Super duper awesome thread about how cool bush is and all who like him. Kery sucks...

I am not a "realist". I never liked the word "idealist" either, by saying you are an idealist, you are saying your hopes are but pipe dreams never to be realized.

In May 1968, in Paris, there was a graffitti in the walls of La Sorbonne university, it said "Be realists: Ask for what's impossible". However, I must confess right now I feel rather pessimistic in front of the whole panorama. Our system, from base, is flawed. When I mean "from base" I mean I highly doubt voting the other party is going to solve anything. "You don't like Bush, well, you have the INCREDIBLE FREEDOM of voting another right winged party". No, thanks. In modern culture, democracy fails, because it is not compatible with the people. In a culture of demagogy and obedience, democracy becomes another form of dictatorship: It is not a game where you have a diversity of opinions to choose from, but a gigantic manipulation and two dominating parties. It is all a whole advertisment, it is just like when we are persuaded on TV to buy this or that soda drink. For democracy to really work, it is necessary for the people to be capable of making it work, yet this is not possible under, for example, the modern educational system, or the modern production system, that creates alienation and thus creates easily dominated people.

So yeah, what is the solution? As you said, some think it is communism. Is it? Well, I like it, but I can't say I don't see flaws in it. The final objective of communism is the emancipation of man, the realization of the community and the individual and, above all, the end of the State as we know it. Some say it's anarchy. I like that too. It's objective is the emancipation of man, the realization of the community and the individual and, above all, the end of the State as we know it. With different means from the ones communism uses, but the objective is fairly similar, with some few differences. But the problem is how to get there, because before any radical change can be done towards a new system, be it communism, anarchy, Plato's republic, Thomas More's Utopia or whatever far away arcadia, first a radical change must be made in the people. But capitalism is a temptation, because for some people, it creates wealth, and wealth many times can be considered a way for low phisically hedonistic pleasure. It is also a way to inflate the ego, to feel superior, to have some ass-lickers around you. It also means power, ambition.

We are in the land of the plenty, a plenitude that will some day destroy us. Most people strive towards this wealth as their final objective in life. That is not my case: I come from a wealthy family. I have been educated in one of the greatest elitist private schools in the country. I have seen la creme de la creme of the burgeoise. And you want to know something? It's not worth a trout. The life of the high and middle-high classes is not happy, it is completly empty and hypocrital. So yeah, I don't strive for great fortresses and fortunes, rivers to El Dorado, fountains of eternal youth, alchemy to make virtue out of vice or the hand of king Midas. Because it is hollow. HAve you seen Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane"? The movie opens in the great mansion of Xanadu, and focuses an old man in a bed, holding in his hands a crystal ball with a toy house inside it and the whole snow thing. He dies and drops the ball. His lasts words are "Rosebud". If you have seen the movie, you will understand that scene may be probably the death scene of every millionare in the western world. Actually, that scene may just explain life itself. If not, watch it. I won't say what "Rosebud" means.

So yes, I can say that from my point of view the ideal of capitalism is but a fake mirrage of L'Age d'Or. You can be poor, you will feel forced to work to be wealthy. If you are rich, you will feel all this work has lead to emptyness. It's a loosing game, no matter the team. It is not a society created for human beings, it is dehumanized. Yet, "the world is turning Disney, and there's nothing you can do".

As the song by The Beautiful South says: "The world won't end in darkness/ it will end in family fun/ with Coca-Cola clouds/ behind a Big Mac sun!". And I think that right now, that prediction seems rather probable. Is there a posibility of change? It all depends on the people, yet it seems difficult. In the 60s, there was a cultural revolution. Now the children of May 1968 work in the advertisment campaigns of multinationals. Do you think we can go from advertisments and fictions of emptiness back into 1968? That May is long gone, Saint Denis is long gone, long gone is Jean Paul Sartre, long gone is that Paris. So in the end, it all resides in that Paris, the only time and place where a ray of hope had been possible. It just needs to come back. It may. Bush winning the next elections may sound threatening, because he acts like a fascist, however, it may be the exclamation mark to lead to an awakening. More wars, more lies, more manipulation and more dogmatism may just be the thing you need for a change. Then again, the most terrible panorama is the possibility that will not happen, but we may end up in some new Middle Ages, with the voice of the TV anthennas as substitutes for God. I've seen the future, brother: It is murder.

Yet, as Leonard Cohen says:

For the millions in a prison,
That wealth has set apart –
For the Christ who has not risen,
From the caverns of the heart –

For the innermost decision,
That we cannot but obey -
For what’s left of our religion,
I lift my voice and pray:
May the lights in The Land of Plenty
Shine on the truth some day.


Woah, what a long rant.

Beautiful words for yourself as well. I suppose we'll agree to disagree about our future.

We've seen two sides of the same coin I suppose, as I've come from a poor family who worked their way up to a higher level and have only in the last few years known what it means to be financially secure. That being said, what always stayed with me was that no matter what, the people around me, literally thousands, always had my back and I had theirs into what formed as a sort of community of the willing, all striving in their little ways to make life better. Yet, a lot of little things ends up becoming a very large wave of good will and progress.

Idealism and Idealist for me means I hold true to my own ideals, which is something I truly believe you do as well.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Fun. I have read those too. That dosen't mean you understand the idea behind communism, or else you would not be inventing it like you are.

---

Inventing it? Tell me what it is then? Am I really that out of line when I look at the disaster of communism in the past? Or maybe the fact that China is the poorest nation and Cubans are the majority in Miami, maybe those are hints?
I think I offered that you may as well go start and reform communism. But don't try to plague my country with it. It's a screwed concept, no matter what beautiful ideas are behind it.
(Which are what, by the way? That people should all work their talents for the country and be satisfied with equality despite the value of their abilities? The problem with the USSR? Yes, they were elite. But things went wrong. COmmunism makes things go wrong and countries go broke. Tell me how I'm wrong.)

Quote:

---

By destroying the other. Yay.

---

Survival of the fittest. Yes. What good are people who suck? In my opinion, anybody who hasn't reached lower middle class by the age of 45 should be neutered, at the very least.

Quote:

---

Yes, you just need to work hard through your life, get money, be the CEO of some multinational that has reached through the top thanks to social and ecological dumping (in other countries or in the US) and make the goverment act according to your interests by investing in their interests. And when people hate you, just look down at them and say they could all be like you, they just have to forget any ethical values. Heh...like Scroodge.

---

You're not paying attention. I'm not filthy rich, I'm not stupid, poor or lazy. People like me, and, generally, I'm quite happy.
If you want to follow the path of a CEO without ethics or friends, go ahead. But capitalism provides such a vast variety of meduims of wealth that throwing out an example of what you don't want to be means only that. You don't want to be scrooge. So don't. Be most people.

Quote:

---

Yeah, they may bring great utopia down. Basically you are claiming that anything that oposes your shall-we-call-them-moral-values or may threaten your position has to go off. Yes, you are the perfect capitalist.

---

Or may threaten my life. Once again I'll tell you, I have no concern for anybody who wishes to see me dead.
I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...
I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.

Quote:

---

So you believe we are completly free and completly in control over our lifes?

---

Do you have to rape people? If you must break the laws, then your going to have a lot less friends than even corrupt CEOs.
But if you're not talking about breaking the law, then of course we're completely free and in control. Maybe some people don't know how to utilize control. I really wish that the US had a stronger education system. People really need to learn how to live before they go trying to make a living.

Quote:

---

Why do you believe everyone wishes to get married?

---

I don't. But as I said before, sex is a risk you take. I know a 16 year old girl with 2 babies. She let herself fall for this guy, he knocked her up a couple of times and left her. It isn't my fault. It's hers and his. But the guy had an escape plan. I think we should propose some kind of child protection plan for people who don't want marriages. Or something of the sort. Currently, however, marriage is one of the best forms of protection. Whether you want to marry or not, it may be a wise decision before you stop buying condems. And if you really don't want to get married, then you really have no right to complain when your stuck without a boyfriend, but with an infant, cyring pestilence to remind you of him.

Quote:

---

No, the biggest error in Communism it's that it is often not done by marxists. The other problem is that it is oftenly imposed through revolution, and this is violence, and here rises a question: Can a system created through violence stand without repressive forces? I can't anwser that. Is violence necessary to bring down a system? As far as history goes, yes, it is. Is there another way to change the system from the root?

---

Uh, this wasn't directed at me, I don't think, but-
Instead of communism, you can go Capitalist!


Note: Captain, it's lovely to hear the voice of your kind every once in a while. I'll always with the idealists luck (If that's what you must call tourself), but I am a conservative. Impress me someday.

If people are going to flame one another in this thread, I might as well close it.
Feel free to debate and discuss, disagree and dispute. But if anyone wants to say, "your ideas suck and you suck for not agreeing with me", then they can do it somewhere else. Heed the words of Dr Unne if there's still any doubt about what goes and what doesn't.

My thoughts?

Communism is good in theory - universal equality and whatnot - but human weakness, especially greed, is so strong that it's almost always going to undermine the system. Like anarchy, communism is dependent on everyone being nice and moral. As soon as one person wants to have more power, things turn sour. Capitalism sometimes actively promotes exploitation, oppression and amoral pursuits; those notions can lead to success within the capitalistic system.[q=Martyr]In my opinion, anybody who hasn't reached lower middle class by the age of 45 should be neutered, at the very least.
[/q]People lose money without being incompetent, sometimes. Lots of times, actually. Financial collapses, high-risk investments, even something like getting an expensive education can lead to poverty. If you judge someone's "worth" as a human being based on how much money they have, then the amoral financial perspective has taken dominance. Money indicates nothing more than a person's ability to acquire capital.

No system is perfect, as people are often imperfect. Communism is imperfect, to the point where a 'truly communist' state has never really existed. Capitalism is also flawed, as its theory undermines the value of human life - in fact, the value of all life and non-profiteering ventures.

So what's the solution, then?
Simple: Everyone decides what they want to believe in. If enough people want to live in a particular way, then the democratic process will let that way come to dominance. It's petty that one system should feel compelled to annihilate everything that disagrees with its own dogma.

Now, no more insults or abuse from anyone. This thread's gone wildly off-topic as it is; don't give me an extra excuse to close it.

Uh... If somebody lost money, then they had it to begin with. That means that they've experienced, understood, and have accomplished the goal of at least lower middle class.
Anybody can lose money by 45. But some people are too incompetent to make it by then.
And maybe those people shouldn't be neutered (Maybe they should), but, honestly now, are there really any redeeming properties for such people at all? Nah.

And I never flamed anybody. If I did, then I want a quote! Because I can justify anything I say.

[q=Martyr]And maybe those people shouldn't be neutered (Maybe they should), but, honestly now, are there really any redeeming properties for such people at all? Nah.[/q]Poverty cycle? Societal forces are very strong; generations of deprivation and institutionalised discrimination can have effects that take years to undo. Some people aren't wholly responsible for their life circumstances. Some people choose not to pursue careers of wealth - members of certain Christian/Muslim/other religious groups who spend their time helping others rather than pursuing their own ends. Devout Buddhists and others choose not to acquire physical property. Others do so out of a wholly moral motivation.

Some people never have money to begin with. I'm at university studying toward a certain degree. I'm using a government loan to pay for it all. I'll be in debt for decades after I graduate; many graduates can't find a 'real' job and owes thousands for their entire lives. Nothing wrong with them as people; they just weren't able to get what they hoped for.

Some people are unable to work for other reasons - illness, injury, mental health, poor education.

There are too many reasons why there are poor people; blaming the poor for having no money is like blaming the hungry for having no food.

However, I too have little time for those who could earn a living but merely choose to bludge off the state instead.

Quote:

---

And I never flamed anybody. If I did, then I want a quote!

---

Quote:

---

I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...
I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.

---

Deliberately insulting, provocative statement.

Quote:

---

Because I can justify anything I say.

---

Your opinion of whether you can justify a statement has little to do with it. A flame is a flame. Besides, my warning to everyone called for "no more insults or abuse"; there's an element of pre-emption. Giving people a chance to steer this thread from the course it was beginning to take. Being... proactive, maybe even nice, rather than waiting around for things to turn really bad then simply closing the topic without a word.

Quote:

---

Am I really that out of line when I look at the disaster of communism in the past? Or maybe the fact that China is the poorest nation and Cubans are the majority in Miami, maybe those are hints?

---

Maybe it's also a hint for you to know Marx's philosophy was never published completly until 1936, and that Mao probably had not read it. As for Cuba? Maybe certain blocking has to do with the stagnation in the country.

According to Marx, communism works when applied to a capitalistic industrial society (He took XIXth century London and Paris as examples). Has it ever happened there? However, Marx was wrong about capitalism, it's far worse than he ever predicted, he forgot capitalism can adapt and alienate more than any other system (Asides from fundamentalism).

Quote:

---

Or may threaten my life. Once again I'll tell you, I have no concern for anybody who wishes to see me dead.
I don't know what suicidal section of your rusty brain has convinced you otherwise. Unless...

---

You said "innocents and all". You may think terrorists threaten your life, but I seriously doubt the whole Middle East does.

And as for the second part, as Big D said, flaming is not allowed. Not that I care, because you'll really need to try better if you intend to offend me.

Quote:

---

I can only assume that this statement is a sign of your resignation to my beliefs.

---

Well, I don't agree with your beliefs at all, that is preety obvious.

Quote:

---

Do you have to rape people? If you must break the laws, then your going to have a lot less friends than even corrupt CEOs.
But if you're not talking about breaking the law, then of course we're completely free and in control. Maybe some people don't know how to utilize control.

---

If we are 100% free to do as we wish (This means breaking the law too, if you wish to break it and face the consecuences) it would mean that our surroundings do not affect at all on our actions. Do you think a person born in Africa would act exactly the same in front of a situation as a person born in Europe?

Quote:

---

Currently, however, marriage is one of the best forms of protection.

---

Yes, it is also a convention I find rather hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Uh, this wasn't directed at me, I don't think, but-
Instead of communism, you can go Capitalist!

---

I find communism hard to apply. I find capitalism filthy to apply. I look for alternatives because I don't like the current system.

And yes, it was not directed at you.

Quote:

---

So what's the solution, then?
Simple: Everyone decides what they want to believe in. If enough people want to live in a particular way, then the democratic process will let that way come to dominance. It's petty that one system should feel compelled to annihilate everything that disagrees with its own dogma.

---

God, you sound like Karl Popper. This sounds good in theory, however take into account the culture. Take into account apathy, ignorance, alienation, manipulation...it's not that easy. Specially when the democratic process is not as nice to bring that to dominance.

Change needs to occur simply for survival. Our current way of life is unsustainable. Most people don't care. How is that going to help? The masses will only move when this unsustainable facto becomes so obvious it will affect daily lifes.

Geez, this reminds me why I chose the career I chose.

Bush just drove through my town today, I was there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TasteyPies

Name one undisputable mistake bush has made and I will shine your shoes in a pink tutu.

---

Didn't he pull out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol? No way that can be good. The strongest country in teh world pulling out of an agreement to reduce air pollution... while the REST OF THE WORLD agrees wif it.

~~~FreaQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreaQaZoiD

Didn't he pull out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol? No way that can be good. The strongest country in teh world pulling out of an agreement to reduce air pollution... while the REST OF THE WORLD agrees wif it.

~~~FreaQ

---

i don't agree with it, so not the rest of the world.

Anyway kyoto is too extreme especially for the heavily industrialised nations USA, UK, Japan the cost to the economy would be massive so bush chose to abandon it. The biggest polluters(in proportion) are in fact 3rd world coutries who are wholly exempt from kyoto which is a flawed treaty.

Not to nitpick, but a VERY easy mistake to point out is claiming that there were WMD's in Iraq.

Another, more serious claim is the fact that Iraq is becoming more stable day by day and it's a matter of time before we install a democracy there when the truth is almost the exact opposite. When Colin Powell says something, I think it would be wise to listen to him, El Presidente.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...t_pe/us_iraq_8

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Not to nitpick, but a VERY easy mistake to point out is claiming that there were WMD's in Iraq.

---

Maybe not by the time America stepped in (even though that's questionable, as well), but Iraq certainly had weapons of mass destruction up untill not so long ago. The last report of such weapons, made by UN inspectors (or some-such, maybe covert operatives instead) was in 1998. Let's not forget that in the 1980s Saddam used those WMDs, too.

Quote:

---

Another, more serious claim is the fact that Iraq is becoming more stable day by day and it's a matter of time before we install a democracy there when the truth is almost the exact opposite.

---

The mere notion that America will be able to instill democratic values and regime in Iraq (or any other Muslim nation, for that matter) makes me giggle like a bass-voiced schoolgirl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tasteypies

Super duper awesome thread about how cool bush is and all who like him. Kery sucks...

---

Just when I thought my opinion of you couldn't go any lower....

I'm not voting any of those choices. I'm not a Bush supporter, and I probably never will be. Bin Laden is still alive. The Iraq war wasn't really justified, when you think about the fact that it Iraq ans Saddam wasn't really affecting us when we went to war with them last year.

I don't have a whole lot of love for Kerry (Personally, I think it would've been great to see Howard Dean get the candidate nomination.), but I think he'd do a better job than Bush has been doing so far.

Howard dean would have been nice, but i would kill to have kucinich as the nominee. I loved that guy. Everything he stood for, and everything he wanted to accomplish, i agreed with. Hell, this guy wanted to open a department of peace' But no, we have to have some guy like kerry who is not much better than bush. Sad... it really is.