| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Proletariat 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
 Posted: June 08 2007 at 17:41 |
 Chus wrote:
Certainly there was no pure communism anywhere as far as I know; often the ones in power were the capitalists; how can that be if they're all supposed to be equal?. It's also a paradox that the chavecists (functionaries and benefactors) are the new oligarchy and they are the ones who constantly bash oligarcs |
if we never try real communism, then how can we jump to the conclusion that it doesn't work?
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 20:18 |
Proletariat wrote:
|
I haven’t heard such an example of Dialectic Determinism since the University and still believe it’s flawed.
I read the manifesto of on my own, the school was not involved.
Well, we read it at school, but deeply in the University.
Under true communism the workers elect a council of leaders, those leaders are still expected to work. Anyone who does not do work dosn't get to vote.
This is absurd, the vote is a political right inherent to the human being despite how productive he is, the human being is not an instrument of work, is a subject of natural and political rights that can’t be taken from him except for a criminal act and only some political rights.
The workers can withdraw a leader at any time,
Then prepare to be isolated from the world community, I wouldn’t sign a contract with a President, Chairman or whatever who can be removed at any moment.
Society needs a Governor elected for a determined period of time and the security that at the end of that period will abandon the office or be reelected by direct, personal and universal vote, that’s the minimum security required for investors and for treaties, you can’t sign a treaty or a contract with a guy that may be removed tomorrow and the follower ignore everything done by his predecessor.
It’s normal that a Governor looses a great percentage of popularity during some moment of his government, so you would have changes every week, but the followers of this removed leader will fight to keep him and you will have revolutions every day.
The consequence is that the system would fail because of it’s own contradictions.
and as there is no army except the militia of the workers there is nothing that the council can do to stop them.
The workers as a mass don’t have the capacity to manage a militia, army and police to keep the peace are required.
You are free to not be a communist and not support the system, but in doing so you are saying that the system does not need to support you ither, and because there is no tecnical government there is no one to get upset and feel the need to kill you.
In other words or you agree with us or go to hell.....And what if the people get tired of Communism?
Isn’t the obligation of a system to provide security for all the citizens and not only for the followers?
Wow no technical Government...Isn’t this anarchism? Who will represent the people? Who will sign the treaties?
This is a form of communism known as libretarian or council communism, it was a movement that was gaining strength before the revolution in russia, but the offitial party wiped it out.
This may work in small communities but not in a country.
P.S. the revolution has not occured yet! there are sertain prerequisites that need to be met first, one being that the country that adopts the system should already be powerfull and not a dump in the first place.
Another flaw, Communism is a reaction of people in countries where things don’t run well, big countries with enough resources tend to step away from Communism, look at China, it was Communist until they got technology and now Communism is being abandoned.
The countries that thought they were products of the revolution have mainly been decades behind and poor as dirt.
Those are the only counties in which Communism has a chance to appear, where there’s an oppressed majority and social injustice, where most of the citizens don’t have enough to eat.
If most people have a property and have a work, they won’t allow nobody to take what they have gained with their effort, so don’t expect Communism in powerful countries
In prosperous countries you will never find Communism, maybe Social Democracy or Euro Socialism, but Communism never.
Iván |
|
|
|
|
Chus
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 20:50 |
BTW Ivan getting back on subject isn't what Chavez is doing here the same Velasco did in Peru? I'm sure Peruvians know more about Chavez than us Venezuelans 
Let us remind the military coup attempt lead by Chavez in 1992. Had he succeeded, he would had been Velasco II
Edited by Chus - June 08 2007 at 20:55
|
|
Jesus Gabriel
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 21:10 |
I have never taken part in the picking apart of argument's but I have seen it done and so will try.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
|
I haven’t heard such an example of Dialectic Determinism since the University and still believe it’s flawed.
OK
I read the manifesto of on my own, the school was not involved.
Well, we read it at school, but deeply in the University.
Good for you
Under true communism the workers elect a council of leaders, those leaders are still expected to work. Anyone who does not do work dosn't get to vote.
This is absurd, the vote is a political right inherent to the human being despite how productive he is, the human being is not an instrument of work, is a subject of natural and political rights that can’t be taken from him except for a criminal act and only some political rights.
Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation. last time I checked immigrants can only vote in the nation they are a member of.
The workers can withdraw a leader at any time,
Then prepare to be isolated from the world community, I wouldn’t sign a contract with a President, Chairman or whatever who can be removed at any moment.
there would be no president or chairman to sighn with only a council whose view as a whole unit would not shift because of one member being removed
Society needs a Governor elected for a determined period of time and the security that at the end of that period will abandon the office or be reelected by direct, personal and universal vote, that’s the minimum security required for investors and for treaties, you can’t sign a treaty or a contract with a guy that may be removed tomorrow and the follower ignore everything done by his predecessor.
But that only applies to the individual, and there would be no individual rule, only rule as a group.
It’s normal that a Governor looses a great percentage of popularity during some moment of his government, so you would have changes every week, but the followers of this removed leader will fight to keep him and you will have revolutions every day.
The consequence is that the system would fail because of it’s own contradictions.
And democracy doesn't?
and as there is no army except the militia of the workers there is nothing that the council can do to stop them.
The workers as a mass don’t have the capacity to manage a militia, army and police to keep the peace are required.
of course they would be trained by the government but in the end the people would have the guns... if evryone worked than each person could work less time, leaving more time for such activities.
You are free to not be a communist and not support the system, but in doing so you are saying that the system does not need to support you ither, and because there is no tecnical government there is no one to get upset and feel the need to kill you.
In other words or you agree with us or go to hell.....And what if the people get tired of Communism?
Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.
Isn’t the obligation of a system to provide security for all the citizens and not only for the followers?
no. at least I dont think about it that way. is the purpose of a church to force evryone to come on sunday or is it for those who choose?
Wow no technical Government...Isn’t this anarchism? Who will represent the people? Who will sign the treaties?
Close. The people. an elected councle of the people.
This is a form of communism known as libretarian or council communism, it was a movement that was gaining strength before the revolution in russia, but the offitial party wiped it out.
This may work in small communities but not in a country.
how do you know? it has never been tried. worse comes to worse screw countries and have communities.
P.S. the revolution has not occured yet! there are sertain prerequisites that need to be met first, one being that the country that adopts the system should already be powerfull and not a dump in the first place.
Another flaw, Communism is a reaction of people in countries where things don’t run well, big countries with enough resources tend to step away from Communism, look at China, it was Communist until they got technology and now Communism is being abandoned.
they wern't actually communist, I thought I established that, and so the exsample does not apply Mao was a poser
The countries that thought they were products of the revolution have mainly been decades behind and poor as dirt.
Those are the only counties in which Communism has a chance to appear, where there’s an oppressed majority and social injustice, where most of the citizens don’t have enough to eat.
wow, and I thought there was a huge rebellion in paris not too long ago, the french are still a world power right?
If most people have a property and have a work, they won’t allow nobody to take what they have gained with their effort, so don’t expect Communism in powerful countries
this is why I hate N korea, china USSR etc. communism is suppost to be voluntary
In prosperous countries you will never find Communism, maybe Social Democracy or Euro Socialism, but Communism never.
not yet. the same could be and was said about democracy. Look at democracy in Iraq, people forget that in the beggining in the first election the people voted for sudam, people voted hitler into office also.
Iván
I know it will sound stupid from a communist but to see a good example of communism in the works look at the book of acts in the bible, another good example would be native americans or certain greek states (in antient times) |
|
I know I could argue with you all day and not change your mind. If you have questions PM me, otherwise this is just taking up space and will get no where.
edit: at least we can agree (to some extent) musically
Edited by Proletariat - June 08 2007 at 21:13
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 21:33 |
Chus wrote:
BTW Ivan getting back on subject isn't what Chavez is doing here the same Velasco did in Peru? I'm sure Peruvians know more about Chavez than us Venezuelans
Let us remind the military coup attempt lead by Chavez in 1992. Had he succeeded, he would had been Velasco II |
Well Velazco at least was a dictator who accepted was a dictator.
Velazco overthroned Fernando Belaunde Terry with the army, declared himself President of the Revolutionary Governent. of the Army Forces (Govierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas).
The first thing he did was to tnationalize the International Petroleum Company from the USA administration, of course this was a robbery because there was no payment for the machinery or stoicks.We had oil before Velazco...After his Government not.
He then took all the Media and named General Editors, sent to prison every owner of media except those who sold their line or the ones who escaped.
He declared an Agrarian Reform, took the farms from their owners without any payment, it was the worst thing ever happened, our agriculture collapsed. In two years Perú was buying POTATO from Czechoslovakia. we were N° 4 in the world in sugar before him, then we dissapeared from the charts..
The people who recieved the cattle ate it in 6 months instead of making it grow and in a year we were buying meat from USSR. The peasants ate everything and in 2 years a migration started because there was no Agriculture, Lima passed from 4 million citizens to 8 million lumped in Pueblos Jovenes (ghettos) that didn't existed before Velazco.
He took the fishing Industry for the state when we were N° 1 even over Japan, when he left we were bellow the N° 100.
Stole the money from the Banks, forcing people to sell their dollars at a controlled price (Those found with dollars were sent to prison) when the real price was 50 times higher, so if you had US$ 10,000.00 in the bank, the next day you received US$ 200.00 in State Papers with no value.
It was a mess, we were isolated from the international community, we almost had a war with Chile and another one with Ecuador. He banned Rock & Roll as a form of Yankee imperialism, prohibited the teaching of English in public schools and forced to teach Quechua, an almost dissapeared language.
Wven the language used by both is similar, those who defend freedom of speech are not called Anti Venezuelans or Anti Peruvians, they are called Anti Revolutionaries as if the Revolution was a supreme value over the country.
The names of Bolivar sand Tupac Amaru started to be mentioned as our gods and of course Fidel Castro was a Continental hero.
Yes I see many similarities and if Chavez would had reached the Government in 1992, he wouuld had been exact.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 08 2007 at 21:37
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 22:11 |
Proletariat wrote:
I have never taken part in the picking apart of argument's but I have seen it done and so will try.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
|
I haven’t heard such an example of Dialectic Determinism since the University and still believe it’s flawed.
OK
I read the manifesto of on my own, the school was not involved.
Well, we read it at school, but deeply in the University.
Good for you
Under true communism the workers elect a council of leaders, those leaders are still expected to work. Anyone who does not do work dosn't get to vote.
This is absurd, the vote is a political right inherent to the human being despite how productive he is, the human being is not an instrument of work, is a subject of natural and political rights that can’t be taken from him except for a criminal act and only some political rights.
Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation. last time I checked immigrants can only vote in the nation they are a member of.
The workers can withdraw a leader at any time,
Then prepare to be isolated from the world community, I wouldn’t sign a contract with a President, Chairman or whatever who can be removed at any moment.
there would be no president or chairman to sighn with only a council whose view as a whole unit would not shift because of one member being removed
Society needs a Governor elected for a determined period of time and the security that at the end of that period will abandon the office or be reelected by direct, personal and universal vote, that’s the minimum security required for investors and for treaties, you can’t sign a treaty or a contract with a guy that may be removed tomorrow and the follower ignore everything done by his predecessor.
But that only applies to the individual, and there would be no individual rule, only rule as a group.
It’s normal that a Governor looses a great percentage of popularity during some moment of his government, so you would have changes every week, but the followers of this removed leader will fight to keep him and you will have revolutions every day.
The consequence is that the system would fail because of it’s own contradictions.
And democracy doesn't?
and as there is no army except the militia of the workers there is nothing that the council can do to stop them.
The workers as a mass don’t have the capacity to manage a militia, army and police to keep the peace are required.
of course they would be trained by the government but in the end the people would have the guns... if evryone worked than each person could work less time, leaving more time for such activities.
You are free to not be a communist and not support the system, but in doing so you are saying that the system does not need to support you ither, and because there is no tecnical government there is no one to get upset and feel the need to kill you.
In other words or you agree with us or go to hell.....And what if the people get tired of Communism?
Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.
Isn’t the obligation of a system to provide security for all the citizens and not only for the followers?
no. at least I dont think about it that way. is the purpose of a church to force evryone to come on sunday or is it for those who choose?
Wow no technical Government...Isn’t this anarchism? Who will represent the people? Who will sign the treaties?
Close. The people. an elected councle of the people.
This is a form of communism known as libretarian or council communism, it was a movement that was gaining strength before the revolution in russia, but the offitial party wiped it out.
This may work in small communities but not in a country.
how do you know? it has never been tried. worse comes to worse screw countries and have communities.
P.S. the revolution has not occured yet! there are sertain prerequisites that need to be met first, one being that the country that adopts the system should already be powerfull and not a dump in the first place.
Another flaw, Communism is a reaction of people in countries where things don’t run well, big countries with enough resources tend to step away from Communism, look at China, it was Communist until they got technology and now Communism is being abandoned.
they wern't actually communist, I thought I established that, and so the exsample does not apply Mao was a poser
The countries that thought they were products of the revolution have mainly been decades behind and poor as dirt.
Those are the only counties in which Communism has a chance to appear, where there’s an oppressed majority and social injustice, where most of the citizens don’t have enough to eat.
wow, and I thought there was a huge rebellion in paris not too long ago, the french are still a world power right?
If most people have a property and have a work, they won’t allow nobody to take what they have gained with their effort, so don’t expect Communism in powerful countries
this is why I hate N korea, china USSR etc. communism is suppost to be voluntary
In prosperous countries you will never find Communism, maybe Social Democracy or Euro Socialism, but Communism never.
not yet. the same could be and was said about democracy. Look at democracy in Iraq, people forget that in the beggining in the first election the people voted for sudam, people voted hitler into office also.
Iván
I know it will sound stupid from a communist but to see a good example of communism in the works look at the book of acts in the bible, another good example would be native americans or certain greek states (in antient times) |
|
I know I could argue with you all day and not change your mind. If you have questions PM me, otherwise this is just taking up space and will get no where.
edit: at least we can agree (to some extent) musically |
Mandatory form of government, no property, no freedom, no individual rights, nationality only for those who agree with your system.....this sounds very similar to other document:
The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC CRAP DELETED
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
22 We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
24 We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25 In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives. | |
The highlifgted parts are almost identical to your utopic and mandatory communism, it's funny how despite the color and ideology all totalitarism is similar.
Lets stay agreeing with music because your post is simply unbelievable.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 08 2007 at 22:13
|
|
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 22:22 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
I have never taken part in the picking apart of argument's but I have seen it done and so will try.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Proletariat wrote:
|
I haven’t heard such an example of Dialectic Determinism since the University and still believe it’s flawed.
OK
I read the manifesto of on my own, the school was not involved.
Well, we read it at school, but deeply in the University.
Good for you
Under true communism the workers elect a council of leaders, those leaders are still expected to work. Anyone who does not do work dosn't get to vote.
This is absurd, the vote is a political right inherent to the human being despite how productive he is, the human being is not an instrument of work, is a subject of natural and political rights that can’t be taken from him except for a criminal act and only some political rights.
Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation. last time I checked immigrants can only vote in the nation they are a member of.
The workers can withdraw a leader at any time,
Then prepare to be isolated from the world community, I wouldn’t sign a contract with a President, Chairman or whatever who can be removed at any moment.
there would be no president or chairman to sighn with only a council whose view as a whole unit would not shift because of one member being removed
Society needs a Governor elected for a determined period of time and the security that at the end of that period will abandon the office or be reelected by direct, personal and universal vote, that’s the minimum security required for investors and for treaties, you can’t sign a treaty or a contract with a guy that may be removed tomorrow and the follower ignore everything done by his predecessor.
But that only applies to the individual, and there would be no individual rule, only rule as a group.
It’s normal that a Governor looses a great percentage of popularity during some moment of his government, so you would have changes every week, but the followers of this removed leader will fight to keep him and you will have revolutions every day.
The consequence is that the system would fail because of it’s own contradictions.
And democracy doesn't?
and as there is no army except the militia of the workers there is nothing that the council can do to stop them.
The workers as a mass don’t have the capacity to manage a militia, army and police to keep the peace are required.
of course they would be trained by the government but in the end the people would have the guns... if evryone worked than each person could work less time, leaving more time for such activities.
You are free to not be a communist and not support the system, but in doing so you are saying that the system does not need to support you ither, and because there is no tecnical government there is no one to get upset and feel the need to kill you.
In other words or you agree with us or go to hell.....And what if the people get tired of Communism?
Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.
Isn’t the obligation of a system to provide security for all the citizens and not only for the followers?
no. at least I dont think about it that way. is the purpose of a church to force evryone to come on sunday or is it for those who choose?
Wow no technical Government...Isn’t this anarchism? Who will represent the people? Who will sign the treaties?
Close. The people. an elected councle of the people.
This is a form of communism known as libretarian or council communism, it was a movement that was gaining strength before the revolution in russia, but the offitial party wiped it out.
This may work in small communities but not in a country.
how do you know? it has never been tried. worse comes to worse screw countries and have communities.
P.S. the revolution has not occured yet! there are sertain prerequisites that need to be met first, one being that the country that adopts the system should already be powerfull and not a dump in the first place.
Another flaw, Communism is a reaction of people in countries where things don’t run well, big countries with enough resources tend to step away from Communism, look at China, it was Communist until they got technology and now Communism is being abandoned.
they wern't actually communist, I thought I established that, and so the exsample does not apply Mao was a poser
The countries that thought they were products of the revolution have mainly been decades behind and poor as dirt.
Those are the only counties in which Communism has a chance to appear, where there’s an oppressed majority and social injustice, where most of the citizens don’t have enough to eat.
wow, and I thought there was a huge rebellion in paris not too long ago, the french are still a world power right?
If most people have a property and have a work, they won’t allow nobody to take what they have gained with their effort, so don’t expect Communism in powerful countries
this is why I hate N korea, china USSR etc. communism is suppost to be voluntary
In prosperous countries you will never find Communism, maybe Social Democracy or Euro Socialism, but Communism never.
not yet. the same could be and was said about democracy. Look at democracy in Iraq, people forget that in the beggining in the first election the people voted for sudam, people voted hitler into office also.
Iván
I know it will sound stupid from a communist but to see a good example of communism in the works look at the book of acts in the bible, another good example would be native americans or certain greek states (in antient times) |
|
I know I could argue with you all day and not change your mind. If you have questions PM me, otherwise this is just taking up space and will get no where.
edit: at least we can agree (to some extent) musically |
Mandatory form of government, no property, no freedom, no individual rights, nationality only for those who agree with your system.....this sounds very similar to other document:
The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party
RACIST AND XENOPHOBIC CRAP DELETED
11 That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12 Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14 We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15 We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
16 We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
17 We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
18 We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
19 We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
20 In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
21 The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
22 We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
23 We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
24 We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
25 In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives. | |
The highlifgted parts are almost identical to your utopic and mandatory communism, it's funny how despite the color and ideology all totalitarism is similar.
Lets stay agreeing with music because your post is simply unbelievable.
Iván |
did you actually read what I wrote?
I just said not manditory
communism is an economic system. it has little to do with the government.
The diffrence is the racism and that power was given to one man.
I dont see how these compare.
I dont agree with 18 and 23 and said so. edit: oh and 25 is bs too
I agree that the form of communism as it exists today is alot like natzi's but not because that is how its suppost to be, because it was twisted by the power hungry and the same happens in democracys.
are you saying that free markets reduce genocide, because there are free markets in the sudan, some of the free-est in the world, if you want the opposite of communism that is where you should go.
Edited by Proletariat - June 08 2007 at 22:29
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 22:29 |
^^^
for the most part the problimatic ones were not highlited
with the exclusion of 18 23 and 25 as I said
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 22:56 |
¨Proletariat wrote:
|
did you actually read what I wrote?
Completely amazed but I read it all, I thought this radical positions had already been accepted as flawed.
I just said not manditory
Yes sure but you say that if you don't agree with the system the Government should not care for you and you shjould abandon yor OWN COUNTRY, and then you dare to say it's not mandatory???????
You say Communism must noit be mandatory,. but you wrote:
| Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation. |
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN OFFICIAL SOCIETY, and thoise who don't agree are not part of the nation....DO YOU STILL DARE TO SAY IT'S NOT MANDATORY??????
When I ask you if the people who don't agree with your system should gop to hell, you answer me:
|
Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.
|
And you have the guts to tell me that this is not mandatory??? PLEASE
communism is an economic system. it has little to do with the government.
Communism is a political philosophy with economic consequences, be honest in that.
The diffrence is the racism and that power was given to one man.
Yep dictatorship of Hitler against dictatorship of the proletariat......at the end is a DICTATORSHIP.
I dont see how these compare.
You must be blind because everything you mentioned is there, the workerds army (called Folk army) the abolition of proivate property, etc.
I dont agree with 18 and 23 and said so.
How humanitaruian, you don't believe in death penalty but those who don't agree with Communism can go too USA because your state should not care for them, you should be awarded with the Peace Nobel Prize.
I agree that the form of communism as it exists today is alot like natzi's but not because that is how its suppost to be, because it was twisted by the power hungry and the same happens in democracys.
All that you said is in the 25 points of the Nazi Manifesto, extremes touch each other.
are you saying that free markets reduce genocide, because there are free markets in the sucan, some of the free-est in the world, if you want the opposite of communism that is where you should go.
Gensocides? Who is talking about Genocides?
Sucan?
Hey I'm talking about the democratic system, one man, one vote, human, civil and political rights for everybody, respect to private property, as in any civilized country.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 08 2007 at 23:10
|
|
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: June 08 2007 at 23:19 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
¨Proletariat wrote:
|
did you actually read what I wrote?
Completely amazed but I read it all, I thought this radical positions had already been accepted as flawed.
I just said not manditory
Yes sure but you say that if you don't agree with the system the Government should not care for you and you shjould abandon yor OWN COUNTRY, and then you dare to say it's not mandatory???????
You say Communism must noit be mandatory,. but you wrote:
| Look if he chooses a diffrent society over the offitial one (that is based on productivity)than he isn't a part of the nation. |
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN OFFICIAL SOCIETY, and thoise who don't agree are not part of the nation....DO YOU STILL DARE TO SAY IT'S NOT MANDATORY??????
When I ask you if the people who don't agree with your system should gop to hell, you answer me:
|
Not to hell (that would be christianity) but to another country. I believe the US still takes in rejects at times.
|
And you have the guts to tell me that this is not mandatory??? PLEASE
communism is an economic system. it has little to do with the government.
Communism is a political philosophy with economic consequences, be honest in that.
The diffrence is the racism and that power was given to one man.
Yep dictatorship of Hitler against dictatorship of the proletariat......at the end is a DICTATORSHIP.
I dont see how these compare.
You must be blind because everything you mentioned is there, the workerds army (called Folk army) the abolition of proivate property, etc.
I dont agree with 18 and 23 and said so.
How humanitaruian, you don't believe in death penalty but those who don't agree with Communism can go too USA because your state should not care for them, you should be awarded with the Peace Nobel Prize.
I agree that the form of communism as it exists today is alot like natzi's but not because that is how its suppost to be, because it was twisted by the power hungry and the same happens in democracys.
All that you said is in the 25 points of the Nazi Manifesto, extremes touch each other.
are you saying that free markets reduce genocide, because there are free markets in the sucan, some of the free-est in the world, if you want the opposite of communism that is where you should go.
Gensocides? Who is talking about Genocides?
Sucan?
Hey I'm talking about the democratic system, one man, one vote, human, civil and political rights for everybody, respect to private property, as in any civilized country.
Iván
|
|
Edit: deleted, why do I care.
Go live your life.
Edited by Proletariat - June 08 2007 at 23:20
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 09 2007 at 08:02 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The highlifgted parts are almost identical to your utopic and mandatory communism, it's funny how despite the color and ideology all totalitarism is similar.
Lets stay agreeing with music because your post is simply unbelievable.
Iván |
Bravo Ivan!!!
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 09 2007 at 08:05 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Chus wrote:
BTW Ivan getting back on subject isn't what Chavez is doing here the same Velasco did in Peru? I'm sure Peruvians know more about Chavez than us Venezuelans
Let us remind the military coup attempt lead by Chavez in 1992. Had he succeeded, he would had been Velasco II |
Well Velazco at least was a dictator who accepted was a dictator.
Velazco overthroned Fernando Belaunde Terry with the army, declared himself President of the Revolutionary Governent. of the Army Forces (Govierno Revolucionario de las Fuerzas Armadas).
The first thing he did was to tnationalize the International Petroleum Company from the USA administration, of course this was a robbery because there was no payment for the machinery or stoicks.We had oil before Velazco...After his Government not.
He then took all the Media and named General Editors, sent to prison every owner of media except those who sold their line or the ones who escaped.
He declared an Agrarian Reform, took the farms from their owners without any payment, it was the worst thing ever happened, our agriculture collapsed. In two years Perú was buying POTATO from Czechoslovakia. we were N° 4 in the world in sugar before him, then we dissapeared from the charts..
The people who recieved the cattle ate it in 6 months instead of making it grow and in a year we were buying meat from USSR. The peasants ate everything and in 2 years a migration started because there was no Agriculture, Lima passed from 4 million citizens to 8 million lumped in Pueblos Jovenes (ghettos) that didn't existed before Velazco.
He took the fishing Industry for the state when we were N° 1 even over Japan, when he left we were bellow the N° 100.
Stole the money from the Banks, forcing people to sell their dollars at a controlled price (Those found with dollars were sent to prison) when the real price was 50 times higher, so if you had US$ 10,000.00 in the bank, the next day you received US$ 200.00 in State Papers with no value.
It was a mess, we were isolated from the international community, we almost had a war with Chile and another one with Ecuador. He banned Rock & Roll as a form of Yankee imperialism, prohibited the teaching of English in public schools and forced to teach Quechua, an almost dissapeared language.
Wven the language used by both is similar, those who defend freedom of speech are not called Anti Venezuelans or Anti Peruvians, they are called Anti Revolutionaries as if the Revolution was a supreme value over the country.
The names of Bolivar sand Tupac Amaru started to be mentioned as our gods and of course Fidel Castro was a Continental hero.
Yes I see many similarities and if Chavez would had reached the Government in 1992, he wouuld had been exact.
Iván
|
Amazing and sad
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: June 11 2007 at 07:56 |
Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't want to discuss that much politics this WE. It was pretty tough for me. I voted for the first time in my life to have the socialist lose out, and unfortunately, the rotten (Walloon) party lost few seats (4) while the honest one (Flemish) one got a wipe out (9 seats) for no reason.
The latest election results are catastrophic for the future of the country: it will take months of discussions to form a gov't.
IVNORD wrote:
Much of the Communists regime in Latin America were reaction to US exploitation. You look at it from the morality side. I just state the facts and leave the morality alone. The Big money is immoral but it moves the world. It interferes in Latin America as much as it does in Europe and elsewhere. Fighting it is like trying to stop a huge millstone - it will crush you. I can't stand human misery but all i can do is just close my eyes not to see it and try to stay out of that misery. Because I know there will always be poor and exploited people. And I know first hand how bad and humiliating poverty is.
>> I am a little aghast by your cynism (I am often cynic myself) which I think is caused by your lucidity and a good dose of fatalism (even resignation). In a way, you're completely right, what's the use of fighting it, it is overpowering everything. And you make no qualms saying that you participate into that pyramid
But if you don't fight it (pure capitalim/imperialism), you get horror like Red October.
I have not yet given up hope (and still fight fo it) that my idealism coming from my Uni days of a relatively equal world
Those Cubans in Miami are anything but nice. Your judgement is too harsh. Lots of decent people left Cuba, middle class and poor ones. I don't think their claims to their property are illegitimate. Whatever they had, a country house or a cigar factory. Would you consider confiscating you 9-year old car a fair act? (unless your sick of the gasoline prices and want to get rid of it anyway)
His policies led us to the Iraq war. That you blame 9/11 on Clinton, I can see why (Bush was barely into power >> but I prefer Michael Moore's version) because the Clinton administration ignored the warnings of Mombassa and Dar Es Salaam. And that you claim Clinton's responsabilities of the Afghan invasion, I can still see why you would ..... But blaming Clinton for the Iraq war is not only bloody scandalous, but also preposterous. Clinton had NOTHING to do with invading a innocent country (re: 9/11) >> this was all Bush's doing.
If you don't look at things from the economy perspective, you will continue to confuse the primary and the secondary. >> again your cynism, I believe
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 11 2007 at 13:45 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't want to discuss that much politics this WE. Don’t worry, I’m pretty busy on weekends too.
It was pretty tough for me. I voted for the first time in my life to have the socialist lose out, and unfortunately, the rotten (Walloon) party lost few seats (4) while the honest one (Flemish) one got a wipe out (9 seats) for no reason.
The latest election results are catastrophic for the future of the country: it will take months of discussions to form a gov't.
IVNORD wrote:
Much of the Communists regime in Latin America were reaction to US exploitation. You look at it from the morality side. I just state the facts and leave the morality alone. The Big money is immoral but it moves the world. It interferes in Latin America as much as it does in Europe and elsewhere. Fighting it is like trying to stop a huge millstone - it will crush you. I can't stand human misery but all i can do is just close my eyes not to see it and try to stay out of that misery. Because I know there will always be poor and exploited people. And I know first hand how bad and humiliating poverty is.
>> I am a little aghast by your cynism (I am often cynic myself) Once a cynic, always a cynic. Don’t you think it helps us keep talking? which I think is caused by your lucidity and a good dose of fatalism (even resignation). How about pragmatism? Caused by pragmatism? In a way, you're completely right, what's the use of fighting it, it is overpowering everything. And you make no qualms saying that you participate into that pyramid You should too. You’ve admitted that you perform that balancing act of reconciling your bourgeois way of living with your conscience by means of “fighting it (pure capitalism/imperialism).” Now it’s time to admit that you’re a recipient of the imperialism you’re fighting. Maybe an unaware or unwilling one, but still a recipient. As well as I am. I may be closer in line to the through, but you’re not that far behind. And if we take a closer look, we will see our friends Chus and Ivan standing in line too. The same line, different countries
But if you don't fight it (pure capitalim/imperialism), you get horror like Red October.
Wonder which you’re referring to – the Russian revolution or the submarine movie. Both were horrific.
I have not yet given up hope (and still fight fo it) that my idealism coming from my Uni days of a relatively equal world I wish you all the luck. And if you succeed I'll be the first to shake your hand.
Those Cubans in Miami are anything but nice. Your judgement is too harsh. Lots of decent people left Cuba, middle class and poor ones. I don't think their claims to their property are illegitimate. Whatever they had, a country house or a cigar factory. Would you consider confiscating you 9-year old car a fair act? (unless your sick of the gasoline prices and want to get rid of it anyway)
His policies led us to the Iraq war. That you blame 9/11 on Clinton, I can see why (Bush was barely into power >> but I prefer Michael Moore's version) because the Clinton administration ignored the warnings of Mombassa and Dar Es Salaam. And that you claim Clinton's responsabilities of the Afghan invasion, I can still see why you would ..... But blaming Clinton for the Iraq war is not only bloody scandalous, but also preposterous. Iraq and Afghanistan have equal weight here. Clinton could have gotten rid of Osama a number of times, but he was busy with his personal things. Clinton had NOTHING to do with invading a innocent country (re: 9/11) >> this was all Bush's doing. It was Das Kapital's doing. Saddam was implicated in 9/11. True, no direct evidence was found, but neither were found his chemical weapons, and we all know they’ve existed. Das Kapital does not care about human tragedy (no drastic action has been taken against Quadaffi with all his terrorism), so Saddam would have been left alone if not for the economic disruption 9/11 caused. Call it cynicism but that's what it is.
Were I Venezuelan, and supporting Chavez, I'd probably protest the closures as well. Again, I meant it differently. The US rules are - don't interrupt the oil supplies. Then nobody will touch him. I took the liberty of slightly rewriting the rules you mention here. Be my guest. Obviously, the US thinks it has the right for those primary resources (oil in this case), and that they are willing to play a given price, but it belongs to them  , Its called imperialism. Note that any nation takes advantage of a weaker one (as Belgium had it with Congo, etc.) which I find intolerable does not depend on one's personal taste  . This translates into: Chavez, you can do whatever you please with your country, as long as you sell us your oil. Correct
If you don't look at things from the economy perspective, you will continue to confuse the primary and the secondary. >> again your cynism, I believe
I tend to think that cynicism is when tough and ugly truth is spoken. Just stating the fact.
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 06:01 |
IVNORD wrote:
>> I am a little aghast by your cynism (I am often cynic myself) Once a cynic, always a cynic. Don’t you think it helps us keep talking? You might have a point there. Then I am an idealist cynic.
which I think is caused by your lucidity and a good dose of fatalism (even resignation). How about pragmatism? Caused by pragmatism? >> OK you evil pragmatist
In a way, you're completely right, what's the use of fighting it, it is overpowering everything. And you make no qualms saying that you participate into that pyramid You should too. You’ve admitted that you perform that balancing act of reconciling your bourgeois way of living >> Well I am being a bit sarcastic of myself because I precisely avoid acting and living like a bourgeois, but compared to the world population, I must estimate my standard of living to be among the top 20%. I was refferring to myself fighting the revolution from my computer in my living room while listening to prog music.
with your conscience by means of “fighting it (pure capitalism/imperialism).” Now it’s time to admit that you’re a recipient of the imperialism you’re fighting. Actually I contribute probably much more than being a recipient, but my everyday combat to drive to a more equal world (no matter of insignificant it may be) ismaking me a bit more at peace with myself rather than plain admitting that I contribute and enforce the ugly machine, without trying to steer it as much as I can. This is why I voted against the Socialist this WE >> sending them in the opposition to rebuild rather than let the crooked machine get worse.
Maybe an unaware or unwilling one, but still a recipient. As well as I am. I may be closer in line to the through, but you’re not that far behind. And if we take a closer look, we will see our friends Chus and Ivan standing in line too. The same line, different countries >> Obviously, we are all from the middle class(some evn from the upper middle class, maybe), but I don't find the middle class being much the recipient of imperialism, but being in some rather weird way, we appear either the role model for the poor (feeding the ugly machine) wanting to better their standard of living, or the ugly servants to the that ugly machine they are fighting because it oppresses them.
But if you don't fight it (pure capitalim/imperialism), you get horror like Red October.
Wonder which you’re referring to – the Russian revolution or the submarine movie. Both were horrific. I meant the Russian revolution, but also the many French revolutions before (and the violence that came from them >> this is what I meant by horrible, even if the film was not good either >> but the book was correct). This revolution lead to unqualified agression towards those that were the top of the pyramid, but tried to keep the system in place. There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable.
I have not yet given up hope (and still fight fo it) that my idealism coming from my Uni days of a relatively equal world I wish you all the luck. And if you succeed I'll be the first to shake your hand. Well we will need luck, and I think mine is a losing battle (especially when the sharing system is corrupted like it was in Belgium), ultimately greed will always be stronger. Doesn't mean we don't have to fight it, though!
Those Cubans in Miami are anything but nice. Your judgement is too harsh. Lots of decent people left Cuba, middle class and poor ones. I don't think their claims to their property are illegitimate. Whatever they had, a country house or a cigar factory. meant to adress this yesterday (which is why I didn't edit it) but eventually forgot top reply >> Most of the Cubans that escaped the Revolution in the early days were mafiosis (the ones that had the means to flee it), the middle class (never numerous enough in Latin America and this is one of the reasons why stability is still eluding the South and Cental American continents) that managed to flee did it on boats of fortunes >> those famous boat people.
But blaming Clinton for the Iraq war is not only bloody scandalous, but also preposterous. Iraq and Afghanistan have equal weight here. Clinton could have gotten rid of Osama a number of times, but he was busy with his personal things. >> the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11
Clinton had NOTHING to do with invading a innocent country (re: 9/11) >> this was all Bush's doing. It was Das Kapital's doing. Saddam was implicated in 9/11. >>What???    The Saudis were the culprits but Bush chose to ignore the oil suppliers (and fortune bringer since they're into oil!! Bush used the US forces to his own private means, by lying about the Saudis and falsely accusing Saddam, but at the same time get a hold of 9% of the world oil reserves >> If the US were not so bloody blind, they should demand that he pays the Iraq war from his own pocket
True, no direct evidence was found, but neither were found his chemical weapons, and we all know they’ve existed. >> Iraq probably bought the gasses from somewhere else, but they were probably never able to produce them by themselves.
Das Kapital does not care about human tragedy (no drastic action has been taken against Quadaffi with all his terrorism), so Saddam would have been left alone if not for the economic disruption 9/11 caused. Call it cynicism but that's what it is.
Obviously, the US thinks it has the right for those primary resources (oil in this case), and that they are willing to play a given price, but it belongs to them , Its called imperialism. Note that any nation takes advantage of a weaker one (as Belgium had it with Congo, etc.) >> Indeed Colonialism is a form of imperialism that hides behind the so-called excuse of civilizing the occupied grounds. Certainly not anymore acceptable to me.
Chavez, you can do whatever you please with your country, as long as you sell us your oil. Correct >> and that suits you?
If you don't look at things from the economy perspective, you will continue to confuse the primary and the secondary. >> again your cynism, I believe
I tend to think that cynicism is when tough and ugly truth is spoken. Just stating the fact. >> I think cyniscism is accepting the tough and ugly truth and not fight it, even finding an advantage into it. Which in turns becomes opportunism once you start proffitting from it.
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:19 |
Sean Trane wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
>> I am a little aghast by your cynism (I am often cynic myself) Once a cynic, always a cynic. Don’t you think it helps us keep talking? You might have a point there. Then I am an idealist cynic. Whatever makes you happy...
which I think is caused by your lucidity and a good dose of fatalism (even resignation). How about pragmatism? Caused by pragmatism? >> OK you evil pragmatist I may not be that evil
In a way, you're completely right, what's the use of fighting it, it is overpowering everything. And you make no qualms saying that you participate into that pyramid You should too. You’ve admitted that you perform that balancing act of reconciling your bourgeois way of living >> Well I am being a bit sarcastic of myself because I precisely avoid acting and living like a bourgeois, you may be kidding yourself but compared to the world population, I must estimate my standard of living to be among the top 20%. I was refferring to myself fighting the revolution from my computer in my living room while listening to prog music. definetely kidding yourself
with your conscience by means of “fighting it (pure capitalism/imperialism).” Now it’s time to admit that you’re a recipient of the imperialism you’re fighting. Actually I contribute probably much more than being a recipient, but my everyday combat to drive to a more equal world (no matter of insignificant it may be) ismaking me a bit more at peace with myself that's the only benefit here - making peace with your conscience, the rest is in vain rather than plain admitting that I contribute and enforce the ugly machine, without trying to steer it as much as I can. If you're aalluding to me, I've already admitted it although I contribute to it unwillingly, the same way as you do. This is why I voted against the Socialist this WE >> sending them in the opposition to rebuild rather than let the crooked machine get worse. I don't know much about Belgian politics, but our two-party system stinks as the two parties become increasingly similar. And whenever they re-build (lose the elections) the crooked machine gets even worse as theu become more hypocritical trying to win the next elections.
Maybe an unaware or unwilling one, but still a recipient. As well as I am. I may be closer in line to the through, but you’re not that far behind. And if we take a closer look, we will see our friends Chus and Ivan standing in line too. The same line, different countries >> Obviously, we are all from the middle class(some evn from the upper middle class, maybe), but I don't find the middle class being much the recipient of imperialism, but being in some rather weird way, we appear either the role model for the poor (feeding the ugly machine) wanting to better their standard of living, or the ugly servants to the that ugly machine they are fighting because it oppresses them. We are at the through. Even though we get scraps and crumbles from the master's table, it's more than Nothing the poor get from them. In some weird way, we may (may!) be a role model, but we're rather viewed as the ugly servants (as much as I resent that, I can only choose not to vacation in Latin American countries any longer). That is another, though minor, factor in my resignation to fight the system - people are never thankful due to envy and misunderstanding. But I truly believe it will come to them in time when the economy grants it. This is the main factor of not fighting.
But if you don't fight it (pure capitalim/imperialism), you get horror like Red October.
Wonder which you’re referring to – the Russian revolution or the submarine movie. Both were horrific. I meant the Russian revolution, but also the many French revolutions before (and the violence that came from them >> this is what I meant by horrible, even if the film was not good either >> but the book was correct). This revolution lead to unqualified agression towards those that were the top of the pyramid, but tried to keep the system in place. There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable. When the system discovered that sharing can be as profitable as the total robbery was before it, chances for extremely violent revolutions greatly diminished. But the sharing was made possible by the improved economy (as we've discussed it before). The trick of feeding a crowd with five breads and three fishes had been performed only once and never immitated again, as I'm sure you're well aware of.
I have not yet given up hope (and still fight fo it) that my idealism coming from my Uni days of a relatively equal world I wish you all the luck. And if you succeed I'll be the first to shake your hand. Well we will need luck, and I think mine is a losing battle This is fatalism (especially when the sharing system is corrupted like it was in Belgium), ultimately greed will always be stronger. This is pragmatism. Doesn't mean we don't have to fight it, though! This is idealism. You're a man of many means
Those Cubans in Miami are anything but nice. Your judgement is too harsh. Lots of decent people left Cuba, middle class and poor ones. I don't think their claims to their property are illegitimate. Whatever they had, a country house or a cigar factory. meant to adress this yesterday (which is why I didn't edit it) but eventually forgot top reply >> Most of the Cubans that escaped the Revolution in the early days were mafiosis (the ones that had the means to flee it), the middle class (never numerous enough in Latin America and this is one of the reasons why stability is still eluding the South and Cental American continents) that managed to flee did it on boats of fortunes >> those famous boat people. I don't know much about the stages of the Cuban immigration, but there are lots of decent Cubans here.
But blaming Clinton for the Iraq war is not only bloody scandalous, but also preposterous. Iraq and Afghanistan have equal weight here. Clinton could have gotten rid of Osama a number of times, but he was busy with his personal things. >> the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11 Sometimes I feel like it too, but it was Clinton's fault in the first place.
Clinton had NOTHING to do with invading a innocent country (re: 9/11) >> this was all Bush's doing. It was Das Kapital's doing. Saddam was implicated in 9/11. >>What??? It was too coordinated and well planned to be a dealing of a small group of amateurs. Chances are some intelligence service (Iraqi?) was behind it. There were some indications of Saddam's involvement in the first WTC explosion in 93. I don't have any concrete proof though. He threatened with reprisals back in 90-91 during the Kuwait affair. The Saudis were the culprits but Bush chose to ignore the oil suppliers (and fortune bringer since they're into oil!! Bush used the US forces to his own private means, Not that simple. US presidents are puppets of the big money. Whatever they do, must get a prior approval. Whenever they try to do something unacceptable for the system (like Clinton) they take a beating. by lying about the Saudis and falsely accusing Saddam, but at the same time get a hold of 9% of the world oil reserves >> If the US were not so bloody blind, they should demand that he pays the Iraq war from his own pocket
True, no direct evidence was found, but neither were found his chemical weapons, and we all know they’ve existed. >> Iraq probably bought the gasses from somewhere else, but they were probably never able to produce them by themselves. Libia manufactured poison gas, so did Saddam, it's not high tech. He hid it somewhere. Either that or the US did not want to find it for some political and propaganda reasons.
Das Kapital does not care about human tragedy (no drastic action has been taken against Quadaffi with all his terrorism), so Saddam would have been left alone if not for the economic disruption 9/11 caused. Call it cynicism but that's what it is.
Obviously, the US thinks it has the right for those primary resources (oil in this case), and that they are willing to play a given price, but it belongs to them , Its called imperialism. Note that any nation takes advantage of a weaker one (as Belgium had it with Congo, etc.) >> Indeed Colonialism is a form of imperialism that hides behind the so-called excuse of civilizing the occupied grounds. Certainly not anymore acceptable to me.
Chavez, you can do whatever you please with your country, as long as you sell us your oil. Correct >> and that suits you? I just state the fact. Does it suit me? There's nothing I can do, so I go with the flow.
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:30 |
IVNORD wrote:
Well I am being a bit sarcastic of myself because I precisely avoid acting and living like a bourgeois, you may be kidding yourself >> Actually someone from the third world would probably agree with that, but I think I am pretty lucid about where I stand in the ballgame >> just on the fringe of the playground, but I prefer that than being up in the last row of the granstand seats.
but compared to the world population, I must estimate my standard of living to be among the top 20%. I was refferring to myself fighting the revolution from my computer in my living room while listening to prog music. definetely kidding yourself >> which is why I was humouring about being a bourgeois. >>> "les révolutionaires de salon" >> which would translate roughly in sport jargon as: couch potato MVP and coach of the year.
but my everyday combat to drive to a more equal world (no matter of insignificant it may be) is making me a bit more at peace with myself that's the only benefit here - making peace with your conscience, the rest is in vain >> well being able to sleep with yourself at standing your own stare in the mirror while shaving (twice a week max) is rather important in how one thinks of himself. I've seen so many progheads with defeatist/loser self image, that I wonder how they've not committed suicide.
rather than plain admitting that I contribute and enforce the ugly machine, without trying to steer it as much as I can. If you're alluding to me, I've already admitted it although I contribute to it unwillingly, the same way as you do. Not only am I contributing unwillingly, but I'm trying to to steer it a bit (as much as I can without actually getting my shirt too wet) in this, even if as I said, it's most likely a losing battle.
And whenever they re-build (lose the elections) the crooked machine gets even worse as they become more hypocritical trying to win the next elections. >> the idea of rebuilding is expelling the "fauteur de troubles" from the party, getting new people in. >> In no way is this battle won, I doubt of the outcome and even doubt of their real will to do something about it, but to gain credibility back, they'll have to do something other than lie or cheat.
we appear either the role model for the poor (feeding the ugly machine) wanting to better their standard of living, or the ugly servants to the that ugly machine they are fighting because it oppresses them. We are at the through >> I suppose you meant : "trough". Even though we get scraps and crumbles from the master's table, it's more than Nothing the poor get from them.
In some weird way, we may (may!) be a role model, but we're rather viewed as the ugly servants (as much as I resent that, I can only choose not to vacation in Latin American countries any longer). >> the best way to help them is actually spending your money with them by avoiding international hotels (this is what they do in Dominican Republic >> they scare you to go out of the grounds so you can laze by the pool sipping over-priced pina coladas), you get to meet the people, if it interest you. It might give you guilt trips also, though!!
That is another, though minor, factor in my resignation to fight the system - people are never thankful due to envy and misunderstanding. But I truly believe it will come to them in time when the economy grants it. This is the main factor of not fighting.
There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable. When the system discovered that sharing can be as profitable as the total robbery was before it, chances for extremely violent revolutions greatly diminished. But the sharing was made possible by the improved economy (as we've discussed it before). The trick of feeding a crowd with five breads and three fishes had been performed only once and never immitated again, as I'm sure you're well aware of. >> And it is complete fallacy too
Well we will need luck, and I think mine is a losing battle This is fatalism>> This is lucidity ultimately greed will always be stronger. This is pragmatism >> this is fatalism. Doesn't mean we don't have to fight it, though! This is idealism. >> Yup You're a man of many means >> if only they were financial rather than ideals >> ooops I'd probably become one of those uglies at the top of the pyramid
>> those famous boat people. I don't know much about the stages of the Cuban immigration, but there are lots of decent Cubans here. >> indeed there are few sane apples in that rotten bushell
the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11 Sometimes I feel like it too, but it was Clinton's fault in the first place. >> You'd better watch Farenheit 911>> you'll be amazed really!! Michael Moore is probably the American I respect most.(bar the PA forum sparring partners of course)
It was too coordinated and well planned to be a dealing of a small group of amateurs >> indeed the puppet regime of Saddam was completely incapable of organizing this. . Chances are some intelligence service (Iraqi?>> small modification here... Saudi?>> they're well introduced and trusted through the Bush clan) was behind it. There were some indications of Saddam's involvement in the first WTC explosion in 93. I don't have any concrete proof though. He threatened with reprisals back in 90-91 during the Kuwait affair.
Saudis were the culprits but Bush chose to ignore the oil suppliers (and fortune bringer since they're into oil!! Bush used the US forces to his own private means, Not that simple. US presidents are puppets of the big money. Whatever they do, must get a prior approval. Whenever they try to do something unacceptable for the system (like Clinton) they take a beating >> ever wonder why Monica did not get that (expensive) dress cleaned from his cum, if it was not to blackmail him? >> she was sent by the Republicans. >> indeed you state what really happened, they couldn't turn against the real culprits (Saudis) cos they hold them by the balls, so they chose to pick on the weaker kid (not that I would classify Saddam as anything other than a thug) on the block
by lying about the Saudis and falsely accusing Saddam, but at the same time get a hold of 9% of the world oil reserves >> If the US were not so bloody blind, they should demand that he pays the Iraq war from his own pocket
Libya manufactured poison gas, so did Saddam, it's not high tech. He hid it somewhere. Either that or the US did not want to find it for some political and propaganda reasons. >> had they even found one small funnel, they would've shown it to the world. Even that General (the black dude >> forget his name as I speak) admitted there was no proof and he was anything but convinced when he read those prefabricated proofs on truck trailors.
I think cyniscism is accepting the tough and ugly truth and not fight it, even finding an advantage into it. Which is the same - if you speak of it as being tough and ugly, you accept it. Fightin and taking advantage are moral points. I try to cynically avoid them. Which in turns becomes opportunism once you start proffitting from it. I hardly profit from it, but I am a recipient. >> not muchg to add here. We (you & I) contribute, but not profit from it, crumbs falling from the table is being a recipient. No wonder I don't want kids to grow; as to avoid having them live in such a screwed up world.
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:28 |
OK NOW, please - no more quoting previous quotes. I've seen good arguements on both sides, but now I can hardly follow you guys. And this is from a member known for his long posts. 
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 13:06 |
Sean Trane wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
In some weird way, we may (may!) be a role model, but we're rather viewed as the ugly servants (as much as I resent that, I can only choose not to vacation in Latin American countries any longer). >> the best way to help them is actually spending your money with them by avoiding international hotels (this is what they do in Dominican Republic >> they scare you to go out of the grounds so you can laze by the pool sipping over-priced pina coladas), you get to meet the people, if it interest you. It might give you guilt trips also, though!! It makes me depressed. I don't enjoy human suffering.
There will always more revolutions of that genre unless the sharing is more equitable. When the system discovered that sharing can be as profitable as the total robbery was before it, chances for extremely violent revolutions greatly diminished. But the sharing was made possible by the improved economy (as we've discussed it before). The trick of feeding a crowd with five breads and three fishes had been performed only once and never immitated again, as I'm sure you're well aware of. >> And it is complete fallacy too which is it? the trick or my trust in economy?
the Bush clan created Bin Laden and allowed them (his family) to escape the US on 10/11 Sometimes I feel like it too, but it was Clinton's fault in the first place. >> You'd better watch Farenheit 911>> never did, never will. He's either a "sensationist" making money the way all media does, or, from what I've heard, someone with imposing views which I have plenty of my own to share with the world you'll be amazed really!! Michael Moore is probably the American I respect most.(bar the PA forum sparring partners of course you're very kind )
It was too coordinated and well planned to be a dealing of a small group of amateurs >> indeed the puppet regime of Saddam was completely incapable of organizing this. you lucid rascal! you know what I meant. Chances are some intelligence service (Iraqi?>> small modification here... Saudi?>> they're well introduced and trusted through the Bush clan) I don't buy this conspiracy theory. It would be unreasonably expensive to stage 9/11, the two ensuing wars (especially Iraq) are a drag on the economy. Too irrational for the big money.
Not that simple. US presidents are puppets of the big money. Whatever they do, must get a prior approval. Whenever they try to do something unacceptable for the system (like Clinton) they take a beating >> ever wonder why Monica did not get that (expensive) dress cleaned from his cum, if it was not to blackmail him? >> she was sent by the Republicans. >> the entire 106th congress should have been collectively executed by firing squad on the steps of the Capitol for the idiotic impeachment show. If he wasn't so vain I would have had some respect for the man. But then it wouldn't be him. Because of his vanity he did so much harm.
I hardly profit from it, but I am a recipient. >> not muchg to add here. We (you & I) contribute, but not profit from it, crumbs falling from the table is being a recipient. No wonder I don't want kids to grow so how do you suppress their growth? ; as to avoid having them live in such a screwed up world. On a serious note, that's all you have in life - the continuity of life. Just try to explain to them what your stand is. The problem is that my pragmatic stand may be more viable than your idealistic one. Easier to explain too
|
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: June 12 2007 at 13:10 |
debrewguy wrote:
OK NOW, please - no more quoting previous quotes. I've seen good arguements on both sides, but now I can hardly follow you guys. And this is from a member known for his long posts. |
sorry man. I was under the impression this thread was left for the two of us.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Venezuela and Freedom of Speech.
