PDA

View Full Version : Nigga why you lie so much? Part 2


Steve Urkel
09-26-2009, 10:05 AM
eijepDosQuI

Be aware that am using nigga as a blanket term for ignorant muhfuckas of all races.

You have to give him credit though, it's like some George Costanza type of shit right there, lying through your teeth with a straight face like that.

SKANK HILL
09-26-2009, 10:15 AM
Turkey still denies the Armenian Holocaust ever happened.

:chef:

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 10:24 AM
The birth of the North American nations was conceived on the genocide of the natives; chemical warfare via smallpox, ideological warfare by forcing them into residential school systems to be assimilated into white culture (25% rape rate, 50% fatality rate).

The capitalist power structure is just as interested in perpetuating slavery, overt (invasion) or covert (economic) as it has ever been, this includes Iran. If the capitalist draws a profit by invading a sovereign nation to secure its raw minerals, labour power and territory as his own, he doesn't give a shit how many people are maimed, orphaned or widowed, it's all about the cashflow.

Forget Obama, money is the president.

Viva la revolution.

Sky Blue Danny Kid
09-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Give an example of how any other political or social system has worked better in the present or past. Socialisim for example.

And capitorlism is the basis for economic systems, but no pure capitolism actually exists.

What's your alternative? How is it going to work? Otherwise, youre just crying like a ho and not helping anything.

narc
09-26-2009, 11:48 AM
[Revolt;1697915']chemical warfare
Biological

[Revolt;1697915'] ideological warfare by forcing them into residential school systems to be assimilated into white culture
school systems..

SKANK HILL
09-26-2009, 11:52 AM
Lol hasn't Socialism been proven to only be successful with Ants because they are sterile? Don't we have Vietnam flying the flag for Socialism in 2009? Socialism produces a generation of CharlesJones' who expect shit loads of money for mopping the floor.

:chef:

Steve Urkel
09-26-2009, 12:00 PM
[Revolt;1697915']The birth of the North American nations was conceived on the genocide of the natives; chemical warfare via smallpox, ideological warfare by forcing them into residential school systems to be assimilated into white culture (25% rape rate, 50% fatality rate).

The capitalist power structure is just as interested in perpetuating slavery, overt (invasion) or covert (economic) as it has ever been, this includes Iran. If the capitalist draws a profit by invading a sovereign nation to secure its raw minerals, labour power and territory as his own, he doesn't give a shit how many people are maimed, orphaned or widowed, it's all about the cashflow.

Forget Obama, money is the president.

Viva la revolution.

I have never seen such close-minded people in my life. Can you please tell us your example of the perfect society? Fuck that even, where do you live? China? Vietnam? Cuba?

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:01 PM
Lol hasn't Socialism been proven to only be successful with Ants because they are sterile? Don't we have Vietnam flying the flag for Socialism in 2009? Socialism produces a generation of CharlesJones' who expect shit loads of money for mopping the floor.

:chef:
Cubans, who face aggressive sanctions from the US, have the highest quality of life in all of Southern America, free education, the most respected healthcare system in Latin America. This isn't even a socialist state, but a state capitalist one. Nonetheless, their very socialist leanings have brought up the quality of life of a mass number of people far more than capitalism ever could have.

A tiny pimple on the face of the world is able to provide for its people far more than the capitalist states here even pretend to care to give. The socialist revolution of Cuba was necessitated by the following conditions, and sucessfuly abolished them:

Fidel Castro, the leader of the July 26th Cuban Revolution, was able to overthrow U.S-backed Cuban dictator Batista. Formerly an anti-communist, the peculiar condition of revolutionary Cuba eventually cast itself into a socialist one at a time when under Batista:

* Americans owned 70 % of the arable land.

* 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.

* Batista's goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).

* 67 % of the population were illiterate.

* 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.

* Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.

* The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.

Naturally so, when you live in a society where the top 1% wealthiest (American statistic) own more capital than the bottom 95% and appropriate that into a socialist economy, not only is universal healthcare no longer a question, or free education, which every Marxist believes must be instated, but social liberties and a radical worker democracy that decides politics organically from the ground up rather than enforced from the top down.

Marxian socialism is the people.

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:04 PM
I have never seen such close-minded people in my life. Can you please tell us your example of the perfect society? Fuck that even, where do you live? China? Vietnam? Cuba?
Closed-minded? You're talking to somebody that two years ago was an anti-communist. Eventually, after enough reading I discovered what Marxism truly is and my liberal/labour aristocratic presuppositions were shattered.

All the states you listed are not socialist but state capitalist. Cuba's a good example of a socialist revolution which has greatly increased the standard of living however.

PS: The Black Panthers were socialists as well.

WuU7bEqKcLk

Steve Urkel
09-26-2009, 12:06 PM
[Revolt;1697996']Cubans, who face aggressive sanctions from the US, have the highest quality of life in all of Southern America, free education, the most respected healthcare system in Latin America. This isn't even a socialist state, but a state capitalist one. Nonetheless, their very socialist leanings have brought up the quality of life of a mass number of people far more than capitalism ever could have.

A tiny pimple on the face of the world is able to provide for its people far more than the capitalist states here even pretend to care to give. The socialist revolution of Cuba knocked off the 67% illiteracy rate that existed under capitalist benevolent dictator Batista (very much in the pockets of American interests).

Naturally so, when you live in a society where the top 1% wealthiest (American statistic) own more capital than the bottom 95% and appropriate that into a socialist economy, not only is universal healthcare no longer a question, or free education, which every Marxist believes must be instated, but social liberties and a radical worker democracy that decides politics organically from the ground up rather than enforced from the top down.

Marxian socialism is the people.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3357141966_4309a901d3.jpg

This is your idea of the perfect society? Extremist viewpoints is what fucks up a country, Look at America for example they are practising an extreme form of capitalism, to the point that if people wan't health care reform, you hear cries of socialism, communism. Yet countries like Canada, have been having that for decades and you can see the difference.
Between Canada and America Which country has the richest people? America Poorest? America. Canada takes care of its poor, but it doesn't hand em free lunch like what you are suggesting

narc
09-26-2009, 12:09 PM
[Revolt;1697996'] have the highest quality of life in all of Southern America

Being the best rapper on sound theory is like having the highest quality of life in southern america

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:12 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3357141966_4309a901d3.jpg

This is your idea of the perfect society? Extremist viewpoints is what fucks up a country, Look at America for example they are practising an extreme form of capitalism, to the point that if people wan't health care reform, you hear cries of socialism, communism. Yet countries like Canada, have been having that for decades and you can see the difference.
Between Canada and America Which country has the richest people? America Poorest? America. Canada takes care of its poor, but it doesn't hand em free lunch like what you are suggesting
Have you read any Marx, because from your response it's evident you have not studied any of the work you speak of, and instead are reacting. "Free lunch"

What part of this is a free lunch, please explain? The only free lunch I see is the wealthy top 1% who get a free lunch off of the mass exploitation of everybody subordinate to them.

Marxism is against the welfare state, Marxism is against "a free lunch".

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

This is Marxism. Socialist production is able to employ everybody in the world almost overnight because the production is no longer attuned to profit but rather attuned to necessity. It is through this that socialism returns its gains to the people.

October 1966 Black Panther Party
Platform and Program
What We Want
What We Believe

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

We believe that black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny.

2. We want full employment for our people.

We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the white American businessmen will not give full employment, then the means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.

3. We want an end to the robbery by the white man of our Black Community.

We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules was promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of black people. We will accept the payment as currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The Germans are now aiding the Jews in Israel for the genocide of the Jewish people. The Germans murdered six million Jews. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of over twenty million black people; therefore, we feel that this is a modest demand that we make.

4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.

We believe that if the white landlords will not give decent housing to our black community, then the housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our community, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for its people.

5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.

We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else.

6. We want all black men to be exempt from military service.

We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like black people, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by whatever means necessary.

7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people.

We believe we can end police brutality in our black community by organizing black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people should arm themselves for self defense.

8. We want freedom for all black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.

We believe that all black people should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.

9. We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that black people will receive fair trials. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the black community from which the black defendant came. We have been, and are being tried by all-white juries that have no understanding of the "average reasoning man" of the black community.

10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to supper, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Sky Blue Danny Kid
09-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Youve obviously never been to Cuba or known anybody who lived in Cuba, SocialistRevolt.

I have family that lives in Cuba, to whom my family has had to send mone frequently over the years so that they could PURCHASE MEDICINE ,and, during tougher times, eat.

Castro doesn't care about anyone but himself and has installed basically a totalitarian regime, where people starve to death while he dines on lobsters.

It is nice of you to tell people you know nothing about how great their lives are though.

Sky Blue Danny Kid
09-26-2009, 12:14 PM
Marxism in theory is great, socialistrevolt.

BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. It can't work because it is idealistic, ignorant, just as eltist, and doesn't take it to account human nature

SKANK HILL
09-26-2009, 12:14 PM
[Revolt;1697996']Cubans, who face aggressive sanctions from the US, have the highest quality of life in all of Southern America, free education, the most respected healthcare system in Latin America. This isn't even a socialist state, but a state capitalist one. Nonetheless, their very socialist leanings have brought up the quality of life of a mass number of people far more than capitalism ever could have.

Having the highest quality of life in the Southern Americas relative to being the dopest MC on Sound Theory

Nigga why you lie so much? Part 2

Cuba don't get a mention in the top 111 nations in terms of quality of life with such Southern American countries ranking high;

Chile, Mexico, Barbados, Costa Rica, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama (all in the top 50) Trinidad & Tobago, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela, Jamaica, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras (top 100) and Haiti rounding off at 110.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

[Revolt;1697996']A tiny pimple on the face of the world is able to provide for its people far more than the capitalist states here even pretend to care to give. The socialist revolution of Cuba was necessitated by the following conditions, and sucessfuly abolished them:

Fidel Castro, the leader of the July 26th Cuban Revolution, was able to overthrow U.S-backed Cuban dictator Batista. Formerly an anti-communist, the peculiar condition of revolutionary Cuba eventually cast itself into a socialist one at a time when under Batista:

* Americans owned 70 % of the arable land.

* 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.

* Batista's goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).

* 67 % of the population were illiterate.

* 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.

* Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.

* The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.

Naturally so, when you live in a society where the top 1% wealthiest (American statistic) own more capital than the bottom 95% and appropriate that into a socialist economy, not only is universal healthcare no longer a question, or free education, which every Marxist believes must be instated, but social liberties and a radical worker democracy that decides politics organically from the ground up rather than enforced from the top down.

Marxian socialism is the people.

So why do Cubans flock to the US in record numbers? Why aren't the Americans trying to sneak into Cuba instead?

:chef:

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:17 PM
Youve obviously never been to Cuba or known anybody who lived in Cuba, SocialistRevolt.

I have family that lives in Cuba, to whom my family has had to send mone frequently over the years so that they could PURCHASE MEDICINE ,and, during tougher times, eat.

Castro doesn't care about anyone but himself and has installed basically a totalitarian regime, where people starve to death while he dines on lobsters.

It is nice of you to tell people you know nothing about how great their lives are though.
As I had stated, Cuba isn't a socialist state but a state capitalist ones. These faults are attributed to that and capitalist economic sanctions placed against it, for every nation must still immerse itself in trade and until capitalism is completely abolished, it is in no way independent of it.

However what you must understand is that while they do enjoy American luxuries in comparison to the Cuban lifestyle, which is understandable, you fail to comprehend that their lives would be hell by tenfold had the revolution of the Cuban people under a proletarian banner not happened. Read the conditions again:

* Americans owned 70 % of the arable land.

* 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.

* Batista's goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).

* 67 % of the population were illiterate.

* 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.

* Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.

* The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.

By these statistics, your family would have also been left illiterate, without proper shelter, poverty-stricken because foreign interests have nearly monopolized the nations resources, and instated with a puppet dictator to work in the interests of the western capitalist.

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:23 PM
Having the highest quality of life in the Southern Americas relative to being the dopest MC on Sound Theory

Nigga why you lie so much? Part 2

Cuba don't get a mention in the top 111 nations in terms of quality of life with such Southern American countries ranking high;

Chile, Mexico, Barbados, Costa Rica, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama (all in the top 50) Trinidad & Tobago, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela, Jamaica, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras (top 100) and Haiti rounding off at 110.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf




So why do Cubans flock to the US in record numbers? Why aren't the Americans trying to sneak into Cuba instead?

:chef:


1) It depends on the statistic. Some are bourgeois statistics, others are less so. For example, the UNDP ranks Cuban quality of life at 52: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-108993046.html

Cuba scored higher than Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the Dominican Republic, to name a few.

Others, such as the Economists' do not have the country listed: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

2) As for why Cubans emmigrate to Cuba but not vice-versa: Imperialism creates a comfortable lifestyle for those at home while inflicting mass exploitation on those abroad (USA -> Haiti, USA -> Bangladesh, USA -> India, Saudi Arabia -> Pakistan, etc).

As capitalism gets too ripe for its own national borders, its monopolies seek to expand internationally. With the help of the state, the capitalist will secure whether by force or economic coercion the raw minerals, and cheap labour of a land, and one of the results is that the proletarian in the imperialist nations are able to live comfortably enough that they themselves become bourgeoisified, creating a labour aristocratic faction of the working class that in pre-imperialist society had revolted so often against their employers, to today where the working class is more willing to seek opportunist methods of "change" (or the illusion of).

Steve Urkel
09-26-2009, 12:25 PM
[Revolt;1698013']Have you read any Marx, because from your response it's evident you have not studied any of the work you speak of, and instead are reacting. "Free lunch"

What part of this is a free lunch, please explain? The only free lunch I see is the wealthy top 1% who get a free lunch off of the mass exploitation of everybody subordinate to them.

Marxism is against the welfare state, Marxism is against "a free lunch".

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

This is Marxism. Socialist production is able to employ everybody in the world almost overnight because the production is no longer attuned to profit but rather attuned to necessity. It is through this that socialism returns its gains to the people.

October 1966 Black Panther Party
Platform and Program
What We Want
What We Believe

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

We believe that black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny.

2. We want full employment for our people.

We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the white American businessmen will not give full employment, then the means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.

3. We want an end to the robbery by the white man of our Black Community.

We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules was promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of black people. We will accept the payment as currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The Germans are now aiding the Jews in Israel for the genocide of the Jewish people. The Germans murdered six million Jews. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of over twenty million black people; therefore, we feel that this is a modest demand that we make.

4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.

We believe that if the white landlords will not give decent housing to our black community, then the housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our community, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for its people.

5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.

We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world, then he has little chance to relate to anything else.

6. We want all black men to be exempt from military service.

We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like black people, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, by whatever means necessary.

7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people.

We believe we can end police brutality in our black community by organizing black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people should arm themselves for self defense.

8. We want freedom for all black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.

We believe that all black people should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.

9. We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that black people will receive fair trials. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the black community from which the black defendant came. We have been, and are being tried by all-white juries that have no understanding of the "average reasoning man" of the black community.

10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to supper, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.


And yet you ...

[Revolt;1698013']live in the grimiest hood in Canada

Am not going to read all that, any argument you throw from now on is going to be invalid because you ...

[Revolt;1698013']live in the grimiest hood in Canada

You are what my pops calls a

[Revolt;1698013']hypocrite

Peace

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/20/633680661470525891-hypocrite.jpg

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:28 PM
Congrats, you're a fascist's wet dream.

Steve Urkel
09-26-2009, 12:31 PM
[Revolt;1698013']I live in the grimiest hood in Canada

http://www.ishkur.com/posters/hypocrisy.jpg

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Your presidents have done all the work in eroding the level of freedom Americans once had, not communists.

Your views are misguided. You align yourself with a national bourgeois that doesn't give two shits about you, and adhere yourself self-defeatingly to their dominant class ideology. You need to learn to think critically before you turn on your television set.


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/veniceflyingcircus/Delphi/drag%20and%20drop/vlcsnap-177710.png
So we say, we always say in the Black Panther Party, that they can do anything they want to us. We might not be back, I might be in jail, I might be anywhere. But when I leave, you can remember I said with the last words on my lips that I am a revolutionary and you're going to have to keep on saying that. You're going to have to say that I am a proletariat. I am the people, I'm not the pig. You got to make a distinction.

The pigs raided his home and assassinated him. He stood up in the midst of gestapo forces in police state America and declared: I am a revolutionary.

Step your game up, and try and be half the man he was.

SKANK HILL
09-26-2009, 12:40 PM
[Revolt;1698030']1) It depends on the statistic. Some are bourgeois statistics, others are less so. For example, the UNDP ranks Cuban quality of life at 52: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-108993046.html

Cuba scored higher than Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the Dominican Republic, to name a few.

Others, such as the Economists' do not have the country listed: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

The article you produced was from 2003, the 200. version ranks Barbados, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay ahead of Cuba.

Nigga why you lie so much? part 2

Laos, Vietnam and China all have a medium human development. Socialism represent!

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

On a side note, Sydney is the 10th best city and Australia 4th best country. :clap:

[Revolt;1698030']2) As for why Cubans emmigrate to Cuba but not vice-versa: Imperialism creates a comfortable lifestyle for those at home while inflicting mass exploitation on those abroad (USA -> Haiti, USA -> Bangladesh, USA -> India, Saudi Arabia -> Pakistan, etc).

As capitalism gets too ripe for its own national borders, its monopolies seek to expand internationally. With the help of the state, the capitalist will secure whether by force or economic coercion the raw minerals, and cheap labour of a land, and one of the results is that the proletarian in the imperialist nations are able to live comfortably enough that they themselves become bourgeoisified, creating a labour aristocratic faction of the working class that in pre-imperialist society had revolted so often against their employers, to today where the working class is more willing to seek opportunist methods of "change" (or the illusion of).
People emigrate to better their life, plain and simple - better job, better city, better climate, safer etc...

:chef:

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 12:46 PM
I was taking you seriously until you called China socialist..

I can't justify that with a response. How it escaped you that China is the most capitalist nation on earth, and all the others are not independent of the capitalist system which subordinates them and their people, is beyond me.

You need some readings. Personally I partake in 3 hours of political education a day.

Peace god.

SKANK HILL
09-26-2009, 12:55 PM
China's prime minister promised to maintain "socialism for 100 years" yesterday as the Communist Party tried to play down media discussion of political reform.

"We must keep a firm grasp on the basic principles of the Party in the initial stage of socialism, without wavering, for 100 years," Wen Jiabao, said in an article reproduced in the People's Daily newspaper and other centrally-controlled state media.
Dampening hopes both of Chinese dissidents and of governments abroad that have called for faster political change, he said that while democracy was necessary it could only come about on the party's terms and when the socialist system was "mature". He said that in the meantime China had to focus on economic development.
The publication of what was clearly intended as a heavyweight contribution to the country's political debates was unexpected, particularly since Mr Wen is normally in charge of the day-to-day running of China rather than longer-term speculation about its future.
But the coming annual session of the Chinese parliament and expected changes to the top leadership in the autumn, at the five-yearly Communist Party Congress, have triggered speculation at home and abroad on the prospects for political change.
In contrast to the tighter rein imposed on the media in recent years, some liberal journalists, as well as academics, have been unusually open in calling for political reforms to match China's enormous economic changes.
Earlier this month, Zhou Ruijin, a retired deputy editor of the People's Daily, gave an interview to a provincial paper calling for the expansion of direct elections.
"China has been bogged down in a mess of contradictions and disputes," he said. "What I've proposed is that political reform should precede all other reforms of the government administration."
To some extent the government has encouraged this openness, by describing corruption and other forms of illegal behaviour by party officials as China's gravest social crisis and saying that they had to be made more accountable.
Billions of dollars embezzled and stolen every year by party cadres.
And there are thousands of protests every years over illegal land grabs for development and failure to protect the environment and the livelihoods of those affected.
With a growing capitalist-style class system, there is also little evidence of socialism in current economic realities.
But Mr Wen insisted that socialism was still the party's goal, and that it could reform itself from within.
"We have not built up a democratic legal system social unfairness, corruption and other problems still exist and the socialist system is not yet mature," he admitted.
But he then reiterated China's standard formulation for rejecting Western-style reform. "China must walk its own way in terms of building a democratic system," he said.
Mr Wen is seen as the most liberal in the politburo, and is its only member to regularly meet the Western press.
His promises that China would expand democracy are often quoted favourably by Western politicians who support greater engagement with Beijing, among them Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, on his last visit to Beijing in September 2005.
His words may be intended to show that even he believes any profound reform of the system will come later rather than sooner.
The idea of socialism having "initial stages" is taken from the words of the former leader Deng Xiaoping, who began China's economic reforms but still insisted on the primacy of Communist Party rule.Listen
You can dodge the fact that you were proven wrong about Cuba all you like. China are still a one party state and they prove Marxism-Lenninsm doesn't work.

:chef:

Longbongcilvaringz
09-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Cuba is in no way an exemplar of a successful socialist nation.

And China is in no way a good example of a socialist nation.

I don't know how people can argue for either pure capitalism or communism.

Both impinge unfairly on 'the people' in a different manner.

A synergy of the two is the most successful system to date (although you could also argue that a pure form of the two aforementioned systems has never truly existed).

Socialist][Revolt (http://wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=63819) although i don't always agree with you (i often do) i respect your eagerness to reply specifically to other people's protestations.

It is a skill which eludes almost everyone here (myself included generally)

SID
09-26-2009, 01:52 PM
Politics is a charade, just something to distract people from true self discovery and awakening.

It doesn't matter what governing system we have in place, the fact will remain that will be controlled by rich fat cats with money in mind, not the true interests of the human race.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-26-2009, 02:03 PM
I tend to agree.

I study politics, and at one stage, had some sort of interests in it.

Studying it and contemplating political theory has resulted in me having a deep depreciation for politics in general and the majority of those involved in it.

Reading political philosophy is probably one of the most deflating experiences because great political theorists have all reached individual conclusions relating to a system that works perfectly, yet in practice they all fail.

You have to think about it pragmatically though.

As we live in such broad societies it is necessary to adopt a system of government. It's never going to be perfect, or even successful for that matter, but generally speaking it's important to try and reach an acceptable balance between social welfare and impingement upon personal freedom.

SID
09-26-2009, 02:24 PM
d reach an acceptable balance between social welfare and impingement upon personal freedom.

That is a utopia I don't think we will ever see based on the current state of the human condition.

We all love theory over practicality, its part of the human psyche it's much easier to think about a philosophical expression then it is to integrate that expression into your daily life without being a hypocrite.

I believe Health, Justice and protection should be the sole purpose of a government, as long as we follow certain public health and safety guidelines they should let us do pretty much what we want within fair and logical laws that don't infringe liberties.

Ideally there would be no elected Yale graduate ex general in power but a committee of tax paying citizens that vote on every law passed. So the Government is literally the people not just powerful billionaire businessmen.

Sadly we live in a world were evil men are in power who don't have our interests at heart, only the coffers of the fat cat state.

Dumb & Dumber
09-26-2009, 02:42 PM
You can dodge the fact that you were proven wrong about Cuba all you like. China are still a one party state and they prove Marxism-Lenninsm doesn't work.

:chef:

It's not as rigidly defined as you think, you can't stick these in a box and isolate their situation from its environment. Cuba or China and so on are not alienated cases, but rather more like living things that react off of their conditions. Except by name, China has ceased being socialist a long time ago.

There are important questions as to why. A mechanical Marxist might tell you that socialism was not possible in these areas in the first place because in order for socialism to come about, capitalism is required to develop first (as socialism is the 'logical successor to capitalism') to create a revolution of the proletarian (working class), as Marx had predicted. However, Cuba and China were not revolutions of the proletarian, but revolutions of the peasantry. There was little industry to begin with before the leap into socialism, and the industry, Marx would say, is necessary to create the revolutionary working class.

The revolutionary potential in Cuba however, lied not in the working class but a mass group of oppressed and illiterates acting upon self-defense as a reaction to violence. Cuban revolution under brutal dictator Batista was necessitated by the undignified living conditions. This is a form of violence against anybody, and everybody reserves the right to defend themselves from violence, whether it be physical, verbal or economic (as it determines a persons wellbeing and subsistence). The same is true in the animal kingdom, if you place any animal in an undesirable condition, it will do anything to get out of it. Likewise, the oppressed classes do the same, and use a means of violence in order to recreate themselves as human beings:

kGisMOY6M4c

At any point, revolutions are the turning wheels of history. Not only revolutions, but the relation of classes - or the 'class war' - in general. There exists not only in capitalist society, but all class-stratified society an insoluble contradiction of interests: on the one hand, those who have want more, and those who have nothing continue to get less.

The unity of these opposites, their dialectical progression through time provide very many byproducts. However through this class war, we see many of the gains we see now, only as a result of workers struggle: strikes, pickets, revolts, rioting, revolutions, etc.

Were it not for this insoluble contradiction, and that majority that fought it (revolutionary workers) we would not have all the working class gains that we share today:

- 8-hour workday
- 40-hour workweek
- vacation
- sick days
- child labour laws
- etc

None of these had existed with the turn to capitalism. The original workers at the rise of capitalism had to bare the most undignified working conditions in the 1800s and on. These aforementioned benefits all exist as a result of the class war, of striking workers, and of revolutions, and they will continue to bring out more until the workers will then negate that which throttles their economic and living standards as a natural response to oppression.

Just as the rising capitalist class had to negate the feudal lords in feudalism which had throttled them and create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (those that own the means of production), so too will the working class have to negate the capitalist lords who throttle them and create a dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class [in other words, a radical worker democracy]).

It is with this historical materialist analysis that some mechnical Marxists will conclude that socialism is the logical successor to capitalism. However it is a bit more complicated than that in that with the rise of imperialism, capitalism can sustain itself for much longer than Marx had thought. In all likelihood, humans will be around a lot longer than capitalism, and by observing the dialectical and historical materialist viewpoints we can conclude that socialism is the logical successor to capitalism - however, it is only if there's going to be progression. Imperialism could just kill us all (nuclear, rape of planet, etc) before we get the chance to negate it.

SKANK HILL
09-27-2009, 12:07 PM
You said Cuba have the highest quality of life in all of the Southern Americas - they don't. Pre revolution, post revolution, during revolution, this, that and the other it doesn't matter how you spin it they don't have the highest quality of life in the Southern Americas whichever chart you look at and depending on which one you do look at they rank way down the bottom, not at all, or at the bottom of nations regarded with a good quality of life.

China have a one party system.

Socialism is a failure and Socialists are in denial that they are in fact communists.

:chef:

Dumb & Dumber
09-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Lol, it's impossible for you to understand because you only think in black and white. According to your logic, something socialist by name therefore must be socialist by practice.

I don't quite understand the logic in bringing up Cuba (a state capitalist nation) when speaking of socialism. Despite the fact it improved the living conditions of its people so much more and wiped out illiteracy, it's as if capitalism can have a million tries, and fail many of the times, but once socialism is discussed, suddenly we think so rigidly and place these examples in an isolated environment and try and alienate them from their conditions.

It's not as rigidly defined as we sometimes conveniently prefer to think. We shan't stick these in a box and isolate their situation from its environment.

Since you clearly didn't read my post, here it is again so it doesn't get overlooked. Read with an objective mind, you might learn something:

[Revolt;1698190']It's not as rigidly defined as you think, you can't stick these in a box and isolate their situation from its environment. Cuba or China and so on are not alienated cases, but rather more like living things that react off of their conditions. Except by name, China has ceased being socialist a long time ago.

There are important questions as to why. A mechanical Marxist might tell you that socialism was not possible in these areas in the first place because in order for socialism to come about, capitalism is required to develop first (as socialism is the 'logical successor to capitalism') to create a revolution of the proletarian (working class), as Marx had predicted. However, Cuba and China were not revolutions of the proletarian, but revolutions of the peasantry. There was little industry to begin with before the leap into socialism, and the industry, Marx would say, is necessary to create the revolutionary working class.

The revolutionary potential in Cuba however, lied not in the working class but a mass group of oppressed and illiterates acting upon self-defense as a reaction to violence. Cuban revolution under brutal dictator Batista was necessitated by the undignified living conditions. This is a form of violence against anybody, and everybody reserves the right to defend themselves from violence, whether it be physical, verbal or economic (as it determines a persons wellbeing and subsistence). The same is true in the animal kingdom, if you place any animal in an undesirable condition, it will do anything to get out of it. Likewise, the oppressed classes do the same, and use a means of violence in order to recreate themselves as human beings:

kGisMOY6M4c

At any point, revolutions are the turning wheels of history. Not only revolutions, but the relation of classes - or the 'class war' - in general. There exists not only in capitalist society, but all class-stratified society an insoluble contradiction of interests: on the one hand, those who have want more, and those who have nothing continue to get less.

The unity of these opposites, their dialectical progression through time provide very many byproducts. However through this class war, we see many of the gains we see now, only as a result of workers struggle: strikes, pickets, revolts, rioting, revolutions, etc.

Were it not for this insoluble contradiction, and that majority that fought it (revolutionary workers) we would not have all the working class gains that we share today:

- 8-hour workday
- 40-hour workweek
- vacation
- sick days
- child labour laws
- etc

None of these had existed with the turn to capitalism. The original workers at the rise of capitalism had to bare the most undignified working conditions in the 1800s and on. These aforementioned benefits all exist as a result of the class war, of striking workers, and of revolutions, and they will continue to bring out more until the workers will then negate that which throttles their economic and living standards as a natural response to oppression.

Just as the rising capitalist class had to negate the feudal lords in feudalism which had throttled them and create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (those that own the means of production), so too will the working class have to negate the capitalist lords who throttle them and create a dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class [in other words, a radical worker democracy]).

It is with this historical materialist analysis that some mechnical Marxists will conclude that socialism is the logical successor to capitalism. However it is a bit more complicated than that in that with the rise of imperialism, capitalism can sustain itself for much longer than Marx had thought. In all likelihood, humans will be around a lot longer than capitalism, and by observing the dialectical and historical materialist viewpoints we can conclude that socialism is the logical successor to capitalism - however, it is only if there's going to be progression. Imperialism could just kill us all (nuclear, rape of planet, etc) before we get the chance to negate it.

Dumb & Dumber
09-30-2009, 10:52 AM
Bump

Uncle Steezo
09-30-2009, 11:19 AM
i pretty much agree with all ur views except the homosexikal acceptance.
gender confusion can't be healthy for a society.


but yeah man you are beating your head against the wall trying to convince these maggots that their gov is not a just nor righteous one. even if you did, they would still suck a capitalist dick for 9/hr and no health care.

Sky Blue Danny Kid
09-30-2009, 04:55 PM
No fucking shit the United States government is corrupt!

Name one government that isn't just as corrupt or worked better...?

ESPECIALLY a socialist one, perhaps one of the most failed sytems in history.

Longbongcilvaringz
10-01-2009, 02:55 AM
A lot of Scandanavian countries have working hybrid systems of socialism.

They're no where near a form of pure socialism though.

Dumb & Dumber
10-01-2009, 06:24 AM
No fucking shit the United States government is corrupt!

Name one government that isn't just as corrupt or worked better...?

ESPECIALLY a socialist one, perhaps one of the most failed sytems in history.
It's not a question of corruption in America. The capitalist tendency to monopoly asserts itself in every capitalist country with imperialism becoming the natural byproduct and policy of that.


Combine this with an economic contradiction of interests between a small handful of rich employers, and a large majority of wage-workers and you have a recipe for a qualitative leap in society: as we observe history, we know all things that are directly opposed to one another are the ones that are most agitational (Plato and other dialectical thinkers).

A necessary shift will have to happen in the mind of the international proletarian towards class-conscious thinking (which would assert itself naturally were it not for cultural hegemony) in order to set the groundwork for a workers revolution, a historical materialist logical conclusion to capitalism.

Humans will be around a lot longer than capitalism will, my unconscious comrade who hadn't bothered to read my entire post at the beginning of this page. ;)

Peace

Sky Blue Danny Kid
10-01-2009, 08:46 PM
A lot of Scandanavian countries have working hybrid systems of socialism.

They're no where near a form of pure socialism though.


If you want to get technical, almost every system has elements of socialism. There is no pure capitalism either.

[Revolt;1701826']It's not a question of corruption in America. The capitalist tendency to monopoly asserts itself in every capitalist country with imperialism becoming the natural byproduct and policy of that.


Combine this with an economic contradiction of interests between a small handful of rich employers, and a large majority of wage-workers and you have a recipe for a qualitative leap in society: as we observe history, we know all things that are directly opposed to one another are the ones that are most agitational (Plato and other dialectical thinkers).

A necessary shift will have to happen in the mind of the international proletarian towards class-conscious thinking (which would assert itself naturally were it not for cultural hegemony) in order to set the groundwork for a workers revolution, a historical materialist logical conclusion to capitalism.

Humans will be around a lot longer than capitalism will, my unconscious comrade who hadn't bothered to read my entire post at the beginning of this page. ;)

Peace


What is wrong with you? I am neither defending nor berating capitalism.

I am telling you that socialism is horribly flawed in practice and DOES NOT WORK. In fact, it is one of the least successful forms of government in history.

I understand the the theory behind it, and if that theory worked, it would be great and I'd be all for it.

But it does NOT. While it is cute and idealistic, it is stupid to think that real socialism could work, as does not take into account inherent flaws in humanity.

You are not addressing that FACT. You are still spewing the same tired rhetoric that you have been repeating for a long time now without showing any critical thought or addressing what I've said.

Dumb & Dumber
10-01-2009, 09:17 PM
If you want to get technical, almost every system has elements of socialism. There is no pure capitalism either.




What is wrong with you? I am neither defending nor berating capitalism.

I am telling you that socialism is horribly flawed in practice and DOES NOT WORK. In fact, it is one of the least successful forms of government in history.

I understand the the theory behind it, and if that theory worked, it would be great and I'd be all for it.

But it does NOT. While it is cute and idealistic, it is stupid to think that real socialism could work, as does not take into account inherent flaws in humanity.

You are not addressing that FACT. You are still spewing the same tired rhetoric that you have been repeating for a long time now without showing any critical thought or addressing what I've said.
Post #30:

I don't quite understand the logic in bringing up Cuba (a state capitalist nation) when speaking of socialism. Despite the fact it improved the living conditions of its people so much more and wiped out illiteracy, it's as if capitalism can have a million tries, and fail many of the times, but once socialism is discussed, suddenly we think so rigidly and place these examples in an isolated environment and try and alienate them from their conditions.

Socialism's been attempted perhaps a dozen times; we'll look beyond the fact that none of them with the sufficient industry to uphold a Marxist workers state. Disregarding that, in any way possible every socialist country has gotten fucked over by all surrounding and international imperialist nations. Whether it's sanctions (USSR, Cuba), overt war (Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Russia), or through coups/staged riots (Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba).

After the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, for example, approximately eleven countries joined the White Army against the Russian peoples' Red Army to dismantle the workers state and re-establish the groundwork for capitalism, with great support from their national bourgeois who seeked to continue raping Russia of its resources.

You need to wrap your head around the obvious fact that there's a very large capitalistic interest in commiting sabotage against socialist states in every way shape or form, as the spread of it is a threat to the national bourgeois of any given capitalist nation - this is why socialist governments have "failed" (when in reality, many have improved the living conditions of people therein while the others masquerade as socialism by name).

No state, whether capitalist or socialist in this day can be independent of the capitalist system. At this stage of commodity production, all states still need to exchange with one another, as many of them can not survive without this [read: Cuba and gas], so to be sanctioned upon just for the way the country chooses to distribute wealth among its people comes at a very expensive cost to the innocent people living there. These sanctions are not faults of the socialist system but the criminal capitalist that attempts to sabotage and collectively punish a mass group of people.

Do you ever study the shit before you talk garbage or is everything you say uneducated reaction?

Sky Blue Danny Kid
10-02-2009, 03:54 PM
Ohhhhh now I get it. Socialism ALWAYS fails, but it is everyone else's fault! Thanks for explaining. That sounds like a winning idea.

It doesn't have anything to do with going against basic human nature and the necessary dictatorship and lack of personal freedom. Now I get it!

On a side note, how do I get called uneducated when Im one of like 3 people on here with a college degree, and 1 of like 15 who isn't clinically retarded?

Dumb & Dumber
10-02-2009, 05:06 PM
Congrats, you're a fascist's wet dream!

Once again, read:

It's as if capitalism can have a million tries, and fail many of the times, but once socialism is discussed, suddenly we think so rigidly and place these examples in an isolated environment and try and alienate them from their conditions.

How is it so impossible to understand at this stage of commodity production, no nation-state, socialist or capitalist, is independent of the monolithic Western capitalist system (and in-turn, the latter's inherent interest in deliberate sabotage of the socialist system which it is at odds with).

Just quick examples: (1) The CIA had dropped into Nicaragua millions of "Freedom Fighter" manuals which detailed and illustrated (literally) how to sabotage the so-called "traitorous military industrial complex of the Marxist state." [click (http://www.ballistichelmet.org/school/free.html)] (2) Eleven imperialist nations had joined the white army in war against Bolshevik Russia - the same red army that had seized state power from the tzar to get out of the World War 1 in the first place (3) Leftist democratically elected parliamentary Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran had attempted to nationalize Iranian oil supply, putting the nation at odds with British Petrol and the US state that benefited greatly from the robbing rates that was contracted between the company and Iran for oil export; upon his decision, the leader was then overthrown by the CIA [Operation Ajax] and a US-friendly dictator was put in his place who of course continued to offer Iranian oil at a robbing rate.

There's a capitalist interest in crippling any effective leftism in its embryonic stages, for several reasons: (1) to maintain high profit in trade from these countries [eg, Iran before it (briefly) nationalized oil], (2) to secure its resources not only to strengthen the particular Western imperialist, but also to use it as a jab against other imperialist nations [eg, America securing Iraqi oil and Afghanistan to block trade routes with Russia], (3) to expand labour, for when the foreign capitalist finds his own nationstate too "ripe" [eg, decent minimum wage, job security, etc] and must seek international labour to pay 30c/hr to a darker-skinned child.

These are concrete reasons and examples why. However, your problem is you adhere yourself self-defeatingly to the ideology of a dominant national bourgeois that doesn't give two shits about you; furthermore, you're limited to thinking in simple formal logic that does not account for change and are subsequently unable to observe phenomena through the unity of its opposites, its dependencies and its evolution (quantitatively and qualitatively). It's called the American dream 'cause you have to be asleep* to believe it

* [just smart enough to work the instruments of labour, just stupid enough to be unable to criticize undignified living conditions heavily forced/coerced upon by the state]

I'll use your college degree to wipe my ass; it clearly isn't worth a shit in the realm of international political philosophy.

SID
10-03-2009, 06:36 AM
You have already bussed the fascists wet dream line.

Talking about politics is like pissing in sand, useless, a waste of time, socialism is in the same category as communism and capitalism, there's no difference, at the end of the day there all just different ways of influential men gaining power and making powerful decisions while the peasants slave their asses off for their suited masters.

It's a smokescreen.

Mrblamesociety
10-03-2009, 07:36 AM
forgive me ahead of time, what is the jist of this thread.

i wanna join in, but tl;dr for sure. i can't fathom all that supercillious shit.

Steve Urkel
10-03-2009, 07:42 AM
It was hijacked by a closed-minded commie don't even bother

http://fast1.onesite.com/community.allhiphop.com/user/pupuatl/7eb1e068b6fd7755842f1ee707e43180.gif?v=172800

Dumb & Dumber
10-03-2009, 10:30 AM
You have already bussed the fascists wet dream line.

Talking about politics is like pissing in sand, useless, a waste of time, socialism is in the same category as communism and capitalism, there's no difference, at the end of the day there all just different ways of influential men gaining power and making powerful decisions while the peasants slave their asses off for their suited masters.

It's a smokescreen.
@SID: Actually, no. The systems you listed are qualitatively different from one another, however they do evolve from one another. I'll just include feudalism so you can get a sense of the entire dialectical evolution:

Feudalism: Serf lords exist, commodity production is low but on the rise. The rising bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) class is throttled by the state, and must overthrow it to instate a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (ie, capitalism).

Capitalism: Private property reigns, tendency to monopoly exists, and the perpetuation and agitation of class-stratification continues (ie, men in suits getting kickbacks off of the work of the mass exploited poor). The rising proletariat class (workers) is throttled by the state, and must overthrow it to instate a dictatorship of the proletariat (ie, socialism)

Socialism: A state that is dedicated to its own dissolution, the mode of production starts to be put back in the hands of the people (for example, Venezuelas co-ops), and the course is set for a communistic no-state only once the world is socialist.

Communism: The point of no-state. No centralization of government exists, as does no economic hierarchy. Nobody lives off of the exploitation of others because there exists no surplus to do so. Daily struggles exist just as today, but mass exploitation and enslavement does not because it can not.

The 'suited masters' you speak of are deathly afraid of socialism, for it would be an overthrow of patriarchy, inheritance, and disproportionate wealth. These are the reasons they invaded Vietnam, Korea, staged coups against leftists such as in Honduras, against Iran in 1953, and so on; it is for the reason that without the aforementioned qualities, the suited white-male is made economic equals with us. He would rather fight tooth and nail than allow that to happen.

SID
10-03-2009, 11:51 AM
Dude don't insult my intelligence, I know what the perceived "differences" between the systems are, what I am saying is there is no difference when it comes down to practice, "suited masters" aren't restricted to capitalism, the president of china wields power absolute, and has access to state funds, even though the main theme of communism is equality.

You are warped into this whole politics thing.

There are leaders, followers, kings and workers, beggars and senators, and that will never change, no matter the political system, men in power will take advantage and drain wealth from the state, as demonstrated by all the failed attempts at integrating these systems throughout the world.

Dumb & Dumber
10-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Dude don't insult my intelligence, I know what the perceived "differences" between the systems are, what I am saying is there is no difference when it comes down to practice, "suited masters" aren't restricted to capitalism, the president of china wields power absolute, and has access to state funds, even though the main theme of communism is equality.

You are warped into this whole politics thing.

There are leaders, followers, kings and workers, beggars and senators, and that will never change, no matter the political system, men in power will take advantage and drain wealth from the state, as demonstrated by all the failed attempts at integrating these systems throughout the world.
China's the most capitalist nation on earth. The entire Chinese Communist Party is comprised of capitalists; China is socialist only by name.

And in a system where patriarchy, inheritance and private property are abolished and a production attuned to necessity to the point where no surplus exists, there can not exist economic exploitation.

Take, for example, primitive communist society where there had existed no surplus as all people were still hunter gatherer. Slaves were irrelevant to production as every slave still had to be accounted for by the caloric-costly hunter-gatherer means of giving oneself the adequate nutrition. It was not until the agricultural revolution that a surplus had come about, as people were given an unlimited supply of food and people were warranted the time to sit and produce. It is at this point where commodity production exists: not only are items produced a commodity, but so is ones own labour-power commodified (eg, 'renting' [wage slavery] or 'buying' ones labour power [overt slavery]). Only at this point was slavery relevant to production, whereas previously they had existed merely as religious sacrifice.

Likewise, if production is attuned to necessity, ie for immediate consumption, there can not exist private property because there exists no surplus. Without a surplus, one can not exploit another. Understand this.

Please explain to me how without: private property (so that all property [including the means of production] are in the hands of all), inheritance (so that the rich can not pass their riches to their children), and a surplus (so that everybody must work to meet their daily needs), how can there exist mass exploitation?

Read "The Origins of Family, Private Property and the State"

Peace.

SID
10-03-2009, 01:50 PM
[Revolt;1703580']China's the most capitalist nation on earth. The entire Chinese Communist Party is comprised of capitalists; China is socialist only by name.


And that my friend, is politics...

Dumb & Dumber
10-03-2009, 01:55 PM
Please explain to me how without: private property (so that all property [including the means of production] are in the hands of all), inheritance (so that the rich can not pass their riches to their children), and a surplus (so that everybody must work to meet their daily needs), how can there exist mass exploitation?

Sky Blue Danny Kid
10-03-2009, 03:07 PM
[Revolt;1702937']Congrats, you're a fascist's wet dream!

Once again, read:



How is it so impossible to understand at this stage of commodity production, no nation-state, socialist or capitalist, is independent of the monolithic Western capitalist system (and in-turn, the latter's inherent interest in deliberate sabotage of the socialist system which it is at odds with).

Just quick examples: (1) The CIA had dropped into Nicaragua millions of "Freedom Fighter" manuals which detailed and illustrated (literally) how to sabotage the so-called "traitorous military industrial complex of the Marxist state." [click (http://www.ballistichelmet.org/school/free.html)] (2) Eleven imperialist nations had joined the white army in war against Bolshevik Russia - the same red army that had seized state power from the tzar to get out of the World War 1 in the first place (3) Leftist democratically elected parliamentary Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran had attempted to nationalize Iranian oil supply, putting the nation at odds with British Petrol and the US state that benefited greatly from the robbing rates that was contracted between the company and Iran for oil export; upon his decision, the leader was then overthrown by the CIA [Operation Ajax] and a US-friendly dictator was put in his place who of course continued to offer Iranian oil at a robbing rate.

There's a capitalist interest in crippling any effective leftism in its embryonic stages, for several reasons: (1) to maintain high profit in trade from these countries [eg, Iran before it (briefly) nationalized oil], (2) to secure its resources not only to strengthen the particular Western imperialist, but also to use it as a jab against other imperialist nations [eg, America securing Iraqi oil and Afghanistan to block trade routes with Russia], (3) to expand labour, for when the foreign capitalist finds his own nationstate too "ripe" [eg, decent minimum wage, job security, etc] and must seek international labour to pay 30c/hr to a darker-skinned child.

These are concrete reasons and examples why. However, your problem is you adhere yourself self-defeatingly to the ideology of a dominant national bourgeois that doesn't give two shits about you; furthermore, you're limited to thinking in simple formal logic that does not account for change and are subsequently unable to observe phenomena through the unity of its opposites, its dependencies and its evolution (quantitatively and qualitatively). It's called the American dream 'cause you have to be asleep* to believe it

* [just smart enough to work the instruments of labour, just stupid enough to be unable to criticize undignified living conditions heavily forced/coerced upon by the state]

I'll use your college degree to wipe my ass; it clearly isn't worth a shit in the realm of international political philosophy.

Wow. You are a brainwashed. As KTL would say, a "Sheep". Taking into conisderation the rest of the world is a major part of designing a system of governence.

I don't think capitalism is great at all. I have yet to extoll its virtues. All I am saying is that it works better than socialism.

You can talk about how horrible it is, and I don't care. I'm just saying, and history has proved, that socialism works worse.

All systems of flawless in theory and flawed in practice. The very idea of captialism is that if you work hard, you succeed. Obviously, as Sid mentioned it doesn't work like that.

In all forms of government, those in power abuse it. The livng conditions of people, average people, in socialist regimes has CONSISTENTLY been worse than that of those in capitalist societies.

You can argue why this is, but that doesn't matter.

You are a retard's wet dream

You don't have to use so many words to say nothing.

Dumb & Dumber
10-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Since you don't have the basic comprehension skills to progress this discussion, I'm going to draw it out for you:

Your argument is: Socialism has failed more than capitalism.

My argument is: Capitalism has had its interests in sabotaging socialism for very obvious reasons which I've already pointed out to you*. Furthermore, the dialectical progression of humankind points all fingers to socialism being the only logical conclusion to capitalism** as a mass group of exploited people will have to overthrow that which exploits them; so too in feudalism between the bourgeois and the feudal lords, so too in capitalism between the workers and the bourgeois.

It is important to note that the oppressed majority will have to overthrow that which oppresses/contradicts them whether it be capitalist or socialist; if at any point the state does not follow the interests of the people, it must be overthrown.

* There's a capitalist interest in crippling any effective leftism in its embryonic stages, for several reasons: (1) to maintain high profit in trade from these countries [eg, Iran before it (briefly) nationalized oil], (2) to secure its resources not only to strengthen the particular Western imperialist, but also to use it as a jab against other imperialist nations [eg, America securing Iraqi oil and Afghanistan to block trade routes with Russia], (3) to expand labour, for when the foreign capitalist finds his own nationstate too "ripe" [eg, decent minimum wage, job security, etc] and must seek international labour to pay 30c/hr to a darker-skinned child.

** Feudalism: Serf lords exist, commodity production is low but on the rise. The rising bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) class is throttled by the state, and must overthrow it to instate a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (ie, capitalism).

Capitalism: Private property reigns, tendency to monopoly exists, and the perpetuation and agitation of class-stratification continues (ie, men in suits getting kickbacks off of the work of the mass exploited poor). The rising proletariat class (workers) is throttled by the state, and must overthrow it to instate a dictatorship of the proletariat (ie, socialism)

These contradictions that exist in society, for example between the slave and the slaveowner, colonized and the colonizer, wage worker and employer, oppressed and oppressor, the byproducts and/of the unity of these provide way for progression and gains and removals. In today's society we can see that it has so far earned us things such as:

- 40-hour workweek
- Vacation pay
- Sick days
- Pension
- etc

These are the gains made through the agitation of contradiction between the two opposing forces (in this case, the wage slave and his boss). Eventually the agitation will be so large, just as it was at the turning point of feudalism into capitalism, where the oppressed majority must overthrow the oppressive minority, and that struggle is interwoven with socialism where the people must overthrow any oppressive government (whether socialist or capitalist) and take back the means of production in their own hands.

Revolutions are the turning wheels of history. If you fear revolution, you fear motion and change. Humans have been around a lot longer than and will continue to be around long after capitalism has been negated.

With socialism, too, just like capitalism, there will exist oppressive or tyrannical governments - but they are that much closer to freedom everytime they overthrow that which throttles them.

Sky Blue Danny Kid
10-03-2009, 04:17 PM
It is rather immature and a little cry-babyesque to imply that because I disagree with your argument that I do not understand it.

For all of your second-hand arguments and recycled opinions, the FACTS that history has taught us all lead to, for whatever reasons, Socialism is a horribly-flawed ideology that fails miserably whenever instituted.

All of your ramblings do not change this.

The fact also remains that people or "workers" suffer less and have more personal freedom that under any other system of governence.

In fact, people under facists and dictatorships often have it better than unde socialist regimes.

"THe common man" perhaps suffers more under socialism than any other system AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH is the MOST skewed beteween the upper and lower classes under socialism.

Again, I do not champion capitalism as perfect, and it creates plenty of problems. But people, REGULAR PEOPLE, tend to live BETTER lives with more opportunity and freedom under capitalism than any other system.

Why would capitalist people revolt first?

Dumb & Dumber
10-03-2009, 04:47 PM
Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You've been saying the same thing without answering any of my questions or referencing any sources to your claims. I even went as far as linking to the exact scanned copy of the Nicaragua CIA-airdropped sabotage manuals.

You provide nothing to this argument but reaction further exemplified by your ridiculous use of capitalization. I'm not gonna continue to stoop to your level by acknowledging anything else you have to say.

For everybody else immersed in the struggle and doesn't have a backwards self-defeating ideology, I've provided a good study resource.

Peace god

Sky Blue Danny Kid
10-03-2009, 04:55 PM
You're entire argument is that capitalism is flawed.

Nobody disagreed with you.

It is like we are having two separate discussions.

You said that capitalisim is flawed. That is fine and good, but essentially useless.

All I am saying, is, REGARDLESS OF WHY, socialism has not, does not, and will not ever work when applied in the real world. I know why it fails, and I know what it is and agree that the idea of socialism is good, noble, and fair.

BUT IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.

IT IS INFERIOR, IN PRACTICE, TO CAPITALISM.

And you never asked any questions for me to answer.