Your Political Perspective?

[EnterpriseE1701E]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

Any political theory person will tell you those were not communist, nor were they socialist.

[1714056795]

1714056795

[1714056795]

1714056795

[1714056795]

1714056795

[1714056795]

1714056795

[Basiley]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

[Basiley]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

Sorry for not making this clear-- the USSR wasn't socialist.

[Basiley]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

Sorry for not making this clear-- the USSR wasn't socialist.

sure, they are.
as well as Kambodia/DPRK/China&etc and US. just different branches. Stalinism and Trotskism, respectively.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

Sorry for not making this clear-- the USSR wasn't socialist.

sure, they are.
as well as Kambodia/DPRK/China&etc and US. just different branches. Stalinism and Trotskism, respectively.

Socialists need not be marxist in their analysis or politics.

And let me be clear-- Stalinists aren't what Marx had in mind. You only need a few things by him to realize that.

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

[Basiley]

To anyone that calls themselves a communist or socialist: Did the Soviet Union prove anything?

compare EU and USSR.
both are socialistic, but who succeed ?
and thats a point: implementation is matter, ideas don't.

They weren't socialist.

they are. from years before Marx born to present days.
UK for example, still called "most socialistic country after Soviet Union", probably forgeting China or they really more, nvm.
note: European "revolutions" happen AGES before Russian one.

Sorry for not making this clear-- the USSR wasn't socialist.

sure, they are.
as well as Kambodia/DPRK/China&etc and US. just different branches. Stalinism and Trotskism, respectively.

Socialists need not be marxist in their analysis or politics.

And let me be clear-- Stalinists aren't what Marx had in mind. You only need a few things by him to realize that.

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

socialist need to be told what they need and what not. they just exist, with you consent/approval or without. as most other things does.
sure, its hilarious. and false. sure, it may hurt. someone feelings/beleifs. for anyone uneducated, to understand what meant and/or look at situation/country more objective/critically.
US is plain and CLEAR manifestation of both Marxism and Trotskism. did you ever read "Manifesto", even once ? did you even read Trotsky strategy/management proposals ?
its CLEARLY implemented in US for 90% percent, both.

[myrkul]

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism.

Authoritarian? Check.
Nationalistic? Check.
Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though.
Socially interventionist? Check.
Militaristic? Check.
Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.)

5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism.

Authoritarian? Check.
Nationalistic? Check.
Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though.
Socially interventionist? Check.
Militaristic? Check.
Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.)

5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy.

All these conditions that you've laid forth are necessary conditions, but not all-in-all sufficient for a fascist state-- there's something missing, because most governments/nations would be considered these, but we acknowledge very few states as fascist states.

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

[Basiley]

you can call it whatever you want, like "[social-]democratic fascist states", or "peaceful and prosperous land of Oceania", but thats not matter.
and not change fact that's US is only one Evil empire, survived XX age and not destroyed, yet.

[myrkul]

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:

[Findeton]

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:

+1

[Basiley]

whats a pic ?
picnic in Guantanamo bay ?

Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.

Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism.

Authoritarian? Check.
Nationalistic? Check.
Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though.
Socially interventionist? Check.
Militaristic? Check.
Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.)

5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy.

thats why so many dances about "Fascism" definition.
acccording to some, its common euphemerism to to social-wide crimes against humanity.
against to rest[including Hitler himself], Fascism is branch is national-socialism. under exactly same red flag and under fame "Manifesto" of Marx and Feder.
who is right isn't matter. matter is lesson, learnt from WWII.
if someone had any, in which im doubt more and more, reading.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'll just leave this here:
https://moviereviewh2one2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/abu-ghraib-tm.jpg

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

[myrkul]

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.

Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.

[myrkul]

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily.

Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.

Someone should tell that to the government, then, 'cause they sure as hell are trying.

[Reikoku]

I'm a moderate classical liberal.

I have sympathies with libertarianism and objectivism, but I wouldn't say I have some of the more extreme viewpoints to push me to become an anarcho-capitalist. I do like the core tenets of voluntarism, and try to live that way myself.

I have an innate distrust of government and multinational corporations alike, and tend to trust only those which have demonstrably shown to be worthy of my trust. I believe the free market is a bit like Linux, it's great as long as you're intelligent enough to use all of its mechanisms (including charity and boycott) and not rely on government regulation, but most people have been brainwashed into thinking the answer is always more government, and it is this brainwashing which we need to undo.

[Perof]

I think the government mostly responds to the people.

If the people say kill and harass people browner than you....

...well it'd be sorta hard to argue with that now wouldn't it?