90 years ago...
-
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
-
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
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
-
> 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.[^]
Yes, it wasn't until 1959 when a great anti-imperialist fought back and changed everything. Since then things have been wonderful in Cuba, why else would you have visited? "Hey, let's go visit an island in the Caribbean led by a communist totalitarian dictator who's been oppressing his people for the past 45 years. Yippe! I hear the beaches are beautiful and the women cheap." X| Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
-
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
-
socialist
-
socialist
-
kerry voter
-
Yes, it wasn't until 1959 when a great anti-imperialist fought back and changed everything. Since then things have been wonderful in Cuba, why else would you have visited? "Hey, let's go visit an island in the Caribbean led by a communist totalitarian dictator who's been oppressing his people for the past 45 years. Yippe! I hear the beaches are beautiful and the women cheap." X| Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
-
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
Tomaž Štih wrote: It would be worth if it stopped socialism To sectarianism you now add abjectness. Tomaž Štih wrote: 80 mio. dead by socialistm Oh, Stalin and Mao were socialist? I thought they were Marxist. Ah, fuck, I forgot once again you're unable to make distinction amongst any political philosophy which isn't yours. Tomaž Štih wrote: No socialist has moral ground to talk about humanity No libertarian believe in the concept of Humanity.
Собой остаться дольше...
-
See above. He was the only one with enough charisma to unite french and german socialists. After his dead, both parties betrayed their ideals, and the french socialists entered in the "Union Sacrée"[^] (August 4) when the German socialists voted the war credits (also on August 4). Would both parties opposed the war would have been the story quiet different. WW1 was an industrial war and a war of mass : it would have been impossible without the participation of the working classes.
Собой остаться дольше...
I guess I don't find it very convincing that everyone would've acted differently if he were still alive. If he hadn't managed to build up a sufficient pro-peace movement to prevent them from joining the Union Sacree on Auguest 4th (merely five days after his death), I seriously doubt he could've worked enough miracles to change that in the following five days. I doubt that he would've been able to overcome the motivation to provide a unified defense against German invasion through the use of an international socialist movement. More likely, I would think, is that he would've motivated French workers to oppose the war, thus undermining France's defense. (For better or worse) maybe that would've saved lives and shortened the war by providing Germany with a swift victory. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion