How does Leon Trotsky treat people?
151663
I don't think he treats people any way - it's hard to do much when you've been dead for 65 years.
71882
Wait, that was a rule?! Ha ha, j/k with that one. \nYa know, a lot of people I know value that rule, and you know what, the people who do treat people like $#17 must also have the rule in mind, if you know what I mean. That's just opening the door to be treated like how they want to be treated. \n\nMoral here : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and if they really hate you when the do things unto you, then do something equally bad or worse unto them. \n\nAnd if they say, "Hey, what the f***'s your problem?"\nJust smile and reply "Just treating you how you want to be treated, jxkffld." where jxkffld is your word of choice. My preference is beotch. ^_^\n\nAnd a final note: This isn't an invitation to go killing someone or anything like that because they are acting rude. I hate violence really, so keep it clean. You can make them really annoyed, make a new enemy, but keep it clean. ^_^
932646
Society is far from fair, but so is life anyway.  the real problem i have with "radical" liberals is when they go so far, that they want to take apart the morals and values of society, and turn everything that is wrong, and make it right.\n\nI also find that while liberals scream "tolerance" they are hypocritical in that they tear apart any others who disagree with them, with out a logical argument.  (Not all, but many)\n\nanother thing i learned about liberals, is that, yes, they want a fair chance for every one.  but if you look at the welfare system, and how it really works, you will find that it, in itself, represses people and keeps them poor.  It exist on purpose.  so that the working class will have jobs.  (and they still struggle)The welfare system doesn't take kids away from rich people, just the poor.  A recipient of the welfare system gets 10 cents, while the welfare institution gets 90 cents out of every dollar.  the more people they keep poor, the more money they get.  society is set up for the haves and have nots.  \n\nLiberalism is just a new name for socialism.  The rich will never give up their riches and share.  They live off the lower classes and force the middle classes to take up the slack in taxes.  Then the poor are used as scapegoats, so that the rich can blame the poor for the ills of society, while in reality, all the institutions in society are set up so that "the rich stay rich" and the poor stay poor" no matter how hard you work.  There are few exceptions.  \n\nThere is no eason for poverty in our country, and if you were to put every single able working body to work, you wouldn't have enough jobs to go around anyway, and many jobs are with out any benefits, and pay too little.  so the rich can get richer.\n\nAlot of things about this country need reform, but to go with liberalism will eventually lead to totalitarian control, which would then, take away the freedoms we cherish.  \n\nBasically you can trace many of societies problems to greed.  When you see the values and morals of society coming undone, you know someone has been working hard to keep their positions of power.
1014500
One of the big problems Gorbachev created was the idea to give the people the right to complain about things without putting in place any mechanism for making things better. What this did was to show that the majority of the people thought the system was doing very badly, and also that trying to work within the existing political framework was meaningless.\n\nAlso, Gorbachev's chaotic style made a lot of people very uneasy since they did not know what to expect from him. When he first came into power, he was replacing all of the Brezhnev people ruthlessly with his own people, he crushed Latvia with the black-hatted security forces and put the squeeze on the Eastern European client states. Then, when he started to become a rock star he let it go to his head and started to pretend he was the nicest guy in the world, and then it started to look like he was getting lethally frustrated with everything.
294596
Stalin exercised complete control in all areas of his country, including all the media, the politburo, industry, research areas and even the artistic/cultural sphere.\nThrough propaganda, Stalin's control of all the media ensured that only good news (most of the time deliberate lies or gross exaggerations) reached its population, while the bad news, famines, bad results caused by his collectivization plans, etc., never reached the ears of the public except perhaps in the form of isolated rumours. He also controled the education system, and in all schools the children were taught to love him as "the father of the country", and a large personality cult was centered around him. Textbooks were also altered and biased to favour Stalin's rule and his policies.\nThrough terror campaigns, Stalin got rid of all his political enemies... first those inside the Communist Party, like Trotsky, and eventually, he begun to target anyone that showed any hints of independent thinking. Stalin's spies and secret police were omnipresent, and reported anybody that seemed slightly critical of his regime, or just because they were intelectual, and these people were sent to gulags where they faced years of imprisonment and forced labour or sometimes they were just brutally murdered. These people often had to face "faux trials", or "moneky trials" first, where they were accused of being counter-revolutionaries or traitors under false pretenses, to give some legitimacy to their dissapearances.\n\nAlso: For more info, there's always wikipedia. It's very helpful!\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
305224
In animal farm he's saying that while communism is good in theory, it does not factor in human nature. It's because of human nature (greed/laziness) that communism does not work. Not everyone can do the same amount of work, or will accept th e same amount as they're given.
694940
First, I don't think all Liberals are "Commies."\n\nBecause Rush took drugs, is it fair to say that ALL conservatives are drug addicts?  Because ... well, there are so many things liberals and conservatives have done that could never label the WHOLE party/lib.con.agenda.\n\nSecondly, the fundamentals behind Marx's idea of Communism are actually inspiring, and were meant to make the people free and equal.  You should read them.  I know we've been practically bred to shudder at the word "communism," but if you really knew what it was all about, you wouldn't quake quite so much.\n\nIt hasn't worked yet, I'll agree with you on that.  Countries that have embraced communism have seen huge economic failure.  I think part of the reason is that they are not supported (for aforementioned fears) and also because the nature of "leaders" is so often corrupted.  Sad, but true.  When someone takes control of a country or takes office, the powers they wield make them do crazy things.
277334
a facist.\nex commie trotskyites.
1132324
Probably what normal people think, and that's nothing to the effect of they want to help out.\n\nUnless you run into every billionaire on Yahoo Answers, you'll never know.  They all think differently.
250361
Karl Marx, Frederich Engles, and Co. did.  Of course, what is Communism again?  I know the governement didn't control people and money.  Especially in the Soviet Union.\n\nPatriotism\n\nValor\n\nLies\n\nTruth\n\nReligion\n\nIdeology\n\nHatred\n\nLove\nAll have been used to control people, money and institutions.  Whether their use was ethical or not is another question.  Read Plato's Gorgias
148153
The confrontation of the West with Communism, Strauss wrote in The City and Man, has demonstrated that "no bloody or unbloody change of society can eradicate the evil in man: as long as there will be men, there will be malice, envy and hatred, and hence there cannot be a society which does not have to employ coercive restraint." Strauss implies, among other things, that the extravagant hope for permanent progress in human affairs believed in by Woodrow Wilson and his contemporary admirers is a delusion. In particular, Strauss wrote, the ideal of "a universal state, unitary or federative" (Strauss appears to be speaking of the United Nations) is also a delusion. "If that federation is taken too seriously," said Strauss, "as a milestone on man's onward march toward the perfect and hence universal society, one is bound to take great risks supported by nothing but an inherited and perhaps antiquated hope, and thus to endanger the very progress one endeavors to bring about."\n\nTo begin with, then, according to Strauss each nation should conduct its own foreign policy, and it should not turn its policy over to international organizations. In current parlance, Strauss was a unilateralist, not a multilateralist.\n\nread more at the link below
801771
Think about it for a moment. The core concept of Comunism is that all are equal right?  For all to be equal that means you must bring everybody down to the lowest common denominator. How else can such equality be achieved?  You can only bring certain people up to a certain level. There are inherent physical limits that all people are born with. Some may be good at one thing or another. To equalize people is to bring them down to what the weakest link is capable of. In effect you make the whole chain as strong as the weakest link. \n\nLets look at Comunism on a grand scale. In a pure Commie society you have each person assigned to what is judged to be their best place to contribute to society. On the top it sounds great right? Of course everybody assumes they'll get one of the good jobs. Most jobs suck. So most people will get stuck doing something they hate. If you take it to it's literal ends, then all good jobs would be removed because by deffinition they set somebody up as elite. Astronauts, musicians, atheletes, and so on. By being made one of those they are instantly made elite.  In reality many of these jobs are necessary to the functioning of society. So the absolute ideal is literally impossible.  Not everybody is capable of singing.  To make somebody who can sing like an Angel tote garbage while forcing a tone deaf person to do vocals is a bigger injustice than creating an elite because of an innate ability they are born with.  Not everybody can be a rocket scientist or a skilled surgeon. Would you honestly want randomly chosen people to be your doctor if your life was on the line? \n\nSo even with the best intents Comunism does and by necessity has to put people up as elite.  Instead of people choosing their field and putting their talents out there for the general public to judge relitive talent another group of elites judge. You have to have somebody to decide who does what. Who allocate resources and people to tasks. I guess technically today you could use computers  to do that with standardized testing. However what about subjective areas such as art? How can a computer judge that?  Or do you do away with arts all together? \n\nNext comes the biggest hidden injustice of all socialisms. The very core ideal of socialism of any sort relies on each person carrying out the collective will.  For it to work each person MUST work inside the collective will.  By deffinition every dissenter, every person who does not abide by the collective will damages the collective. They reduce the already margional tolerances the society has for survival. Dissenters are a threat to the survival of a collective society. If any large movement starts the collective will collapses. For it to exist the collective MUST have almost unanimous support. Each person must strive to carry out their part of the collective efforts. If the shoemakers for example dissent, then everybody goes without shoes. If the farmers do not pull their share of the work, then everybody starves. So every person must do their assigned work to the best of their ability. \n\nNow think about that for a moment. Try to picture getting 100 of even like minded people to agree completely on even the implementation of a goal they all want. I've never seen it happen. There has always been egos, power plays, disagreements over methods, laziness, poor judgement, emotionalism, favortism and a hundred other very human things which interfere with the collective. It's natural. It is to be human to dissent. To feel that your own opinion and worth is greater than others. \n\nAs a result, the collective to survive must prevent dissent. They must curtail any actions which prevent people from doing anything but their best for the collective. All must volentarily bow to the collective will or the collective will becomes a tyranny. Since you cannot get functional humans to lose such things as ego, subjective emotions such as taste, opinion and belief. Then such traits must b
1187720
Either power or compassion. But, usually those who enter it because they care about society end up enjoying the power a lot. You make a lot of friends when you hold the keys to the wealth of others.\n\nAll we need to do to make them work better for us is pay attention and vote them out of office if they get too greedy.
180077
Read the book titled The Stark Decency.  It's about a German POW camp.  US guards treated the prisoners as human beings.  They even became friends on occasion.  \n\nThe military policy was to treat Germans well to induce them to treat our prisoners well.  (nothing is perfect, but it's a start and a sound plan)\n\nBy the time the war ended, German prisoners were mourning the death of FDR way more deeply than the death of Adolph.\n\nFurther, everything I've read on interogation techniques points to treating prisoners better than they're treated back home.  If you offer someone a better deal than they have now... they take it and they cooperate.\n\nI don't give a hoot about other people's cultures.  If someone wants to eat with chopsticks, fine.  If someone wants to wear a towel on their head, fine.  If someone wants to bow namastay to you every two seconds, fine.  But human decency is human decency in any language and the only way to get it is to give it.\n\nYou can list all the reasons why someone should be treated poorly, and you would be 100% right.  The irony is that the minute you start treating others poorly, there is only one direction to go, and that's down.
630454
Totalitarian.  Communists and socialists are totalitarian.
46968
It's very close.  I mean, by definition people in a society are not 'free'.  They all agree through social contracts and constructs to limit their behavior to the de facto 'rules'.  People can't be allowed to go running around doing just whatever they want.
794729
My experience sais that people work very hard to be able to treat the people below them like slaves. That is the corporate ladder at work. People think that they have to be mean in order to encourage productivity. I have had a couple jobs with respectful bosses but when that is the case the company treats us all like dirt and we sort of ganged together. I am now self-employed which is much easier but not reinforced by the society, it has its prices (insurance credit etc) Self employment is the way to go if you cant handle people power-tripping over you......