THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE!

You make daring attacks on the left, and you haven't taken a blind notice about that, haven't you? I mean come on your the one that criticizes the Soviet Union and China for killing millions that the estimates are completely blown out of proposition. It wasn't hard to figure out you was on the right from your blatant idiocy on the left-wing. Yes, i want more revolts, but i like how you interpreted on what i was saying, basically in your mind I want to see more chaos and destruction on the streets till eventually the government or the system itself collapses. Revolts, doesn't necessarily mean going out and fighting the system physically, but in a way to demonstrate your anger peacefully, just like that at Occupy Wall Street. I advocate to a peaceful revolution, but when the system is fighting back brutally, than what the hell can you do?

I'm not a hypocrite, i mean in what way was it fine to see a brutal chaos on the streets, but i know what your thinking....If this was a socialist country that had high dissent and people starting chanting against the system, then i would in retaliation sweep down on the protests violently, well actually no, i would let them express their opinions on the system and hope to see the betterment of their lives. I take consideration to other people's opinion and I certainly don't have this habit of basically pushing forth my own "purist" goals over expense of others. I actually take note to the people.

I can judge weather socialism is good or not for the people, depending on the current situation. How are we as a society going to advance forward with a system in place now that is virtually on the collapse or its going implode on itself's. I believe the system isn't viable anymore and should be scrapped, but then comes the new replacement of a system, well i'm hoping as a society we will come up with some solution to that, but i feel socialism is the next evolutionary step for Humanity, (but still people can argue about that). But personally i feel its the right choice, just my opinion. I won't shove it down people's throat till eventually they will follow me for it. It's a diverse world out there and I'm well aware of other people's state of mind.

OWS is pretty diverse, so some people might want to see reforms to the system, but others want to see the demise of the system. I don't advocate to widespread destruction, I don't know what your talking about. At this point your putting words into my mouth. I'm well aware of other people's ideologies and consciousnesses, but there's you with the lame right-wing statement again. Your pretty delusional when it comes to stating the estimates of millions dead in the Soviet Union and China. You look into delusional, fabricated nonsense, so call yourself a hypocrite on that one. I generally do believe that the American state is at least semi-fascist, but how in what way does that lead to my own sick fantasy of selfish desires. Just clearly admitted the American system is fascist makes me want to forward my desires, what? Would you say that to a libertarian if he said that?

You've repeated to yourself numerous of times now that I'm apparently crusading for my desires over the expense of the people. NEIN! I've told you now I'm not pushing forward my goals under the guise of the will of the people, JESUS! "It's people like you that spelled doom for socialism and communism" Oookay on that one. I'm just going to completely ignore you on this point. The typical right-wing assumptions, Jesus they hurt my head.

Not advocating to any violence, but a peaceful revolution when the time comes around. What fucking crimes, man? What about your fucking own crimes on the Palestinian people, eh? Again with the typical right-wing assumption that Stalin and Mao killed billions upon billions. I'm starting to think you might believe that Stalin and Mao constructed a spaceship and went around the galaxies and killed everyone.

What you trying to convert me away from socialism there? Wait, you told me that I force my ideology upon people, but now your starting to get to a point were you might see a good opportunity to drift me away from my ideological beliefs. SHAME ON YOU! Again at this point I'm repeating myself once more.....

I think you've made my head spin for crying out loud over your disgraceful idiocy.

Please, don't take this to heart.

People are afraid of change, sometime people get bombed into change, sometimes people go on a revolution.

If society wants to get in the way of the people let it be..

edit- What about your fucking own crimes on the Palestinian people, eh?

^^^ Woah, I learned my lesson when I brought up Matts IDF service..

Soviet, that response was infantile in just about every way possible.

Here we go again with the insults.

Your syntax and lexical choice make your age glaringly apparent. But what really makes your response so childish is the awkward fixation you put on Stalin and Mao. You shoehorned it in at every corner, without explaining why it's relevant or providing any evidence to back up your claims (granted, it doesn't exist anyways). Then you, despite having been told several times what the definition of fascism is and how the US cannot possibly be considered fascistic, still cling to that belief. And what's more, fascism is just your poster-boy for 'ebulz.' Fascism isn't interchangeable with Nazism.

Bloated or not, those are some pretty big numbers. And 99% of sources agree that a lot of people died. So yeah, things like the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were awful.

I've never heard of a peaceful revolt, so I think it would be best that you used a different word. Also, a few isolated incidents of police brutality doesn't mean the system is fighting back. It means there is a few dumb cops, which shouldn't really be a shocker. Even if the system was fighting back , you could always go Ghandi style. That would gain a lot of support.

That's not what I was thinking, so no. However, I still believe that pushing for a revolt, when there is clearly no desire for one is selfish. If I lived in a Socialist country, and saw no support for a capitalist society, I wouldn't push for a revolt. I might attempt to set up my own little capitalist colony within it though. Kinda like your free to set up a commune at any time you wish, thus fulfilling your desire for your system, without having to worry about forcing your beliefs on people.

Judge away, just don't try to force anything down anyone's throat.

As far as I'm concerned, those people are a minority in the movement, and certainly one in society. Also, wishing for widespread revolts usually results in widespread destruction. Chain of events is a bitch.

Using something that has no logical basis to fuel rebellious attitude is furthering your own desires.

I repeat it, because it appears to be true. You do insist on enforcing your beliefs, so if you respected the opinion of the people, you would be calling for violence to achieve those beliefs. Also, stop generalizing the right. I don't generalize the left, I specifically stated that. I don't represent all the right, so refer to me, not a vast group of people.

Every shitty plan to come out of the mouth of Stalin or Mao. That shit was pretty bad.

I would prefer not to get into this again, but if you wish it. I never committed any crimes against the Palestinian people, or anyone, during my service. I'm pretty convinced I did far more good than evil.

I specifically stated it had nothing to do with your ideology. Just a refusal and rejection of violent revolution. Basically, drop any idea of violence as a way to achieve communism, and stop defending Stalin and Mao, because they were both monsters.

I never do. It's all contained within the debate, and it's one of my small pleasures to antagonize you commies. No reason to let it get to you.

Circular Logic.

The US could be considered somewhat fascistic

and it has been heading in that direction for years (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment , http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html).

What would it matter if you brought up the IDF? He knows well that what he talks about of other people (Soviets and Chinese) can be told about him as well.

No, it's not...
Come on guys. Fascism is a state where the individual doesn't mean anything. The only thing that means something is the greater good of the state. (At least in theory) It's authoritarian and doesn't have elections. Does that sound like USA to you?

And to the people that say that Socialism is dead...(i.e. Matthew and Kali)

In Denmark we just got a new gov. of Socialists and Social Democrats.
The two socialist parties (not Social Democrats) got 17% of the votes and are gaining.
The major socialist party in Germany(Die Linke) got 12% of the votes and are(well you can kind of guess it) gaining.
The major reason the US hasn't got a major socialist party is because you use the outdated and unfair system of first past the post which is also one of the contributers to the low voter turnout of 63% compared to Denmarks 87.71%

How about Castro? It's fun because he was a violent revolutionary yet he also did things like start literacy programs and send teams of doctors to the third world.

That's pretty much what a strike is.

We're talking in regards to this bill. If it were to be passed and openly used, yes, the system is fighting.

I can't wait for the boatloads of supplies to help us topple the US Government. You can't just peacefully remove a dictator if that dictator so happens to be the strongest man on Earth. Besides, do you really think a dictator would let people peacefully protest? Egypt didn't. Libya didn't. Syria didn't. If America's government were the same as all of those nations, which Soviet is concerned about, they wouldn't either.

The idea is that if the people saw how great Socialism really was they'd mostly follow your beliefs. But the norms of society put down Socialism. Not to mention, the country is more leftist than you'd think. Many Liberals believe Obama hasn't done enough, and he's very Liberal. You'd be suprised how many Americans want us to become like Sweden was during the late-20th century.

And then become considered some nuts who live in shacks in the mountains? Lose half your wealth to taxes to fund a Capitalist society? You need Capital to do things.

The idea is Aiding and Abiding.

Stalin didn't come to power via violent revolution. He came to power by playing politics in the USSR. So that's not much of a fault of Communism/Socialism/Whatever else as much as a failure of the USSR at the time.

Not to mention, Socialism, or at least extreme Social Democracy, has already been proven to work. Norway and Sweden can testify to that. Was it... Best place in the world for Norway? Or was that second best after Sweden?

I didn't say it was, I said somewhat and regressing in that direction, i.e. the merger of corporation and state, liberties have been sacrificed and continue to be, targeted assassinations of US citizens, the FBI & COINTELPRO. Fascism encompasses the idea of the state being superior to individuals, but also being superior to other nations. And while the US doesn't really fit the former, it certainly fits the latter. US contempt of the UN and the ICJ, its militarism in the Middle East, support of dictatorships, coups of democratically elected leaders. Let's not forget that fascism has a contentious definition anyway.

I completely agree with your comment about electoral system reform. We have FPTP in the UK and it's dreadful. Video if anyone's interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=relmfu

Who are you and what did you do with Kara?!

Well the view of being superior is not just from fascism. Every ideology believe it's superior to the rest.(at least most of them)
While civil liberties have been restricted it is nowhere near enough to call it proto-fascism.
The US was built and is still about the individual right to chose, fredom of speech/expression etc. This is the opposite of fascism.

Policy is irrelevant to what I was discussing. Violent revolution can work, when you have popular support. It can also produce good things. However, it's pretty clear that people in America don't want Communism, or socialism.

No, it isn't. A revolt is a attempt to end or otherwise hamper the authority of a person or body. A strike is a refusal to work, or protest, calling for change in said system. They aren't the same thing.

I wasn't. It's pretty much universally agreed that this bill won't pass. I'm discussing the here, and now. I was joking about the Ghandi part.

I understand the idea, but it's dumb. People are more than capable of learning of socialism on their own. Sure, some will stay ignorant, but people have a general idea of it. Also, Obama is not very liberal. By American standards, sure. But in the grand scheme of things, he's still centrist, or center right.

Ha, I understand. Once again, I wasn't particularly serious.

It's aiding and abetting, and the logic behind it was dumb. How could it even be classified as such, seeing as there is conscription.

Read Pedro's post.

Social Democracy is not socialism, no matter how "extreme" it is. To be frank, I would put it up on the pedestal yet. Most people agree that the Scandinavian model could never work on the scale of the US. Is it interesting? Certainly. I wouldn't call it a roaring success yet, even if it can do smallish countries some good.

Objectivity doesn't suit you particularly well. Anyway, since you honkies didn't notice, my first post was a bit trollish. I would struggle to use that many swear words in a paragraph, but it becomes considerably easier when you put seriousness to the side.

Fascism is strongly militaristic which no-one will deny the US is. Then there's propaganda, foreign policy... But the key is the merger of corporation and state. I'm not saying the US is authoritarian (although it's on that track), I'm saying it has some similarities with fascism. Authoritarianism is one element of fascism, and I've mentioned many others. You wouldn't say that the UK isn't neo-liberal just because it has public healthcare.

-----------------------------

First of all it is a form of socialism, it's just not a planned economy. Secondly I don't agree with you at all that social democracy couldn't work on the scale of the US and I'm not sure why you think that way. Thirdly social democracies are a roaring success:
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11-4

Socialism would imply that there is either state ownership, cooperative ownership, or common ownership. The Scandinavian countries don't have much of any of that.

Social democracy, perhaps, but certainly not the Scandinavian model. Far too high of tax burden, and far too much social spending. Their system is reliant on a lot of public employees, who have extremely high job security. The US doesn't have that to fall back on. Furthermore, the US couldn't possibly sustain their level of unemployment benefits and retirement. It would be too much, and with so many unemployed, even in good times, it would just collapse.

I'm sorry but social democracies are socialist. They're included in the Socialist International group, and it's even under the category of socialism on Wikipedia.

The Scandanivian model is social democracy. They just do it better than anyone else by not half-arsing it. And why is it that the US can't have a high tax burden? I don't understand.

They're not socialist as social democracy does not have the goal of progressing to communism or peoples ownership of the means of production.

Would you mind writing an e-mail to Socialist International telling them so? I'm sure they'll appreciate having someone correct their mistake.