All such utopian clap trap is based on a flawed premise, the premise that men are basically like the ends of which they dream, and are just being held back by dictators, nationalism, religion, money, or some other worldly consideration.  That's wrong.  That is not human nature.  Human nature is greedy, selfish, prone to hero worship, prideful, and yes, violent.  That is why communism, socialism, collectivism, etc. will never work.  Men want to keep what's theirs, and would even like to get a little of someone else's.  That's human nature.  The only men who push the utopian idea are hopeless dreamers, and those who thing there's something in it for them personally.

Quote from: Dr_Watt on June 16, 2012, 07:15:39 AM
You do know that Thomas Moore's "Utopia" is commonly misinterpreted as a blueprint for an ideal society when, in all actuality it was a satire of England, don't you? Also, the word itself is commonly translated from the Greek wrong. Many people think it means "Good Place" when it really means "No Place".

That's great trivia, but the etymology is meaningless.

Quote
Long story short, Utopia is unachievable

...I never denied this.

Quotein that the measures needed to create such a society would bring about its destruction. In that respect, it is not unlike Communism in that Communism promotes an all powerful militarized State to bring about the Communist society. Once the society is established, the all powerful militarized government is supposed to just disband itself.

The main sources behind the vast expanses of human destruction in communist nations such as the USSR actually more nearly resemble the Patriot Act than, say, seatbelt driving laws.  Why conservatives support banning prostitution, porn and authorizing indefinite detainment without trial, yet think penalizing people for not wearing their seatbelts and giving welfare is a path to tyranny, has always eluded me.

Quote
Of course the problem with that Marxist ideal once people obtain power, they are loath to give it up. Or as Lord Acton put it, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely..."

1. See above.  Forcing big business to check imported children's toys for lead poisoning is perceived as tyranny, yet secretly monitoring people's phone conversation is perfectly justified. 

2. Just because an extreme surrendering of power to the government results in tyranny doesn't mean that you shouldn't give it any power at all, no matter how logical.  That plenty of nations have stricter government regulations and higher taxes than we do, while remaining free nations, is proof of this.

Quote
Science and "progress" can only thrive when they are free of governmental interference.

Plenty of scientific and social advances come with government "interference".  The battle of polio was subsidized with heavy government funding.  Jim crow was ended with government activism.

QuoteWhen scientist are feeding at the trough of government, they can only "progress" in the direction which the government wants them to go. Politics and science don't mix.

Which does not explain the push for science teachers to teach children creationism for purely political-religious reasons.

Quote
You do realize that it was the non aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin which allowed Hitler to invade, Poland, the Netherland and France - effectively starting WWII, don't you?

You do realize that the allied leaders were shocked by this move, because Hitler hated communism with a passion, murdered thousands of them in concentration camps, and outlined his "surprise" attack on Russia in the Mein Kampf, right?

Quote
Communism and NAZIsm were and are two sides of the same coin.

You could argue that they end up being the same, but communism is radical, while nazism is reactionary.  The difference is that plenty of communists were noble men with the good of humanity in mind, while all nazis were evil bastards.  Communism is ineffective; nazism is just fucking evil.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 01:29:49 PM

You could argue that they end up being the same, but communism is radical, while nazism is reactionary.  The difference is that plenty of communists were noble men with the good of humanity in mind, while all nazis were evil bastards.  Communism is ineffective; nazism is just fucking evil.

Seriously? "Plenty"? A handful, maybe even "some", but certainly not "plenty". At least they never made it to important positions, anyway.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 01:54:11 PM
Seriously? "Plenty"? A handful, maybe even "some", but certainly not "plenty".

The Beatles, Marx himself, maybe even Lenin.  If we stretch the subject and include socialism (most conservatives haven't the slightest clue that there exists a difference), we can include Albert Einstein as well.

EDIT: include Jesus in that mix.

Quote
At least they never made it to important positions, anyway.

Of course not.  Just like how few noble men become big bankers; a certain type of person tends to gravitate towards undemocratic positions of power, and although there are exceptions, they certainly are not the rule.

Quote from: VegasGeorge on June 16, 2012, 03:25:39 PM
All such utopian clap trap is based on a flawed premise, the premise that men are basically like the ends of which they dream, and are just being held back by dictators, nationalism, religion, money, or some other worldly consideration.  That's wrong.  That is not human nature.  Human nature is greedy, selfish, prone to hero worship, prideful, and yes, violent.  That is why communism, socialism, collectivism, etc. will never work.  Men want to keep what's theirs, and would even like to get a little of someone else's.  That's human nature.  The only men who push the utopian idea are hopeless dreamers, and those who thing there's something in it for them personally.

Actually, your premise would justify a social liberal democracy; ie, a regulated free market.  Libertarianism/lazze faire and communism are equally reliant on human nobility.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 01:57:30 PM
The Beatles, Marx himself, maybe even Lenin.  If we stretch the subject and include socialism (most conservatives haven't the slightest clue that there exists a difference), we can include Albert Einstein as well.

The Beatles were, at most, idealistic anarchists, and at least, far-left liberals. The song "Revolution" was quite critical of communism.

Marx was a deadbeat baby-daddy. Essentially, his life foreshadowed his ideology: screw the working class while claiming to support them.

Lenin? Are you f***ing kidding me? The man was a mass murderer! Surely you don't think ordering the slaughter of an entire family is a "noble" act?

Quote
EDIT: include Jesus in that mix.

I will not. He said that His Kingdom is not part of this world.

Quote
Of course not.  Just like how few noble men become big bankers; a certain type of person tends to gravitate towards undemocratic positions of power, and although there are exceptions, they certainly are not the rule.

Something about communism tends to lead to this type of outcome, overwhelmingly so.

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 30, 2012, 05:19:22 PM
The Beatles were, at most, idealistic anarchists, and at least, far-left liberals. The song "Revolution" was quite critical of communism.

I dunno.  "Imagine" no possession...

Quote
Marx was a deadbeat baby-daddy. Essentially, his life foreshadowed his ideology: screw the working class while claiming to support them.

Yes, but he wasn't a mass murderer himself.

Quote
Lenin? Are you f***ing kidding me? The man was a mass murderer! Surely you don't think ordering the slaughter of an entire family is a "noble" act?

I will be honest and say that I am not an expert on the man, but I always had the impression that Lenin was the more altruistic of him and Stalin.

QuoteI will not. He said that His Kingdom is not part of this world.

Doesn't stop right wing nuts from quoting the bible to support their neanderthal policies; Jesus tells the rich to give all their money to the poor.  That hardly sounds conservative to me.

And I know that apologists love to pull the "leave that to the individuals and churches, not the state!", even though they have no problem with enforcing other biblical mandates through state intervention; apparently, charity isn't important enough.

Quote
Something about communism tends to lead to this type of outcome, overwhelmingly so.

Naw, communist leaders aren't much bigger assholes than many nondemocratic leaders, they just actually have the power to mess shit up.  Do you think that Rupert Murdoch, unrestrained by regulation or accountability, would be much better?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 31, 2012, 06:17:30 AM
I dunno.  "Imagine" no possession...

John was the hardest left of the bunch, but even so, I doubt he'd go around wearing a Che t-shirt. If he'd lived, he probably would be one of those naive people who feel that communism is a good idea "on paper", but completely impractical.

Quote
Yes, but he wasn't a mass murderer himself.

Fair enough, and since he died before seeing his vision implemented, it's hard to say whether he'd condemn the dictators, or praise them.

Quote
I will be honest and say that I am not an expert on the man, but I always had the impression that Lenin was the more altruistic of him and Stalin.

Trotsky was slightly more respectable than either of them (of all prominent communist leaders, Trotsky and Tito are the only ones I would consider "moderates"). Look up the Red Terror. Lenin was not a very good guy.

Quote
Doesn't stop right wing nuts from quoting the bible to support their neanderthal policies; Jesus tells the rich to give all their money to the poor.  That hardly sounds conservative to me.

Context. He told the young wealthy man to give all to the poor and follow him, because he knew that the wealthy man was more attached to his riches than to the message.

Quote
Naw, communist leaders aren't much bigger assholes than many nondemocratic leaders, they just actually have the power to mess shit up.  Do you think that Rupert Murdoch, unrestrained by regulation or accountability, would be much better?

Seeing that Rupert Murdoch is a media mogul and not an experienced world leader, I would have concerns living under his leadership. However, since in his current position he is limited to providing news and entertainment outlets, I wouldn't worry much about him.

Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2012, 06:58:06 AM
For those that didn't know, Oprah is a huge fan of Chaplin, so much so she named her production co after him, "Groucho Productions" and her show is filmed on his old stage lot, same old building, she considers it an honor.
So is it really a surprise that she backs Hussein?

I think her production company is "Harpo" productions which is Oprah spelled backwards.  The story is that her mother intended to name her Orpha but spelled it incorrectly.  I don't get your  connection between Chaplin and Groucho Marx, (Maybe Groucho's last name?) but I do know that Oprah is a left-wing mouthpiece.  It astonishes me that her fans avidly snatch up any book she recommends, apparently feeling too insecure to choose their own reading material.  She has the power to make a best-seller overnight and I think that's a frightening amount of power for any person to have, much less a talk-show host who hit it big because she was in the right place at the right time, and is basically ignorant of political matters.  We all know that she supported Obama because of his color and I doubt she even understands the damage she is doing.  She already has her billions and I suspose doesn't care if anyone else is successful so long as she has hers.  I never actually watched her show regularly but  occasionally did if I knew she was having a guest of particular interest to me, which was seldom.  And if I heard she had recommended a particular book, I stayed far away from it just on principles.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 31, 2012, 08:22:48 AMI think her production company is "Harpo" productions which is Oprah spelled backwards.  The story is that her mother intended to name her Orpha but spelled it incorrectly.  I don't get your  connection between Chaplin and Groucho Marx, (Maybe Groucho's last name?) but I do know that Oprah is a left-wing mouthpiece.  It astonishes me that her fans avidly snatch up any book she recommends, apparently feeling too insecure to choose their own reading material.  She has the power to make a best-seller overnight and I think that's a frightening amount of power for any person to have, much less a talk-show host who hit it big because she was in the right place at the right time, and is basically ignorant of political matters.  We all know that she supported Obama because of his color and I doubt she even understands the damage she is doing.  She already has her billions and I suspose doesn't care if anyone else is successful so long as she has hers.  I never actually watched her show regularly but  occasionally did if I knew she was having a guest of particular interest to me, which was seldom.  And if I heard she had recommended a particular book, I stayed far away from it just on principles.

Sorry I missed so long ago.
Maybe her mother meant to spell Orca.

I tend to mix Chaplin and Groucho up. Though I did stumble across this tidbit.

 

I think the video was censored, silenced and scuttled by YouTube Nazis...

Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2012, 06:58:06 AMshe named her production co after him, "Groucho Productions" and her show is filmed on his old stage lot, same old building, she considers it an honor.

Um...Groucho Marx was not Charlie Chaplin.
What am I missing?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 31, 2012, 06:17:30 AM

I dunno.  "Imagine" no possession...

Quote from: CubaLibre on July 31, 2012, 06:30:09 AMJohn was the hardest left of the bunch, but even so, I doubt he'd go around wearing a Che t-shirt. If he'd lived, he probably would be one of those naive people who feel that communism is a good idea "on paper", but completely impractical.

John Lennon did write the song "Imagine"
but shortly before he was killed,
he gave an interview that was published in the Toronto newspaper.
In it, he said that,
"All that peace and love stuff sounds nice,
but in the real world, it doesn't f-ing work."

Sounds like he outgrew his idealism/naivete.

And his murder shows all the characteristics of
a CIA / MK-ULTRA mind-controlled assassination.

Looks to me like the world's rulers
used the Beatles for propaganda purposes,
and killed Lennon when he decided to leave the reservation.