International Politics Thread

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Lying? Mariel Boatlift was a mass movement of Cubans who departed from Cuba's Mariel Harbor for the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980. I typed in 1990 because I was using numbers above alphabets and pressed one 9 instead of 8. But the simple truth that there were more Cubans leaving Cuba to get to US then Americans trying to Cuba still stands.

While compared to population of Cuba of 11 miliion(2007), 125,000 is 1%. 1% of population trying to leave their country is not insignificant. On the contrary, the number of Americans in Cuba is far less, especially compared to population of US which is about 300 million.

They were all offered to get off the island. Many of them were criminals. 1% of a population is quite normal seen to the rest of the world.

1% of population moving in one moment is NOT normal. If this was 1% of US population moving to Cuba at once, you'd be hailing at this as the proof that Cuban system atrracted people. Heck a few hundred American was representation of Cuba's system.

Quote[/b] ]

1. No I didn't. I talked about GDP/Capita because you wanted to use GDP.

No You started to use it before I did to show that Cuba was better. Are you lying upfront now?

Quote[/b] ]2. GDP/Capita gives a better measurement because total production/people. You can have a total production of 1 billion of something but have more than a billion inhabitants. Those are 1000 times poorer than those in a country that has 1000k production and 1000 inhabitants.

In other words, the number of population can skew the GDP/capita, which runs against your argument that it is a better measurement. On top of that now you are changing our story and say that there are other factors. Which is the argument?

Quote[/b] ]4. No, that's a false conclusion. GDP is directly dependent on population just as I said. Remember the formula? More population gives a higher GDP, partly because of increased consumption. But there are other factors. It does not mean that a country with a higher population has higher GDP than some country with less population. Smaller countries generally have lower GDPs. But then you have to compare developed countries to developed ones, and undeveloped to undeveloped ones.

You are starting to say that GDP/capita is better measurement but yet in #2, even in your example GDP/capita is dependent on population too. So GDP/capita is no better than nominal GDP. And of course there are "other" factors which you cant count on, and did not want to talk about nitially when you brought your Cuba is great argument using GDP/capita.

Quote[/b] ]Not entirely true. All products that are in part american, patents, materials etc, they are many, can't be traded to Cuba without reprisals for that company/country. Once you've anchored in a cuban harbor you're not allowed to anchor in an american harbor for many months. Just a few examples.

and just what reprisals happened? Do you honetly think that many companies would do business with Cuba if embargo was effective? Cuba trades with other nations, and there is no restriction that works.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, more population gives a higher GDP. But as I stated in the last few posts there are other factors that increase GDP.

None of which you can provide because if you do, it breaks your argument that GDP/capita being the better measurement

Quote[/b] ]Cuba was a US colony after the indepencence from Spain. A puppet nation in other words. The Cuban revolution changed this.

Yes, changed for worse.

Quote[/b] ]South Korea, then a facist dictatorship, recieved massive support from west. US shipped factories there. Strikers and protesters were shot. If you don't have to pay your workers (the reason why it was profitable to move some production South Korea), you can have cheap goods and a lot of investments.

Ignorant of history that you have no idea of. While there were questionable treatment of workers, it was small at best. US did not ship factories there, but Koreans actually opened up to foreign investments.

On top of that you advocated dictatorship since it can work for people better than democracy. Now that Korea is accused of fascist, maybe they fit your argument better, right?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There might be some aspects that US would be lagginf behind, but overall picture suggests that US is still better off than Cuba. If you try to argue that just because Cuba is better than US becuase of a few things, here is some list of things that US excells compared to Cuba.

-internet/computer

-economy

-healthcare options/treatment/development

-science

-arts

-food safety

-automobiles

-planes

-military

and there are more that I can go on.

Those points doesn't make a country better. Cuba is better because it isn't ruled by a bunch of capitalists. Cuba is ruled by the people, the working class. That shows in Cubas accomplishments.

You gave a small handful of areas that Cuba is better and claimed that those make Cuba better than US. I showed you other areas where US accelerates, now you are trying to divert from your original argument. Yeah, working class rules so Castro was a dictator for last few decades, and there are only one political party.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]While US still lacks universal health care most people still have access to hospitals, and in case of ER, it is still required that patients be treated. The price for service may be too high, but it is not as bad as you'd think. This is someone who has been to an ER, and seen doctors a few times since then. And believe it or not, I paid every bills that came along.

In Cuba all have health care. One of the best in the Americas. In the US people a lot of people die because they can't pay. Have you seen "Sicko"?

Have you seen reality? The life expectancy is 77.6 in Cuba, while as US is 77.8, making it virtually the same. You claim that people die here in US as result of lack of insurance. Too bad they live just as long as Cuba with its better climate.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, you have to pay for education. You don't in Cuba. That's a big difference. Knowledge goes first. Not money.

And we get our money reimbursed, which makes it practically free. Knowledge goes first in US, not in Cuba.(remember, US has more work done and recognized)

Quote[/b] ]That's your opinion. It's likely that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA. There are dissidents in Cuba and they walk freely on the streets.  Sometimes they have rallies. Everything in a peaceful way. Protestors have never been shot in Cuba. In the US you can get shot if you protest. Here the national guard shoots students:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Let's see he went to Cuba. Maybe Castro did it? Oswald was a loner and outcast from EVERY part of society. Look at how he was treated in USSR.

Dissident here in US don't get shot, but in Cuba they disappear. Or executed without telling the family.

Quote[/b] ]Taiwan and South Korea were located strategically. US support for those countries was essential. Or do you think all those electronics/computers were designed in those countries? They had cheap labour because they were right-wing capitalist dictatorships.

They were cheap and educated because they were learning a lot of things instead of fooling around. The education zeal of those two nations are really extraordinary. The result was that they figured out a way or two to make things more efficient. And did I mention that the education system there was not free?

Quote[/b] ]The workers are held at bay. The south korean people revolted and wanted to join north, so north invaded. 600 000 left-wing southern civilians were removed by US and South Korean troops. After that there have been a lot of uprisings in South Korea. Strikes are still very common.

False. South Korea just elected first conservative president since 1992. Between 1992 and 2008 the presidents were those who did not go along with those in power. However they did not like communism to begin with. The Korean war happened as a result of North Korea's greed. There were very little protest in Korea back then, and as billybob said, North Korea tried to make an excuse that South was attacking them. The whole liberation angle did not come into play after the Korean war because before Korea war, there were little if any US troops(1949)

Quote[/b] ]It's a common measure of the standards of a health care system. That's why it's imporant. Infant mortality was a lot different in the pre-Castro years.  If not the US rates have dropped or not improved and I think they have.

Read the criticism of infant mortality rate again. In US every birth is counted but in other nations it may not until about a week. Infant mortality rate maybe high due to different accounting methods, but standards seems to be better in US because there are a lot more efficient system in US.

Quote[/b] ]Central Planning is highly democratic as it takes the needs of all voters into account. Not the ones who can afford something. Most Russians want the USSR and central planning back. Free market capitalism was a catastrophe for Russia.

Democratic means individuals make decisions, not some central government. Small business are the ones who make decisions and small business performance are one of measures of economy. Most Russians DO NOT want the USSR days. USSR failed because of centralized system. Free market came after that and now its good to go.

Quote[/b] ]So why did I give you a link to a cuban newspaper where the GDP is mentioned?

The news paper DID NOT have exact GDP number, but only how many percent int increased. There is a big difference.

Quote[/b] ]You don't have to be a member of the party to get elected and vote. All people (above 18 and 16) can. Communism is democracy. Socialism is a sort of democracy. The working class rules, the ex-proletariat is the majority and they get to vote.

They get to vote on cadidate from Communist party only. What if you want someone who is not in the party? No way he will get vote. That is NOT democracy.

Quote[/b] ]You didn't even read my post. I was well aware of the link being broken, so I gave you another link to the publication right below. So much for your "effort". Now continue bragging about it.

And I saw both which contained little or no substance. Quit being a copy-n-paste and actually read your own source.

Quote[/b] ]There is no difference. The numbers are computed in the same way. UN has to rely on official US and Cuban statistics.

Except US figures can be verified by other sources and Cuban's figures, not.

Quote[/b] ]No, you don't have oil if you don't have any. Doesn't matter what system you have. That's what I wrote.

Now changing words again? You clearly meant that unless oil is involved, no system works.

Quote[/b] ]South American countries have a lot of oil. Haiti doesn't (have any to speak of). It won't get any oil no matter their system. But they can make the best of their situation like Cuba. They don't. In Cuba the people owns all means of production. That's economic democracy. The whole people decides, not some capitalists.

People don't own means of production. Government oes. Remember? You are the one who said that. You also said that Central planning is the key, which I showed you that it was not a democracy.

Quote[/b] ]USD could be used around 1994. Not any longer. Cuba has two different pesos. You're wrong again.

So in other words, there system sucks so much that they have to use two different measurements if what you say is true. But you are clearly wrong and dollars are welcome in Cuba.

Quote[/b] ]No you don't know what capitalism means. Make money to have "profit" is what business (trade) is all about. The difference is that the people is the owner and not some capitalists. Capitalism lies in the ownership of the means of production.

Marx would have disagreed with you. Marx said profit is what defines capitalism. Since Cuba is making profit it is a capitalist. And means of production is owned by government not people.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah it is I who talk garbage that I "have no idea of".

In order to have a chance in US elections you have to have a lot of money for your campaigns. That money mainly comes from huge companies, capitalists. Sure, I can start a party and be a presidential candidate. But what can I do if I can't reach out and make myself heard? Freedom of speech means that the voiceless are free to talk, in their bathrooms. If you are against the capitalist system, you won't have any money. The presidential candidates only differ in details. They are all backed by the interests of the wealthy. The one who has the most money in his campaigns has always won the elections.

The national election needs more money, and that doesn't mean same thing as buying votes. If anything, anyone can jump in. Ralph Nader just decided to run. How is that possible? Because democracy works unlike on-party system that Cuba has.

Quote[/b] ]Cuba sends doctors to Africa among other things. The difference is that Cuba doesn't take anything back from Africa. The US gives say, 10 billions, and takes 100 billions through exploitation of people and natural resources. That US help means nothing, it's only there to look good.

And the proof is? When things got bad in Africa they always want US to intervene, not Cuba. That says a lot about it. USSR explited too, and look at how other nations around it are now finally getting over that exploitation. US tries to step away from Africa but likes of you criticize it, and when US steps in get criticized again. Get a grip.

Quote[/b] ]I'm a member of the proletariat because I don't have ownership of any means of production. I don't earn money on the work of other people.

In other words, since people in Cuba own means of production(according to you), they ARE NOT PROLETARIAT! LOL!

Quote[/b] ]There were a lot of revolts in south korea at that time. One of them made North Korea intervene. From that point and on South Korea massacred almost 3% (if not more) of their population at that time.

Nope North did. They had open executions and when Korean War started North Koreans actually moved to South. There were very little workers who wanted 'liberation' by the North. When the war broke out they all left to avoid North Koreans killing anyone.

Quote[/b] ]You are ignorant. Communism has never existed. The USSR was socialist, just as the name tells.

[USSRsniper 0]

So, why do a huge majority of Russians and people in other ex-soviet republics regret the collapse of the USSR? What communism? There has never been any communism there.

Are you serious? There was no communism? Learn something new everyday  

RalphWiggum

How cuban revolution made cuba worse? Before it was open, people making money in casino, while working class was very poor.. revolutions don't start without anything. Or you think everyone loved Batista in Cuba?  

And about free market, US has free market, and why economy is failing? Free market, take away jobs from US and give them to China and India?  

[baddo 0]

I think when the USA economy is "failing" it can still be doing very well. When they have a decline in growth of their economy, news start to hit the streets "US economy is starting to fail" but actually, the growth can still be much better than in many other countries. It can still be growth and the news start to tell us how depression might be coming in the USA.

That's how I have perceived it. Other countries which have no significant growth of their economies in the first place, can have more stable economies but they can't compete with the USA even when USA is undergoing an economy slump.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]No mate, that's what you are talking about.

You are attempting to assert your views of a political system using semantics.

Only your language skills are letting you down.

My language skills? You have no idea what you're talking about. I probably speak five times more languages than you.

Quote[/b] ]Russia was a communist state.

This is an indisputable fact.

To say that Russia isn't a communist state is quite simply incorrect. Russia was the mother of all communist states.

Russia not only was a communist state, it was the first communist state. The originator of the political system of government.

Choosing to dispute this historical fact, you have chosen semantics as your arguing point.

The only problem with this is, the phrase "communist state" only exists because people wanted a phrase to describe the Russian system of government.

The phrase "communist state" is defined by what the Russian system of government was.

Not by what your personal ideals of what communism, is isn't and could have been.

So if Russia was a "communist state" how come the word communism means the state- and classless society? So Russia was a stateless state? If I fail at grammar you fail at logics. You evidently have no clue about what you're talking about.

The union of soviet socialist republics, USSR was a socialist state, a proletarian dictatorship.

A society has to be state- and classless in order to be communist. The goal of the USSR was to establish

communism. It wasn't communist in itself.

Quote[/b] ]Hey Spokesperson, how come if the USSR was a socialist state, that it was the Communist Party was in power?  

But hey, I applaud your logic - let's ban all socialist parties of all western democracies because their socialism will turn any country into a soviet model state of corruption!

A socialist state, is a state run by the workers. All means of production are socialized and there is no exploitation of man by man. When you talk about communism, you actually mean socialism. A country doesn't turn communist because a communist party rules it. If we take Europe, Cyprus is ruled by the communist party and a communist president, Moldova has been so for ages as well. That doesn't make the countries communist. Those countries are capitalist states. China is another example, but it's a bit more complex. Advocating capitalism in a post-feodal society can be progressive. Like the communists do in Nepal. Analyzing the USSR isn't as complex as analyzing chinese politics. The USSR was a socialist state, but built on russian conditions.

Quote[/b] ]None of those revolts made North Korea invade South Korea. Before the invasion, North Korea was conducting guerrilla operations in South Korea trying to destabilize South Korea. North Korea had to buildup its military before it could invade the South.

I'm not talking about guerilla operations (civilian initiatives), but bigger uprisings. There is a parallell in the Vietnam war here. The people of the South joined the guerilla and the north when it liberated the south from US puppet fascists and US-influence. The fact that the US was fighting an entire people made them lose the war. But it cost the vietnamese 2 million or more deaths. Seen as the US had nothing there to do, it can be seen a large scale mass murder.

Quote[/b] ]1% of population moving in one moment is NOT normal. If this was 1% of US population moving to Cuba at once, you'd be hailing at this as the proof that Cuban system atrracted people. Heck a few hundred American was representation of Cuba's system.

It's completely normal if you haven't been allowed to leave the country before. They gave a chance for everyone who wanted to leave the island to do so.

Quote[/b] ]In other words, the number of population can skew the GDP/capita, which runs against your argument that it is a better measurement. On top of that now you are changing our story and say that there are other factors. Which is the argument?

Number of population can skew the GDP/capita? GDP/capita means GDP/population. So naturally GDP/capita has to depend on the population? I think you know how to count people, GDP however is defined by this:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

As you see there are many other factors. Consumption is not only based on the amount of people you have either for instance.

Quote[/b] ]and just what reprisals happened? Do you honetly think that many companies would do business with Cuba if embargo was effective? Cuba trades with other nations, and there is no restriction that works.

A consequence of the embargo:

"International Sanctions against the Castro Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market. "

Respectable companies that sell medicine to Cuba for instance, got black listed.

It's illegal for US citizens to spend money in Cuba. It's illegal to travel to Cuba from the US. That's US law. Trade restrictions like the embargo are effective. Because people have to chose between the US or Cuba. Some companies, very few, that either are very essential to the US or are focused on trade with Cuba only, can naturally avoid the restrictions. If they aren't US based that is.

Quote[/b] ]You gave a small handful of areas that Cuba is better and claimed that those make Cuba better than US. I showed you other areas where US accelerates, now you are trying to divert from your original argument. Yeah, working class rules so Castro was a dictator for last few decades, and there are only one political party.

Castro is extremely popular in Cuba and in the rest of South America, and parts of Africa. He has won every election, which doesn't mean he is a dictator. Political parties are not voted upon. People elect individual candidates. Non-party as well as party members.

Quote[/b] ]Have you seen reality? The life expectancy is 77.6 in Cuba, while as US is 77.8, making it virtually the same. You claim that people die here in US as result of lack of insurance. Too bad they live just as long as Cuba with its better climate.

Yes, that's extraordinary. Cuban, a third world country has a life expectancy that's higher than that of the super power USA. I heard it's higher than in the US now even. One would "expect" the US to perform better. (And the rest of south america).

Quote[/b] ]Let's see he went to Cuba. Maybe Castro did it? Oswald was a loner and outcast from EVERY part of society. Look at how he was treated in USSR.

Dissident here in US don't get shot, but in Cuba they disappear. Or executed without telling the family.

You should always look at the motives. Who gained the most from it? Was it Castro? Or was it Lyndon B. Johnson, the CIA, and the military-industrial complex? Dissidents in the US get shot, as I showed you in that link. In Cuba they don't.

Quote[/b] ]False. South Korea just elected first conservative president since 1992. Between 1992 and 2008 the presidents were those who did not go along with those in power. However they did not like communism to begin with. The Korean war happened as a result of North Korea's greed. There were very little protest in Korea back then, and as billybob said, North Korea tried to make an excuse that South was attacking them. The whole liberation angle did not come into play after the Korean war because before Korea war, there were little if any US troops(1949)

So South Korea was no fascist dictatorship?

There are huge strikes very often in South Korea, many laws are still from the fascist times:

Just made a quick look on google:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1081500.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996-1997_strikes_in_South_Korea

Uprising 1980:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr80/fskorea1980b.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst....E948260

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/korea/story/kwangju/

And that's all from a liberal point of view.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/kore-n19.shtml

Riots, uprisings, strikes are all features of the korean society. Both then and now.

Quote[/b] ]Most Russians DO NOT want the USSR days.

That's what you think. You have no idea why you think that way. But it has to do with where you live.

"Two-thirds of Russians miss the Soviet

Union and are sorry it is gone"

http://www.mail-archive.com/osint@yahoogroups.com/msg02071.html

Published by UPI Dec 29 2004

Quote[/b] ]People don't own means of production. Government oes. Remember? You are the one who said that. You also said that Central planning is the key, which I showed you that it was not a democracy.

In a capitalist society the working class owns no means of production. In a socialist society the working class owns all means of production.

Quote[/b] ]And the proof is? When things got bad in Africa they always want US to intervene, not Cuba. That says a lot about it. USSR explited too, and look at how other nations around it are now finally getting over that exploitation. US tries to step away from Africa but likes of you criticize it, and when US steps in get criticized again. Get a grip.

Funny that you should mention it. Cuba actually liberated Angola and Namibia from the US and the then racist US and UK -backed south africa.

A good summary in quotes by Nelson Mandela.

Quote[/b] ]I went to Cuba in July 1991, and I drove through the streets with Fidel Castro. There were a great deal of cheers. And I also waved back believing that these cheers were for me. Fidel was very humble; he smiled but he never said a word. But when I reached the square where I had to make some remarks to the crowd, then I realized that these cheers were not meant for me, they were meant for Fidel Castro. Because everybody forgot about me, and was really aroused by Fidel Castro. Then I realized that here was a man of the masses.

Quote[/b] ]

Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro... Cuban internationalists have done so much for African independence, freedom, and justice. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of a vicious imperialist campaign designed to destroy the advances of the Cuban revolution. We too want to control our destiny... There can be no surrender. It is a case of freedom or death. The Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people.

I wonder why the US isn't mentioned?

Quote[/b] ]In other words, since people in Cuba own means of production(according to you), they ARE NOT PROLETARIAT! LOL!

That's true, the people of Cuba are no proletarians. When proletarians sieze power in a country, that country turns into a dictatorship of the proletariat. Even if the proletariat ceases to exist. Capitalism (Bourg. Dictatorship)-> Prol. Dictatorship (/Socialism) -> Socialism -> Communism

Some people see the prol dictatorship and socialism as different things. I prefer to use the word socialism for prol. dictatorship countries as well.

Quote[/b] ]Are you serious? There was no communism?  Learn something new everyday

Does it look like I'm joking? You're probably one of those ex-soviet russian kids who have no idea of what communism and the USSR was. USSR was something, Russia today is shit. Look at the countries and compare. Even your president agrees it was a big mistake to dissolve the union.

Communism has never existed and can't exist in any countries or states.

Quote[/b] ]Posted on Feb. 28 2008,13:08

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

I think when the USA economy is "failing" it can still be doing very well. When they have a decline in growth of their economy, news start to hit the streets "US economy is starting to fail" but actually, the growth can still be much better than in many other countries. It can still be growth and the news start to tell us how depression might be coming in the USA.

That's how I have perceived it. Other countries which have no significant growth of their economies in the first place, can have more stable economies but they can't compete with the USA even when USA is undergoing an economy slump.

The US doesn't have many days left. At least not if it continues that way. Things look very bad, and the downfall of the capitalist system as we know it can be here very soon.

Sure, the US has growth, like most countries before a recession, but the debts increase at the same time.

[Necromancer- 0]

The US doesn't have many days left. At least not if it continues that way. Things look very bad, and the downfall of the capitalist system as we know it can be here very soon.

It doesn't matter what political system is applied.. because humans always corrupt in the end. It doesn't take many humans to make a whole system corrupt/unworkable, even true communist political systems.

It is impossible to make a society "classless", because of individual aspects of character in human nature. It is only perfectly possible if you assimilate every human into a collective mind, just as "The Borg" in Star Trek.

Next..

If the US economy drops like a brick, the rest will of course follow. All economies will recover, because mankind can adapt to situations.

Debt will always excist, because all around the world money is spent on products, labor and energy to keep the society running.

The only problem is that the U.S. is lending too much, that unbalances the entire world economy.

[Spokesperson 0]

The primitive hunter-gatherer society was classless. A sort of primitive communism. Naturally it's possible, and it's also in the interests of all non-privileged.

There might always be corruption. But there are ways to minimize it by minimizing the centralisation of power.

Yes, everything, apart from isolated North Korea will fall like a brick in that case. And things eventually recover. But in a different order.

[billybob2002 0]

I'm not talking about guerilla operations (civilian initiatives), but bigger uprisings. There is a parallell in the Vietnam war here. The people of the South joined the guerilla and the north when it liberated the south from US puppet fascists and US-influence. The fact that the US was fighting an entire people made them lose the war. But it cost the vietnamese 2 million or more deaths. Seen as the US had nothing there to do, it can be seen a large scale mass murder.

What are you talking about? I was refuting your statement that the North Koreans invaded South Korea because of the revolts. The North Koreans didn't invade because of those revolts but due to their goal of unifying Korea under Kim Il-sung's rule. If the South Koreans had the proper war materials, South Korea would had invaded North Korea trying to unify Korea under Rhee's rule.

I'm not going to get into a Vietnam War argument with you.

[Necromancer- 0]

The primitive hunter-gatherer society was classless. A sort of primitive communism. Naturally it's possible, and it's also in the interests of all non-privileged.

Well we're not that primitive now are we?

[Commando84 0]

yeah like there is many more choices in life what to do and it can boggle your mind so it starts spinning when you think of what kind of work you want to do in the future

But hey its just me living in a european social democracy.

The system we have is here to stay but imo it would been way more cool with direct democracy like in switzerland i think where the citizens gets papers home every now and then to vote for different stuff. Haha problem might be that the politicians in my country can vote for how much money they can be paid with so i think they wanna sit on their asses and drive the country whatever direction they are wanting to drive it to.

[baddo 0]

I'm wondering.

Spokesperson, what are you trying to achieve here?

It has been said to you before, but I will say it again, no one here seems to be buying your ideas.

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? Do you think that an utopistic idea becomes realistic if you repeatedly say it, over and over again?

You try to tell people how they should live their life. Like they didn't think about it by themselves. I've faced this kind of situations many times in my life, and everytime I thought "What a jerk... he likes to do something and thinks I'm not good if I don't do it too? Why don't he go and concentrate on his own things and let me decide what I will do. I don't want to live my life his way. I saw what his idea was, I considered it, and I rejected it."

[MehMan 0]

Yes, I know how society works and you're what they call sheep.

Hahahahaha!

Good one.

Communism is a dream, if it'd ever to come true nobody would care what it'd be called, communism or anarchy or whatever, because it'd be classless and stateless, however due to human nature, or rather the greed of some people a classless and stateless "country" is nearly impossible. Man would have to get over himself to make it happen.

I listened to one of Marcos speeches, as the old indians told him, when the gods created man they made the hearts out of corn, but corn ran out, so some people were without a heart and they soon replaced that void with money and power. That is the problem, the greed for money and power. We somehow cannot get rid of our alpha male complexes. The only thing that can really solve that is evolution, and as you know, that takes a long time.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Man would have to get over himself to make it happen.

Or every living person achieved absolute utopia .......

Sooooo ..... looks like we wait for evolution

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]So what if they don't decide things at the top level? I still proved you wrong. Oh and we don't have kindergartens and they have a bigger impact than bus lines as well. Yet again you show you know nothing of the UK.

Where did you prove me wrong? It's possible I wasn't precise enough. Sure you can get elected, without having much funds, like on a local level, where your personal presence can be noticed, like knocking doors, speaking in some park, that reaches a fair amount of the voters. Or in a chess club for instance. That has no effect on society. And what I mean by saying "get elected" (if I did) was on a national level where your politics affect the principles of society. When I wrote about kindergartens, which you surely have somewhere, it was an example. Litter ordinances, schools or anything like that would work too. It has no impact on the argumentation.

Quote[/b] ]In the UK anyone can be an MP. Doesn't matter what gender you are, ethnicity etc. An individual does not need to be rich.

Middle class is more than just what you earn. The vast majority of people on the west have middle class views and a middle class lifestyle. Even if they are working class. That is partly why it is incredibly hard to define class nowadays.

There is a free will. I mean here you are talking like a scientist about biological determinations when sociologists have shown time and time again that biological determinations in our lives have a minor role (and scientists have a hard time proving otherwise). There are no real 'laws of nature'. This means that you think criminals are criminals because of thier biology. That women are more suited to the home because of their biology. Studies have shown that this is just not true and thus you are wrong. Our minds have allowed us to go beyond biological determinations. People have a free will. We have emotions. We are not computers.

Socialism? Never mentioned it. Of course there is nothing wrong with material possessions. But you don't get all of it in Cuba.

You don't have to be rich to be an MP. But the party you work for has to have huge resources in order to win. If a party is against capitalism it has no chance to win, because the whole system will do everything to stop it. The exploitation and earning by owning-system will be threatened and capitalists will do everything to maintain it and block change. That party won't have as much money to play around with as the pro-capitalism parties, because it won't be funded by the rich. Small anti-capitalist parties have no ability to reach out to the masses. Without reaching out you have no chance to get any votes. Furthermore, everything you know about communism and socialism is what you've heard from enemies of those systems, in the press or in movies for instance, so you can help them maintain their standard of living by arguing against socialists.

Class is very easy to define. There are two of them, mainly. Owners and those who work for them. Employers and employees. It's all about power. Middle class on the other hand is no own class but a measurement of the standard of living, which is hard to define.

Modern science has shown that there is no free will. I think it's common sense. Our actions are based on everything that's happened before, chemically. If you throw a dice the same way twice it will show the same result. Same with people. That doesn't mean we are computers. We are much more complex. Input is enormous. But, the same input will give the same output, as with computers.

Criminals are not criminals because of their biology, same with housewifes. It's all about society.

You said you need millions to participate in the democratic process. I proved you wrong by my example. I'll prove you wrong again. Just look at Gordon Brown, a working class lad from Govan, now PM.

Yes the party has to have money. But you were arguing that the individual needed to have millions. I have shown you otherwise.

Communist and socialist parties have little chance of winning in the west because people do not want such a system. The system does nothing to stop it. This is why a lot of the parties have similar policies. Centre right policies are the most popular among voters in Britain. Thus a socialist party has no chance. That is why parties have similar ideas. They are all chasing after the same vote. Once left wing policies are popular in Britain then most political parties will reflect this.

I have learned nothing of socialism or communism from popular culture. Back in school I had a down to earth politics teacher. He had working class views. He would teach us the strengths and weaknesses of all the ideologies. All kids in Scotland learned this. Stop assuming things Spokesperson. It doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Furthermore I did have an interest in socialism but your radical, stupid and nonsensical ramblings have pushed me away from it forever.

Class is easy to define in Marxist theory. The reality is more complex.

There is a free will. Biological determinations do not have a great impact. Of course our actions are based on previous events but what that hollow head of yours forgets is that people can make a conscious decision on what to do. Dice are not the same as people. We have minds. We can do things differently than dice. They are inanimate objects. We have emotions. We can think for ourselves. We can make informed decisions. We can create society. We can create culture. Which brings me on to another point. If people are driven biologically as you claim (but have provided no evidence) then why do people in different societies react differently to the same things?

It's not all about society (although a lot of it is). We can make our own choices. But societies effect on us is more than biology. You can't argue half and half as that makes no fcuking sense.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]What are you talking about? I was refuting your statement that the North Koreans invaded South Korea because of the revolts. The North Koreans didn't invade because of those revolts but due to their goal of unifying Korea under Kim Il-sung's rule. If the South Koreans had the proper war materials, South Korea would had invaded North Korea trying to unify Korea under Rhee's rule.

The revolts weren't the main reason, just a trigger. Agree with the rest.

Quote[/b] ]I'm wondering.

Spokesperson, what are you trying to achieve here?

It has been said to you before, but I will say it again, no one here seems to be buying your ideas.

Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again? Do you think that an utopistic idea becomes realistic if you repeatedly say it, over and over again?

You try to tell people how they should live their life. Like they didn't think about it by themselves. I've faced this kind of situations many times in my life, and everytime I thought "What a jerk... he likes to do something and thinks I'm not good if I don't do it too? Why don't he go and concentrate on his own things and let me decide what I will do. I don't want to live my life his way. I saw what his idea was, I considered it, and I rejected it."

I'm discussing politics with you. That's all. Hopefully most of you'll understand that you're too politically uneducated to contribute anything. The best thing I can do is to make you realize that.

Quote[/b] ]Communism is a dream, if it'd ever to come true nobody would care what it'd be called, communism or anarchy or whatever, because it'd be classless and stateless, however due to human nature, or rather the greed of some people a classless and stateless "country" is nearly impossible. Man would have to get over himself to make it happen.

I listened to one of Marcos speeches, as the old indians told him, when the gods created man they made the hearts out of corn, but corn ran out, so some people were without a heart and they soon replaced that void with money and power. That is the problem, the greed for money and power. We somehow cannot get rid of our alpha male complexes. The only thing that can really solve that is evolution, and as you know, that takes a long time.

Anarchy and anarchism are two different things. A state and classless society is in the interests of the majority. Communism works along the lines of human nature. Alienation isn't. However, like religion, the values of generations are usually the same as their parents or the same as the ones in society (which is ruled by a few). What communism needs is a different mentality, like capitalism has abolished the old slavery mentality (but introduced a new wage-slavery mentality). Slavery has nothing to do with human nature, even though it has existed for thousands of years. We can live without it. In the same way we can live without capitalism.

Classlessness doesn't imply that there are no hierarchies. Parents will still be parents for instance. That's human nature. Classes were made by man, artificially, and can be abolished by man. That's in the interests of the oppressed classes. That's what history has shown. Just look at the slave revolts by people like Spartacus, peasant riots like the hussite revolt, bourgeois revolutions like the french revolution, workers revolutions like the russian revolution and so on. They all were linked to important changes of society. Because the ruling classes changed, at least for a short while. And in every age there were people who just like you said this is the way things will be all the time. But history hasn't ended yet because history is a story of class war. And while there still are classes there will be changes to society. In a historic perspective the struggle for a new society has just begun.

Thousand years ago "democracy" as we know it was as impossible to think of as communism is to most of us today.

Quote[/b] ]You said  you need millions to participate in the democratic process.  I proved you wrong by my example. I'll prove you wrong again. Just look at Gordon Brown, a working class lad from Govan, now PM.

Well, ok if I said so, which is possible, it's wrong. You can make a club and invite some people to vote for you as their chairman. You don't need any millions for that and still be part of the democratic process.

But I thought we were discussing politics in general. City councils are irrelevant in that case. I'm talking about politics on a national level. Where you have the ability to change the entire economy. City councils are generally unimportant in the big perspective, because they have to obey the laws of the parliament. The parliament can make new ones.

Your Gordon Brown example doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Gordon Brown could never have been a PM if he didn't have support by the labour party. And the labour party could never have funded its campaign had it been a threat to the system. If you're playing the game and fighting big economic interests peacefully while following their rules you'll end up nowhere. If you pose a real threat to the system, you'll find yourself dead in a prison. There are no real threats to power in the west yet. But if you go to most other countries that's how things work. Violence is the final option in class war.

Quote[/b] ]

Communist and socialist parties have little chance of winning in the west because people do not want such a system. The system does nothing to stop it. This is why a lot of the parties have similar policies. Centre right policies are the most popular among voters in Britain. Thus a socialist party has no chance. That is why parties have similar ideas. They are all chasing after the same vote. Once left wing policies are popular in Britain then most political parties will reflect this.

It's true people don't want such a system. But then they haven't heard about it or don't know anything about it, or even worse think they know something about it when they don't. Votes don't reflect the opinion pretty well, because all parties are practically the same. If people are disgruntled with one party they'll vote for another party, but only get a change of details, like tax amount and similar. Advertising and trends (as in clothes, ie what's acceptable or politically correct) control how politically uneducated and unclass-conscious people vote.

Quote[/b] ]

I have learned nothing of socialism or communism from popular culture. Back in school I had a down to earth politics teacher. He had working class views. He would teach us the strengths and weaknesses of all the ideologies. All kids in Scotland learned this. Stop assuming things Spokesperson. It doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Furthermore I did have an interest in socialism but your radical, stupid and nonsensical ramblings have pushed me away from it forever.

Generally schools and teachers reflect the views of the ruling class. The ideas and opinions that are acceptable for that moment. Nothing says teachers have knowledge of what socialism and communism really is. How many of them have read Marx? How many repeat the lies of the newspapers?

Quote[/b] ]

Class is easy to define in Marxist theory. The reality is more complex.

No class is very easy to define. It's extremely simple thanks to the definition.

Quote[/b] ]

There is a free will. Biological determinations do not have a great impact. Of course our actions are based on previous events but what that hollow head of yours forgets is that people can make a conscious decision on what to do. Dice are not the same as people. We have minds. We can do things differently than dice. They are inanimate objects. We have emotions. We can think for ourselves. We can make informed decisions. We can create society. We can create culture. Which brings me on to another point. If people are driven biologically as you claim (but have provided no evidence) then why do people in different societies react differently to the same things?

If you believe in free will you have to believe in the existence of a soul. Which is very unscientific. We are 100% biological creatures. We are 100% molecules. There exists no such thing as a soul. And all laws of chemistry, physics are the same inside of us as they are outside. All decisions, emotions and similar are based on chemical reactions.

Different societies account for different inputs and therefore allow different outputs. It's like throwing a dice but with another different hand. The dice is still the same.

Quote[/b] ]

It's not all about society (although a lot of it is). We can make our own choices. But societies effect on us is more than biology. You can't argue half and half as that makes no fcuking sense.

The society affects our biology. Everything we see cause chemical reactions. The eyes interpret photons as something sensible, thanks to our biology that follow the laws of nature. If you see a bomb you'll act different as to when you see a flower. Different input, different ouput. If society favours bombs, ie if it's generally accepted they take you to heaven (together with god, democracy describe the same phenomenon - Bertramd Russell's teapot theory), you might do something else with it.

[MehMan 0]

Anarchy and anarchism are two different things. A state and classless society is in the interests of the majority. Communism works along the lines of human nature. Alienation isn't. However, like religion, the values of generations are usually the same as their parents or the same as the ones in society (which is ruled by a few). What communism needs is a different mentality, like capitalism has abolished the old slavery mentality (but introduced a new wage-slavery mentality). Slavery has nothing to do with human nature, even though it has existed for thousands of years. We can live without it. In the same way we can live without capitalism.

Classlessness doesn't imply that there are no hierarchies. Parents will still be parents for instance. That's human nature. Classes were made by man, artificially, and can be abolished by man. That's in the interests of the oppressed classes. That's what history has shown. Just look at the slave revolts by people like Spartacus, peasant riots like the hussite revolt, bourgeois revolutions like the french revolution, workers revolutions like the russian revolution and so on. They all were linked to important changes of society. Because the ruling classes changed, at least for a short while. And in every age there were people who just like you said this is the way things will be all the time. But history hasn't ended yet because history is a story of class war. And while there still are classes there will be changes to society. In a historic perspective the struggle for a new society has just begun.

Thousand years ago "democracy" as we know it was as impossible to think of as communism is to most of us today.

Yes, I know that they are two different things, but communism and anarchy are partially the same, a stateless and classless society. I just put it there as an example. If we would ever reach that, names would not be important.

Well I never implied that all classes and hierarchies would be abolished, as you said parent-child is completely natural and essential. And yes, classes were created by man, and they originate from mans wishes to be superior, being the alpha male. The problem is that we just can't get over our itching to be the alpha male. And thus we have to wait for evolution. While some might argue that this is natural, I believe we can get over it.

I'm not saying that things will be like this forever, but I doubt things will change in the course of our lifetimes, or our childrens lifetime or grandchildren, it will take time, a lot of time.

[USSRsniper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you serious? There was no communism?  Learn something new everyday

Does it look like I'm joking? You're probably one of those ex-soviet russian kids who have no idea of what communism and the USSR was. USSR was something, Russia today is shit. Look at the countries and compare. Even your president agrees it was a big mistake to dissolve the union.

And you are one of those kids, who wears Che Guevara shirt, and know nothing about him,  let alone knowing something about USSR And how you know what russians want, you are not even russian yourself. Articles on internet is not a good source, any teacher, and professor will tell you that.

So before you make any assumptions about anything, think twice. I probably know more about USSR then you do.

And i will say it short, no political system is perfect, there are positive things in socialism/communism as well as negative. Same goes about capitalism, not everything is perfect. So comparing which system is better is waste of time. Its jsut impossible to make all people happy, thats why communism, and socialism was left as dream that never came true. What if i don't want to share property? Thats why during russian revolution alot of people got killed by bolsheviks, either its people who didn't want change, or people that want something different.

And Spokesperson, about classless society  hunter-gatherer societies. Wrong it doesn't exist. Gatherer and Hunter is already two different classes.    Classless society can't exist. No matter how you put it, people always try to make society with classes. Since stone age, people had classes already..... because class is not all about wealth, or your status. Its also what you do for living, and your beliefs.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying that things will be like this forever, but I doubt things will change in the course of our lifetimes, or our childrens lifetime or grandchildren, it will take time, a lot of time.

Who would accept a new king in a class-less society? That "alpha male" wouldn't be able to stand up against all others.

Yes, communism won't happen in the course of our lifetimes. But socialism can. And that's one step in the right direction.

Quote[/b] ]And you are one of those kids, who wears Che Guevara shirt, and know nothing about him,  let alone knowing something about USSR  And how you know what russians want, you are not even russian yourself. Articles on internet is not a good source, any teacher, and professor will tell you that.

So before you make any assumptions about anything, think twice. I probably know more about USSR then you do.

And i will say it short, no political system is perfect, there are positive things in socialism/communism as well as negative. Same goes about capitalism, not everything is perfect. So comparing which system is better is waste of time. Its jsut impossible to make all people happy, thats why communism, and socialism was left as dream that never came true. What if i don't want to share property? Thats why during russian revolution alot of people got killed by bolsheviks, either its people who didn't want change, or people that want something different.

And Spokesperson, about classless society  hunter-gatherer societies. Wrong it doesn't exist. Gatherer and Hunter is already two different classes.    Classless society can't exist. No matter how you put it, people always try to make society with classes. Since stone age, people had classes already..... because class is not all about wealth, or your status. Its also what you do for living, and your beliefs.

I've been to Russia and I've been to the USSR. You can clearly see the difference. Mass-unemployment, alcoholism, homelessness, extreme poverty, corruption, decline, religious and racist extremism, extreme social unjustice, private security forces. Russia is a reactionary shit country, much worse than the USA.

How I know what Russians want?

Most russians miss the soviet union:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTra....878

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....reforms

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....yeltsin

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....ourably

http://www.angus-reid.com/analysi....stroika

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....c_event

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rezhnev

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....rbachev  

That's how I know. But you and other Russian middle-class people who can afford to sit on these boards naturally think otherwise.

Quote[/b] ]What if i don't want to share property? Thats why during russian revolution alot of people got killed by bolsheviks, either its people who didn't want change, or people that want something different.

Who cares if you don't want to share your property (we're talking about factories, and other means of production here, not your toothbrush or computer). The people will seize it anyway. In a democracy the means of production have to be controlled by the people. And naturally people who didn't want to share, joined the whites in the civil war who wanted to stop progress with violence, which is natural, revolution is  a final stage of a class war.

Quote[/b] ]And Spokesperson, about classless society  hunter-gatherer societies. Wrong it doesn't exist. Gatherer and Hunter is already two different classes.    Classless society can't exist. No matter how you put it, people always try to make society with classes. Since stone age, people had classes already..... because class is not all about wealth, or your status. Its also what you do for living, and your beliefs.

So if there are two classes in a gather hunter society. Who owns the means of production? Who creates surplus value? You have no clue about what classes are. Yet you open your mouth as you knew.

[MehMan 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not saying that things will be like this forever, but I doubt things will change in the course of our lifetimes, or our childrens lifetime or grandchildren, it will take time, a lot of time.

Who would accept a new king in a class-less society? That "alpha male" wouldn't be able to stand up against all others.

Yes, communism won't happen in the course of our lifetimes. But socialism can. And that's one step in the right direction.

That's the deal, there would be no alpha male.

Yeah, about socialism, we discussed it already, you can have it in that country wherever you are from, but I doubt that the majority would like it. We don't want it here, we had it, it went bad, now we're running off the new system until it goes to hell and then we're switching again. It's just like a car. There will be a lot of switching of political systems, but switching to socialism, at least the kind the USSR had would be a step backwards. I like my freedom of speech, thought and that I can say my PM or anybody is a dick. I like not having to fear my opinions.

Socialism failed because it created an oligarchy that's more oppresive to the working class than the previous system.

And if Russians want the USSR and socialism so badly, why didn't they vote for them on the elections? There's still a Communist Party in Russia, if not directly named like that, there's a party where all the former communists are present.

Also, the polls don't tell me how old were the adults questioned, from which area many of the questioned were and also what their profession is. They also don't say if it was an internet poll, a telephone poll or something else.

[Supah 0]

Who cares if you don't want to share your property (we're talking about factories, and other means of production here, not your toothbrush or computer). The people will seize it anyway. In a democracy the means of production have to be controlled by the people. And naturally people who didn't want to share, joined the whites in the civil war who wanted to stop progress with violence, which is natural, revolution is  a final stage of a class war.

Yeeees who cares when people who have more then you get robbed of their rightfull possessions right? It won't affect you, but after a while you will be the one who owns the most and you will lose your house, your computer, your car and everything because the great dictator needs more and more for "the people" i.e. his relatives and cronies. I remember this poem I once read;

When they came for the homosexuals I said nothing because I am not a homosexuals

When they came for the black I said nothing because I am not black

When they came for the jews I said nothing because I am not a jew

And when the came for me there was noone left to say anything.

You do not have the right to sieze anything, especially not when you suffer from enough moral cowardice to exclude what you own, apparently a  toothbrush and a computer. It's easy talking like you do when you have accomplished little and thus have little to have taken away. I don't mind sharing and I don't mind paying someone an honest wage for their efforts. What I do mind is theft.

[AfrographX 0]

I like my right to have property. I probably am a materialist and I'm happy that the majority of the free world think the same.

If you don't like it spokeperson go to the moon, North Korea or some other place where you can live your naive dreams of the perfect socialist society.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]

And if Russians want the USSR and socialism so badly, why didn't they vote for them on the elections? There's still a Communist Party in Russia, if not directly named like that, there's a party where all the former communists are present.

Also, the polls don't tell me how old were the adults questioned, from which area many of the questioned were and also what their profession is. They also don't say if it was an internet poll, a telephone poll or something else.

They were very close to crush the bourgeois state one year after the dissolution of the union. The citizens supported the parliament against the neoliberal policies of Yeltsin. But the liberal president sent in the army and killed up to 2000 protestors in the streets of moscow.

In the following elections the communist party got the most seats in parliament, but at that time parliament had no power (after the revolt 1993). In the presidential election the communists scored #2 after Yeltsin who in a month had his support rise from 4% to 35%. Thanks to the oligarchs, the capitalists, who saw their position threatened. They made all their TV-stations send pro-Yeltsin propaganda etc. Much like how russia works today. Yeltsin started it all. Since elections don't mean anything, they are corrupt (In Chechnya Putin scored 99.8%, people there laugh about it), and extremely unfair as both the state and private media favours one candidate only. The rest have no money to start their own tv channels or newspapers. In Russia elections mean nothing.

The polls were made by well known and professional institutes in Russia, and they all show one thing. They have no interest in distorting the information.

"Where are you going? -To the TV-station.":

"Second Russian Revolution":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EBxTMrQ

Here the liberals use artillery against the parliament:

That's the biggest uprising since the 1917 revolution. The whole foundation of modern russia was built on the victory of the bourgeoisie in that clash. Parliament lost its power.

The people forgot to get the support of the military like in the 1917 revolution.

Quote[/b] ]Yeeees who cares when people who have more then you get robbed of their rightfull possessions right? It won't affect you, but after a while you will be the one who owns the most and you will lose your house, your computer, your car and everything because the great dictator needs more and more for "the people" i.e. his relatives and cronies. I remember this poem I once read;

No I said means of production. The means of production are in socialism owned by the community, not by a few. That's economic democracy.

That poem, by martin niemoeller, is not in its original form.

Here it is:

Quote[/b] ]When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

Quote[/b] ]You do not have the right to sieze anything, especially not when you suffer from enough moral cowardice to exclude what you own, apparently a toothbrush and a computer. It's easy talking like you do when you have accomplished little and thus have little to have taken away. I don't mind sharing and I don't mind paying someone an honest wage for their efforts. What I do mind is theft.

The majority always has the right to seize anything it wants. If capitalists exploit them, they have the right to throw them out of the country and take their factories and run them themselves without the parasites. Just like in all socialist countries. I can assure you'll be able to keep your computer and tootbrush. Those are not means of production.

Quote[/b] ]I like my right to have property. I probably am a materialist and I'm happy that the majority of the free world think the same.

If you don't like it spokeperson go to the moon, North Korea or some other place where you can live your naive dreams of the perfect socialist society.

You probably don't have any property at all like most people. Do you own a business? Do you own a factory? Do you own stocks so you can live on it? Most of us here are simple proletarians. We own nothing but our ability to work. Sure if I look at myself I own a computer, many books, wireless headphones, but that's nothing. It's like my clothes.

[HotShot 0]

You probably don't have any property at all like most people. Do you own a business? Do you own a factory? Do you own stocks so you can live on it? Most of us here are simple proletarians. We own nothing but our ability to work. Sure if I look at myself I own a computer, many books, wireless headphones, but that's nothing. It's like my clothes.

Jeez! You're a greedy bastard! Not content with gadgets, you want a friggin factory before you consider yourself to own something?!

[Necromancer- 0]

No I said means of production. The means of production are in socialism owned by the community, not by a few.

So it's alright to steal land from a farmer?

So it's alright to steal my catering company? (which IS a means of production)

[Supah 0]

No I said means of production. The means of production are in socialism owned by the community, not by a few.

So it's alright to steal land from a farmer?

So it's alright to steal my catering company? (which IS a means of production)

No no ! It's not a company! It's slavery! Those poor employees of yours would be much happier unemployed according to spokesperson

[Necromancer- 0]

No no ! It's not a company! It's slavery! Those poor employees of yours would be much happier unemployed according to spokesperson

Ah yes you are completely right!!! They can live from an "uitkering" (subsidy for workless people)!

(Which is social enough in my opinion)