Hey now, no Minnesota Bashing, we've elected Paul Wellstone, Jesse Ventura and Norm Coleman. That should tell you right now that we don't know what's what. :mrgreen:Gandhi>Bush said:
Minnesota: Paul Bunyan, Charles Lindbergh, Jesse Ventura, Betty Crocker, and you. Not a realist in the bunch. Maybe it's those long, cold, dark winters.Comrade Brian said:
Communism preaches, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" - Karl MarxGandhi>Bush said:
Comrade Brian said:
Well I'm 25 and a socialist...but i'm not nearly as radical as they seem to be. It may just be phase, or they may just be young. Everyone is radical or apoltical when they're young. Don't worry about it, their hearts are in the right place, they just need to be educated.RightatNYU said:
Rebels Without a Cause? Dijeva see a kid who didn't want to taunt an adult? Dijeva see a teenager who didn't know it all? Dijeva meet a kid who didn't want to be "different"?RightatNYU said:
Yes, Fant, I'll get right on that...Fantasea said:
That is Stalinism, my friend. Stalin was a murderer, and we shouldn't let his perversion of Marxist theory disturb us, let alone destroy the possibility of socialism today.realist said:
As far as I see it, socialism is very individualistic for the majority of society. Giving the majority true power, and snatching that power away from the capitalist or wealthy minority, is not that an example of the worker being 'individualist'? In capitalism, sacrifices are made by the lower ranks of society for the upper ranks all the time. Individualism as a philosophy may be present in abundance in capitalism, but rarely does the philosophy materialize itself. What capitalists fail to understand is that its that very principle which you say 'proves' capitalism's superiority that creates its injustice. Competition is not compatible with the individualist goals of the worker. Competition is only beneficial to society's elites. Collectivism as individualism, makes you think...Fantasea said:
Without a cause, you say? I believe that the only the blind cannot see our cause. Your cause, however, has proven quite difficult for me to detect. You preach individualism, selfishness, objectivism, yet I cannot even tell if these apply to you as an individual. For them to apply to you, you must be wealthy, and if you are, your objection to socialism is quite expected. But if you are not wealthy, then I feel you are simply mistaken in your beliefs. The poor man who supports capitalism is simply a foolish poor man supporting his rich superiors. It would seem as though you are the one who may be lacking a cause, Fant, but you are certainly no rebel.Fantasea said:
I'm 17, but close NYU. As far as I'm concerned, if the youth prove to be socialist or communist, that is only bad news for you capitalists. And besides, most of my high school friends are more staunchly conservative, nowhere near Marxist. Might I add that most them too are completely ignorant of Marxist theory.RightatNYU said:
Mr. Gandhi, Sir, this has little to do with economics, but I must ask: are you aware that your hero, Gandhi, was a socialist? And this is an assumption, based on your posts, but you seem to be not only anti-socialist, but frankly to the right, politically speaking. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher is a more appropriate idol for you....Gandhi>Bush said:
anomaly said:
anomaly said:
Socialism is no utopian concept, as the USSR proved. Socialism is quite achievable, and quite productive. The USSR's economy grew, even with Stalin's cold rule. Stalin destroyed Bolshevism, not socialism itself. You want a utopian system? I've nothing to offer, really. I do think that anarcho-communism, the last stage of economic evolution, may be as close to 'utopian' as we can envision in a capitalist society. But really, is the nationalization of industry, with ruling by a single class represented by a single party, whose members a democratically elected into office, really that utopian? Basically, I'm talking about democratic socialism, or socialist economy with a democratic government. Socialism, as I envision it, isn't utopian in the least. It's simply an economy designed to benefit the proletariat rather than the capitalist class. And such empowerment to the proletariat, would not that make them work harder? Power is what every man seeks, and if we truly give it to him, will he stop working? Does a man who is part of the economic machine, and not merely a spectator, automatically wish to get out of that machine, and lose his power? Besides, what you fail to understand, I think, is that socialism is basically capitalism upside-down. We would still have markets (though not 'free' markets), we would still have a money economy. But all of it is more geared toward helping workers, rather than turning the cold shoulder towards them. Redistributive policy is of what I speak. Ensuring the worker more capital, while taking the rich higher, but still maintaining class disparity, all while greatly increasing the power of the worker.Gandhi>Bush said:
Marx never worked in manual labor, but he did experience poverty. In fact, he never escaped it. And he did feel sympathy for his fellow poor. So he tried to help them.realist said:
Are you actually calling me ignorant of your pathetic theory? I've read the greatest work of perhaps the greatest capitalist thinker, Ayn Rand. And guess what? It was terrible, and quite appauling. If it was up to that woman, I'd have no chance to get an education because I'm poor. She was too capitalistic. She despised the poor. To her, those great capitalists should be overlords, ruling over the idiotic masses. I am not ignorant of capitalist theory, no. But you, sir, you, have you read a MArxist document or, God forbid, book in your life? If I am ale to read Ayn Rand's filthy 1000 page book, the least you could do is attempt a reading of Capital Vol. 1, don't you think? And no, I don't think I'm something special. I think we're something special, we anti-capitalists.RightatNYU said:
anomaly said: