"We will bury you"

Sprafa

Tank
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
this was done for fun, so don't expect professionalism.


______________________________
In 1991, the World rejoiced. The Soviet Union slipped on its own massive crap hole and collapsed. The Cold War was over, and nuclear war became a lot more improbable (at least theoretically). Bunkers could be dissembled and you could talk about politics in Russia without having to look over your shoulder. Marx’s dream had failed.

Yet the “evil communism” stigma remained on the minds of many Americans. They had fought the same enemy for so long, with the support and helping hand of so many people, that people simply couldn’t realize that communism did have its good side. In Europe, while Communist parties all-around fell in the polls when the truth about the Soviet Union was unveiled, the atrocities committed for one’s dream of utter equality turned into another’s dream of ultimate power. Like fascism, communism was relegated to small pockets of people resistant to change, viewed by the majority of the populace as nostalgic dreamers.

But the truth is that communism is happening. Not based off the proletariat, as Marx predicted, but off the so-called middle class based off services on wealthy European countries, that is growing to include the vast majority of the citizens. Socialism took the Nordic states to the top of the U.N. chart of Human Development, one of the most reliable indicators for general quality of life, above powers like Japan and the U.S.A. Marx did predict that socialism was a necessary step towards the State-less ideal communism. We’re just taking the long way.

While political independence for minorities is increasingly important, so is economic union. Unfortunately, there is a thin line between two and they are commonly confused. Sceptics fear that the EU and the UN will destroy their hard-earned independence with a few enforced policies. In truth, these institutions only lose more and more power they could use to enforce human rights, peace and increase economical development that would actually benefit more the rich sceptics in the developed countries than the poor indigents that beg for its help.
So the seed for the future world Communist is not being planted by the feared international organizations between powers, it’s being planted by the small wealthy countries were the populace is eager to join up with more of their kin in order to be economically strong, but politically and culturally independent.

Aside from politics, the new generation is also building its own foundation of communism. In the Internet. Bill Gates is now demonised as the leader of a supranational consortium with total monopoly over what you do in our personal PC, and people are fighting back. P2P programs can now massively distribute software with asking only that you share with others what you’ve downloaded. The so-called “open source” software like Bit Torrent, Shareaza and Emule are killing the malware packed competition in P2P, while Firefox is killing the time-stopped Internet Explorer browser.

With the constant mechanization of industry and agriculture, there will be only rare remnants of a lower class. Capitalist equality through the state tax system is perfectly doable, as shown by countries such as Sweden. By overtaxing the rich and undertaxing the poor, Governments can design a perfect basis for not only for communism, but for mankind itself. So, contrary to a few people, there is no need for violent revolution. The bad distribution of wealth is being fought against at all fronts because it is a precursor to instability. Therefore the capitalist State must naturally prepare itself for communism in order to ensure its own continuation.
The Soviet Union was definitely the Evil Empire. As Reagan said it, defended the “superiority of the State over the individual”. And that is undoubtedly against Human nature. But communism isn’t about that. Communism is, as FDR said it so well in his Four Freedoms speech (State of the Union address, 1941), about “freedom from want”. About cooperation and compassion. And we don’t need no Comintern.
__________________________________
 
When I first read this thread title I thought of the song "We will rock you" by queen.

Anyways...that was a good read.If it comes true in america is the question.Also don't forget...america ain't sweden or one of those nordic states.

Things here are done diffrent and the people of this country are diffrent also.
 
That's the whole point of the article. Anti-communism just for the sakes of it is wrong.

And "We will bury you" is a famous misquote from Nikita Kruchev.
 
Not to be confused with my quote.
"I'll bury that/them (insert x)"
 
Remember don't say anything bad about Russia, or when you try to get your visa to go there, they may refuse you :eek:

I don't think the USA was worried about communism, it was just the label they used (like now they use labels such as Liberal, Terrorist etc)

I don't see how you could be against the principles of communism, equality of man, etc, but you could realise that they were not practical in our society (or any society which has bad people for that matter -so that rules out everyone).

They were worried about an Expanisionist USSR, enveloping surrounding countries and allying them with the Soviet Union, spreading Soviet influence (and China, engulfing Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan). Soviets were worried about USA for the same reasons, and labelled them imperialists, etc.

Today, the USA realises it won't be the sole power for much longer, it is on the decline, as every civilisation reaches its peak, then wanes.
So it is trying to pick fights, dominate in key world areas, and basically the fights will get more and more dirty as they try to stay on top.

Might end up with the USA nuking the planet in an angry kid way:
"If I can't be the superpower, noone will! ;("

You don't need to be a communist necessarily to be evil...
That's my opinion anyway...not sure if I posted in the right thread :eek:
 
I don't think the USA was worried about communism, it was just the label they used (like now they use labels such as Liberal, Terrorist etc)

You speak of 'liberal' as if its a bad thing. Sure, its used in negative ways sometimes, but it wasn't created to be a bad label. The opposite of liberal is conservative, and there's nothing inherently wrong with either.

The label of terrorist is quite fitting to many. It's a correct label for those who use methods to terrorize the populace to their gain.

Today, the USA realises it won't be the sole power for much longer, it is on the decline

LOL. the states isn't on the decline yet. Maybe it will be the day everybody, even non americans stop calling it 'the most powerful country on earth'.
 
Raziaar said:
You speak of 'liberal' as if its a bad thing. Sure, its used in negative ways sometimes, but it wasn't created to be a bad label. The opposite of liberal is conservative, and there's nothing inherently wrong with either.

The label of terrorist is quite fitting to many. It's a correct label for those who use methods to terrorize the populace to their gain.

LOL. the states isn't on the decline yet. Maybe it will be the day everybody, even non americans stop calling it 'the most powerful country on earth'.

I didn't say liberal is a bad thing. But a lot of people use it as a derogatory term.
Terrorist is a fitting term, but it is also widely used, as in a 'witchhunt'. Remember USA executed communists in the 60s and 70s, for being sympathisers.

The states has passed it's peak I would say, they are just about to slip into the trailing edge, if you are speaking relative to the rest of the world. It's only downhill from now... not that it means you will be going into poverty or war or anything, just means you won't be able to be as unilateral, and you will have less influence over matters.
They might get some extra years at the top if they keep picking the fights right like they are doing now, but that's one of the reasons for conflict. The need to show everyone "yeah we're still tough...we're still a superpower"
But you can't stop the inevitability of the cycle of powers.
Romans were on top once, they fell apart.
British were at the top, they lost out (still a world leader in many fields though).
China were the most advanced civilization for a long time, and looks like they will be coming back to that, after 500 years of setbacks.
I'm not saying the USA will fall apart, just saying it's not going to be able to be the superpower it once was. And that will be within the next 50-100 years. Maybe in our lifetimes.
 
Romans were on top once, they fell apart.

Do you know WHY the roman empire fell apart?

There's many reasons that led to its collapse, but many of them are far more abstract than you might think and don't really relate to today's empires(countries) much at all.
 
Nah the USA will never fall like Rome did. I mean some of the reasons Rome fell were that it started getting leaders that were practically insane, and it spread it's troops out across the globe so much that too little was left to protect home. Heeeyyy wait a sec..... :O
 
AzzMan said:
Nah the USA will never fall like Rome did. I mean some of the reasons Rome fell were that it started getting leaders that were practically insane, and it spread it's troops out across the globe so much that too little was left to protect home. Heeeyyy wait a sec..... :O

Rome actually never fell, in a sense. It merely changed hands. It's outward kingdom assimilated with the cultures of the countries they conquered over, and over time broke away and became their own again, while with time, the empire of Rome became the Byzantine Empire.
 
Yes, I know why. I'm just making the point that no civilisation lasts in a single state forever... whether for modern reasons or for historical reasons like Barbarian uprisings etc.
People have a better idea of how to run a state these days, but they're only human still, they aren't infallible. And other nations or groups will take advantage quickly when one nation has a moment of weakness. Power shifts, nations prosper while others decline.
And even if you can't compare it to Rome, you can draw comparisons it to the European empires of yesteryear.

For civilisations there is either cycle of rise and fall, or there is death of the civilisation. There's no position of God there, otherwise your great civilisation would have been the most powerful for all of time. It's a matter of if not when.

Hey maybe in a not too distant but crazy future the earth will be united. Where would that leave my crazy cyclic civilisation theory? Out the window I guess.
 
Yes, I know why. I'm just making the point that no civilisation lasts in a single state forever

We haven't seen forever yet. :D
 
Raziaar said:
We haven't seen forever yet. :D

Good point. But I do believe in the notion history that repeats itself. I think our brains and minds need to change/evolve/be gentically modified before we can leave our primitive roots.

In an advanced civilisation which may exist beyond the stars, they may have abandoned all notion of nations and countrys, and united as a species. Or a collection of spieces...

Hey hold on I've heard this story before...it's Half-Life 2 :eek:, the Universal Union (Combine) You will be assimilated, etc.

But then they met the humans and they got their first taste of people who can't live along side each other in peace :p that sure scared them.
 
meh. Nice debate but it had nothing to do with my text :(
 
Things almost always evolve into better...

Keep going guys. I'll join in soon.
 
Raziaar said:
Rome actually never fell, in a sense. It merely changed hands. It's outward kingdom assimilated with the cultures of the countries they conquered over, and over time broke away and became their own again, while with time, the empire of Rome became the Byzantine Empire.

Actually, the Roman Empire lives on, figuratively, in the Roman Catholic Church. Think about it. Millions of, "subjects," ruled by decree of a god-like figure in Rome. There are quite a few similarities. Most other governments, at one time anyway, had to secure permission from the Vatican to wage war on another country, etc, etc. It's almost like Constantine said, "Hey, if we can't beat 'em, join 'em." And they took Christianity and made it their own. Heretical, I know, but sometimes these things just pop into my head. :devil:
 
Heh, then Henry VIII got bored of that crap and left, so he could do whatever the heck he liked, because he was second to God now, not the fuddy duddy Pope with his one marriage mindset.
 
Back
Top