11 Mar 16
Originally posted by whodeyHillary is a converted hillbilly. How she ever gets a pass for her inaction regarding Benghazi is beyond me, or a host of other slimy deals that tend to take the focus off the worst one.
Dims really want to elect Bernie cuz he's a socialist but can't seem to get passed the fact he is a Jew.
So I guess Hillary will win.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by normbenignThe powers that be are tired of empty suits.
Hillary is a converted hillbilly. How she ever gets a pass for her inaction regarding Benghazi is beyond me, or a host of other slimy deals that tend to take the focus off the worst one.
Now they want an empty dress.
Obama could have pulled it off if only he had the legs for it.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by normbenignWhat did you expect her to do, run to the defense of the ambassador, assault rifle in hand? Maybe she could have dodged some bullets like she did in the Balkans.
Hillary is a converted hillbilly. How she ever gets a pass for her inaction regarding Benghazi is beyond me, or a host of other slimy deals that tend to take the focus off the worst one.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by JS357No.
http://dbzer0.com/blog/misunderstanding-communism-its-not-ussr/
Quoting in entirety:
Overwhelmingly, most people’s understanding of what Communism is, comes from an extremely propagandistic presentation of the Soviet Union, generally by US right-wing sources. This would give you the idea that communism is supposed to be very authoritarian, rigidly collec ...[text shortened]... apitalism, where there is a monopoly or oligarchy with the military and police power to enforce.
The basis of communism is that the workers have control over production and an equal say in distribution.
The USSR was the exact opposite.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by JS357That's because you can't have communism without first having capitalism.
I know of no state that I would opine is now, or ever was, a communist state. A successful "communist revolution" seems always to leave a cadre in charge who has to operate as a dictatorship "for a while", and then can't quite ever stop being dictatorial, with the cause, and effect, being that the communist state never materializes.
I formed this opinion i ...[text shortened]... required to take in high school (it was propaganda a la J. Edgar Hoover) and it hasn't changed.
Capitalism evolves into communism (dialectical materialism), it's not an alternative.
The USSR and China never were capitalist.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by shavixmirSo what you are saying is, without capitalism, Marx is without a job.
That's because you can't have communism without first having capitalism.
Capitalism evolves into communism (dialectical materialism), it's not an alternative.
The USSR and China never were capitalist.
Interesting.
11 Mar 16
Originally posted by JS357If leaders were not corrupt, then communism would work fine.
I know of no state that I would opine is now, or ever was, a communist state. A successful "communist revolution" seems always to leave a cadre in charge who has to operate as a dictatorship "for a while", and then can't quite ever stop being dictatorial, with the cause, and effect, being that the communist state never materializes.
I formed this opinion i ...[text shortened]... required to take in high school (it was propaganda a la J. Edgar Hoover) and it hasn't changed.
But then again, if leaders were not corrupt, capitalism would work fine too. In fact, we could have kings and emperors and feudal lords, which would all work perfectly well if men were not corrupt.
All you're saying is that the USSR was not a true communist state because the leaders became corrupt. That's almost the same as saying the USSR was not a true communist state because gravity exists. If only you could find a group of people of absolute perfect moral fiber, then you could start a communist country and it would be utopia (but then, utopia would be easy to create under any system).
The problem with communism is it has an inherent fast track to dictatorship. In order to spread all wealth evenly, it requires an incredible amount of power concentrated in a few hands. Since corruption is inevitable, totalitarianism is inevitable with any society that has embraced communism.
Capitalism has its pros and cons, but at least it does not require all power concentrated in the hands of a few. It may tend to become more corrupt as time goes by, but communism almost by its very nature becomes extremely oppressive from the early days.
It is interesting that the OP tends to view all employment as a form of oppression. But there is a lot of freedom that comes from not owning the company you work for. You can quit and get a job somewhere else with no fanfare. If one employer is exploiting you, you can quit and work somewhere else. Sometimes that's not easy, but it is a whole lot easier in a capitalist system to change employers than it is in a communist system to change leadership. To me, the employee-employer relationship is generally a "win-win" and I can't understand why it is so often viewed as an unfavorable arrangement.