Misodoctakleidi

Another option would be to give Chechnya independance.

I don't know where you get that impression from but take the word of someone who has read alot more Marx than you, you're wrong. I don't think you know what his "philosophy" was, do you? His philosophy was Dialectical Materialism so I don't know how you could describe it as "working" or "not working." Which is only true of the last 400 years or so. No, in the first societies property was communaly owned. You seem to have introduced a new "concept" here which wasn't in your definition, this wishy-washy "working for themselves" rhetoric. well aren't you quite the philosopher, I think you'll find that socio-economic systems a little more complex than that. You didn't though.

I completely diagree, I've just done A levels in Maths, Physics and Sociology and some of the exams were much harder than papers from 4 or 5 years ago.

China isn't socialist at all, it makes the USA look like a workers paradise! It is more authoritarian than ever though.

Wanting the liberation of opressed people makes him a loser? No, he wasn't. No, he wasn't. I preume, then, you can explain why capitalism has only existed for around the last 400 years or so. Why did that spring to mind when "speaking of communism?"

Yes but just becuase it could have been terrorism doesn't mean it was, unless we know of other goals whoch would conform to the definition of terrorism then we should presume that it wasn't.

Are you now suggesting that killing "infidels" wasn't the goal?

But the terror it insighted didn't achieve the goal of killing "infidels," it was the act it's self, the terror was merely a side effect.

Or so we presume. If that was there goal then it still wouldn't constitute an act of terrorism, it was the act it's self which killed the "infidels" not the use of violence to insight terror.

I agree with the definitions but I'd hardly say it was the same thing. It's possible to kill great numbers of people with no ideological goal in mind, it's also possible to insight terror for political ends without killing anyone.

I'm saying that that the 9/11 attack wasn't terrorism, it was just mass murder.

So you propose collective punishment? Perhaps all christians should be killed for the crusades or the inquisitions or the witchhunts?

9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack.

No, i think you have a different concept of commmunist to communists, communism is by defintion stateless, a classless state would be socialism. It's not possible to have a classless society as long as there is a state and Yugoslavia certainly didin't come close. Class is about relationship to the means of production, in Yugoslavia the means of production were centralised into the hands of the state therefore each level of the state hierachy had a different relationship to the means of production, hardly a classless society. ...I...see...? Communism isn't authoritarian, you seem very confused.

I think hamas should kill sharon.

Black absorbes all light, white reflects all light. Most of the universe is made of darkmatter but no one really knows what it is.

I would hardly describe it as communism, they were really lacking the two key ingredients; a classless society and a stateless society.

I think that sums up your intelligence. Why did you say 'some crackhead'? What made you choose those words?

To be honest i'm suprised that it was only -9.54 I think it's quite a usefull test for people who don't really know about politics or who are just beginning to take an interest in it.

Economic Left/Right: -10 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54 I'm so much more interesting than the rest of you

When i type out 0! on my calculater it gives an answer of 1, does anyone know why that is? I would have expected it to be 0