90 years ago...
-
KaЯl wrote: the more I study the problem, the more I believe that WW1 was also a solution for the european wealthy classes (french, german, russian) to avoid to solve the social problems caused by the Industrial Revolution, and then use nationalism as a fake. Only socialism, in absorbing all classes in the common ownership of the means of labor, can resolve this antagonism and make of every nation, finally reconciled with each other, a parcel of humanity. If WWI did stop that crap it was well worth it. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
- Without WW1, no October Revolution. - A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of...
Собой остаться дольше...
-
- Without WW1, no October Revolution. - A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of...
Собой остаться дольше...
KaЯl wrote: - Without WW1, no October Revolution. With all of Europe becoming one big socialist utopia, the October Revolution would have just been a few years early and much more massive. KaЯl wrote: - A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of... Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 9 million soldiers killed? no big deal! nearly that many civillians dead? c'est la vie! poison gas? hah! as long as there's an abstract ideal to champion, bring on the death! And, of course, 400 years of European Imperialism finally and inevitably crashing in upon itself had nothing to do with WWI. It was all because the Industrialist and the Capitalist didn't want to lose control. Suuuurrrrreee... Revisionism 101. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 9 million soldiers killed? no big deal! nearly that many civillians dead? c'est la vie! poison gas? hah! as long as there's an abstract ideal to champion, bring on the death! And, of course, 400 years of European Imperialism finally and inevitably crashing in upon itself had nothing to do with WWI. It was all because the Industrialist and the Capitalist didn't want to lose control. Suuuurrrrreee... Revisionism 101. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
KaЯl wrote: - Without WW1, no October Revolution. With all of Europe becoming one big socialist utopia, the October Revolution would have just been a few years early and much more massive. KaЯl wrote: - A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of... Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? So… just start a war and kill them all because according to you the outcome of a compassionate humanity is certain failure? Or perhaps I missed your point entirely.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
-
(and a few days :-O) was assassinated the only man who could have stopped the great tragedy of WW1, and because of that: Jean Jaurés[^]. "How can we give the beautiful name of humanity to this chaos of hostile and wounded nations, to this pile of bloody scraps? The sublime effort of the international proletariat is to reconcile all peoples through universal social justice. Then and only then will there be a humanity that considers its superior unity within the living diversity of free and friendly nations. As democracy and reason develop within peoples and individuals, the need to have recourse to violence diminishes. Let universal suffrage affirm itself; let a vigorous secular education open spirits to new ideas and develop the habit of reflection; let the proletariat organize and group itself according to a law ever more fair and generous; let all this happen and the great transformation that will liberate mankind from oligarchic property will be accomplished without the violence that, 110 years ago, bloodied the democratic and bourgeois revolution"[^]
Собой остаться дольше...
I don't know about the historical reality of this statement, but it surely has a mythical reality: he was the embodiement of socialist hope, he died ("Pourquoi ont ils tué Jaurès" as Jacques Brel sang) and the war broke out, it lasted four years and millions died. Note: by "socialist", I mean what was meant at this time and it has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. Callixte.[^]
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 9 million soldiers killed? no big deal! nearly that many civillians dead? c'est la vie! poison gas? hah! as long as there's an abstract ideal to champion, bring on the death! And, of course, 400 years of European Imperialism finally and inevitably crashing in upon itself had nothing to do with WWI. It was all because the Industrialist and the Capitalist didn't want to lose control. Suuuurrrrreee... Revisionism 101. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Why do you limit european will of conquest to 400 years only? European powers dealt with many crisises before the assassination of Sarajevo. Many of these crisises were much more serious than this one, as the balkan wars or the morrocan disputes between France and Germany (Algesiras, Agadir). Nonetheless, this one led to a world war, not because it was inevitable, but because this time no government had the will to save the Peace. At the end of 1914 should have been elections in France which should have led to the first victory of the Socialists and the application of their programs, the first point being the creation of the income tax. In Germany, the SPD was stronger and stronger, and asked vehemently for the change of the very unfair electoral law of Prussia. In Russia, the power of the Tsar was contested for decades, and a military success would have been a good way to hide the social uneasiness. I don't say the social question was the only reason of WW1, but I believe it can't be ignored. Revisionism would be to pretend that only europeans were imperialist.
Собой остаться дольше...
-
I don't know about the historical reality of this statement, but it surely has a mythical reality: he was the embodiement of socialist hope, he died ("Pourquoi ont ils tué Jaurès" as Jacques Brel sang) and the war broke out, it lasted four years and millions died. Note: by "socialist", I mean what was meant at this time and it has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. Callixte.[^]
You're right, the Myth overshadowes the historical facts. Callixte wrote: I mean what was meant at this time and it has nothing to do with the Soviet Union If you try to explain that to some of our right wing fellow CPians, all my wishes and good luck!
Собой остаться дольше...
-
Why do you limit european will of conquest to 400 years only? European powers dealt with many crisises before the assassination of Sarajevo. Many of these crisises were much more serious than this one, as the balkan wars or the morrocan disputes between France and Germany (Algesiras, Agadir). Nonetheless, this one led to a world war, not because it was inevitable, but because this time no government had the will to save the Peace. At the end of 1914 should have been elections in France which should have led to the first victory of the Socialists and the application of their programs, the first point being the creation of the income tax. In Germany, the SPD was stronger and stronger, and asked vehemently for the change of the very unfair electoral law of Prussia. In Russia, the power of the Tsar was contested for decades, and a military success would have been a good way to hide the social uneasiness. I don't say the social question was the only reason of WW1, but I believe it can't be ignored. Revisionism would be to pretend that only europeans were imperialist.
Собой остаться дольше...
> Revisionism would be to pretend that only europeans were imperialist. So true. Just look at the first Cuban Revolution circa 1895 and the role of the US at this time. Jose Marti[^] (Cuban leader who died in 1895) denounced US imperialism in Latin America in his speeches. Callixte.[^]
-
KaЯl wrote: - Without WW1, no October Revolution. With all of Europe becoming one big socialist utopia, the October Revolution would have just been a few years early and much more massive. KaЯl wrote: - A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of... Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: the October Revolution would have just been a few years early and much more massive. without WW1, I'm not sure October Revolution would have followed the February Revolution. As I'm sure the tsarist regim was doomed, I'm not sure a democratic revolution would have mandatory failed. Stan Shannon wrote: how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? I don't know, I never have been and will never be Marxist, so find one and ask him/her.
Собой остаться дольше...
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? So… just start a war and kill them all because according to you the outcome of a compassionate humanity is certain failure? Or perhaps I missed your point entirely.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
palbano wrote: Or perhaps I missed your point entirely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
palbano wrote: Or perhaps I missed your point entirely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: palbano wrote: Or perhaps I missed your point entirely. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... Obtuse replies to questions promote apathy, but then.... who cares :confused:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
It would be worth if it stopped socialism. But unfortunately it didn't. (according to the black book: 80 mio. dead by socialistm and you can add victims of national socialism to this). No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity. Tomaz
-
It would be worth if it stopped socialism. But unfortunately it didn't. (according to the black book: 80 mio. dead by socialistm and you can add victims of national socialism to this). No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity. Tomaz
-
I told you then that the story Harrison Bergeron is not a socialist story - it is a story about individualism and it makes some good points. Example: if a socialist says that free market is good then he or she is inconsistent (or has changed mind) rather then the free market becoming bad because of it. Tomaz
-
I told you then that the story Harrison Bergeron is not a socialist story - it is a story about individualism and it makes some good points. Example: if a socialist says that free market is good then he or she is inconsistent (or has changed mind) rather then the free market becoming bad because of it. Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: I told you then that the story Harrison Bergeron is not a socialist story that doesn't matter. you just claimed that a socialist (a person, not a story) can make no claims about humanity:
"No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity."
and yet Vonnegut is far more socialist himself than mainstream America, and counts actual socialists among his heroes; by the binary scale you insist on using here with me and everyone else, Vonnegut is a socialist. so, by your own words Vonnegut has no moral ground to talk about humanity. maybe you were just being "inconsistent"... Software | Cleek
-
Tomaž Štih wrote: I told you then that the story Harrison Bergeron is not a socialist story that doesn't matter. you just claimed that a socialist (a person, not a story) can make no claims about humanity:
"No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity."
and yet Vonnegut is far more socialist himself than mainstream America, and counts actual socialists among his heroes; by the binary scale you insist on using here with me and everyone else, Vonnegut is a socialist. so, by your own words Vonnegut has no moral ground to talk about humanity. maybe you were just being "inconsistent"... Software | Cleek
Because you didn't understand it I must repeat it. If a socialist says that free market is good then he or she is inconsistent (or has changed mind) rather then the free market becoming bad because of it. He or she still has no moral ground to talk about humanity as long as he beleives in ideology that took so many innocent. This said - it is not inconsistent at all. If the author of Harrison Bergeron is really a socialist then he is simply a hypocrite - but that does not in any way damage the ideas of individual liberty (consistent with my free market sample above). Tomaz
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of humanity do you think will have to be sacrificed before the Marxist finally comprehend just how monsterously stupid they actually are? So… just start a war and kill them all because according to you the outcome of a compassionate humanity is certain failure? Or perhaps I missed your point entirely.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
compassionate humanity is certain failure Compassionate humanity? Forcefully robbing people of their property and giving it to your voters? That's a first. Tomaz
-
Because you didn't understand it I must repeat it. If a socialist says that free market is good then he or she is inconsistent (or has changed mind) rather then the free market becoming bad because of it. He or she still has no moral ground to talk about humanity as long as he beleives in ideology that took so many innocent. This said - it is not inconsistent at all. If the author of Harrison Bergeron is really a socialist then he is simply a hypocrite - but that does not in any way damage the ideas of individual liberty (consistent with my free market sample above). Tomaz
Tomaž Štih wrote: If a socialist says that free market is good then he or she is inconsistent who cares? quit moving the goalposts. you said:
No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity.
with the clear implication that KaЯl is the socialist in question (since he's the one who said "A parcel of humanity, it's perhaps what you're lacking of" in response to Stan), and therefore that he has no moral ground for saying what he said. in other words, you told him to shut up. and yet... when a socialist suits your needs, you're more than happy to quote him at length. hypocrite. Software | Cleek