Nagasaki's "too cool for school thread"

[Vinny Rafarino]

Mr. Nagasaki is going to enlighten all of us "faux" (it means false nagasaki) communists on the finer points of;


Dialectical materialism




collectivism




the perils of the private life


Hit me with your best shot honey-bunch!

[nagasaki]

Let's start with dialectical materialism. As I said before, this deals with evolution, history, and natural friction that evolves between human beings--the haves and have nots.

Ok, children, picture in your mind a circle.

At the beginning of human history, we had what was know as primitive communism. Tribes helping one another out and sharing for the mutual benefit and the sake of survival. As society evolved, we had natural friction arising. Humans asserting their natural inclinations to dominate one another.

This led to the fuedal stage in history. Fuedal meaning that the state was driven by agriculture. This left class distinctions. Someone had to go out and till the fields and collect the vegetables. Of course, this class was exploited. While the peasant was out picking the vegetables and paying taxes, the rich land owner got to stay home and diddle his peasant maid. The rich land owners were given titles and serfs. The serfs were given nothing except food to sustain themselves.

More friction. History evolves. Of course, you had your sporadic peasant rebellions. And you also had a peasant class that was struggling to become middle class. Many deserting the countryside went to the cities in droves. This sparked the industrial revolution. Capitalism. The worker being exploited by those who own the means of production. The state many countries are in now.

More friction. History still continues to evolve. The workers revolt. But, according to Marx and the doctrine of dialectical materialism, this doesn't lead to Communism. This stage is supposed to lead to socialism. Perhaps we are seeing this today in Western Europe. Perhaps not.

More friction. The wheel of history turns. Socialism leads into Communism.

Now some argue that the Russians and Chinese were "revisionists." Do you hear that, you little commie club members. Revisionists. That means that they jumped from the fuedal state directly into Communism--which isn't supposed to happen. But judging from the revolutionary tone of Marx's work, I don't think he would have minded, although he expected it to happen in Western Europe first.

So communism is not dead...at least if you believe in dialectical materialism. The right stage in history hasn't occured for it to come to fruition as a valid political movement.

So summing up: Think of a circle that comes full circle.

primitive communism

fuedalism

capitalism

socialism

communism

That is dialectical materialism. You won't be forgiven after the revolution for being frauds and misleading the people concerning your knowledge. Think on this while you are being cornholed and shot.

Long live Marx and Engels! Stop playing around with the Dhali Lama, little Buddhist thought criminal.

[truthaddict11]

damn what the hell is up with you are cornholing people little troll

[Vinny Rafarino]

Humans asserting their natural inclinations to dominate one another.



Please show me how homosapiens have a genetic trait to "dominate each other". You can't because there is no such trait. Primitive domination of of other species is related to to basic human instincts;

Survival and comfort.


Here's another discription of Dialectical MAterialism from Columbia University. It's good so there is no need to revise it for the sake of a post;

official philosophy of Communism, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, as elaborated by G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. In theory dialectical materialism is meant to provide both a general world view and a specific method for the investigation of scientific problems. The basic tenets are that everything is material and that change takes place through “the struggle of opposites.” Because everything contains different elements that are in opposition, “self-movement” automatically occurs; the conflict of opposing forces leads to growth, change, and development, according to definite laws. Communist scientists were expected to fit their investigations into this pattern, and official approval of scientific theories in the USSR was determined to some extent by their conformity to dialectical materialism (see Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich). Use of these principles in history and sociology is sometimes called historical materialism. Under these doctrines the social, political, and intellectual life of society reflect only the economic structure, since human beings create the forms of social life solely in response to economic needs. Men are divided into classes by their relations to the means of production—land and capital. The class that controls the means of production inevitably exploits the other classes in society; it is this class struggle that produces the dynamic of history and is the source of progress toward a final uniformity. Historical materialism is deterministic; that is, it prescribes that history inevitably follows certain laws and that individuals have little or no influence on its development. Central to historical materialism is the belief that change takes place through the meeting of two opposing forces (thesis and antithesis); their opposition is resolved by combination produced by a higher force (synthesis). Historical materialism has had many advocates outside the Communist world.


You still have yet to explain "collectivism" and "the perils of the private life".

[nagasaki]

Let me go have a cigarette, and I'll get right on it, master.

OK. I'm going to try and be brief. And I'm going to combine the two topics since they are directly related.

I haven't been on this board long, but the theory this place espouses is trash. For instance, there is far too much concern for individuality. Think of the very work "collectivism." In capitalism, everybody runs around as their own selfish, unique individual. But in Communism, the entire human race is thought of as one "collective" organism working for the betterment of that organism. Depending on your IQ, you might be designated to work on a collective farm. Your sole purpose--and a very worthy purpose at that--is to help feed and sustain that one collective organism, namely the human race--your brothers and sisters, your comrades. You might work in a collective factory. Your job will be to provide infrastructure or whatever it is the collective factory produces for the betterment of the organism, your family, your comrades.

Individuality interferes with the common good. This is where the perils of the personal life come in. Let's say it's your job to work on a collective farm, but you're laying around under a tree writing some silly poem about nature. That's the personal life interfering with the collective good. That's why anarchists are short lived. Too personal and hard to control.

What happens to art? Will it die? Yes and no. Sure. We'll lose some artists along the way. But that's nothing. Art which serves the collective good will be valued. Anything personal will and should be shunned. It doesn't help the collective organism. What should happen to those found leading personal, private lives? Should they be cornholed and shot immediately? No. First, they must be reeducated. If that doesn't work, they must be exiled and forced into hard labour. If that doesn't work...Well, it's time to shoot them.

It's not as cruel as it sounds. If someone is incapable of helping and bettering their comrades, then they have no reason to live. They must be done away with. Everything is aimed at the betterment of the collective organism, the state, your brothers and sisters, your comrades. They are all one in the same. There will no longer be a need for individuality as we know it. It will only hamper humanity.

[synthesis]

Shit, I don't know what I'm fucking talking about!

[Dark Capitalist]

I'm curious, have you ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell? If so, what were your opinions of it?

[nagasaki]

Even under communism, there will be a need for human domination which is probably genetic. The people will be dominated by the party apparatus. And rightly so. Every organism needs a head. Revolution is hard. Some will not pull their weight. Others will lead selfish and personal lives. The Party will determine what "good" is. There will be no "voting." There will be very little "individuality." Don't get confused between personality and individuality. There will still be those who have a great sense of humor. And those who are boring. But most free time will be spent with other party members. It's necessary for the good of the collective.

[nagasaki]

Sure I've read 1984. And you must remember it is being written by an author who is unwilling to give up his personal, private life. He cherishes it as most artists do. So the novel is grim as Communism will be grim for those who refuse to accept it. But let's say you're a factory worker who is interested in feeding his kids and giving them healthcare. Then that's a different story.

[synthesis]

That's a pretty shitty outlook, if you ask me.

Sure, your proposed transformation of a human, living, breathing human society into something akin to an ant colony or the set of wires that compose a computer might make conditions a little better for everyone, but really, this is not a Marxist idea at all.

One of Marx's prime reasons for proposing communism was for the actual increase of individuality. Basically, Marx talked about "division of labor." In division of labor, if you want to be a painter, or an author, or a photographer, or whatnot, but the only job you can make enough money to actually support yourself on is in, say, carpentry or waitressing, well, damn, you're shit out of luck

But, since communism follows capitalism, which is fully industrialized, and therefore has all sorts of modern technology, then people only need to put in however much time is really necessary to make sure all members of society are fed, clothed, and sheltered, and treated humanely, and then are free to go do their own shit.

Really, I could have said all this shit with two quotes, but I felt like paraphrasing. Here they are.


In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.


Whenever one form of freedom is rejected, freedom in general is rejected and henceforth can have only a semblance of existence, since the sphere in which absence of freedom is dominant becomes a matter of pure chance. Absence of freedom is the rule and freedom an exception, a fortuitous and arbitrary occurrence. There can, therefore, be nothing wronger than to think that when it is a question of a particular form of existence of freedom, it is a particular question. It is the general question within a particular sphere. Freedom remains freedom whether it finds expression in printer's ink, in property, in the conscience, or in a political assembly.

It's not like you have to become completely assimilated into some Borg collective, you just have to further society while you're actually doing things you didn't have the time (or money) to do in your long-ass day job under communism.

Honestly, the saying isn't "to each according to their needs, from each, everything."

[Vinny Rafarino]

I already told you, there is no such thing as a "domination" instinct. You dodged my request for you to expound on that belief.


You are very mixed up my friend. The goal of communism is not to create a "drone based society" where individuality is frouned upon. That is what misguded capitalists think our aims are. Our goal is to create through socialism a societ that is free of these specific socially constructed traits;

Greed

Materialism

Classes

And that is it amigo no more, no less. How we will accomplish this tremendous feat is by introducing a socio-economical platform that through socialism removes the two devices that deliver these phenomenon;

A monetary based economic platform that is privately owned

A governmental body that centralised to the point of becoming a class in itself.

There is NO CALL WHATSOEVER to have any individual "live in a commune" or only live for the "collective group"

Now, under socialism, there will have to be some supression of individuality and bourgeois ideology that will be necessary to eliminate any counter-revolutionary ideal from takin root again in society. Democratic Centralism will also have to b applied with a socail market based economic platform to make the necessary changes to a completely socialised means of production and distribution practical in this modern society where value is not assessed by the LTV but is assessed by the capitalist market.

Once the transition into communism is possible, NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL will be denied any freedom whatsoever as the new socialist man will have no desire to return to a long forgotten way of thinking. Eliminating value from everyday products and services will see to that. Without value there is no competition. Without greed and materialism there is no root for counter-revolution.

I find it amazingly funny that you actually slagged a fuck load of people here on the dynamics of communism yet you are so misinformed to what is actually the goal of the party.

I agree, violent methods of suppression will be required for the former ruling class IN THE SOCIALIST STAGE however you are going way off the deep end.

[nagasaki]

Your theory is amiss. Your confusing personality with individuality. I defy you to show me anywhere in the Communist Manifesto where individuality is looked upon favorably. You can't. And it's not a grim life. There will be art. But art that glorifies the state. The personal life will be dead. Individuality--as in selfish aims and goals--will not be tolerated. However, personality will still continue to exist. In a strange way, it is like an ant colony, an ant colony where everyone will be able to eat, live in a decent apartment, get drunk on a Saturday night, and get ready for work on a Monday morning--work for the betterment of the organism. It will leave no one behind, except for those who can't shed their longing for their individualistic, personal needs. But you're not going to be able to sit around and write poetry or novels while the government supports you. You will have to work.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm confusing it? That gives us a laugh. If you knew anything about me you would regret that statement.



Let us talk about the Manifest shall we?


Please show me the portion that says that all individualism must be suppressed.

Please show me where it states art must be suppressed unless it glorifies the state. (It's actually called "socialist realism" and it has very limited practuicality in ANY modern socialist state)
Please show me where Marx and Engels support your "the personal life will be dead theory"


I have come to the conclusion that you Nagasaki have NO IDEA what you are on about. I suggest you take a class in Marxism. You don't even understand the very basics.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Tell you what kiddo. I will post the portion of the Manifest of the Communist Party that even discusses the eventual goals of the party;

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.




Now let us examine this the tenents, it begins with this;


We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.


This is the portion non-Leninists alway seem to "overlook" in the Manifest. It clearly shows that Marx advocated a new "ruling body" (Comrade Lenin gave it the name "vanguard") that can create a governmental body that centralises ALL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION into the hands of the state (the vanguard) so surplu value can be used for providing a stable and equal society for the proletariat. It also addresses the necessary increases in production level that will be crucial after the transition to communism.

(all you anti Stalin folks just turn your back on these words from Marx and keep pretending they don't exist)

We move on to the the actual "goals" of the party;

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.



As you can clearly see, Socialist Realism is not an intregal part of Marxism. (it is not even mentioned) It was necessary in the USSR but has no relative use in modern first world societies. Comrade Stalin and the CC had very specific requirements during the Societ era that can not be duplicated now.


We now move to the close;

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.



What Marx is saying here is that the new ruling body will need to oppress the former bourgeois class sufficiently EN MASSE to the point where their reach into the psyche of the working class is PERMANATLEY SEVERED, thus ending the need for the vanguard's rule. It says nothing about ANY of the "points" you have made.

Again mate, you need a class in Marxism.

[synthesis]

Your theory is amiss. Your confusing personality with individuality.

No, I'm not. You're confusing individuality with individualism.


I defy you to show me anywhere in the Communist Manifesto where individuality is looked upon favorably.

Well, shit, you're the one trying to prove it should be abolished.


However, personality will still continue to exist. In a strange way, it is like an ant colony, an ant colony where everyone will be able to eat, live in a decent apartment, get drunk on a Saturday night, and get ready for work on a Monday morning--work for the betterment of the organism.

For some reason, you're forgetful of the part about "getting drunk on Saturday nights" conflicting with your belief that every action should support society and the state.


But you're not going to be able to sit around and write poetry or novels while the government supports you. You will have to work.

You don't seem to understand the basic tenets of Communism. Since, by the time Communism really emerges, the mass-production technology will be so advanced, if someone produces for society, don't you think that the society should produce for all someones?

In other words, if the individual is prepared to sacrifice his own personal worth for the good of the community, it's only fair that the community should repay their debts to him in the form of allowing him to take off-times and enjoy activities such as writing, painting, sculpting, hiking, camping, or whatever that person so chooses.

[Vinny Rafarino]

We all understand (or should understand) that realism was required in the USSR due to an enourmous propaganda war with the west. Here is a link to the ISF discussion I had with a bunch of capitalist pigs regarding this same issue. Included in the thread are many great paintings from the Soviet realism era.

ISF thread on socialist realism (http://www.socialistfront.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=396&hl=arts,and,sake&st=0)

[redstar2000]

Whenever we study the works and ideas of Marx and Engels, it's very important to distinguish between their genuine discoveries and the effluvia that reflects the era in which they lived.

Not to do so is to degrade their work to the level of scripture.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

This paragraph is still quoted in order to insert parliamentary cretinism into the Marxist paradigm...even though Marx and Engels both subsequently made it explicit that the lesson of the Paris Commune made it necessary to revise the Manifesto. The working class will not "win an election" and "take over" the bourgeois state apparatus; the working class will rise up and smash the old bourgeois state machinery.

Why is that paragraph in the Manifesto? Because, at that time, bourgeois democracy was (or seemed to be) "progressive" in contrast to the semi-feudal autocracies and despotisms that mostly characterized the world of the 1840s.

Whatever relevance that paragraph once had, it is now of only historical interest.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

This is more of the same thing; it makes Marx and Engels sound like proper German or Austrian Social-Democrats c.1912 complete with suits and ties. "Wrest by degree?" "Centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state"? (A bourgeois democratic state, remember?)

There was a joke that went the rounds before World War I: "In the German Revolution, no one will step on the grass if there is a notice forbidding it." A bit cruel, perhaps, but not without historical justification.

If you wish, you could say that the German Social Democrats and their Leninist descendants were/are being "true to Marx in their fashion"...the Marx of 1847!

And when you look at the "10 points" of the Manifesto, you can see for yourself how obsolete this portion of the document really is. To me, it makes post-capitalist society sound rather like the new Prussian state railway system of that era...perhaps that was the "model" of "rational progress" that they had in mind.

Or, perhaps more likely, they simply reflected a wide-spread German sentiment of that era...that Germany was weak and backward because Germany was not a centralized state but rather divided up into more than 100 (I think) petty kingdoms, duchies, etc. Thus, to be "decentralized" was to be "weak and reactionary"--to be "centralized" was to be "strong and progressive".

But there is no need for us to take such ancient prejudices seriously...much less be bound by them as an "article of faith".

We are not, after all, "old believers"...we are revolutionaries.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Of course it's not relevant to you Hack. You are not a Marxist.

[redstar2000]

A most thoughtful and enlightening response from the sheep-herder.

Thanks.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Why is that paragraph in the Manifesto? Because, at that time, bourgeois democracy was (or seemed to be) "progressive" in contrast to the semi-feudal autocracies and despotisms that mostly characterized the world of the 1840s.

The earliest european democracy as seen to day did not appear until after the 1st world war, in the 18th century the bourgeois leaders of the capitalist states never even claimed to be democratic. Let alone progressive. Infact that is why conservatives are called conservatives, because they wish to conserve the system, as it stands. Tell me have you actually ever read up on Robert Peel? At all? Ever?

[Dark Capitalist]

I thought the Icelandic government (est. 930 A.D.) was democratic.

[redstar2000]

Tell me have you actually ever read up on Robert Peel? At all? Ever?

Have you ever read up on the French Revolution of 1789, squire? At all? Ever?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Have you had a regular bowell movement since the French Revolution of 1789, HAck? At all? Ever?

[Dark Capitalist]

Now all we need is Vox and peaccenicked.

[redstar2000]

Yet another thoughtful and insightful response from the sheep-herder.

He never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers
A Site About Communist Ideas
Moving to a new server.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 22 2003, 06:56 AM
I thought the Icelandic government (est. 930 A.D.) was democratic.
Nope - not really - it was feudal system based on feudal lords owning the land and peasants on it. However, amongst themselves they had some institutions such as Althingi which is the oldest "parliament" in the world apparently. Except it was really a court system to settle disputes and set presidents, it consisted of lords sitting around drinking their asses off and getting bribed by other lords to vote one way or another. If you couldn't be bothered to pay people off most people just got together a big posse and attacked the parliament - burning down the whole place so everyone had to go home.

It was basically an encampment - since parliament only met for a few days once a year to decide on some disputes between big time farmers and feudal lords. Once the tents and food were burned to the ground everyone had to go home - great strategy ;)

As a sidenote the floors of the few permanently dug pits that people used for camping in was covered with hay during the yearly sessions - this was to soak up all the vomit the delegates invariably spewed all over during the proceedings (there was quite a bit of alcohol involved). Then some unlucky peasant got a shovel and a bucket and had to clean the floor ;)

--- G.

[Eastside Revolt]

Offcourse didn't the vikings have some democratic rituals?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Rituals - yes. Actually asking people how they wanted to be ruled - no. Kind of reminds me of a certain North American superpower ;)

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 02:39 AM
Tell me have you actually ever read up on Robert Peel? At all? Ever?

Have you ever read up on the French Revolution of 1789, squire? At all? Ever?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
The french revoltion did not install a democracy bourgeois or otherwise, or would you call a republic, where only the elite could vote a democracy (rather like Louis Philippes reign over 40 years later), then your so called democracy seemed to transform into an despotic empire... You call that democracy do you? Would you consider the reign of Charles X a time of liberty, or Louis XV111's reign a season of liberalism?

Dont even try and pretend you know what your talking about, because it is obvious you dont.

Hack

[redstar2000]

Don't even try and pretend you know what you're talking about, because it is obvious you don't.

What I know is that your muddled idiocies have zero relationship to what actually happened and the ways that people perceived those happenings at the time.

Now go shoot a fox, squire.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:19 AM

Don't even try and pretend you know what you're talking about, because it is obvious you don't.

What I know is that your muddled idiocies have zero relationship to what actually happened and the ways that people perceived those happenings at the time.

Now go shoot a fox, squire.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
But the fact of the matter is I am right and the French revolution never installed a bourgeois democracy, or come to it any type of democracy, and I hate fox hunting, with a PASSION. So take your xenophobic and steriotypical atitudes to somewhere like stormfront.com where idiots like you belong.

[Saint-Just]

Enigma, the French revolution is undeniably part of the development of democracy. You are right that it did not afford universal suffrage, but many nations did not do such a thing for a long time.

It did however have a written consitution. In addition it had many facets of modern parliamentary democracy. Voting even though it was among elites, and criticism and debate. It also limited, balanced and checked power.

In the literal term of democracy - people power - it was not a democracy. But it certainly was the start of democracy as we know it today.


I think redstar2000 may be stereotyping here, but he isn't being Xenophobic. Its not suprising when we exhibit so much 'Britishness', although he has never made any such comment to me, he normally uses his jokes-for-Leninists at me. Who cares about fox hunting?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 23 2003, 03:42 PM
Enigma, the French revolution is undeniably part of the development of democracy. You are right that it did not afford universal suffrage, but many nations did not do such a thing for a long time.

It did however have a written consitution. In addition it had many facets of modern parliamentary democracy. Voting even though it was among elites, and criticism and debate. It also limited, balanced and checked power.

In the literal term of democracy - people power - it was not a democracy. But it certainly was the start of democracy as we know it today.


I think redstar2000 may be stereotyping here, but he isn't being Xenophobic. Its not suprising when we exhibit so much 'Britishness', although he has never made any such comment to me, he normally uses his jokes-for-Leninists at me. Who cares about fox hunting?
Enigma, the French revolution is undeniably part of the development of democracy.

No more so than the magnacarta is part of the road to democracy, but the fact remains the French revolution did not introduse democracy, and the middle class leaders of the revolution never even claimed it was designed to quite the reverse. Louis Philippe was very much against democracy, and he fought in the revolution.

But it certainly was the start of democracy as we know it today.

It was an implimenting factor yes, but no-one can say that post revolution france was democratic, unless they are an idiot... Redstar.

Who cares about fox hunting?

Well I believe it should be banned with a passion.

"the unthinkable in persuit of the uneatable."

Oscar Wilde

[synthesis]

But the fact of the matter is I am right and the French revolution never installed a bourgeois democracy, or come to it any type of democracy, and I hate fox hunting, with a PASSION.

Although what actually resulted from the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, the spirit of democracy flowed through the whole event. During one battle, the fighting had to be momentarily delayed because the troops demanded to democratically vote on who played what role, who would be positioned where, and so on.

The true test of democracy is its existence in war-time, and I find that little episode fits the bill perfectly.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 03:37 AM

But the fact of the matter is I am right and the French revolution never installed a bourgeois democracy, or come to it any type of democracy, and I hate fox hunting, with a PASSION.

Although what actually resulted from the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, the spirit of democracy flowed through the whole event. During one battle, the fighting had to be momentarily delayed because the troops demanded to democratically vote on who played what role, who would be positioned where, and so on.

The true test of democracy is its existence in war-time, and I find that little episode fits the bill perfectly.
Perhaps, but the French revolution did not install a democracy, that is all there is to it. Below is the definition of democracy: -

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

As you can see none of the above were implimented to the majority of the people, only to an elite few. That is not democracy. The defining part of democracy I believe is the "by the people", the French revolution did not instal a government controled or elected "by the people". So it was not a democracy in any shape of the word.

[Saint-Just]

Why do you hate fox hunting Enigma?

I am not saying I support fox hunting.

In regards to the French Revolution I am waiting for the individual who calls you Colonel Blimp to respond to you.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 08:19 PM
Why do you hate fox hunting Enigma?

I am not saying I support fox hunting.
There are many reasons, I dont believe that any animal should be chased till it is nearly dead, and then have dogs rip it to pieces in the name of "fun". (IMO if a person finds wanton cruelty "fun" then they are a sadist and should see a shrink.) How can that ever be justified, in any kind of modern socioty.

It is also the sport of the aristocracy, those rich enough to live in the country own a horse and join a hunt. Rich farmers and landed bastards who come socialism will hopefuly be cleaning the sewers with the other petty criminals. It would be a great thing to see their cruel sport and ideology torn down.

I also from a young age read stuff like Roald Dahls Fantstic Mr Fox and lived with my mother another anti fox person, so it kind of rubbed off on me. Fox hunting also has a destinctly imperial "Rule Britania" the way that they where red coats like the troops did in the time of the empire, and the way they charge accross the country side like a squadren of cavalry, it all stinks of conservatism and traditionalism, I really hope that one day they meet their balaklava.

Bastards... im all pissed off now. Just thinking about the ass-holes.

[chamo]

also from a young age read stuff like Roald Dahls Fantstic Mr Fox
He was a truly brilliant and noble fox; the way he tricked those farmers Boggis, Bruce and Bean and got their food, :lol: textbook.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 08:42 PM

also from a young age read stuff like Roald Dahls Fantstic Mr Fox
He was a truly brilliant and noble fox; the way he tricked those farmers Boggis, Bruce and Bean and got their food, :lol: textbook.
Its Boggis, Bunce and Bean... Not Bruce! Jeez Man.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Enigma+Sep 24 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Sep 24 2003, 07:34 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 08:19 PM
Why do you hate fox hunting Enigma?

I am not saying I support fox hunting.
There are many reasons, I dont believe that any animal should be chased till it is nearly dead, and then have dogs rip it to pieces in the name of "fun". (IMO if a person finds wanton cruelty "fun" then they are a sadist and should see a shrink.) How can that ever be justified, in any kind of modern socioty.

It is also the sport of the aristocracy, those rich enough to live in the country own a horse and join a hunt. Rich farmers and landed bastards who come socialism will hopefuly be cleaning the sewers with the other petty criminals. It would be a great thing to see their cruel sport and ideology torn down.

I also from a young age read stuff like Roald Dahls Fantstic Mr Fox and lived with my mother another anti fox person, so it kind of rubbed off on me. Fox hunting also has a destinctly imperial "Rule Britania" the way that they where red coats like the troops did in the time of the empire, and the way they charge accross the country side like a squadren of cavalry, it all stinks of conservatism and traditionalism, I really hope that one day they meet their balaklava.

Bastards... im all pissed off now. Just thinking about the ass-holes. [/b]
I agree one hundred percent Enigma. Any "sport" that&#39;s objective is to torture an animal and then slaughter it is barbaric and useless. The same can be said for bull fighting.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I ain&#39;t a silly PETA supporter. I eat meat...lot&#39;s of meat. I have no problem with animals being slaughtered to feed humans however, I don&#39;t see a bunch of fat-arsed white rich blokes sending the dogs after a pig, and when the pig is too too tired to even crawl any longer, having the dogs beginn tearing it&#39;s limbs off.

Truly pathetic. Perhaps I should invent "rich white bastard hunting"....Sounds like a good plan to relieve society of the bourgeoisie after the revolution. We can staple little fox-like tails to their arses and sick a back of Bull Dogs on &#39;em. Perhaps even televise it as a national event. What a crowd pleaser&#33;

[elijahcraig]

That’s the best idea I’ve heard all day Barney.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That&#39;s Officer Fife to you pal.

[elijahcraig]

:lol:

What time of the year will this sport be held?

[Ctisphonics]

Domination gene-No.

Hate gene-yes;
in Ant societies, some species Kill thier Queen if she gives off a certain chemical that signifies she has of a certain chromosome type.

In humans, there are groups that have certain aggressive tendancies; I was one of them, as a Child under the age of 5, I hated anyone who was fat or had a certain disability, I actually remember shaking and clenching my fists watching a fat girl jump into a pond. This is when I forst discovered Sin too. I changed fundamentally in my outlook at that point upon seeing what I was unknowingly doing. I know many kids with the same problems(they never went through the moral changes though afterwards and stayed)- crime doesn&#39;t alloys have a economic root, sometimes it really is genetic. This is one of the fundamental problems of Marxism; fails to recognize the genetic aspects of why desire exisists in the first place, and their continued exsistence after any revolution which is destined to tear down the very safe-guards designed to protect the new order)

I should note, as much as many of you will hate to hear this, this arguement the first page in an halve almost identically mirrors a conversation I heard between a Hari Krishna and a Vedic Polythiest&#33; Just change a few of the words meanings, and word for word, the theological aspects of Marxism is the same as the Hare Krishna movement, HOW IRONIC&#33; I noted the simularities before in reading on Marxism, but thought it was just due to the fact I was studying both at the same time and was making false connections, but now I&#39;m convinced I wasn&#39;t&#33; I know Volitaire and other writters of the enlightenment were greatly influence by Vedic writtings, as men of the Renassiance were of Islamic writters--though they would deny it fervently.

Part of leadership is Nurture, but I have seen it also completely Nature with no Nurture. Human nature will not respond well under Marxism unless you hook the babies up to shock-therapy machines to curb thier natural insticts- we have had government long before we were humans, or apes for that matter, men excel at rebelling for their own intrests, or on the same account, repressing or crushing others. Power needs not recognize any Social rules, it goes where it feels fit. Whoever holds the true power in any Utopian society- be it the trader or the factory worker, the farm worker, etc. will rebel if they can get away with it out of greed- something no ideology can eradicate (a gene splicer perhaps, but that may very well kill off man&#39;s evolutionary edge against extiction...for greed of the state organism is the same for the individual, the drive to ensure exsistence against chaos. The evolutionary impluse is not always united, parents have been known to kill their children to survive, cousins have given up thier lives for cousins, soldiers die for thier countries, emperors have irradiacted thier family lines, saints have choosen to leave lifes of Chasity to focus on mankind, people adopt....... philosophers write, eunuchs serve....... do you know how many different ways man reproduces certain genes without ever engadging in sex? Greed is a single principle with a single aim, it seems illogical to one who doesn&#39;t understand reproductive theory on how it can kill as well as help a particular individual. The aim is not the human individual, nor the health of the human species, just survival at the expense of all.

I don&#39;t like it, but respect it for what it is is and how it works, and try to work with it for the max. good for the max. number of people without causing human extinction.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Hate gene-yes;



No such thing.



In humans, there are groups that have certain aggressive tendancies; I was one of them, as a Child under the age of 5, I hated anyone who was fat or had a certain disability, I actually remember shaking and clenching my fists watching a fat girl jump into a pond. This is when I forst discovered Sin too. I changed fundamentally in my outlook at that point upon seeing what I was unknowingly doing. I know many kids with the same problems(they never went through the moral changes though afterwards and stayed)- crime doesn&#39;t alloys have a economic root, sometimes it really is genetic.

There are no groups of homo sapiens that have more "aggressive" tendencies than any other group of human beings. there are only those cultures that are more aggressive do to the social constructs of that particular culture. You presonally did not act in this manner due to some DNA sequence, you acted that way because you were a kid.



This is one of the fundamental problems of Marxism; fails to recognize the genetic aspects of why desire exisists in the first place, and their continued exsistence after any revolution which is destined to tear down the very safe-guards designed to protect the new order)


On the contrary, Marxism is fundamentally developed around the genetic sociological behaviours of the masses.



I should note, as much as many of you will hate to hear this, this arguement the first page in an halve almost identically mirrors a conversation I heard between a Hari Krishna and a Vedic Polythiest&#33; Just change a few of the words meanings, and word for word, the theological aspects of Marxism is the same as the Hare Krishna movement, HOW IRONIC&#33; I noted the simularities before in reading on Marxism, but thought it was just due to the fact I was studying both at the same time and was making false connections, but now I&#39;m convinced I wasn&#39;t&#33; I know Volitaire and other writters of the enlightenment were greatly influence by Vedic writtings, as men of the Renassiance were of Islamic writters--though they would deny it fervently.


That&#39;s a very interesting perspective you have. Perhaps you can post these writings and you critique of them.
I for one would like to see if you are right.



Part of leadership is Nurture, but I have seen it also completely Nature with no Nurture. Human nature will not respond well under Marxism unless you hook the babies up to shock-therapy machines to curb thier natural insticts

I don&#39;t think you are very clear on what insticts homo-sapiens actually possess. I suggest you do some research as this statement above has no supporting evidence.


we have had government long before we were humans, or apes for that matter

No we didn&#39;t. "government" is a modern homo sapien concept. Great apes and lesser animals do not have the cognitave functions to understand "government".



ower needs not recognize any Social rules, it goes where it feels fit.

Power doesn&#39;t "feel" anything as it is an ideal. Ideal&#39;s do not have the capacity to "go where they feels fit".



Whoever holds the true power in any Utopian society- be it the trader or the factory worker, the farm worker, etc. will rebel if they can get away with it out of greed- something no ideology can eradicate (a gene splicer perhaps, but that may very well kill off man&#39;s evolutionary edge against extiction for greed of the state organism is the same for the individual, the drive to ensure exsistence against chaos.

Wrong. Greed is NOT a genetic trait. It is a product of environmental conditioning therefore you "gene splicer" argument is inherently false. The survival instict and greed have NOTHING to so with each other. One is an instinct, the other is an amygdalic based behaviour.



do you know how many different ways man reproduces certain genes without ever engadging in sex?


Never, until the time of artificial fertilisation and HGE technologies. You should not have chosen the word "reproduce" It did not fit the point you were attemting to make.



Greed is a single principle with a single aim, it seems illogical to one who doesn&#39;t understand reproductive theory on how it can kill as well as help a particular individual

I think it&#39;s appearant that it is YOU that does not understand reproductive theory.

[Dark Capitalist]

No such thing.

Wrong.


There are no groups of homo sapiens that have more "aggressive" tendencies than any other group of human beings. there are only those cultures that are more aggressive do to the social constructs of that particular culture. You presonally did not act in this manner due to some DNA sequence, you acted that way because you were a kid.


Though I&#39;m sure you would agree that cartain individuals are genetically predisposed to agressive behvior, no? And if that&#39;s true, then wouldn&#39;t it also be possible that the racial or ethinic groups of which these certain individuals belong to might also share this predisposition? After all, they had to inherit these genes from somewhere.


I don&#39;t think you are very clear on what insticts homo-sapiens actually possess. I suggest you do some research as this statement above has no supporting evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style...emonicmales.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/demonicmales.htm)

Violence, war, genocide etc. exist in all the major ape families save the bonobos, which, even though falling under the same genus as the chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are a completely different species (Pan paniscus).


No we didn&#39;t. "government" is a modern homo sapien concept. Great apes and lesser animals do not have the cognitave functions to understand "government".

I think what Ctisphonics meant by "government" was the hierarchal structre found in certain animal species such as wolves and ants.


Power doesn&#39;t "feel" anything as it is an ideal. Ideal&#39;s do not have the capacity to "go where they feels fit".

Power is a fact of life.


Wrong. Greed is NOT a genetic trait. It is a product of environmental conditioning therefore you "gene splicer" argument is inherently false. The survival instict and greed have NOTHING to so with each other. One is an instinct, the other is an amygdalic based behaviour.

Which is derived from the instinct.

[redstar2000]

On the contrary, Marxism is fundamentally developed around the genetic sociological behaviours of the masses.

A bold assertion&#33;

I can&#39;t help but wonder what could possibly be meant by "genetic sociological behavior"...as sociology has traditionally emphasized social causes of behavior.

I think you need to...develop this rather striking "insight".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Wrong.


If you think you can prove that these is a GENETIC TRAIT called the "aggression instinct" than go right ahead. I think you&#39;re simply being combative cos your butt hurt ovr the modship business

DC, you will always be in my pocket son. Heve you not learned that yet?



Though I&#39;m sure you would agree that cartain individuals are genetically predisposed to agressive behvior, no? And if that&#39;s true, then wouldn&#39;t it also be possible that the racial or ethinic groups of which these certain individuals belong to might also share this predisposition? After all, they had to inherit these genes from somewhere.



No. Certain individiuals are not any more "predisposed" to aggresive bevaviour than any other person. Aggression is a product of environmental stimuli in relation to the anxiety gene. Individuals that suffer from a neurological disorder or genetic disorder (a mutation of the anxiety gene) are not "more predisposed" to anything, they are sick. Individual mutations have no relevance on a macro scale.




Violence, war, genocide etc. exist in all the major ape families save the bonobos, which, even though falling under the same genus as the chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are a completely different species (Pan paniscus).



A] this has nothing to do with my remark that the kid does not understand genetics (the same can be said for you)

b] Violence among non-sentient, ("war" does not exist among hon-human primates as it is a "human" term that can only be related to a self aware species) non-human primates is attributed inscinct only. The editorial you posted was not even written by anthropologists. They make violence over territory (territorial behaviour is an instinct) into a "war". It was most amusing. Even more amusing is that you posted it as "proof".



think what Ctisphonics meant by "government" was the hierarchal structre found in certain animal species such as wolves and ants.



That would make it a heirarchy then would it not?



Power is a fact of life.


Says who? You? Well please excuse me if if I choose rely on information from experts, professors and doctors rather than some 17 year old kid with a bone to pick.




Which is derived from the instinct.



No. It&#39;s a reaction based on specific neorotransmitters creating the appropriate synaptic responses that lead to activation of the amygdala, which in turns activates the appropriate hormonic responces from the neuroendocrine system that leads back to the activation of the specific neurons that control emotion. Sorry bud, it&#39;s a chemical process. Don&#39;t play if you can&#39;t hang amigo.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE RAF+Sep 24 2003, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (COMRADE RAF @ Sep 24 2003, 10:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:34 PM

Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 08:19 PM
Why do you hate fox hunting Enigma?

I am not saying I support fox hunting.
There are many reasons, I dont believe that any animal should be chased till it is nearly dead, and then have dogs rip it to pieces in the name of "fun". (IMO if a person finds wanton cruelty "fun" then they are a sadist and should see a shrink.) How can that ever be justified, in any kind of modern socioty.

It is also the sport of the aristocracy, those rich enough to live in the country own a horse and join a hunt. Rich farmers and landed bastards who come socialism will hopefuly be cleaning the sewers with the other petty criminals. It would be a great thing to see their cruel sport and ideology torn down.

I also from a young age read stuff like Roald Dahls Fantstic Mr Fox and lived with my mother another anti fox person, so it kind of rubbed off on me. Fox hunting also has a destinctly imperial "Rule Britania" the way that they where red coats like the troops did in the time of the empire, and the way they charge accross the country side like a squadren of cavalry, it all stinks of conservatism and traditionalism, I really hope that one day they meet their balaklava.

Bastards... im all pissed off now. Just thinking about the ass-holes.
I agree one hundred percent Enigma. Any "sport" that&#39;s objective is to torture an animal and then slaughter it is barbaric and useless. The same can be said for bull fighting.

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I ain&#39;t a silly PETA supporter. I eat meat...lot&#39;s of meat. I have no problem with animals being slaughtered to feed humans however, I don&#39;t see a bunch of fat-arsed white rich blokes sending the dogs after a pig, and when the pig is too too tired to even crawl any longer, having the dogs beginn tearing it&#39;s limbs off.

Truly pathetic. Perhaps I should invent "rich white bastard hunting"....Sounds like a good plan to relieve society of the bourgeoisie after the revolution. We can staple little fox-like tails to their arses and sick a back of Bull Dogs on &#39;em. Perhaps even televise it as a national event. What a crowd pleaser&#33; [/b]
Yes, I agree I eat meat as well, meat is a natural food for a human, and we are designed to eat it. But why kill something just for the fun of torturing it...?

"rich white bastard hunting"....

LOL, I like it already, but I think making them clean and live in the sewers like the rats they are is a better punishment.

But seriously what punishment would you give to those commit acts of cruelty to animals, come revolution/revision or whatever?

[Vinny Rafarino]

That&#39;s a tough question there. The answers will vary depending on how coo-coo you are when it comes to the inhumane treatmnent of animals. Obviously "sports" that are designed aroung the torture of animals are to be made illegal. The punishment? A good amount of debate whould be needed on this issue to set an appropriate level of punishment.


We must still consider that these are still animals. (PETA comments begone&#33;) I would suggest a couple months imprisonment on a progressive scale with a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment with the possibility of additional mental disorder sanatorium time.

Two months the first time, 4 months the second time and six months for the third. (psychoanalysis required upon the 3rd offense that may lead to additional time in a state mental facility, time required do be determined by a state psychiatrist) .

We can also usw a work furlow system to keep them productive while imprisoned by having them work in the national slaughter houses. The get their kicks while performing a social service to the people.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26 2003, 08:27 AM
That&#39;s a tough question there. The answers will vary depending on how coo-coo you are when it comes to the inhumane treatmnent of animals. Obviously "sports" that are designed aroung the torture of animals are to be made illegal. The punishment? A good amount of debate whould be needed on this issue to set an appropriate level of punishment.


We must still consider that these are still animals. (PETA comments begone&#33;) I would suggest a couple months imprisonment on a progressive scale with a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment with the possibility of additional mental disorder sanatorium time.

Two months the first time, 4 months the second time and six months for the third. (psychoanalysis required upon the 3rd offense that may lead to additional time in a state mental facility, time required do be determined by a state psychiatrist) .

We can also usw a work furlow system to keep them productive while imprisoned by having them work in the national slaughter houses. The get their kicks while performing a social service to the people.
Interesting the repressed sane side of me says I agree, but the prominant illogical animal lover in me says first offence a year in prison, second offence start chopping bits off... :D

[Ctisphonics]

Okay, this will be a piece of cake to present, but will take a while to gather the sources, since I gave most of my books on Cultural and Evolutionary Anthropology away when I was 16......... Opppsss, I forgot to tell you guys, I have a background in Anthropology and Archeology, used to volunteer at my local university as a kid and go on Digs in the summers, read hundreds of text books and journals on Psychology, Anthropology, Primatology, Sociology, Evolution, History all before I even finished middle school. The brain was/is busy, busy, busy.

I&#39;ll get you the goods you want, best to go with the Sledgehammer effect than going in piecemeal. The sources will all be listed and &#39;credible&#39;, being from Orthodox Western Scientists if you wish. I&#39;ll be disappearing from these boards soon for a couple of months on something unrelated, but when I come back, I&#39;ll load this stuff on you guys, sure you can&#39;t wait :rolleyes:

P.S., I just want to re-affirm here I&#39;m not against Communism, just Marxism.....due to lines of thought such as those above. (The Hari-Marxi thing will come later.....it&#39;s really good stuff. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became to me how Marxist stole thier theory from the Hari Krishna movement; it predates it by some 300 years and used the same langage and methods of conversion. More in the next year or two on that, it should give you guys enough time to study up.)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Then I suggest you post you "findings". If you choose not to then we will give your opinion as much thought as it takes to wipe our backsides after a trip to the toilet.

[Ctisphonics]

I hope you wipe your &#39;backsides&#39; while at the toilet, sicko&#39;s who drop that stuff in the hall for others to step on are the ones who truly deserve to be sent to a consentration camp.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Translation;


I have no findings that link Marxism to Hare Krishna. I&#39;m simply trolling for a reaction.

[elijahcraig]

RAF, you could teach a linguistics course&#33; You translated that passage so easily.

Hare Krishna??? Good god man&#33;

[Ctisphonics]

Yes, they say good god too. Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Hare Rama, Hare Rama.......

A appetizer for the fallout to come in the future:

Fallout (http://society.krishna.org/Letters/2000/07/L00001.html)

I swear I&#39;m not joking, your predecessors (or should I say previous Acaryas) ripped of the Hare Krishna movement&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Way to many simularities in speech and ideas, they&#39;ve been touting this line long before Francis Bacon was potty trained.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now, so what&#39;s YOUR personal evidence to support your statement? Obviously since you are so adamant about this, there has to be something you can throw out off hand...Anything man....just a wee little nugget.....


Or maybe you are still TROLLING.

[Ctisphonics]

Oh, I got several books at home, but I&#39;m not at home. Let me finish reading the Srimad-Bhagavatam (I swallowed 4 out of 50 volumes so far {also read other works by them too, they have a temple nearby, I always try to study up on the local cults}, plan on getting the CD from the Bhaktivendeta Booktrust after I finish Basic training {&#036;600}, and have the computer read it outloud, cause I don&#39;t have ten years to give to reading the whole damn thing.) Then, I&#39;ll select sections from famous Communists works as well as Marxist arguements on this website or side byside comparision. This obviously will take a while. Better to do it all at once then to spread it out. If you guys can wait longer, I may even track down the old Aracyas works, perhaps they did a study on the Communist Manifesto back when Marx&#39;s wrote it?

I&#39;m trolling too, looks like I caught a Comrade RAF.....too small though, haft to through you back till next year- beware the pelicans in the meantime. :P

http://krishna.org/Articles/2002/10/016.html

[Ctisphonics]

Ahhh, the price must of just went down by half a grand&#33; The new listings http://bhaktivedanta.org/folio/.
Look at all those proto-Marxist works&#33;