|
Post by Swampy on Jan 31, 2013 18:26:00 GMT -5
I think that people giving their lives to fight communism were probably fighting the 'totalitarianism' and 'dictatorship' of it. Not so much the economic concept of free pensions etc. They knew votes counted for nothing in China, Russia, Hungary, all of eastern Europe etc, then. Of course they were fighting for freedom, but they also wanted economic freedom - you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 31, 2013 18:37:53 GMT -5
True, but I doubt that a Hungarian freedom fighter was fighting for economic policy.
He certainly was fighting for 'freedom' of course, as was a Sth Korean (or US) soldier.
SJ
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Jan 31, 2013 23:03:04 GMT -5
A socialist is a communist that wears shoes. A liberal is a socialist that wears a tie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 10:24:39 GMT -5
Where you are being (somewhat) rational in describing definitions, I tend to react (somewhat) less so when the "terms" Communism (especially) and Socialism (less so) are thrown about with regard to the US. The former was a buzz word for many decades, always with highly inflammatory connotation while the latter was, and is, somewhat less so.
I personally believe in what I call Communism (not the commonly understood form of Communism) in that I believe we all should share and take care of each other when possible. The state shouldn't have to dictate this happening, it should be a natural occurance. This will never happen here nor would I ever openly agitate for it. There are far too many variables. I abhor welfare and all it's sinister fingers, so that would be a thing that would have to be dealt with and I have no solution other than let those who can take care of themselves, but refuse to, fend for themselves and keep them away from "the rest" of us.
I don't understand why nations fight because of religion. I don't understand why one country should have to "police" another. I don't understand what the color of a person has to do with his integrity, honor and importance as a person. I don't understand why a person is gay, lesbian, cross gender. There are far more things that I don't understand than things I do. Much of that is because I'm an old fart and WAY out of the mainstream, so far that all I can do is offer my own thoughts and opinions, based not necessarily on fact, but rather on past events and current feelings.
We'll never have a perfect world or anything remotely close to it. I still maintain that there is nowhere in the world I'd rather live and no other lifestyle I'd like to have. I respect those from other countries who feel the same about where they live as that's the way they should feel.
Oops, I just fell off my soapbox!
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Feb 1, 2013 14:13:59 GMT -5
Denny,
I hope I did not give the impression that I thought that the US was socialist or communist, I do not, but much of its budgetary policy, IS socialist. It has been since 1933.
As I said, that applies around the world and in my view is the basic cause of our debt problems. Maybe you can blame it on 'the people' who vote them in to fulfill huge promises. Maybe the fact that only 50% bother to vote has something to do with that.
OC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2013 18:17:45 GMT -5
SJ,
I knew what you weren't saying, I just wasn't sure of your interpretation. Now that I understand, I also agree.
As far as getting 50% of the eligible voters to actually vote in the US, good luck with that.
Denny
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Feb 2, 2013 0:34:15 GMT -5
I don't understand why nations fight because of religion. I don't understand either, not because I am too old, but because I am too logical to understand religion, other than the fact that it is some type of weird, but very common emotional or mental illness. Some people are willing to die for their silly superstitions. Sometimes, even some very "intelligent" people. Those in Heaven's Gate could be an obvious example. But the more common religions are equally as much nonsense. I don't understand why one country should have to "police" another. I don't understand what the color of a person has to do with his integrity, honor and importance as a person. I don't understand why a person is gay, lesbian, cross gender. There are far more things that I don't understand than things I do. Much of that is because I'm an old fart and WAY out of the mainstream, so far that all I can do is offer my own thoughts and opinions, based not necessarily on fact, but rather on past events and current feelings. We'll never have a perfect world or anything remotely close to it. I still maintain that there is nowhere in the world I'd rather live and no other lifestyle I'd like to have. I respect those from other countries who feel the same about where they live as that's the way they should feel. Oops, I just fell off my soapbox! When I was younger, I couldn't understand heterosexuality. I didn't see the attraction to any females, so I didn't understand it well. I still don't understand the gross-gender thing. But for sexual orientation, we all have different "tastes" in others just as we do in foods. There are some foods I can't understand how anybody could enjoy the taste of too.
Well, I don't think a perfect world would work very well. First, I would be out of a job, because no police, fire or health departments would be needed. But if it were perfect, then I guess nobody would need to work. But then, life might be too boring. But how can one be bored in perfection? Perfection just doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO.
"It is reasonable to have perfection in our eye that we may always advance toward it, though we know it can never be reached." --Samuel Johnson
-Don Quoteman
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Feb 2, 2013 10:10:20 GMT -5
[snip] I don't understand why nations fight because of religion. I don't understand why one country should have to "police" another. I don't understand what the color of a person has to do with his integrity, honor and importance as a person. I don't understand why a person is gay, lesbian, cross gender. There are far more things that I don't understand than things I do. Much of that is because I'm an old fart and WAY out of the mainstream, so far that all I can do is offer my own thoughts and opinions, based not necessarily on fact, but rather on past events and current feelings. [snip] ops, I just fell off my soapbox! I can offer one explanation why nations will kill innumerable innocent individuals because of religion. Religion has been used as a tool for mind control. The Roman Emperors from Constantine the Great chose Christianity as the state religion of Rome, but they all did to my knowledge perfectly know that there does not exist any divine Jesus who would lift Christian believers to the heaven. However, Christianity made it easy for them to assure the masses that they must labor diligently and obey the Emperor, also in a war, up to death. And then the unfortunate believers would be admitted to Heaven by Jesus Christ. Moreover, if the soldiers believe that they will be admitted to the heaven they might suffer quite remarkable pains in a combat without complaining. Well I have learned something from the MKULTRA.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Feb 2, 2013 10:25:56 GMT -5
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but his religion, I mean, ideology, is gone, while Christianity is still the biggest religion on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Feb 2, 2013 10:35:18 GMT -5
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but his religion, I mean, ideology, is gone, while Christianity is still the biggest religion on Earth. Marx and Hitler were merely nightmares in the history of the human civilization: nasty but ephemeral.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Feb 2, 2013 10:51:23 GMT -5
Agreed, but the point is that he said religion is the opiate of the masses, while he was promoting his own religion to control the masses. And, of course, his religion collapsed when people in Eastern Europe refused to believe his lies.
So religion is not really a means of control.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Feb 2, 2013 11:47:46 GMT -5
Agreed, but the point is that he said religion is the opiate of the masses, while he was promoting his own religion to control the masses. And, of course, his religion collapsed when people in Eastern Europe refused to believe his lies. So religion is not really a means of control. I would say, it depends on the individual case. Communism was an esoteric sect which however attracted some individuals. The Russkies wanted to throw overboard a catastrophe -- the Czar's aristocratic Russia -- and they got a significantly worse catastrophe instead, as I sometimes like to say, i. e. they got the totalitarian Communism. But I would suggest -- suggest not claim -- that many societies have used religions as what would modernly be called downright mind control. That actually is something which I think would merit some sophisticated research into the human civilization and its history and evolution.
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Feb 2, 2013 17:52:34 GMT -5
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but his religion, I mean, ideology, is gone, while Christianity is still the biggest religion on Earth. But is Mormonism Christianity? The JW's? The Catholics? It all depends on who you ask.
-Don-
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Feb 2, 2013 17:58:09 GMT -5
So religion is not really a means of control. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger-Don Quoteman
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Mar 16, 2013 9:14:34 GMT -5
The UN has a report on how the middle class is rising in other countries, and it predicts that, by 2025, more than a billion households will be earning more than $20,000 per year. This is unprecedented in human history, and it's a trend that has been going since the end of WWII, when the African and Asian states threw off the shackles of European colonialism and, one after the other, took up the American Dream.
|
|