Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: Communism [Re: Eric]
    #1183053 -


You only make this concession by your inability to argue these points,
by this position the best you can do to defend the imperialists is to
equate them with the communists



I cannot figure out if you actually think this stuff, or if you are
pretending to be this way in order to play a joke. If you are
playing a joke, please stop it. If you actually do think the stuff
that you have said in this thread, I feel sorry for you.

You are a walking Marxist puppet. Go ahead and spout your slogans
and cite your carefully selected and slanted propaganda. Never will
I allow myself to be so controlled and poisoned by an ideology.
You are so restrained by your beliefs that you see and hear only what
you want to see and hear.

You are an extremist. An extremist is somebody who thinks that
only they know what ails the world, and only their beliefs provide
relief for it. Your kind has afflicted humanity since the beginning
of time, and will probably continue to do so until the end. You and
your ilk are nothing but an infection.

You have yet to counter my arguments with anything other than
your hackneyed "imperialist" diatribes. If I am unable to argue,
then why do you seem to avoid answering any of my important questions?
I will ask them again. I will make them numbered, specific, and
straight-forward. Please answer them.


1.
I am able to admit that some past and present actions of the
Western capitalist democracies were questionable or outright
wrong.

Yet, you are not able to admit the atrocities and aggressions
that occurred because of communist leaders and governments.
You have consistently shown yourself to be a biased apologist for
some of the most murderous regimes in the history of mankind.

Question 1a: Do you acknowledge that various communist leaders
and governments have committed atrocities? YES OR NO
(Some examples are: Stalin's purges where he murdered
millions of Soviet citizens, the Soviet takeover of
Eastern Europe, the Soviet's violent suppression of
any dissent in Eastern European countries, and Pol
Pot's murder of millions of Cambodian citizens.)


2.
Theoretical communism lays down the following steps in order to
obtain a classless society:

-The mass of workers will take control.
-All means of production will be communally owned.
-Economic output will be strictly controlled and evenly distributed.
-After certain goals are accomplished, the state will no longer
be needed. It will wither away, and people will live a communal
existence, where everyone has access to the things that are needed
to sustain and enrich life.

Question 2a: In a controlled economy, all economic production is
taken away from individuals and given to the community
as a whole. How can you guarantee that workers will be
able to work consistently well, given that the things
that they produce will be taken away, and therefore there
will be little personal incentive to accomplish and
achieve? Do you recognize that there is a possibility
that when a person's effort and action are not rewarded,
that the incentive to achieve might diminish?

Question 2b: Do you acknowledge that people not only have needs,
but they also have wants? How will you be able to
respect people's desires, when their economic actions
will be so tightly regimented in a controlled economy?

Question 2c: Once the state withers away, how can you guarantee that
every single person will always devote their actions and
efforts to the good of the commune? If there is no
authority to enforce the attitude of altruism, don't
you think it is possible that several things could
occur, such as factionalism, selfish behavior, and
trade? Do you think it is possible that if there was
no authority to enforce anything, that the communal
situation might devolve into anarchic capitalism?


3.
According to communist theory, I am a member of the proletariat.
Yet, I have explicitly stated that I have no interest in living
under a controlled economy, and I have no interest in living in
the kind of stateless commune that was envisioned by Marx and
Lenin as being the end result of communism. I enjoy living in
a capitalist economy.

Question 3a: What would you do with the people who had no interest
in communism? Would you force them to partake in
your controlled economy, against their will? Or, would
you allow them to govern their economic affairs as they
saw fit? Would you demand that they fall in line with
your ideology?


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1183168 -

First things first, marxists never considered the Khmer Rouge (the Pol Pot regime) to be marxist. There is nothing marxist about emptying out cities, forcing people to live in the countryside. I know there have been attrocities commited by stalinist bearucracies, but they cannot be compared to actions of the imperialists which intervene in the affairs of smaller, weaker countries for economic profit (i.e Panama, Iraq, Chile, Vietnam). Trotskyists call for workers of deformed worker states to overthrow their stalinist betrayers, however, at the same time we are willing to defend these worker states against imperialism even if it means living with the stalinist bearucracy.

Workers states are contradictory, nonetheless they are defended by marxists because gains (like collectivized property) were made in the social revolutions. If the goal for marxists is to have a world socialist egalitarian society, then this is the program which we must follow to rid the world of imperialism. Granted it is a crime that no system of workers democracy exists in these deformed countries, this does not change our position on their defense. Since when did the imperialists care so much about "democracy" anyways?

In regards to your question about the withering away of the state, the state can only wither away when there are no classes, as long as a class exists there will always be a state to surpress the other. The state is an instrument of class surpression, it is an instrument for the bourgeosie to surpress the proletariet. As marxists we recognize that the bourgeosie does not want to give away their power easily, if they did, and they just became workers, then there would be no problem and we could have a socialist society tommorow.....but this is not reality, So the state still has to exist in a workers state to surpress the other class. Once there is a classless society, and no hostile imperialists to defend it from, there is no more need for a state, and the government fuctions will be strictly administrative, and not of surpression.

In regards to your last question, i am hesitent to call you a proletariet because I dont even know you, so i will not make that label right now. A proletariet relates to someones relations to the method of production. The bourgeosie own the methods of production, the proletariet own only their labour to produce. Marxists like myself dont force anyone to take part in anything they dont want. The working class can be recepitive to revolutionary politics or hostile to it depending on the time as well as what is going on.

For example, the Bolsheviks shortly before the revolution (I forget the year) were attacked by workers for their opposition to the war with Germany. As soon as the workers realized what kind of toll the war was having on Russia, their attitudes changed and subsequently in November of 1917 they lined up behind the Bolsheiviks to end capitalism in Russia.

You might be surprised to know that the Bolsheivks actually started out as 5 people in exile in Switzerland.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1183519 -

and therefore there will be little incentive to achieve

Do you think corporate welfare (billions greater than welfare for the poor) has decreased corporate desire to achieve? Look at the flourishing corporate communism either in America or the free trade zones throughout south east asia, mexico, south america, china. The government caters for the corporations every need, if they run into trouble they are bailed out with billions of taxpayers money, they recieve endless billions in welfare, the government reduces workers rights. If the government was treating the poor like this you would consider it extreme communism right? It works fine and I've never heard a corporation complain that their rights have been taken away once.

All we need now is to give a little of this communism to the poor too. Let the government cater for everyones needs like it cares for the corporate needs - only give the poor more as they don't have billions in the bank. Communism works fantastically well for the corporations, why not give the poor a crack at it too?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1183917 -

Quote:
Do you think corporate welfare (billions greater than welfare for the poor) has decreased corporate desire to achieve?


Yes, it has decreased competition and favors established companies, products, processes and political lobbyists to the detriment of new companies, products, processes, improvements in the welfare recipients' operations or products and the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill. It is illogical to point to current bad policy as an argument in favor of communism. Remember the old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Quote:
Communism works fantastically well for the corporations


No it doesn't, the same rules apply as to individuals. The situation of corporate welfare is not communism (see above comments)


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (01/02/03 04:52 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Evolving]
    #1184054 -


It is illogical to point to current bad policy as an argument in favor of communism

I'm merely pointing out that if you earn above a certain level in America today you already live in a communist state. Certainly can't remember the last time a corporation went "No, give us less welfare, it will only make us lazy".

The situation of corporate welfare is not communism

It's a great place to start tho. Lets take all that corporate welfare and give it to people who actually need it. Let the workers own their own factories in south east asia under the same conditions the corporations get in their free trade zones - no tax's, infrastructure paid for by the government etc. That would certainly improve the situation enormously.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184070 -

Alex, when I wrote that message with my questions in it, I did not intend
for people to continue railing against "corporations" and "imperialists". I
expected people to attempt to answer my questions.

If you think that a controlled economy can work, please tell me how.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1184077 -

Does the corporate system work in America? If it does then we have to acknowledge that handing out massive amounts in welfare and caring for people in hard times works better than "free market" ideas. Because the corporations recieve more in welfare and tax breaks than any other group in society, if they hit trouble the government bails them out. If that model works for the corporations it can work for us all.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1184082 -

Can I just butt in here and say that the USSR might be called a communist country, but (unless one is hopelessly confused) we all know it's actually a dictatorship. The only country that I know of that practices PROPER communism (ie where the members of the collective work for the good of the collective) is Israel, with its kibbutzim. Bear in mind though, that the whole country is NOT one big kibbutz, it's a democracy, with many small communes dotted around inside it. Kibbutzniks are loyal to the state, not just the kibbitz in which they live, and in many instances, kibbutzniks seem to work better (than non-kibbutzniks) in team situations ie the Israeli army, police, etc because they have brought up as part of one big team all their lives.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Eric]
    #1184129 -


You gave a satisfactory answer for Question 1a.

You did not answer Question 2a. In fact, you did not address it
at all.

You did not answer Question 2b. You did not address it at all.

You did not satisfactorily answer Question 2c.

You say that the state can only wither away when there are no classes.
I acknowledge that aspect of communist theory. But, you don't address
my concerns that were detailed in Question 2c. Once the state withers
away, and there is nobody to suppress economic behavior, is it possible
that people might begin to act in a selfish manner again, and therefore
inequalities might arise?

You did not satisfactorily answer Question 3a.

According to communist theory, a member of the proletariat is
somebody who owns very little to nothing, and is only capable
of using their own labor to survive, and their labor produces
disproportionate riches for the bourgeois.

Since I now own my own business(I run it myself. I have no employees),
it could be argued that I am no longer a member of the proletariat.
But, I can say for sure that I once was. I owned no property, and
I was employed in jobs where my effort was compensated by a wage,
and this effort of mine produced income for my superiors and bosses.

Yet, even during this time, I never would have consented to living
under a controlled communist economy. You said the following:


"Marxists like myself dont force anyone to take part in anything
they dont want."


Yet, you also state that the only way for socialism to thrive
effectively, is for the entire world to be socialist. What would
your opinion be of people like myself, who are content under a
capitalist economic system? Would you allow us to continue
governing our own economic affairs, or would you force us to
partake in your strictly controlled communist economy?


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: MadcapMagician]
    #1184141 -


Can I just butt in here and say that the USSR might be called a communist country, but (unless one is hopelessly confused) we all know it's actually a dictatorship

I am perfectly aware that the USSR was not the theoretical communist
"dream" that Marx had in mind. It was a dictatorship. I realize that theoretical
communism does not espouse suppression of individual rights. And, my point
was that all of the countries that have attempted communism in this world, have
ended up becoming dictatorships. This is not a good track record. The failure
rate is phenomenal.

Israel is an anomaly. It is a country of people who for the most part have
very similar religious and cultural beliefs. Also, they are in the midst of
enemies who want to destroy them. This atmosphere would make the
population more likely to be concerned for each other and for the common
good. Not all nations have an environment like this, where mutual
cooperation is necessary for survival. And, I might add the Israel is not
communist anyway. They have a multitude of services available to their
citizens, but they allow free market actions by their citizens.


RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184152 -


Does the corporate system work in America?

If it is properly controlled, yes.


If it does then we have to acknowledge that handing out massive amounts in welfare and caring for people in hard times works better than "free market" ideas.

Corporations do receive tax breaks, etc.. This is mainly because they spur
economic development, and give people jobs so that they can feed their
families. Corporations provide things(products, employment). People on welfare
create nothing, provide nothing, and do nothing. They suck resources away
from other people in order to subsidize their lives. They are parasites.

As I have said many times before; If there is an economic policy that your
government is engaging in, that you happen to disagree with, please
engage in the political process to change it.

RandalFlagg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1184225 -

RandalFlagg,
I thought I explained to you completely about the withering away of the state. Guess you didnt understand it. Once there is a classless society, and the state withers away (that does not mean there is no government, just that its functions are strictly administrative), the state changes its role from surpression to administrative. By this point it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to exploit a group of people as the people living under that society would not allow it to happen. I should say that hypothetical questions are not really useful, however I am using this information as an explanation.

You own a small business? That would make you "petty bourgeois", and as marxists we do acknowledge that a small number of the proletariet do from time to time join the ranks of the petty bourgoisie, or the bourgosie itself, but we also know that the bourgeosie or the petty bourgosie join the ranks of the proletariet, when their business fails...etc.

When I say that socialism must spread to the world, I am NOT, and I repeat NOT (I think ive made this clear in numerous posts) talking about invasion! After the working class revolution in the USSR, workers of the world looked to it as an example and there were many attempts by other workers to follow the same path. This is the way trotskyists look to in order to "spread the revolution", by democratic means, not military.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184237 -

Quote:
Does the corporate system work in America?


It works, but it is flawed. A three legged dog is mobile, but it isn't as mobile as a four legged dog. Understand?

Quote:
If it does then we have to acknowledge that handing out massive amounts in welfare and caring for people in hard times works better than "free market" ideas.


No we don't because IT IS FLAWED, it would work better without government interference (maybe not better for those corporations with political connections - but, THIS IS NOT ALL CORPORATIONS). Again Alex, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. Corporate welfare is wrong, it diminishes competition and causes a misallocation of resources which could be better serve the consumer (the public) by improving products and/or services, it redistributes money from taxpayers to corporations, favors existing or established corporations over start ups and diverts funds to political lobbying as opposed to R&D. How can this be a justification for increased government interference in other sectors of society?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Evolving]
    #1184257 -

It works, but it is flawed. A three legged dog is mobile, but it isn't as mobile as a four legged dog. Understand?

Clearly every corporate director in America disagrees with you. Otherwise they would reject welfare.

No we don't because IT IS FLAWED

In your opinion. If we removed massive welfare from the corporations it's more than likely many of them would go straight down the pan.

How can this be a justification for increased government interference in other sectors of society?

Because I've yet to hear corporate directors complain about welfare. None of them say it makes them lazy or destroys the will to achieve. If it doesn't do that for them, why must it do it for everyone else? I think we could raise everyones standard of living enormously by taking welfare from those who don't need it and giving it to those who do.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1184268 -

Corporations provide things(products, employment)

Sure they provide "things". Whether they are of any benefit to anyone except the corporation themselves is another matter.

People on welfare create nothing

Nonsense. Certainly almost every creative artist, musican, writer and actor in the world has spent long periods on welfare. I can think of nothing more nightmarish than a world where people are working slave labour jobs from 14 to 75. You can forget about music, art or anything that makes life worth living. And many people on welfare have health problems and need assistance from us. If you begrudge some guy in a wheelchair $50 a week you need to look closely into your own heart. And before we even address welfare for the poor we need to end corporate welfare which is many times the budget.

They suck resources away

A lot less than the corporations tho.

They are parasites.

That sounds like a line from mein kampf. They are human beings.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184293 -

Quote:
Clearly every corporate director in America disagrees with you. Otherwise they would reject welfare.


No they don't, the majority of corporations receive no welfare.

Quote:
No we don't because IT IS FLAWED
In your opinion. If we removed massive welfare from the corporations it's more than likely many of them would go straight down the pan.


They should wither away if they are inefficient and suck up tax money. It is a flawed system, if corporations that can only survive with infusions of tax dollars. Point to ponder Alex, when you subsidize inefficiency and mismanagement, you will get more inefficiency and mismanagement.

Quote:
Because I've yet to hear corporate directors complain about welfare.


I have. Just because you are ignorant of the opinions of others, doesn't mean that they aren't expressed. I have to keep repeating myself, because you lack the ability to comprehend...

'...it has decreased competition and favors established companies, products, processes and political lobbyists to the detriment of new companies, products, processes, improvements in the welfare recipients' operations or products and the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill.'

'Corporate welfare is wrong, it diminishes competition and causes a misallocation of resources which could be better serve the consumer (the public) by improving products and/or services, it redistributes money from taxpayers to corporations, favors existing or established corporations over start ups and diverts funds to political lobbying as opposed to R&D.'

Try reading the quotes of my previous statements which I have re-entered above. Read them a couple times so they sink in.

Quote:
I think we could raise everyones standard of living enormously by taking welfare from those who don't need it and giving it to those who do.


I agree that corporate welfare should be ended, overall, this would help standards of living for the reasons I have previously re-stated. However, it does not logically follow that repeating the mistake of welfare for others will raise everyone's standard of living. By taking money from one person to pay for welfare, you are lowering his standard of living, that fact in itself refutes your reasoning.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184313 -

Alex123 writes:

Clearly every corporate director in America disagrees with you. Otherwise they would reject welfare.

You must be talking about England or Germany or somewhere other than America. Not every corporation in America receives or even wants "welfare". MacDonald's receives not a dime in government assistance, nor does Walmart or Apple or Caterpillar or Hewlett Packard or literally thousands of others.

If we removed massive welfare from the corporations it's more than likely many of them would go straight down the pan.

Some undoubtedly would. So what? Chrysler corporation exists today only because of massive corporate welfare twenty years ago. Would it have been a disaster if the government had let Chrysler go tits up instead? Nope. There would have been no shortage of cars.

Because I've yet to hear corporate directors complain about welfare. None of them say it makes them lazy or destroys the will to achieve.

Well, duh! The ones who receive subsidies and protection from competitors aren't going to complain about it any more than the people receiving welfare checks and food stamps complain about it. And the ones who don't receive those favors DO complain... loudly and at great length. Usually they complain that their industry is not protected sufficiently by the US government from foreign competition... chip "dumping", cheap Canadian forest products, foreign steel -- to name just a few.

Any government involvement in the economy is to the detriment of the economy: from the printing of fiat currency to trade barriers to subsidies to price and wage controls (are any of the Canadians in this forum old enough to remember THAT clusterfuck?) to "redistribution of wealth". Evolving's "three-legged dog" metaphor was too mild, in my opinion. This is why (apart from the moral considerations), Communism sucks.

At least you have stopped claiming that the way corporations work in an interventionist economy (which means every economy on earth at the moment) is equivalent to Communism. I'm surprised Eric hasn't jumped all over that one.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Evolving]
    #1184326 -

the majority of corporations receive no welfare.

The majority of poor people don't recieve welfare either. So what?

when you subsidize inefficiency and mismanagement, you will get more inefficiency and mismanagement.

Once again, this is only your opinion of what business is like. If you can make more profit taking welfare why wouldn't you take it? That's what business is all about - Profit, not the "ethics of the free market". Rest assured that all the people you read saying it's bad would bite the governments hand off if it was offered to their company. That's what business in the real world is like. Free market theory is only practical in republican pamphlets.

Just because you are ignorant of the opinions of others, doesn't mean that they aren't expressed

Well that 171 billion a year is going somewhere. Obviously there arn't too many expressing their distaste.

because you lack the ability to comprehend

No, I comprehend fine, I just don't agree with you. Big difference.

Read them a couple times so they sink in

No need. I'm sure you can find qoutes saying pretty much anything with a google search. Doesn't mean it's an argument.

By taking money from one person to pay for welfare, you are lowering his standard of living

All depends. Tomorrow i might have a car crash and need welfare myself. Having welfare would improve my standard of living then.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (01/02/03 08:16 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Phred]
    #1184342 -

MacDonald's receives not a dime in government assistance

Really? I thought they recieved half a million through the Agriculture Department's Market Promotion Program which paid for their overseas advertising? Not to mention tax credits for low paid workers? That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from.

Usually they complain that their industry is not protected sufficiently by the US government from foreign competition

Wait a minute, you are saying the ones who recieve the corporate welfare are the baddies, and yet those who don't recieve any want the government to save them from cheaper producers? What do you want? Make your mind up.

At least you have stopped claiming that the way corporations work in an interventionist economy (which means every economy on earth at the moment) is equivalent to Communism

It's better than nothing. Having a government bail you out with massive amounts of welfare whenever you get in trouble is great. I just wish it was applied for everyone and not just the rich.

I'm surprised Eric hasn't jumped all over that one.

I think he's got more sense.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Communism [Re: Xlea321]
    #1184394 -

It's interesting that you are so enamoured with contradicting what I say that you are coming across as trying to justify corporate welfare.

Alex wrote :
Clearly every corporate director in America disagrees with you. Otherwise they would reject welfare.
Evolving wrote:
No they don't, the majority of corporations receive no welfare.
Alex wrote:
Doesn't alter the fact that hundreds do.
Does this mean that 'every corporate director in America disagrees' with me? NO.

Evolving wrote:
when you subsidize inefficiency and mismanagement, you will get more inefficiency and mismanagement.
Alex wrote:
Once again, this is only your opinion of what business is like.
An opinion based on historical evidence of government interference in the economy. Do you believe that corporate welfare raises the efficiency of businesses and leads to better management practices?

Alex wrote:
Well that 171 billion a year is going somewhere. Obviously there arn't too many expressing their distaste.
There are quite a few expressing their distaste, you just don't listen.

Alex wrote:
'm sure you can find qoutes saying pretty much anything with a google search. Doesn't mean it's an argument.
I was quoting my own prior statements. It is an argument, you are just unable to understand it.

Evolving wrote:
By taking money from one person to pay for welfare, you are lowering his standard of living
Alex wrote:
All depends. Tomorrow i might have a car crash and need welfare myself. Having welfare would improve my standard of living then
For every dollar the government gives to one person, it must take a dollar from another person, the person who the dollar is taken from is a dollar poorer. This is a fundamental concept, try to grasp it.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Memorial Planned For Victims Of Communism
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 lonestar2004 6,232 132 11/18/05 09:09 PM
by bukkake
* marxism.
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 3,111 37 02/04/04 07:53 PM
by Tao
* Communism / socialism
( 1 2 3 all )		 overgrower 5,462 58 12/18/04 08:04 AM
by vampirism
* Artificial Desire
( 1 2 3 all )		 Sclorch 3,633 48 01/08/04 10:56 PM
by phreakyzen
* Karl Marx was wrong
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 Sclorch 8,553 122 08/17/03 05:43 PM
by d33p
* Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism lonestar2004 1,356 10 07/28/06 01:40 PM
by Vvellum
* communism vs. socialism vs. the welfare state Anonymous 1,488 12 08/31/03 02:35 AM
by Malachi
* Soviet Union/Downfall of Communism/Actions in the Middle Eas TrueBrode 833 10 11/07/03 04:43 AM
by zeronio

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,207 topic views. 0 members, 51 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.