90 years ago...
-
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
-
compassionate humanity is certain failure Compassionate humanity? Forcefully robbing people of their property and giving it to your voters? That's a first. Tomaz
-
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
I agree it's hard to guess what future could be with a different past, and that it's more fiction than history. But what would have happen if on August 2nd workers of the Ruhr were on strike? Would have the Kaiser continue his plans? Brit wrote: I would think, is that he would've motivated French workers to oppose the war, thus undermining France's defense That's why he wanted an international answer, and didn't believe in an unilateral movement, which would only help the aggressor. He wasn't a strict pacifist, and believed in the right to defend against an aggressor. Once Germany had declared War to France, nationalism has swept any pacificism, so after August 2nd I don't believe anybody could have stop the catastrophe. Moreover, the french government was ready to arrest all the socialist and union leaders[^]. Brit wrote: and shortened the war by providing Germany with a swift victory Even if Germany had beaten France in 1914 (and it should have, regarding the disproportion of the forces), I don't think UK would have ever accepted a continental super-power, moreover occupying the mouth of the Scheldt. So I think it would have been a 1940-like situation with UK continuing the fight alone. But these are only conjectures.
Собой остаться дольше...
-
Is that because Castro's regime is a dictatorship that it was marvellous before his arrival? :confused: Can't both situations be bad as well? :~
Собой остаться дольше...
Can't both situations be bad as well? Yes, definitely. But it's pretty hard to beat 45 years of totalitarian dictatorship led by a single despot. I don't have personal experience with the Cuba before Castro and I've heard different things from the Cubans exiled in South Florida. Some, like my dad, only mention the good things about life before Castro. They describe a life very comparable to what it was in the US, given that they were so near each other. Others do talk of Batista's regime as being corrupt and abusive. They say that it needed to go. However, no one could have imagined that it would take such a downturn, especially after Castro himself promised a democratic future for Cuba. Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
-
Can't both situations be bad as well? Yes, definitely. But it's pretty hard to beat 45 years of totalitarian dictatorship led by a single despot. I don't have personal experience with the Cuba before Castro and I've heard different things from the Cubans exiled in South Florida. Some, like my dad, only mention the good things about life before Castro. They describe a life very comparable to what it was in the US, given that they were so near each other. Others do talk of Batista's regime as being corrupt and abusive. They say that it needed to go. However, no one could have imagined that it would take such a downturn, especially after Castro himself promised a democratic future for Cuba. Regards, Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
Castro seemed to have a popular backing at the beginning, so I suppose Life wasn't so wonderful before him (note: I don't claim life is better now). Most of the documentaries I've seen on the pre-Castro period showed Cuba as (to simplify) a gigantic brothel mainly in the hands of the Us mafia, but I don't remember any of them showing batista's Cuba as a bloody dictatorship (not as a democracy either). So seen from the outside, and with a superficial knowlegde, Cuba seemed to have fallen from Charybdis to Scylla, avoiding a peril to suffer from another one. Anyway, thanks for all the explanation :)
Собой остаться дольше...