Violent Extremism

by **DaGip** on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:03 pm

What does this mean?

by **Woodruff** on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:46 pm

DaGip wrote:What does this mean?

Not all extremism is violent.

by **Bernie Sanders** on Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:04 am

America is facing economic and class warfare/terrorism by the very rich.

by **notyou2** on Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:43 pm

Bernie Sanders wrote:America is facing economic and class warfare/terrorism by the very rich.

by **riskllama** on Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:55 pm

and that children, is why the west hates communism(the good russian kind, not the lame chinese variant).

by **rishaed** on Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:50 am

riskllama wrote:and that children, is why the west hates communism(the good russian kind, not the lame chinese variant).

See... I think Communism on a theoretical scale sounds nice. But its not practical. China is a great example. As well as the USSR. It ultimately fails because those in Power will not easily give power up. Also Doesn't work because of other issues caused by red tape and state run businesses. You may disagree with me but in the DDR it took sometimes 10 yrs to get a car. If a company told its customers that here, they'd go out of business.

by **mrswdk** on Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:54 am

The reason Mao's communism failed was not because Mao did not arrange for power to rotate between himself and other leaders, or between the Communist Party and other parties. It failed because, for the large part, central planning and state-owned companies suck balls.

by **Bernie Sanders** on Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:05 am

mrswdk wrote:The reason Mao's communism failed was not because Mao did not arrange for power to rotate between himself and other leaders, or between the Communist Party and other parties. It failed because, for the large part, central planning and state-owned companies suck balls.

The above statement makes absolutely no sense.

by **Dukasaur** on Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:08 am

Bernie Sanders wrote:
mrswdk wrote:The reason Mao's communism failed was not because Mao did not arrange for power to rotate between himself and other leaders, or between the Communist Party and other parties. It failed because, for the large part, central planning and state-owned companies suck balls.

The above statement make absolutely no sense.

On the contrary, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Democracy is a desirable goal for most people, but it is ultimately a luxury good. Plenty of undemocratic societies work just fine. Mr. Swickdick is right: it is the economic aspects of Communism, not its political aspects, that ultimately caused it to fail.

by **rishaed** on Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:22 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
Bernie Sanders wrote:
mrswdk wrote:The reason Mao's communism failed was not because Mao did not arrange for power to rotate between himself and other leaders, or between the Communist Party and other parties. It failed because, for the large part, central planning and state-owned companies suck balls.

The above statement make absolutely no sense.

On the contrary, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Democracy is a desirable goal for most people, but it is ultimately a luxury good. Plenty of undemocratic societies work just fine. Mr. Swickdick is right: it is the economic aspects of Communism, not its political aspects, that ultimately caused it to fail.

As stated in my previous post, I'll agree with that last statement. Central Planning and Stateowned companies are usually horrific. Its led to the rise of the zombie Steel industry in China.