Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Communism, AFAIK, is pure all people get the same wages, completely democratic, and somewhat anarchic in the sense that it has no "Elite" Government; however the "government" that is there owns everything, all the land, etc.

Socialism is what I'm interested in as it's essentially a middle ground. It makes a lot of sense, and unlike communism, is workable and possible.

Rosalie - "Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
-Vladimir Iliych Lenin

One common misconception of the idea of Socialism in american eyes, thanks to mccarthyism, is that it is another word for fascism. This is far from the truth. Socialism would not function without democracy. Socialism is about the people and giving power to them.

In my experience though, socialism can be tricky, but does provide a lot for the people if used effectively. But, as with any governmental system, you have to be careful how much power you give the government.

Too much governmental control, you will have another Stalin or Mao on your hands (Mao used the labors of his people to further instill his cruel rule). I have talked to socialists in the past, and this one guy could give a care less about someone's pursuit to make a living in the arts, even if it is their skill. This guy wasn't the artistic type, mind you. So, I doubt his interpretation covered as much as it should have since he disenfranchised a lot of people by that statement alone.

Too little governmental control, and you will have a bunch of idiots trying to rewrite rules to their standards, achieve power due to nepotism and money (bush), and nobody to stop them from trying to destroy people's freedoms in their pursuit of greed, and corporations leeching off of the labors of the poor, and the rich and corporations running everything (i.e. halliburton).

What level of government are you speaking of?

The great thing about ideas is that they are exactly that. Ideas can be expanded upon and meshed with other ideologies. This is why I think that instilling elements of socialism in order to reform the world we live in would be brilliant. It would give everyone a fair chance.

_________________

yeah, i mean, personally i would like to see a "maximum wage" instituted, where nobody would be legally allowed to have an income above -X- and anything beyond that would be distributed to social services and charity and things by the government. the problem with that is that it would just encourage tax fraud and/or all the biggest earners to move out of the country. that's when the state has to make emigration illegal, and then you start sliding into totalitarianism.

which is why you need a relatively free market, but dashes of Socialism are really helpful to keep control of poverty and make sure everyone has sufficient health coverage, etc.

yeah, too bad he became a murderous despot as soon as he got into power, huh? the same exact thing would have happened to Trotsky too, if he'd had the chance.

That was Stalin. It was Stalin who had Trotsky killed. Sure, Lenin killed in the revolution (The Russian royal family), but Stalin was the one who started massacreing people left and right.

_________________

there's no question that Stalin was way, way worse than Lenin. but even besides having the Russian royal family executed, under Lenin the Communist government massacred and imprisoned tens of thousands of people for no real reason. that's not exactly a good humanitarian record.

Pretty much. For example, once the Bolsheviks won in the Russian Revolution, they began trying to purge religion from Russia with blood. Marxism-Leninism calls for an atheist state religion (probably better called a religious position), and the removal of all other religious thought from the state through force, propoganda, and so forth. It also called for controlling the non-atheist religions and manipulating them to better serve the state.

Russian Orthodoxy took it really hard, especially since it's a sect of Christianity native to Russia and thus easy to dominate and control--unlike, say, Roman Catholicism. Once the Bolsheviks were in power after the revolution, for example, a mass execution of Russian Orthodox preists and clergymen ... IIRC, several thousand were killed, and more were sent in exile. Attendants of Russian Orthodoxy were harrased and, I think, also exiled.

_________________

That's something that I completely and utterly disagreed with during the Bolshevik revolution. Sure, they made it so that the church had no power within the state, but they didn't need to eliminate relgion and spirituality as a whole. Look what happens when theocracy runs rampant. People of other faiths get disenfranchised and don't have equal say in comparison to other people. It's already happened in the United States. But, you don't need to eliminate religion and spirituality to prevent this. Just keep both church and state very separate. I always saw Leninism as far too authoritative. .

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Antonio Gramsci or Che Guevara. There are other theorists aside from the Soviets.

_________________

Funk Che Guevara. he had way more (mostly innocent) people executed than Bush ever did.

Bush never "executed" innocent people. He started a war that killed innocent people, don't spread hate (And watch your language).

_________________

no, i meant the executions that took place under his watch when he was Governor of Texas. the pro-Che people always seem to be anti-Bush and anti-capital punishment, but Che himself had hundreds of political prisoners executed in Cuba. he was basically in charge of the Cuban gulags. nobody ever mentions that.

Oh, sorry. I thought you went all left-wing nut job on me for a second.

Toastpaint.

_________________

heh, nope! sorry, i should have been more clear.

Before you completely condemn Guevara... can you name any revolution where innocent people weren't killed? Regardless of any political stance or governmental system... most revolutions usually end in bloodshed.

_________________

I'd call the Soviets atheocratic myself. They were theocrats, just atheist theocrats (if you can make sense of that!). Having state-funded atheist organizations like the society for godless workers that published newsletters about how science has disproved God and such ...

The United States isn't run by the Catholic Church, Deathly Pallor--or by any other church or religion. You can't call it a theocracy when there isn't a singular religious institution presiding over the government. Yes, we're a highly Christian coountry, and yes, much of the government's employees and officials are Christian, but they don't answer to a singular church. I don't think it's appropriate or fair to label our government theocratic when all that's really there is a common thread, not a singlular institution.

Bush doesn't lead some sort of American church, nor has the U.S. government ever claimed to be ruling on behalf of God (only that we're a nation UNDER God at the most, referring to the pledge).

Officially we're a secular nation, anyway. We don't even have an official state religion. It's just generally assumed that we do. Or that we have a Christian heritage (what happened to all our Deist founding fathers?) ... thank the Cold War for that one.

_________________

Not officially... but there is a hegemonic state of theocracy enacted in the United States. Generally, if you aren't an Christian, you are treated as a second class citizen and subject to scrutiny (I've faced it for too many years). I have met Muslims who get treated horribly here because of their faith alone (DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT JUSTIFYING THIS KIND OF SCRUTINY!!). And the arguements of the war, aside from the fattening of the wallets of those in power, are on the basis of religion. Even though the first amendment allows us to practice whatever religion we choose without incident, the scrutiny against Islam is proof of the negatives of the Bush regime and showing how he is literally torching the first amendment.

This country was not founded on the basis that there would be one main religion, officially stated or not.



He sort of is... the "Faith-Based" initiative!

Since he has been appointing his friends into high public office (such as John Roberts), there will possibly be too much of a merger between Christian ideal and American law. Most of the people who say there is no problem like this going on are mainly Christians. It's not hurting them, so what is there to notice?

Plus, the "Under God" line has only been in the pledge of allegiance since 1954. Since God, as many of the Christian right in this country are presenting it, is not an ambiguous statement for the main deity of a specific religion. On money, and even the transcript, it is written capital G God.. not little g god, meaning it is pertaining to a proper name. And what is the main deity's name in the bible? God.



You just contradicted yourself.



Deism has little to do with Christianity. It is the acknowledgement of a higher being (in some cases, God, but now always) but not following a set doctrine of faith. It's basically saying "Look, we were created by (insert deity here), they no longer have a hand in our fate. They gave us all that we need, so doctrine is meaningless." It is considered, at least by Benjamin Franklin, to be a more scientific view towards practicing religion.

If you know about the Treaty of Tripoli (written in 1796)... then you should know that this country WAS NOT founded on Christian religion.
Here is a quote:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen(Muslims); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Also, much of what Bush is pushing about the war goes against this. He's thrusting religion into it left and right (i.e. "God Bless America" this "Evil" that...), thusly breaking this treaty.

By these words, the government should not show favortism toward any religion. Who cares about "Christian heritage"? What's more important is the first amendment, separation of church and state, and freedom to practice whatever religion you feel like practicing without scrutiny. So thusly, what is happening with the Bush regime can be seen as unconstitutional, as well.

Especially him giving government money to christian private schools, which is crossing the boundary of Church and State. If he were to give (like the Bush family even knows that word) to non-denominational private schools... there'd be less of a problem... due to the fact there is not a specified religion within those schools.

_________________

Dude, did you even read my post? -_- Your reply looks like you glanced at it, picked out things to harp on, and go "LOLZ CONTRADICTION!" in reply. Your reply my post was using a straw man. (Hey, I think I'll invite him over too!)

I can also tell you completely ignored my post and just picked out a few things to harp on because you went "Lolz no, you're wrong and here's why" ...

So let's try this again, shall we? I'm going to list the definitions of several terms. Oh, and I'll use colors this time so it's easier for you--and I actually looked these terms up on Wikipedia, just in case you think I have them wrong.

STATE RELIGION - A religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. State religions are examples of the official or government-sanctioned establishment of religion, as distinct from theocracy.

An example of a country which has a state religion would be Finland. The Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox churches are sanctioned by the state.

THEOCRACY - A form of government where a religion and a country's government are one, to the point that some civil rulers are also leaders of the religion (an example would be the Byzantine emperor as head of the Church).

Government laws, statutes, and so forth are dictated entirely by what's kosher with the religion. Typically a theocracy will proclaim to rule on behalf of God. The government's administrative structure will resemble the religion's.

The only viable example of a theocracy in the modern world is the Vatican, as it is its own state.

SECULARISM - This has many meanings, but in the context of this discussion it refers to the concept of religion not influencing the affairs of the government, the exact opposite of a theocracy. The concept of seperation of church and state here in the United States is based on this concept where government secularism is concerned.

To wit, the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion, but also forbids laws being made that bans or restricts any religion.

Hey look! Mr. Straw Man decided to visit my post as well!

BUT TREV-MUN! YOU'RE STILL A HYPOCRITE! HORPLOVFFLEZ. I WIN!

Nope! Let me explain.

A country's government can officially be secular--that is, not allowing religion to officially influence the government--and yet its lawmakers and judges be religious. Secularism as it applies to the government does not mean the government's people have to be atheist or agnostic in order to hold their jobs. it is not a breach of secularism for a single congressman, a president, or judge to express his faith. I hardly consider a Muslim President saying "Allah bless America" to be a breach of secularism no more than I consider Bush or any of the other presidents before him saying "God bless America." It's a personal act of faith.

Something tells me that if you get all worked up over how Bush talks and intertwines his faith into his speech, you would have been popping golden bricks over Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't even Christian. Heck, you would have seriously been spasming if you visited that time period.

Will religious people be biased when making decisions or influenced by their religions? Yes, but so would atheists and agnostics. This sort of bias inherent in policymaking is why, during the Cold War era, our government opted to identify us as a nation of theism with laws that made "In God We Trust" a national motto and adding "Under God" to the national pledge--it was a symbolic move to make us diametrcially opposed to the the atheist Soviet Union.

Is it a breach of secularism, despite our secular state status, to include such things as being part of the government framework and icons of national identity? Yes, because it shows favor to a given area of religion (with Christianity in mind). But our nation is still founded on the principle of secularism and the need to treat all religions equal before the law.

BUT TREV-MUN! YOU DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND DEISM AND WTF WAS THAT ABOUT CHRISTIAN HERITAGE I DUNNO BUT YOU'RE WRONG ANYWAY. HORPLOVFFLEZ. I WIN!

It's funny how in previous dicussions and arguments I showed that I knew the definition of Deism, only to be told here that I don't know what I'm talking about. Heh!

You obviously didn't care to read and understand what I had said. All I can do is try and say it again more clearly. Hopefully.

This nation was founded by many different groups, okay? Many were seeking a place to worship freely as they saw fit. When the Enlightenment movement spread through the colonies, Deism was brought with it.

As I mentioned earlier, many of the founding fathers were Deists themselves. People who weren't even Christian (but still religious).

Now despite this, there are those who believe that the country has a "Christian heritage"--that is to say, they think that Christianity as a whole is pretty much a state religion (though it isn't). If you had taken the time to read my post you'll have noted I did not endorse this view.

I was pointing back to the colonial times to show that concepts of "our government should be unabashedly Christian because we have a Christian heritage" are flawed, not to mention violating the need to treat all religions equally. Alright? Do you understand now?

I hope you don't skip over this post. I'm going to burn Mr. Straw Man now, though. He's had his day inthe sun.

_________________

THANK YOU!!

oh man, i can't tell you how many people i've had to say this to.