PsiPog.net

View topic - Democrat Or Republican?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Democrat Or Republican?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Democrat Or Republican?

Poll: Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

Democrat

21%

[ 8 ]

Republican

15%

[ 6 ]

Neither, i have my own mind. tyvm

63%

[ 24 ]

Total Votes : 38

Author

Message

Posted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:15 pm

Sirius

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 90

Niushirra wrote:

Wow, you're both stupid. Think about how civilization started in the first place. It came from anarchy and the most powerful taking over. That's exactly what's going to happen to you. Unless you're a big persuasive meathead that can beat people up or tell people to beat people up, I think anarchy is gonna whoop yo ass.

Wikipedia - the Free Encyclopaedia wrote:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

Fail. It's no stupider than other theories that would create a utopia if people didn't suck. Not everyone who says 'anarchy' are 12 year olds running around spray painting A's on everything while saying 'fuk da gubment lol'.
Edit: I notice you said you're a communist in this thread. Guess what? The theory of communism is as stupid as the theory of anarchism. Neither can actually work in the real world, because people can't handle it yet. Get over yourself.

Posted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:47 pm

neveza

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1147

Sure it can work...just not in large masses.

Posted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:27 pm

Apollo

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1589

Republican, baby! AND PROUD OF IT!

Posted on Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:26 pm

Lightbringer

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 293

Sirius wrote:

I notice you said you're a communist in this thread. Guess what? The theory of communism is as stupid as the theory of anarchism. Neither can actually work in the real world, because people can't handle it yet.

Wow, I can't believe someone else said it. I'm usually the one who says that people are the weak-link in the theories of Anarchy, Communism and similarly idealistic theories. Indeed, people as a whole are not mentally, emotionally or spiritually mature enough for such ideologies to be implemented.

And I just managed to link Anarchy's and Communism's success to spirituality, how incredibly blasphemous and ironic of me... Very Happy

Posted on Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:07 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

Communism is totally what we don't want. It was used in Russia and many people suffered from that.

Posted on Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:31 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

You can make a bad thing out of amost anything, same with making anything a good thing.

Posted on Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:28 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

I love your logic, TankDown.

Posted on Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:18 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Zemeon wrote:

Communism is totally what we don't want. It was used in Russia and many people suffered from that.

And now comes the complete dumbass who thinks they're smart. I think you should probably read the definition of communism and compare it to the economic system in russia and the definition of Marx. Maybe you'll find a definition that matches Marx's but the USSR will definitely not match what Marx said. Communism is a form of economy in which all property is owned by the community and not individuals. This is supposed to root out ideas of ownership and currency because those ideas cause greed and corruption in capitalism. Marx was trying to fix these problems by finding the source of corruption in the capitalist world and removing those sources from soceity. Communism would remove these sources. That's the end of Marx having a good idea. After that he tried to make a plan of implementing it. He decided that he would have to ease the soceity into communism through another form of economy called socialism. This is where the government seizes all property and is basically all powerful. Then the government deals out food and property equally to everyone. This is supposed to instill the ideas of communism and then when those ideas or integrated into the soceity, the government dissolves since their job is done. Then the newly formed community lives in harmony and sharing. The rebellion in russia was supposed to follow Marx's plan. Lenin could not raise a rebellion if he told the workers that they would be just switching to a government that was exactly the same as the czars, but in the long run, would be good for the people. He couldn't tell them that they were going to socialism and then eventually communism. He told them that they were fighting for communism, and they were, but he downplayed the fact to everybody that he really had to go through socialism first. The world took this to mean that when Lenin died and Stalin took over that Stalin's totalitarian regime was communist. Then the terms got switched for good. Communism meant the Stalin regime and such and socialism was the soceity of equality. That's world ignorance for ya.

Now, I do not follow Marx past his critique of capitalism. First off, how would the government know when to dissolve? There's no way of measuring how the soceital ideas changed. Second, wouldn't capitalist ideas just immigrate back into the soceity from other places? Third, power leads to corruption, a leader with good intentions, like lenin, will not last long. A corrupt leader will take over and then never move the country into communism. I believe that we should gather like minded people, who believe in sharing everything and ,like LightBringer said, people who are mature enough to hold this soceity and not let someone abuse owning everything. Basically, finding good people who know how to share because they know that helping the community, instead of just themselves, is better in the long run.

In conclusion, do your research before you post and don't listen to soceital ideas always; cause they're sometimes wrong. Always go to the first source and find out what they really said.

Posted on Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:53 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

And I ask you, would you love to live where there is communism? Try it dumbass, and I can assure you that you won't like it.

So next time, think about it before you call someone a dumbass, because you might be a bit hypocratic in doing so. I hope you aren't calling me a dumbass, buddy.

In Russia, the government would take over the people and tell them what jobs they were to have, what they were to eat, how long they could take showers, and many more cruel things. Would you like that? Weird, because I know you won't.

So shut your tub of lard ass up and think about what you are about to say before you say it.

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:51 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

The closest thing to Communism that can work is a profitless company.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:49 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

Agreed.

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:02 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Zemeon wrote:

RUSSIA WAS NOT COMMUNIST!
No matter what history books say MARX coined the term and MARX described a form of economy that was in no way what russia was. He did in fact describe a form of economy like the USSR and that was called SOCIALISM. He described this as a transitional stage that would shape soceity for COMMUNISM. In COMMUNISM, the government has ZERO control over economy because economy ceases to exist on an individual level. The people as a whole control the economy. Economy will always control government more than the people, even in a democracy. In COMMUNISM the people control the economy.

Here's a broad definition of communism from wiki:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.

It's all about the workers owning the government and the cogs of the economy controlling the country. I want to take this a step further because this will obviously not work. I want to shape soceity enough so that we can have at least some small communities where EVERYTHING is owned by everyone. Also the soceity in these communities will be shaped in such a way that everybody in it will have the goal of bettering the community.

Johnny, that link is exactly what I believe in. Changing soceity so that personal wealth is not a goal. I have to make it more radical to make it even harder for people to even consider that goal.

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:10 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

Needless to say, communism is bad.

Oh! And by the way, Russia technically still is communist.

Please don't argue with me, because I know what I'm talking about.

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:16 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Techinically, it's socialist. Was it formed by people calling themselves communists because they truly wanted to follow Marx's plan? Yes. In that case, it's communist. The form of economy in the USSR was not communism though. The form of economy in Russia now is super capitalism. It's in the final stage of capitalism where the companies take over.

Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:44 pm

Zemeon

Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 269

Yea, I guess so. But capitalism is bad too.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Democrat Or Republican?

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.