I rule completely

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Az

Killing noncombattants isn't neither justifiable nor legit.

What if they're killed by accident? How much does it matter?

Yet another twister - guess we soon have a dancing quartet.

What I was referring to was military/or like going for civilians with purpose.

Civilian losses due to military combat is another - and very difficult - issue.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Silly. The correct thing to have asked would have been how exactly that applies to the ethnic cleansing in question here. If you were feeling really ambitious you might also point out that Stalin wasn't an aberation of the ideals of Lenin (as che likes to claim) but merely a continuation of the totalitarian system of repression he had set up in his rise to power.

I can't find any reason why I should use your path against Che, but I'll suggest that you follow your path and I continue on mine.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Odin
How is my view any less scientific than Marxism?

Because your view is based not on any actual observation, but simply repeat the assertions of others. It's obvious to anyone who has actually read Marx that you don't know what you are talking about whenever you discuss him.

It is the Marxists who are being religious by proclaiming themselves as the One True Socio-Economic Theory while proclaiming other prefectly reasonable left-wing theories as incorrect delusions of capitalist ideology.

Which perfectly reasonable left-wing theories? Which other socialist theoriticians analyzed capitalism?

The Marxists or some Marxists? Aren't you committing the exact same sin you accuse others of doing?

What is so unscientific with the hypothesis that some parts of the economy are done better by free enterprise via co-ops and other by central planning via the government?

Where does Marx write that central planning is how the economy should be run?

What is so unscientific in hypothesizing that the ballot box is better than revolution?

Better is a judgement. It is absolutely theoretically possible that socialism could be established electorally. All it would require is for the state to fail to do its job in preventing socialism from being established, either by refusing to follow the government or by overthrowing it. Once you remove that minor impediment, it becomes a simple matter. Marxist do not say that revolution is better than the ballot. We simply say that socialism will not be esablished by the ballot because the capitalists will not let it happen. They never have.

Read some Popper if you want a good ass-raping of the Marxist view of history (and 19th century historicism in general).

Because Popper is such an excellent philosopher?

1. There is a certain Basque community that has a co-op based economy, so my ideas are based on observation

2. I am not attacking Marx's economic theory (a lot of which he got from Ricardo, if I remeber right), I am attacking his socio-historical theory that states that everything in society is based on economics and that history can be reduced to class conflict and economic forces. Everything cannot be reduced to economics since culture and science does not exclusively come from economic forces.

3. If Marx didn't say that an economy had to be planned, then what is whrong to alternatives to a command economy?

4. By saing that "the capitalists will not let it happen" you are assuming that a switchover would happen all at once, one country at a time. If reform is slow enough and enough 1st world countries are reforming, the capitalists would have to risk a world war to stop all the reformers, and a nuclear holocaust would be much worse for them then socialism.

[BlackCat]

Che's main problem is that he is fighting against a system that no longer exists and base this fight upon the existence of this long lost system.

The real problem for left wingers is that the right wing parties are accepting the good things in socialism an incorporates them in their policy leaving socialists with totaliarism as their mark, and that doesn't sell many tickets.

[Ted Striker]

Maybe in Europe but the OPPOSITE is 100% true in the US.


Privitization whoring is at an all time high here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Uh guys?

What happened to Kuci? Is he a commie or not? Is he just toying with everyone? I'm confused.

I'm enjoying this for now

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Maybe in Europe but the OPPOSITE is 100% true in the US.


Privitization whoring is at an all time high here.

Actually, you only have to make your healt care a public system, then you will be like mosteuropeans.

I know that somenone will pick up the privatisation and british railroads, but I really don't care - that is just an example of how it's NOT the way to do things.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Privitization whoring is at an all time high here.

Huh?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Interesting reasoning this time, Mr. Spam-toilet. In your world, maybe agreeing with someone makes you their tool, but not in the world in which everyone else lives in.

When you agree with someone you do it in a toolish manner.

By the way, I realized today that you chat on the web exactly like my little brothers...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
1. There is a certain Basque community that has a co-op based economy, so my ideas are based on observation

Nice bait and switch. When confronted about your unscientific claims about Marxism, you turn to Mondragon.

2. I am not attacking Marx's economic theory (a lot of which he got from Ricardo, if I remeber right), I am attacking his socio-historical theory that states that everything in society is based on economics and that history can be reduced to class conflict and economic forces.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you the falseness of this claim. Your continuing to adhere to it even though it has been falsified only shows the religious neature of your views, to use Popper's terms.

3. If Marx didn't say that an economy had to be planned, then what is whrong to alternatives to a command economy?

There isn't a problem with alternatives to a planned economy, except when you put forward capitalism as that alternative, as you do. The alternative to capitalism is not capitalism.

4. By saing that "the capitalists will not let it happen" you are assuming that a switchover would happen all at once, one country at a time. If reform is slow enough and enough 1st world countries are reforming, the capitalists would have to risk a world war to stop all the reformers, and a nuclear holocaust would be much worse for them then socialism.

What is happening around the world right now? Reform or regression? How can you possibly posit with a straight face that we could make this happen everywhere, despite the fact that the whole world is in different stages of development. As an eveolutionary biologist, you should realize that evolution doesn't occur gradually and everywhere at the same time, but rapidly and in isolated locations, from where it spreads.

Why do you assume that the capitalists wouldn't be willing to take the world down with them? Maybe you failed to notice an entire American city get destroyed a few weeks ago. They let that happen out of simple greed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Che's main problem is that he is fighting against a system that no longer exists and base this fight upon the existence of this long lost system.

Once upon a time, a group of settlers built a wall around their city to protect them from the nomads outside. One built, the nomads harrased the settlers, but eventually stopped showing up. Over time, the nomads passed into legend, and people began to question why they still paid to maintain a wall, and so they tore it down. Then the nomands came back and killed them all.

You think that because you were temporarily in a situation where you could hold back the worst excesses of capitalism, where because of your protximaty to the USSR and the strength of the communists in Europe, the capitalists were forced to buy you off, that the capitalists have lost their nature, that they aren't trying to take every concession you wrung from them with your blood, sweat, and tears. Everwhere in the world, the social gains that we made are under attack and in retreat. The sad thing is some of you even applaud it in the name of "efficiency."

The real problem for left wingers is that the right wing parties are accepting the good things in socialism an incorporates them in their policy leaving socialists with totaliarism as their mark, and that doesn't sell many tickets.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. The Socialist Parties of most of the world have become mere liberals, while the Communists have become social-democrats. There is no opposition to capitalism anymore. Everything is being privitized. Wages are being cut. Programs are being dismantled.

You Europeans have just gotten soft.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There isn't a problem with alternatives to a planned economy, except when you put forward capitalism as that alternative, as you do. The alternative to capitalism is not capitalism.

How is Odin's system capitalism?

[chequita guevara]

Free enterprise is capitalist.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by BlackCat
Che's main problem is that he is fighting against a system that no longer exists and base this fight upon the existence of this long lost system.

Once upon a time, a group of settlers built a wall around their city to protect them from the nomads outside. One built, the nomads harrased the settlers, but eventually stopped showing up. Over time, the nomads passed into legend, and people began to question why they still paid to maintain a wall, and so they tore it down. Then the nomands came back and killed them all.

You think that because you were temporarily in a situation where you could hold back the worst excesses of capitalism, where because of your protximaty to the USSR and the strength of the communists in Europe, the capitalists were forced to buy you off, that the capitalists have lost their nature, that they aren't trying to take every concession you wrung from them with your blood, sweat, and tears. Everwhere in the world, the social gains that we made are under attack and in retreat. The sad thing is some of you even applaud it in the name of "efficiency."

The real problem for left wingers is that the right wing parties are accepting the good things in socialism an incorporates them in their policy leaving socialists with totaliarism as their mark, and that doesn't sell many tickets.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. The Socialist Parties of most of the world have become mere liberals, while the Communists have become social-democrats. There is no opposition to capitalism anymore. Everything is being privitized. Wages are being cut. Programs are being dismantled.

You Europeans have just gotten soft.

Commie speaks the truth.

The whole "efficiency" crap is what kills me the most.

Selling your soul so some numbers go up.

[DaShi]

While I don't agree with communism, I do support the challenge to capitalism.