ProtestWarrior.com

[HOZ]

The text of the message says "Reparations to Blacks -- We already take half of people's money by force and redistribute it, what's the big deal" there is a gun pointing at the reader. It's not even subtle. I'm what you call a leftie, but I have no idea what belief of mine they are trying to mock with that racist poster.

Boy doesn't the world revolve around you and only you now.....

Unless you are ACLU or any other African American Acticist leader I am not sure it would mock you. And again it isn't racist. Maybe in bad taste but not racist. Just because offends your little view of the world doesn't make it racist.

Unless you believe there are black criminals taking half of everyone's money and redistributing their ill-gotten gains there is little doubt they mean the government.

I guess you got me on the "you didn't see the protest groups they crashed" business. I've never heard of ANSWER but what the hell, I'll agree they are a communist activist group.

As for watchin the video I think the eye opener is the how racist and anti-semitic the left is. I thought the Jews are in control of the USA and Mosad taking over the world stuff was the Neo-Nazi thing. Take a look at the videos. I was a little shocked that there were so many people spewing that in the marches.

Of course that begs another question -- is it typical of the far-righters to label communists as religious-fascists? I know you people on the right are really smart, so do me a favor and explain that one to me, would ya? And if your explanation is sufficient, I'll explain to you why I believe that apples are oranges.

Again you'll have to watch the videos. They are marching side by side in the demonstrations.

And finally -- a Republican calling the Democrats a bunch of good ol' boys is just funny. A Republican (and I assume a Trent Lott supporter) trying to throw civil rights into the face of the left is even funnier.

Why is that? Actually it is historically accurate.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by HOZ@Aug 17 2004, 12:49 AM

Boy doesn't the world revolve around you and only you now.....

Unless you are ACLU or any other African American Acticist leader I am not sure it would mock you. And again it isn't racist. Maybe in bad taste but not racist. Just because offends your little view of the world doesn't make it racist.

Unless you believe there are black criminals taking half of everyone's money and redistributing their ill-gotten gains there is little doubt they mean the government.

As for watchin the video I think the eye opener is the how racist and anti-semitic the left is. I thought the Jews are in control of the USA and Mosad taking over the world stuff was the Neo-Nazi thing. Take a look at the videos. I was a little shocked that there were so many people spewing that in the marches.

Again you'll have to watch the videos. They are marching side by side in the demonstrations.

Why is that? Actually it is historically accurate.

If you don't see a not-subtle racist meaning in that poster then that is your business. What the hell is the gun for? Who is that mocking? That looks like it might be a UN logo in the background, so not only is it racist, it doesn't make sense.

Anyhow, I've had enough arguing about the lunatic fringe. I'm surprised you give these guys so much credit -- they are a couple film school/poli sci university types who consider running that brilliant website a "full time job". Fair enough, I guess, considering that poli sci education didn't educate them on the difference between a religious fanatic and a communist. I suppose that running a political website dedicated to something you don't even believe in is a logical career path.

[Cowperson]

A detailed MSNBC article, via Newsweek, on ProtestWarriors.com.

MSNBC and Newsweek would obviously be affiliated with Matt Lauer and the Today show in an oblique way so give them credit for giving these guys a platform to express their point of view.

Great T-Shirt by the way:

MY SON SUICIDE-BOMBED A BUS FULL OF ISRAELIS AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT . . . . . AND $25,000 FROM SADDAM.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5699723/site/newsweek/

Cowperson

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 16 2004, 01:27 PM
Another string where a few people basicallyl equate those that think differently than themselves as less intelligent.

A very dangerous way to live one's life.

"smarter ones that saw the light"
"ignorance on the right"

Yikes.

I do think more "young" people, that is university level people tend to lean left. They get that from the University experience, their professors and such. Many continue to be left the rest of their lives, but a good chunk of those start to drift right in my estimation as they get a little older. I know I did.

The university left seems to be very much about fighting the establishment (government, the US, big companies), something that often changes quite quickly once they realize they will likely need a job with a government body or a big company.

Hope I didn't offend.

Socialism/liberalism (in North American sense, in Europe it means something quite different/leftism doesn`t matter how you call it is an ideology - a set of normative assertions (claims). The problem is, these claims are not only inconsistent and incoherent, they don`t lead to a goal (ie equality, justice, etc.) they promise.

Holding ideas that were proved to be incoherent and inonsistent in theory, and proved disastrous in reality is hardly a sign of intelligence IMO.

Just my extremist opinion of course.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 17 2004, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 17 2004, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Aug 16 2004, 01:27 PM
Another string where a few people basicallyl equate those that think differently than themselves as less intelligent.

A very dangerous way to live one's life.

"smarter ones that saw the light"
"ignorance on the right"

Yikes.

I do think more "young" people, that is university level people tend to lean left. They get that from the University experience, their professors and such. Many continue to be left the rest of their lives, but a good chunk of those start to drift right in my estimation as they get a little older. I know I did.

The university left seems to be very much about fighting the establishment (government, the US, big companies), something that often changes quite quickly once they realize they will likely need a job with a government body or a big company.

Hope I didn't offend.

Socialism/liberalism (in North American sense, in Europe it means something quite different/leftism doesn`t matter how you call it is an ideology - a set of normative assertions (claims). The problem is, these claims are not only inconsistent and incoherent, they don`t lead to a goal (ie equality, justice, etc.) they promise.

Holding ideas that were proved to be incoherent and inonsistent in theory, and proved disastrous in reality is hardly a sign of intelligence IMO.

Just my extremist opinion of course. [/b][/quote]
careful now, there is no "North American" set, as being liberal (small "L") in Canada is acceptable, being a socialist is considered normal (you believe in social programs etc). Head to the United States and socialism and communism are spoken in the same breath, being liberal (again small "L") is a very BAD thing.

Canada/USA are very similar countries, but political norms, and definitions are drastically different.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 17 2004, 09:37 PM
careful now, there is no "North American" set, as being liberal (small "L") in Canada is acceptable, being a socialist is considered normal (you believe in social programs etc). Head to the United States and socialism and communism are spoken in the same breath, being liberal (again small "L") is a very BAD thing.

Canada/USA are very similar countries, but political norms, and definitions are drastically different.

That is the problem, socialism is considered normal not only in Canada, but in Europe as well. There are very few practical differences between socialism and communism, the later is simply extrapoladed socialism.

The argument is that this ideology has lost all its credibility (if it ever had one) both in theory and practice. And still yet, it is somehow considered a valid theory that educated and intelligent person can hold.

Politics and economics are sciences, like any other. It is a set of claims that must hold water so to speak. If someone today seriously claimed they believe in theory that Earth is flat regardless of theoretical and practical evidence, he`d lost all his credibility. However, he may still claim that there is such thing as, for example public interest, and almost everyone will accept it as a valid point of view, eventhough flat earth and public interest are both nonsense.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 18 2004, 01:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 18 2004, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@Aug 17 2004, 09:37 PM
careful now, there is no "North American" set, as being liberal (small "L") in Canada is acceptable, being a socialist is considered normal (you believe in social programs etc). Head to the United States and socialism and communism are spoken in the same breath, being liberal (again small "L") is a very BAD thing.

Canada/USA are very similar countries, but political norms, and definitions are drastically different.

That is the problem, socialism is considered normal not only in Canada, but in Europe as well. There are very few practical differences between socialism and communism, the later is simply extrapoladed socialism.

The argument is that this ideology has lost all its credibility (if it ever had one) both in theory and practice. And still yet, it is somehow considered a valid theory that educated and intelligent person can hold.

Politics and economics are sciences, like any other. It is a set of claims that must hold water so to speak. If someone today seriously claimed they believe in theory that Earth is flat regardless of theoretical and practical evidence, he`d lost all his credibility. However, he may still claim that there is such thing as, for example public interest, and almost everyone will accept it as a valid point of view, eventhough flat earth and public interest are both nonsense. [/b][/quote]
First of all to say there is very few differences from socialism and communism leads me to believe that you either need to freshen up on the communist manifesto written by Engels and Marx, or you need to read it.

Secondly there are ways of leaning left on social views, not just economically. I sleep well at night knowing that my rights are protected, women have the freedom of choice and the rights of homosexuals are protected based on them being human, rather than there sexual orientation.

I would like one example (not that I believe in Communism or socialism for that matter) that proves communism will not work. I have yet to see a country implement it the way Marx and Engels intended it to be implemented.

Sciences are based on variables, the problem with, Comparing nations and how well something works is you can not garuntee the variables are constant through out each nation that you are comparing, like you can in an experiment. Theoretically communism would work if each variable were to fall in to place. If price of a good is equal to all and does not increase or decrease based on demand, then our tradition theory of "supply and demand" is thrown out the window. You are saying that socialism/communism does not work because you are use to the theory of "supply and demand" in a traditional communist view price is not determined by supply and demand!!!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 19 2004, 08:06 AM
First of all to say there is very few differences from socialism and communism leads me to believe that you either need to freshen up on the communist manifesto written by Engels and Marx, or you need to read it.

Oh really?

Communist manifesto:

1)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

We`re not quite there, but land tax and income tax (socialists love to increase both) drain at least part of income resulting from land ownership (rent). And of course these money are used to fund public purposes, exactly the way Marx and Engels wanted it.

Eventhough propery (land in this case) in large amount remains in private ownership, this ownership is only nominal. Land is only rented from the state, because you have to pay land taxes (which is virtually a rent you pay to your landlord) and if this tax is not paid, ownership later ceases. Also, there is plenty of restriction as to how can you use your land, what can you build/grow there etc.



2)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

This is a total success for Marx and Engels, progressive taxation grew into massive proportions they probably never even expected.



3)Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

This point was fullfiled only partialy, but again inhertiance tax is a massive step `forward` and the fact this tax is hardly ever disputed in our `modern world` is indeed a victory for Marx and Engels.



4)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

There are many examples in history where this has happened, I`m familiar with the case where property of Sudet germans was confiscated in Czechoslovakia after WW2.

In these days, the war against drugs is a prime example, where state power confiscates the property of rebels, and no one even doubts that this methods are legitimate tools in war aginst today`s rebels.

And of course, tax evaders are another prime example of todays `rebels` where someone who isn`t happy to hand over half of their income to the state, is called a criminal, gets jailed and his property is confiscated.



5)Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Total and absolute success of 19th century communists, this point was achieved everywhere in the world, resulting in high inflation (hyperinflation in many cases where people lose all their life savings), redistribution of income etc. and is gaining strenght on a global scale (IMF, World Bank, central banking of the EU etc).



6)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Again, communist succeess. Who remembers why was post service nationalized and monopolized? State owned railroads, road networks, telecomunications, airlines are common in every country, in many of them prevalent. Not to mention the big brother effect, where governments can virtually spy on anyone and everyone they please.



7)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Cultivation of waste lands is funded in all socialist countries of EU, Canada and it the US, where people are either subsized if they are making losses on unproductive land or funnily they are paid not to do anything on their land, in order to cut down production and increase prices to the `just and well deserved` price.

State owned companies are labeled as strategic industries, and are protected from competition both directly and indirectly at the expense of consumers, taxpayers and of course competitiors. Full marks for communists here.


8)Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Here I`d need some help from our resident socialists, because what is meant by `industrial army, especially for agriculture` I don`t even want to think about. However, a kind of industrial army you have virtually everywhere, and it`s called union. Unions (like armies) can interfere in matters they have no ownership of (NHL and NHLPA is a prime example), blocking owners from hiring replacement employees in case of strike, interefering how private business is being run etc. This all of course is blessed by the state as lawful and just.



9)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

This goal is continually fulfilled, eventhough the terminology is little bit different. Our `modern society`talks about subsidies flowing towards the country (huge subsidies towards country side, farming and agriculture in the EU alone), state sponsored programs against depopulation of the country side, cross-subsides various kinds of services such as postal service, electricity, transport and other where people living in the middle of nowhere do not pay extra price for extra cost incurred due to transportation, economies of scale etc.



10)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Hardly you can find a better example where a communist dream came true. The state grabbed hold of the school system, whether through direct ownership or indirectly through regulation and control (so called quality standards, enforced curriculum, ministry of education, etc.)

As for child labor, that`s for another topic, but in short - for these children working in a factory is the best option they realistically have, because otherwise they wouldn`t be there. They have to work because their family is so poor they cannot afford not to work. This is especially true in fully communist countries, where this ideology caused poverty.


Communists achieved what they wanted in many aspects and areas. Many of their demands are considered standard and normal even in 21st century. No one can imagine it could be any different - central banking, state owned communications, schools, progressive taxation.


PS I`ll adress your other points later.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 17 2004, 09:37 PM

Secondly there are ways of leaning left on social views, not just economically. I sleep well at night knowing that my rights are protected, women have the freedom of choice and the rights of homosexuals are protected based on them being human, rather than there sexual orientation.

This may be a dead thread but I said I`ll reply to your other points and I will (one after one).


Leftists protect your rights? Huh? Bunch of `rights` they made up? Your `right` for an education, job, medical care? They protect these `rights` and the expense of other people (because there`s no other way these fictional `rights`coud be granted - someone has to be forced to `supply` you these `rights`). So what you are saying is that you sleep well knowing your rights are protected while the rights of someone else are being violated. I`m sure you have a good nights sleep.

Only rights you have are property rights (your body, your property and outcomes of your economic activity. Ie homosexuals are free to do whatever they want because its their bodies). Only because archaic conservatives say otherwise doesn`t make their opinion right wing. These are rights you should be worried about and left does nothing to protect them.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 19 2004, 08:06 AM
I would like one example (not that I believe in Communism or socialism for that matter) that proves communism will not work. I have yet to see a country implement it the way Marx and Engels intended it to be implemented.

Sciences are based on variables, the problem with, Comparing nations and how well something works is you can not garuntee the variables are constant through out each nation that you are comparing, like you can in an experiment. Theoretically communism would work if each variable were to fall in to place. If price of a good is equal to all and does not increase or decrease based on demand, then our tradition theory of "supply and demand" is thrown out the window. You are saying that socialism/communism does not work because you are use to the theory of "supply and demand" in a traditional communist view price is not determined by supply and demand!!!

China, Soviet Union, North Korea, almost all African countries...? You`d have to explain to me what did these countries miss from lectures Marx and Engels gave them. Everyting that was possible to `try out` they did. However, communism is utopia par exellence therefore many of their `ideas` were simply impossible to implement in real world.

If someone intends to implement something that is not possible to implement that should give you an idea the whole ideology doesn`t make sense and we shouldn`t be having this conversation (or me talking to myself).

You cannot discount realities of the world we live in. If humans could live on air alone there wouldn`t be any need for economic activity. But what kind of argument is that? You simply cannot discount the supply and demand principle because that is the only way how real prices can be determined.

If you say a book costs million dollars it doesnt mean the price of this book is million dollars until someone goes along and buys the book for million dollars. This simple notion is something commies never understood and thats why their economy collapsed (and no, it wasn`t because of Reagan and his star wars although it helped).

Without real prices there is no economic calculation and without it there`s no efficiency and effectivity. Any tinkering with the mechanism prices are determined by markets (regulation of all kinds, taxation, etc.) leads to malinvestment, waste of resources, inefficiency and decreased economic activity.

If price of a good is equal to all doesnt make sense. Equal to all other goods? Or to all people bying it? The prices of goods are not equal because there are supply and demand at work whether you like it or not. Price of one good is higher than other because it is preferred more and buyers are willing to pay more. By equating nominal prices you do not equate preferences! You cannot force people to prefer all goods equally and then throw supply and demand principle out the window, can you? If that`s not what you meant (I could have misunderstood you)I`d be interested to know what you meant.

There`s no way communisim will ever work, in theory or in reality. It`s been proved by scholars 100 years ago (try out names like Ludwing von Mises and Friedrich Hayek in Google and read if you`re interested in stuff you`ll never hear at your universtity).

[Flame Of Liberty]

PS If you think they`re some kind of underground right wing nutbars, Hayek has a Nobel prize (based on work Mises started), don`t remember the year though.

[Cowboy]

I will get back to you when I have some time...hopefully this weekend...

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 19 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 19 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowboy@Aug 19 2004, 08:06 AM
First of all to say there is very few differences from socialism and communism leads me to believe that you either need to freshen up on the communist manifesto written by Engels and Marx, or you need to read it.

Oh really?

Communist manifesto:

1)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

We`re not quite there, but land tax and income tax (socialists love to increase both) drain at least part of income resulting from land ownership (rent). And of course these money are used to fund public purposes, exactly the way Marx and Engels wanted it.

Eventhough propery (land in this case) in large amount remains in private ownership, this ownership is only nominal. Land is only rented from the state, because you have to pay land taxes (which is virtually a rent you pay to your landlord) and if this tax is not paid, ownership later ceases. Also, there is plenty of restriction as to how can you use your land, what can you build/grow there etc.



2)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

This is a total success for Marx and Engels, progressive taxation grew into massive proportions they probably never even expected.



3)Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

This point was fullfiled only partialy, but again inhertiance tax is a massive step `forward` and the fact this tax is hardly ever disputed in our `modern world` is indeed a victory for Marx and Engels.



4)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

There are many examples in history where this has happened, I`m familiar with the case where property of Sudet germans was confiscated in Czechoslovakia after WW2.

In these days, the war against drugs is a prime example, where state power confiscates the property of rebels, and no one even doubts that this methods are legitimate tools in war aginst today`s rebels.

And of course, tax evaders are another prime example of todays `rebels` where someone who isn`t happy to hand over half of their income to the state, is called a criminal, gets jailed and his property is confiscated.



5)Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Total and absolute success of 19th century communists, this point was achieved everywhere in the world, resulting in high inflation (hyperinflation in many cases where people lose all their life savings), redistribution of income etc. and is gaining strenght on a global scale (IMF, World Bank, central banking of the EU etc).



6)Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Again, communist succeess. Who remembers why was post service nationalized and monopolized? State owned railroads, road networks, telecomunications, airlines are common in every country, in many of them prevalent. Not to mention the big brother effect, where governments can virtually spy on anyone and everyone they please.



7)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Cultivation of waste lands is funded in all socialist countries of EU, Canada and it the US, where people are either subsized if they are making losses on unproductive land or funnily they are paid not to do anything on their land, in order to cut down production and increase prices to the `just and well deserved` price.

State owned companies are labeled as strategic industries, and are protected from competition both directly and indirectly at the expense of consumers, taxpayers and of course competitiors. Full marks for communists here.


8)Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Here I`d need some help from our resident socialists, because what is meant by `industrial army, especially for agriculture` I don`t even want to think about. However, a kind of industrial army you have virtually everywhere, and it`s called union. Unions (like armies) can interfere in matters they have no ownership of (NHL and NHLPA is a prime example), blocking owners from hiring replacement employees in case of strike, interefering how private business is being run etc. This all of course is blessed by the state as lawful and just.



9)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

This goal is continually fulfilled, eventhough the terminology is little bit different. Our `modern society`talks about subsidies flowing towards the country (huge subsidies towards country side, farming and agriculture in the EU alone), state sponsored programs against depopulation of the country side, cross-subsides various kinds of services such as postal service, electricity, transport and other where people living in the middle of nowhere do not pay extra price for extra cost incurred due to transportation, economies of scale etc.



10)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Hardly you can find a better example where a communist dream came true. The state grabbed hold of the school system, whether through direct ownership or indirectly through regulation and control (so called quality standards, enforced curriculum, ministry of education, etc.)

As for child labor, that`s for another topic, but in short - for these children working in a factory is the best option they realistically have, because otherwise they wouldn`t be there. They have to work because their family is so poor they cannot afford not to work. This is especially true in fully communist countries, where this ideology caused poverty.


Communists achieved what they wanted in many aspects and areas. Many of their demands are considered standard and normal even in 21st century. No one can imagine it could be any different - central banking, state owned communications, schools, progressive taxation.


PS I`ll adress your other points later. [/b][/quote]
My argument is that there has been no exact implementation of the Communist Manifesto in one Country. You have given me examples that have happened across the world, or have qualifyed your argument with statements such as "we are not quite there." Marx and Engels main purpose was to eliminate class struggles and classes all together “[push] into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.” They never obtained that anywhere. Any of the examples that you gave the wealth of the country remained in few hands.
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and there by the relations of the production.” By doing this the bourgeoisie believe that it gives them the power to change the whole of society. The constant revolutionizing of the means of production with the “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” is what separates the bourgeois from all earlier version of master and slave. Marx believed that “it was not the bourgeoisie but the newly born industrial proletariat that represented mankind and all emancipation.”
Marx wants the largest possible amount of jobs for the proletariat; it takes away power from the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie’s power is based on the control of the means of production, if they can take that out of the hands of bourgeoisie it will lessen their power

So again my argument is that we have not come close to Communism....


This not to say that I like communism, or strict forms of socialism....In fact I am huge fan of the free market system.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Aug 20 2004, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Aug 20 2004, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowboy@Aug 17 2004, 09:37 PM

Secondly there are ways of leaning left on social views, not just economically. I sleep well at night knowing that my rights are protected, women have the freedom of choice and the rights of homosexuals are protected based on them being human, rather than there sexual orientation.

This may be a dead thread but I said I`ll reply to your other points and I will (one after one).


Leftists protect your rights? Huh? Bunch of `rights` they made up? Your `right` for an education, job, medical care? They protect these `rights` and the expense of other people (because there`s no other way these fictional `rights`coud be granted - someone has to be forced to `supply` you these `rights`). So what you are saying is that you sleep well knowing your rights are protected while the rights of someone else are being violated. I`m sure you have a good nights sleep.

Only rights you have are property rights (your body, your property and outcomes of your economic activity. Ie homosexuals are free to do whatever they want because its their bodies). Only because archaic conservatives say otherwise doesn`t make their opinion right wing. These are rights you should be worried about and left does nothing to protect them. [/b][/quote]
They also protect womens freedom of choice....I would say that is a big one...

"Ie homosexuals are free to do whatever they want because its their bodies). Only because archaic conservatives say otherwise doesn`t make their opinion right wing." Well it certainly doesn't it make socially Liberal does it? Right wing is right wing. You may not agree with it but that would because your oppinion is not right wing, not because the oppinion is not a right wing oppinion


We also believe that we should not leave a large group of people hanging out to dry because our capitalist views are muffled by social conscience...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 22 2004, 07:58 PM
My argument is that there has been no exact implementation of the Communist Manifesto in one Country. You have given me examples that have happened across the world, or have qualifyed your argument with statements such as "we are not quite there." Marx and Engels main purpose was to eliminate class struggles and classes all together “[push] into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.” They never obtained that anywhere. Any of the examples that you gave the wealth of the country remained in few hands.
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and there by the relations of the production.” By doing this the bourgeoisie believe that it gives them the power to change the whole of society. The constant revolutionizing of the means of production with the “uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” is what separates the bourgeois from all earlier version of master and slave. Marx believed that “it was not the bourgeoisie but the newly born industrial proletariat that represented mankind and all emancipation.”
Marx wants the largest possible amount of jobs for the proletariat; it takes away power from the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie’s power is based on the control of the means of production, if they can take that out of the hands of bourgeoisie it will lessen their power

So again my argument is that we have not come close to Communism....


This not to say that I like communism, or strict forms of socialism....In fact I am huge fan of the free market system.

Stalinist Russia wiped off virtually all of bourgeoisie (however you may define it), owners of capital were sent to gulags. They systematically killed everyone that disagreed with their ideology ie a class of people. Is the argument is that marxist communism wasn`t never really achieved because they didn`t eliminate the class struggle completely? They didn`t get rid of enough people so they could build their dream?

Communists hated bourgeoisie because they believed capitalists are the problem for proletariat. Does that not mean communists fueled the class struggle on their own? Does that not mean that this hate was also a class-determined fact? By that logic they should have eliminated themselves too.