?

Many people think of communism as this big, evil totalitarian government that controls all aspects of the market, but in reality, communism advocates the removal of both the government and the market. There are many schools of thought, ranging from Marxism and its variants (which typically include this totalitarian government that essentially controls everything; this has been proven not to work) to anarchism (which typically advocates a direct move from a capitalist society to a communist society, usually through a violent revolution by working-class citizens).

To me, it seems quite inevitable that, with the rise of technology that will serve humanity, communism will come about own its own eventually. Communism has always stricken me (quite apart from the thoughts of many others, to my surprise) as the end result of vast technological improvement. With the rise of technology, there will be a decrease in jobs, especially in the common labor department, which will make the disparity between the rich and the poor enormous, and capitalism will collapse due to its reliance on human greed, and communism will follow. Basically, the people will work to maintain the current level of technology, and there will be no need for a market. By then, food production rates will most likely ridiculously high, and many medical procedures will be handled by machines. People would volunteer to do work (or perhaps, if the volunteerism was at a low, technological restrictions would give the people an incentive to work) and keep the society stable and prosperous.

For the record, I DO NOT necessarily think that communism is the best decision at the moment. I DO, however, think that we should be slowly moving towards a system that involves more concentration on the general evolution of technology and compassion for life in general.

Really, why does it matter if two people of the same sex love each other and get married? Why does it matter if a person wants to marry a stinking shovel? Who cares? If the person is happy, then let them be. Live and let live.

Before I hear anything about marriage being a primarily religious institution, it is no longer one. Marriages are blessed by religious leaders, generally, but they don't have to be. Marriage has become a secular event, and it is completely understandable if a church wishes to BLESS only heterosexual couples, but people who want to marry a person of the same sex (or a shovel) should be able to do so without religion or the church butting in.

Don't ask me to disprove it either; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. I'll dispute points, though.

Conservatives (typically) are religious, which means they fear God. They fear losing their jobs in the very market for which they advocate. They fear not being able to keep their houses and general livelihoods, again, in the market they advocate.

They hate on homosexuals (I'm sorry, but not allowing homosexuals to marry, at least in the secular terms of the state, is blatant discrimination), they hate on minorities (advocating very tough border patrol, plus the fact that it was conservatives who used to hate on the African American and Asian populations), and they want to enact many religious laws that keep women from having abortions (which is a freedom women should have; it's a private matter), keep religious hospitals (which are supposed to provide appropriate medical treatments no matter what) form doing their duties as institutions of medicine, and etc.

Let's take a look on the liberal side. Liberals don't mind homosexuals and want them to have the freedom of marriage and the happiness of spending their lives together with the ones they love, they are not typically too religious, they want the government to provide help to people who need it, they welcome minorities into the country, are willing to let women do what they wish with their bodies, and make hospitals carry out their medical duties no matter what.

To me, it seems incredibly counter-intuitive that anyone would be conservative.

Just a couple of notes: I know that I'm making a straw man argument here; I can't really help that considering the fact that I have no direct person with whom I can make an argument. I just took a few conservative points and objectively analyzed them. Also, I realize that the Democrats were the ones who did not support the end of slavery and whatnot, which is why I said "liberals," not Democrats.

Please, by all means, go ahead. Have at it.

Seriously, guys. I hate to do this, but every shred of evidence points towards the right having considerably more racists in it than the left. Don't believe me? Fascism (what Hitler practiced) is considered more right on the economic scale, and he was definitely totalitarian. He was by no means a communist. Now, that's just one example, but if anyone who is curious as to why I would make this claim without any modern evidence, I have some. Take a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iIOpkiJoOI

The right has many tendencies hierarchies (in which one person is over another, which then means more value, as in not equal). This can be seen in capitalism, in the more totalitarian philosophies (such as fascism), and also the conservative nationalism. It's gone past patriotism, at least in my book. Their tendency toward raising the military budget and obsession with the U.S. being the strongest nation in the world are evidence that while they may seek peace, they are certainly not hesitant to go to war most of the time.

What do we have on the left? Well, we have communism (a horizontal line of voluntary associations in which no person rules over another), anarchism (as in REAL anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism), and many more philosophies that tend to be about peace and making people equal. Secularism is a leftist view (in the vast majority of cases), and it is about making people equal by way of taking religion out of politics or the state altogether. Also, the entire left side of economics is about making people more equal, while the right side of economics is about making people unequal. Most minorities in this country are poor, and who do the Republicans most try to benefit? The rich.

So, where do conservatives get off saying that liberals (leftists) are the ones who are racist and intolerant? It seems blatantly obvious to me that the right side of economics tends to be filled with racism and intolerance. Now, I'm certainly not saying that all conservatives are racist by any means, just that people who are racist tend to be on the right.

I would also like to mention Stalin. I personally (along with many others on the left) dislike Stalin's methods and general totalitarianism. I am a pure communist, (more specifically an anarcho-communist), and I strongly disagree with the premise that totalitarian states can lead to freedom. Absolute power has a very high likelihood of corrupting people; look at North Korea, for God's sake. Anyway, the reason I used Stalin here was to show that not all of us on the left are angels and perfect and nonviolent.

Please, go for it. I'm curious to see whether people actually know what it is.

Humans simply evolved in a way that the brain became more developed than other creatures. In light of this, should we put ourselves above those creatures we call "animals?" It is not totally safe to differentiate between people and animals since they're the same. Maybe we should just appropriately call ourselves humans and not imply that we're above other animals, just different.

As to why I'm putting this in the political section, I don't really know. Maybe to get some latent boredom out of my mind. When I work on homework, I get bored, and when I get bored, an obscene amount of ridiculous ideas come to mind.

I dislike tradition. It seems to me that human beings do many pointless, illogical things due to tradition. To me, a tradition should only stay in place if it stands up to reason and doesn't hurt/oppress anyone else. I can honestly say that reason has gotten us much, much further than tradition ever has. From where did we derive our medical knowledge? Reason. From where did we derive the ability to build? Reason. From where did all this technology come? Reason. I fail to see why so many people adhere to tradition, some strictly. It seems to me that saying something is a tradition isn't at all a valid argument for keeping it in place.

Secondly, I really despise authority. I feel that I, as well as a vast majority of society, could function without it. It is simply intrusive and even a bit unnecessary, and it seems to me that it causes a lot of unwanted stress and keeps people from being able to get along with one another due to such stress.

This is why I'm extremely liberal, by the way. It is this line of thinking. I'm a Democrat simply because there is no left libertarian party that is a viable contestant for winning an election and loosening control.

Tell me. Why should that matter? If you say "no morals," then you're already incorrect because there are many, many non-religious people who have strong morals. I happen to be one myself. So, I ask, what logical reason could there be for not electing a president because he or she may not be religious?

To me, this is very, very stupid. We're talking about the same people who think the country was founded on the principles of Christianity, right? The same people who say that majority should rule when it comes to social issues when the founding fathers, through the Federalist Papers, made it VERY clear that they did not want an oppressive majority to rule over the minority tyrannically? Do they also not realize that the economic power struggle of what are today considered liberal and conservative economic views has existed since the founding of this country? Have they ever even opened a history book? I fail to understand how it can be claimed that liberals are not patriotic in light of these historical facts. There are people who are patriotic on both sides.

I'm planning to get a pretty decent amp. It will probably be smaller and portable, and most likely I will not have anything over ~$200 starting out. I'm planning to get an Asus Xonar Essence sound card for my computer in the future. I'm new to the audiophile group, and I'm looking for good headphones with excellent, neutral sound quality with a good soundstage and very crisp, clear sound. I've narrowed down two choices that I believe will best suit what I'm wanting; they are the AKG K701s and the Sennheiser HD600s. While I've heard that the 701s are alittle more crisp, I've also heard that the HD600s deliver more neutral, realistic sound. Also, the headband on the 701s supposedly dig into your head, and I don't think I could deal with that for very long; I have quite a large head. I suspect they'll take some breaking into before Icould use them for extended periods of time. It is noteworthy that I have wanted the 600s for quite some time.

If it helps at all, I listen to many types of music, from metal to classical. Which one do you guys think I should go for? Thanks in advance for your feedback!

I'm an anarchist. I will state that immediately, and I have no qualms about it at all. If you have any questions about how anarchy could work, there are tons of reference materials out there. Go research. Anyway, I recently came across this YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e_AM2iT5yg

I'm very concerned about this. Why are we, the people, allowing the government to oppress ANYONE? This is America, not Nazi Germany, for God's sake. The reader of these details and many others may not agree with anarchists; that is understandable, but what I'm concerned about is the oppression of opinion. Are we not a haven of free thought? Are we not a country that is supposed to accept ALL ideologies, regardless of whether or not we disagree with them? That's why we have ways to debate one another. That's why we HAVE A CONGRESS.

I'm becoming more and more concerned for the future of this country. No, people, Obama is NOT the only president guilty of letting this type of behavior slide. This has happened before, and I think it's going to get worse unless we do something. I'm supporting the Occupy Movement; it wants to curb the corruption of government. I agree with that sentiment; the situation has gotten out of control in this country, especially since the mid-20th century.

This frustrates me. Every other language seems to have one, and yet I'm stuck saying "he or she" or just "he" or just "she" when I'm referring to a singular pronoun. It's quite annoying. Couldn't we just combine the words "he" and "she" into "hesh" or something? Is anyone else frustrated by this?

My argument is that there is no way that the God you are proposing exists. He would be a total hypocrite.

First, he is supposed to be the Almighty Creator, correct? He is supposed to be perfect in every way, right? Well, how is it, then, that he had a desire? I mean, He must have had SOME desire to create. Also, what about not coveting thy neighbor's property (in other words, not being jealous)? He blatantly admits that He is a jealous God. So He expects man to have a higher moral standard than even He does in certain aspects? Ok, that makes no sense.

Let's go on. Whatever happened to the free will with which He created us? There are many religions and philosophies out there. Why would He declare one the truth while leaving people who do not follow it (after they've heard of it, of course) to be condemned to burn in a fiery pit for all eternity? And then He claims to be merciful! What?! So what you're telling me is that if a Buddhist monk who has spent his entire life practicing his religion hears about Christianity decides to stick with Buddhism, he will be put through terrible torture for all eternity? Sorry; I can't believe that no matter how hard I try. That is NOT what I would define as a merciful God.

Don't forget about the fact that He can't seem to get rid of Satan, either. No, he'd rather let him influence people so He can, in turn, send them to burn!

Also, there's the issue of homosexuality. What. The. Heck?! Seriously, why is it that "homosexuality is an abomination" when there have been over 1,500 animal species that have been discovered to have homosexual tendencies? I think most people agree that God makes no mistakes, so why does homosexuality, by that logic, even exist? That proves one defining principle: Homosexuality is not unnatural; it is unusual.

My reasoning has lead me to become a Deist. I cannot accept that God is a terrible, hypocritical despot.

These are the most extreme of the extremes here, but let's pretend you HAVE to pick one. The only two options are anarcho-communism and totalitarian theocratic capitalism. I have to choose anarcho-communism here. What do you guys think? I'm interested in seeing who will pick each extreme.

Socialism occurs when governments control large businesses and their resources, and communism occurs when the government (and by extension in this case, the people) own the means of production and all businesses. I actually love communism. The reason Communism and Socialism have never worked is because the world has never seen these two theories actually running in their purest forms; they have all devolved into some form of despotism. I'm an anarcho-communist, by the way.

I do NOT support capitalism at all because it exploits the worst aspects of humanity. I think survival of the fittest worked in old societies, but we shouldn't be running this way in first-world countries. It's ridiculous that there are so many homeless people, and it's also ridiculous that some people have such an unbelievably narrow, condescending, and selfish attitude about helping those less fortunate than they are, and then having the audacity to brush it off as them simply being lazy. I'll tell you all now, I know a few people working two or three jobs and still barely making enough. That isn't what I call "lazy." Also, circumstances in life lead us into the gutter sometimes. I'm sorry that there are so many people out there who can't accept that reality is much broader than their very narrow views.

Therapy requires there to be a problem in the first place. An oddity is not necessarily a problem. Has society really convinced some homosexuals that there's something wrong with them? Homosexuality is actually seen in 1,500 species, so it's definitely not unnatural. It isn't a mental definiency, and it's not a disease. Stop alienating these poor people.

I personally love it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism