WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.

More recent example of how ALL communist manifestations in history resemble more like theocracies than anything else.Portrait of Kim Jong-ils Son Ready for Public Distribution

quote:

---

Jong-un has emerged as a serious candidate, and indications have proven this to be true.

​

His birthday, which falls on Jan. 8, designated this year as one of North Korea's biggest holidays. Two other big holidays are Kim Il-sung's birthday and Kim Jong-il's birthday (Feb. 16), during which people get the day off.

---

quote:

---

Last month, the Radio Free Asia also reported the regime began to restrict the use of the name "Jong-un," instructing people with the same name to change it.

---

Does this sound familiar to anyone? Thou shalt not say god's name in vain...

I wouldn't call the North Korean government(Juche socialist) communist in any way. It does resemble a theocracy, what with Kim Il-sung being declared Eternal President when he died, but it clearly is a facist movement.- Oni

There is a strong tendency to associate "totalitarianism" with "communism," even though the two don't necessarily need to overlap in all cases.Granted, all of the communist regimes that have existed so far have been totalitarian. But that;s not the way it has to be. And obviously not all totalitarian states are communist.

I would venture to say that have not been any communist States. All there have been are totalitarian States in the guise of communism.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That sounds a bit too close to a No True Scotsman to me. Just because they didn't implement it well doesn't mean the USSR wasn;t communist, for example.But certainly it would be accurate to say that no communist state to date has really lived up to the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Not at all a No True Scotsman fallacy.Here is a a definition of that fallacy.
No true Scotsman - WikipediaI would have to be a communist in order for this to be that fallacy and also I would have to be making an unfounded comment.My comment is based upon historical and political accuracy.
If there was any hint of communism in the USSR it was in the very early days.Here is a qucik definition of communism

quote:

---

Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

---

quote:

---

The revolutionary socialists now broke completely with the moderate majority of the movement, withdrew from the Second International , and formed (1919) the Third International, or Comintern , in 1919. Henceforth, the term Communism was applied to the ideology of the parties founded under the aegis of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of all the workers of the world for the coming world revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and state socialism. Ultimately there would develop a harmonious classless society, and the state would wither away.

---

SourceAll supposed communist states have gotten stuck in the dictatorship part. They never even transitioned to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is an integral part of Marxist theory.
Dictatorship of the proletariat

quote:

---

Marx's dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wield absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

---

The communist states just modified the classes. The party became the penultimate class. Support for m the proletariat was not needed and the proletariat was harshly suppressed. Communist states then became more akin to a Theocracy than any other. This is shown by the cult of personality for Stalin, Mao, Castro, and whoever the latest nut job is in North Korea. This was continued by the party leaders in both USSR and China.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The USSR was a parliamentary-dictatorship. Never communist.

The same happened in Cuba. In it's very early days, the revolution may have resemble a commuinst movement. But as anyone who has studied cuban history knows, Castro did not want communism as the form of government for Cuba (according to those close to him).As a student, Castro was a member of el Partido Orthodoxo, they aimed to:

quote:

---

Its primary aims were the establishment of a distinct national identity, economic independence and the implementation of social reforms.

---

More so, Castro was a supporter of Gerardo Machado, Cuba's 5th president.

quote:

---

[Machado] was finally toppled in the 1933 by US influence, Sumner Welles, Cuban War of Independence veterans, Army officers and civic leaders in a general strike.

---

When this happened, students(which Castro lead) and labor activist formed a revolution that lead to the eventual uprising of Castro. This is partly the reason Castro wanted nothing to do with the US, because he faulted them for not only getting involved in Cuban politics, but for aiding in the over throw of Machado.Machado's vision, like that of Castro's, was:

quote:

---

to make Cuba the "Switzerland of the Americas"

---

This is why everyone loved Castro in the early days. It was due to necessity that Castro joined the "self-proclaimed" communist party of Russia.Curretly, Castro serves as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba. A name that stuck, even though Cuba is far from being a communist state.- Oni

Part of this rewriting of history is to remove Jefferson as a contributing factor to the enlightenment and replace him with Aquinas.There is more fun, such as minimizing any contribution of minority groups to the history of the US. Case in point, the conservatives on the school board voted to remove any mention of Hispanics fighting for Texas at the Alamo.Even the 7th Day Adventist who works for me was disturbed by this insistence to essentially lie through omission about history.I think this angle constitutes the most effective way to change the school board in Texas.It is not so much to point out the disparagement of evolution, critical thinking, or science in general; it is to point out the disparagement of any contribution Hispanics or indeed even in some cases blacks have made to the history of either Texas or the US.When the electorate becomes majority Hispanic in 10 years, I think we are gradually going to see a lot less ignorant white racists in office around here.Edited by anglagard, : Replace 'best' with the superior term 'most effective'

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

One of the problems you are seeing there is the "soc cons" or social conservatives are taking over where they can.The traditional conservatives, who advocate small government and fiscal responsibility, have been pushed aside. These are the folks who could also be called "classic liberals."The soc cons are giving the real conservatives a bad name; they believe in neither small government nor fiscal responsibility. They want the government to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of us.But we had The Enlightenment. We can tell them and their shamans to go jump.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Picking up on old unanswered posts. If science isn't dependent upon it's method then what is it characterised by? What makes science different from any other method of drawing conclusions? I think you should have a read of The Scientific Method For Beginners

I don't think that's what nwr is saying at all.I think he/she is saying that "the scientific method" is sometimes used as an explanation without elaboration. Those three words, "the scientific method," become a replacement for an actual explanation.For instance, if you ask me "what holds the planets in their orbit?" and I reply "gravity," I haven't really answered your question. You have no greater understanding of why the planets maintain their orbits than if I had said "magic" instead.Functionally, "answers" like this are more like "passwords." A teacher asks us a question, and we respond with a word or phrase in response. If we have guessed the correct password, we are told we are correct. Unfortunately, this carries on long after we finish school, and we substitute regurgitated "passwords" for actual explanations.

It may just be me but Nwr seems to say a lot of stuff where working out what he actually means or what position he is taking requires a lot more work than it should. So what is he saying?

I'm saying that while there are some broad characterizations that can be given of science, there isn't anything that could be codified precisely enough to be considered a method.If one closely examines the history of science, there are plenty of examples that don't fit what is often presented as "the scientific method".I won't further elaborate, nor provide references, for if I do then Straggler will only accuse me of namedropping.I participate at evcforum because I enjoy thoughtful discussions where the parties to the discussion can learn from one another. After several failed attempts, I have to conclude that such thoughtful discussion is impossible between me and Straggler. The attempts to discuss usually finish up more like street brawls, and I have no interest in participation in those. I guess it's a personality conflict of some kind.

But like many threads you participate in, unless you tell us we won't have a clue what you mean.How about a little elaboration or references so that we know what you mean. Debating with you is like trying to nail down gelatin.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts