Hammer and Sickle=Swastika? Yes.

[Traitorfish]

And Reagan never claimed to support the contras. It was his administartion, NOT HIM, although he did calim that it was his adminstration, and honorably accepted responsibility. And I might be naive here, but I implicitly trust the Great Reagan.

Who the hell claim cares what he claimed? His administration funded the Contras, and that alone has ensured him a permanent spot in hell. His other crimes aside, that makes him a monster in my book.
It's odd that a person who uses the term "Great Reagan" would so despise "communists" for their percieved anti-individualism. Actually, it's painfully predictable, but you know what I mean.
I have a new definition for the "What do Liberal/Conservative mean to you?" topic: Conservative- Utterly immune to irony.

 

[Azash]

Something isn't evil because your views conflict with it, Emperor2.

 

[Emperor2]

"What do Liberal/Conservative mean to you?" topic: Conservative- Utterly immune to irony.

You want to talk about Irony? Okay. Lets quote, word for word, the first preface to "Das Kapital" (my translation)

"...Assuming the reader wants to learn something new, and is willing to think for himself,..." -Karl Marx, the founder of Communism.

Something isn't evil because your views conflict with it, Emperor2

No, but it conflicts with human rights, nature, and life. That is what makes it evil, not the fact that I don't agree with it.

 

[Traitorfish]

You want to talk about Irony? Okay. Lets quote, word for word, the first preface to "Das Kapital" (my translation)

"...Assuming the reader wants to learn something new, and is willing to think for himself,..." -Karl Marx, the founder of Communism.

Maybe that is ironic, maybe it's not. But, either way, you're lynching Negroes.
Ad hominem tu quoque, Emperor. Look it up.

No, but it conflicts with human rights, nature, and life. That is what makes it evil, not the fact that I don't agree with it.

Care to explain how? And when I say "explain", I mean with reason, logics and intelligent arguments, not with hyperbole, fallacies and emotive arguments, as you are so unfortunately prone to do.

 

[kulade]

No, but it conflicts with human rights, nature, and life. That is what makes it evil, not the fact that I don't agree with it.

This was said right after neglecting to respond to an argument about the Contras. That's right, push it out of mind and keep on chuggin'.

You're adorable Emperor, but hey, we were all once 14 and though we knew everything about politics, there is no shame in that.

But if i may throw my hat into the argument, although myself am not one of those "evil commies," I can't say they are as evil as you say. In politics its important to consider not what is "good" or "bad" but what works well or not. But if you really are looking for a infinitely benevolent kind of government, you should certainly reevaluate your position, instead of clinging to your own government by birth like an uber-patriot.

 

[Traitorfish]

This was said right after neglecting to respond to an argument about the Contras. That's right, push it out of mind and keep on chuggin'.

Emperor's problem is that he is trying to justify a system as it exists, rather than arguing in favour of a system as it should be. This will inevitably lead to the embracing of hypocritical arguments, as the need to justify it's own existence becomes the system's primary objective, even to the point where it's original intentions run contrary to this. In this case, Emperor defends a system which supposedly grants freedom, but is willing to defend oppression and murder so that the system may be justified in it's continuing existence.
The true idealist never accepts the world as it is, he always challenges the system- any system- to defend it's existence. When one defends the system one becomes a servant to it, rather than it serving you- something all the more ironic when it is a system which is supposed to bring "freedom".

[edit: Okay, this get's a little pretentious near the end, but it's still a valid point.]

 

[kulade]

Many have gone through his stage, he'll grow up, hopefully.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I didn't have the energy to read through 200+ posts but I have to say I half agree with what Emperor2 originally posted. The Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle are both symbols and symbols cannot be evil although what they represent can be. But the only reason why the Swastika is universally vilified and even banned while the Hammer and Sickle isn't is because of the irrational emotions of easily manipulated people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Something isn't evil because your views conflict with it, Emperor2.

Quiet down over there, Lucifer, you're ruining his delusions.

 

[West 36]

May I point out that "communo-fascism" doesn't make sense, and is in fact an oxymoron? Actually, I'm sure it can be preverted as such, but thats not the kind Marx was talking about. These two groups HATE each other.
Also, you love democracy, so do I! And democracy can in fact exist in a communist society.

 

[MT5678]

Most Certainly.
Trotsky was always a supporter of democratic rights.
Perhaps would would have democracy in a communist country if communism came to countries that weren't autocratic or puppet states.
But the conditions that engender the class struggle are ones of repression.
It looks like we will have to wait and see the next great communist experiment. Perhaps it may give us new insights.

 

[West 36]

Most Certainly.
Trotsky was always a supporter of democratic rights.
Perhaps would would have democracy in a communist country if communism came to countries that weren't autocratic or puppet states.
But the conditions that engender the class struggle are ones of repression.
It looks like we will have to wait and see the next great communist experiment. Perhaps it may give us new insights.

If America doesn't attack it first for no reason but its 'interests' (sure loves that money!) even if those interests support oppression. That or constant spamming by emperor2. I do hope that future revolts, or just changes for that matter, can give us a look at a, at least less so, corrupted government.
BTW, the assassination of Trotsky should show how un-commie Stalin was.

 

[Azash]

No, but it conflicts with human rights, nature, and life. That is what makes it evil, not the fact that I don't agree with it.

If it conflicts with human rights, nature, and life, then it's illegal, environmentally destructive or restrictive/deadly (depends on what you mean by "life"). There's nothing evil involved.

 

[MT5678]

Hey West 36: (I would send you a private message, but I don't know how)
Where would you place yourself on a political spectrum?
Just asking

 

[West 36]

I'd be more than happy to answer, I've actually said it in some places, I have, after extensive (extensive in my book is probably less than most) research put myself to identify with Democratic Socialism. Just makes sense to me. Plus George Orwell was one, and he is awesome. Though to be deeper, my utopia is Anarchy, but I don't see a true, pure form of that working, and after reading about some Native American societies, I've wanted to learn more of them, they seemed so effective, peaceful, and down to earth (plus: NO COPS!) so that may change. I can't say that I agree 100% with anything particular though, but that should be the same with everyone.
Again, Democratic Socialst. GET SOME. Anyone else near this end of the spectrum?
MT5678, how about yourself?

 

[Urederra]

That would be the problem, soviet backed, and as I've said, thats not true communism.

One thing is for sure, soviet regime wasn't capitalist. And for the records, they defined themselves as communists, they abolished the private property of the means of production, they pretty much killed anybody with high profile that were against them. Communists by definition, I would say.

China's communism and Cuba's communism weren't backed by the soviets and yet they were as bloody and failure as the soviet ones, so, How many millions of deaths do you need to say, OK, enough with communist experiments?

And what's next, saying that Hitler wasn't socialist despite Nazi is short for National Socialism?

And I hope I don't have to apply the Badwyn law.

Spoiler :

The Badwyn law says that anybody who mentions the Godwyn law automatically loses the thread

 

[West 36]

One thing is for sure, soviet regime wasn't capitalist. And for the records, they defined themselves as communists, they abolished the private property of the means of production, they pretty much killed anybody with high profile that were against them. Communists by definition, I would say.

China's communism and Cuba's communism weren't backed by the soviets and yet they were as bloody and failure as the soviet ones, so, How many millions of deaths do you need to say, OK, enough with communist experiments?

And what's next, saying that Hitler wasn't socialist despite Nazi is short for National Socialism?

And I hope I don't have to apply the Badwyn law.

Spoiler :

The Badwyn law says that anybody who mentions the Godwyn law automatically loses the thread

Eh, I can't agree with that entirely, and still, to me anyway, that wasn't the whole 'communist' ideal that would exist in a more perfect world. I just think that the revolutions led were either led by corrupted people or then later corrupted. But then again, I'm defending communism despite the fact I'm not one..
Shall we discuss national socialsm now?

 

[Urederra]

I'm defending communism despite the fact I'm not one..
Shall we discuss national socialsm now?

Nope... Let's keep it that way.

 

[Godwynn]

Spoiler :

The Badwyn law says that anybody who mentions the Godwyn law automatically loses the thread

Damnit, it's Godwin people. G-o-d-w-i-n

 

[West 36]

Nope... Let's keep it that way.

Sure! Two questions for you, good sir:
1. Is that anyone in particular as your avatar?
2. If I may, where are you on the political spectrum?

and for extra credit:
by your location, do you mean you're on the moon?

Moderator Action: Take it to a pm, this is not a chat room.