LOL. OK, I'll bite. In some way every government is a communism, and every government is a monarchy too. Also every government is a Ford Taurus. Therefore those bands you mentioned ran their governments by the system of Ford Taurus.
Documentary on Islam The Peaceful religion
#106
Posted 29 January 2008 - 07:25 PM
LOL. OK, I'll bite. In some way every government is a communism, and every government is a monarchy too. Also every government is a Ford Taurus. Therefore those bands you mentioned ran their governments by the system of Ford Taurus.
#107
Posted 30 January 2008 - 03:04 AM
Maybe you did maybe you didnt I dont care. Is Civs friend a war monger or a capitalist fuck whore is what Im asking here. And the reason Im asking it is to get you to admit that she, and most people, probably fall in between. Which I'm guessing is also the reason youre not answering.
Ok yeah teh def penalty is teh suxxor, great. But theres a difference between "you can sit quietely and watch your moms killer die" and "tickets on sale to public beheading at the riyadh national sports arena"
Wow theres the reaction I was looking for. The answer is no.
But religious rule puts money, power and influence into the hands of religious leaders and takes away power from the proletarian class. If that is the case, it takes money, power and influence away from the socialist government.
I explained that the communist manifesto had to oppose religion because the organized religions leadership is generally going to be for keeping the status quo. You then went on to say that they take money from the proletariat. Are you agreeing with me and bolstering my argument that communism has reason to be anti religious, and that said anti clericalism is not a major tenet of communism but a general rule for any change in society, or are you trying to argue against that and just doing a poor job?
Works for me.
OMG ROFL! CIVIL WAR! Look Grant was totally a drunkard and he sucked, and Lincoln molested me once. The south will rise again and stuff and they would have one anyhow if jackson had not got teamkilled lolz.
So anyhow the battle of Vicksburg sucked because a lot of people died, and then liek Sherman was all marching to the sea and stuff and he set fires and my dad says you are NOT supposed to play with fire and thats another reason the union sucked.
So they were all drunken people who molested children and set them o nfire maybe. And no one can say they werent because if they do THEYre probably interested in molesting drunken children who are on fire. Also this is completely on topic cuz you mentioned the civil war.
Quote
#108
Posted 30 January 2008 - 06:28 AM
How is every government communist or a monarchy?
A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded
I am an honorary Crogerse.
#110
Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:26 AM
#112
Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:17 AM
No, it was communalism. I never said it was communism.
The point I was making is that calling a government an oligarchy is pointless as MOST governments are indeed oligarchy, especially those with autocratic ideals. Now, I don’t remember calling communism an oligarchy but if you look at the history of Bolshevism I think you will see that Lenin clearly thought the USSR should be ruled as an oligarchy. All other communist and socialist governments around the world have used the Bolshevik example.
A Writing Guild For The Clinically Retarded
I am an honorary Crogerse.
#113
Posted 30 January 2008 - 02:30 PM
Communalism is another word from communism and they sound the same anyhow. I know you'll try to say you were implying the indians practiced communal living but werent communist, but youd be wrong. That was maybe a PART of their economic deal. It had nothing to do with government. And a society that hadnt developed currency isnt quite ready to be called capitalist or communist anyhow. Or communalist. Or capitalizationist.
Ah ok so now just all communist governments are oligarchies. Or self loathing capitalists who follow the current trend. I think Civ's postulation that they could be Ford Tauruses is nonsense but only because the idea that any government or person could fall into a third category is simply laughable.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 30 January 2008 - 02:32 PM
Quote
#114
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:47 PM
No, it was communalism. I never said it was communism.
The point I was making is that calling a government an oligarchy is pointless as MOST governments are indeed oligarchy, especially those with autocratic ideals. Now, I don’t remember calling communism an oligarchy but if you look at the history of Bolshevism I think you will see that Lenin clearly thought the USSR should be ruled as an oligarchy. All other communist and socialist governments around the world have used the Bolshevik example.
Gosh Snake, you're the sort of guy for whom the "no editing" rule was created. For the record, you never said they were communalist, and you never said they were communist either. You asked "Would you call the system of government the Iroquois, Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Tuscarora had was communism?" No one can make any sense of why you asked that (well actually I know why, but it's too silly to repeat), but that's what you did.
First: that's a terrible sentence, the final verb doesn't match any of the nouns. Typos are one thing (I make them all the time); having basic literacy is another (I have advanced literacy). Tone down the knee-jerk responses and try reading your own posts (I think you don't read your own posts).
Second: Don't go around accusing people of reading selectively and then responding blindly. You are taking this conversation wherever you want, most recently from the USSR to Spain to several Native American tribes to Cambodia. In the whole post I can find no point, only knee-jerk remarks intended to battle JM's points. If I can't find a coherent message to reply to and so choose to respond to this one bit of lunacy, you can ignore it or you can get into it with me. What you MAY NOT do is suggest that I don't understand you, or that I selectively responded to try to make you look stupid, or as you put it because I am too simple to understand your complicated (if incoherently communicated) mind.
Your post if you need me to comment on the whole thing went from: a claim that you had never accused the Muslims of being the only warmongerers, although you did earlier imply that pacifism in the West was a form of self-loathing; to a claim that North Americans entertain public executions (we don't); to a collapsing of decades of history of the Southern US to try to reduce JM's comments on the KKK (you failed); to a random question about Native Americans and whether they were communist; to an accusation that JM brought up communism in the first place, accompanied by the ludicrous suggestion that this is a "debate;" to the Spanish civil war (an effort to make a global comment on secular uprisings versus spirituality); to the Khmer and some other lateral argument you're having with JM. If you're surprised I didn't choose to reply to all of it, unsur-fucking-prise yourself. Those are several separate topics and your posts are starting to look like the early days of Usenet. I don't apologise for not responding in kind.
Back to what I did. I RESPONDED to your question, directly, which again is a far cry from "[reading] every second word and then [making] wild assumptions." If you want to keep up this nonsensical digression on "communalism" versus "communism," you need to acknowledge that neither describes the government systems of the tribes you mentioned. Living in longhouses like the Oneida doesn't define the group as "communal" any more than living in apartment buildings would do for us today. If it does, the all societies are "communialist" to some degree or another, and you can just fucking drop that word from your vocabulary altogether. Meanwhile, again to respond to your question, NO, they were not communist. Their governments were top-down; while suggestions and input would be welcomed from members of the tribe, the ruling group held sway. Typically this group would be made up of respected elders and the more successful warriors. And yes, in this limited sense their system of government was similar to our own. Every dissimilarity brings them closer to grass roots democracy, not to communism.
Then you said "Almost every government is an oligarchy to one degree or another." What makes theirs different from your dumbed-down idea of "oligarchy" (one that would include our own) is that there was NO ELECTION PROCESS. These guys were just appointed from within. The term "oligarchy," as you seem to suggest (if I bother to meet you more than halfway) is a very general and primitive term and can be used to describe government in general. Why we have more terms is that giovernment systems can be more specific. Like, a square is a rectangle, but you'd never call it that since the word "square" describes it more accurately. The government these guys had however was extremely primitive, and can only be called "oligarchy" because no more specific word, certainly not "communist" applies. Their government wasn't even a rectangle; maybe even "parallelogram" would be to give them too much credit. DOES THAT ANALOGY HELP?
Getting back to communism, you NOW say that you never said that communism was oligarchy ("almost all"), "but if you look at the history of Bolshevism I think you will see that Lenin clearly thought the USSR should be ruled as an oligarchy." Well ok. So you didn't say it then, but you're saying it now? Was it an oligarchy or not? Doesthis have anything to do with the point that you're making about there being only two types of people, Muslim warmongers and Westernised self-loathing Capitalists? Do oligarchies support or attack churches? Is communism at its heart a rule of atheism (try not to ignore JM's remarks about the political sway churches held in the turn of the century)?
Last: When you're done belabouring this point about what sort of government a series of unconnected Native tribes used, could you let us all know what general point you're trying to make? Because in case you didn't know what I was doing there with the Ford Taurus crack, I was making fun of your anything-goes style. It's not uncommon among trolls to just disagree with whatever the last post said, even if it's got nothing to do with their main argument, or in some cases if it's the very thing they themselves were arguing earlier (hence communism is oligarchy, no it's not, yes it is). If your goal is to be trollish until we ignore you, you're not going to succeed. As much as I love a spirited discourse on the merits of some Islam documentary, I much prefer punting a troll around. So, troll away.
#115
Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:51 PM
I'm sure you mean the Ford Pinto. Or is there something I should know about the Taurus?
#116
Posted 30 January 2008 - 09:06 PM
I like me some pinto beans and if you dont you probably dont have a soul. Discuss.
The NVA were supplied by China, USSR and North Korea. It had plenty of supplies. The Ho Chi Mihn trial could not be supervised by American forces and most NVA supplies ended up in the hands of VC. This is proven because of actions like the Tet Offensive. Since the bombing of Cambodia by your countrymen didn’t actually extend to all of Cambodia, I don’t think it actually helped or hindered the rise of the Khmer.
...
Wow. Technicly that sentence is true... But its still wrong. If it turns out you didnt think that Ho Chi Minh had a trial in the North and meant to say trail, its wrong because theres no way that the US could have supervised it seeing as it was a Viet Cong trail. Even if by supervised you meant "captured, blocked, or held" your sentence is so mind numblingly "duh" inducing as to be painful. The only thing I can assume that might add a hint of logic to your reasoning for saying that is that because the US didnt have weapons inspectors along the ho chi minh trial[sic] maybe they were using the trial to send weapons to the Khmer rouge. Or the saucer people. The fact that you point out that most of the weapons sent via the trial ended up in VC hands however negates the possibility of that argument unless you mistook VC for KR.
Still dont see how any of that had something to do with the rise of the Khmer. Ecept the last part. The US bombing enflamed nationalist sentiment and got the Khmer recruits. The problem with the Khmer is that they could not be supervised by American forces.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 30 January 2008 - 09:30 PM
Quote
#118
Posted 30 January 2008 - 09:37 PM
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 30 January 2008 - 09:38 PM
Quote
#119
Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:33 PM
This is not a direct attack to undermine you either, but honestly, debating with you is extremely painful. Most of your 'zing points' are totally non sequitur and only serve to derail the thread and/or confuse the boards.
The Ford Taurus comment was very apparent to me, but not to you. I dont know why, it was directed at you, and you didn't understand it? Saying all governments are sort of a like, or pardon me, SOME governments, a few governments, whatever.... Is on par with a Ford Taurus being similar to a Haida system of government because, fuck it, they both use animals as symbols or something.
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 30 January 2008 - 10:35 PM
#120
Posted 31 January 2008 - 04:36 AM
Its interesting that that quote comes from the same person who claims that Christian and Muslim communists dont know enough about the political system they follow.
I could give you a zillion reasons why thats completely wrong, but I wont bother because if I mention all the different ideas about revolution espoused by people like Trotsky, within two posts this debate will be about the best kind of Pickaxes to use in your commune.
This debate is maddeningly like a sinking ship, or more accurately a sinking sieve. Or more accurately a sinking sieve where we desperately try to plug up the numerous holes in it, and then you go and launch more sieves into the ocean in reply to each solution put forward to the fact that your argument is sinking.
"My sieve isnt full of holes, and to prove it look at this other sieve float! Go sieve go!"
I dont know what advice to give, but for now I think it might be best for all of us if you forgot all about the words "All" as in "all communist revolutions follow the soviet example" and "Most" as in "most people are either westerners or war mongers"
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 31 January 2008 - 04:44 AM
Quote