period (to insure military victory in the revolution).
perhaps u should read the communist manifesto, rather than make communists waste their time repeating what's already been said. this was all explained 150 years ago in the manifesto and its all at www.marxists.org
<a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...festo/index.htm</a>
if you would read it, it would answer all of your questions. its not a very long read either
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Eventually they start making websites about how american news if full of nothing but lies and propoganda to fill your brain with flag-waving happy days.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is
How about instead of saying "You're all so wrong." you explain the difference? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mike Wong of stardestroyer.net puts it best:
Socialism: modified form of capitalism in which a significant proportion of the aforementioned economic activity is regulated and actively owned by the government, usually for the purpose of flattening out wealth disparities and providing a social "safety net".
Communism: socio-economic system based on Karl Marx's idea of eliminating the free flow of capital, so that wealth-building becomes impossible. Monetary systems in a communist state exist, but only as a means of quantifying work and purchase of goods, with no possibility of investment.
Communism is the post-revolutionary state in which government fades away. This comes after a governmental, socialist period (to insure military victory in the revolution).
perhaps u should read the communist manifesto, rather than make communists waste their time repeating what's already been said. this was all explained 150 years ago in the manifesto and its all at www.marxists.org <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->so·cial·ism
n.
1.Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The first definition supports my post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socialism: An economic system in which the goods of society are organized equitably for the common good of all the citizens.
Communism: Political and economic rule by the working class (and all that that entails--read the damn manifesto)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. socialism = dictatorship of the proletariat (clamp down on democracy in times of harsh war). the dictatorship is established by socialism. it withers away once the war has been won, giving way to communism.
don't b*tch to me that that's undemocratic. democratic France and America both clamped down during their revolutions and civil wars:it's necessary.
Socialism: An economic system in which the goods of society are organized equitably for the common good of all the citizens.
Communism: Political and economic rule by the working class (and all that that entails--read the damn manifesto)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong. socialism = dictatorship of the proletariat (clamp down on democracy in times of harsh war). the dictatorship is established by socialism. it withers away once the war has been won, giving way to communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dictionary.com disagrees. But the point of the post was to support my other post, which the first definition does.
all i'm going to say is read the manifesto and after that i am very happy to talk. im also very BUSY and don't have time, as a representative of our movement, to repeat our aims and goals when they have been laid out well enough <a href='http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
Enough with your appeal to authority fallacies. The buck does not stop at the Manifesto or Marx because he did not create communism or socialism.
Arguing about something so fluid is empty. Consider that self-professed action Communists are famous for their doublespeak.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->socialism
\Socialism\, n.
Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Webster's unabridged.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.
We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Webster's Revised.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WorldNet 1.6
AS you can see, Marx's definition isn't the only one.
it reflects their ideology
can you tolerate their ideology? If not they had better speak unclearly or have a really pimpin melody creativity beat or else have instrumental versions cuz I'd kick them to the curb
Also, Stalin killed <b>50</b> Million people over the course of his leadership. I had the wrong figure, sorry. but still, 50 Million people. Thats about 5 times the size of the Holocaust.
I'll never understand how someone can praise a totalitarian government. If I said "Hey, Stalin is a craphead!", I'd have be 'disappeared'.
Progress?
NOW CAN WE PLEASE STOP DERAILING THE THREAD! :-)
Why does Socialism appeal to youth?
Why does Socialism appeal to youth?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll answer your question, when you first prove to me that Socialism attracts "youth" statistically more then any other demographic.
Why does Socialism appeal to youth? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What makes you think it appeals to youth moreso than adults? Have you any idea how many socialists live in Europe?
And BTW:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Shock
Some kids want attention so they'll find an idea contray to what has been taught.
2. Rebellion
You're supposed to follow a certain mindset, a certain number of kids will want to go against it. Alternative political ideas + stuff you're not suppsoed to do. Revolutionary. How are your socks?
3. Naivete
For a certain number of people, they see the injustice in the world and they see that "The Man" hasn't done anything to fix it. They see a counter culture with the right idea ("Solving the world's problems through oppressive statism") and cling to it without really know everything about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All of these are also fitting for young libertarians. Only difference is a libertarian rebels against the state, not the corporate collective.
the ideals of socialism will appeal to such a nature
youth have nothing to lose
the young have not lived life yet and all is new to them (this is a good thing)
so they want to change, they want to make
It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most.
<b>Teenage Communist Logic:</b>
<i>
corporations are evil
coroporations' money influences government power
government power is evil</i>
You solved it alright with your capitalist armies, didn't u ever hear about the Russian Civil War and the rise of Stalin? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
don't quote me like that out of context, you fool. when you do that, you nullify your own argument with overwhelming ignorance.
People that want Bush in office probably don't care about the size of the gov't so long as it fits their desires. Many Americans didn't care about how the administration wanted an unprecedented increase in gov't with the Patriot Act and other legislation that thankfully was neutured.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is usually the modern communists who hate our government the most. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, that credit goes to victims of US sponsored terrorism in Nicauragua and Central America.
It's nice to hear teenage activists make general and sneaky attacks certain groups and the government without detailed information or facts, but it gets boring after a while.
Like when I say, "Damn welfare, my money going to people who don't even want to get a job!" everyone with some knowledge of politics can know where I stand and why and it is pretty hard to dispute this, well, no one is trying to. But when you say, "Our government is killing babies in Central America!" that is hard to piece together because of few things to support it. See, when people make accusations, they need evidence to support those usually.
The problem with modern communists is that they usually aren't even on the same page as the rest of the political groups. Democrats and Republicans argue about abortions, while crazy communist teenagers run through the street spray painting COOL red stars and talk about how the government is corrupt and stuff (or do I mean KORRUPT!).
Also, it would be nice of you to either quote or at least address my whole post. Taking small tidbits out of my post and responding to them kind of confuses me and everyone else.
Edit: I just noticed the "unprecedented" in your Patriot Act comment. That got me laughing. I guess you weren't here when the whole 9/11 thing happened.
they think they're smart, and arguing logically, but they're just dogmatic and confused.
poor naive souls.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i got my numbers from the soviet records that have been opened. you got yours from liars, traced back to mostly Nazi propagandists, who were spreading rumors of man-made Stalinist famines and how they were going to stop Stalin, "liberate" the Ukraine, and add it to the Reich.
i was gonna write more replies but everyone here is just talking ****, like Bosnian, i couldnt even reply to that, it is just painful to read. if u want, PM me and we'll have an AIM conversation. anyone, please, PM me.
ther are like 50 things i have to quote and it's gonna be like the last thread probably, where i win some argument, and then the people come back and argue the same thing, and when i show them my old argument, they LIE (yes u u235) that they "never argued that" and that im "not addressing the main point" and im sick of this ****
but if u want, PM me and let's have an IM conversation, that worx a lot better.
and Zig i'm sorry if i misinterpreted what you wrote, but u should have written more, i bet i'm not the only one who wasn't clear on it. whatever im sorry if i got u angry man. peace.
It's because it creates a state in which very few people suffer. Yes, it might truncate some free will but it creates a safe state. My examples would be more "socialistic" countries like Finland, Sweden and other such countries. Ok, so it has a high-tax rate but then you don't have to shell out money for insurance and such.
Of course, that is to say that is not my 100% ideal government. I would prefer a Socialist Republic, because it would allow for something similar to communism/socialism type governments while also taking into effect the base of human nature.
Socialism has (in Europe, at least) a broad definition. All (democratic) socialist parties are in favour of artificially adjusting the wealth of their citizens. This means progressive tax rates ( the more you make, the more you pay over marginally more income). This means a wellfare state, giving subsidies to people without jobs etcetera. It does not mean, however, that they want everyone to be exactly equal in wealth. They strife to give everyone the same chances in life, and therefor sponsor education. These parties are not undemocratic (not even in favour of a different democratic order), and do not want to limit civil rights.
totally offtopic, however.