SIR you are just mad that you are only landed one hit out of 10 when you couldn’t use your words any longer.
The money was not going to be used productively anyway. If the money was only going to go toward producing mediocre students, it is better not to spend the money. Government-ran education has failed in the United States. It needs to be replaced by a more traditional system. (I will give a nice gift to the person who figures out my political ideology. However, he must be spot on.)
FYI, one Adolf Hitler claimed himself to be a socialist. Doesn't really make him one though..js. You might like to read george orwell's animal farm. It's a pretty good estimation of everything that went wrong with the communist movement in the soviet....in china, cuba, venezuella...almost every other state that ever claimed itself to be socialist
@Gandalf Firstly, I have read Animal Farm. Although Lenin did not intend for the horrors of Stalinism to occur, the Soviet System, as set up by the Bolsheviks, would have inevitably lead to Stalin or someone just like him. I even initially noted that this was not a statement concerning the pros and cons of Communism; it is a statement referring specifically to the Soviet state and the variant of Marxism held by its founders. Also, Animal Farm is not entirely accurate in its portrayal of the early Soviet period. If you want to know what actually happened, look at primary sources and the works of historians trained in Russian and Soviet history. Secondly, Fascism adopts certain elements of Socialism. However, it is a collective socialism (that is why in Germany it was called National Socialism) rather than the traditional individual socialism. Fascism’s preferred economic system, corporatism, is derived from certain aspects of socialism. Adolf Hitler was a socialist, but he was not the typical type of socialist. Just as Stalin was a communist, but he was not the typical type of communist. All ideologies have their fringes, crazy people, and evil people.
That is the thing though. From a purely socio-economic point of view, capitalism, socialism and communism are points on the same graph line. Economic saturation in capitalism leads to socialism, saturation in socialism ends in communism. Both can't coexist at the same point of time. Early 20th century russia was just evolving from a feudal economy to a capitalist one, with all the industrial revolution, advancement in communicatiom and science, growth in business and commerce, capitalism was starting to flourish. The october revolution, and the subsequent soviet union disrupted this change for a while, but as we know it, the economy gradually righted itself, and today's russia enjoys a proper capitalist socio-economic system. Same happened for china. Same is happening for cuba and venezuella. The people who claim themselves to be communists, like the lenins and trotskeys are simply deluded, since you cannot be a communist, even a socialist before a capitalist economy has fully flourished. Like, how can you be a socialist in an economy that allows private property? If you're in a capitalist economy, you're surely getting financially exploited and in tern, you're also financially exploiting someone. You can't live outside the system, can you? About mr. Stalin, he was pretty similar to the german guy. Both played the nationalist card. They were allies to start with afterall...so i don't think you can really discount the science of communism based on their actions or call them to be the inevitable product of communism.
I've read a lot of GK Chesterton, some decent reads, poems and humor were easier to read compared to his serious stuff. It's just a ton of generalizations packed into religious brain washing, imo, but that's just an opinion.
i never claimed you said anything about marxism because i was talking about marxism vs stalinism and you started bringing up marxism-leninism. and i didn't refute your point about stalinism growing out of marxism-leninism, just said they are not the same thing. you're here in this thread throwing a tantrum over people not having reading comprehension, but it seems like you can't practice what you preach either.
you need to actually read the theory before you can start critiquing the application. you clearly haven't read any theory because you're being blatantly incorrect, and yet think you are in proper knowledge to start critiquing the application of what was theorized. i was just pointing out that what you were saying was something that you obviously either pulled out of your ass or were echoing the rhetoric of someone who had done the same.
Liberation is my guess. And I agree with you. Government funded education was sold to the voters as a means of educating people to read, write, and do simple math in order to hold down an entry level job. We aren't all super geniuses, we really don't need to waste tax money giving kids education they aren't gonna use. And for those who are super geniuses, grants and scholarships exist to private schools. I used to be a Conservative Democrat. I'm more of an independent now. ✓Pro-capitalism ✓Anti-abortion √Pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration ✓Pro-2A ✓Pro-labor unions √Pro-welfare but with major revisions necessary ✓Pro-social security And I don't hate people who disagree with me, I think they're misguided.
Err..why so triggered? Everyone has their own opinions, I have mine too. But I've never claimed all my opinion is correct, because, statistically that's impossible. Nobody can be right in everything. I am open minded enough to let you change my opinion on something, if you can prove me wrong categorically. Just stating that I am wrong, and using personal attacks, doesn't quite cut it, i guess...but, then again, people have their own opinion. Maybe in your opinion this is the best way of having a constructive debate ?