NationStates Jolt Archive

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?

Stupidity isn't an American monopoly. You think America's the only country that does this?

Stupidity isn't an American monopoly. You think America's the only country that does this?
Of course I know that, I just want to know the logic behind AMERICAN hate.

It isnt the only country with stupidity, it is merely the best country at being what it is.

Of course I know that, I just want to know the logic behind AMERICAN hate.

I don't think even your countrymen know why.

The logic behind it:

No group that causes US(a) trouble shall live.

Harsh - but logical enough.

Let me be specific - it ain't MY reasoning, but I consider it part of the american mindset, towards problems in general. If it causes us problems, anihilate it.

The logic behind it:

No group that causes US(a) trouble shall live.

Harsh - but logical enough.

Thinking like the Roman Empire!

I guess all I can say is whenever America is attacked. Then watch out.

I once bought oreos. The ones with the chocolate and banana taste. The american lady selling it told me they were really tasty. I didn't like them and now I hate the US because they're all liars.

:p

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!
WTF? When did we commit or attempt to commit genocide against Asia?

PS, the Japs got off easy, not because of Pearl Harbor, but because of their actions in Asia. They lined up villages full of women and children, sent them to the river, and lopped their heads off, one after another.

Thinking like the Roman Empire!

*nods* You realise that that empire lasted from summat like 150BC to 1452AD?

That's 1600 years, which is a LOT longer than the British Empire.
Harshness and cruelty ( unlike tolerance and peacefulness ) are PROVEN survival-values. Unfortunately, they're not our ( English ) cup of tea.

WTF? When did we commit or attempt to commit genocide against Asia?

PS, the Japs got off easy, not because of Pearl Harbor, but because of their actions in Asia. They lined up villages full of women and children, sent them to the river, and lopped their heads off, one after another.

Well, y'all did intern a hell of a lot of your Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, killing god knows how many.

Well, y'all did intern a hell of a lot of your Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, killing god knows how many.
Very few, actually. Especially when you consider how the Japanese treated American POWs (the Bataan Death March comes to mind.)

Well, y'all did intern a hell of a lot of your Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, killing god knows how many.

Not to mention those nukes. But still, genocide is too strong. It implies that the US wanted to kill all Japanese because of their ethnic origin, which is simply untrue.

*nods* You realise that that empire lasted from summat like 150BC to 1452AD?

That's 1600 years, which is a LOT longer than the British Empire.
Harshness and cruelty ( unlike tolerance and peacefulness ) are PROVEN survival-values. Unfortunately, they're not our ( English ) cup of tea.

Well, Roman empire was 150BC to 1452 but ...

150BC to Julius Caesar - Roman Republic (didn't grow alot)
Imperial Rome to 476 CE - Classic rome, Western half got invaded by Barbarians (now called Europeans)
476 CE to 1452 - Byzantine Empire (destroyed by Moslems in the end)

Imperial Rome to 476 CE - Classic rome, Western half got invaded by Barbarians (now called Europeans)
Fuck yeah! :D

WTF? When did we commit or attempt to commit genocide against Asia?

PS, the Japs got off easy, not because of Pearl Harbor, but because of their actions in Asia. They lined up villages full of women and children, sent them to the river, and lopped their heads off, one after another.

What you describe happened is horrible. I also think it's horrible that some nations illegally torture prisoners in secrecy, holds prisoners for years without trial and doesn't even tell them what they're accused of, starts war based on lies, has leaders who claim God speaks to them and who arms resistance groups because it's convenient but then get bitten in the ass by the vaey same groups. While I doubt many actually hate US citizens I think many, including me, hate the leaders.
Lots of horrible things in this mad world.

Well, Roman empire was 150BC to 1452 but ...

150BC to Julius Caesar - Roman Republic (didn't grow alot)
Imperial Rome to 476 CE - Classic rome, Western half got invaded by Barbarians (now called Europeans)
476 CE to 1452 - Byzantine Empire (destroyed by Moslems in the end)

I don't consider 476 a watershed. But around 150BC, the SPQR certainly had gained control over most of Hitaly...

'Arrius 'As Most Henjoyed 'Is 'Oliday in Hitaly!

Very few, actually. Especially when you consider how the Japanese treated American POWs (the Bataan Death March comes to mind.)

That's hardly an excuse old boy. For a country supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy and being a representative of it, locking up loyal Japanese-American citizens many of whom, even after being treated like shit by their home country, volunteered to fight in segregated Nisei units, thats hardy something to be proud of, is it? At the very least the Japanese had a code of honour that they did the torture under, as flimsy and godawful as it was.

I don't consider 476 a watershed. But around 150BC, the SPQR certainly had gained control over most of Hitaly...

'Arrius 'As Most Henjoyed 'Is 'Oliday in Hitaly!

As far I am concerned, Rome was gone around 476 :p
The Eastern Roman Empire lasted a while though.

As for relating to USA, the USA is now at the peak and now the Barbarians are at the gates ready to tear it down.

As for relating to USA, the USA is now at the peak and now the Barbarians are at the gates ready to tear it down.
The barbarians were always inside. ;)

The barbarians were always inside. ;)

That's what happens when you assimilate too many countries :D

WTF? When did we commit or attempt to commit genocide against Asia?

PS, the Japs got off easy, not because of Pearl Harbor, but because of their actions in Asia. They lined up villages full of women and children, sent them to the river, and lopped their heads off, one after another.

ITA
What about how the Japanese would kill little Phillipino babies. I remember watching the history channel. They said that they saw soilders toss a baby in the air and catch it on the bayonet(not sure how it's spelled sorry)
The Japanese also didn't like you if you weren't Japanese. They thought other Asian countries weren't pure.

My mother in law was in Indonesia during WW2. She was in a Japanese Concentration Camp. She told me how cruel the Japanese were to them.
She said when they were fed that the Japanese would pi$$ on their food or they would throw it in the garbage and make them dig it out or they would fed them rotten food.
Of course there's the physical torture and Murder that happened in the camp she was in. She was in a Womens and Children Camp. I think she was in there for about 5 years. I belive she was 8 or 9 when she was first put in the camp. She'll be 76 in August.

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?
Most humans behave like this.

(Also, I don't think Americans ever wanted to kill all Asians... only the Japanese.)

ITA
What about how the Japanese would kill little Phillipino babies. I remember watching the history channel. They said that they saw soilders toss a baby in the air and catch it on the bayonet(not sure how it's spelled sorry)
The Japanese also didn't like you if you weren't Japanese. They thought other Asian countries weren't pure.

My mother in law was in Indonesia during WW2. She was in a Japanese Concentration Camp. She told me how cruel the Japanese were to them.
She said when they were fed that the Japanese would pi$$ on their food or they would throw it in the garbage and make them dig it out or they would fed them rotten food.
Of course there's the physical torture and Murder that happened in the camp she was in. She was in a Womens and Children Camp. I think she was in there for about 5 years. I belive she was 8 or 9 when she was first put in the camp. She'll be 76 in August.

And the Japanese performed bio-experiments on the Chinese along with the usual massacres that happened all the time. Oh course, the Japanese government refuses to acknowledge what it did to China during it's occupation.

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?
1) It wasn't all asians, it was all Japanese were seen as evil. The US was cool with the Chinese, Phillipinos, and other Asians at the time.

2) Communism was an unworkable ideology who's proponents wanted to spread to the rest of the world. They saw the US as the main obstacle in their path. Because of that the US naturally wanted to contain and if possible, eliminate that threat.

3) Very few people are saying all muslims are evil. Also very few are saying that all muslims should die. You're talking about a fringe element as if it were all of us. Basically you're doing the same thing you criticize America for.

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?

What's interesting is when it comes to Americans doing something wrong, then Americans will claim its only a few rogue people. Like when GI's torture prisoners, than its only a few and not indicative of the whole military.

This can be seen in other things as well, for example, when a Muslim kills someone some christians will claim that islam is evil. But when a christian kills someone, those same people will exclaim that the person was acting alone and does not represent christianity.

The US governement does it for the same reasons most all governments do it. Governments need a purpose, especially if they are as currupt as the US government is. One of the best ways to define a governments purpose is to create an enemy of the people so the government can claim that its purpose is to protect the people from said enemy. And unfortunately most citizens of the US, despite all the bravado, are easily scared. The government knows this and uses it to its advantage.

See Anatomy of Your Enemy by Anti-Flag
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/antiflag/anatomyofyourenemy.html

That's hardly an excuse old boy. For a country supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy and being a representative of it, locking up loyal Japanese-American citizens many of whom, even after being treated like shit by their home country, volunteered to fight in segregated Nisei units, thats hardy something to be proud of, is it? At the very least the Japanese had a code of honour that they did the torture under, as flimsy and godawful as it was.
Honestly, I cannot defend the internment of the Nisei, who I definitely respect and admire, especially after their exempelary service in the war. And, no, I'm not proud of it.
However, I do understand the mindset that caused the internment. People were afraid. For the first time in our history, an enemy came, without warning or reason (since we still had hopes of solving the problem in the Pacific diplomatically), and attacked an American territory. People got scared and overreacted. This is the same thing that is happening today, with the wiretaps and Big Brother security in America.

That's hardly an excuse old boy. For a country supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy and being a representative of it, locking up loyal Japanese-American citizens many of whom, even after being treated like shit by their home country, volunteered to fight in segregated Nisei units, thats hardy something to be proud of, is it? At the very least the Japanese had a code of honour that they did the torture under, as flimsy and godawful as it was.
Honestly, I cannot defend the internment of the Nisei, who I definitely respect and admire, especially after their exempelary service in the war. And, no, I'm not proud of it.
However, I do understand the mindset that caused the internment. People were afraid. For the first time in our history, an enemy came, without warning or reason (since we still had hopes of solving the problem in the Pacific diplomatically), and attacked an American territory. People got scared and overreacted. This is the same thing that is happening today, with the wiretaps and Big Brother security in America.

As far I am concerned, Rome was gone around 476 :p
The Eastern Roman Empire lasted a while though.

As for relating to USA, the USA is now at the peak and now the Barbarians are at the gates ready to tear it down.

*shrugs* I'm afraid I read the tealeaves in another way. The Emparrr has a lot of fight and bloodymindedness left. Last time I checked, my booky still has the yanks odds-on to remain top-nation.

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?

Please, PLEASE, move to Canada. In the 1950's, North Korea invaded South Korea. Tell me, what threat did North Vietnam pose to us? Russia was building a shitload of nukes; That wasn't threatening in the slightest?

And the Japanese performed bio-experiments on the Chinese along with the usual massacres that happened all the time. Oh course, the Japanese government refuses to acknowledge what it did to China during it's occupation.

So true. I think they should have to apoligize to those goverments. The US did. They apoligized for dropping the bomb. They apoligized to the Japanese Americans for putting them in interment camps.
Do you know that the students and Japan aren't taught much about WW2.
All they are taught is that there was a war with America and America won.

Japan today is not like it was 60 years ago.
If anything Japan a Capitalist Paradise.

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

it's older than that - we'd already had two or three red scares by the time of ww2

*shrugs* I'm afraid I read the tealeaves in another way. The Emparrr has a lot of fight and bloodymindedness left. Last time I checked, my booky still has the yanks odds-on to remain top-nation.

But the empire is burning slowly. The USA is withdrawing from Asia, the army is overstretched in Babylon (Iraq), fighting coming up in Persia (Iran), former Spanish colonies the USA took have all effectively revolted in some manner, solid European allies are now non-committal and China is taking over as the real economic power. Not to mention world anti-Americanism, especially in the Middle East.

it's older than that - we'd already had two or three red scares by the time of ww2
Yeah, but in the 1950's it was really propelled.

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building.

In addition to Muslims enslaving and killing black Christians, animists, and even fellow Muslims in Sudan; Muslims imposing Sharia law in Northern Nigeria; Muslim terrorists killing, kidnapping and destroying villages in Southern Philippines and Southern Thailand; Muslims running amok during the Asian financial crisis in Indonesia killing Chinese and Christians; Muslims setting off bombs in Madrid and London; Muslims cleric Abu Hamza in the UK preaching anti-Western obscenities; Muslims in Cape Town South Africa setting off bombs in restaurants during the late 90s http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369781
and many more examples of Muslims Gone Wild. I don't think all Muslims are evil, but I do think Islam is evil.

But the empire is burning slowly. The USA is withdrawing from Asia, the army is overstretched in Babylon (Iraq), fighting coming up in Persia (Iran), former Spanish colonies the USA took have all effectively revolted in some manner, solid European allies are now non-committal and China is taking over as the real economic power. Not to mention world anti-Americanism, especially in the Middle East.


*head askew*
Let me put it this way. There was a thousand years between Aetius and the sack of Constantinople.

But the empire is burning slowly. The USA is withdrawing from Asia, the army is overstretched in Babylon (Iraq), fighting coming up in Persia (Iran), former Spanish colonies the USA took have all effectively revolted in some manner, solid European allies are now non-committal and China is taking over as the real economic power. Not to mention world anti-Americanism, especially in the Middle East.
Yeah. In a hundred years, people will be jumping the border fence to get IN to Mexico.

Yeah, but in the 1950's it was really propelled.

i don't know man, how many immigrants did they deport over it then?

In addition to Muslims enslaving and killing black Christians, animists, and even fellow Muslims in Sudan; Muslims imposing Sharia law in Northern Nigeria; Muslim terrorists killing, kidnapping and destroying villages in Southern Philippines and Southern Thailand; Muslims running amok during the Asian financial crisis in Indonesia killing Chinese and Christians; Muslims setting off bombs in Madrid and London; Muslims cleric Abu Hamza in the UK preaching anti-Western obscenities; Muslims in Cape Town South Africa setting off bombs in restaurants during the late 90s http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369781
and many more examples of Muslims Gone Wild. I don't think all Muslims are evil, but I do think Islam is evil.
If you noticed, these people are part of a relatively small group of Islams, call the Islam Extremists. You'd think that a lot of Muslims would be in this group, but it is suprisingly small. And Islam is actually a relatively peaceful religion, these Extremists are simply taking it and rewriting it to their own purposes.

In addition to Muslims enslaving and killing black Christians, animists, and even fellow Muslims in Sudan; Muslims imposing Sharia law in Northern Nigeria; Muslim terrorists killing, kidnapping and destroying villages in Southern Philippines and Southern Thailand; Muslims running amok during the Asian financial crisis in Indonesia killing Chinese and Christians; Muslims setting off bombs in Madrid and London; Muslims cleric Abu Hamza in the UK preaching anti-Western obscenities; Muslims in Cape Town South Africa setting off bombs in restaurants during the late 90s http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369781
and many more examples of Muslims Gone Wild. I don't think all Muslims are evil, but I do think Islam is evil.

Why specifically Islam? An equally impressive list of atrocities could be compiled for nearly any religion.

I don't think all Muslims are evil, but I do think Islam is evil.

Islam isn't all that evil. It's just misread by a small group, and heightened in importance by a wary media.

Yeah. In a hundred years, people will be jumping the border fence to get IN to Mexico.
Well if the thread about Mexico decriminalizing weed, cocaine, and heroin is to be believed, people will be jumping the border fence to get into Mexico alot sooner than that.

Basically, it's a case of not understanding the concept of individuality. That's why going against America is seen as going against each and every American. And of course, if a country did that, then it means each and every member of the country did it.

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?

Fear.

They were afraid of Blacks in the 1860s because they were afraid they would "contaminate" our culture.

They were afraid of the Irish, Chinese and Italians in the early 1900s because they were taking all of the cheap labor.

They were afraid of the Japanese because they bombed Pearl Harbor, and had the capability to attack the mainland again.

They were afraid of the Communists because they were convinced they were Godless (And more or less told they were "evil" by propagandists).

They are afraid of Arabs because of 9/11 and the possibility of "Jihad".

They are afraid of Homosexuals because they are afraid they will "contaminate" our culture.

They are afraid of Mexicans because they're taking all of the cheap labor.

And the Jews? They've just been hated.

You'll see that alot of hate stems from fear.

You'll see that alot of hate stems from fear.

Like Yoda said (via anger).

Like Yoda said (via anger).

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering".

I had no idea that a puppet could be so profound.

<snip>
If fear was logical, that would be a good explation. Unfortuantely, fear isn't logical. Good try though.

Why specifically Islam? An equally impressive list of atrocities could be compiled for nearly any religion.

Yeah, but in the modern world, islam justifies it with the koran; it was, apparently, written by allah, therefore, everything in it is true, including bits about killing infidels.

Yeah, but in the modern world, islam justifies it with the koran; it was, apparently, written by allah, therefore, everything in it is true, including bits about killing infidels.

Yes yes, Islam is teh evil, Muslims will overrun Europe, we should just surrender now...

Do you ever say anything else? You sound like a goddamn broken record, and the novelty has worn off. At least UNA changed his views every so often...

Yes yes, Islam is teh evil, Muslims will overrun Europe, we should just surrender now...

Do you ever say anything else? You sound like a goddamn broken record, and the novelty has worn off. At least UNA changed his views every so often...

Prove me wrong.

If fear was logical, that would be a good explation. Unfortuantely, fear isn't logical. Good try though.

Fear may be inherently illogical, but so is hate. They go hand in hand together.

If fear was logical, that would be a good explation. Unfortuantely, fear isn't logical. Good try though.

And why would the hate be logical? :confused:

Because to a great degree America (or at least white America) is one large unified group, they can scare easily, and so they use any group (such as Asians, Communists, or Arabs) to blame everything on. It isn't America, it's partially human nature.

For example, as an atheist, I blame quite a lot on religious folk when it comes to conflict in the middle east right now.

We need to change the way we think in hopes that others do the same, for we cannot do anything elese to help it.

Hating and fearing a wasp is logical, if the logic involves being stung. What people don't realize is that most wasps only sting when they're scared and don't really want to do it. Humans do the same thing to eachother.

Because to a great degree America (or at least white America) is one large unified group, they can scare easily, and so they use any group (such as Asians, Communists, or Arabs) to blame everything on. It isn't America, it's partially human nature.

For example, as an atheist, I blame quite a lot on religious folk when it comes to conflict in the middle east right now.

We need to change the way we think in hopes that others do the same, for we cannot do anything elese to help it.

Religion is the source of all conflict. Well, that and excessive nationalism.

Stupidity isn't an American monopoly. You think America's the only country that does this?
Perhaps not stupidity, but certainly conceit.

Religion is the source of all conflict. Well, that and excessive nationalism.
You mean the things that communists fight against?

Hating and fearing a wasp is logical, if the logic involves being stung. What people don't realize is that most wasps only sting when they're scared and don't really want to do it. Humans do the same thing to eachother.

Now that's profound.

Well, y'all did intern a hell of a lot of your Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, killing god knows how many.

Actually, not that many were killed in internemnt camps.

not that that is a valid reason for having them, I just want to get the facts straight.

You mean the things that communists fight against?

Nope. You'd be surprised how nationalist communists are.

Nope. You'd be surprised how nationalist communists are.

If any so-called "Communist" is nationalistic, I wouldn't consider them a true communist at all.

If any so-called "Communist" is nationalistic, I wouldn't consider them a true communist at all.

True communism is unachievable.

True communism is unachievable.

Why do you think this?

And that little remark has nothing to do with the fact that a true communist is not adn cannot be a nationalist.

Why do you think this?

And that little remark has nothing to do with the fact that a true communist is not adn cannot be a nationalist.

In true communism, everyone is equal. The only way people can be equal is if:

1) All the work is done by robots

2) We have infinite resources

3) We have all the possible technology in the universe

If we don't have robots doing all the work, people have jobs. Upper class jobs and lower class jobs will conflict because each will think themselves more important.

If we don't have infinite resources, we need to find more. That takes scientists. See above.

If we don't have all the technology, they're room for improvement. That takes scientists. See above.

Hating and fearing a wasp is logical, if the logic involves being stung. What people don't realize is that most wasps only sting when they're scared and don't really want to do it. Humans do the same thing to eachother.

Hating a wasp, is idiotic.

And, fearing a wasp is only sensible to the point that you avoid being stung.

No one in their right mind would suggest a full scale "war on wasps".

America's problem today is one of perspective. Blame a soft-headed population, a very savvy media that thrives on crisis, and a class of politicians that knows how to manipulate both.

In true communism, everyone is equal. The only way people can be equal is if:

1) All the work is done by robots

2) We have infinite resources

3) We have all the possible technology in the universe

If we don't have robots doing all the work, people have jobs. Upper class jobs and lower class jobs will conflict because each will think themselves more important.

If we don't have infinite resources, we need to find more. That takes scientists. See above.

If we don't have all the technology, they're room for improvement. That takes scientists. See above.

WTF, upper and lower class jobs? What are you talking about?

What does infinite resources have anything to do with people working for themselves? Sure, it would be nice, but it's definetly not necessary.

Once again, WTF at why we need all the technology?

In true communism, everyone is not "equal", thats a bunch of bullshit. Think of an Native American commune, on a modern and industrial scale.

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?

There is no logic to hate.

In true communism, everyone is equal. The only way people can be equal is if:

1) All the work is done by robots

2) We have infinite resources

3) We have all the possible technology in the universe

If we don't have robots doing all the work, people have jobs. Upper class jobs and lower class jobs will conflict because each will think themselves more important.

If we don't have infinite resources, we need to find more. That takes scientists. See above.

If we don't have all the technology, they're room for improvement. That takes scientists. See above.

Let's not forget that humans are generally greedy. That'll put a damper on any Communist plans.

Remember kids: Greed is good for everyone! (Message brought to you by the Rockerfeller Foundation)

WTF, upper and lower class jobs? What are you talking about?

What does infinite resources have anything to do with people working for themselves? Sure, it would be nice, but it's definetly not necessary.

Once again, WTF at why we need all the technology?

In true communism, everyone is not "equal", thats a bunch of bullshit. Think of an Native American commune, on a modern and industrial scale.

No, true communism involves true equality; everyone is equal, everything belongs to everyone.

Plus, yeah, humans are greedy.

Let's not forget that humans are generally greedy. That'll put a damper on any Communist plans.

Remember kids: Greed is good for everyone! (Message brought to you by the Rockerfeller Foundation)

If greed supposedly puts a damper on why communism doesnt work, can you explain to me why native american communes and hippy communes work? I mean, communism is pretty much the same thing on a modernized and worldwide scale.

If greed supposedly puts a damper on why communism doesnt work, can you explain to me why native american communes and hippy communes work? I mean, communism is pretty much the same thing on a modernized and worldwide scale.

And it cannot work on a worldwide scale.

This is simple. United Statesmen, through an unlikely combination of puritanical methodist fundamentalism and Capitalist propaganda of the myth of the self made man during key periods of the developement of the nation and it's culture, hold a deep seated contempt for the poor. Whether they recognise it or not, it is one of the defining socio-cultral values derived from being raised in the US. In a nutshell, to the United Statesman (and the west as a whole, to a lesser extent), affluence denotes moral integrity and general virtuosity. This is due to an over-inflated faith in the social mobility of their society, (the myth of the self made man). Unfortunately, to the United Statesman's mind; to complement the attitude that wealth is an earned sign of worth, poverty denotes the opposite. Poor people are seen as plagues uponsociety, and their economics status is seen as a direct result of their lack of moral worth, and virtue.

It is from this foundation that The US habit of disrespecting the sovereignty of poor countries. This includes muslim nations, aboriginal cultures, and communists. (I was not aware of an anti-asian sentiment in the US, and am not addressing it). To the US, the poor countries are deserve their poverty for not earning wealth. Thus their contempt/hate for these groups.

No, true communism involves true equality; everyone is equal, everything belongs to everyone.

Plus, yeah, humans are greedy.

The abolition of private property has nothing to do with being equal to another man.

If everyone was equal, that would be stuipd. Nobody in the world is equal. People have different talens, different skills, different interests, different beliefs. What a Communist believes, and what may be confusing you about equality, is that we Communists believe that the bourgoise is just as good as the proletariat. That does not mean that we think the proletariat should be equal to the bourgoise.

Take, for example, a construction worker and a factory worker. Both do manual labor, and both contribute to the society in a helpful manner. They are not equal because they contribute to the society in different ways, and by doing different things. However, one is not better than another.

True communism, the best example i've seen of it is an indian commune.

And it cannot work on a worldwide scale.

IT CAN work on a worldwide scale, but that would require destroying capitalist and imperialist nations.

If greed supposedly puts a damper on why communism doesnt work, can you explain to me why native american communes and hippy communes work? I mean, communism is pretty much the same thing on a modernized and worldwide scale.

I agree that at a certain level it MAY work, but once you reach large scale, you start absorbing people who are less than giving. That and it is damned near impossible to manage something of that size.

I agree that at a certain level it MAY work, but once you reach large scale, you start absorbing people who are less than giving. That and it is damned near impossible to manage something of that size.

If somebody doesn't want to give into the community, they shouldn't be allowed to live there. Thats why you'd kill/dispose of those people.

Hell, you could be nice and jus tnot give them access to communal resources. It's kind of like when you were in school and you had a group project. 4 kids in the group, and 3 of them woruld work hard. 1 kid would be lazy and not do anything. You would simply inform the teacher, and they would make him suffer and the rest would prsoper.

If somebody doesn't want to give into the community, they shouldn't be allowed to live there. Thats why you'd kill/dispose of those people.

Hell, you could be nice and jus tnot give them access to communal resources. It's kind of like when you were in school and you had a group project. 4 kids in the group, and 3 of them woruld work hard. 1 kid would be lazy and not do anything. You would simply inform the teacher, and they would make him suffer and the rest would prsoper.

You know who else did that? Stalin. You don't want to be like Stalin do you?

Hating a wasp, is idiotic.

And, fearing a wasp is only sensible to the point that you avoid being stung.


Fear breeds hate and hate leads to the dark side. ;)

What if you are allergic to bees?

You know who else did that? Stalin. You don't want to be like Stalin do you?

But...But Stalin was just ensuring the stability and continuing revolution of the Proletariat Revolution by purging those with Bourgoise tendancies!

Very few, actually. Especially when you consider how the Japanese treated American POWs (the Bataan Death March comes to mind.)

Or for that matter how they treated civilian internees: Burma Railway springs to mind...

...however, the average Japanese footsoldier was not treated particularly well by their superiors either, so the problem was one of more institutionalised brutality, rather than some kind of actual racial and individual outlook.

Fear breeds hate and hate leads to the dark side. ;)

What if you are allergic to bees?

Blow their fucking heads off.

You know who else did that? Stalin. You don't want to be like Stalin do you?

Stalin also didn't give people the option of leaving the country.

if you dont wanna contribute to the country, you dont deserve to have access to its resources. But feel free to leave and live, I could give two fucks less about what you do, as long as you aren't leechign off of us.

Stalin also allowed absolutely no political and civil freedoms. Ideal communist nation would allow those.

Finally, thats a classic example of a fallacy :)

Hell, you could be nice and jus tnot give them access to communal resources. It's kind of like when you were in school and you had a group project. 4 kids in the group, and 3 of them woruld work hard. 1 kid would be lazy and not do anything. You would simply inform the teacher, and they would make him suffer and the rest would prsoper.

Earth is not a classroom. In a classroom, all children are, for lack of better words, equally as useless. In the real world, there are doctors who save lives, and there are production line workers who pump out those little toys you get in McDonald's Happy Meals. Amusing as those toys are, how are the doctor and worker in any way equal?

Hope that gives you an idea of who you're talking to .

Someone disinclined to use the word 'whom'?

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

:rolleyes:

All Asians are not the same.... Pearl Harbor only adversely affected Japanese-Americans.

During WWII the USA was ALLIED with many Asians, including Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, etc., so the US government made a lot of propaganda casting them in a good light for the white American people to see. For example there was a propaganda printed by Life Magazine during this time that stated "Chinese wear the rational calm of tolerant realists. Japs, like General Tojo, show the humorless intensity of ruthless mystics."

Chinese- and Koreans-Americans during WWII had their standards of living rise.

Chinese- and Korean-Americans were able to take the jobs that the Japanese Americans lost.

In 1943, at the height of WWII, Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which had earlier banned Chinese immigration to the USA.

Chinese- and Korean-AMericans generally supported Japanese-American internment during WWII because of all the war crimes that Japan committed against the rest of Asia.

I'm not saying that the Japanese internment was a good thing, in fact it was a dark period in the USA's history. But I am saying you don't know what you're talking about. Since you don't make an effort to tell one Asian ethnicity apart from another, you are guilty of the same ignorance you are accusing other people of having.

Earth is not a classroom. In a classroom, all children are, for lack of better words, equally as useless. In the real world, there are doctors who save lives, and there are production line workers who pump out those little toys you get in McDonald's Happy Meals. Amusing as those toys are, how are the doctor and worker in any way equal?

What makes the doctor any different from the manual laborer? WHy do people view the doctor as superior and above the laborer?

The doctor, yes, his job requires more knowledge and brains than a manual laborer. But a manual laboreres job requires far more physical fitness and strength than a doctors job does.

Laborers work longer hours and more days than a doctor does. In the end, it all works out.

The point is, they are both contributing to society. And as such, both deserve to live a good life style.

Stalin also allowed absolutely no political and civil freedoms. Ideal communist nation would allow those.

That wouldn't work. After a few years of no progress and no personal successes, people would kill your government.

Someone disinclined to use the word 'whom'?

Oh yes, bash me on my grammar useage. The true sign of a brilliant debater!

I find it rather odd that the original subject is about American's odd erge to hate considering we're not the ones who start fires and riots over something as trivial as a cartoon.

What makes the doctor any different from the manual laborer? WHy do people view the doctor as superior and above the laborer?

The doctor, yes, his job requires more knowledge and brains than a manual laborer. But a manual laboreres job requires far more physical fitness and strength than a doctors job does.

Laborers work longer hours and more days than a doctor does. In the end, it all works out.

The point is, they are both contributing to society. And as such, both deserve to live a good life style.

But they contribute to society in different amounts.

If you can't see why the doctor is far superior to the Happy Meal toy maker, then you can't be argued with.

Oh yes, bash me on my grammar useage. The true sign of a brilliant debater!

If I were bashing I would have used a more judgemental term than 'disinclined'. Just typing my reaction, that's all.

That wouldn't work. After a few years of no progress and no personal successes, people would kill your government.

What are the next winning lottery numbers, great seer?

If greed supposedly puts a damper on why communism doesnt work, can you explain to me why native american communes and hippy communes work? I mean, communism is pretty much the same thing on a modernized and worldwide scale.
Communism is based upon the 'command market' model (the most efficent model). As such, it is quite workable, and indeed beneficial, on a small scale. However, on a large scale, the sheer volume of ever-fluctuating demand and supply that must be continuously analysed and interpreted to then co-ordinate the production and distribution of finite resources is beyond all conceivable logistic capabilities availbale. Alternatively, the 'free market' model enables individuals to somehow (it's beautiful) co-ordinate themselves based upon upon who wants the resources the most (the measure of 'want' being money). The flaw is that poorer people lack the money to express their want fully, but thats capitalism.
In any case, Commande markets are quite manageable for small grous of people (small). However, a high level of trust must be placed in who-ever is responsible for the allocation and distribution of goods. In small groups this is easy enough to monitor.

That wouldn't work. After a few years of no progress and no personal successes, people would kill your government.

What do you mean by personal success? The meaning of success is different to every person.

Some people view personal success as learning a lot and gaining knowledge. Nothing holding you back from doing that under communism.

Somepeople view success as a hard days work and a well earned meal. Nothign stopping you from getting that under communism.

Some people view success as being well respected amongst peers and friends. You can be as popular as you want among your friends in communism.

But they contribute to society in different amounts.

If you can't see why the doctor is far superior to the Happy Meal toy maker, then you can't be argued with.

Of course I can see that, the happy meal toy maker produces commodities.

What I cant see is how a doctor is superior to a farmer, or someone who actually contributes to society in a way that matters.

@GreaterPacificNations: Much like Native Americans had many different,s mall communes, a true communist planet would have many small communes. I know that the command economy is bad when applied to a general population, which is why you have many small command economies.

What are the next winning lottery numbers, great seer?

I'm not a seer. Everything I said happened. In the USSR. Soon after Gorbachev's attempted reforms, communism collapsed. You know what the Russians did with their first real election? They voted for Yeltsin. You know what the Republics did with their first real political freedom? They left the Union.

Of course I can see that, the happy meal toy maker produces commodities.

What I cant see is how a doctor is superior to a farmer, or someone who actually contributes to society in a way that matters.

Because it takes more time and training to become a doctor. You get back what you put in.

I'm not a seer. Everything I said happened. In the USSR. Soon after Gorbachev's attempted reforms, communism collapsed. You know what the Russians did with their first real election? They voted for Yeltsin. You know what the Republics did with their first real political freedom? They left the Union.

Thats why you are sayign all these rediculous things about communism: you consider the USSR to be communist! No, they weren't even close!

@GreaterPacificNations: Much like Native Americans had many different,s mall communes, a true communist planet would have many small communes. I know that the command economy is bad when applied to a general population, which is why you have many small command economies.

That'll just lead to nationalism. And in an attempt to get up, some communes will change systems.

If any so-called "Communist" is nationalistic, I wouldn't consider them a true communist at all.
Mankind has never been able to do certain things. Because of that we reckon those things impossible. For example, nobody has ever jumped off of a cliff and flown to safety by flapping his arms like wings. Anyone who tries it ends up dead. Also nobody has ever managed to form a "true" communist government. All who have tried have only succeded in creating suffering, scarcity, and repression. My advice to all communists is to learn through experimentation. Try jumping off a cliff and see if you can fly.

Thats why you are sayign all these rediculous things about communism: you consider the USSR to be communist! No, they weren't even close!

They were the closest that any nation's ever gotten, and they failed miserably. What does that say about your dream?

Mankind has never been able to do certain things. Because of that we reckon those things impossible. For example, nobody has ever jumped off of a cliff and flown to safety by flapping his arms like wings. Anyone who tries it ends up dead. Also nobody has ever managed to form a "true" communist government. All who have tried have only succeded in creating suffering, scarcity, and repression. My advice to all communists is to learn through experimentation. Try jumping off a cliff and see if you can fly.

I'm sigging that.

That'll just lead to nationalism. And in an attempt to get up, some communes will change systems.

Ok, mr fortune teller who knows all. That's waht the socialist phase of communist theory is for: re-education to dismantle nationalistic beliefs.

Has anyone brought up the fact that government products inherently suck because there is no competition?

Mankind has never been able to do certain things. Because of that we reckon those things impossible. For example, nobody has ever jumped off of a cliff and flown to safety by flapping his arms like wings. Anyone who tries it ends up dead. Also nobody has ever managed to form a "true" communist government. All who have tried have only succeded in creating suffering, scarcity, and repression. My advice to all communists is to learn through experimentation. Try jumping off a cliff and see if you can fly.

Ok, no man has ever created nuclear fusion, but is it impossible? No!

Oh, and about the flapping your wings when jumping off a cliff thing? Modern physics debunks that. There is no modern physics to debunk cmomunism.

@GreaterPacificNations: Much like Native Americans had many different,s mall communes, a true communist planet would have many small communes. I know that the command economy is bad when applied to a general population, which is why you have many small command economies.
Would these small communes then trade in a capitalist free market?

Ok, mr fortune teller who knows all. That's waht the socialist phase of communist theory is for: re-education to dismantle nationalistic beliefs.

Re-education. That's just brainwashing, isn't it? Well, I guess it worked for Stalin.

Besides, when some communes prosper more, that'll create intercommunal conflict. Whaddya gonna do then, force them to be equal?

Very few, actually. Especially when you consider how the Japanese treated American POWs (the Bataan Death March comes to mind.)

Different mindsets tho.
Those Americans had surrendered, and thus shamed their families/ancestors in the eyes of the Japaneese. They didn't deserve great treatment.
Similarly, the Canadians at Hong Kong whom were captured had the same problem.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, that was their perspective on the matter.

Also nobody has ever managed to form a "true" communist government. All who have tried have only succeded in creating suffering, scarcity, and repression. My advice to all communists is to learn through experimentation. Try jumping off a cliff and see if you can fly.

The same could have been said for a 'true' democratic government prior to the the middle ages (if we count the Aethling as a true democracy).

Of course I can see that, the happy meal toy maker produces commodities.

What I cant see is how a doctor is superior to a farmer, or someone who actually contributes to society in a way that matters.

@GreaterPacificNations: Much like Native Americans had many different,s mall communes, a true communist planet would have many small communes. I know that the command economy is bad when applied to a general population, which is why you have many small command economies.
No person is superior to another based on the work he does. The difference is not one of inferior/superior, but only a difference in the market price for that particular type of labor.

The market price of labor should be regulated by government to prevent poverty, but should not be absolutely controlled by government because doing so kills the economy.

Ok, no man has ever created nuclear fusion, but is it impossible? No!

That's because we know it's not impossible.

Would these small communes then trade in a capitalist free market?

No, I don't think theres a reason to do that.

The same could have been said for a 'true' democratic government prior to the the middle ages (if we count the Aethling as a true democracy).
Yeah, but democracy doesn't conflict with human nature. Communism does. Therefore communism is impossible for humans. People, with very few exceptions, simply don't work hard for long periods of time with no hope of improving their personal situation.

That's because we know it's not impossible.
Actually we have created nuclear fusion. Just not controlled nuclear fusion. H-Bombs for example are nuclear fusion.

Ok, no man has ever created nuclear fusion, but is it impossible? No!

Oh, and about the flapping your wings when jumping off a cliff thing? Modern physics debunks that. There is no modern physics to debunk cmomunism.
Actually we have created nuclear fusion. We just can't create sustained, controlable nuclear fusion.

There is sociobiology to debunk communism.

Yeah, but democracy doesn't conflict with human nature.


Of course, one of the central tenets of Marxist communism is that human nature is highly changeable, but that is an entirely different debate.

Communism does. Therefore communism is impossible for humans. People, with very few exceptions, simply don't work hard for long periods of time with no hope of improving their personal situation.

Working hard to improve your personal situation under communism includes improving the lot of your fellow. The benefits are still there, just distributed in different ways. My situation improves if my neighbours are not all in poverty.

Re-education. That's just brainwashing, isn't it? Well, I guess it worked for Stalin.

Besides, when some communes prosper more, that'll create intercommunal conflict. Whaddya gonna do then, force them to be equal?

Nah, not at all. Re-education is just that, being re-educated.

And yes, every time I get more money than a friend, that means I suddenly want to go imperalist on them and annex their houses.

No, I don't think theres a reason to do that.
What if I wanted a potato but my commune doesn't grow any potatos, would I be arrested and then deported/killed if I tried to trade some wheat for a potato.

2) Communism was an unworkable ideology who's proponents wanted to spread to the rest of the world. They saw the US as the main obstacle in their path. Because of that the US naturally wanted to contain and if possible, eliminate that threat.

You do realize that the issue isn't the unworkability of ideologies (see Cuba, whatever you have to say about that, it's not a failed state) but rather, the fact that communism and capitalism simply could not co-exist with expansionist models. Capitalism based economies are reliant on world trade to thrive, and for every nation that does take up communism, that represents a loss of economic leverage and assets. Communism on the other hand, cannot co-exist with capitalism because it creates an uneven distribution of resources on a rather limited planet.

If the environments the two operated on were more localized however, as in communism or capitalism in one nation only without extending past borders, it would have been more workable as the two could effectively trade with one another, the impact of such trade being limited by the government which acts as a filter. But it wasn't.

Given that the rise of communism at the time did represent a loss of trade (read: private interests and resource pillaging by capitalists), I would say THAT, and not some vague threat of world domination was what spurred the intial drive for the containment of communism.

Yeah, but democracy doesn't conflict with human nature. Communism does. Therefore communism is impossible for humans. People, with very few exceptions, simply don't work hard for long periods of time with no hope of improving their personal situation.

But communism, in the pure form, is democracy at its finest.

No, I don't think theres a reason to do that.

You've contradicted yourself. You want communism on a worldwide scale, divided into many little nation-like communes?

It brings back memories of that Poochie episode of The Simpsons.

So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show... that's completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?

Working hard to improve your personal situation under communism includes improving the lot of your fellow. The benefits are still there, just distributed in different ways. My situation improves if my neighbours are not all in poverty.
The incentive under a communist system falls below the threashold to stimulate motivated, dedicated, hard work. Look at how the Soviets and the Chinese (when they were communist) produced shoddy goods, and had constant shortages. People just can't be bothered to work hard if they don't see rapid and noticable improvement in their own personal situation.

What if I wanted a potato but my commune doesn't grow any potatos, would I be arrested and then deported/killed if I tried to trade some wheat for a potato.

No, you wouldnt. Trading with another man does not go against communist theory.

Apparently, somebody doesn't understand exactly WHY marx disliked capitalism.

Trading a potato, which no labor was exploited to get, for product X, which will benefit the community as a whole, does not go against Marxist theory in any which wahy.

But communism, in the pure form, is democracy at its finest.
You're right. And democracy in it's purest form is a tyranny by the majority. It results in the repression and subjugation of all who disagree with the majority.

The incentive under a communist system falls below the threashold to stimulate motivated, dedicated, hard work. Look at how the Soviets and the Chinese (when they were communist) produced shoddy goods, and had constant shortages. People just can't be bothered to work hard if they don't see rapid and noticable improvement in their own personal situation.

For the most part, China is still the same. All the best stuff is made in the West.

No, I don't think theres a reason to do that.
If you didn't, you still have to manage the same demand/supply/production/distribution problems. Remember smaller communes simply represent imaginary imposed boundaries of perspective, it doesn't change any of the demand/supply maths. Admittedly, you could create a multi-teired bureauocracy to manage sub division after subdivision, but this would require government larger than the working population, which could work 24/7.

Of course, one of the central tenets of Marxist communism is that human nature is highly changeable, but that is an entirely different debate.




Yeah, but one of the findings of modern Sociobiology is that human nature is not all that changable. Now do you go with the hypothesis of a guy from the 1800s who had no evidence to back his point of view, or do you accept the findings of scientists who have evidence to support their conclusions?

No, you wouldnt. Trading with another man does not go against communist theory.

Apparently, somebody doesn't understand exactly WHY marx disliked capitalism.

Trading a potato for product X, which will benefit the community as a whole, does not go against Marxist theory in any which wahy.
So by trading with individually with others for goods or services for myself is part of communism? As long as it's done through bartering and not with money.

The incentive under a communist system falls below the threashold to stimulate motivated, dedicated, hard work. Look at how the Soviets and the Chinese (when they were communist) produced shoddy goods, and had constant shortages. People just can't be bothered to work hard if they don't see rapid and noticable improvement in their own personal situation.

Personally I would judge the examples of the USSR and China there as failures of centralised authoritarian rule, rather than something implicit in communism.

Personally I would judge the examples of the USSR and China there as failures of centralised authoritarian rule, rather than something implicit in communism.

The centralised authoritarian rule didn't fail, it was the fact that they tried to reform it. They needed that rule to enforce communism.

Yeah, but one of the findings of modern Sociobiology is that human nature is not all that changable. Now do you go with the hypothesis of a guy from the 1800s who had no evidence to back his point of view, or do you accept the findings of scientists who have evidence to support their conclusions?

Speaking of someone who had no evidence, do you have a link to back up your claim?

Speaking of someone who had no evidence, do you have a link to back up your claim?

Yeah, Fass. He's gay because of his nature.

</bad argument>

Let's not turn this into a gay debate, though. Ok?

The centralised authoritarian rule didn't fail, it was the fact that they tried to reform it. They needed that rule to enforce communism.

Ah, but the fact that it depended upon telling the superiors what they wanted to hear and had a massive bureaucratic machinery meant that it seldom got the facts from the ground, and when it did was incredibly slow to respond.

America is a pretty bad country and its a shame to live here.
I can't wait until it falls, which looks to be not too far over the horizon.

The centralised authoritarian rule didn't fail, it was the fact that they tried to reform it. They needed that rule to enforce communism.

Satlinism and maoism failed, not communism. But they still did a hell of a lot for both countries, compared to where they were before the revolution. and that is undeniable.
You do not need authoritarian rule to enforce communism.... That is where the leaders distorted what true communism is all about. it only calls for dictatorship of the proletariat immediately in post revolution world to get things in order and straightened out. that is not supposed to carry on the whole course of the country like in these two instances... the Dictatorships should have dissolved. And that is why neither country was truly communist.
This is from a libertarian-Marxist standpoint. I don't even believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm going to bed. Drunk commies, GreaterPacificNations, keep up the good fight.

Speaking of someone who had no evidence, do you have a link to back up your claim?
Read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Here's a website specifically about the book.
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/

You're right. And democracy in it's purest form is a tyranny by the majority. It results in the repression and subjugation of all who disagree with the majority.

First of all, democratic means would only be applied to issues that really truly needed a democratic opinion.

Something such as if Hurricane Katrina ravaged the commune. Not something trivial like SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL.

America is a horrible country and its a shame to live here.
I can't wait until it falls, which looks to be not too far over the horizon.

Then leave. I don't think many would mind pitching in a buck or two each to ship you to Oman.

See Cabal? Communism in action. Us shipping out Sankta together benefits society as a whole; it raises the collective IQ.

I'm going to bed. Drunk commies, GreaterPacificNations, keep up the good fight.
Actually I'm starting to get bored of it. Communism is irrelevant today. We're debating a failed ideology that will not be tested again Much like Lamark's erroneous ideas on evolution.

So by trading with individually with others for goods or services for myself is part of communism? As long as it's done through bartering and not with money.

No, the reason Marx hated capitalism was because laborers were exploited through what he called wage slavery, and the goods which capitalists bought were not communally benneficial.

First of all, democratic means would only be applied to issues that really truly needed a democratic opinion.

Something such as if Hurricane Katrina ravaged the commune. Not something trivial like SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL.
How about "should my farm be seized by the government"? While a democratic vote might yield a result of Yes, it would still be tyrrany when a man's land and livelyhood is taken away without compensation.

No, the reason Marx hated capitalism was because laborers were exploited through what he called wage slavery, and the goods which capitalists bought were not communally benneficial.
I'm quite aware of Marx's writing and thoughts. I want YOU to tell me why trading through bartering isn't against your commune idea but trading with cash is.

No, you wouldnt. Trading with another man does not go against communist theory.

Apparently, somebody doesn't understand exactly WHY marx disliked capitalism.

Trading a potato, which no labor was exploited to get, for product X, which will benefit the community as a whole, does not go against Marxist theory in any which wahy.
However, unless these sub-communes were centally managed, you would find some sub-communes commanding more "means of production" than others due to the comparative economic advantages they had. Theoretically, in order for each commune to be equal (and thus, each individual equal), the goods and services produced by each commune would have to be of equal value (in terms of demand/supply equilibrium). Unfortunately, some communes will produce more than others, and (unless they are controlled by a centralised authority) will consequently want more in return for their produce. This would be an abstracted capitalism, with some states exploiting others due to their command over greater means of production.

America is a horrible country and its a shame to live here.
I can't wait until it falls, which looks to be not too far over the horizon.
We can only hope this happens after China has moderated...

How about "should my farm be seized by the government"? While a democratic vote might yield a result of Yes, it would still be tyrrany when a man's land and livelyhood is taken away without compensation.

The way it sounds, it seems like you are saying that when the govt seizes his farm they are just going to leave him there without anywhere else to go and pretty much fuck him over.

I'm sure the community would still let him work there and stuff. Its just, he'd have other people working on his farm as well. The goods which he'd release to the private market under capitalism, such as wheat, fruits, vegetabnlse, etc. would go t the communal stockpile/whatever you wanna call it.

Fromt here, the man, after working enough, would be allowed to take what he needs from the communal stock pile, which, under capitalism, is what he'd normally buy.

And in the guys spare time, he could farm commodities like tobbacco and stuff for himself, which he could also buy under the cpaitalist system.

@Kievan - I agree, that guy sounds like a moron. It would, indeed, be a benefit to all to deport/kill him for making an immature little statement like that.

Actually I'm starting to get bored of it. Communism is irrelevant today. We're debating a failed ideology that will not be tested again Much like Lamark's erroneous ideas on evolution.
Seconded. I get the same feeling when I debate creationism/Intelligent design over evolutionism. The debate was over a long time ago. It is good practise, though. Keeps the wit sharp. Also, it bears the same sense of self gratifying semi-satisfaction that playing a video game you have previously cracked does. No real acheivement, but still the feeling of acheivemnt. Finally, I think of it as intellectual charity. Donating some of my abundant comprehension to those who need it most.:p

*snip*
@Kievan - I agree, that guy sounds like a moron. It would, indeed, be a benefit to all to deport/kill him for making an immature little statement like that.
Nothing like Maoist opinion policies.

The way it sounds, it seems like you are saying that when the govt seizes his farm they are just going to leave him there without anywhere else to go and pretty much fuck him over.

I'm sure the community would still let him work there and stuff. Its just, he'd have other people working on his farm as well. The goods which he'd release to the private market under capitalism, such as wheat, fruits, vegetabnlse, etc. would go t the communal stockpile/whatever you wanna call it.

Fromt here, the man, after working enough, would be allowed to take what he needs from the communal stock pile, which, under capitalism, is what he'd normally buy.

And in the guys spare time, he could farm commodities like tobbacco and stuff for himself, which he could also buy under the cpaitalist system.

@Kievan - I agree, that guy sounds like a moron. It would, indeed, be a benefit to all to deport/kill him for making an immature little statement like that.
Yeah they would fuck him over. Even if he manages to get what he needs under the communist system, he loses the ability to make a profit and buy what he wants. He loses the ability to unilaterally do what he wants with his property. You may think that such a thing is fair, but people don't often willingly submit to such limits on their freedom and prosperity. That's why communist nations can't exist. In order to enforce their rules they must opress people like the farmer in my example. To do that you need a centralized authority with a monopoly on force that is willing to use that force to take by whatever means, including violence, the property of anyone who doesn't willingly contribute the major portion of what they have to the state. That's why people were brutally killed and raped during Mao's great leap foreward.

A better question is wht were numerous Indians (Hindus and Sikhs) attacked in the wake of 9/11?

Because we couldn't tell the difference between them and Arabs.

@Kievan - I agree, that guy sounds like a moron. It would, indeed, be a benefit to all to deport/kill him for making an immature little statement like that.

Typical stalinist remark here..
God forbid if I object to an imperialist government in which thousands die daily due to direct and indirect influence of its policies that it has on the people.
I do not hate america just because it is america. I hate america because I hate the horrible fashion of capitalism that it emits and the way america totes it around like it is an infallible ideology, when in fact it is horribly outdated.
Communism is not irrelevant to the world today. We just simply are not ready for it.

Prove me wrong.

It is not logical to prove a negative. Logic requires that you prove your statement with proof that is more weighty than your opinion.

Typical stalinist remark here..
God forbid if I object to an imperialist government in which thousands die daily due to direct and indirect influence of its policies that it has on the people.
I do not hate america just because it is america. I hate america because I hate the horrible fashion of capitalism that it emits and the way america totes it around like it is an infallible ideology, when in fact it is horribly outdated.
Communism is not irrelevant to the world today. We just simply are not ready for it.

Ok, thank you for giving us a reason why you hate america.

I apologize, I just dislike people who go I HATE AMERICA and dont say a good reason.

Yeah they would fuck him over. Even if he manages to get what he needs under the communist system, he loses the ability to make a profit and buy what he wants. He loses the ability to unilaterally do what he wants with his property. You may think that such a thing is fair, but people don't often willingly submit to such limits on their freedom and prosperity. That's why communist nations can't exist. In order to enforce their rules they must opress people like the farmer in my example. To do that you need a centralized authority with a monopoly on force that is willing to use that force to take by whatever means, including violence, the property of anyone who doesn't willingly contribute the major portion of what they have to the state. That's why people were brutally killed and raped during Mao's great leap foreward.
Furthermore, the prerequisite of a centralised government to opress the people carries on to prohibit the logistical workability of the market (seeing as it would have to be a command market, without 'free' participation).

For example, nobody has ever jumped off of a cliff and flown to safety by flapping his arms like wings. Anyone who tries it ends up dead.

If all of mankind really thought that way, the Wright brothers would have stuck to making bicycles. Capitalism chooses to rappel down the cliff and take the boat to the location. Communism chooses to fly in your example. What has not yet happened is that communism has yet to perfect the means of implementation.

Saying it's impossible is about as foolhardy as saying "I am invincible". It's a direct challenge to fate to prove you wrong.

There is no logic to hate.

So if someone violently raped you, then your hate for him would be illogical?

For the most part, China is still the same. All the best stuff is made in the West.

Bull. If I want a car, I'm not buying an American made vehicle, that's for certain. Japan beats most of America's cars hands down. Unless you want something nearly indestructible. Then you buy a German car.

So if someone violently raped you, then your hate for him would be illogical?

Yes.

Hate, like any feeling, is inherently not logical. Now, you may say it's reasonable, but that's different.

Yes.

Hate, like any feeling, is inherently not logical. Now, you may say it's reasonable, but that's different.


Reason and logic go together IMO.

If all of mankind really thought that way, the Wright brothers would have stuck to making bicycles. Capitalism chooses to rappel down the cliff and take the boat to the location. Communism chooses to fly in your example. What has not yet happened is that communism has yet to perfect the means of implementation.

Saying it's impossible is about as foolhardy as saying "I am invincible". It's a direct challenge to fate to prove you wrong.
No, communism blindly jumps off the cliff, while capitalism rewards inventors that build machines that fly. Communism is impossible because it requires people to change their basic human nature. It's great for ants. Their brains are wired by evolution to be communist. It sucks for humans who's brains are wired to try to improve their position in the band, tribe, kingdom, or nation.

Capitalism harnesses that instinct to improve one's social standing and wealth to drive the economy.

Reason and logic go together IMO.

Sometimes, but not always. Logic is a formalized structure, opinion or no.

Bull. If I want a car, I'm not buying an American made vehicle, that's for certain. Japan beats most of America's cars hands down. Unless you want something nearly indestructible. Then you buy a German car.

Actually, Buicks are currently considered the most reliable cars on the market. Surprisingly, German cars don't have the reliability they used to. Especially Mercedes Benz, they are now considered fairly unreliable.

December 7th, 1941. A few bad examples of Asians attack an American harbor. The reaction? ALL ASIANS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

1950's. A few bad examples of Communists compete with Americans in technological standards. The reaction? ALL COMMUNISTS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

September 11th, 2001. A few bad examples of Muslims peform the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and attempt an attack on the Capital Building. The reaction? ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND DESERVE TO DIE!

May someone please explain to me the logic behind American hate?


I personally think that the post you have put up here shows alot of ignorance on your part. There is alot of pure hatred out there in the world for really no reason at all. I have travelled to the 4 corners of the world in my life via military and as a civilian. Can tell you that America outside of a few European nations is very open and accepting of cultures. You want to see hatred ask a Palestinian about Israel. Then that would make your skin crawl.
As far as WWII do you remember that we had two Asian allies? China and Thailand? Don't recall ever seeing WWII propaganda portraying Chinese for example as subhuman.
During the cold war it wasn't that people wanted communist to die. In fact alot embraced the idealogy. But the fact is that the majority wanted them to become capitalist. That doesn't mean they wanted them dead.
As Muslims go. Most of our Allies on the war on terror are Muslim based nations! Haven't heard of one person that actually said all Muslims must die.

So please get a clue or better yet if you don't mean to look ignorant than you better explain yourself better.

America is the new Rome, except I would definetly have to argue that we are nowhere near as effective as the orginall Romans, if compared the two in equal standards.

America is the new Rome, except I would definetly have to argue that we are nowhere near as effective as the orginall Romans, if compared the two in equal standards.

We are vastly more effective. On all aspects.

No, communism blindly jumps off the cliff, while capitalism rewards inventors that build machines that fly.

Technically not true. Incentives and awards did exist in communist nations for advances that significantly affected the entirety of the nation. It just generally did not arrive in the form of big cash packages. Saying that there are no incentives whatsoever is a very big lie.


Communism is impossible because it requires people to change their basic human nature. It's great for ants. Their brains are wired by evolution to be communist. It sucks for humans who's brains are wired to try to improve their position in the band, tribe, kingdom, or nation.

We see on the other hand, that there are various communes and even some nations in the world where communism works. Perhaps communism is not so impossible as some like to believe.

I would say the current mentality regarding that is more towards the upbringing of people. I can reasonably say that most posters here grew up and were reared in a capitalistic society, thereby, they see capitalism as the only way. As for hardwired behaviour, I would not say that is quite the case. Else we would not have working examples.


Capitalism harnesses that instinct to improve one's social standing and wealth to drive the economy.

Incorrect. Capitalism does not harness that instinct. In fact, greed or disatisfaction, the underlying drive behind the need to improve one's position, is not quite an instinct, but rather, the result of jealousy one might say.

In this, capitalism formalizes the avenue wherein people can indulge in said wants without having to spend time behind bars as a result. It sets a number of rules down which say where, when and how one may acquire that which they desire. The taming of the id if I remember correctly with the superego.

Prior to these formal rules, the idea of fulfilling wants generally involved bashing in Oogs head with a rock and taking what he had. With this, we can argue that capitalism itself is a behavioural modification system that goes against inborn instincts and requires indoctrination to its ways before it can take root.

One could argue that if the slate were to be wiped clean, capitalism might not flourish again since it would return to the basic laws of if there was something you wanted, you took it. We can see this in the young wherein they do not know the moral wrongs of taking something that doesn't belong to you unless it is instilled in them.

Likewise, communism does not disregard the neccesity to provide for wants. However, the way it goes about it is differently from capitalism. Nevertheless, one could say that with the proper educational upbringing, it might work.

However, as with anything regarding human nature, when communism and capitalism meet, it always clashes due to the differences in it's nature. I do not expect capitalists to ever see communism as workable while communists would have difficulty seeing the workability of capitalism.

It is not logical to prove a negative. Logic requires that you prove your statement with proof that is more weighty than your opinion.

Hey, I looked that shit up. koran is written by allah, so everything in it is true.

Hey, I looked that shit up. koran is written by allah, so everything in it is true.

Like the bible, there are multiple interpretations of the the koran. Additionally, there are those that often take whatever is written within holy texts to skew so that they may further their agenda.

I would think you are one such person.

And you still have yet to provide proof.

Like the bible, there are multiple interpretations of the the koran. Additionally, there are those that often take whatever is written within holy texts to skew so that they may further their agenda.

I would think you are one such person.

And you still have yet to provide proof.

From Wikipedia:

The Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad, over a period of twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel (see Jibril). They regard it as the only revelation of God that has been preserved from textual distortion and God's final revelation to mankind.

Thus, everything within the koran, muslims are obliged to believe and follow. They cannot pick and choose. If they're a violent line it there, they must follow it.

From Wikipedia:

The Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad, over a period of twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel (see Jibril). They regard it as the only revelation of God that has been preserved from textual distortion and God's final revelation to mankind.

Thus, everything within the koran, muslims are obliged to believe and follow. They cannot pick and choose. If they're a violent line it there, they must follow it.

The latter (blind and total obedience to anything written in the Koran) doesn't follow from the former (that it's the word of God).

In other words, just because it's the word of god doesn't mean you have to take every single phrase as a literal commandment.

Same with the Bible.

The only times people try to make it like that is when they're trying to justify fundamentalist interpretations.

American hate is the same with any hate.

Hate comes from mainly two things:
1. Fear
2. Misunderstanding

The latter (blind and total obedience to anything written in the Koran) doesn't follow from the former (that it's the word of God).

In other words, just because it's the word of god doesn't mean you have to take every single phrase as a literal commandment.

Same with the Bible.

The only times people try to make it like that is when they're trying to justify fundamentalist interpretations.

The Bible is man's interpretation of God's word. Besides, Christians have a Pope to tell them what to do. The koran is exclusively allah's word.

From Wikipedia:

The Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad, over a period of twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel (see Jibril). They regard it as the only revelation of God that has been preserved from textual distortion and God's final revelation to mankind.

Thus, everything within the koran, muslims are obliged to believe and follow. They cannot pick and choose. If they're a violent line it there, they must follow it.

Wikipedia is an astonishingly poor source of information. And there are no inherentely violent lines in it, although it does talk about self-defence.

Communism is also working in China for the reason that people have suggested in the past - communities live in communes, but are essentially capitalist.

For that reason, if one commune produces a service or item that many others want, that commune will prosper. But the money won't go to the CEO or whatever, it gets divided between the people in the commune (see some areas of China where there are whole communes living in identical mansions). The state then collects some of the money from the commune via taxes.

On the other hand, if a commune starts to do badly then then the government tries to help, by sending them whatever they need to get back on their feet with. They're still getting taxed, but since they have less to give, the government expects them to pay less, too.

And it's working rather well. Obviously, in a time of crisis, the government can have full state control, as it can in most countries of the world, (the UK, Australia and probably the USA, too) but this is reserved for times like wars etc.

From Wikipedia:

The Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) as revealed to Muhammad, over a period of twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel (see Jibril). They regard it as the only revelation of God that has been preserved from textual distortion and God's final revelation to mankind.

Thus, everything within the koran, muslims are obliged to believe and follow. They cannot pick and choose. If they're a violent line it there, they must follow it.

You're using wikipedia as a reference on a topic like this? Boy, you are a failure as a researcher. Anybody with a computer and his dog can make changes to the Wikipedia entry as they like. In fact, for all we know, you could have made the changes and then quoted it.

If you think this is the case and that Muslims are a violent bunch, I recommend you lock the doors and cower in your basement. There are a lot more Muslims than you think, and all you like to do is spew your vitriol and general hatred of all things related to them. I do remember that time you tried to paint a criminal as muslim once and that it was Islam that caused him to do so by trying to use his name as the link. Pathetic.