Does anyone know where I could find a complete edition of the Communist Manifesto online?no libraries around have it.

Try "ILovePenis.com"

Did you really put up "pro-COmmunist" locker shit at your school and THEN, a month later, begin your search for the Communist Manifesto? No one likes you, do they?

hahahahahaha

You sad fuck. Do you realize then any communist leader would have you killed simply because of your counter-revolutionary attitude?
http://www.marx2mao.org/M&E/CM47.html#s1

Who are you talking to?

You filthy cpitalist swines. What's your problem with Communism anyway? capitalism isn't any better that Communism, if any worse.

XeNo,

If you are correct, why has communism failed everywhere it was tried?

Nox

I haven't seen pure capitalism or communism in place anywhere in any government.

Also, it's hard to use the whole "communism has always failed" arguement when your government was trying it's very hardest to MAKE SURE it failed in any country that tried it during the cold war through covert CIA actions.

As long as our government gives out corporate welfare and uses tax dollars to bail out companies that get into trouble, I will never call America a capitalist country. It's oligarchy.

Mouse,

You defined away the meaning of my post when you use the word "pure".

The only forms of pure communism are very low scale. These "communities" would technically be government, but in reality (global scale), not true. Regardless, those communities also failed. The literature I have read points out that the failure was not a failure of theory, but a failure of human nature. The participants (as a group) wanted to get more, than they gave.

Big sermon to get to my point...I stand by my previous post.

Nox

That was directed at Mansonite.

You'll get yours when you preach fascism, but currently this idiot warrants all the negative attention.

But Nox, you didn't reply to the fact that where ever a type of socialism was even attempted in some countries during the cold war, we made sure that they failed by purposely fucking with them. So how will we know if they might have worked or not had we never messed with them?

Don't forget that nowdays socialism is quite dominant in most of the leading countries with the exception of the United States.

I don't wanna speculate about the success of the marxist-leninist System if only it hadn't been recieved with such strong pressure from the Western World, but I do know that there's a strong world-wide trend towards socialism.

isn't it funny how socialism was the middle ground, and now its an extreme. the state is slowly narrowing our horizons of alternative. communisim 30 years ago was a real alternative, now its so stupid its not even a consideration, how long until socialisim is a unworkable idea prepetuated by madmen and future dictators?

how long until we don't have any alternatives at all?

Mouse,

Totally true that I didn't mention Socialism. As both of us know Communism does not equal Socialism which makes Socialism a different topic.

However, because I have mixed feelings about Socialism (both theory and practice), I'd rather respond to specifics instead of the generalities (because of the nuances associated with the multiple varieties practiced).

Nox

The whole world was hostile to Fascism and it worked. What good is an idea if it cant survive reality?

Fascism worked?

Yes. Fascist countries managed internal affairs beautifully, with minimal loss of life as compared to Communist regimes, and with a more supportive, better represented populace. It lost a war, it didnt collapse like Communism always did and will.

If you have to compare a system to Communism to prove it works in practice, it proves how bad the system is.

Fascism failed because the leaders failed, just as Communism failed because the Party failed.

Spirit,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only Facist countries were Spain and Italy. In both cases, the ideology lasted only as long as the leader remained alive.

Same is true of Tito's variety of communism.

Nox

Communism failed because people don't wanna work without incentive. Most people don't tend to enjoy giving up their identity and individual characteristic to maintain a purist communal lifestyle. Communism failed at the same time and for the same reasons the world grew secular. Idealism may inspire some young revolutionaries, but it won't produce crops.

Fascism failed because the entire world hated it, including the people it's systems governed. Mussolini was hung and his body torched. He was only respected by the populace at the very beginning, and he convinced the people that he'd be as good a leader as he is an orrator. Eventually people realized that no matter how much security a totalitarian government offers, they don't appreciate being thrown in jail for having opinions.

Tito's communism failed because Yugoslavia was completely independent of the USSR, so nobody gave the party financial support.

HP, socialism doesn't dominate the majority of the world. Actually, there isn't a single socialist country in existence.

Tito's communism failed because Tito died, he was the one thing that the system needed to survive; a genuinly altruistic leader with a shrewd leadership ability.

Hey I'm from Jugoslavia. Tito used to RULE man. But after he died nationalism bacame very strong and hatred began to rise between the diffrent ethnic groups (serbs, bosnians, etc). Tito could tolorate very much but he didn't tolorate nationalism. So if a serb or kroat or whatever started bullshitin about his how great he is and shit, he would get the deathsentence. That was the only fucked up thing about Jugoslavia. But then agian this is what kept the nation on it's feet. When he died, people voted for idiotic nationalist leaders (fuckin warcriminals). A war was inevitable.

So when Jugoslavia was a communist state it was one of the most powerfull countries of Europe. Now we live in democracy and it's totaly fucked up. 11 years and 4 wars shurley did their work. If you'd ask me, it would have been better if the comunism remaind. But then agian that couldn't have been possible. Amerika had to 'secure' the balcans for it's own interests (OIL). The bombing of serbia had nothing to do with Milosevic. It was geo-politics. The balcans are a very strategical place in Europe. So if we remaind a communist state we would have probably gone to war with Amerika (like Vietnam). Or maybe I'm wrong. Since the USSR lost it's power there wouldn't have been a reason for war. Afther Tito died the elections were probably rigged and 'someone' made sure that the idiots came to power. The war I Jugoslavia was probably set up by some 'power'.

That's at least what I think.

quote:

---

HP, socialism doesn't dominate the majority of the world.

---

I don't know about the majority of the world since i'm not very familiar with the political structure of all 192 independant states, but I do know that the Western World has adopted many of the policies advocated by socialists.

XeNo,

We could start a whole topic on the Balkans. You and I would probably agree about most items.

I did not demean Tito. I'm am totally impressed with how he held the Balkans together and maintained independence from the "Evil Empire".

I do not agree with the point when you said the US got involved because of Oil. However much oil we get from the Balkans would never justify the treasure we have spent being there.

The European COWARDS, and I mean COWARDS, refused to prevent genocide in their own back yard. We entered they fray and should not have. Yes, Euorpeans were there, but in point of fact, 0 (Zero) Americans should have been there.

Also, I don't think nationalism "became very strong" all of a sudden. I think that nationalism (maybe latent nationalism) has been there since long before Gavrilo Princep.

I'm preaching, I'll stop.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:

The European COWARDS, and I mean COWARDS, refused to prevent genocide in their own back yard. We entered they fray and should not have. Yes, Euorpeans were there, but in point of fact, 0 (Zero) Americans should have been there.

Also, I don't think nationalism "became very strong" all of a sudden. I think that nationalism (maybe latent nationalism) has been there since long before Gavrilo Princep.


Nox

---

You're right. The Dutch did nothing in srebrenica. I'm not saiyng they killed those peolple, but it was their responsability to make shure they didn't get killed.

You're also right about the nationalism issue. This was cooking up ever since the Turks invadaded that region. The serbs, the croats and the muslims never were able to live together. Tito was only able to hold them appart for a while. They were slaughtering each other in WWI as well as in WWII.


[This message has been edited by XeNobiTe (edited 04-21-2002).]

Nox, what you're saying is that America shouldn't intervene in a conflict which doesn't concern them, but Western Europeans are cowards for not intervening enough in a conflict that doesn't concern them.

I think actually what hes saying is, Its the worlds responsibility to help Jewish people. LoL ah-ha


>>>>Fascism failed because the entire world hated it, including the people it's systems governed.<<<<

No it didnt. It lost a war.

>>> Mussolini was hung and his body torched.<<<<

He was hanged. I dont think he mentioned his endowments in his autobiography.
Communists hanged him. Communists are not his people, I HATE that sad and tiring, absolutely incorrect judgement that the people did that to him. Communists, who until the Allies landed spent their years in a dungeon, got their hands on him and strung him up. Not the people of Italy. Again, while leaving Italy he was stopped by an Allied blockade, Communists through and through, and was hanged.

>>>>> He was only respected by the populace at the very beginning, and he convinced the people that he'd be as good a leader as he is an orrator. Eventually people realized that no matter how much security a totalitarian government offers, they don't appreciate being thrown in jail for having opinions.<<<<<

Unless the opinion was, Isnt squatting in our own filth and being useless wonderful, that tended not to happen.

HP, socialism is a system where the government controls all corperations, but allows and regulates independent buying and selling. Not a single country in the world has adopted this.

What he is actually saying is, "The United States is not the world's policemen". We can and should get involved, selectively. The COWARDLY Europeans, were watching fellow Europeans get slaughtered while they sat on their asses waiting for people on the other side of the pond to solve their problem. Not only are they COWARDS, they are HYPOCRITS. They refuse to do anything and then complain (I wanted to say BITCH) but I'm trying to be polite) about what and how we do it.

As far as the Israel comment, Let us remember that great "American", Lord Balfour, who set the whole middle eastern map up.

Nox

Since when did Americans have Lords? Isnt he British?

>>>>The COWARDLY Europeans, were watching fellow Europeans get slaughtered<<<<

First of all, they werent watchng anything. No one even heard the word Holocaust until the 70s or so. More importantly, it was only Jews, and Europeans didnt care. It was not a question of cowardice or bravery, just not giving a fuck. Most Europeans fought valiantly once their own countries were involved.

>>>>while they sat on their asses waiting for people on the other side of the pond to solve their problem.<<<<<

Fighting in the war is sitting on your ass?

>>>>Not only are they COWARDS, they are HYPOCRITS.<<<<

No theyre not. They never said it was any countries duty anywhere to help people who are not their own citizens.

>>>>They refuse to do anything and then complain (I wanted to say BITCH) but I'm trying to be polite) about what and how we do it.<<<<<

Are you still talking about World War II? I dont see how anymore.

Spirit,

Take a deep breath. I was responding to XeNo not you.

Can't you tell sarcasm when you see it? Of course Lord Balfour was a Brit. The Brits carved up the Middle East, then went home. We helped pull in the slack, we didn't create it.

Don't forget the Gypsies when you're talking about WWII exterminations. And, by way, no one gave them a homeland!

Nox

OK, I still haven't established why Europeans are "cowards" for not intervening in the Balkans, in a war and genocide that concerned them no more than Americans.
Western Europe is a long way from the Balkans, not as far as America, but faraway enough for it not to affect us. (Balkan conflicts have affected Western Europe in the past but precisely because Western Europe got involved).

I can't see how it is possible for you to argue that it is not the role of America to police the globe (a point on which I agree, although they should avoid complete political isolationism) and yet accuse European states of cowardice for not policing other countries enough themseves.

Public education does a bad job at depicting the world and the relationship of nations, so kids tend to think of Europe as one body, Asia as one, the Arabs as one unit, etc etc, and typically do not realize that there is as much difference between France and Germany as there is between Mexico and US. Its hard for the dull to imagine a world where Europe is a lot of seperate nations, not one big one. We can thank the slant of Messer's ilk for that.

FuckOff...,

I wrote this yesterday but couldn't put it on:

I fully understand the political sensitivities involved in this topic.

I have spent time investigating what I consider history's most senseless slaughter (not implying that most wars don't make sense), called World War I. I find it amazing that whenever sparks start flying in that tinderbox (the Balkans), that the entire mass of Western Civilization doesn't rise up, especially Europe.

I'm trying to tread lightly with this next comment, but the truth hurts. I have been to multiple British villages, and the common denominator of each is the World War I monuments to the dead. Those monuments nearly brought tears to my eyes. I never knew either these lads, nor their antecedents, but the emotion was still there. Worse yet, the very smallness of these villages emphasized the magnitude of the loss of that many men. What happened to the women and families?

I won't repeat Santayana's quote, but people must learn from history. O yes, Europeans got involved, the unusable fields of Flanders- show that- lest anyone forget.

Involvement doesn't just mean referees keeping the sides apart. How about a real solution. No, I don't have the answers. The only thing I know is that we know what doesn't work (Princep, Milosovich). How about looking at why Tito succeeded. Not just initially (common enemy), but post war.

So why are they COWARDS? Because they are doing nothing to prevent act II of WWI.

I am anticipating possible responses:

1. The British militarys' regimental system

2. European Mobilization after the assassination

3. Others........

But regardless of what else caused/contributed to WWI, the initial cause was Balkan nationalism...which is alive and well today.

Nox

Asking Western Europe to stamp out Balkan nationalism is like asking America to stamp out Muslim fundamentalism.

It's virtually impossible to do so, and intervention almost invariably exarbercates the problems.

Tito succeeded because of his repressive regime. Whether you consider his hardline anti-nationalist measures are justified or not, it certainly isn't the role of the West to impose such a system on the Balkan nations.

Have you been to Ieper (Flanders)? ALOT of english soldiers died there in WW I. There are alot of monuments there.

Gavrilo Princep didn't start WW I. He didn't assasinated ferdinand to start WW I. But to free Jugoslavie from that Austrian-Hungary grasp. In my eyes he's a hero. Milosevic on the other hand is a traitor. Most serbs never supported him. Only those old faggot ass nationalists loves him for no reason. But they never were able to see the fact that they didn't have anything to eat becasue of him. Nationalism is worse that rasism. Nationalsm actually leads to rasism in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:


HP, socialism doesn't dominate the majority of the world. Actually, there isn't a single socialist country in existence.

---

North Korea, and it currently looks like Portugal will become one

North Korea isn't socialist. They have that dictator (Kim Jong II) that sits around watching movies all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XeNobiTe:
Have you been to Ieper (Flanders)? ALOT of english soldiers died there in WW I. There are alot of monuments there.

Gavrilo Princep didn't start WW I. He didn't assasinated ferdinand to start WW I. But to free Jugoslavie from that Austrian-Hungary grasp. In my eyes he's a hero. Milosevic on the other hand is a traitor. Most serbs never supported him. Only those old faggot ass nationalists loves him for no reason. But they never were able to see the fact that they didn't have anything to eat becasue of him. Nationalism is worse that rasism. Nationalsm actually leads to rasism in the first place.

---

No, I have not been to Ieper (Some spell it Yepers) the site of the first use of poison gas. The thing I like about that story (in a sick humor sort of way) is that the Germans had successfully used the wind to spread the gas (chlorine) the first time. Unfortunately for them, the second time they tried it, the wind changed directions.

I agree, Gavrilo was not trying to start WWI. That wasn't my point. Whether it was his intention or not, the World War did start through a chain reaction of events he started. As far as him being a hero, from what I understand, Emperor Maximillian (of Austria) hated Ferdinands guts and was just as happy to see him gone. Unfortunately, it was a commoner who did the deed, forcing Maximillian to respond.

Nationalism- I agree.

Nox

I never suggested that pure socialism existed. I just said that many countries are on a socialist (economicly) trend.

quote:

---

socialism is a system where the government controls all corperations, but allows and regulates independent buying and selling.

---

No, that's just a method.

Economic Socialism is about equal distribution of wealth among people. Many States, even the more righ-winged ones, attempt to give something to the poorer population.

Socialism is Communism without balls. The ideals are exactly the same, but Socialists are afraid to scare sane people who know Communism is sad, so they dont throw bombs or force famines on peasants, bingo, socialism.

Socialism is the first phaze of Communism. It's merely a state with government controlled economy, yet there's still independent production and an imposed bureacrasy. Real communism is a classless society wear wealth is evenly shared, like an economic utopia.

Communist countries are socialist countries that plan on achieving communism, and instate a one party system. Socialist countries merely control the state. Communism is socialism with utopian ideology.

No socialism is a state in which the government controls some of the means of production, In communism the state controls all the means of production. I oppose both of these economic systems.

You're wrong. Socialism by defintion is government control of all the means of production, merely with multiple political parties and a centralized democracy. Technically, all countries that call themselves communist are socialist.

Where the hell did that come from?

Youre arguing semantics anyway. If you talked to a good Catholic in the 15th century, hed say The Papal States were governed by a system from Heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ mercifully chose a mortal to speak for him and rule as the infallible law on the omnipotent throne of the Eternal City. Someone else would just call it a theocratic dictatorship. Call it whatever you want, it sucks, doesnt work, and even looks shitty on paper.

It looks shitty on paper, is the most hypocritcal political belief ever (they actually claim to be against religion) and has never worked, yet the economic reforms it advocates CAN work, and SHOULD work. That's why I reluctantly call myself a socialist. The whole dogmatic ideology is pathetic, but nationalizing corperations is still ultimately very beneficial to the people.

If only you can do it without completely robbing everyone of their identity.

alright I refer to European, Aka, state socialism

nasty fingers youre talking about utopian socialism

Hp youre talking about transitional socialism.

The latter two are generaly covered under the definition of communism.

>>>It looks shitty on paper, is the most hypocritcal political belief ever (they actually claim to be against religion) and has never worked, yet the economic reforms it advocates CAN work, and SHOULD work.<<<<

...so it never works, is inherently flawed and hypocritical, but damnit the economy will WORK DAMNIT! LoL you sound like a retard, what is your problem? Nationalising corporations isnt communist anyway dumbass, the people are supposed to directly own production, not the government speaking for the people.

I'm not referring to Communism. I'm referring to Socialism. This is like arguing about the alphabet. Nationalizing corperations is socialist. Collectivising farming is socialist, which I support. I merely said that governments that call themselves Communist have ideas for economic reform which can be beneficial.