|
|
Post by Foxy on Jan 7, 2009 10:19:11 GMT
Socialism is a form of mental illness - nominated by la la
General : Socialism is a form of Mental Illness!
From: DocCruel (Original Message) Sent: 28/05/2002 21:51
If there was only one Marxist and he stated his beliefs...you'd think him mad. If there was only one Anarchist, Trotskyite or Nazi and they stated their beliefs...you'd think they were mad. So when millions band together in the name of irrational beliefs isn't it a form of mass madness. There is little wonder that these secular quasi-religious fanatics are involved in violence across the globe. What we need is a medical research program into treatment options for the most ill of these overcommon mad ideological nutters. Maybe crop dusters should be used to spray tranquilisers over their congregation points like Havana and Pyongyang etc...etc. They'd think I was mad.ah.ah.ah.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 7, 2009 11:00:45 GMT
Message 2 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 29/05/2002 11:03 a.m. This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. Message 3 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 29/05/2002 11:13 a.m. See? Just like those Catholic fanatics - all about Paradise in the Afterlife and feeding the poor, but all the while they're strapping people to flaming piles of f*gs. Or is it strapping flaming f*gs to... oh never mind. Message 4 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 29/05/2002 11:15 a.m. (CLUE: I believe in health education and social welfare for all. That's why I'm an ardent capitalist, and a radical anti-Luddite. Now go forth my son, and sin no more. ) Message 5 of 252 in Discussion
From: Bagwan Sent: 29/05/2002 12:21 p.m. Vote the way your heart tells you - Socialism Vote the way your head tells you - Conservatism Message 6 of 252 in Discussion
From: Hardy Sent: 29/05/2002 12:26 p.m. Its funny how the left get so upset when people criticise them. Going around calling people nazis!! Nazism is of course National SOCIALISM. Stalinism was an evil, and to some extent is communism too. Message 7 of 252 in Discussion
From: Hardy Sent: 29/05/2002 12:27 p.m. Nazism is of course National SOCIALISM. PS - I dont think Socialists are Nazis by the way. Message 8 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 29/05/2002 12:29 p.m. All I know is, there are precious few socialists interested in social welfare. Likewise, the last Christian church head interested in helping the poor was Jesus. Even Peter had an agenda. Message 9 of 252 in Discussion
From: New_Yorker™ Sent: 29/05/2002 12:30 p.m. Socialism, the concept of the collective free lunch! Which of course, everybody knows, there ain't so such thing! Message 10 of 252 in Discussion
From: ©Pandy® Sent: 29/05/2002 12:31 p.m. A reminder, Twojags, about not making personal attacks on other members. Thank you. Message 11 of 252 in Discussion
From: Twojags5 Sent: 29/05/2002 12:38 p.m. it was not a personal attack..........its a known fact Message 12 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 29/05/2002 12:47 p.m. Actually I'd be more of a Stalinist (his views on women in the military were classic ), which I suppose amounts to the same thing. What would you call a Machavellian monkeyist, eh? It's a fair cop. Especially given what the word fascist pig-dog means in LEFTSPEAK. Message 13 of 252 in Discussion
From: Weir Sent: 30/05/2002 3:12 a.m. All political ideologies, in its purest form, is sound and reasonable. Each one of them offers a solution to social or political problems at the time. However, ideologies are just theories that may not be able to stand real-life tests. Socialism is one of the many ideologies that are well intented and high sounding but fail to stand in real-life situations. Message 14 of 252 in Discussion
From: omnipresent Sent: 30/05/2002 3:15 a.m. Agreed, Weir Just like Capitalism Message 15 of 252 in Discussion
From: SW1bloke Sent: 30/05/2002 3:17 a.m. a question......is some one with a phobia about socialism a sociopath ? Message 16 of 252 in Discussion
From: muzzatops Sent: 30/05/2002 5:09 a.m. Surely some socialist ideals, the NHS for example, are great things that need to be defended. Message 17 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 30/05/2002 6:25 a.m. This message has been deleted due to termination of membership. Message 18 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 30/05/2002 1:40 p.m. (OOC: I'd say the 20th century fight between socialism and capitalism has not been about which will win outright, so much as the terms of their synthesis. Even the Chinese have caught on to this. But, as my sudden flash of sanity is far too sensible for this bit of business...) I would have thought an ideology that was directly responsible for 100 million deaths would have its detractors. The Nazis seem to have managed only 10-20 million or so, yet for a socialist reform movement they seem to have (a)garnered all the bad press, (b)managed to be thought of as something other than a socialist variant. Message 19 of 252 in Discussion
From: muzzatops Sent: 30/05/2002 1:42 p.m. I don't think anyone is trying to defend Stalinism, or Chairman Mao Message 20 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 30/05/2002 2:36 p.m. You'd be surprised. Try McSpotlight sometime. Message 21 of 252 in Discussion
From: Col. Wesley Grant Sent: 30/05/2002 3:27 p.m. From: Hardy Sent: 28/05/2002 23:27
Nazism is of course National SOCIALISM.
PS - I dont think Socialists are Nazis by the way. CWG No but they are getting there. Message 22 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 30/05/2002 3:41 p.m. Not all socialists are Nazis. But all Nazis are, in essence, socialists. Their premises are as follows: - A socialist system, that is, one where the state controls all industry for the good of the public, is the most superior.
- The public, as such, is heirarchically ranked based on the superiority of their bloodline. "Superiority of bloodline" is defined by the elements of martial prowess, intelligence, physical fitness, intrinsic connection to the soil, and so forth. (Essentially this replaces the Marxist heirarchy, based on profession.)
- Superior genetic stock, by right of martial prowess, ought to rule over their inferiors. As animals are used by humans, so superior humans should used inferior humans (as defined above).
It's internally consistent, and socialist. It is not capitalist, because Nazis do not believe in private ownership of industry - business activity is tightly controlled by a system of syndicates, which in practice works out to a nepotistic military-industrial complex managed by the Nazi government. And yes, it ran into the same problems that all socialist societies do. Albert Speer, by introducing capitalist reforms, ended up spending several years in Spandau (quite understandably, because he thusly essentially extended the war by months, if not years), although I believe the excuse used at the time was his involvement in the work/death camp system (modelled, I might add, on the brutally effective gulag complexes of Bolshevik Russia). Message 23 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 30/05/2002 4:12 p.m. Pandy: A reminder, Twojags, about not making personal attacks on other members. Thank you.
twojags: it was not a personal attack..........its a known fact Kind of you to defend my gentle virtue Pandy, but deleting the offending post hamstrings the accuracy of any return fire. I can easily enough fend off a silly ad hominem attack (in fact my reaction is similar to that of a pitbull, presented with a postman's tender posterior), but defending myself against a deleted post is virtually impossible. Not that I'm telling you how to do your job. It's not like I'm paying a cover charge. Message 24 of 252 in Discussion
From: Kev Sent: 30/05/2002 9:44 p.m. Sorry? Albert Speer did time at Spandau from introducing capitalist reforms? I think not. Message 25 of 252 in Discussion
From: ©Pandy® Sent: 30/05/2002 10:48 p.m. Two Jags - I dont intend to repeat myself. Doc - well aware that most members are fully capable of defending themselves when it comes to personal attacks - however it is in the MSN guidelines that no personal attacks are to be made within communities and therefore my deletetion of posts that are personal attacks is within the boundaries of "the rulz". Hope that makes things clear. Message 26 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 30/05/2002 11:02 p.m. Doc every time you post this rubbish about Nazis being socialists I'm going to chuck it back in your face. so here goes. again. A socialist system, that is, one where the state controls all industry for the good of the public, is the most superior. in the 1940s almost everyone in Europe believed the capitalist system was in crisis and needed the state to sort it out. look at the manifestos of mainstream European parties and you will find many argued for the nationalisation of industry. so using your argument the post war Tory govts that supported nationalisation were in fact socialist (or even Nazi?). The public, as such, is heirarchically ranked based on the superiority of their bloodline. "Superiority of bloodline" is defined by the elements of martial prowess, intelligence, physical fitness, intrinsic connection to the soil, and so forth. (Essentially this replaces the Marxist heirarchy, based on profession.) So in others words the Nazi ideology is in fact the opposite of socialism which argues that everyone should have an equal chance regardless of "martial prowess, intelligence, physical fitness, intrinsic connection to the soil" etc. get that Doc? the opposite of what socialism is about. once again let's try and get the history sorted shall we? if the Nazis were really socialists why did they a) ally themselves with the parties of the Right in the German parliament and b) spend some much time destroying the parties of the Left? To anyone but a fool choosing to play with words it is clear that the Nazis were on the Right. and do we accept that political groups must reflect what their label says? what about the Liberal Democrats in Russia these days? by your argument they must be both liberal and democratic because that's what the name say they are. Message 27 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 30/05/2002 11:34 p.m. This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. Message 28 of 252 in Discussion
From: «KîngP1õnkêr»© Sent: 30/05/2002 11:36 p.m. Neewong, Wonder how long before you get banned for being abusive Message 29 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 30/05/2002 11:38 p.m. Thank you Skeptical. I would have thought that was obvious, apparently the name alone can determine one's politics without actually studying their actions and beliefs. But anyway your argument won't hold with DC as he has said many times the "right" simply doesn't exist... Message 30 of 252 in Discussion
From: Radge Sent: 30/05/2002 11:51 p.m. one day eh!? Message 31 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 30/05/2002 11:54 p.m. Doc needs to come to this century and this millennium. He still lives in the McCarthy era. He doesn't know the difference between Socialism and Communism, Marxism and and Nazism are all muddled up in his mind. Hmm... I think I'll rephrase that. His mind is all muddled up. Period. Message 32 of 252 in Discussion
From: ©Pandy® Sent: 30/05/2002 11:55 p.m. I think that was extremely stupid Neewong. Last warning. Message 33 of 252 in Discussion
From: Radge Sent: 30/05/2002 11:56 p.m. Boo!! Message 34 of 252 in Discussion
DocCruel Sent: 2/06/2002 8:52 a.m. Albert Speer did time at Spandau from introducing capitalist reforms? Officially, no - the ruling at the time concentrated on his role in the slave labor programs of the German Reich. But essentially, the man went to jail because of his role in reforming, and streamlining, German industry during the latter war years. Read his book. ...it is in the MSN guidelines that no personal attacks are to be made within communities and therefore my deletetion of posts that are personal attacks is within the boundaries of "the rulz". Hope that makes things clear. They were clear beforehand. You must have stated same a hundred times or so. Just wanted to get my share of pregnant dogin' in (and throw a sideways jab at the "loyal opposition", as it were... ). ...so using your argument the post war Tory govts that supported nationalisation were in fact socialist (or even Nazi?). Nazism implies a very specific sort of belief system, so these Tories wouldn't be Nazis. But advocating the nationalization of industry is definitely a socialist reform - although I'd suspect the Tories would support a fascist, rather than Marxist, version (ie, syndicates managed by the government and run by select corporate heads). So in others words the Nazi ideology is in fact the opposite of socialism which argues that everyone should have an equal chance regardless of "martial prowess, intelligence, physical fitness, intrinsic connection to the soil" etc. get that Doc? Not at all. Marxists, for example, would depend on "class heritage" to decide on where a person fit in their socialist social heirarchy. The Nazis merely substitute "race" for "class". Same difference. if the Nazis were really socialists why did they...
a) ally themselves with the parties of the Right in the German parliament For the same reason that Bolshheviks allied with the Nazis. Or, in their revolition in Russia, why they temporarily allied with the Socila Revolutionaries and Mackhno anarchists in the Ukraine. That is, because the ideology is meant as a fantasy story to mobilize "the masses", and because the only real pursuit of Leftists is personal power, not "social justice". In a short word, expedience. That's why Hitler allied with the German Army in 1933, assisted in exterminating his own SA supporters, then built up a new SS to double-supplant (and eventually replace) the Wehrmacht with. It's also why the early Bolsheviks tolerated an egalitarianism in their early revolution, then brutally crushed dissent with their Cheka later, then murdered the Chekists with their NKVD, and so on. b) spend some much time destroying the parties of the Left? When Leftists assume power, and feel fairly secure, their next target is invariably their fellow Leftists. Stalin's machinations are a prime example of this (although it is frequently forgotten that virtually all the other party members in Russia were doing the same at the time). Likewise, Castro's "removal" of Guevara, The communist Vietnamese "absorption" of the Khmer Rouge movement, the ruthless infighting in China after the death of Mao, and so on. The German Nazis were very openly socialist. Read some of their stuff on worker's rights if you don't believe me. Better yet, look at their pre-war economic and social policies. He doesn't know the difference between Socialism and Communism, Marxism and and Nazism are all muddled up in his mind. With the caveats removed - Socialism: A system by which the public majority is mobilized to intimidate business concerns, and to rob those profits for the good of a small intellectual elite. Communism: A system by which the public majority is mobilized to seize direct control of all national business concerns, and transfer same into the hands of a small intellectual elite. Marxism: A system by which the public majority is mobilized to seize direct control of all national business concerns, and transfer same into the hands of a small intellectual elite, using as a loose justification the writings of one Karl Marx. Nazism: A system by which the public majority is mobilized to seize direct control of all national business concerns, and transfer same into the hands of a small intellectual elite, using as a loose justification the writings of one Adolf Hitler. You may note that I consider the "intellectuals" of Marxism and Nazism of a similar mental aptitude. In some ways, the Nazis might have even had a leg up on the likes of Lysenko, et al. Message 35 of 252 in Discussion
From: great dane Sent: 2/06/2002 2:05 p.m. Doc, Are you saying there is always some little group who wants to take the majoritys wealth. I am suprised. The poor are with you forever. Are there to many Homosapiens. Or will the Beckhams start a new race? Message 36 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 2/06/2002 3:16 p.m. Are you saying there is always some little group who wants to take the majoritys wealth. More often than not. How successful the majority is in thrawting this sort of thing is partly related to how easily they can identify the scam. Nazism has already been unmasked. Not likely it'll get started up again in Europe. Likewise, Marxism has seen better days in Russia. The next step then, after closing the coffin lid on the old Left, is in identifying the new scams they are likely to use in their "new" versions. Environmentalism looks like one avenue. They also seem keen on starting race wars, and aligning with extremist religious sects. Facilitating the manufacture and sale of illicit drugs is also popular with the Left at present. Message 37 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 2/06/2002 9:29 p.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 38 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vox Populi Sent: 2/06/2002 9:32 p.m. Doc, You should know better, greed and the lust for absolute power knows no boundries or social distinctions. These kind of sociopaths just use whatever is the current, convient way to achieve this kind of domination. Message 39 of 252 in Discussion
From: Huggypootle Sent: 3/06/2002 2:47 a.m. I think Doc Cruel has a form of mental illness by keeping spouting this sort of crap. I don't bother reading his stuff any more, I just laugh and think what an empty life he must have to keep repeating this sort of stuff. Get a life . . . Message 40 of 252 in Discussion
From: MattithyAh Sent: 3/06/2002 4:42 a.m. The United States is the biggest socialism around, considering they interfear with Capatalizm by placing tariffs on products from the International market, and also giving what? USD $350 Billion to there farmers. Gosh, the United States is the most hypocritical nation around..... They preach Capatalizm, They slagg off "Socialists" and then they become the biggest socialists around...... Gosh, you dont know what the United States is about, they say one thing and do the other......... And then go back to doing what they said in the first place, and then changing there mind.... Before the United States blaims other nations of such things, they should look at themself..... If i was a European Union Commissioner, i would look into placing 50% Tariffs on U.S Aviation Products, and watch Boeing slash more jobs.... I wonder how long the United States would keep tariffs on Steal products and fund there farmers?  Not long. Message 41 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 3/06/2002 6:14 a.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 42 of 252 in Discussion
From: SimonHi Sent: 3/06/2002 6:15 a.m. Nazism is a right wing authoritarian system. Communism is a left wing authoritarian system. Anarchy is a left wing libetarian system. Capitalism is a right wing libetarian system. Socialism is another word for communism which some people feel more comfortable with. I personally believe that capitalism is the best system as it guaruntees people rights and freedom to control their own lives. Good web sites to look at are www.politicalspectrum.org www.capitalism.org Message 43 of 252 in Discussion
From: scoop Sent: 3/06/2002 7:57 a.m. If there was only one sane man in a world of lunatics the lunatics would think they were sane, and call the sane man mad. Socialism is, at least, a viewpont that cares about community, whereas the cult of the self in the 21st Century is the opposite. It has no machinery for building a society based on people caring about other people, only one which provides each individual with the chance to exploit his fellow man in order to better himself. Socialism. Capita;lsm. Only words. Do we want to unite with our brothers to build a better tomorrow or just screw as much as we can out of everyone else in order to feed our false needs while we're here? Message 44 of 252 in Discussion
From: Col. Wesley Grant Sent: 3/06/2002 1:09 p.m. From: AbsolutelyAmazed
Doc needs to come to this century and this millennium. He still lives in the McCarthy era.
He doesn't know the difference between Socialism and Communism, Marxism and and Nazism are all muddled up in his mind. CWG Cant say I have noticed much difference in these ideologies Myself. Message 45 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 3/06/2002 6:57 p.m. Yep DOC, I recommend some studying. Message 46 of 252 in Discussion
From: (_!_) bigwind (_!_) Sent: 3/06/2002 8:21 p.m. get outa that silly garb DC - you're gettin' to be a bore lately !
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 8, 2009 22:05:01 GMT
Message 47 of 252 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 3/06/2002 8:47 p.m. (OOC: I'd say the 20th century fight between socialism and capitalism has not been about which will win outright, so much as the terms of their synthesis. Even the Chinese have caught on to this. But, as my sudden flash of sanity is far too sensible for this bit of business...) Yes. As it stands, however, the balance is tilted too far to the right, even in Europe. America is completely off the scale ... I would have thought an ideology that was directly responsible for 100 million deaths would have its detractors. The Nazis seem to have managed only 10-20 million or so, yet for a socialist reform movement they seem to have (a)garnered all the bad press, (b)managed to be thought of as something other than a socialist variant. Stalinism had its detractors, starting with the SOCIALIST George Orwell. The Nazis didn't have nearly as much time as Stalin did to carry out their evil plans. Given time, they would have equalled him. Once they ran out of Jews, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists, intellectuals, disabled people, mentally ill people ... they would have found someone else. Always got to have some one to blame ... You can call Nazism a 'socialist variant' and you wonder why people get pissed off with you. Obviously age does not equate to wisdom. Any form of government where a direct democratic link based upon the opinions of the people (as opposed to the rulers) is broken will tend towards facism, regardless of what ideological colours it wears. Of your three premises (reply 22) only the first is remotely socialist. To suggest that basing society around supposed genetic superiority is 'just the same' as basing it around economic equality is to reduce the argument to absurdity. You are getting silly. Nazism implies a very specific sort of belief system, so these Tories wouldn't be Nazis As does socialism, ie, not basing your thinking around a persons racial origin. THe fact that the Nazis based their ideology around supposed racial superiority meant that they could not be socialist, by any definition of the word. They may have adopted a state controlled industrial system because - guess what - they realised that such as sytem was the best way of organising things. But as the basis of their thinking was racial superiority, they could never, ever be socialists. Socialism: A system by which the public majority is mobilized to intimidate business concerns, and to rob those profits for the good of a small intellectual elite. Sounds more like capitalism to me. The combined wealth of the richest 400 people alive today is greater than the combined wealth of the poorest 40% of the entire population of the planet. If that isn't an elite, tell me what is. Message 48 of 252 in Discussion
From: RobH Sent: 3/06/2002 9:23 p.m. If you come across someone who is so obsessed with one subject that it permeates every comment no matter how tenuous the link, any person with half a brain will recognise the signs. That the author shows no insight or recognition of this only makes it more pathetic. Message 49 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 4/06/2002 12:33 p.m.You can call Nazism a 'socialist variant' and you wonder why people get pissed off with you. Not at all. The people who "get mad at me" were the sort similarly "upset" at the kulaks. They also belong to a group that was once aligned with both the Nazis and "Stalinism", being very enthusiastic supporters of the latter. What I'm upset about is that they continue to obscure the socialism of the Nazis, and associate the works of Hitler with the works of corporations. Similarly, there is even an attempt to call anyone who says as much a "fascist" (or, as above, and supposedly in my case, a "white-hooded Klansman"). Of your three premises (reply 22) only the first is remotely socialist. The first premise is socialist. The second and third define the specific brand. To suggest that basing society around supposed genetic superiority is 'just the same' as basing it around economic equality is to reduce the argument to absurdity. The Nazis were grappling with the premises of Marxism, that is, that a class of people, in essence by being more talented and productive, were exploiting everyone else. At teh time, the Jewish people were doing very well in Germany, so it made perfect sense, given the premises of Marxism, to extrapolate in this fashion. Socialism in the 20th century empowered mass murderers. Socialists have spent at least a century denying this, yet one can still see Leftists supporting, even advocating for terrorism and terrorist groups in Washington DC today. They may have adopted a state controlled industrial system because - guess what - they realised that such as sytem was the best way of organising things. But as the basis of their thinking was racial superiority, they could never, ever be socialists. One could make the same argument, ergo, that the Nazis might have had massive state run corporation, allowed banks to exist, etc., but that because they were racist they could not be capitalists. Capitalism has nothing to do with racism. I expect all sorts of arguments now, about how capitalism is, by its very nature, racist. Remarks about the imperialist 19th century will be brought into play, etc. And yet, it still remains undeniable that Nazism is a derivation of fascism, which are both derivations of Marxism, which itself is undeniably socialist. The fact is that there are people who make that wealth that needs to be "distributed equally", and in the process of distribution it must be taken away from the people who made it. This invariably involved force, and how that force is justified, to me at least, is little more than an incidental technicality. How about simply calling socialism a plan to institute a worldwide institutional kleptocracy? Then, we wouldn't have to be confused by all these variants, which essentially amount to the same sort of business anyway? If that isn't an elite, tell me what is. The royal families of any of the Marxist states out there. Like the Assads, say, or the Husseins of Iraq or Castros of Cuba. Here's your difference. If those big chiefs of all those Marxist tyrannies die off, the lives of the people instantly improve. When the big corporate businessmen are chased off, or killed off, the businesses that socialists depend on for their income invariably go belly-up. The solution to poverty is not killing off the rich, it's in copying their successful ideas. We call it capital investment, and when some neo-Marxist big chief isn't blocking our efforts, it tends to work out rather well (ask the Japanese, if you don't believe me). Now if you don't mind why not step out of the way, and let us bring that 40% you are so concerned about into the 21st century? Thanks. Ever so much. Message 50 of 252 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 4/06/2002 7:24 p.m. What I'm upset about is that they continue to obscure the socialism of the Nazis, and associate the works of Hitler with the works of corporations. If you are that 'upset' about it, why indulge in deliberately provocative tactics, like declaring socialism to be a form of mental illness? Its little more than kids insulting each other's mothers prior to a fight. Either adopt a more mature approach, or come clean and admit you are only hear to stir. The first premise is socialist. The second and third define the specific brand. Absolute nonsense. Nazism was based upon the idea of genetic superiority. Everything else flowed from that principal. State organisation of industry was a logical development as being best for Germany, and what was good for Germany was good for the 'Aryan race'. If anything, Nazism harked back to the bad old days of the Divine Right Of Kings. Also, you are choosing to ignore the fact that any state about to engage in a potracted military campaign is going to dictate how resources are allocated. If you are about to embark on world conquest, it makes sense to make tanks rather than Playstations. The Nazis were grappling with the premises of Marxism, that is, that a class of people, in essence by being more talented and productive, were exploiting everyone else. At teh time, the Jewish people were doing very well in Germany, so it made perfect sense, given the premises of Marxism, to extrapolate in this fashion. You are committing the intellectual crime of reading something into historical events to suit your own agenda. To suggest that the persecution of the Jews was socialistic because it targeted the Jews as a powerful class is a Panglossian argument - like suggesting we have noses because we have spectacles, and not the other way around. They weren't targeted because they were rich and powerful, they were targeted because they were Jews, some of whom happened to be rich and powerful. The Jews were targetted because of centuries old anti-semitism. Throughout history, groups perceived as alien have been targeted as scapegoats for all manner of social ills. Jews, mad old women, the people who live in the next valley ... to try and read history like you do is so typical of right-wingers, trying to fit any terrible event or age old prejudice into the box marked 'Socialism', no matter how little it fits. Socialism in the 20th century empowered mass murderers. Socialists have spent at least a century denying this As I said, one of the first people to warn of the dangers of totalitarianism was George Orwell, a SOCIALIST. He wrote a couple of books about it as well. The Bolsheviks squandered what ever legitimacy the October revolution may have had when they ignored the results of open elections, preferring to seize power by force rather than fight for it democratically. Capitalism has nothing to do with racism. I never said it did. You started the name calling this time around, remember? When the big corporate businessmen are chased off, or killed off, the businesses that socialists depend on for their income invariably go belly-up. I don't think any of Bill Gates' off spring are going to have to work too hard, do you? Message 51 of 252 in Discussion
From: Weir Sent: 4/06/2002 9:00 p.m. Socialism, Capitalism, Nazism, Communism and the like are just pure ideologies that could only survive in academic discussions. They project a utopian which could not be find in the far end of another planet. Each of the ideologies has their good points as well as bad aspects. It would be ideal if these different ideologies could work as a complement to each other for the betterment of the society. Even so, I still have doubt over whether these ideologies could stand the test of real-life situations. Anyway, I think these political ideolgoies are too big a topic that could be fruitfully discussed. I should just sit back, enjoy life, have a cup of tea instead of engaging in endless discussions which go nowhere. Message 52 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 4/06/2002 9:10 p.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 53 of 252 in Discussion
From: Kansas_Again Sent: 4/06/2002 9:12 p.m. I would have thought an ideology that was directly responsible for 100 million deaths would have its detractors. Too softly spoken Doc. Sometimes I feel that you hold back in order to “play to the crowd”. It amazes me that some still doggedly stand up for the Marxist ideal. Those that defend it are colablibators to genocide and totalitarianism. 100 million dead? Conservative! Today, in the west, the question is about personal freedoms vs. social duty. Where does one stop and the other begin? How far can one go with ones personal freedoms without infringing on the rights of others? Where do we draw the line between defending our freedoms as opposed eroding our neighbor’s rights? Socialism assumes that we are all the same, the same desires, aspirations, and goals. Capitalism recognizes the diversity of man. Message 54 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 5/06/2002 11:22 a.m. If you are that 'upset' about it, why indulge in deliberately provocative tactics, like declaring socialism to be a form of mental illness? I suppose, for the same reason that "religion" is supposed to be a mental illness. The posts, except for the topic of conversation, are virtually identical in form. Nazism was based upon the idea of genetic superiority. Everything else flowed from that principal. Nope. Nazism attempted to extrapolate on Marxism. Their socialism was narrow, true (German workers and up economically), but no more so than the Bolsheviks, or any of the other specialized factions of "hard" socialists for that matter. The only difference was, that instead of killing land owners and shop keepers, they killed Jews - which, in more than a few cases, was exactly the same thing. If anything, Nazism harked back to the bad old days of the Divine Right Of Kings. No kiddin'. So does "modern" socialism. Thus, the hereditary Assads, Husseins, Castros, (North Korean) Kims, etc. L'etat, c'est moi. Also, you are choosing to ignore the fact that any state about to engage in a potracted military campaign is going to dictate how resources are allocated. If you are about to embark on world conquest, it makes sense to make tanks rather than Playstations. Again, you noticed. And yet, the Left claims that capitalists are inherently warlike. Something about the "need to exploit resources" or somesuch. You're right of course. The main point of contention between Bolsheviks and Nazis in 1940 was who would be ready to screw the other first. Likewise, a mirror of the relationship between Communist China and the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Or between the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq in the late 70's/early 80's. They weren't targeted because they were rich and powerful, they were targeted because they were Jews, some of whom happened to be rich and powerful. Read what the Nazis wrote about the Jews. In particular, check out what was being put out by Goebbels & Co. Jews were bankers. Jews were shopkeepers. Jews made lots of money, so that they could buy German women for sex. Thus, the vaunted martial spirit of the Teutonic race was being diluted... And so on. This is the rhetoric - played incessantly, and with an anti-business, socialist beat. From what I heard, the public ate it up too. Simple substitution. Jews for capitalists. That's the big difference, and it ain't all that much. Once the Marxists legitimized modern-day massacres of entire social classes, it was an easily made "next step" - nor was it the last time to go that way, either, as the Cambodians would find out a generation later. As I said, one of the first people to warn of the dangers of totalitarianism was George Orwell, a SOCIALIST. He wrote a couple of books about it as well. No question. Likely why he was so disillusioned with the lot, at the end of his life. Eric Blair was a man betrayed, and he was furious about it - so much so, that he dropped more than a few names with the FBI. The Bolsheviks squandered what ever legitimacy the October revolution may have had when they ignored the results of open elections, preferring to seize power by force rather than fight for it democratically. Forget screwing with an election. I'd start with the Cheka, at least. (!) And yet, the Left was backing the Bolsheviks right up until 1990, without fail. I don't think any of Bill Gates' off spring are going to have to work too hard, do you? I hope not. Although, as I've said, I think the passing of Bill Gates will have a negative effect on the world, of the Tikrit clan of Hussein a bit more positive. Message 55 of 252 in Discussion
From: Kev Sent: 5/06/2002 9:48 p.m. I realise the futility in this....but hey...I'm bored.. From: DocCruel Sent: 01/06/2002 19:52
Albert Speer did time at Spandau from introducing capitalist reforms?
Officially, no - the ruling at the time concentrated on his role in the slave labor programs of the German Reich. But essentially, the man went to jail because of his role in reforming, and streamlining, German industry during the latter war years.
Read his book Which one Doc? Inside the Third Reich or The Slave State? I've read both thanks. Along with Gitta Sereny's book on Speer. Just finished Joachim Fest's biography of Speer too. You might remember Fest's name, he was Albert's adviser when he was writing Inside the Third Reich. But no doubt you just dismiss them both as "leftists". He was a war criminal and he was lucky not to be sentenced to death. Message 56 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 6/06/2002 4:52 a.m. Which one Doc? Inside the Third Reich or The Slave State? I've read both thanks. Along with Gitta Sereny's book on Speer. Just finished Joachim Fest's biography of Speer too. You might remember Fest's name, he was Albert's adviser when he was writing Inside the Third Reich. But no doubt you just dismiss them both as "leftists".
He was a war criminal and he was lucky not to be sentenced to death. So was Stalin. Speer made his mark by streamlining the German production system. Before Speer, aircraft manufacturing for example was conducted by a host of small "cottage" industries. Afterward, manufacturing was consolidated. Also, the production process in Germany was a very corrupt business, stocked with a host of sweetheart deals that favored prominent leaders in the Wehrmacht and SS. Speer cleaned much of that up. Because of this, Speer had a respectability amongst the Nazis and/or Germans, thus was "dangerous". The post-war occupation force was very worried about a Nazi insurgency, and so dealt with any potential leaders of such an affair quite harshly. The excuse of punishing these people for atrocities was used, but then the Bolsheviks were guilty of worse. The main reason was to forestall a Nazi "relapse". And, in the case of Speer, his efforts to enable the war to go on for as much as another year put him in very badly with the Nuremburg people. You're right. He was lucky not to be killed. But not because he was a war criminal. Not that he didn't have blood on his hands - his association with the slave labour system (which has a curious similarity to the present Chinese "laogai" system) was a pretty monstrous business. Message 57 of 252 in Discussion
From: zippynose Sent: 6/06/2002 5:35 a.m. I think we need a point of order here peoples! No matter what the idealogy is we will always get people! The ones in power construe the idealogy to their baser needs. In other words we need to look at the leader of Country.Who once in power allows to go to his/her head and they think they are invinsible but they are not they are mortal because they are Human. The idealogy is an idea of how the idealogy is founded upon. But the leader of an idealogy is not to be shot. CAUSE NOT MATTER WHAT THE IDEALOGY IS human nature has the best interests at heart of a country or peoples Message 58 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 6/06/2002 6:23 a.m. Message 59 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 6/06/2002 6:39 a.m. Get serious or pay the piper: The battle to defend freedom is no small game; it is a battle to the death for the hearts & minds of people to decide freedom against slavery for our children. The 100 million innocent people murdered in the name of socialism shall not have died in vain if people consider the full import of these 2 quotes.... then, fight the good fight: H. L. Mencken: "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods." Alexander Tyler-19th century: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Message 60 of 252 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 6/06/2002 7:07 p.m. Haven't been able to reply earlier. Humble apologys offered. I suppose, for the same reason that "religion" is supposed to be a mental illness. The posts, except for the topic of conversation, are virtually identical in form. If you choose to sink to 'their' level, then its your choice, only don't be surprised if the debate never gets above the kindergarten level. The only difference was, that instead of killing land owners and shop keepers, they killed Jews - which, in more than a few cases, was exactly the same thing. As I said, an ideology based upon perceived racial difference. If you claim that this is an attempt to 'extrapolate on Marxism' you might as well argue that the European slave trade was predicting Marxism, as it involved the coercion of a class (Africans) for the economic benefit of another. Or the ancient Egyptians, exploiting the slave labour of all these Israelite slaves. Were they the first socialists? Certainly puts an intruiging light on the current Arab/Israeli conflict! As for Kansas' statement that 'Socialism assumes that we are all the same, the same desires, aspirations, and goals. Capitalism recognizes the diversity of man.' This is simply naive. It is the great lie perpetuated by the middle class, partly in an effort to stifle the rumblings of discontent that occasionally bubble up from below, but partly to fool themselves as well. In reality, its like having a race between two runners, who might be equally fast - only one starts two blocks back, and no matter how hard he runs, even if he is the stronger runner, he still isn't going to win. Or staging a boxing match, where one of the fighters has a hand tied behind his back. The advantage will always lie with those who get the best start in life. George W Bush is the living proof of this - do you think he won the presidency through intelligence, charisma of even low animal cunning? He won it because he came from a privileged background. Socialism, Kansas, is not about assuming that all people are the same, but about recognising that if people are to prosper and be happy, then it helps if they all start from about the same place. No kiddin'. So does "modern" socialism. Thus, the hereditary Assads, Husseins, Castros, (North Korean) Kims, etc. You forgot the hereditary Bushes, Kennedys and concurrent Clintons. Power in the USA is as concentrated into the hands of an exclusive minority as it is in any of these countries. And yet, the Left claims that capitalists are inherently warlike. Something about the "need to exploit resources" or somesuch. Does not follow that a state controlled economy is by necessity warlike. Just that it is very efficient for whatever purpose the state has for it. You're right of course. The main point of contention between Bolsheviks and Nazis in 1940 was who would be ready to screw the other first. Likewise, a mirror of the relationship between Communist China and the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Or between the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq in the late 70's/early 80's. Curiously, the only people who would describe these regimes as socialist are the governments of the respective countries, who have to do it to save face, and you, with your warped view of what socialism is. So I guess that must make you ... a socialist. Read what the Nazis wrote about the Jews. In particular, check out what was being put out by Goebbels & Co ... Simple substitution. Jews for capitalists. That's the big difference, and it ain't all that much. I have never denied that terrible things have been done by people calling themselves socialists. Socialism - at least no interpretation I have come across worthy of the name - is not about obliterating an entire class of people. Robespierre? No thanks. Doesn't work. Eric Blair was a man betrayed, and he was furious about it - so much so, that he dropped more than a few names with the FBI. What is your source for this? The only thing I have heard even vaguely similar to this is when Orwell provided a list of people that he personally felt were communist sympathisers and, as such, were unfit to carry out anti-soviet propaganda work for the British government. In doing so he was simply providing what he considered important help to the Labour government then in power - the most socialistic government Britain has ever voted in. Message 61 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 6/06/2002 11:30 p.m.good post lala - let me back you up having debated with Doc for months now there are only two conclusions you can draw about his inane posts about socialism. 1. he is genuinely very badly informed about politics, or has been taught about it by someone with a very partisan take. the arguments he makes are the kind you here teenagers make when they first take an interest in politics - "well they were called National Socialists - so they must be socialists" 2. more likely he knows he is misrepresenting the truth. he deliberately bends the truth to discredit any left-sounding ideas and attempts to suggest that there is some liberal-socialist-communist-fascist-islamic-terrorist conspiracy. finally me & Doc have also discussed Orwell on numerous occasions and he does know that this sentence is bollox- No question. Likely why he was so disillusioned with the lot, at the end of his life. Eric Blair was a man betrayed, and he was furious about it - so much so, that he dropped more than a few names with the FBI. this bears no relation to the truth. until he died he was a committed socialist and explicitly anti-capitalist - read the Lion and the Unicorn and see if you think he and Doc would agree on anything. it is very unfortunate that people on the Right who would rather manipulate history than let Orwell's own words speak for themselves try and insist he became anti-socialist when he was the exact opposite. this is something Doc simply cannot grasp - hence all the innaccurate remarks he makes - but like many of us Orwell was both a socialist and anti-communist. he believed in socialism and democracy. as such he defeneded democacy against both the authoritarian Right (he fought in the army against the Fascists in Spain) and the authoritarian Left (this is what 1984 and Animal Farm are all about). but he also defeneded socialism up until his death. he was initailly a member of the Independent Labour Party (small socialist party to the left of Labour) but post-1945 moved to being a Labour supporter (tho not a member I think). he also worked for the left-wing newspaper Tribune (which is still going). I cannot state enough that he at now stage felt "betrayed" by socialism, or renounced it in any way. what Doc, and many like him, does is try and dress up Orwell's criticisms of communism as some kind of attack on socialism - nothing is further from the truth. his aim was to defend democratic socialism. hence what Doc is doing is much closer than he dare admit to what the party does in 1984 - rewriting history so that it reads how you want it to read - rather than representing the truth. toodle pip.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 10, 2009 4:17:07 GMT
Message 62 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 6/06/2002 11:45 p.m. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, like prosperous communism or unwarranted but fair confiscation. There is nothing democratic about getting into power then increasing taxes so stealing other`s money hand over fist. Forget about the b/s notion of "only putting it in a little bit". ALL forms of socialism are related & bad, it is just a matter of degree, communism is socialism in a hurry, the USSR acronym 3rd letter gives the game away, that game is called gradualism. Socialism becomes undemocratic as soon as it has entrapped its victims, first by dividing then progressively impoverishing then enslaving. THAT IS YOUR DISGUSTING RECORD. NO EXCEPTION. Message 63 of 252 in Discussion
Vania Sent: 6/06/2002 11:55 p.m. Grajac Read the thread. Properly. Message 64 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 6/06/2002 11:56 p.m. grajac that is without doubt one of the most idiotic posts about politics I have ever read. There is nothing democratic about getting into power then increasing taxes so stealing other`s money hand over fist. yes there is if you get voted in you thick tw4t. perhaps you don't understand what democracy means? as for taxes mean stealing people's money - I take you don't support the monarchy then? or use the NHS? or have ever called the police? how thick are you? ALL forms of socialism are related & bad, it is just a matter of degree, communism is socialism in a hurry, the USSR acronym 3rd letter gives the game away, that game is called gradualism. so you don't think there is a difference between people who believe in democracy and those who don't? between those who believe in state ownership and those how don't? in that case yo can equally say that all forms of right-wing politics are the same Tories=Fascists=Nazis. tw4t. Socialism becomes undemocratic as soon as it has entrapped its victims, first by dividing then progressively impoverishing then enslaving. you said at the beginning it isn't democratic - so how can it become undemocratic if it wasn't democratic in the first place? do you even read you r own inane typing? THAT IS YOUR DISGUSTING RECORD. NO EXCEPTION. utter nutse. next! Message 65 of 252 in Discussion
From: omnipresent Sent: 7/06/2002 12:03 a.m. You'll go blue in the face trying to tell some of these wretched people that socialism and Stalinism are different things, Skep. Message 66 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 7/06/2002 12:06 a.m. you're right. I've had enough today. I was laying a trap for Doc Cruel but then grathingy or whatever his name is above stumbled in. Message 67 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 7/06/2002 11:45 a.m. If you choose to sink to 'their' level, then its your choice, only don't be surprised if the debate never gets above the kindergarten level. As long as I'm enjoying myself. What Doc, and many like him, does is try and dress up Orwell's criticisms of communism as some kind of attack on socialism - nothing is further from the truth. his aim was to defend democratic socialism. I attack socialism, as did Orwell - not the socialism of his youth, but what the word came to mean in his sodden, wizened years. As for the concept of socialism (or, as Savage would call it, "sharism"), it is meaningless without general consensus. With that consensus, "revolution" becomes unnecessary. Thus the Marxists (and, by extrapolation, the sort of May Day dancers known to 21st century man as "the Left") are a pack of self-serving, face-eating rats. I hope you can understand, thusly, why I do not consider Orwell, in this sense, a "Leftist". Or even a "socialist". And if you claim I play games with words, I'll remind you that O'Brien and his mates started it. (One final point: The lesson one can take from the Nazi experience, in regards socialism, is that just because someone tacks a label to their movement, even supports the general political philosophy in some cases, doesn't necessarily mean they necessarily have your ideological interests in mind. As go the Nazis, so do the Marxists, the Bolsheviks, the Vietnamese Communists and the Khmer Rouge. Likewise, I take insults of religious belief as the power plays they are, and not honest interest in achieving an understanding of some nebulous, final "Truth". For one, the people who press this line are far too rude.) Message 68 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 7/06/2002 11:51 a.m. grajac
that is without doubt one of the most idiotic posts about politics I have ever read. Oh so true. Factual (a tip of my hat to Mr. Grajac), but without a doubt a most brilliant description of utter stupidity. But then, Mr. Mencken had a knack for that sort of thing. Didn't he. (PS: A bit needs repeating, as per Tyler: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. Something to take note of, when yet another well-heeled "socialist" concocts a new scheme to help the poor, by taking funds from the public purse for himself and his political allies.) Message 69 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 7/06/2002 12:13 p.m. The only thing I have heard even vaguely similar to this is when Orwell provided a list of people that he personally felt were communist sympathisers and, as such, were unfit to carry out anti-soviet propaganda work for the British government. In doing so he was simply providing what he considered important help to the Labour government then in power... You're partly right. He informed to representatives of MI5, in particular an anti-communist squad. Some of the people he informed on, however, were Labour party members... My error. Chalk it up to my Yankee sensibilities; I must have misread the incident somewhere, and naturally assumed "FBI"... Message 70 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 7/06/2002 5:17 p.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 71 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 5:22 p.m. From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 1:17 PM From: Vania Sent: 6/06/2002 7:55 PM
Grajac
Read the thread. Properly. Start with enemas to clean all of the sh*t out of them first followed by a rubella innoculation so they don`t transmit their POX to more unwitting victims. From: skepticalreturns Sent: 6/06/2002 7:56 PM
grajac
that is without doubt one of the most idiotic posts about politics I have ever read. There is nothing democratic about getting into power then increasing taxes so stealing other`s money hand over fist. yes there is if you get voted in you thick tw4t. perhaps you don't understand what democracy means? by subterfuge, no mandate is ever given for the mandatory tax & spend Socialist agenda which expropriates by force to finance its social engineering wealth re-distribution. It is done by stealth, by gradual increment ("Gradualism" is Socialisms MO) as for taxes mean stealing people's money I take you don't support the monarchy then? or use the NHS? or have ever called the police?
how thick are you? not as thick as one who thinks the totally discredited Socialist economic theory of robbing the wealth creators can ever work. Every time taxes reduce government tax base goes up Stupid (yeah YOU), try that then we might allow the use of the word DEMOCRATIC. Sharing the poverty is Socialism`s speciality, poverty enslaves, nothing democratic about that.. ALL forms of socialism are related & bad, it is just a matter of degree, communism is socialism in a hurry, the USSR acronym 3rd letter gives the game away, that game is called gradualism. so you don't think there is a difference between people who believe in democracy and those who don't? between those who believe in state ownership and those how don't? in that case yo can equally say that all forms of right-wing politics are the same Tories=Fascists=Nazis. tw4t. ALL Totalitarians are anathema to Conservatives. The world`s great Totailtarian regimes have all been SOCIALIST. NONE represent the Conservative movement however. June 6 Normandy saw our troops finishing off this particular Fascist one, the genesis being the National Socialist Party. Do not try your deceiptful humbug revisionism here to describe that as our cause. If it is Totalitarian, Socialism is it`s leader, the benchmark for all tyrannical regimes PERIOD. Socialism becomes undemocratic as soon as it has entrapped its victims, first by dividing then progressively impoverishing then enslaving.
you said at the beginning it isn't democratic - so how can it become undemocratic if it wasn't democratic in the first place? do you even read you r own inane typing? When you steal an election by misrepresenting your true agenda that isn`t very Democratic (although the electoral process we Conservatives created is) and your lot abuse the priveledge. You always con an apathetic electorate to get in then loot, pillage your way to early popularity. Then the slippery slope down to economic ruin killing off the wealth creation process first. Collapse looms as Socialism finally cannibilises the accumlated common wealth. Slavery awaits THAT IS SOCIALISM`S DESPICABLE RECORD INDEED COMRADE. NO EXCEPTION.
utter nutse.
next! next what lightweight? have you yet another thought in that hollow pinko head Professor Poverty? I will belt you all around the ring anytime you wish to try you left wing snake oil selling impostor, socialism the suicide elixir, lubricant for success......duh! docCruel, goodonya mate......happy to play doubles with you should these mental midgets gang up like the hyenas they are Message 72 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 9:24 p.m. septic returns just in case I was too subtle for you thick skinned, black hearted socialist rats. As subtle as a train smash is not, that would still have little effect on the socialist sub-species, so beyond redemption are most.... (but then, Horowitz & Co?......so we try to save more from themselves intent on wasting their pathetic lives in an evil cause). You will get no respite from committed Conservatives, we know exactly what you are: We are not interested in polite debate with a scheming enemy, but focused on your destruction instead. You are the enemy within, the rotten turncoat enemy of freedom. The high water mark of the worst mass murders of all time, the undoer of nations. The torturing, thieving, elitist proletariat of an enslaved, starving serfdom wherever you are allowed to rise. Famine is commonly the historical outcome of your downright stupid economic philosophy. If there is a just God, then go to hell for that you all surely will; for what your cause did & plans to do. Do not think you can get under our guard, we know who you are, how you "think" & why. You are beaten before you start on your embarrassing track record of documented disaster after disaster, you have zero credibility here. Now is a time of great danger for your country, for all free men, yet you appear to support the enemy! Get behind your leader, it is the necessary conduct of a Patriot, or officially announce to the world you are for the enemies of your own country. One or the other, no 2 shillings each way. Message 73 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 7/06/2002 9:32 p.m. A very constructive post grajac. Do you really think it furthers your cause to make utterly stupid attacks like that? You only make yourself the laughing stock of everyone else. Read your last post again. Was there even a bit of sense in it? Out with your hankie, you are foaming at the mouth. Message 74 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 9:45 p.m. the truth hurts doesn`t it? you need to be reminded, you do need to face the reality of socialism`s tawdry past like a murderer should face the family of his victim you will be ~amazed~ when the enemy is upon you, naievette is your forte pass that hanky to the suvivors of your socialist gulags, of Tianamen, of Havanna & Pyongyang. You are all contemptible to support the proven rogue socialist cause. Socialism IS, without qualification, the most evil cause that has ever beset mankind, the suffering it has forced upon Billions of innocent, unsuspecting citizens hard to comprehend. Message 75 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 7/06/2002 10:01 p.m. Hmm grajac... Getting a bit exited, are you? Cool it mate, you are becoming incomprehensible due to the typos.. or are they typos? Maybe you believe the words are spelled like that. "naievette"? Is that French? Please, translate. As far as I could understand you somewhat confused post I have to make the assumption you are suffering from a severe case of McCarthyism. Back to the good old 50's, eh? The big bad red bogeyman coming to get you? Besides, your ignorance is unbelievable. You happily lump 'Socialism', 'Communism', 'Stalinism', Social Democratism' etc. etc. together. Maybe you should read a few books before you flaunt yourself as a great expert... LOL. Message 76 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 10:17 p.m. oh, the double "t", tut tut! is that the best you can do trivia queen? the common link with these "ism`s" is the confiscation (& therefore the extinguishment of the wealth creation process) of private property/income thru escalating taxation (if not mass nationalisation if a catastrophic defeat of a free nation presents an immediate opportunity) to implement socialism`s (sometimes carefully concealed, in free countries) agenda. The attempt via UN socialist to install a New World Order through International Treaties pre-empting the soveregnty of unwitting nations is a diabolical example of socialism`s shameless stealth. People know the difference between freedom & slavery though "comrade". The surreptitious gradualism of socialism IS the snake-in-the-grass enemy within. The predator of private capital belonging to those who created it thought by socialists to be better spent by the proletariat elite on its personal needs. 3 great words....know thy enemy. and 5 more.....get thee behind me Satan
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 11, 2009 10:45:26 GMT
Message 77 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 7/06/2002 10:23 p.m. Cute. But paranoid. And ignorant. Or stupid. Or both. Oh... you might have meant naivete btw. LOL @ "naievette" Message 78 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 7/06/2002 10:25 p.m. The words are English....as for the meaning?? Who the f*ck knows. Message 79 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 10:31 p.m. oh, & the "e" too! I must have been in a terrible hurry eh? let`s see my etymological fetishist, that`s e for effrontery to claim that socialism isn`t communism or social democrats aren`t socialists then there is that extra "t".........hhhmmmm.......... "t" is for tautological tripe in your pirouetting on the periphery re what you believe by obfuscating the nexus with evil at the heart of ALL variant strains of this parasite infection called socialism Message 80 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 7/06/2002 10:34 p.m. Lol! Had a go at the dictionary? Good for you! Soon we will be able to understand you! You were almost coherent already! Keep on trying! Message 81 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 7/06/2002 10:39 p.m. grajac no-one votes for your lot any more - you are even less popular than your bette noir the Euro. social democratic parties run the three most important countries in Europe. the public no longer wants conservative neo-liberal bollox. the conservative right has shot it's bolt - you won't be back in power here for a long, long time Message 82 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 7/06/2002 10:44 p.m. One final point: The lesson one can take from the Nazi experience, in regards socialism, is that just because someone tacks a label to their movement, even supports the general political philosophy in some cases, doesn't necessarily mean they necessarily have your ideological interests in mind. When people spew on about Socialism, don't they realise the above. Message 83 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 7/06/2002 10:47 p.m.The attempt via UN socialist to install a New World Order through International Treaties pre-empting the soveregnty of unwitting nations is a diabolical example of socialism`s shameless stealth. got to laugh at this one. grajac, I bet you believe The Matrix is real too don't you? Message 84 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 7/06/2002 11:23 p.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 85 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 7/06/2002 11:25 p.m.The mainstay of socialism`s financial muscle, unionism, is severely emaciated these days. It only prospers when enforced by closed shops, open ballots & thuggery by standover men with a kosh or gun. Membership is down by half in Australia, America & most places elsewhere as people realise they were badly served by these butcher shops killing off jobs while enriching non-striking union bosses. The left is in retreat worldwide. A more numerate electorate has discovered that socialism is not the answer but their own INDIVIDUAL contribution to society is rather than a braying collective. Europe hasn`t delivered on her potential because of socialism`s role there last century, Russia`s 13 Captive Nations now freed by the West will go forward just as fast as they reject socialism. England`s problems are due to her craft/guild love affair via Trades Hall Councils & Trade Union leadership while in bed with the USSR. Now Socialism is redundant, exposed for the utter failure it is. Truth always prevails & to that end your game is up, truth is one thing socialism is bereft of. Once the truth is out the genie never goes back in the bottle. Message 86 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 7/06/2002 11:48 p.m. so pathetically out of touch The mainstay of socialism`s financial muscle, unionism, is severely emaciated these days. Membership is down by half in Australia, America & most places elsewhere as people realise they were badly served by these butcher shops in the UK trade union membership is on the increase again. the US unions seek to exert themselves now as shareholders. look at who is making the most noise about Enron. people realise they were badly served by these butcher shops killing off jobs while enriching non-striking union bosses. union members in the UK are routinely better off than non-unionised workers doing the same jobs. It only prospers when enforced by closed shops, open ballots & thuggery by standover men with a kosh or gun. interesting inversion or reality have a look at Columbia, China, anywhere else - it is trade unionists that receive this treatment. The left is in retreat worldwide. A more numerate electorate has discovered that socialism is not the answer but their own INDIVIDUAL contribution to society is rather than a braying collective. nope. like I said look at the European superpowers (I think you were a bit scare by this point as you didn't answer it). socialism is an evolving philosophy, it has reached the point where it embraces the ned dfor individual freedom but with a state to provide those things which are much better done collectively - health, eductaion, welfare. you're one size fits all "individualism is best" politics are 200 years old. they got update 20 years ago, but now they are old again - wake up, your ideas are dead. Now Socialism is redundant, exposed for the utter failure it is. Truth always prevails & to that end your game is up, truth is one thing socialism is bereft of. Once the truth is out the genie never goes back in the bottle. if it is redundant why are social democratic parties in power in the leading three European nations? and let's see what happens in South America now that it's in open revolt against the free market fairy tale that has made its people poor. Argentina, Brazil, where next? Message 87 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 12:45 a.m. The mainstay of socialism`s financial muscle, unionism, is severely emaciated these days. Membership is down by half in Australia, America & most places elsewhere as people realise they were badly served by these butcher shops
in the UK trade union membership is on the increase again. the US unions seek to exert themselves now as shareholders. look at who is making the most noise about Enron. if UK membership is rising it will be only if unions have some kind of tilt rort going with their brothers in government. Shareholders indeed, sounds like a capitulation to capitalist principles to me. Enron was made possible courtesy of socialist Clinton allowing Regulatory Agencies (eg SEC) to become ineffective by starving them of funds to prop up favored programs according to analysts reported recently in the Press people realise they were badly served by these butcher shops killing off jobs while enriching non-striking union bosses.
union members in the UK are routinely better off than non-unionised workers doing the same jobs. that would be unique, if it were true, the opposite is the case elsewhere with Enterprise Bargaining facilitating privte contracts which pay large bonus` for performance. Australia just doubled her container lifting rate on the wharves by a union that said it was impossible but now takes home the extra money, just one example. It only prospers when enforced by closed shops, open ballots & thuggery by standover men with a kosh or gun.
interesting inversion or reality have a look at Columbia, China, anywhere else - it is trade unionists that receive this treatment. China is socialist, THAT is THE problem there. Capitalism`s free trade/globalisation is one force freeing her The left is in retreat worldwide. A more numerate electorate has discovered that socialism is not the answer but their own INDIVIDUAL contribution to society is rather than a braying collective.
nope. like I said look at the European superpowers (I think you were a bit scare by this point as you didn't answer it). socialism is an evolving philosophy, it has reached the point where it embraces the ned dfor individual freedom but with a state to provide those things which are much better done collectively - health, eductaion, welfare. you're one size fits all "individualism is best" politics are 200 years old. they got update 20 years ago, but now they are old again - wake up, your ideas are dead. A beaten philosophy that morphs into a capitalist concept to survive is hardly a winner! Health, education are delivered better by the private sector as with any service except foreign affairs, defense, legal/judiciary, law enforcement, & a few others. the Public sector cannot compete with the efficiency of a fiercely competitive Private Sector, do you wash a rent-a-car? No, if you don`t own it you don`t care about it. If you are going to lose your house if your business fails you focus real hard, like execution at dawn! Now Socialism is redundant, exposed for the utter failure it is. Truth always prevails & to that end your game is up, truth is one thing socialism is bereft of. Once the truth is out the genie never goes back in the bottle.
if it is redundant why are social democratic parties in power in the leading three European nations? and let's see what happens in South America now that it's in open revolt against the free market fairy tale that has made its people poor. Argentina, Brazil, where next? First World Free West countries are the ones that matter & you are losing big time there. Forget it, your race has been run, people are wiser now. Message 88 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 12:49 a.m. | Nazi's | Socialists | | 1 - Hitler's youth. A formal school program designed to raise children to believe in his doctrine, to be superior athletes and to follow the party line as Hitler perceived it. Hitler's youth were required to exercise and keep fit, and on good diets. | 1 - Birth to work program, complete with mandatory pre-school for youngsters to get them indoctrinated younger when they are more easily brain washed. Schools are being required to teach sensitivity courses despite parental outrage they are doing going fast forward with their plans.
| 2 - Eugenics. Hitler's program was designed as an after birth cleansing. His program included the training of geneticists that had the sole job of determining if the German population had any genetic disorders. If they did they were to be sterilized or killed. Only those with perfect genes were encouraged to breed and rewarded for producing more children. In the first few years he created over a million new births under this program.
Hitler's program was National Socialism.
| 2 - Eugenics. Margaret Sangler the founder of Planned Parenthood an organization support by several woman's organizations including but not limited to NOW. It was her belief that lower species should be required to either be sterilized or they should have birth control provided to them to keep them from populating the country. It was her belief that in a short time that the entire inferior races would disappear, while the superior race would thrive. She was a National socialist.
Eventually her program led to the legalization of Abortion, leading to the death of 42 million unborn children. | 3 - Euthenasia. As Hitler's power grew his force of doctors and psychiatrist grew as well. After years of study they determined that certain races were not worthy of living, nor were certain types of people. Many millions of people were gassed to death or put into Hitler's ovens as a result. This program started with the elimination of all children born with birth defects.
Doctors were required to play God.
| 3 - Euthenasia. We are now approaching a new era in America under liberal/socialist lead. Under the guise of "Death with Dignity" we are slowly heading in a direction that a human being can request to be put to sleep the same way we put any animal that is too ill or too old to sleep. If you are born with a defect I suspect it won't be long before you will be included in this humane relief from life plan as well.
Doctors will be encouraged to play God.
| | 4 - Freedom of Speech. Hitler led his people to believe that his plan was for the betterment of all people. His doctors and their followers were convinced their programs were what was right for the entire nation, and eventually the world. They were not allowed to dissent, but were told that they had every other freedom. Laws forbid speaking out against his programs. | 4 - Freedom of Speech. In our country we are being encouraged to pass hate crime legislation, despite the fact that the FBI shows a definite decline in all crimes over the past 6 years, and even less reported hate crimes. In fact most hate crimes are reported by people who know the perpetrators. This legislation is designed to force people into compliance with what others believe to be best for all of the people, and it is under the pretense of ending hate speech. So much for freedom of speech. | | 5 - Planned Diet. Hitler had a planned living schedule for his superior people. They were required by law to be fit and to eat only the proper foods. He had an advertising campaign designed to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol. Claiming that these substances led to an unfit body and mind. Smoking and drinking were not only discouraged as he gained power they were outlawed. | 5 - Planned Diet. Liberals are in the process of legislating laws and taxes that tax items that are eaten by some or most people. If you are a junk-food junkie, a smoker or a drinker you are going to pay through the nose in sin taxes. Now they want to pass laws outlawing vending machines in schools. There are some states making laws regarding where you can and cannot use tobacco, to include the privacy of your own home. Courts are interfering with parent visitation if the parent smokes. | | 6 - Planned Lives. Hitler's youth were required to study certain topics that were designed to make them good members of society. Peoples occupations were decided for them. Hitler wanted his people strong and smart so they could take over the world. | 6 - Planned Lives. Students will no longer be required to achieve at a higher level however they will over trained in Sex Education and homosexual studies will be infiltrated into all of their studies. This sound like another zero population growth scheme to me. If everyone is gay, there will be no growth. They are also working on federal level development planning to be forced on all states. | | 7 - One World Government. Under his dictatorship he wanted to create a perfect world in which to live with of course all other races being exterminated. | 7 - One World Government. Clinton is wandering around the world right now promising to distribute our wealth around the world. I believe he is making a play to be head of the UN.
|
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 1:04 a.m.if UK membership is rising it will be only if unions have some kind of tilt rort going with their brothers in government. utter cobblers Shareholders indeed, sounds like a capitulation to capitalist principles to me.
Enron was made possible courtesy of socialist Clinton allowing Regulatory Agencies (eg SEC) to become ineffective by starving them of funds to prop up favored programs according to analysts reported recently in the Press for one who professes such lotyalty to capitalism you don't understand it very well do you? who do you think the shareholders are today knumbskull? pension funds, insurance companies. who pays into them? employees. hence unions around the world have been handed a very powerful tool - employee share ownership. now you just watch them use it. geez, you don't even grasp what widespread share ownership really means yet do you? Enron had fack all to do with Clinton. what a pathetic, last gasp attempt to make a major failure in US capitalism out to be some problem for the left. you are flailing and you know it. that would be unique, if it were true, the opposite is the case elsewhere with Enterprise Bargaining facilitating privte contracts which pay large bonus` for performance. Australia just doubled her container lifting rate on the wharves by a union that said it was impossible but now takes home the extra money, just one example. again. can't be arsed to type out a very long list that counter this. China is socialist, THAT is THE problem there. Capitalism`s free trade/globalisation is one force freeing her no, it's communist. but you inability to see the difference is how we got started so I don't expect you to quite grasp this one yet. but just to point out the rather obvious flaw in your argument - do you believe in trade union resistance to the Chinese govt? surely you can't support either side? A beaten philosophy that morphs into a capitalist concept to survive is hardly a winner! horse sh*t. socialism does not proscribe whether ownership should be purely state or not. hence most social democraitic parties have supported the existence of private provision of many services for decades (but like I said - your ideas are decades behind). the core ideas of freedom, democracy and equality remain. Health, education are delivered better by the private sector as with any service except foreign affairs, defense, legal/judiciary, law enforcement, & a few others. the Public sector cannot compete with the efficiency of a fiercely competitive Private Sector, do you wash a rent-a-car? No, if you don`t own it you don`t care about it. If you are going to lose your house if your business fails you focus real hard, like execution at dawn! health and education are not better delivered by the private sector you chump. look at what a mess the US heathcare system is in? look at the f**k up in the UK where you can buy a better eductaion if you have the money. this is where the state is much better. again your grasp of your own philosophy is weak. capitalism is by its nature inefficient because of the need to pay high wages for the management, and dividends out to shareholders. the public sector does not have that "fat" in the system. private sector provision is only good in some areas where there need sto be rapid development. in other it actually reduces freedom of choice. First World Free West countries are the ones that matter & you are losing big time there. Forget it, your race has been run, people are wiser now. again you avoid the blatantly obvious - you stilL haven't answered despite me asking several times now. WHY ARE THE MAJOR EUROPEAN NATIONS RUN BY SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES? IF THE RIGHT HAS WON, WHY HAS IT BEEN EJECTED FROM POWER IN THE BIG NATIONS? Message 90 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 8/06/2002 1:06 a.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 91 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 8/06/2002 1:27 a.m. This message has been deleted by the author.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 11, 2009 11:18:13 GMT
Message 92 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 1:58 a.m. socialism does not proscribe whether ownership should be purely state or not....the core ideas of freedom, democracy and equality remain. exactly, Socialism is not committed to private ownership therefore it CANNOT, by definition, be about personal liberty flowing from such economic freedom. Hoisted on your own petard genius, dangling by your britches, what more proof would anyone need ! capitalism is by its nature inefficient because of the need to pay high wages for the management, and dividends out to shareholders. the public sector does not have that "fat" in the system. re-read what you say here! "no fat in Public Service". Say what! Efficiency & Public Sector are mutually exclusive terms, everyone knows that but you apparently; don`t be ridiculous, do you wash the rent-a-car or don`t you? well? WHY ARE THE MAJOR EUROPEAN NATIONS RUN BY SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES? IF THE RIGHT HAS WON, WHY HAS IT BEEN EJECTED FROM POWER IN THE BIG NATIONS? Europe has always been socialistically inclined, they are slow learners, the important observation is, how has she fared under it? And the answer is "terrible". Socialism never performs, show me where/how? Human nature is such that those economies that reward the wealth creators attract them, unless you have an internationally competitive tax regime you will lose your talent, a brain drain. Would the last businessmen leaving Socialist England please turn the lights out? you really need to get a whole lot better at selling such a fetid dog of a product to bother because you are getting a shocking hiding so far "Comrade". Here is a free hint for you: NEVER try to argue against the overpowering logic & provable history that Private Sector delivers socially useful products & services better than Public Sector. The price signalling in a Free Enterprise DEMAND economy (as distinct from your socialist COMMAND economy) requires competition to work, that IS why it works. To the extent that these signals are distorted by intervention it fails. Accordingly you MUST use the Capitalist model so becoming redundant in doing so, that is why you dare not, cannot publicly mandate the abolition of private ownership which would otherwise define you. You have lost your identity, you ahve become Capitalist! Caught & bowled. Free value-for-value exchange between parties in volitional consent within a fiercely competing market is the very reason it works so well. Government monopolies do NOT qualify clearly. Message 93 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 2:43 a.m. WHY ARE THE MAJOR EUROPEAN NATIONS RUN BY SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES? IF THE RIGHT HAS WON, WHY HAS IT BEEN EJECTED FROM POWER IN THE BIG NATIONS? This, in an obtuse way, is a very good question. Leonard Peikoff made allusions to it in his book, The Ominous Parallels. Even better, it relates well to my supposition that fascism is an extrapolation on socialism. Remember that earlier quote from Tyler, posted by Grajec? A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. That dictatorship invariably takes the form of a fascist state. Literally - the first obvious manifest of this phenomenon was the transition from Roman republic to Roman empire. One other point. I'd say that China was communist until, say, 1980 or so. Deng Xiao Ping's administration was the cutting point; before then, in particular during the Maoist dictatorship, the Chinese had a traditionally communist government, with predictable results. The present government, however, is fascist. Very important to watch China. If their society continues to prosper, if their aggressive stance starts to bear fruit, then we can assume that Peikoff was right. If so, the present moves by the EU to impose an interstate neo-fascism in Europe might just succeed. Message 94 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 3:11 a.m. Per The Ominous Parallels: Some of the "ominous parallels" between pre-Hitler Germany and the United States that Peikoff identifies are: - Liberals who demand public control over the use and disposal of private property — social security, more taxes, more government control over the energy industry, medicine, broadcasting, etc.
- Conservatives who demand government control over our intellectual and moral life — prayer in the schools, literary censorship, government intervention in the teaching of biology, the anti-abortion movement, etc.
- Political parties devoid of principles or direction and moved at random by pressure groups, each demanding still more controls.
- A "progressive," anti-intellectual educational system that, from kindergarten to graduate school, creates students who can't read or write — students brainwashed into the feeling that their minds are helpless and they must adapt to "society," that there is no absolute truth and that morality is whatever society says it is.
- A student radical movement (from the 1960's through the violent anti-nukers and ecology fanatics of today) who are, Peikoff maintains, the "pre-Hitler youth movement resurrected." The radicals are nature worshippers who attack the middle class, science, technology, and business.
- The rise of defiant old-world racial hatreds disguised as "ethnic-identity" movements and "affirmative action."
- A pervasive atmosphere of decadence, moral bankruptcy, and nihilist art accompanied by the rise of escapist mystic cults of every kind — astrology, "alternative medicine," Orientalists, extrasensory perception, etc.
www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm Message 95 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 3:13 a.m. hi DocCruel Peikoff is no Ayn Rand but your post is provocative & good food for thought. Mencken nailed it probably, the human condition being what it is, & it serves as ominous warning for people to know what they are up for, the loss of freedom, if they abuse it. A truly educated public is the only chance for freedom to remain. that is why your posts are important, of course. It is significant that the greek root derivative of Aapital is Kapit meaning wit (not money). The human capital of a country determines her prosperity so keeping the wealh creators is critical to a country`s economic well being. Globally competitive tax rates are vital to attract &/or keep the best entrepreneurs. The difference this small %age makes in fiscal vitality is astonishing, especially new jobs growth. With corporate downsizing at the big end of town, 100% of new jobs growth in net terms depends upon Small to Medum enterprises today & most of that by the extremely rapid growth operations of the extraordinarily talented top 15% Message 96 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 8/06/2002 3:17 a.m. LOL! I've been waiting for the moment when Ayn Rand's ugly face would surface... I knew it would happen! Message 97 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 3:31 a.m. i thought you`d be ~amazed~, so you are amazed then aren`t you, happy then right? Message 98 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 4:00 a.m. now that the important stuff in the world has been sorted by a penalty we can get back to your ridiculous postings exactly, Socialism is not committed to private ownership therefore it CANNOT, by definition, be about personal liberty flowing from such economic freedom. private ownership does not guarantee liberty. that is a myth designed to fool gullible types into supporting a certain political viewpoint. tell what the advantage is of a privately owned rail network is over nationalised one. becuase here in the UK this ideological experiment (transferring the network into private ownership) has been an unparalleled disaster. private ownership look at the national health system. even the Tories privately concluded that a PUBLIC system was far better way to deliver healthcare because health eceonomics don't work in a way that the market can deliver. ditto education - the Tories were in power for 18 years, why no change to the PUBLIC system? frankly your argument is a neo-liberal fairy tale. believe in it if you wish - but the world is moving on without you. re-read what you say here! "no fat in Public Service". Say what! Efficiency & Public Sector are mutually exclusive terms, everyone knows that but you apparently; don`t be ridiculous, do you wash the rent-a-car or don`t you? well? then why did the Tories keep so many services in the public sector? and as I said earlier yu don't seem to have a very good grasp on how your own system works as demonstrated by your inability to get what I am on about in terms of shareholding. why do mutuals still exist? I believe there are a few in Australia. why do they continue to exist? how can paying dividends to shareholders (who need contribute nothing ) be anything other than a layer of fat? Europe has always been socialistically inclined, they are slow learners, the important observation is, how has she fared under it? And the answer is "terrible". Socialism never performs, show me where/how? again if you really want to get into this I can post you a bunch of stuff. Europe did a lot better than the US in terms of productivity until the mid 1990s, since then the picture has got more complicated. but then you see there are cultural differences between the US and Europe (not least that Europeans take longer holidays, work less a week etc). that is a choice Europe has made and one that many of us are happy with. As for Europe being slow learners, it is interesting that in the wake of Enron the US has been taking an interest in how Europe deals with corporate goverance. but I won't digress as that is heading into actual factual reality where real thing s happen, and you seem to prefer leaving in theoretical dreamworld. Human nature is such that those economies that reward the wealth creators attract them, unless you have an internationally competitive tax regime you will lose your talent, a brain drain. Would the last businessmen leaving Socialist England please turn the lights out? again, you don't know what you are talking about. there is no serious demand for European execs in the US or anywhere else, and vice versa. the US pays its execs more than Europe so why haven't our ones gone already? also you are clearly one of those suckers who believes there is no problem with exec pay. funny then that it is the shareholders these days who shout loudest about unwarranted pay increased and they know a lot more about capitalism than you do. ask your self why that happens. again you just talk theoretical rubbish with no grounding in reality. you really need to get a whole lot better at selling such a fetid dog of a product to bother because you are getting a shocking hiding so far "Comrade". yeah right, I am having to argue your side as well cos you don't even understand capitalism properly. Here is a free hint for you: NEVER try to argue against the overpowering logic & provable history that Private Sector delivers socially useful products & services better than Public Sector. The price signalling in a Free Enterprise DEMAND economy (as distinct from your socialist COMMAND economy) requires competition to work, that IS why it works. To the extent that these signals are distorted by intervention it fails. if you bothered to read. you would see that I am not arguing for a command economy, I am arguing for a mixed economy. you are the extremist here. but even your language seems to come from the Penguin Book on How the Free Market Works. you have no idea what you are talking about. Accordingly you MUST use the Capitalist model so becoming redundant in doing so, that is why you dare not, cannot publicly mandate the abolition of private ownership which would otherwise define you. You have lost your identity, you ahve become Capitalist! Caught & bowled. I think you shat on your own wicket actually chum. socialism is a set of values, and as such to a degree it doesn't depend on a particular economic system. what you have been talking about all along - even thos I tried to show you how stupid you were being - is communism. I am talking about socialism. but you simply cannot understand it. hence you cannot explain why when your revision notes said that the Right had won that the Left was in power in the big European nations. Free value-for-value exchange between parties in volitional consent within a fiercely competing market is the very reason it works so well. Government monopolies do NOT qualify clearly. what about capitalist monopolies? what about the way the market can reduce freedom of choice? what about socially damaging goods that make a profit? what about businesses that make big profits but pay poorly? you have no answer to any of this stuff because your ideas are so basic. Message 99 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 4:25 a.m. Peikoff is no Ayn Rand but your post is provocative & good food for thought. Mencken nailed it probably, the human condition being what it is, & it serves as ominous warning for people to know what they are up for, the loss of freedom, if they abuse it. A truly educated public is the only chance for freedom to remain. Just remember that Skeptic posed his own good retort - that the Enron fiasco, as an example of the corporate capitalist model, shows that unbridled self-interest is not the answer either. Better would be the actions of robber barons in the 19th century... Here's another factoid - fascism is not only a derivative of socialism. It is also a means by which socialism comes to terms with the capitalist economic model, that is, by which a political system that deifies the State can allow for profit-driven individualism to have a say in the economic process. The mechanism is via state-sanctioned syndicates, of which, given Enron's nepotistic arrangements with the Clinton administration, this latest fiasco is an arguable example of the practice in the US socio-cultural environment. If you can see how I can listen to and agree in part with what some college activists have to say, and still consider them a pack of pig-headed jackasses (at best), you're getting close. Message 100 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 4:28 a.m. LOL! I've been waiting for the moment when Ayn Rand's ugly face would surface... I knew it would happen! Peikoff is not Rand. They are both Objectivists, true, but I am not an Objectivist. And yes, this philosophy inevitably appears, in honest critiques of socialism - Objectivist thought poses a very serious challenge to socialist theory, not one answerable by ad hominem attacks or similar obtuse abuse. Message 101 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 4:38 a.m. Here's another factoid - fascism is not only a derivative of socialism. It is also a means by which socialism comes to terms with the capitalist economic model, that is, by which a political system that deifies the State can allow for profit-driven individualism to have a say in the economic process. The mechanism is via state-sanctioned syndicates, of which, given Enron's nepotistic arrangements with the Clinton administration, this latest fiasco is an arguable example of the practice in the US socio-cultural environment. provocative, but not accurate Doc. fascism is not a derivative of socialism. it was explicitly a rejection of socialism. I agre it draws on much of the socialist analysis of capitalism, and even some of the organisational structures such as syndicates. and in essence you can argue that its attempts to create a tripartite corporatist economy is close to what social democracy has aimed at too. but the key things are that philosophically they are poles apart and that in reality tripartite under fascism meant forced labour. cannot agree with you about Enron. if you are honest about it Enron caught everyone by surprise, but in the long run it will be seen as a major failure of US corporate goverance and financial markets - weak NEDs, inactive shareholders, analysts ramping, auditors compromised. these are the major themes in Enron - nothing else. surely even a libertarian mus argue these flaws must be addressed, if only to legitimise US capitalism? that's certainly what Bob Monks thinks! Message 102 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 4:44 a.m. septic you say (gushingly): " private ownership does not guarantee liberty." well I`ll tell you what guarantees slavery buter, your beloved socialism which is against private ownership (as if it was a secret!) by your own admission. The opportunity to amass private capital sure helps! Capitalism provides that we are only equal in opportunity, not result (all broke equally sharing the poverty because their is no wealth being produced -- unless you close your borders, the old socialist standard fare eh?) as under socialism. A rational meritocracy must induce contribution by recognising/rewarding performance accordingly. health eceonomics don't work in a way that the market can deliver.
why do mutuals still exist? I believe there are a few in Australia. why do they continue to exist? Any & every product/service you can imagine can be more efficiently delivered by the private sector because the owner directly gains or loses but only if there is open competition. Politicians are too dishonest to resist cutting deals which interfere otherwise there would be almost no exception to this rule. Mutuals?....because they are a valid option, the Capitalist system provides choice, socialism doesn`t. Although, it is highly relevant that they are being corporatised, one after the other now ......seeing as you mentioned it. your inability to get what I am on about in terms of shareholding. No previous comment because no profound point was made by you....but, as you insist.... Pension funds mean workers get to own a sizeable piece of the company by paying for it as they always could have. The only difference now is that unions muscled in to run these funds in a monopoly environment (classic union rort, no competition...that`ll help fund mgt perfomance NOT!!!!) thus continuing to parasitically feed off their members Europe did a lot better than the US in terms of productivity until the mid 1990s, since then the picture has got more complicated. but then you see there are cultural differences between the US and Europe Europe outproducing America, what a laugh......prove it. And then the cover up, talk about any excuse in vintage socialist fashion, you will say anything to duck & weave won`t you?....got more complicated since...cultural difference!!!!! LOL Now, do you wash your returning rent-a-car or don`t you? If not, would it be, like everyone else, because you don`t care simply because it isn`t yours? Now, who should own the money at risk in an enterprise serving the public then? Who would care enough to focus, to really sweat the hard stuff? Do you know what it is like having the fires of hell licking at your arse as you try to make pay roll by friday? Of course you don`t, you are no entrepreneur in the real world or you would know better than the trash you write..... tell me about this real world of yours pal.
Well, do you wash the bloody rent-a-car or not genius? Message 103 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 4:49 a.m. - what about capitalist monopolies?
Money implies a kind of power. A company with money, made by initially selling a successful product, can later use that monetary leverage to force valid competitors out of the market. Ayn Rand's ideas are particularly silly n this point. She posited that "moral" capitalists would allow competition against them, accept defeat if need be, and otherwise act in what otherwise might be considered an "altruistic" fashion. I call it her theory of "selfish self-sacrifice", and consider the mental machinations meant to justify it as amusing as any tract by Marx and Co. what about the way the market can reduce freedom of choice?
In modern capitalism, especially when the process of production has become especially complex and specialized, more primitive lifestyles become impossible. For example, buffalo once crossed the plains of the US Midwest. They would on occasion disrupt train traffic, so the solution of the railroads was to slaughter all the buffalo (which had no economic value to them). This made the nomadic lifestyle of the Plains Indians impossible. (Not the whole story - the railroad companies were also keen to rid themselves of the Indians, who on occasion would derail trains - but it gives you the general idea). Consider also - a complex method of food production , which makes foodstuffs very cheap compared to more labor-intensive systems, drives small farmers out of business. The result being that urban people become heavily dependant on manufactured foodstuffs. Once this happens, food prices can be set wherever the large agricultural firms would like. And so on. - what about socially damaging goods that make a profit?
This is a bit more nebulous. Is the selling of narcotics "socially damaging"? How about prostitution? According to global warming theorists, industrial production is de facto "socially damaging". The theory goes, that a company can make a profit, but cause damage to the "commons" that forces a cost on the general public that the corporation can absolve itself of. But, so also the idea that a manufacturing process is "socially damaging" can empower an unrelated group to act as the champions of "the people", thusly robbing said corporation blind. Not as easy an issue to decypher as the question would propose. what about businesses that make big profits but pay poorly?
This sort of mechanism occurs, only if one forgets that the sale of labor is a "business" as well. Indeed, labour unions establish "monopolistic" practices themselves. artificially jacking up the price of labour and making production in some cases prohibitively expensive. Then, there is the issue of the relative nature of wages. What would be a wage condemning women to slavery in a modern, developed society, would be a liberating and lucrative wage in another. Wealthy Chinese make the equivalent of $10,000 a year, and enjoy a very high social status for it; in the UK, such a wage would be close to the poverty line. So again, not so easy an issue to decypher. What I can say is, that to the above questions, the idea that socialism is the end-all, be-all answer is ludicrous. People that hold this belief, in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary, can justly be considered a bit "unbalanced" (and the ones that turn to "revolutionary violence" to force the issue are positively unhinged). Message 104 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 4:54 a.m. fascism is not a derivative of socialism. it was explicitly a rejection of socialism. "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...." "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.... The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." - Adolf Hitler, explaining his political philosophy of Nazism Message 105 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 5:06 a.m. well I`ll tell you what guarantees slavery buter, your beloved socialism which is against private ownership (as if it was a secret!) by your own admission. where in the world has democratic socialism resulted in slavery? don't play with words ( you're no good at it ) prove this assertion The opportunity to amass private capital sure helps! Capitalism provides that we are only equal in opportunity, not result (all broke equally sharing the poverty because their is no wealth being produced -- unless you close your borders, the old socialist standard fare eh?) as under socialism. A rational meritocracy must induce contribution by recognising/rewarding performance accordingly. now you really are being thick. we are not close to being equal in opportunity yet. wher you are born, into which class etc still have a huge influence on your chances (why I asked you about health but again you didn't get it). I am in favour of meritocracy - that's what socialism is. unfortunately you cannot grasp that your ideas work against meritocracy. look at the way exec pay works for the antithesis of meritocracy. but you still live in dream world where it's all "rewarding perfoamnce". Any & every product/service you can imagine can be more efficiently delivered by the private sector because the owner directly gains or loses but only if there is open competition. Politicians are too dishonest to resist cutting deals which interfere otherwise there would be almost no exception to this rule. again you didn't answer why the Tories didn't do it to health and education. ever heard of the "healthy wealthy"? get this poor people are more likely to get sick. hence a private system has to deal with the fact that the most demand comes from those least able to pay. hence health provision is must better provide by the state where ability to pay doesn't matter. Pension funds mean workers get to own a sizeable piece of the company by paying for it as they always could have. The only difference now is that unions muscled in to run these funds in a monopoly environment (classic union rort, no competition...that`ll help fund mgt perfomance NOT!!!!) thus continuing to parasitically feed off their members wrong on pretty much every count. significant shareholding by pension funds is a very recent development. the difference now is that employees are waking up to trhe fact they own these companies. agian you get your argumet all mixed up - the historical problem with shareholders is that they have only acted as parasites - inactive owners - now they are starting to become active. if you had any clue you might reverse your comment about fund management performance - Hermes, Lens, Berkshire Hathaway - all active owners - all doing well Europe outproducing America, what a laugh......prove it. And then the cover up, talk about any excuse in vintage socialist fashion, you will say anything to duck & weave won`t you?....got more complicated since...cultural difference!!!!! LOL look, I can't hold your hand all the time - go and read some books. have you never heard of Rhineland capitalism? this is primary school level stuff. Now, do you wash your returning rent-a-car or don`t you? If not, would it be, like everyone else, because you don`t care simply because it isn`t yours? Now, who should own the money at risk in an enterprise serving the public then? Who would care enough to focus, to really sweat the hard stuff? Do you know what it is like having the fires of hell licking at your arse as you try to make pay roll by friday? Of course you don`t, you are no entrepreneur in the real world or you would know better than the trash you write.....tell me about this real world of yours pal. like everything you have posted so far is theoretical gibberish. employees in private sector firms don't own them either. they have greater or lesser incentive than those working in the public sector. morale and incentives are far more complicated than your simplistic childish view would allow. sometimes people want to do a certain job because they believe in it - they will even do it for less money and work longer hours. you simply don't know what you are talking about. I have spent my the vast majority of my career in the private sector and I have been a manager for the past 5 years. I know that organisations do not operate anything like the way that right-wing simpletons believe they do. money or ownership is usually way down the scale of why people like/hate their job. that is the real world. your views come straight out of a text book - they have no bearing on reality. Message 106 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 5:11 a.m. Doc, I trust markets & the freer thae are the more I trust them. I do not trust intermediaries or interlopers. Yes Enron is a sordid affair, the statutory compliance requirements are inadequate not requiring limited, conservative options & standardised nomenclature. The creative accounting is a joke with off balance sheet items open slather. Corporate Governance re fiduciary prudential considerations are not a mystery, but an ethical factor. Given a will these things are not hard to fix so all`s well that ends well as it will I believe but some must be punished as a lesson & the necessary changes set in concrete (maybe acrylic!) from now on. The more government interferes by interposing itself between market supply & demand with its fees, licences, rules/regs, constituent lobbyist deals& red tape it decreases the efficiency of the market & they can never be trusted as to the maze of hidden agendas. Market signals are brutally honest by comparison. Why do people want the Nanny State to fix everything for them, as if they can? If they knew what the ultimate price for a burgeoning government is, they wouldn`t. The Public Sector only consumes wealth (having first restricted its production within the Private Sector). Public sector is a very poor choice & the last one you make because after you give (allow them to usurp) them the role you then have no choice left whatsoever. The power of choice is the greatest power in all the world. Keep it therefore.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 1:55:34 GMT
Message 107 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 5:12 a.m. Doc the Hitler quote doesn't mention socialism - so what's the relevance? Message 108 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 5:21 a.m. What I can say is, that to the above questions, the idea that socialism is the end-all, be-all answer is ludicrous. People that hold this belief, in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary, can justly be considered a bit "unbalanced" (and the ones that turn to "revolutionary violence" to force the issue are positively unhinged). I'm not suggesting it is the last word at all. my point was that expecting capiatlism to naturally reform itself is dangerous nonsense. I am not an economic determinist. I believe that the economic system is the engine in society, not the society it self as many Right fundies believe. socialism, to me is a set of values and building from them questions are asked about the social impact of the economic system. to me market fundmentalists are extremists who cannot see that life exists outside the economy. we can make choices about how we want society to be - we should not let the market dictate what sort of society we have. if that's revolutionary then so is Adair Turner cos he said much the same thing when he left the CBI. Message 109 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 8/06/2002 5:23 a.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Message 110 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 8/06/2002 5:24 a.m. The fact that Doc as already stated that all that is bad is a form of "leftism" and the "right" doesn't exist, shows that DC doesn't have a clue to give. Message 111 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 5:24 a.m. cannot agree with you about Enron. if you are honest about it Enron caught everyone by surprise, but in the long run it will be seen as a major failure of US corporate goverance and financial markets - weak NEDs, inactive shareholders, analysts ramping, auditors compromised. these are the major themes in Enron - nothing else. The key element, in this case, is government sanction of Enron. That smacks of a "syndicate" system. Otherwise, why did Enron have the leverage power it did against huge state apparatuses like the California Power Commission? surely even a libertarian mus argue these flaws must be addressed, if only to legitimise US capitalism? Capitalism is an economic tool. Socialism is also (supposed to be) an economic tool. Neither, if looked at sensibly, are social systems. What has happened in the modern age is that "socialism" as a system has transformed, through the actions of Marxists and the Left, from a methodology advocating the sharing of economic effort to a system by which this effort is (forcibly) managed by an intellectual elite. In this transformation, fascism is but one incidental variety, as is the ideology of Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, "Khmer Rouge"-ism, et al. Societies that depend on a capitalist-driven economy develop characteristic problems. Socialism, in this modern sense, is in no way a solution to them - if anything, the parasitic expertise of Leftist movements within capitalist societies is a major problem in and of itself. Message 112 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 5:25 a.m. I thought there might be a good scrap going on here between 'leftists' and 'rightists' but it seems not. Instead we have a couple of 'far-outists' presenting some queer concoction of their own creation as socialism and pelting it with any generalisation that comes to hand. Come on grajac and doc, give us a clue! If you want to rule the world, tell us the party you represent and maybe we'll vote for you or possibly just know where to throw the rotten tomatoes. Message 113 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 5:35 a.m.The fact that Doc as already stated that all that is bad is a form of "leftism" and the "right" doesn't exist, shows that DC doesn't have a clue to give. Not so. However, the Left is an all-encompassing term for ideological parasites, in particular those that expouse the Marxist ideology. This term would not, however, apply to the technicals of Somalia, the pre-FARC drug lords, the nihilistic mystics of Aum Shinriky, etc. The Left has three specific and identifiable characteristics: - A socialist justification
- A sense of intellectual, Platonic elitism
- The belief that anyone with wealth, by virtue of that simple fact alone, is indebted to them in some way
They can be differentiated from more common criminals and pirates by their elaborate intellectual justifications for thievery and mass murder. Most normal criminals wouldn't bother - they know what they do is wrong, but a Leftist depends on proving to their victims that the Left is correct in victimizing them. This is why the Left is so successful, and so ubiquitous wherever there is a lucrative opportunity for crime. Message 114 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 8/06/2002 5:37 a.m. Yes DC you have proclaimed that the "right" does not exist. Basically, help me to understand, your use of the term "left" has nothing to do with socialism or even original left politics and ideology. Rather it is an "all encompassing" word for anything DC does not like? Do I get a prize? Message 115 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 5:38 a.m. I thought there might be a good scrap going on here between 'leftists' and 'rightists' but it seems not. Instead we have a couple of 'far-outists' presenting some queer concoction of their own creation as socialism and pelting it with any generalisation that comes to hand. Come on grajac and doc, give us a clue! Well. At least you didn't abuse SR. Likely because his commentary has a pro-socialist bent. So then. Is there some concept of mine you are confused about Aldous? You seem a bit befuddled. Message 116 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 8/06/2002 5:38 a.m. doh there you go again Doc. you were being quite sensible for a bit and then you let yourself be provoked into the old "leftist criminal conspiracy" response. Message 117 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 5:42 a.m. Yes DC you have proclaimed that the "right" does not exist. Correct, in a modern sense. The "right" originally referred to supporters of aristocratic governance, and of particular royal families at that. The term is now meaningless, as a Syrian Ba'athist supporter could thusly be considered a "Leftist" (Ba'athist socialism) and a "Rightist" (apologist for the Assad family) simultaneously. What I disagreed with was your comment, ascribed to me, that "all that is bad is Leftist". Just because all that is Leftist is bad does not subsume the reverse. Message 118 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 8/06/2002 5:46 a.m. DC so the current poltical right is what exactly? Message 119 of 252 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 8/06/2002 5:48 a.m. Plus if this is true: The term is now meaningless, as a Syrian Ba'athist supporter could thusly be considered a "Leftist" (Ba'athist socialism) and a "Rightist" (apologist for the Assad family) simultaneously. Likewise the term "left" could just as easily be rendered meaningless. Well it is the case when you use it but that's another story... Message 120 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 5:54 a.m. You can't have 'left' without 'right'. The terms are relative and you can't have one without the other. Do you live in a world where you can be inside a building but not outside it? There is a north but no south. You have a front but no back. You are up but there is no down. That's a funny old world. Give us a clue, DocC who are the rightists and what's so good about them? Message 121 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 5:58 a.m. septic said: prove democratic socialism resulted in slavery you cannot divorce democratic socialism from socialism, it is it`s parent, they have the same essential DNA. Even in its mildest form it enslaves by confiscatory taxation. It is dishonest to deny this. "socialism does not proscribe whether ownership should be purely state or not. hence most social democraitic parties have supported the existence of private provision of many services for decades" I say: a clear admission that private property is not sacrosanct under allegedly democratic, socialism! As previously explained, you cannot include it without being Capitalist & you must use the Capitalist model to have a sustainable economy ....so.... all you are left with is your tax & spend social engineering by elitist public servant punks who think they know better how to spend everyone elses money. "I am in favour of meritocracy - that's what socialism is." What rank dishonesty. Socialism is now meritocratic is it! Get thee to a shrink. re shareholding: subtlety is wasted on you, my reference "as they always could have" means that just because superannuation deductions (increasingly mandatory) must go somewhere & equities perform best over time did not prevent workers from buying shares earlier had they elected too. As to your "now you just watch them use it" ....the only difference will be that unions managing these members funds by proxy will screw the companies over on labor unit costs eventually driving them offshore so losing those jobs for those members ps shareholders are NEVER parasies, they are owners, freeloaders are parasites, get it right now what part of that don`t you understand as you clowns like to say? ] cryptic answers like "Rhineland Capitalism" doesn`t prove your bold claim that Europe outproduced America, put up or shut up "I have spent my the vast majority of my career in the private sector and I have been a manager for the past 5 years" Wow, your mummy must be proud of you for an upstart. "your views come straight out of a text book - they have no bearing on reality." wrong, I have 40 years corporate, Chairman/Founder, CEO. My companies (all my start ups, some listed) employ many in different countries over a range of industries. I am no theorist, but a real entrepreneur, a wealth creator & I would have no pinko like you for a manager nor would anyone I know (& I know plenty), your obvious early brainwashing/attitude consigns you to a union manager role at best. You sir, are a fake intellectual because you think you know something from a text book indeed &/or a deluded pinko who dreams of how the world should be, but is not.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 1:56:19 GMT
groups.msn.com/news/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=891475&ShowDelete=0&ID_CLast=900811&CDir=1Reply Recommend Message 122 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 6:08 a.m. A few little tweaks and I see you're not talking about Leftists but Rightists, DocC The Right has three specific and identifiable characteristics: An ideological justification (which they may or may not believe in) A sense of intellectual, Platonic elitism The belief that anyone with wealth, by virtue of that simple fact alone, is indebted to them in some way They can be differentiated from more common criminals and pirates by their elaborate intellectual justifications for thievery and mass murder. Most normal criminals wouldn't bother - they know what they do is wrong, but a Rightist depends on proving to their victims that theRight is correct in victimizing them. This is why the Right is so successful, and so ubiquitous wherever there is a lucrative opportunity for crime Reply Recommend Message 123 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 6:16 a.m. grajac Are you a Rightist? You have a Rightist ideology You believe you understand how the world works and are one of an elite. You are a wealth creator so you believe that those who have wealth owe it to you and those like you. Reply Recommend Message 124 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:19 a.m. The Left has three specific and identifiable characteristics: A socialist justification A sense of intellectual, Platonic elitism~~~~~> is that like foreplay without consummation? ----OR---"I`m from the government & I`m here to help you"!---OR--- a totally wholesome selfless, irrational love like Altruism!!! Beware altruists at all costs... the ultimate scoundrel seducer, behold the honestly self interested 3.The belief that anyone with wealth, by virtue of that simple fact alone, is indebted to them in some way They can be differentiated from more common criminals and pirates by their elaborate intellectual justifications for thievery and mass murder. brilliant Most normal criminals wouldn't bother - they know what they do is wrong, but a Leftist depends on proving to their victims that the Left is correct in victimizing them. This is why the Left is so successful, and so ubiquitous wherever there is a lucrative opportunity for crime. luv it DC Reply Recommend Message 125 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:25 a.m. there you go again Doc. you were being quite sensible for a bit and then you let yourself be provoked into the old "leftist criminal conspiracy" response. It's not a "conspiracy". It is (wait for it) the natural mechanism of capitalism in action. For (*cough*) socialists are businessmen, and capitalists. Capitalist systems become very complex. As they grow, they become prone to exploitative practices. Enter the Left, which is keen to exploit capitalist profits. What they "sell" is freedom from guilt, or when the accessibility of force will allow, freedom from an immediate terror. In return, tehy take as much of the economic proceeds as are readily to be had. In essence, the Left runs a protection racket. In many ways, this is similar to what governments do. The English social tradition, and the American revolutionary experience, are in direct opposition to this dynamic, and so the friction. Reply Recommend Message 126 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:25 a.m. aldous (huxley?) "You are a wealth creator so you believe that those who have wealth owe it to you and those like you." what do you mean by this smartarse nonsense ? do you understand anything of the subject, if so display it unlike your septic charlatan (no doubt he will soon delete/ban) if he cannot win, which he cannot with his flimsy "arguments" as he calls them I come here for a bit of leisurely sport (like duck shooting.....wood ducks that is) but also to defend freedom which necessitates discrediting socialism which is very easy to do I might add Reply Recommend Message 127 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 6:27 a.m. grajac. How about this right/ left thing? Are you a nothingist, like DocC, or a rightist? Reply Recommend Message 128 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:29 a.m. A sense of intellectual, Platonic elitism~~~~~> is that like foreplay without consummation? ----OR---"I`m from the government & I`m here to help you"!---OR--- a totally wholesome selfless, irrational love like Altruism!!! Beware altruists at all costs... the ultimate scoundrel seducer, behold the honestly self interested It is in reference to the ideas of Plato, as I remember as expressed in The Republic. That is, the average person is not sufficiently qualified, mentally, to run their affairs. Thus, an educated elite of philosophers (in Plato's time, the ideology was "geometry" [!]) would run these affairs for them. They would be specially trained by the other members of the elite of course. This sort of thing explains why children of the English upper classes, especially the old nobility, found the ideas of socialism especially welcome. Reply Recommend Message 129 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:30 a.m. if you can`t work that out einstein don`t get involved, you couldn`t handle it Reply Recommend Message 130 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:31 a.m. Are you a nothingist, like DocC, or a rightist? I am a Machiavellian monkeyist, of the James Burnham school. (If you must know, many people thing that George Orwell modelled his O'Brien on the ideas of James Burnham. ) Reply Recommend Message 131 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:33 a.m. DC yes, yes, here is a copy here but I refer to platonic love, you know, that`s when they don`t want anything.....they are from the government & they just want to h-e-l-p (sounds like falling down a lift well) us ROFLMAO Reply Recommend Message 132 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:35 a.m. What is a rightist ideology Aldous? A propensity for advocating capitalism? An affinity for the Queen? Is it the veneration of Statism (fascism) or distaste for government (Jeffersonianism)? Is it the "state-capitalism" of Stalin and Mao? What? Exactly what is this "rightist" belief system, except a code word for whatever sort of thinking is out of style with the Left? Reply Recommend Message 133 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:35 a.m. DC, another bloody mankeyist, well i`ll be darned......i haven`t run into one for ages....which Chapter are you from (I`m up to 13, 4 to go!) Reply Recommend Message 134 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:39 a.m. yes, yes, here is a copy here but I refer to platonic love, you know, that`s when they don`t want anything.....they are from the government & they just want to h-e-l-p (sounds like falling down a lift well) us Both ideas capture the essence of it - a sort of dry, altruistic distribution of those incalculatable benefits, gained by the enforced management of the "sheeple" by the very huge socialist's brain. Of course, as this great boon, given freely, is of incalculable value, whatever the socialist extorts for this "privilege" is but a pittance. And woe to the sheep that bites his shepherd. Reply Recommend Message 135 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:40 a.m. a Royalist slipper sniffer! A Mussolini f*g**t Brigade arselicker, a flibertijib, a........ pass me the Dom would you DC old boy Reply Recommend Message 136 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 6:43 a.m. ?
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 1:57:47 GMT
Reply Recommend Message 137 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:43 a.m. And woe to the sheep that bites his shepherd. Yes.....I had a lovely girl like that once, damn good ironing girl as well though, do both at once clever thing!!! Reply Recommend Message 138 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:55 a.m. good night DC it was fun, pity that septic fellow can`t lift his game though, ALL of Europe outproducing America, so they should too but where is his evidence? And fessing up under duress that Democratic Socialists (it does not come easy to me putting those two very conflicting words together) do not endorse private property then saying they are meritocratic? Strange man that..........Ive att a lil ol victory dance for us my new friend beddie byes 3am here now fetch fattie dance.gif Reply Recommend Message 139 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 7:00 a.m. oh DC, one last thing, tell that terribly ungrateful arse-biting sheep you mentioned that: "only wet fish fly at night", that`ll make him think again Reply Recommend Message 140 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 7:34 a.m. (Uh oh... forgot the Welsh thing about goats...) Ah. Yes, of course Grajac. And when you return the favor for your "domestic", don't be surprised by a noseful of kippers. Reply Recommend Message 141 of 252 in Discussion From: Marshall Sent: 8/06/2002 8:08 a.m. Enter the Left . . .what they "sell" is freedom from guilt That hits the nail on the head. Ain't it convenient how they work at instilling guilt at the same time? I don't know why anyone would think that government control of industry would be a good thing. If you want to f**k up something good, you can't do better than handing it over to the government. Reply Recommend Message 142 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 11:07 a.m. if you can`t work that out einstein don`t get involved, you couldn`t handle it grajac You did say you were a Conservative at one point. That would make you a rightist in current English. Reply Recommend Message 143 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 11:08 a.m. I don't know why anyone would think that government control of industry would be a good thing. If I were getting a £300,000,000 property for free because of it, I'd think it was a good thing too. Reply Recommend Message 144 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 11:10 a.m. You did say you were a Conservative at one point. That would make you a rightist in current English. Depends on what you were trying to conserve. Reply Recommend Message 145 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 11:18 a.m. "Often we remark that the convert exhibits an unusually devoted commitment to his or her new cause. Remembered as an anticommunist American intellectual and dedicated foe of the Soviet Union, university professor James Burnham started his career at the opposite end of the political spectrum. " Never heard of James Burnham. It seems he was a cold warrior who died in 1987. As for any claim that you are Machiavellian. No!No! No! DocC. You are a fanciful fellow, a jester with a nasty side but no Machiavelli. Reply Recommend Message 146 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 11:24 a.m. Claiming that rightists are buffoons doesn't get us very far and is a less than adequate description of Le Pen, George W. Bush and similar. It's correct as far as it goes but too obvious to be much help.. Reply Recommend Message 147 of 252 in Discussion From: Bigbruce Sent: 8/06/2002 11:35 a.m. Marx, I am so I am therefore why is Alison not in the house. Save me from the Doc, I Love Karl, but is he in the house. Who says I am mad, God save the Queen. Long live her socialist regime. Help I need a Doc. Reply Recommend Message 148 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 11:44 a.m. As for any claim that you are Machiavellian. No!No! No! DocC. You are a fanciful fellow, a jester with a nasty side but no Machiavelli. Read The Machiavellians, by James Burnham: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895267853/qid=1023486181/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-1057651-1448650On Burnham: www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/library/lra-burnham.html... and "O'Brien": www.undergroundmind.com/orburn.html Reply Recommend Message 149 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 11:51 a.m. Marx, I am so I am therefore why is Alison not in the house. Save me from the Doc, I Love Karl, but is he in the house. Who says I am mad, God save the Queen. Long live her socialist regime. Help I need a Doc. Might I be Patty McGoohan to your Mel Gibson? I'll send the surgeon right over. You'll know him straight off; he's dressed in red. Reply Recommend Message 150 of 252 in Discussion From: Bigbruce Sent: 8/06/2002 12:02 p.m. Hey the wife wares red, but swings a blue hand bag, Terror Reply Recommend Message 151 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 12:05 p.m. And I thought she took to the moors. Silly me. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 1:58:45 GMT
Reply 0 recommendations Message 152 of 252 in Discussion Sent: 8/06/2002 12:23 p.m. This message has been deleted by the author. Reply Recommend Message 153 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 12:24 p.m. Read The Machiavellians, by James Burnham: DocC Machiavelli is the Italian fellow of that name in my book. You are not one of his followers. More the court jester than the counsellor of Princes. Reply Recommend Message 154 of 252 in Discussion From: Bigbruce Sent: 8/06/2002 12:28 p.m. Hey I still love Flashdance, the land of opportunity, soon. Now we wait for the death of spin, and a new American dream, without the Euro. Reply Recommend Message 155 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 12:37 p.m. Machiavelli is the Italian fellow of that name in my book. You are not one of his followers. More the court jester than the counsellor of Princes. You don't know much about Machiavelli, do you. No surprise there. www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/REN/MACHIAV.HTM Reply Recommend Message 156 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 12:38 p.m. Machiavelli was the first to discuss politics and social phenomena in their own terms without recourse to ethics or jurisprudence. In many ways you could consider Machiavelli to be the first major Western thinker to apply the strictly scientific method of Aristotle and Averroes to politics. He did so by observing the phenomena of politics, reading all that's been written on the subject, and describing political systems in their own terms. For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting and keeping power or authority. Everything else—religion, morality, etc—that people associate with politics has nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics—unles being moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts in getting and maintaining power is calculation; the successful politician knows what to do or what to say for every situation. Of all people, I'd expect you to agree. Aldous? Reply Recommend Message 157 of 252 in Discussion From: Bigbruce Sent: 8/06/2002 12:42 p.m. Can we realy have a freemarket , I wish Reply Recommend Message 158 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 8/06/2002 12:51 p.m. (Just in case some of you didn't get my leg-pulling... ...when the Medici came to power, (Machiavelli) began to work overtime to get in good with them. It seems that either he was ruthlessly ambitious or believed in serving in government no matter what political group or party was in charge. The Medici, however, never fully trusted him since he had been an important official in the Republic. They imprisoned and tortured him in 1513 and eventually banished him to his country estate at San Casciano (all this torture and imprisonment, however, didn't stop him from trying to get in good with the Medicis)... That is, Machiavelli was more the court jester than the counsellor of Princes. Not that he ever let that slow him down. ) Reply Recommend Message 159 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 1:43 p.m. They imprisoned and tortured him in 1513 and eventually banished him to his country estate at San Casciano (all this torture and imprisonment, however, didn't stop him from trying to get in good with the Medicis)... That is, Machiavelli was more the court jester than the counsellor of Princes. DocC Your idea of a good jest may be imprisonment, torture and exile but I thought your efforts at political philosophy much funnier than that. Reply Recommend Message 160 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 3:19 p.m. aldous Sent: 8/06/2002 7:07 AM if you can`t work that out einstein don`t get involved, you couldn`t handle it grajac You did say you were a Conservative at one point. That would make you a rightist in current English. aldous dear, sorry to break it to you but, look around, the world`s moved on without you because England isn`t the centre of the Universe anymore (perhaps it was that cunning socialist ploy- multiculturalism wot dun it) & what you call it now is of little interest frankly Reply Recommend Message 161 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 3:35 p.m. DC top of the morn` to you. Machiavelli is right in a way, it is a shame that they don`t have to run a small business at least for 5 consecutive years at a profit to go into politics. Senior politicians should also be required to have created Start Ups. Some even try to run a country`s balance sheet & most haven`t a clue about anything other than winning a popularity contest like bimbo beauty contestants. 99% of politicians are pathetic power seeking frauds, mostly idiots, & these socialist chumps here want to give them more to screw up! Most would do better in a male bordello, so desparately keen to please are they. Pity really, it is a high calling. Independently wealthy would help too, to resist the NEED to accumulate money via graft of any/all sorts. What I wouldn`t give to know what is in most swiss bank acounts stolen & salted away by them. It would literally re-write history. The thing is they are half dangerous doing nothing & then they do something to justify their existence so out pours the red tape as they roll out program after program building their power base. All covered with expensive, arse covering "research" studies, reports all done by their mates as payback & so on & so forth. Reply Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 162 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 6:39 p.m. skepticalreturns, herewith my prior unanswered reply how can you get your puddin` if you don`t eat your meat? here is your meat sport septic said: prove democratic socialism resulted in slavery you cannot divorce democratic socialism from socialism, it is it`s child, they have the same essential DNA. Even in its mildest form it eventually enslaves by confiscatory taxation (as it must to fund Nanny State "programs"). It is dishonest to deny this. YOU SAID: "socialism does not proscribe whether ownership should be purely state or not. hence most social democraitic parties have supported the existence of private provision of many services for decades" I say: a clear admission that private property is not sacrosanct under - allegedly democratic, - socialism! As previously explained, you cannot include it without being Capitalist & you must use the Capitalist model to have a sustainable economy ....so.... all you are left with is your tax & spend social engineering overlay by elitist public servant punks who think they know better how to spend everyone else`s money. "I am in favour of meritocracy - that's what socialism is." What rank dishonesty. Socialism is now meritocratic is it! "From each/to each"! Get thee to a shrink. re shareholding: subtlety is wasted on you, my reference "as they always could have" means that just because superannuation deductions (increasingly mandatory) must go somewhere & equities perform best over time did not prevent workers from buying shares earlier had they elected too. As to your "now you just watch them use it" ....the only difference will be that unions managing these members funds by proxy will screw the companies over on labor unit costs eventually driving them offshore so losing those jobs for those members ps shareholders are NEVER parasites, they are owners, freeloaders are parasites, socialists also are parasites so get it right now what part of that don`t you understand as you clowns like to say? duh? cryptic answers like "Rhineland Capitalism" doesn`t prove your bold claim that Europe outproduced America, put up or shut up "I have spent my the vast majority of my career in the private sector and I have been a manager for the past 5 years" Wow, your mummy must be proud of you for an upstart. "your views come straight out of a text book - they have no bearing on reality." wrong, I have 40 years Corporate, Chairman/Founder, CEO. My companies (all my start ups, some Listed) employ many in different countries over a range of industries. I am no theorist, but a real entrepreneur, a wealth creator & I would have no pinko like you for a manager nor would anyone I know (& I know plenty). Your obvious early brainwashing/attitude consigns you to a union secretary manager role at best (handing out the koshes & bribes). You sir, are the fake intellectual quarantined from reality not me because you think you know something you read in a book. Another book-smart socialist, a deluded pinko who dreams of how the world should be, but is not. Answers please, if you are good enough? Reply Recommend Message 163 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 8/06/2002 7:58 p.m. (_!_)bigwind(_!_) posted: " We in computer science have been trying figure out how to get a computer to decide what is important and what is irrelevant," said Dr. Eric Horvitz, head of Microsoft Research's decision theory and adaptive systems group. "Well, it turns out that Mother Nature already does that very well." Maybe errant socialists (as per thread, mentally ill) can have implanted micro-chips too just as they propose for slugs to assist their inferior reasoning ability to better discern what is important to achieve a prosperous society (seeing they "care" so much): What is important, so patently obvious to the rest of us is to: * Understand the wealth creation process, encourage it to make an ever bigger cake then worry so much about sharing that abundance once it is created. It is NOT a zero sum game (Lester Thurrow was dead wrong, of course). Everytime the tax base is lowered (eg America) the tax take goes up as does productivity by any dimension. Any Socialists notice? No! * Understand the premium required for intelligent risk to promote the taking of risk in a progressive society. * Understand that the sum total of Man`s Material Wealth is: Natural Resources plus Human Energy TIMES Tools (MMW=NR + HE x T2), tools squared because WHO owns the means of production is a dynamic driver. Too much to ask without that microchip booster implanted in their skulls or would it scramble data with interference from the one their Leftist teachers already apparently implanted during their "edumacation" (sic)? Reply Recommend Message 164 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 9/06/2002 7:34 a.m. aldous dear, sorry to break it to you but, look around, the world`s moved on without you because England isn`t the centre of the Universe anymore grajac I know. But we like to think that we have a 'right' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even if we are only a part of the world's most important trading bloc. Reply Recommend Message 165 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 9/06/2002 7:38 a.m. Machiavelli is right in a way, it is a shame that they don`t have to run a small business at least for 5 consecutive years at a profit to go into politics. Senior politicians should also be required to have created Start Ups. grajac Are you really a better man than Gordon Brown? If you're talking American politics, politicians are there to serve the interests of big business, so what would be your problem? Reply Recommend Message 166 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 10/06/2002 2:02 a.m. yeah, he is a socialist so i am better. Bertolesconi or whatever will do a better job too that your pinko for the same reason. It isn`t bout PhD`s wacker, it`s about knowing what creates wealth. Socialism still does not judged by its own actions. And what is more, no Socialist Chancellor of your Exchequor can ultimately do a good job because the overall economic management plan (the biz model) is anti capialistic & therefore DOOMED to failure. Yes, I`m sorry, even from the Left`s center too. So go & get a bet laid on this: Engalnd`s approaching 50% tax rates for top performers, the NHI endless spending (Free Health for unending nose jobs, wake up chumps!!) along with the usual raft of "social programs" from socialists (forget the "Democratic" label, confiscation is NOT democratic) will cause you to fail, take that to the bank. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 1:59:40 GMT
Reply
0 recommendations Message 167 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 11/06/2002 12:03 a.m.
This message has been deleted by the author.
Reply
Recommend Message 168 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 12:22 a.m.
grajac
prove democratic socialism resulted in slavery
you cannot divorce democratic socialism from socialism, it is it`s parent, they have the same essential DNA. Even in its mildest form it enslaves by confiscatory taxation. It is dishonest to deny this.
like I said - you cannot prove it - cos it ain't true.
"socialism does not proscribe whether ownership should be purely state or not. hence most social democraitic parties have supported the existence of private provision of many services for decades"
I say:
a clear admission that private property is not sacrosanct under allegedly democratic, socialism! As previously explained, you cannot include it without being Capitalist & you must use the Capitalist model to have a sustainable economy ....so.... all you are left with is your tax & spend social engineering by elitist public servant punks who think they know better how to spend everyone elses money.
no. what I mean is that it is accepted my social democratic parties that while the state has a vital and ongoing role in the provision of certain services - health education, welfare, transport etc private provision is acceptable in other spheres.
you are the fundamentalist here - you are so weded to the idea that private ownership must mean best that you refuse to allow other forms of provision even when it is clearly better. all you are left with is ropey libertarian philosophy that even many conservatives do not believe in. again look at why the Tachterites left the NHS< education etc alone, and why some now admit rail privatisation was a mistake.
"I am in favour of meritocracy - that's what socialism is."
What rank dishonesty. Socialism is now meritocratic is it! Get thee to a shrink.
always has been. it was a response to the class system that kept people with talent down. look at the opportunities that people from lower down the social scale have these days. conservatives used to argue these types of people would never do well. they are only recent converts to the idea of social mobility. the left has supported it for decades.
re shareholding: subtlety is wasted on you, my reference "as they always could have" means that just because superannuation deductions (increasingly mandatory) must go somewhere & equities perform best over time did not prevent workers from buying shares earlier had they elected too. As to your "now you just watch them use it" ....the only difference will be that unions managing these members funds by proxy will screw the companies over on labor unit costs eventually driving them offshore so losing those jobs for those members
not quite there, most employees wouldn't have had the spare cash to put directly into shares. pensions were the only way they were going to be owners. the difference is that employeees or their unions can now use that ownership to make sure that their own financial assets are not used against them. which in my view is the fiduciary dutee of the trustees of those funds.
ps shareholders are NEVER parasies, they are owners, freeloaders are parasites, get it right
this just isn't right. look at what Bob Monks says. he is a Republican and he says that the failing of the US system is that shareholders are NOT owners because they are not active. it doesn't work at the moment. what I am talking about is making sure shareholders are active owners. you might even say that what I suggest legitimises capitalism - I think it making sure it remembers it is part of society, not society itself.
cryptic answers like "Rhineland Capitalism" doesn`t prove your bold claim that Europe outproduced America, put up or shut up
I really cannot be bothered to dig out the info, but surely you must remember that in the early & mid 1990s Europe was more productive than the US? I'm not lying here grajac - if you really want me to I can dig out some info for you.
Wow, your mummy must be proud of you for an upstart.
yeah she is.
I have 40 years corporate, Chairman/Founder, CEO. My companies (all my start ups, some listed) employ many in different countries over a range of industries. I am no theorist, but a real entrepreneur, a wealth creator & I would have no pinko like you for a manager nor would anyone I know (& I know plenty), your obvious early brainwashing/attitude consigns you to a union manager role at best.
fair enough I misjudged you.
but let me return the favour and say I would not work for someone who was as blinkered and out-of-date as you and nor would anyone I know (and I no plenty). you come across as one of those 1980s Gordon Gecko types. which is fine, but that was 20 years ago. the world has moved on.
but look at your post, implicit in it the the desperate need to prove yourself - to me, a complete stranger sat at a computer. and the worst thing is I don't give a fcuk about your companies. I'm far more interested in your politics, or your taste in music, or food or whatever. is that a little flicker of fear, that maybe you took the wrong path in life.....
You sir, are a fake intellectual because you think you know something from a text book indeed &/or a deluded pinko who dreams of how the world should be, but is not.
I certainly do not claim to be an intellectual so let's trike that one straight away. I simply don't recognise a lot of what you talk about as representing life as I have experienced it, and certainly not my experience as an employee and a manager in the private sector. I think it is pretty obvious from this debate which one of us is the more dogmatic, and more wedded to a framework through which to interpret life & politics.
Reply
Recommend Message 169 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 11/06/2002 1:16 a.m.
" no Socialist Chancellor of your Exchequor can ultimately do a good job because the overall economic management plan (the biz model) is anti capialistic & therefore DOOMED to failure. grajac"
When I think of Chancellors of the Exchequer, the name of Norman Lamont springs to mind. I'm not making a political point but he did happen to be a Conservative. Britain was on the euro track within the ERM when Lamont's lamontable incompetence in handling the sterling crisis caused Britain to leave the ERM. This 'going off the track' sounds a bit like another great Tory fiasco, doesn't it? This mess by Lamont has plagued British politics ever since and prevented the UK from playing its part in the success of the euro. Gordon Brown , although allegedly a socialist, has been an outstanding success and is left with task of getting Britain into the euro, where it would have been from the beginning without the Lamont fiasco.
I'm not saying Tories bad, Labour good. I'm saying you are too much of an ideologue, grajac. Competence is important and no party has a monopoly of it. Likewise, just because politicians claim to have socialist principles it doesn't mean they are anti-business in theory or practice.
Reply
Recommend Message 170 of 252 in Discussion
From: ming_the_munificent Sent: 11/06/2002 1:28 a.m.
Curiously, I would say that Lamont really was a hopeless case and the whole thing was a debacle but it prooved to be one of the best things to happen, ultimately responsible for the low interest rates and the low inflation we enjoy today.
Nowadays, with the rise of globalisation, the actual scope of the Chancellor to affect things is markedly reduced, almost to the point of zero. Gordon is feted as a great chancellor, but the relative calm at the moment exists despite him not because of him.
Reply
Recommend Message 171 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 11/06/2002 2:14 a.m.
you cannot prove it - cos it ain't true.
history speaks for itself
you are so weded to the idea that private ownership must mean best that you refuse to allow other forms of provision even when it is clearly better
Capitalism`s sound economics are not negotiable to those that understand them. Standing to lose personally will always cause one to really focus & give one`s best effort compared to disintersted public servants using OPM (other peoples money). You never did say that you are the only one that washed that Rent-a-Car before return; do you?
all you are left with is ropey libertarian philosophy that even many conservatives do not believe in.
Those that do not believe are the trendy, 2 bob each way, "Wets" or "small l" liberals, not true Liberals in the grand Conservative tradition. It is not about replacing that stupid, English class structure you have there with a new but ever-so-much-worse elite as in your Socialism, "Lords out - Proletariat in"! It`s about everyone starting equal for a change even though they will not finish equal (socialism`s only equality of result resulted in everyone sharing the poverty..... equally, of course!).
.again look at why the Tachterites left the NHS< education etc alone, and why some now admit rail privatisation was a mistake.
Your health system can never work while unlimited free medicine, much of it elective procedures, is freely available. Laboratories can make more & more "medicine" that will be prescribed if people will not think twice because "It`s FREE!". Your Rail is being undermined by Union proxies every way they can in conspiracy with the socialists in power, same here. Conservatives here sacked the conductors & installed ticket machines saving 25,000 completely unnecessary jobs for the boys (that`s AUD$25M every week or $1.3 BILLION with on costs). In comes State Labour (Socialists), Union workers promptly, covertly sabotage the machines jamming them etc. & the Party machine P R`s the masses of asses into believing those UNSUSTAINABLE jobs must be given back .
Make no mistake about it, Private Sector, given a clear go can deliver transport or medicine MANY times more cost effectively than any public service ever will. Why do you think Corporate is already doing very well in both around the world? Why doesn`t any Government airline compete & win against the Private airlines? Why is Rail different, or hospitals? You are VERY illogical, but then, all socialists are.
conservatives used to argue these types of people would never do well. they are only recent converts to the idea of social mobility.
In a Free Enterprise system, anyone can rise according to his ability because they are rewarded accordingly so don`t be a big pinko dill trying to assert otherwise. The social mobility of socialism `s gulags is very well renowned !
what I am talking about is making sure shareholders are active owners. you might even say that what I suggest legitimises capitalism - I think it making sure it remembers it is part of society, not society itself.
I rest my case
I don't give a fcuk about your companies. I'm far more interested in your politics, or your taste in music, or food or whatever. is that a little flicker of fear, that maybe you took the wrong path in life.....
I like Sinatra & a smooth, full bodied red but this is also an enjoyable pastime and it may help the odd person to change their direction so I add my contribution occasionally, I used to address students as my civic mindedness contrib but this is easier from home just when I feel like it.
I think it is pretty obvious from this debate which one of us is the more dogmatic, and more wedded to a framework through which to interpret life & politics.
I think that Freedom itself is very threatened by the young not knowing what causes it & that it is not the norm, it has been built by many with great pain over a very long time. War, poverty, enslavement is the norm in the entirety of man`s history. Freedom & prosperity must be bravely fought for, diligently worked for & then nurtured carefully. It is a fragile flower. Once attained, it must be defended at all costs or you will lose it comparatively quickly.
Reply
Recommend Message 172 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 3:10 a.m.
history speaks for itself
yes it does. no link between democratic socialism and slavery.
Capitalism`s sound economics are not negotiable to those that understand them. Standing to lose personally will always cause one to really focus & give one`s best effort compared to disintersted public servants using OPM (other peoples money). You never did say that you are the only one that washed that Rent-a-Car before return; do you?
I think you are being too simplistic. for a start many senior execs do not lose personally these days. look at examples like Marconi where they fcuk up a company and still walk away with a huge pay-off. ditto Vodafone (paid Gent huge bonus for paying too much for Mannesman). ditto the NEDs setting the execs pay. you are talking capitalist theory, not practice. the highest paid don't suffer the risk any more. those lower down the chain risk losing their jobs at the drop of a hat. the execs can fcuk up a company and still get the payola.
depends how dirty I got it.
Those that do not believe are the trendy, 2 bob each way, "Wets" or "small l" liberals, not true Liberals in the grand Conservative tradition. It is not about replacing that stupid, English class structure you have there with a new but ever-so-much-worse elite as in your Socialism, "Lords out - Proletariat in"! It`s about everyone starting equal for a change even though they will not finish equal (socialism`s only equality of result resulted in everyone sharing the poverty..... equally, of course!).
again you seem to confuse socialism with marxism. where do even use the word proletariat? I'm glad you think our class system is stupid (Aussies are spot on about that) but don't think I want to create some kind of reverse one. socialism is about equality of opportunity (which you share as an idea) but also making sure there is a degree of equality of outcome (a degree, not absolute). equality of opportunity is not enough on its own. the National Lottery is equality of opportunity. we need the state to make sure that we deliver a reasonably fair distribution of wealth. something your philosophy demonstrably fails to do.
Your health system can never work while unlimited free medicine, much of it elective procedures, is freely available. Laboratories can make more & more "medicine" that will be prescribed if people will not think twice because "It`s FREE!".
errr..... it DOES work, and all the political parties in the UK support it's continued existence. the NHS is firmly emedded in our society. try standing in an election and putting forward your ideas and see how well you do. as for you second bit - what are you saying, people will deliberately make themselves sick to use the NHS more?
but as I said before health provision is a major problem for market fundies because those with the greatest demand (the poor) are least able to pay whereas the wealthy are healthy. ironic isn't it that the very inequality that a free market generates requires a very socialist idea to deliver proper health care?
Your Rail is being undermined by Union proxies every way they can in conspiracy with the socialists in power, same here. Conservatives here sacked the conductors & installed ticket machines saving 25,000 completely unnecessary jobs for the boys (that`s AUD$25M every week or $1.3 BILLION with on costs). In comes State Labour (Socialists), Union workers promptly, covertly sabotage the machines jamming them etc. & the Party machine P R`s the masses of asses into believing those UNSUSTAINABLE jobs must be given back .
a good point but unfortunately one which demonstrates my argument better. the rail unions have MORE power now than before privatisation because they negotiate with 100 companies rather than 1. hence if company A gives drivers a 3% pay rise the union will push for 3% at all the others, and the members will support it. anotyher great irony for market fundies - carrying out an ideological experiment on the rail network reversed the decline in rail union power.
Make no mistake about it, Private Sector, given a clear go can deliver transport or medicine MANY times more cost effectively than any public service ever will. Why do you think Corporate is already doing very well in both around the world? Why doesn`t any Government airline compete & win against the Private airlines? Why is Rail different, or hospitals? You are VERY illogical, but then, all socialists are.
see above for the basic argument. surely if you are anti-union you should back renationalisation to take their power away?
rail is different to air for loads of reasons (only one route to destination, no difference between train operating cos (no Ryanair etc), most lines only one operator etc etc).
as for health because it isn't a market. people don't voluntarily get sick and so create demand for the service - it's not a choice. and as I said there is a mismatch between demand and ability to pay.
in any case business has a vested interest in maintaining a healthy workforce - less days off sick.
In a Free Enterprise system, anyone can rise according to his ability because they are rewarded accordingly so don`t be a big pinko dill trying to assert otherwise. The social mobility of socialism `s gulags is very well renowned !
not what I said if you read it. I don't deny many on the Right now support the idea of social mobility. what I said is that they are latecomers. also don't be a market fundie and pretend that they're aren't still people who were born into money and not earnt it.
as for gulags again you confuse communism and socialism
what I am talking about is making sure shareholders are active owners. you might even say that what I suggest legitimises capitalism - I think it making sure it remembers it is part of society, not society itself.
I rest my case
if you accept this then I agree. I believe business needs to be far more responsive to tha fact that it does more than just generate wealth. it has a huge impact on the societies wityhin it operates and must ultimately be answerable to them.
I like Sinatra & a smooth, full bodied red but this is also an enjoyable pastime and it may help the odd person to change their direction so I add my contribution occasionally, I used to address students as my civic mindedness contrib but this is easier from home just when I feel like it.
something we can agree on!
I think that Freedom itself is very threatened by the young not knowing what causes it & that it is not the norm, it has been built by many with great pain over a very long time. War, poverty, enslavement is the norm in the entirety of man`s history. Freedom & prosperity must be bravely fought for, diligently worked for & then nurtured carefully. It is a fragile flower. Once attained, it must be defended at all costs or you will lose it comparatively quickly.
I totally agree. but you must defend it against allcomers - not just ones you don't like. threats to democracy can come from both the Right and the Left. and an unbridled free market can also threaten it.
Reply
Recommend Message 173 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 11/06/2002 4:48 a.m.
history speaks for itself
yes it does. no link between democratic socialism and slavery.
And that link is.....democratic socialism is a variant of socialism, sorry
Capitalism`s sound economics are not negotiable to those that understand them. Standing to lose personally will always cause one to really focus & give one`s best effort compared to disintersted public servants using OPM (other peoples money). You never did say that you are the only one that washed that Rent-a-Car before return; do you?
I think you are being too simplistic. for a start many senior execs do not lose personally these days. - yes, they should ride it both ways, up & down like everyone else look at examples like Marconi where they fcuk up a company and still walk away with a huge pay-off. ditto Vodafone (paid Gent huge bonus for paying too much for Mannesman). - totally unsatisfactory, I agree - ditto the NEDs ???setting the execs pay. you are talking capitalist theory, not practice. the highest paid don't suffer the risk any more. the owners/shareholders do in unlisteds especially- those lower down the chain risk losing their jobs at the drop of a hat. the execs can fcuk up a company and still get the payola.depends how dirty I got it.- in Public Listed, mine do. I hope your possible future Board seat representing Pension Fund s/holder will exclude that possibility, I do. If my execs fail, they lose personally just as they should. Bonus` should be geared to real market place peformance in the core business`. For that reason I am vigilant about options encouraging creative accounting/ramping. Real profits are not that difficult to account.
Those that do not believe are the trendy, 2 bob each way, "Wets" or "small l" liberals, not true Liberals in the grand Conservative tradition. It is not about replacing that stupid, English class structure you have there with a new but ever-so-much-worse elite as in your Socialism, "Lords out - Proletariat in"! It`s about everyone starting equal for a change even though they will not finish equal (socialism`s only equality of result resulted in everyone sharing the poverty..... equally, of course!).
again you seem to confuse socialism with marxism. where do even use the word proletariat? I'm glad you think our class system is stupid (Aussies are spot on about that) but don't think I want to create some kind of reverse one. socialism is about equality of opportunity (which you share as an idea) but also making sure there is a degree of equality of outcome (a degree, not absolute) - who makes these decisions of re-distribution of others wealth, some intellectual elite, & on what moral grounds? - equality of opportunity is not enough on its own. the National Lottery is equality of opportunity. - bad analogy, a ticket gives passive membership only but individual contribution to society is quite different - we need the state to make sure that we deliver a reasonably fair distribution of wealth. something your philosophy demonstrably fails to do. - the State is an elitist parasite running it`s own agenda & can always be relied
upon to further it given such an invitation -
Your health system can never work while unlimited free medicine, much of it elective procedures, is freely available. Laboratories can make more & more "medicine" that will be prescribed if people will not think twice because "It`s FREE!".
errr..... it DOES work, and all the political parties in the UK support it's continued existence. the NHS is firmly emedded in our society. - sacrosanct doesn`t make it smart - try standing in an election and putting forward your ideas and see how well you do. as for you second bit - what are you saying, people will deliberately make themselves sick to use the NHS more? - ELECTIVE boob & nose jobs because of "psychiatric trauma", all manner of new "medicines" promote hypochondria & your immigrants think it`s Xmas while graft in frequent flyer points brazenly seduce practitioners - but as I said before health provision is a major problem for market fundies because those with the greatest demand (the poor) are least able to pay whereas the wealthy are healthy. ironic isn't it that the very inequality that a free market generates requires a very socialist idea to deliver proper health care?
Your Rail is being undermined by Union proxies every way they can in conspiracy with the socialists in power, same here. Conservatives here sacked the conductors & installed ticket machines saving 25,000 completely unnecessary jobs for the boys (that`s AUD$25M every week or $1.3 BILLION with on costs). In comes State Labour (Socialists), Union workers promptly, covertly sabotage the machines jamming them etc. & the Party machine P R`s the masses of asses into believing those UNSUSTAINABLE jobs must be given back .
a good point but unfortunately one which demonstrates my argument better. the rail unions have MORE power now than before privatisation because they negotiate with 100 companies rather than 1. hence if company A gives drivers a 3% pay rise the union will push for 3% at all the others, and the members will support it. anotyher great irony for market fundies - carrying out an ideological experiment on the rail network reversed the decline in rail union power.
that is fine if bidding is free as long as the union does not have a monopoly on the provision of labour then either, 100 will be just fine to get quotes from too!!! LOL
Make no mistake about it, Private Sector, given a clear go can deliver transport or medicine MANY times more cost effectively than any public service ever will. Why do you think Corporate is already doing very well in both around the world? Why doesn`t any Government airline compete & win against the Private airlines? Why is Rail different, or hospitals? You are VERY illogical, but then, all socialists are.
see above for the basic argument. surely if you are anti-union you should back renationalisation to take their power away?
typical, you`d love that, a typical socialist improvement ! At least you could show your true colours by nationalising LOL
rail is different to air for loads of reasons (only one route to destination, no difference between train operating cos (no Ryanair etc), most lines only one operator etc etc). - rubbish, transport is transport, no public sector can deliver any socially useful product or service better than corporate because they do not CARE if it isn`t their $ - remember NOBODY washes the rent-a-car & nobody knowingly buys a used one - (whatever is your present experience there with rail, if the truth were out, you will find their effort is being undermined by unions conspiring with a socialist gov`t)
as for health because it isn't a market. people don't voluntarily get sick and so create demand for the service --oh yes they do too, in a big problem area: elective surgery?- it's not a choice. and as I said there is a mismatch between demand and ability to pay. demand will always be berserk while it is free, (market dictum)
in any case business has a vested interest in maintaining a healthy workforce - less days off sick. turn it up!
I will make a prediction...NHS cannot last, eventually NO free service can withstand the overload, watch this space, may take a few years but it`ll be watered down as the population ages rapidly. Until it is private sector (private insurance covered) operated it`ll continue to fail to be cost effective, the gov`t could still subsidise battlers, all means tested, for "half the price" then give the savings back in tax cuts, BIG ones
In a Free Enterprise system, anyone can rise according to his ability because they are rewarded accordingly so don`t be a big pinko dill trying to assert otherwise. The social mobility of socialism `s gulags is very well renowned !
not what I said if you read it. I don't deny many on the Right now support the idea of social mobility. what I said is that they are latecomers. also don't be a market fundie and pretend that they're aren't still people who were born into money and not earnt it.
as for gulags again you confuse communism and socialism *
until man`s ingenuity (INDIVIDUALS not the State`s) created machines to toil mobility wasn`t an option. Only a diverse, productive Free Enterprise economy can offer the depth of choice/opportunity necessary to make it possible, socialism did not. figuratively......gulags can mean enslaved by poverty alone after socialism gradually removes the reason to contribute; proletariat....the elite few at the top of the high tax/spend socialist redistribuion rort. so now *you do admit to being a socialist (I completely understood your prior reluctance!) you cannot avoid the embarrassing connection with Communism
what I am talking about is making sure shareholders are active owners. you might even say that what I suggest legitimises capitalism - I think it making sure it remembers it is part of society, not society itself.
I rest my case
I accept that you agree that capitalism`s system of private ownership of the means of production by shareholding is the best. I agree s/holders (& the company) do best when they are active forcing transparency
if you accept this then I agree. I believe business needs to be far more responsive to tha fact that it does more than just generate wealth. it has a huge impact on the societies wityhin it operates and must ultimately be answerable to them.
agreed, however the trouble with mixed economies is that governments bloat, taxes increase according to requirements of the governments policy objectives.....a can of worms.....I`d rather trust the market any day than government officials of any persuasion
I like Sinatra & a smooth, full bodied red but this is also an enjoyable pastime and it may help the odd person to change their direction so I add my contribution occasionally, I used to address students as my civic mindedness contrib but this is easier from home just when I feel like it.
something we can agree on!
I think that Freedom itself is very threatened by the young not knowing what causes it & that it is not the norm, it has been built by many with great pain over a very long time. War, poverty, enslavement is the norm in the entirety of man`s history. Freedom & prosperity must be bravely fought for, diligently worked for & then nurtured carefully. It is a fragile flower. Once attained, it must be defended at all costs or you will lose it comparatively quickly.
I totally agree. but you must defend it against allcomers - not just ones you don't like. threats to democracy can come from both the Right and the Left. and an unbridled free market can also threaten it.
- agreed, subject to the degree of "Bridling" you have in mind, the biggest bridling or restraint on performance is government excesses, corruption, interference & waste BAR NONE.
Reply
Recommend Message 174 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 4:56 a.m.
grajac
gotta do some work today. but just a couple of quick points.
you do admit to being a socialist (I completely understood your prior reluctance!)
not at all reluctant to admit it, very proud of it.
and I'm surprised you haven't been gloating about France. but then the Centre Right in France is pretty close to what the Centre Left is over here.
Reply
Recommend Message 175 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 4:57 a.m.
ps - NEDs = non-exec directors
Reply
Recommend Message 176 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 11/06/2002 6:10 a.m.
"Curiously, I would say that Lamont really was a hopeless case and the whole thing was a debacle but it proved to be one of the best things to happen, MODmaster of disaster"
In the period between the debacle and current plans to get back on track and enter the euro, the UK has 'done well'. But there is a difference between being a country which is trying to get back on track for euro entry and a country which has given up the effort. A 'no' vote in a referendum would put the UK definitely on the sidelines for years to come. Whether or not the UK would continue to 'do well' is an open question but it would be a whole different situation.
ultimately responsible for the low interest rates and the low inflation we enjoy today.MOD
The eurozone has lower interest rates and inflation, I thought, but I don't have current figures to hand. At anyrate they're very similar.
"Nowadays, with the rise of globalisation, the actual scope of the Chancellor to affect things is markedly reduced, almost to the point of zero." MOD
Is that an argument that 'handing over' almost non-existent economic sovereignty to the EU wouldn't be such a big deal after all?
Reply
Recommend Message 177 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 10:01 a.m.
They imprisoned and tortured him in 1513 and eventually banished him to his country estate at San Casciano (all this torture and imprisonment, however, didn't stop him from trying to get in good with the Medicis)... That is, Machiavelli was more the court jester than the counsellor of Princes. DocC
Aldous: Your idea of a good jest may be imprisonment, torture and exile but I thought your efforts at political philosophy much funnier than that.
As my sort is very much on the receiving end of all that "imprison, torture and exile", we've had to take the resulting debacle of Leftist rule with a bit of dark humor. Luckily they've spent their load in the 20th century, and look to be taking shelter with the neo-Nazis and Muslim fanatics in the 21st.
In any case, 'tis nice enough of you to show your true colors, with an example of "the techniques". Thusly:
Creative editing, cutting out the part I quoted about Machiavelli continuing to court the Medicis, even after his "imprisonment, torture and exile".
Ad hominem attacks, by using said misquoted text, to make of me akin to taking sadistic pleasure in imprisonment, toture and exile.
Deliberate ignorance, in the process of pressing a propaganda attack, of not learning anything either about James Burnham or Niccolo Machiavelli. (Incidentally, thus why I am the smarter of the two of us.)
Likewise your commentary about Muslim terrorism; Indonesian sovereignty and East Timor; drug smuggling from Columbia by FARC; the interrelationship between the Left, the IRA, and the growth in the sophistication of bombing as a "revolutionary" tactic; and so on.
If this weren't so illustrative of the usual tactics of the Left, to obscure the causes of problems and to hamstring efforts at solutions, I would have simply came back with an equivalently silly retort (as befits my "jester" status). However, as in our republican society of the Free World (leavened, where lucky, by the minstrations of the Windsors), the general public constitutes what once we called "the Prince"; thus, I felt need to give good counsel, before resorting to my usual antics.
Namely, ridiculing the Left. It is made such an easy task; I thank you.
Reply
Recommend Message 178 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 10:07 a.m.
"Nowadays, with the rise of globalisation, the actual scope of the Chancellor to affect things is markedly reduced, almost to the point of zero." MOD
Is that an argument that 'handing over' almost non-existent economic sovereignty to the EU wouldn't be such a big deal after all? Aldous
I would add the provisio: That the Chancellor may find it very difficult to affet the economy in a positive manner, but, would with ease be able to manage much in the way of malicious mischief. Were he so released from his loyalty to the nation and her Sovereign, this sort of thing would be expected.
More so, were economic decisions for the UK decided in Frankfurt or Brussels. Obvious, common sense, yet again I assume a deliberate obtuseness in the name of political orthodoxy.
Reply
Recommend Message 179 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 10:22 a.m.
yes it does. no link between democratic socialism and slavery.
And that link is.....democratic socialism is a variant of socialism, sorry
No problem with "democratic" socialism. Western government is, by its nature, a sort of "democratic socialism", that is, taxes are collected for the promotion of the common good, as decided by a majority rule (or the elected representatives of that majority). What I would argue is that most socialism is in no way "democratic", and that most socialists havent the slightest inetest in "socialism" (as Orwell would have understood it, anyway), let alone "democracy".
One does not call the public "cattle", the "masses", or "sheeple", if their intentions are being seriously considered. More likely, "democracy" has the same meaning as it did in the German Democratic Republic of old, with a healthy and active STASI at a constant vigil, to make sure that the people stayed enthusiastically supportive, of the interests that have de facto had been chosen for them by their intellectual, socialist betters.
"Oh, but that was not real socialism." And I suppose that, even as all mammals seem to breathe air through their lungs, that a real mammal (as there never has existed a true version, to this date) would actually have gills.
Reply
Recommend Message 180 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 11/06/2002 10:28 a.m.
Lol poor Doc. I've never seen a worse case of pinkophobia. Post after post after post talking mostly to himself. And never a new or original idea. Just the pink haze in front of his eyes.
Reply
Recommend Message 181 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 10:34 a.m.
If that's the best you can do...
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 2:01:06 GMT
Reply
Recommend Message 182 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 11/06/2002 10:49 a.m.
They imprisoned and tortured him in 1513 and eventually banished him to his country estate at San Casciano (all this torture and imprisonment, however, didn't stop him from trying to get in good with the Medicis)... That is, Machiavelli was more the court jester than the counsellor of Princes DocC
You think being tortured and imprisoned is a joke and the way the Medicis got Machiavelli. to entertain them. Their hilarity knew no bounds when he came crawling back to risk more. You are a very wicked chap who has talked of 'expunging' Leftists and getting amusement form cruelty is just your style. Of course, I recognize that by using sinister expressions like 'expunge' and so on you are adopting the mealy-mouthed mode of the gangster movies where the Mafia Don is too conscious of his image as a well-manicured, well-coiffed man of the world to speak plainly of death and destruction.
Reply
Recommend Message 183 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 11/06/2002 11:04 a.m.
Deliberate ignorance, in the process of pressing a propaganda attack, of not learning anything either about James Burnham or Niccolo Machiavelli. (Incidentally, thus why I am the smarter of the two of us.) DocC
Self-praise is no praise DocC. Well, I'm in no hurry to read the works of James Burnham on your recommendation. You can favor us with rehashes of the great man's views and that will do for me. As for Machiavelli, I have read Il Principe closely.
"Likewise your commentary about Muslim terrorism; Indonesian sovereignty and East Timor; drug smuggling from Columbia by FARC; the interrelationship between the Left, the IRA, and the growth in the sophistication of bombing as a "revolutionary" tactic; and so on." DocC
I can dimly recognize some of that as subjects I may have commented on. However, I don't believe I have ever said anything about East Timor or FARC since I know next to nothing about either subject. I know that doesn't stop you but it does me. Of course, if you like to prove me wrong , go ahead. As for mentioning the Left's links with the IRA, surely not. You are the only individual in this community that I've noticed with 'reds (still) under the bed". Other hate-mongers have 'Muslims under the bed'.
Reply
Recommend Message 184 of 252 in Discussion
From: Amazed© Sent: 11/06/2002 11:12 a.m.
Lol Doc, I'm just not interested. Wouldn't waste my best on a discussion like this. It makes me yawn.
Reply
Recommend Message 185 of 252 in Discussion
From: Bern Sent: 11/06/2002 12:08 p.m.
Is mental illness a form of socialism?
Reply
Recommend Message 186 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 1:42 p.m.
...where the Mafia Don is too conscious of his image as a well-manicured, well-coiffed man of the world to speak plainly of death and destruction.
No, no "euphemisms". I think conspiracy to overthrow countries is a crime, and when deliberate terrorism and mass murder is involved I think those responsible should be hung.
That is, killed. Call that what you like. Tit for tat if you will.
You think being tortured and imprisoned is a joke and the way the Medicis got Machiavelli. to entertain them. Their hilarity knew no bounds when he came crawling back to risk more.
I think it rather silly that, after being rather abused by Lorenzo, Mr. Machiavelli would still want to work for the man.
Perhaps people who negotiate with Leftists have a similar masochistic streak. Perchance, do you have a similar bone to pick with John Cleese?
You are a very wicked chap who has talked of 'expunging' Leftists and getting amusement form cruelty is just your style.
Really not up for torturing the buggers, old chap. No "death traps" for this inhuman monster; a quick drop on a short rope will serve just fine, thank you. Preferably after a very public and revealing trial.
Aren't you a bit nervous Aldous? I mean, supporting the Left these days must be a bit like being a Nazi apologist in Britain, oh, around September in 1939. Wouldn't you say?
Then again, Leftist supporters were Nazi apologists in September of 1939. "The Pact", they called it then.
I'm here to listen. Let it all hang out, we're your friends.
Reply
Recommend Message 187 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 1:45 p.m.
Lol Doc, I'm just not interested. Wouldn't waste my best on a discussion like this. It makes me yawn.
Oh, sorry. Mistook it for a squeak.
Must say, I admire your prudence. Discretion, valor, all that rot. Bravo.
Reply
Recommend Message 188 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 11/06/2002 1:52 p.m.
Well, I'm in no hurry to read the works of James Burnham on your recommendation.
Fair enough, although I've sifted through enough Chomsky in my day. But... before making pronouncements on Mr. Machiavelli, don't you think you should know a bit about the man first? I mean, besides what they printed in the Catholic Reformation press?
(Worry not, dear boy. You follow in the footsteps of one Frederick the Great, perhaps the most efficient homosexual killer since Richard the Lion Hearted. I'd recommend his Anti-Machiavel, but we all know how you feel about reading.)
I can dimly recognize some of that as subjects I may have commented on.
No doubt.
Sir. You have a future as a Labour MP. Especially before the press.
Reply
Recommend Message 189 of 252 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 11/06/2002 8:05 p.m.
the biggest bridling or restraint on performance is government excesses, corruption, interference & waste BAR NONE.
Like the conservative backed investigation into Bill Clinton's pecadillos? After spending millions of dollars, this turned up what? That men like getting sexual favours from attractive women. Sheeesh. They should have given the money to me.
Or the Millenium Dome, originally propsed by the Tories?
The biggest restraint on performance bar none is actually the monopolistic tactics of big companies trying to squeeze competition out. The problem with unfettered capitalism, bar none, is failure rate of small businesses (only 3 out of every 10 survive for 3 years in the USA (Source) - interestingly, in Britain, the rate of failure is lower, with 6 out of 10 making it to the 3 year mark (Source) - perhaps because the Britain doesn't 'enjoy' the 'benefits' of the 'free-market'?
you cannot divorce democratic socialism from socialism
I don't think that Doc Cruel agrees with you there. So maybe you should stop trying so hard to make friends with him.
As my sort is very much on the receiving end of all that "imprison, torture and exile", we've had to take the resulting debacle of Leftist rule with a bit of dark humor.
Stop playing word games, Doc. Let me remind you of what you said earlier, apropos of Orwell:
'I attack socialism, as did Orwell - not the socialism of his youth, but what the word came to mean in his sodden, wizened years ... I hope you can understand, thusly, why I do not consider Orwell, in this sense, a "Leftist". Or even a "socialist".'
And just now:
'No problem with "democratic" socialism. Western government is, by its nature, a sort of "democratic socialism", that is, taxes are collected for the promotion of the common good, as decided by a majority rule (or the elected representatives of that majority).'
So whats the beef? I don't think any of the people that you are going to such lengths to disagree with, would have a problem with that definition. In fact, this comment seems to put you more on our side, against 'Grajac' and his Objectivist free-market wet-dream.
Incidentally, Orwell was only 'sodden' in later years because he decided - incomprehensibly - to spend them on the Scottish Isle of Jura. Its a very wet, dismal place, and I am certain that if the Medici had known of its existance, they would have sent Machiavelli there.
Reply
Recommend Message 190 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 11:04 p.m.
Doc
got to say I am intrigued by post 179.
given that you have finally admitted that democratic socialism, as practiced by the European social democratic parties, is not the same as marxism etc etc I will read some of this Burnham stuff you keep banging on about.
not sure about this tho?
supporting the Left these days must be a bit like being a Nazi apologist in Britain, oh, around September in 1939. Wouldn't you say? Then again, Leftist supporters were Nazi apologists in September of 1939. "The Pact", they called it then.
again I have a problem when you use the term Left in this context. as plainly the democratic Left was not full of Nazi apologists. you could argue that communists were "objectively" pro-Nazi because of the pact, even tho I don't think the rank and file communists were anything but anti-Nazi. but let's not forget that the British Right was the most impressed with fascism and Nazism. even Churchill praised Mussolini (although much earlier) but luckily he was not one of thick people on the Right who could not see the danger and came to his senses quickly.
and this bit?
I hope you can understand, thusly, why I do not consider Orwell, in this sense, a "Leftist". Or even a "socialist".
I can understand why he isn't, in your terms, a Leftist as this seems to be basically a communist or a socialist who does not believe in democracy. however I can't see how he can be classed as anything but a socialist since in his entire adult life he wrote for, worked for, and even fought for the socialist cause.
Reply
Recommend Message 191 of 252 in Discussion
From: omnipresent Sent: 11/06/2002 11:17 p.m.
Orwell was against everything that Doc Cruel holds dear.
Typical trick of extreme rightwingers - try to claim that everything the democratic Left believes in (fairness, equality, opportunity, justice, freedom etc) belongs to them. When in fact every last thing they do contradicts that message.
Reply
Recommend Message 192 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 11/06/2002 11:24 p.m.
I particularly hate it when the Right tries to claim Orwell as one of its own. yeah he was so right-wing he fought in a marxist militia against the Right. he joined a party to the left of Labour in the UK. during WWII he called for the Home Guard to be turned into a people's army. he wanted workers billeted in the Ritz, the stock market shut down. stuff I don't even support! but a product of the times, and clearly putting him on the left.
just because he chose to attack communism because he believed totally in democracy doesn't put him on the right. you might just as well argue that all social democratic parties are on the Right.
arrgghhh - see what I mean, even thinking about people saying Orwell was on the Right drives me nuts.
couple of good books about his politics out recently one simply called Orwell's Politics (which argues he was effectively a democratic Trot, but I don't agree) and Orwell's Victory which I haven't read but is apparently about the relevance of his ideas. for the record I think he was a libertarian democratic socialist, which is also where I would put myself on the old political compass.
Reply
Recommend Message 193 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 12/06/2002 12:00 a.m.
"Aren't you a bit nervous Aldous? I mean, supporting the Left these days must be a bit like being a Nazi apologist in Britain, oh, around September in 1939. Wouldn't you say?" DocC
The location of the 'left' is impossible to determine since you deny that there is any 'right'. I might as well try to find 'inside' where there is no 'outside' on PlanetDoc. The best assumption I can make is that left = nasty people. What makes it even harder is that you seem to be able to change what everybody else calls 'leftists' into 'non-nasty people' at the drop of a whim, as in the case of George Orwell. You caper around to your own evident satisfaction but forgive us if we don't always see the point of it.
Reply
Recommend Message 194 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 2:58 a.m.
The location of the 'left' is impossible to determine since you deny that there is any 'right'... The best assumption I can make is that left = nasty people.
I must have gone through this a dozen times.
The Left is defined by:
A professed affinity for Marxist theory, especially Marxism as redefined by Lenin.
The intent to establish nepotistic kleptocracies as the governments of nations, based on a quasi-religious devotion to Marxism and employing the social mechanisms of autocratic secular feudalism.
A support for revolution, terrorism, and insurgency warfare, to force said arrangement over reluctant peoples when their political machinations fail.
In short, the Left is a loose confederation of like minded secular intellectual autocrats, who desire personal power over and draw wealth from a general people they consider sub-intelligent (not politically conscious, "untermensch", whatever), are not adverse towards employing the most violent and savage means to do this and, as a defining element, employ Marxist theory as a moral justification for the above.
So. A Mongol chieftain would not be a Leftist, as he would not use Marxist theory to justify mass murder. Likewise, a Zulu king would also not be a Leftist, nor a Thuggee mystic. Gusmao, however, would. This is a definable category.
What is a "rightist"? If this is definable by an adherence to capitalism, what do we do with monarchists (the original "Right")? If we assume that a "rightist" has an affinity for conservative beliefs, what can we say about a "conservative" supporter of the Castro autocracy? By both counts - support for a monarch, and a desire to preserve the status quo, a Cuban Marxist would thus be considered a member of the "Right". But, if this is so, how can this term be considered to have any real meaning?
Again, I repeat. The term "rightist" has, in the Leftspeak lexicon, a similar meaning to the abused term "fascist"; that is, someone that opposes the Left, for whatever reason. This is why Stalinists were well-loved members of the Left while in power, then, once ousted, became "state capitalists" and "fascists". And yes, I have heard the post-USSR Bolsheviks called "rightists" as well.
Reply
Recommend Message 195 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 3:09 a.m.
Orwell was against everything that Doc Cruel holds dear.
Democracy is not something I would be against. I oppose Orwell's attitudes about private ownership of property, but not his views regarding the rights of the general public to a representative government. And certainly, both of us would be similarly appaled by what the Left has become - he more vocal and better spoken than myself, but in this we most heartily agree.
...try to claim that everything the democratic Left believes in (fairness, equality, opportunity, justice, freedom etc) belongs to them. When in fact every last thing they do contradicts that message.
I would very much beg to differ. Misuse of tax revenues, racial favoritism, nepotism, forced compliance with intellectual-contrived edicts (the EU is infamous on this count), passive support for terrorism and active advocacy for terrorists in the courts, the theft of private wealth, labor and property via the mechanism of "nationalization", and so on, hardly constitutes a love of "fairness, equality, opportunity, justice, freedom", etc.
...for the record I think he was a libertarian democratic socialist, which is also where I would put myself on the old political compass.
And I am a libertarian democratic capitalist. Where I differ with Orwell is on economic theory; our political affinities are quite similar. Indeed, I'd say that Orwell's support for the socialist ideal is what ended up making him so miserable in the first place, but his democratic instincts eventually saved him from becoming a Stalinist stooge.
Reply
0 recommendations Message 196 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 12/06/2002 4:05 a.m.
This message has been deleted by the author.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 2:02:16 GMT
Reply Recommend Message 197 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 12/06/2002 4:18 a.m. The term "rightist" has, in the Leftspeak lexicon, a similar meaning to the abused term "fascist"; that is, someone that opposes the Left, for whatever reason. DocC I'm not surprised you have trouble explaining what you mean by 'rightists'. If you did explain it , it would very likely put you in the dock as a 'fascist' that 'abused term' as you say in its defense. The evidence is that you are interested in wild and woolly attacks on 'leftists' , meaning 'people you don't like,' and that you prefer mystification to argument. Reply Recommend Message 198 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 12/06/2002 4:21 a.m. "In short, the Left is a loose confederation of like minded secular intellectual autocrats, who desire personal power over and draw wealth from a general people they consider sub-intelligent (not politically conscious, "untermensch", whatever), are not adverse towards employing the most violent and savage means to do this and, as a defining element, employ Marxist theory as a moral justification for the above." DocC If Marxist convictions are only a façade and the real aim is wealth and power, then your distinguishing characteristic of 'Leftists' is irrelevant and we might as well call them 'dictators'. In this respect, the concluding scene of George Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind. The farm animals (the untermensch) look into the farmhouse and see the pigs (the leftists) drinking and carousing with the farmers (the capitalists). In other words, the 'leftists' have abandoned their political convictions (if they were sincere in the first place) and become as one with the capitalists. Your definition is valueless as political theory since any insincere (or even sincere) set of political beliefs could be used by those intent on gaining power. Hitler and Mussolini are examples of 'nasty people' neither of whom used Marxist theory as a cloak for their ambitions. They were populists because the source of their power was the support of 'the people'. For those who are born to power or whose power base is elswhere, in the military, the Church, big business their is no need for populism of this kind although the 'real interest' may be said to be the same. If the sin is 'exploiting the general population for personal gain' then the sinners are from all parts if the political spectrum and none. Your eccentric use of 'leftist' not only does not expose any profound truth but isn't in line with ordinary usage either. The Labour government in the UK is a party of the left (leftish at anyrate) but if you want to find the most successful party at achieving or increasing personal power and wealth while beating up the proletariat from time to time you have to look at the Conservatives. If 'leftists' are Marxists or Marxist-Leninist, why not call them that. The reason you don't is that these terms mean something and can't be made to include your favorite hate-figures so you prefer a term which, since it means whatever you want it to mean, has no communicative value and merely serves to give you a sense of self-importance as the custodian of the key to the universe, albeit a self-invented universe. Reply Recommend Message 199 of 252 in Discussion From: Vania Sent: 12/06/2002 4:22 a.m. DC What are you on? The terms left and right are relative. Without the "left" there can be no "right" with which to draw comparison and vice versa. What are all the current "right" parties by your own doctrine. It seems that "left" in Docspeak is just anything that DC does not agree with. Furthermore this: The term "rightist" has, in the Leftspeak lexicon, a similar meaning to the abused term "fascist"; that is, someone that opposes the Left, for whatever reason. DocC works just as well like this: The term "leftist" has, in the rightspeak lexicon, a similar meaning to the abused term "fascist"; that is, someone that opposes the right, for whatever reason. DocC Reply Recommend Message 200 of 252 in Discussion From: Vania Sent: 12/06/2002 4:23 a.m. Even though Aldous expressed in mesage 198 what I had wanted to but couldn't quite express quite as eloquently! Reply Recommend Message 201 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 12/06/2002 6:59 a.m. Power comes from within if given the chance whether it be Hilary & Everest in the 50`s or any of the great athletes today or a person intent on making his mark in the world of business delivering socially useful products & services in a free market, no matter what the adversity. It is born of ATTITUDE not station. Individuals who develop the personal drive to succeed at all cost, under-over-around-or through become champions to themselves, their loved ones & the society they live in....in that order. In collectivism there is no chance to try, ambition is squashed before it begins, hopelessness is the norm. The State rules supreme & the individual is of little value unless he toes the party line. Wheras in a Capitalist nation the State is an instrument of the people there to serve a nation of individuals, not the other way around. This should not be so difficult for anyone to grasp however the Left`s mental midgets seem to grapple with it endlessly as if it were a complete mystery to them, that is the real mystery right there though to the rest of us? Reply Recommend Message 202 of 252 in Discussion From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 12/06/2002 7:03 a.m. It is born of ATTITUDE not station. Individuals who develop the personal drive to succeed at all cost, under-over-around-or through become champions to themselves, their loved ones & the society they live in....in that order. what if their drive to succeed means they don't spend enough time with their family? or if making a profit requires polluting? surely then they are nothing but bastards as far as their family and soiety are concerned. In collectivism there is no chance to try, ambition is squashed before it begins, hopelessness is the norm. The State rules supreme & the individual is of little value unless he toes the party line. surely a comapny is a collective organisation? it does not depend on one talent, it requires a range of skills? Wheras in a Capitalist nation the State is an instrument of the people there to serve a nation of individuals, not the other way around. yes but it is also there to deliver certain services collectively where this is to the advantage of society. Reply Recommend Message 203 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 8:27 a.m. If Marxist convictions are only a façade and the real aim is wealth and power, then your distinguishing characteristic of 'Leftists' is irrelevant and we might as well call them 'dictators'. ..then the distinguishing characteristic of 'socialist' is irrelevant... The important wrinkle is that Leftists justify their outrages. As they are justly murdering millions of people, for some heretofore unrevealed yet ultimately necessary reason (!), it becomes very difficult to stop them in mid-slaughter. People like Chomsky will defend them, for example. In this respect, the concluding scene of George Orwell's Animal Farm comes to mind. The farm animals (the untermensch) look into the farmhouse and see the pigs (the leftists) drinking and carousing with the farmers (the capitalists). In other words, the 'leftists' have abandoned their political convictions (if they were sincere in the first place) and become as one with the capitalists. James Burnham elaborates further, but yes. You get the idea. Except that those farm animals aren't "untermensch", just the sort of trusting and decent creatures that all dictators and tyrants thrive on. Your definition is valueless as political theory since any insincere (or even sincere) set of political beliefs could be used by those intent on gaining power. Hitler and Mussolini are examples of 'nasty people' neither of whom used Marxist theory as a cloak for their ambitions. Not true. Hitler used the term "national socialism" to kick off his movement, and with good reason. Mussolini started his career as a militant anarchist. Marxism as a philosophy is a powerful ideological justification for revolution and murder. All Leftists use Marxism in this fashion, and are essentially defined by their advocacy of this political philosophy from other usurpers and tyrants. The Labour government in the UK is a party of the left... The fact that, in the case of Blair at any rate, this is no longer so is of constant annoyance to the real Leftists. For example, Blair supports the US in their war against terrorism, blasphemy in Leftist circles. Think of it in terms of this analogy: Blair is about as Leftist as Martin Luther was Catholic. If 'leftists' are Marxists or Marxist-Leninist, why not call them that. In many cases, the terms are synonymous. However, sometimes a Leftist is circumspect about their connection to their fellow Marxists - as in, when participating in the ecological or animal rights movements. Here, using the term "Marxist" becomes cumbersome without elaboration. ...merely serves to give you a sense of self-importance as the custodian of the key to the universe, albeit a self-invented universe. My intent merely is to not have these people ruin my life. Since September, in fact, that danger has become much more physically palatable, and not to myself exclusively as you seem to imply. I'd just as soon be left alone, thank you. But I won't be, will I. Reply Recommend Message 204 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 8:30 a.m. What are you on? The terms left and right are relative. Words mean what they are used for. Their meaning is derived from context. In the case of "the Left", that term has taken a very specific meaning in the 21st century, whereas the supposed complementary term "the Right" has lost any discernable, specific definition. If you would like, however, I am open to defining it here. What does "the Right" mean to you? Reply Recommend Message 205 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 8:54 a.m. It is born of ATTITUDE not station. Individuals who develop the personal drive to succeed at all cost, under-over-around-or through become champions to themselves, their loved ones & the society they live in....in that order. what if their drive to succeed means they don't spend enough time with their family? or if making a profit requires polluting? surely then they are nothing but bastards as far as their family and soiety are concerned. Some of those over-achievers get killed in wars, as heroes. Likewise, the need to "force" a fix on that nasty capitalist system has had well-meaning socialists manipulating children in schools, rioting in the cities, causing sharp rises in crime and unwed motherhood, etc. Be nice. In collectivism there is no chance to try, ambition is squashed before it begins, hopelessness is the norm. The State rules supreme & the individual is of little value unless he toes the party line. surely a comapny is a collective organisation? it does not depend on one talent, it requires a range of skills? Agreed. Furthermore, successful examples of "real" socialist systems are most armies and most families. The fact is, absent of ideological squabbles over control and ownership, the mechanics of socialism and capitalism not only operate side-by-side, but are almost necessary for each other's success. For free markets are, at their essence, collective socialist systems based at a fundamental level on trust and mutual agreement (!) And now, my pontification on the "problems" of capitalist systems: The resultant prosperity increases the mean, thereby raising the fiscal expectations and desires of the public Capitalist enterprises are designed mainly for profit, not self-preservation, making them fertile grounds for breeding charlatans and thieves The short-term good does not always translate into long-term stability, lending credence to the charges of environmental destruction, wild economic fluctuations and depressions, creeping monopolies, etc. I think New Labour has more than a few good ideas, meant to tackle these concerns. If Thatcher and Blair can get to gether on a few things, they may actually have something. Reply Recommend Message 206 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 12/06/2002 9:29 a.m. .then the distinguishing characteristic of 'socialist' is irrelevant... Tony Blair is a Marxist-Leninist? John Prescott? Tam Dalyell? Tony Benn? The important wrinkle is that Leftists justify their outrages. Everybody does. Ariel Sharon does! "Hitler used the term "national socialism" to kick off his movement, and with good reason. Mussolini started his career as a militant anarchist." They were not Marxist or Marxist-Leninist, butterfly mind. Marxism as a philosophy is a powerful ideological justification for revolution and murder. All Leftists use Marxism in this fashion, and are essentially defined by their advocacy of this political philosophy from other usurpers and tyrants. Contradicted by the examples above. For example, Blair supports the US in their war against terrorism, blasphemy in Leftist circles.Tam Dalyell, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner,, (I could go on and on through names unknown to you because you don't deal in facts) are not noticeably Marxist-Leninist but they are not aligned with Tony in support of the 'war on terror'. ...sometimes a Leftist is circumspect about their connection to their fellow Marxists - as in, when participating in the ecological or animal rights movements. Here, using the term "Marxist" becomes cumbersome without elaboration. Don't be silly! My intent merely is to not have these people ruin my life. Since September, in fact, that danger has become much more physically palatable, and not to myself exclusively as you seem to imply. This is a cue to leave your McCarthy era time-warp and to become an Islamophobiac. I'd just as soon be left alone, thank you. But I won't be, will I.? I shouldn't think extreme silliness makes you a target for the mad mullahs! Reply Recommend Message 207 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 10:13 a.m. .then the distinguishing characteristic of 'socialist' is irrelevant... Tony Blair is a Marxist-Leninist? John Prescott? Tam Dalyell? Tony Benn? Tony Blair is definitely not a Marxist-Leninist. My phrase was meant to replace yours, in the context you presented, so that it would thus read: If Marxist convictions are only a façade and the real aim is wealth and power, then the distinguishing characteristic of 'socialist' is irrelevant and we might as well call them 'dictators'. Pretty much summed up in a nutshell. The important wrinkle is that Leftists justify their outrages... Everybody does. Ariel Sharon does! ...with the theories of Marxism. That is, where as Sharon might claim that the IDF is not targetting civilians, Leftists would do no such thing. They will instead make claims to the effect that "the Palestinians are fighting back in the only way they can", "Israeli civilians are combatants", etc. Sound familiar? And what Ariel Sharon does isn't "outrageous", unless self-defence has suddenly become a crime. In many ways, Sharon is a better leader of the Palestinians than Arafat - but now I digress. "Hitler used the term "national socialism" to kick off his movement, and with good reason. Mussolini started his career as a militant anarchist." They were not Marxist or Marxist-Leninist, butterfly mind. (...) Ayn Rand was a neo-Marxist, and in the same manner. Again, read Sciabarra, but of course we don't do what the good doctor prescribes, do we. It is very difficult to treat you like a scholar, when you will not do what scholars do. Please reconsider. Marxism as a philosophy is a powerful ideological justification for revolution and murder. All Leftists use Marxism in this fashion, and are essentially defined by their advocacy of this political philosophy from other usurpers and tyrants. Contradicted by the examples above. "How is this true," he asked, in the most non-condescending manner he could manage. You waxed poetic about Tony Benn awhile back, so I am familiar with this "fellow traveller". As I recollect, words were exchanged then. Tam Dalyell is extraordinarily Leftist, even managing to pan Thatcher's performance in the Fauklands while running spin control for the Argentines, no mean achievement. He also defends Iraq (!), so is likely one of your personal heroes. As for that last fellow (from that "right-wing" organ, the Guardian)... Dennis Skinner is unique, part parliamentary court jester, and part leftwing crusader. Familiar throughout the nation and loathed and liked with equal passion within Westminster, his great days may now be over. politics.guardian.co.uk/profiles/story/0,9396,460088,00.html It seems my "infection" has lapped against even the bastions of Left-dom. Through no fault of my own, I can assure you. My intent merely is to not have these people ruin my life. Since September, in fact, that danger has become much more physically palatable, and not to myself exclusively as you seem to imply. This is a cue to leave your McCarthy era time-warp and to become an Islamophobiac. I am not the only one, to realize that the Left is intent on causing a "holy war" between Christians and Muslims. Or that, in the coming years, our war against terrorism will increasingly have us killing Marxists, and not devout Muslims. There. That nasty word again, "kill". No euphemism, no dodging. You know exactly where I stand. Reply Recommend Message 208 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 12/06/2002 10:37 a.m. And what Ariel Sharon does isn't "outrageous", unless self-defence has suddenly become a crime. In many ways, Sharon is a better leader of the Palestinians than Arafat - but now I digress.DocC Nothing to do with 'leftists'. A lot to do with a definition of 'self-defense' so elastic that every act of violence, including Palestinian suicide bombings could be so described. As for Sharon being a Palestinian leader this means we have to imagine that Sharon is a hologram and the real Sharon is somebody completely different. Are we supposed to take your word for that? Ayn Rand was a neo-Marxist, and in the same manner. Again, read Sciabarra, but of course we don't do what the good doctor prescribes, do we.It is very difficult to treat you like a scholar, when you will not do what scholars do. Please reconsider. A Scholar? Coherence, reasoned argument, a respect for the facts, the context of an academic discipline are required. Citing names at random from a rag-bag of miscellaneous amateur learning is not enough. You waxed poetic about Tony Benn awhile back, so I am familiar with this "fellow traveller". As I recollect, words were exchanged then. Tam Dalyell is extraordinarily Leftist, even managing to pan Thatcher's performance in the Fauklands while running spin control for the Argentines, no mean achievement. He also defends Iraq (!), so is likely one of your personal heroes. As for that last fellow (from that "right-wing" organ, the Guardian)...Dennis Skinner is unique, part parliamentary court jester, and part leftwing crusader. Familiar throughout the nation and loathed and liked with equal passion within Westminster, his great days may now be over. Not Marxist-Lenists which was your defining characterist of 'leftists' ,butterfly mind. Mere random abuse does not constitute a reasoned argument. Nor does a hastily assembled glance at the facts topped out with a smidgeon of cut-and-past. I am not the only one, to realize that the Left is intent on causing a "holy war" between Christians and Muslims. Or that, in the coming years, our war against terrorism will increasingly have us killing Marxists, and not devout Muslims.There. That nasty word again, "kill". No euphemism, no dodging. You know exactly where I stand. Are you really in favor of killing Tam Dalyell and Tony Benn and all these nice socialist fellows? You stand up to the neck in miasmic hatred. There is a tinkling of court-jester bells, but nothing to mark out a very perceptive or very wholesome commentator on international relations. Reply Recommend Message 209 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 11:26 a.m. Nothing to do with 'leftists'. A lot to do with a definition of 'self-defense' so elastic that every act of violence, including Palestinian suicide bombings could be so described. Again, this is an argument whose ground is well plowed. Suffice to say, my feeling is that both Israeli and Palestinian are beset by Leftist fanatics, bent on turning a quarrel about real estate into a war of mutual genocide, all to elicit funds from the international circle, train squads of anti-American terrorists, etc. I assume you differ in your opinion. Of course. As for Sharon being a Palestinian leader this means we have to imagine that Sharon is a hologram and the real Sharon is somebody completely different. Are we supposed to take your word for that? Take Zohair Hamdan's. Or, better... Palestinian GDP: West Bank, under Arafat: ~$1,500 The rest of Israel, under Sharon: ~$3,500 www.betaroncampus.org/right.cfm?question=18 I don't know about you, but if I were a Palestinian I'd rather spend my two grand on me and mine, rather than another Paris spending spree for Suha. Coherence, reasoned argument, a respect for the facts, the context of an academic discipline are required. Reading source materials does help in getting at the facts, kid. You just gotta trust me on this one. Not Marxist-Lenists which was your defining characterist of 'leftists' ,butterfly mind. Mere random abuse does not constitute a reasoned argument. Like I said. That right wing-rag, the Guardian, called your hero a Leftist. Indeed, in regards two of the three fellows you cited, the Guardian uses the word "jester" as a descriptive noun in their biographies. Watch those flaps of my butterfly wings, kid. The resulting hurricane in your parts looks to be blowing you over. Global warming, no doubt. Are you really in favor of killing Tam Dalyell and Tony Benn and all these nice socialist fellows? Not particularly - unlike Gerrold Adams or Bobby Sands, they only gave comfort to terrorists. Being booted from Great Britain, however, as "undesireables"... well... You stand up to the neck in miasmic hatred. There is a tinkling of court-jester bells, but nothing to mark out a very perceptive or very wholesome commentator on international relations. Must admit, I'm not fond of Leftists. For the real hard cases, especially talented bomb makers, snipers, not to mention the "Comrades for Life" aristocracy of the Party, I would not be adverse to a Jacobin-style mass "shortening". Don't be so shocked; it's not like Lenin and Co. haven't done pioneering work on the post-revolution purge festival. I'd be in good company. I doubt we'll be so lucky. Actually, it's more likely we'll have to gun each one down individually, in the act of some atrocity or other. The ones we take alive will play the court system for decades, like abu-Jamal, Barghouti and Peltier. No joke. If you find that funny, you must be a fan of dark comedies. Yet I predict. Reply Recommend Message 210 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 12/06/2002 11:28 a.m. (ERRATUM: That Palestinian GDP is "per capita". Sorry, kid. ) Reply Recommend Message 211 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 12/06/2002 5:47 p.m. skeptic what if their drive to succeed means they don't spend enough time with their family? or if making a profit requires polluting? surely then they are nothing but bastards as far as their family are concerned sacrificing one`s time to achieve as is necessary is a personal choice in a free society, what are you arguing, that it should not be? It is not up to you to decide for others. It seems that Socialists cannot learn to mind their own business. The astonishing arrogance of "we, the elite, know what is best for you" again! Individuals choose, the State does not except under socialism`s black hand. surely a company is a collective organisation? it does not depend on one talent, it requires a range of skills? Silly socialist semantics, as usual, as if life itself is a word game, a sleight of hand contest. In the meritocratic free enterprise system`s private sector you rise strictly according to measurable performance not by nepotism or sycophantics as in the socialist collective. That is a socialist racket dictated by the whims of the the few & is based on graft, corruption & favor......membership in the inner circle, not contribution. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 2:03:59 GMT
Reply Recommend Message 212 of 252 in Discussion From: la la Sent: 12/06/2002 7:21 p.m. Power comes from within if given the chance whether it be Hilary & Everest in the 50`s or any of the great athletes today or a person intent on making his mark in the world of business delivering socially useful products & services in a free market ... It is born of ATTITUDE not station. Individuals who develop the personal drive to succeed at all cost, under-over-around-or through become champions to themselves, their loved ones & the society they live in....in that order. Yes yes yes, just what we need. more Objectivist nonsense ... You can't argue with an Objectivist, as they are a cult, like the extreme left Marxists are (NB Doc Cruel - when I say extreme left, I mean what you simply call 'left'. Hope this helps all round comprehension). Why are so many of the 'great atheletes of today' black? Because athletic prowess is still one of very few ways that blacks can escape the poverty trap that they are born in. Doubtless you will respond that the reason this poverty trap exists is because of well meaning but misguided attempts at affirmative action by liberals, because trying to give people a helping hand destroys their dignity, or some such. To this I can only respond - BOLLOCKS. Being born in poverty destroys dignity. Not getting a decent education destroys dignity. Having no father and a crack-head mother destroys dignity. Your 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality is nothing but a sop to your conciense - 'They could do it, if they really tried.' So why don't they? Do you think all black people are lazy? You said it all came down to attitude, after all. As for 'socially useful products and services' - Dreamcast, Playstation 2, X-Box, Gamescube, 10,000 shades of lipstick, clothes and sneakers made by 12 year olds in sweatshops in China. ..then the distinguishing characteristic of 'socialist' is irrelevant... Sigh ... will you quit your silly semantic games, Doc, they score no points with me. I am, and I will continue to call myself, a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. As a timesaver, I will also refer to myself as a socialist. In doing this I mean what most people using the term would mean. If you will insist upon using a wildly different interpretation of the word, then so be it. Doubtless, you feel superior to 'The herd' and the 'untermensch' because of your superior insight. Some of those over-achievers get killed in wars, as heroes. Like Orwell - still a SOCIALIST inspite of what you say - getting shot in Spain, or his mate Georges Kopp being imprisoned by the facists and tortured for months? Ayn Rand was a neo-Marxist , and in the same manner. Again, read Sciabarra, but of course we don't do what the good doctor prescribes, do we. We don't understand what the 'good doctor' (Hey - your services are free - must be NHS!) is talking about half the time, because he speaks a language dissimilar to ours. Even more confusingly, some of the words are the same as ours, but have different meanings. He appears to think this makes what he says deeper and more meaningful, but he is wrong on that count. He should take a leaf out of that famous non-socialist George Orwell's book and try to speak plainly for once. Language is a social phenomenum, and if you insist on try to use it differently from wot other folk does, them they will not understand you. Ask James Joyce. Anyway, I can't wait to see what happens when Grajac sees you describing Rand as a 'Neo-Marxist'! Love it! butterfly mind. Mere random abuse does not constitute a reasoned argument Just to demonstrate I am not insanely partisan - note the above, cruel juxtaposition, from Aldous ... Suffice to say, my feeling is that both Israeli and Palestinian are beset by Leftist fanatics, bent on turning a quarrel about real estate into a war of mutual genocide, all to elicit funds from the international circle, train squads of anti-American terrorists, etc. Unlike Aldous, I got you little joke about Ariel Sharon, and I would agree with the gist of the above, except for that word 'leftist' - why bother with it, all 'leftists' are fanatics anyway, in your book. And on removing that one word, suddenly the whole sentence is robbed of its socialist (my definition) baiting potential ... or is that why you put it in? Reply Recommend Message 213 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 12/06/2002 9:03 p.m. la la land Why are so many of the 'great atheletes of today' black? Because athletic prowess is still one of very few ways that blacks can escape the poverty trap that they are born in. Doubtless you will respond that the reason this poverty trap exists is because of well meaning but misguided attempts at affirmative action by liberals, because trying to give people a helping hand destroys their dignity, or some such. To this I can only respond - BOLLOCKS. Being born in poverty destroys dignity. Not getting a decent education destroys dignity. Having no father and a crack-head mother destroys dignity. Your 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps' mentality is nothing but a sop to your conciense - 'They could do it, if they really tried.' So why don't they? Do you think all black people are lazy? You said it all came down to attitude, after all. my father was a TPI double amputee (legs) from the slums with 5 kids. His offspring DID pull themselves up by their own bbotstraps with the right attitude, diligence, frugality, perseverance (courage) & WIT. People are like balloons in that it is what is inside them that makes them go up, not their colour. As for 'socially useful products and services' - Dreamcast, Playstation 2, X-Box, Gamescube, 10,000 shades of lipstick, clothes and sneakers made by 12 year olds in sweatshops in China The chinese are grateful to have these jobs on the road to advancement, if you don`t like their socialism, attack that then. Your stinking, rotten, filthy socialism is the problem there, like everywhere. As to Ayn Rand being Neo Marxist! Yeah, like Clinton is a virgin!!! Reply Recommend Message 214 of 252 in Discussion From: Lugger Sent: 12/06/2002 9:11 p.m. Why are so many of the 'great atheletes of today' black? Because athletic prowess is still one of very few ways that blacks can escape the poverty trap that they are born in. I don't think I've seen anything as stupid as that on this board for months. Thanks for the laugh, though it was slightly hysterical. Reply Recommend Message 215 of 252 in Discussion From: Wilfred Sent: 12/06/2002 9:23 p.m. The chinese are grateful to have these jobs on the road to advancement if you don`t like their socialism, attack that then. Your stinking, rotten, filthy socialism is the problem there, like everywhere. Oh really.. What about the sweat shops in India, Phillipines, Thailand etc (ie democratically elected right wing countries) Face it. The poverty in these countries suit the greedy right wing capitalists very well indeed. How else could they engage in slave labour and get away with it in this day and age? Reply Recommend Message 216 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 13/06/2002 6:07 a.m. Those people literally fight over those jobs because they want them, local corruption is sometimes to blame if/when the terms offered don`t always get to whom they are intended. These ARE the facts, something you are not interested in. Reply Recommend Message 217 of 252 in Discussion From: aldous Sent: 13/06/2002 6:43 a.m. DocC # 209 If you're not even going to make a pretence of reasonable argument I can only wonder why you chose to put your name to a thread about 'mental illness'. Reply Recommend Message 218 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 13/06/2002 6:57 a.m. Ayn Rand was a neo-Marxist , and in the same manner. Again, read Sciabarra, but of course we don't do what the good doctor prescribes, do we. We don't understand what the 'good doctor' (Hey - your services are free - must be NHS!) is talking about half the time, because he speaks a language dissimilar to ours. Even more confusingly, some of the words are the same as ours, but have different meanings. If you're not even going to make a pretence of reasonable argument I can only wonder why you chose to put your name to a thread about 'mental illness'. (*sigh* ) Christopher Sciabarra, one of the foremost authorities on Ayn Rand (and a great deal more "objective" than Leonard Peikoff): www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/ ...and a breakdown of his groundbreaking book on the subject: www.objectivism.addr.com/books/about/radical.html My "services" are not "free". You must put in the intellectual effort, otherwise I am simply throwing pearls to swine. And as for the maliciously obtuse, rest assured, we will cut you free from the public purse at our first opportunity. Reply Recommend Message 219 of 252 in Discussion From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 13/06/2002 7:00 a.m. sacrificing one`s time to achieve as is necessary is a personal choice in a free society, what are you arguing, that it should not be? It is not up to you to decide for others. It seems that Socialists cannot learn to mind their own business. The astonishing arrogance of "we, the elite, know what is best for you" again! Individuals choose, the State does not except under socialism`s black hand. read the thread back - this was a response to your claim that the desire to succeed at all costs makes you a hero to your family. my point is that this often this is patently not the case. wives and children feel neglected. I should know - I stole my Mrs of a bloke who worked in the City. he put in too many hours in his "desire to succeed" so she didn't get the attention she deserved. once again your philosopy plays into the hands of people who politics are opposite to you. In the meritocratic free enterprise system`s private sector you rise strictly according to measurable performance not by nepotism or sycophantics as in the socialist collective. yeah right. the money execs earn is totally deserved is it? I wouldn't play this hand too hard - no-one believes it. who moans most about execs getting paid too much these days? shareholders. That is a socialist racket dictated by the whims of the the few & is based on graft, corruption & favor......membership in the inner circle, not contribution. here you are away with the fairies again. Reply Recommend Message 220 of 252 in Discussion From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 13/06/2002 7:01 a.m. hey Doc - how is it going? Reply Recommend Message 221 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 13/06/2002 7:03 a.m. "In Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, Sciabarra advanced the hypothesis that Rand's background in "Silver Age" Russian philosophy had stamped her into the mold of a "dialectical" thinker. This claim was controversial on two grounds. The first difficulty lay in Sciabarra's attempt to explain "dialectics" as a methodology opposed to "dualism," terms of dubious use for analyzing intellectual history. This claim, though repeated, receives no further support in "The Rand Transcript." The second point of controversy was Sciabarra's transformation of speculations about Rand's intellectual influences into certainties over the course of his book, without providing additional evidence. This practice received a rebuke from reviewer James Lennox in the pages of IOS Journal (Nov. 1995: 1, 6-9). In Rand's transcript, Sciabarra uncovers new facts that give far greater warrant to his historical hypothesis. " www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/wthomas_review-journal-of-ayn-rand-studies.aspRand's analysis is decidedly Marxist in form, and draws heavily from Neitzsche as well. I don't have hours to go into this in detail, so why not just pick up the book? Reply Recommend Message 222 of 252 in Discussion From: DocCruel Sent: 13/06/2002 7:13 a.m. hey Doc - how is it going? Fine. Wallowing in the mud again - perfect relaxation on a hot June day. Objectivists have long hoped to see Rand's work and philosophy discussed in the mainstream, more or less on their own terms. One of the difficulties in achieving this goal has been that scholars approach Rand without being familiar with her method or thought. www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/wthomas_review-journal-of-ayn-rand-studies.asp Reply Recommend Message 223 of 252 in Discussion From: la la Sent: 13/06/2002 7:19 p.m. my father was a TPI double amputee (legs) from the slums with 5 kids. His offspring DID pull themselves up by their own bbotstraps with the right attitude, diligence, frugality, perseverance (courage) & WIT. People are like balloons in that it is what is inside them that makes them go up, not their colour. Very drool. Doesn't answer my question however - why is it that so many people don't realise their potential? Stupid & lazy? Or denied the opportunity? The chinese are grateful to have these jobs on the road to advancement, if you don`t like their socialism, attack that then. Your stinking, rotten, filthy socialism is the problem there, like everywhere. 'Road to advancement'? The only thing that is being advanced is the profits of western companies. Most sweat shop workers don't even make the official minimum wage in the countries they live in - which isn't usually enough to sustain life, anyway. They aren't investing in these countries, because the money doesn't stay in them - they are plundering them as surely as the Colonial powers plundered Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was wrong then, and its still wrong. I wouldn't describe China as socialistic - feudalistic, maybe. I don't think I've seen anything as stupid as that on this board for months. Thanks for the laugh, though it was slightly hysterical. How do you account for it then, Lugger? Do you think blacks are 'Naturally athletic'? Reply Recommend Message 224 of 252 in Discussion From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 12:48 a.m. sacrificing one`s time to achieve as is necessary is a personal choice in a free society, what are you arguing, that it should not be? It is not up to you to decide for others. It seems that Socialists cannot learn to mind their own business. The astonishing arrogance of "we, the elite, know what is best for you" again! Individuals choose, the State does not except under socialism`s black hand. read the thread back - this was a response to your claim that the desire to succeed at all costs makes you a hero to your family. my point is that this often this is patently not the case. wives and children feel neglected. I should know - I stole my Mrs of a bloke who worked in the City. he put in too many hours in his "desire to succeed" so she didn't get the attention she deserved. once again your philosopy plays into the hands of people who politics are opposite to you. individual choice reigns, the rest is blather....next? In the meritocratic free enterprise system`s private sector you rise strictly according to measurable performance not by nepotism or sycophantics as in the socialist collective. yeah right. the money execs earn is totally deserved is it? I wouldn't play this hand too hard - no-one believes it. who moans most about execs getting paid too much these days? shareholders. s/holders luv to spew re exec fees but free market rules. NEXT ! That is a socialist racket dictated by the whims of the the few & is based on graft, corruption & favor......membership in the inner circle, not contribution. here you are away with the fairies again. WOW...... KAPOW !, what an incisive, killer defence, Unionism thrives, indeed relies, on GRAFT. Their is no organisation of men more culpable other than the mafis itself, than Unions when corruption is the characteristic being discussed. It is endemic, systemic & PATHETIC Come on, septic, get in to it, what about shaping up, you wouldn`t last 5 minutes in a real brawl with that stale urine! Reply Recommend Message 225 of 252 in Discussion From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 12:58 a.m. individual choice reigns, the rest is blather....next? I don't think you read that properly. my point is that again you only look at things in 2-D, you don't see what the results are. you say it's personal choice to work hard. I agree. but tho you might succeed at work you may fail at home. and partner's getting fed up with other halves working too much is hardly an uncommon cause of relationships breaking up. I'm just saying watch your back. there may be some lefty who is willing to give your Mrs more time than you are lurking out there..... s/holders luv to spew re exec fees but free market rules. NEXT ! this is becoming a major shareholder issue so it certainly will be NEXT. next year the UK gets an annual shareholder vote on the exec remuneration policys at comapny AGMs. let's wait and see what happens. WOW...... KAPOW !, what an incisive, killer defence I'm sorry but I'm getting a bit bored with this now. look back through this thread and see that not one person is agreing with you. Doc Cruel is nearest to you but he even says he's OK with democratic socialism. face it - you are the most dogmatic of all of us. must make the facts fit the theory rather than the other way round. Reply Recommend Message 226 of 252 in Discussion From: TFC1 Sent: 14/06/2002 1:02 a.m. Original tenet: If there was only one Anarchist, Trotskyite or Nazi and they stated their beliefs...you'd think they were mad. I totally agree. I certainly think all Muslims are mad. Any religion that instructs it's followers to die in order to wipe out non-believers is critically flawed. It just amazes me there are so many gullible people who follow it. |
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 2:05:05 GMT
Reply
Recommend Message 227 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 2:30 a.m.
Before you deign to rabbit on about "what`s good for the goose...." re business` negotiating labour input costs with unions: Monopolistic unions with closed shops "come the kosh" effectively coercing, intimidating & threatening by strike etc. Employers have no choice therefore, the outcomes are forced, involuntary. Proper negotiation is not rape, it must be win-win to be sustainable, serious business people know this fact of life well.
Where genuinely free exchange (in the total absence of consent re trading value-for-value is concerned) is non-existent between supply & demand, the resultant distortion produces incorrect price signals so the end result is discordant. The inflated cost is passed to the consumer so that this company becomes non-competitive with imports & downsizes &/or then fails killing all the jobs as a hollow victory for myopic unionism
.
Unions therefore target industries which, by their nature, are non-exportable or protected (usually a political pay-off) to pick on.
All very sad & all cruelly true. Unionism is not the answer gentlemen. Not to say that a right wing union who is not socialist cannot co-operate with corporate to bake a bigger cake for the good of all. Such an enlightened approach is welcome. Good luck to you if you can find it!
Reply
Recommend Message 228 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 5:10 a.m.
septic
In closure:
you say...." I'm just saying watch your back. there may be some lefty who is willing to give your Mrs more time than you are lurking out there"
Just an impertinent cheap shot typical of a little man with no answers......don`t chance familiarity with my wife fella, let a capitalist thoroughly "befriend" your Mrs though, for her pleasure & your pain; do those words seen written annoy you too? So, in reciprocity I return the compliment.
But that`s about the style/class of a punk socialist, to outrageously disrespect what is not his, to furtively thieve from another without honour, to plot & corrupt coveting anothers assets........I would not hesitate to deal with such trash mercilessly, it would be his last pleasureable experience I swear. It actually IS quite scary what power does come with money.
"I'm sorry but I'm getting a bit bored with this now. look back through this thread and see that not one person is agreing with you".
Yes, I have put many points which you totally ignore signalling an inability to defend which are clear & numerous concessions. Your reponses have deteriorated discernibly from ordinary to the pits . I was prepared to plug along if you would answer or offer something to hit but my heart`s not in it anymore either given the dearth of substance.
Don`t engage unless you can sword the bull decisively. My horns have been in your buttocks repetitively.
This board is INFESTED with socialists, so what do you expect, of course . Your corespondents & mere minions mouth the rehearsed Socialist party mantra in meaningless `chant of cant`. The occasional fence sitter reading your paltry alibis easily recognises the nonsense that you call socialism & your inability to sell such a poor product (yet you were initially denying it was your value system, until exposed).
You have the effrontery to try to claim that socialism is good yet it is the number one cause of murder & famine, pestilence & misery in the history of mankind. It is the agent of evil & it is all well documented so do not insult any thinking person`s intelligence, you demean yourself.
Reply
Recommend Message 229 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 5:27 a.m.
Just an impertinent cheap shot typical of a little man with no answers......don`t chance familiarity with my wife fella, let a capitalist thoroughly "befriend" your Mrs though, for her pleasure & your pain; do those words seen written annoy you too? So, in reciprocity I return the compliment.
hit a nerve there didn't we? sounds like you might be having problems? like I said I stole my Mrs off a bloke like you who spent to much time banging on about making money and being successful to treat her properly. I suspect yours could go the same way. so your words mean nothing to me.
But that`s about the style/class of a punk socialist, to outrageously disrespect what is not his, to furtively thieve from another without honour, to plot & corrupt coveting anothers assets........
surely it's naked competition. if I want your Mrs and she is fed up with you if I can "supply" what she "demands" she's all mine? you are the one saying people she strive for what they want. what if I want your Mrs? "all's fair in love and war" as they say. sounds like you ain't quite so confident of competing in that arena.
Yes, I have put many points which you totally ignore signalling an inability to defend which are clear & numerous concessions. Your reponses have deteriorated discernibly from ordinary to the pits . I was prepared to plug along if you would answer or offer something to hit but my heart`s not in it anymore either given the dearth of substance.
yeah right. all that you have proved is that you are obsessed with dogma and cannot discuss politics without replying with knee-jerk party line responses. it's all out of a text book. hence you get yourself in a terrible muddle when your own logic twists back on you. all ideologies have inconsistencies - you are still in the dream land where you think your Adam Smith lite take on stuff answers everything. I have tried to point out that even arguing an Adam Smith line can defend trade unionism, the welfare state and so on. yet because your basic political structure cannot allow these things you have to make it bend till breaking point.
most laughably lately come your attacks on gay people - which I note even one of the Tory voters has picked you up on - no state interference you say, but you want to tell people who they can have sex with. some liberal.
This board is INFESTED with socialists, so what do you expect, of course . Your corespondents & mere minions mouth the rehearsed Socialist party mantra in meaningless `chant of cant`. The occasional fence sitter reading your paltry alibis easily recognises the nonsense that you call socialism & your inability to sell such a poor product (yet you were initially denying it was your value system, until exposed).
when have I ever denied I was a socialist? I am very proud of it. as for this board being infested with socialists that says more about the extremity of your politics than anything else. there aren't that many on here at all. most people are nothing at all, just somewhere in the centre.
and finally
Don`t engage unless you can sword the bull decisively. My horns have been in your buttocks repetitively.
don't engage with the bullshitter is more apt, and as for having your horns in my buttocks - your wonderful turn of phrase only confirms my growing suspicion (fed by your apparent fascination with gay sex) that you are trapped in the closet and want to get out.
toodle pip!
Reply
Recommend Message 230 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 5:43 a.m.
-a socialists bit is not of interest to me but, for sport, I would do it proper so she has her doubts confirmed as there being more than she has, a satisfying contest, winner take both. all`s fair indeed, a sure cocksman would enjoy the cut & thrust, literally
-wear your murderous socialism on your sleeve with the blood of 100 million ghosts
-I don`t care too much about poofs, just dislike their militant, pink Left agenda
toodle 2u2 pipsqueek
Reply
Recommend Message 231 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 5:44 a.m.
I hope you find more willing buttocks for your horn. lightweight!
Reply
Recommend Message 232 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 5:45 a.m.
PS pass my regards on to your Mrs, tell her I'll be round Friday like normal
Reply
0 recommendations Message 233 of 252 in Discussion
Sent: 14/06/2002 5:46 a.m.
This message has been deleted by the author.
Reply
Recommend Message 234 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 5:49 a.m.
I`ll send my Rottweiler for yours, shorty
Reply
Recommend Message 235 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 5:50 a.m.
A Rottweiler eh? how butch!
Reply
Recommend Message 236 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 5:55 a.m.
you started this.........
she didn`t complain last time, "size is so important", she whimpered
Reply
Recommend Message 237 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 5:57 a.m.
so if you send a dog to shag my mrs does it follow that your mrs is a dog?
Reply
Recommend Message 238 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 14/06/2002 5:59 a.m.
If you're not even going to make a pretence of reasonable argument I can only wonder why you chose to put your name to a thread about 'mental illness" aldous.
DocC's reply.(*sigh* )
No. I wasn't being gratuitously insulting. You have a snappy 'original message' and it plays on the notion that the 'loony' begins to believe in his preposterous ideas when he finds people to share them. You appear to contradict that. In your very personal version of the thesis that 'leftists' and 'nasty people' are equivalent, you put Hitler and Mussolini, for example, though model fascists, through a process of tortured logic and scatterbrained fact-selection to re-label them as 'leftists'. Where is the support group for that?
Well, maybe whatever method there is in your vision of things is shared by others, in the American far-right perhaps. It was pretty cheeky to start a thread about 'nutters', anyway.
Reply
Recommend Message 239 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 14/06/2002 6:00 a.m.
Doc Cruel is nearest to you but he even says he's OK with democratic socialism.
"Taxes" is democratic socialism. What I object to is the totalism of socialist systems, ie the total abolition of property rights (except for agents of the state), the forced leavening of wealth, and the sort of fascism such a policy naturally leads to. But if some town government decides to own all their property in common, and enough of the residents are fine with this, who am I to interfere?And if they manage to proper, I might decide to move there.
Reply
Recommend Message 240 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 6:01 a.m.
swim into the light boy, swim into the light!
Reply
Recommend Message 241 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 14/06/2002 6:03 a.m.
In your very personal version of the thesis that 'leftists' and 'nasty people' are equivalent, you put Hitler and Mussolini, for example, though model fascists, through a process of tortured logic and scatterbrained fact-selection to re-label them as 'leftists'. Where is the support group for that?
Anyone who knows the period. Even Orwell made allusions to it. Read up on "totalitarianism".
Again, I repeat - "Leftists" and "nasty people" are not equivalent. Leftists are perpetrators of very specific crimes. Genghis Khan, for example, while acting in many ways similar to a Leftist, was not a Leftist.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Jan 12, 2009 2:06:35 GMT
Reply
Recommend Message 242 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 14/06/2002 6:05 a.m.
...so if you send a dog to shag my mrs does it follow that your mrs is a dog?
No. But that would be where the smart money is.
Reply
Recommend Message 243 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 6:07 a.m.
a veritable french poodle, a cuddly, cavorting & unconditionally loving servant of joy, a plush, pedigreed pleasure pooch for preposterous puppy plunging. Pluperfect, in fact.
Reply
Recommend Message 244 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 6:29 a.m.
oh go on then doc, run with the communist dogs then turncoat, you struck me as a switch hitter all along, i`m crestfallen...........maybe you could think up your own cause `coz you sure aint decided out of these two so may as well sup with the wicked LOL
septacemia
mine is
a puckering playground of pliable perfection, a plunder prone princess of priceless purity, a pubescent privelege
yours is
a miserable mess of melancholy madness, a strumpet of scornful senescence
ROLFMAO
another Dom anyone, cin cin
Reply
Recommend Message 245 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 6:35 a.m.
mine is
a puckering playground of pliable perfection, a plunder prone princess of priceless purity, a pubescent privelege
I know this already
Reply
Recommend Message 246 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 6:37 a.m.
ROLFMAO
errr..... you'r supposed to laugh at other people's jokes, otherwise you look a bit like a nutter
Reply
Recommend Message 247 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 14/06/2002 6:42 a.m.
oh go on then doc, run with the communist dogs then turncoat, you struck me as a switch hitter all along, i`m crestfallen...........maybe you could think up your own cause `coz you sure aint decided out of these two so may as well sup with the wicked LOL
"Enlightened self interest" carries me into some strange places, I must admit. Although I've never got to the point of making a go at "switch hitting".
All I know is that I'd like to decide, not some self-appointed genius with his hands in my pocket. Whether he's a poof or not, LOL.
Reply
Recommend Message 248 of 252 in Discussion
From: grajac Sent: 14/06/2002 6:43 a.m.
yours is
a miserable mess of melancholy madness, a strumpet of scornful senescence
ROLFMAO
another Dom anyone, cin cin
get off that floor & get a blunt razor or go home to it
Reply
Recommend Message 249 of 252 in Discussion
From: Unioncitybluez Sent: 14/06/2002 6:46 a.m.
I think grajac fancies a bit of "switch hitting" himself. he's already said he's been trying to repeatedly stick his horn in my buttocks.
Reply
Recommend Message 250 of 252 in Discussion
From: DocCruel Sent: 14/06/2002 6:49 a.m.
Hey now, you two. Get a room if you're going to play. At least take it to the bathhouse.
Reply
Recommend Message 251 of 252 in Discussion
From: aldous Sent: 14/06/2002 7:31 a.m.
"The Left is defined by: professed affinity for Marxist theory, especially Marxism as redefined by Lenin. The intent to establish nepotistic kleptocracies as the governments of nations, based on a quasi-religious devotion to Marxism and employing the social mechanisms of autocratic secular feudalism. A support for revolution, terrorism, and insurgency warfare, to force said arrangement over reluctant peoples when their political machinations fail. DocC"
Hitler and Mussolini were not 'leftists' by your definition DoC. I think we can go on calling them fascists,something distinctly different . Of course, this is not to say there are no points of comparison between Stalin and Hitler or their ideologies.
We could say that Hitler and George Bush have similarities. Military force is a main instrument of policy. They both worship a mystic 'volk' or 'American people' in Bush's case. Hitler had a scapegoat to cement his power and promote national unity. In Bush's case ' (bad) Muslims. Despite similarities there are far more important differences. I still believe my theory that your 'leftists' are just 'the black hat guys' and it's the usual attempt to dehumanize the 'enemy' (as seen by the paranoid) in order to justify hatred and killing.
Reply
Recommend Message 252 of 252 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 14/06/2002 6:58 p.m.
oh go on then doc, run with the communist dogs then turncoat, you struck me as a switch hitter all along, i`m crestfallen...........
I always find it so sad when people fall out ... I thought it was true love for a moment there ...
|
|
