The 'war on terrorism' has been going on for 4-5 years. Where have you been?
Are you trying to ask, does it work?, because there's a major difference.
A funny group eh? You must dislike them Europeans. The problem of a corrupt 'government' in communism only arises during the proletarian stage. That's only an example of why the set up for communism doesn't work, not if the finished product works.
The uniform social status' you mention could possibly be a Utopia. That is after all, the entire concept of a single religion.
Stalin was doing it wrong. He simply wanted power, not a way to bring about a Communist Revolution.
...and? Nomadic groups lacking an obvious leader is what makes it communist.
Ok lemme rephrase a few questions.
Do you SEE communism as bad or wrong?
And SE, the war on "terrorism" as well call it NOW may have been going on for 5 years, but infact, it's truly been going on for 30+ years. It just wasn't called terrorism back then, but rather communism as the LEFT wing (Communism) was portrayed at the time as bad and the RIGHT win (Capitalism) was depicted as good.
Example, there was this one case where the US bombed this country since they thought they were producing arms to attack the US, however it was a factory developing advil (I forget which country, but watch Bowling for Columbine and you'll see which one it is).
Or for example on the war on communism, a few years back the Salvadoran Government was having trouble controlling it's extreme rightest ways, and during that time they CLAIMED to see a Nicaraguan plane crash land into their land. The pilots and passengers killed themselves and they were supposedly supposed to be bringing missiles from the Soviet Union to aid the Salvadoran rebels.
Sure, the Nicaraguans seem bad no? The Soviet Union at the time was a communist country and if you knew your politics, so was Nicaragua. However, Nicaragua couldn't have been transporting weapons for they were already fighting the US on the borders AND they were poor as shit so they needed all the weapons they had. ALSO, the ONLY proof that we got was from the Salvadoran army, which had a right wing policy. The moment a left wing country was mentioned, no more proof was needed. Why? Because the minds in America are influenced to think that all things that oppose or don't follow the US is bad and that the US is good. A hero. That being said, they only needed what the Salvadoran army had reported since once they mentioned communism and the such, most people would assume that "Oh, they're bad and the US is good," and thus, the US no longer needs legitimate proof that it really was the Nicaraguans.
And DG, what I meant about that Media question was:
When it comes to the media (news, newspapers), is everything we see REALLY all there is to see?
And another question:
Do the articles you read have a bias in them? If not, state why.
No shit it does. That's pretty much the whole point of the media, to bombard us with all sorts of sides and opinions until we eventually choose one. Most people rely on what's on the news, too, to help form a decicive opinion. Ergo, we are children of the media.
I lol'd at that. Do you REALLY think that they bombard us with BOTH sides of the argument? I doubt it. When it comes to the media (I've been studying it and how it works), media has a bias and most of the major media industries being in America, they have a Right Wing ideology, thus most of their "opinions" as you call them right wing. HARDLY any left wing ideologies.
Why do I say that? Well let's take a look.
Sure we have shitloads of News Channels and newspapers around, but the question that must be asked, who do they work for? When it comes down to it, there are only like 20 people (not accurate) that control all our media. Take the Toronto Star. Sure it's Canadian, but know where it gets most of it's news? New York Times. The NYT puts up what their stories are going to be the week/day before it's published and well, nearly every other newspaper and news station looks at it and uses their stories. NYT being right wing and being controlled BY someone who is right wing, obviously doesn't have that many left wing statements in their articles.
However, once in a lifetime, we do get the odd left wing supporter. But still, the majority of what you receive is right wing. Take a look at some newspaper articles if they have both sides. WHERE in the article is the right wing view supported and where is the left wing supported? I bet you, 99% of all the support that goes to the left wing is near or at the end of the article. Sure, it's still in it, but guess what? Not too many people actually read the articles. Why and how does this work? Well, when you read the newspaper, you tend to look at the picture, the caption, the title and IF it interests you, the first few paragraphs. If you REALLY like it, you might read further, but you probably won't finish it, unless that is of course, you like it so much, you screw the other articles over and read that. Since most people only read the first few paragraphs, if something is at the end, it's most likely not going to be read. Hence the reason the importance of certain things being at the beginning and at the end. You can clearly see the bias in articles when it comes down to it.
Also, another aspect to consider is, where is the article located? Frontpage? Or is it placed on the last page? Chances are, you won't even get to the last page if you are reading the paper.
The media isn't all that if you really think about it. It's filtered. It's presented in a way that we support their political views and ways of thinking.
