.politics.

[cltrn81]

There were plenty bad dictators. Most of them, if not all, left wingers of course.

I think you may have that mixed up. Conservatives are the nazis.
Liberals are the communists. Lol

The nazis are national socialists, not conservatives. Mind you, European terminology is quite different from the American and I'm Polish/British.

The Nazi party was a fascist, highly right wing conservative, party.......complete opposite of national socialists.  Granted his style of fascism was more of a dictatorship.

[Kuberr]

Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.

You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.

[cltrn81]

Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.

You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.

My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect. 

[BlackJester]

In my opinion communism is flawed in part because, due to the fact that every1 gets the same amount of the same things, a person who does no work will get the same things as a person who works their butt off. Which, please excuse my low level wording, I couldn't think of a better word, it just isn't fair. People should be rewarded based on the amount of work the do and how well it is done

There are people in Capitalism being given millions of dollars while sitting at home doing nothing.

[GoJuDragon]

And that's (in my opinion) wrong

[Kuberr]

Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.

You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.

My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.

I don't think a national socialist is the same as the kind you're thinking of.

[Rass]

In my opinion communism is flawed in part because, due to the fact that every1 gets the same amount of the same things, a person who does no work will get the same things as a person who works their butt off. Which, please excuse my low level wording, I couldn't think of a better word, it just isn't fair. People should be rewarded based on the amount of work the do and how well it is done

There are people in Capitalism being given millions of dollars while sitting at home doing nothing.

Ding ding ding ding..... All systems are flawed because of human nature.

[Coffee Vampire]

Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.

We're just not evolved enough yet.

If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.

[cltrn81]

Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.

We're just not evolved enough yet.

If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.

Who are we to set the parameters of evolution?  Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.

[DirtyMustachio]

Some {tibalt the fiend blooded} advocates out there, at least it's provoking intellectual discussion

[Kuberr]

Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.

We're just not evolved enough yet.

If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.

I agree. I don't think human nature will ever get passed greed. Greed is the downfall of all empires and governments.

[Coffee Vampire]

Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.

We're just not evolved enough yet.

If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.

Who are we to set the parameters of evolution?  Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.

Mmhhm, look at history. Even if you do think that humans evolved from monkeys or some other lesser life form, were the monkeys less selfish then humans are today? If anything we are more selfish, which means that evolution did not make things better.

Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?

If human nature is bad and was not there when humans did not exist, then it is not logical to think that evolution makes things better. In fact, the evidence shows that it will most likely make things worse.

To answer your question straight up, cltrn81: Being a logical and a rational human being who can process thoughts and draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, I am perfectly qualified to set boundries on evolution and what it can and cannot do.

[JaCe BeLeReN]

I think this is turning into a little bit of a morality discussion, just noticing.

[Coffee Vampire]

First thing: This thread is called ".politics.". Did you know that most of what politicians advertise to get elected has to do with morals? (does he support abortion? What's his view on money? Does he even believe truth exists? etc.)

Second thing: the recent posts have to do with philosophy and history more than morals. We were talking about human nature.

Human nature is what we are inclined to do; morals have to do with whether or not we do what we are naturally inclined to do, and whether or not we think it is right to do these things.

[darkarts981]

Communism sounds great on paper, but human nature won't let it work in practice.

We're just not evolved enough yet.

If you think human nature will evolve into something better then you are mistaken.

Who are we to set the parameters of evolution?  Interesting discussion this is turning out to be.

Mmhhm, look at history. Even if you do think that humans evolved from monkeys or some other lesser life form, were the monkeys less selfish then humans are today? If anything we are more selfish, which means that evolution did not make things better.

Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?

If human nature is bad and was not there when humans did not exist, then it is not logical to think that evolution makes things better. In fact, the evidence shows that it will most likely make things worse.

To answer your question straight up, cltrn81: Being a logical and a rational human being who can process thoughts and draw reasonable conclusions from evidence, I am perfectly qualified to set boundries on evolution and what it can and cannot do.

Qualified to set boundaries on evolution and what it can and cannot do? Maybe you could take yourself in the direction that you wanted to buy you would have no control over what choices other people make and where those choices take them? I'm probably taking your statement in the wrong way, but......