Whats the deal with Che and communism?

[The Elf]

I was just wondering what is so good about che?
I personally dont think he was that good. He ruthlessly executed people, and also said if he had of been in charge of the cuban missles, he would have fired them at the USA.

Alot of people who say the 'support' Che, claim to just becuase they are young and want something to belive in, and rebel against. Some just think the shirts are cool and what others wear. If you said to them, right comunism it is, i will take away your playstation, your designer clothes, your large house they wouldnt be too happy. They say they are a communist, yet dont give to charity.

Surley buying hte merchandise with Che on it, its going against what he, and you claim to be 'for'. Its giveing more money to capitilists and multy-national corporations.

Before you all start flaming me, stop. Most message boards cant have a proper argument or discussion. So conivince me he was a good person. And convince me all these children wearing Che shirts are doing so rightly.


Ed

[fernando]

welcome on the board...but lets get some things straight:


He ruthlessly executed people
yes..these people were put to trail before they received their executions, are you saying that the Neurenberg trails were ruthless as well?


and also said if he had of been in charge of the cuban missles, he would have fired them at the USA.

The US wants to attack Cuba...I would have fired them too if I were to be under attack!


Alot of people who say the 'support' Che, claim to just becuase they are young and want something to belive in, and rebel against.
Perhaps you should wonder why the people want to rebel, wouldnt you rebel against the cruel and horrible situations in the Third World?


If you said to them, right comunism it is, i will take away your playstation, your designer clothes, your large house they wouldnt be too happy.
generalisation...every person wearing a Che t shirt or agreeing with his ideas is like you described? I doubt that!


They say they are a communist, yet dont give to charity.

Charity and communism? Charity is a way for poor people in rich countries to give money to rich people in poor countries to they can protect the interests of the rich people in rich countries and keep the poor people in the poor countries poor.


Surley buying hte merchandise with Che on it, its going against what he, and you claim to be 'for'. Its giveing more money to capitilists and multy-national corporations.
So is buying food and this computer and everything in the Western World, right now we dont have a choice, we will defeat our enemies with their own tools!


Most message boards cant have a proper argument or discussion.
You have probably gone to crappy messageboards then...

[STABD]

ya it gives money to the corporations but not on that high of a level. i dont think its wise to complain when its bringing new peopel to the left. if it wasnt for che i might be a bush suporter right now(scary thought). its away for him to live on, i say let the corperations greed destroy them.

[The Elf]

Yes, but he has excecuted a child for stealing in the past. Surely that isnt acceptable.
The USA wanted to attack cuba becuase it had WMDs in range of it. I am not from the USA, so we will leave that one for now.


Perhaps you should wonder why the people want to rebel, wouldnt you rebel against the cruel and horrible situations in the Third World?

yes, but if everything in the world was split equally, everyone would have practically nothing. There would be no shops, no skilled people, no scientists, it would be complete anarchy. As it is at the moment, our contries have money, so they can try to help 3rd world countries as much as possible. I know its not fair, but theres nothing we can do to help, we are stuck with it.


generalisation...every person wearing a Che t shirt or agreeing with his ideas is like you described? I doubt that!

I am saying most people dont know who he is, what he stands for. They just know others wear them, so do it themselves.



Charity and communism? Charity is a way for poor people in rich countries to give money to rich people in poor countries to they can protect the interests of the rich people in rich countries and keep the poor people in the poor countries poor.


you lost me there. are you saying charity is a bad thing in general?

[fernando]

Yes, but he has excecuted a child for stealing in the past. Surely that isnt acceptable.

What is your source for this claim? people have said it before but never came with an objective source for this claim...right now I could say that Santa Claus are millions of puppies, but how could I prove that? "well some guy told me"


yes, but if everything in the world was split equally, everyone would have practically nothing.
That is a lie, there is more than enough food in the world to feed 12 billion people, look at how decadent certain people live, they dont need that! What would we need? Do we need big screen tv's and million dollar necklaces?


would be no shops, no skilled people, no scientists, it would be complete anarchy.
Where do you get that idea from? Money shouldnt be the factor for you to pick a profession, you shouldnt become a doctor because you can buy big fancy cars etc, you should become a doctor because you want to cure people.


As it is at the moment, our contries have money, so they can try to help 3rd world countries as much as possible.
The Western World keeps the Third World poor so they can keep on making money, the US has been responsible for much destruction and death to secure their economic position in Latin America.


I know its not fair, but theres nothing we can do to help, we are stuck with it.

You are wrong here, changes are on the way, just look at what Chavez is trying to do in Venezuela...this greatly scares the US, since if the Third World would get rich the Western Nations couldnt get their recourses for cheap and would make less profit.


I am saying most people dont know who he is, what he stands for.
Perhaps in Europe or in the US, but in Latin America he is practically a saint.


you lost me there. are you saying charity is a bad thing in general?
Yes, the money doesnt go to the people who need it but to the elites who then again make sure the rich people in the West keep making more money with their exploitation. There is a saying: "give a poor man a fish and he will eat for one day, teach a poor man how to fish and he will bankrupt a coorporation"

[STABD]

yes Elf it would be anarchy. there would be no goverment. but i cant help but notice you say this as if it freightens you. i think by the word anarchy you ment disorder. I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not. It is NOT bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is NOT robbery and murder. It is NOT a war of each against all. It is NOT a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This guy has obviously not even taken the time to read even the most basic works on Che, Communism, etc. So, why even try to argue against claims that are completely baseless?

[fernando]

maybe he has only heard stuff from cappies, so we could teach him some stuff

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But you see he doesn't come askin questions or trying to learn. He comes making false assertions.

[The Elf]

Most message boards cant have a proper argument or discussion.

CompaneroDeLibertad was exactly the kind of person i hoped wasnt on here. i said 'most message boards cant have a proper discussion'.

Anyway i am not making false assertations. I am saying what i have heard, and i thought this forum could show me why they were wrong. i didnt see why so many people like communism, so i posted on here, becuase it is a communist forum.


So conivince me he was a good person. And convince me all these children wearing Che shirts are doing so rightly.


i think you will find that is a question, and i am trying to learn.


This guy has obviously not even taken the time to read even the most basic works on Che, Communism, etc. So, why even try to argue against claims that are completely baseless?

i have tried to, and what i posted was what i found out.




yes Elf it would be anarchy. there would be no goverment. but i cant help but notice you say this as if it freightens you. i think by the word anarchy you ment disorder. I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not. It is NOT bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is NOT robbery and murder. It is NOT a war of each against all. It is NOT a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

but surely if it was anarcy, no one would do as they are told. They would not bother with working in what they are supposed to do. Would they be delagated work by the leader? (which sounds a bit like dictatorship)
If there was no government, people would do what they want, there will always be people who would think, right, no police, lets go and steal and murder people. Now there wouldnt be many at first, but people would be worried, they would be forced to do the same to survive.
Then it would be a battle of survival, so people would help each other out,like they do in a capitalist society.

[Enragé]

They would not bother with working in what they are supposed to do

Well, without getting money in capitalism, you dont work because you get nothing but money from your work (the true profit goes to your boss). In communist society your boss does not profit from your work (there isnt one), the community does, and in turn you profit from it. your life and the life of the people around you improve.


right, no police, lets go and steal and murder people

i dont want to steal and murder
do you?
Does anyone you know?
The reason people steal is because they are poor, and because when you are poor in this system you are absolutely nothing, you want to acquire more wealth, so thats why you would steal.
Also, businesses in this system steal too, from the working man, but no one really cares about that.


CompaneroDeLibertad, quit your *****in, he's just misguided, but i dont think he's an asshole, who knows, he might even turn out to be a leftie. He just might not know it yet.
At least he is open to new ideas or else he wouldnt be here.

[The Elf]

Hmm, i know most people wouldnt want to not work, and would want to help the community, but there are some that would. I am not saying there are many, but some would missuse the system, and what would happen to them? There would be no government, and no police to take care of them, becuase there is no authority.

Communism would work IF everyone contributed, but if you look at countries that tryed it, they dont seem to work, and become dictatorships.

[KC]

Hmm, i know most people wouldnt want to not work, and would want to help the community, but there are some that would. I am not saying there are many, but some would missuse the system, and what would happen to them? There would be no government, and no police to take care of them, becuase there is no authority.

You have to realize that a communist society is hundreds of years in the future. People that don't grow up in a capitalist society don't develop greed like everybody has now. Also, you have to remember the fact that the work day will be drastically cut (4-5 hour workday instead of 8-10), the division of labour will be nonexistant, you will be able to easily go between jobs as education is free, you will be able to have whatever job you want.



Communism would work IF everyone contributed, but if you look at countries that tryed it, they dont seem to work, and become dictatorships.

No country has been communist. All those have been an attempt at socialism, not communism, and not all have failed (I think Cuba's doing fine).

[quincunx5]

You have to realize that a communist society is hundreds of years in the future. People that don't grow up in a capitalist society don't develop greed like everybody has now. Also, you have to remember the fact that the work day will be drastically cut (4-5 hour workday instead of 8-10), the division of labour will be nonexistant, you will be able to easily go between jobs as education is free, you will be able to have whatever job you want.


To be greedy is to be human. We produce with others because we have to so that we can consume by ourselves.

Division of labor is precisely the reason we have an advanced society.

Who enforces this 4-5 hour workday? Why do you keep saying that? Are people free to choose how much they want to work?

Education is always free. Having someone spend their time lecturing you is not free (unless they want to).



No country has been communist. All those have been an attempt at socialism, not communism, and not all have failed (I think Cuba's doing fine).


The Marx way is to have socialism and then communism. They failed precisely because the last stage can never be completed. It's what happens when you concentrate power in the hands of the leaders. They certainly do not want to give up their power. Are you that surprised that the leader will always be a son-of-a-***** backstabber, who uses the communist flag to further his own agenda for power?

The communist party call of "from each according to ability to each according to need" implies that some distribution must take place. Those in power will use the state to form a top-down economy - but it will be based on capitalism precisely because value is subjective and everything on earth is a scarce resource with alternate uses. That is what happend in those countries that you debate were not communist.

The only way communism can be successful is if we thought alike and had unlimited resources. Good luck.

[KC]

To be greedy is to be human.

Please, let's see some evidence that human nature exists (and further, that greed is part of human nature).



Division of labor is precisely the reason we have an advanced society.

As compared to everything before it, yes. This statement is just stupid.



Who enforces this 4-5 hour workday? Why do you keep saying that? Are people free to choose how much they want to work?


Society. Because it's true. Yes.



Education is always free. Having someone spend their time lecturing you is not free (unless they want to).


And?




The Marx way is to have socialism and then communism. They failed precisely because the last stage can never be completed.

Yes it can.


It's what happens when you concentrate power in the hands of the leaders. They certainly do not want to give up their power. Are you that surprised that the leader will always be a son-of-a-***** backstabber, who uses the communist flag to further his own agenda for power?

You've just refuted Leninism, not Marxism. With this we are in agreement.



The communist party call of "from each according to ability to each according to need" implies that some distribution must take place. Those in power will use the state to form a top-down economy - but it will be based on capitalism precisely because value is subjective and everything on earth is a scarce resource with alternate uses. That is what happend in those countries that you debate were not communist.

I agree with you that Leninism doesn't work.



The only way communism can be successful is if we thought alike and had unlimited resources. Good luck.

Why?

[quincunx5]

Please, let's see some evidence that human nature exists (and further, that greed is part of human nature).


It must be a part of human nature for the word to exist, since we humans create words.



Society. Because it's true. Yes.


Society enforces a 4-5 hour word day? How do you know this? Why is it specifically that range and no other?



Yes it can.


Only in theory, not in practice.



You've just refuted Leninism, not Marxism. With this we are in agreement.
I agree with you that Leninism doesn't work.


Ok. Now you see the problem? Marx was a theoritician, while Lenin was a practician. I can write everything I want, but I can't physically do everything I want.



Why?


Because in order to have successful society, society in whole must be understood by most of its consituents. Beating people into thinking communism is good for them doesn't get you very far.

[Fidelbrand]

It must be a part of human nature for the word to exist, since we humans create words.


The word "angels" exist, but its doesn't proof it exists just because a linguistic term is made. Also, you didn't comment on / proof whether "greed" is part of human nature.



Society enforces a 4-5 hour word day? How do you know this? Why is it specifically that range and no other?


I think society in most counties nowadays won't EVEN NEED to enforce a 4-5 hours a day since it isn't eough for someone to subsist in such a context.

The systemic and environmental context is driving people to choose between 2 options (Yes, they choose!) 1) Work and get a living. 2) Die.



Only in theory, not in practice.


I don't disagree with reference towards history. But putting a dead end for bigoted failures doesn't mean progress either, let alone whteher it is right to think in this way. :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

The word "angels" exist, but its doesn't proof it exists just because a linguistic term is made. Also, you didn't comment on / proof whether "greed" is part of human nature.


I don't think "angels" exist.

But if the term exists it means that some humans think they exist or thought that they existed. So in essense that proves that "angels" exist in the minds of some humans.



greed Audio pronunciation of "greed" P Pronunciation Key (grd)
n.
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth


It seems like it refers to humans. But then again, other animals can be greedy too.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 23 2005, 04:37 PM
Hmm, i know most people wouldnt want to not work, and would want to help the community, but there are some that would. I am not saying there are many, but some would missuse the system, and what would happen to them? There would be no government, and no police to take care of them, becuase there is no authority.

Communism would work IF everyone contributed, but if you look at countries that tryed it, they dont seem to work, and become dictatorships.
you would still have councils which have some power over the area from which its council members are. These councils would comprise of the people themselves.

I think most people, if not all, would want to work as long as their work profits themselves and their community, and not their bosses. The point is, work has to be something positive, and 99% of the time something you like doing, then you will want to work.
If there are however people who do not work, then they will simply be outside of society, they will not recieve the benefits of the work the community members do.

No society has ever been communist, nor socialist even.

[Freedom Works]

And no society has been laissez faire, so you can't blame ills of the world on the market, when the market capitalists espouse does not exist.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:39 PM


I don't think "angels" exist.

But if the term exists it means that some humans think they exist or thought that they existed. So in essense that proves that "angels" exist in the minds of some humans.

Thanks for the post.

So at last it is clarified.
Some humans think "greed" is ordaned by nature.
Which simulatenously refutes the claim that "human greed is natural and in-born". :)

[quincunx5]

Some humans think "greed" is ordaned by nature.


Humans think "angels" exist and humans are "greedy".

Every person has an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Anyone who needs more than the bare minimum for survival (food, shelter) is greedy. History shows that we are greedy.

[The Elf]

you would still have councils which have some power over the area from which its council members are. These councils would comprise of the people themselves.

so then that give some people power others dont have surely

[Decolonize The Left]

Human nature cannot be defined, nor can it be proven.

Therefore all arguments on this topic are pure speculation.

In my humble opinion:
Greed is not an aspect of human nature. I think that everyone works towards their interests, but when those interests are acheived, they are satisfied. Greed would imply that they further their already acheived interests simply because they can...

Also, I think if you can show people that their interests are really the interests of everyone, you will have anarchism/communism.

The reason why we have more than the basics for survival is because we are curious. I also think curiousity is part of human nature. This explains science, and all those things which arn't the basics of survival.

Just as "angels" exist to some people, "Santa Claus" exists to children. So is that enough to say that he is real? Using the fact that we have a word for an idea is not enough to justify its existence.

-- August

[KC]

so then that give some people power others dont have surely

The difference is that this wouldn't be their only job. Whoever is on the council is a worker that is elected to position by democratic majority. They don't give up their job. Also, power is through direct democracy, the council is merely an organizing body.

[quincunx5]

Greed is not an aspect of human nature. I think that everyone works towards their interests, but when those interests are acheived, they are satisfied. Greed would imply that they further their already acheived interests simply because they can...

The reason why we have more than the basics for survival is because we are curious. I also think curiousity is part of human nature. This explains science, and all those things which arn't the basics of survival.


So you agree that greed implies that they further their already achieved interests simply because they can. So what happens when our curiosity and science brings us new interests that we want to achieve?

You have to understand that people love to consume. Once a desired goal has been achieved, it loses some of it's value. One now has to find another goal to achieve.

There is cat nature, dog nature, dolphin nature. There may be some variations but generally they are predictible. As are humans. Note that generosity is also part of human nature.



Also, I think if you can show people that their interests are really the interests of everyone, you will have anarchism/communism.


I think capitalism achieves this better. Science thrives in a capitalist society.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:32 PM
Human nature cannot be defined, nor can it be proven.

Therefore all arguments on this topic are pure speculation.

In my humble opinion:
Greed is not an aspect of human nature. I think that everyone works towards their interests, but when those interests are acheived, they are satisfied. Greed would imply that they further their already acheived interests simply because they can...

Also, I think if you can show people that their interests are really the interests of everyone, you will have anarchism/communism.

The reason why we have more than the basics for survival is because we are curious. I also think curiousity is part of human nature. This explains science, and all those things which arn't the basics of survival.

Just as "angels" exist to some people, "Santa Claus" exists to children. So is that enough to say that he is real? Using the fact that we have a word for an idea is not enough to justify its existence.

-- August
AW got it right on ;)

[Fidelbrand]

Humans think "angels" exist and humans are "greedy".

Yeah, but the problem is : thinking that it exists and it really exists naturally is really different.




Every person has an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

I think it's more of a cultural/systemic influence where humans NOW all tend to agree with this statement. What's your opinion on this thought?


Science thrives in a capitalist society.
Science is indeed important. But give it a thought: Pollution/diseases created by capitalism needs science very badly.....this......, therefore facilitate the progress of science. :rolleyes:

Here's a link of Rousseau's if you would like to read
Wonder what's your view on this:

Rousseau's Discourse on the Arts and Sciences

.....Peoples, know once and for all that nature wished to protect you from knowledge, just as a mother snatches away a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child, that all the secrets which she keeps hidden from you are so many evils she is defending you against, and that the difficulty you experience in educating yourselves is not the least of her benefits. Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had the misfortune of being born knowledgeable.

link:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/rousseau/firstdiscourse.htm

[Decolonize The Left]

So what happens when our curiosity and science brings us new interests that we want to achieve?

This does not reinforce your statement, in fact it reinforces mine. You are simply stating that when we achieve an interest, and another one develops, we wish to achieve that one as well. This was my whole point, but it is not greed. It is the pursuit of personal interests. And since personal interests are in fact the interests of the community, as no one can create something on his own, we are all in this together.


You have to understand that people love to consume.

This is what capitalism has tried to force you to think, and has succeded. If we all believed this, capitalism would survive for a long, long, time. And in that time, millions of people would suffer and die as a direct result of capitalism.


Note that generosity is also part of human nature.

This is a contradiction to your earlier statement that greed is part of human nature. Humans cannot be both greedy and generous, as they are opposites.


Science thrives in a capitalist society.

Fidel made a good point on this. I'll quote him:

Science is indeed important. But give it a thought: Pollution/diseases created by capitalism needs science very badly.....this......, therefore facilitate the progress of science.

This is a good point. But it also should also be noted that in a communist/anarchist community people would be encouraged to pursue their interests. When you think about this, people would not be drawn to science or doctors because they 'pay well'. They would be drawn there because it truly interests them, and in turn, it will eliminate laziness and in fact push science and medical research to new levels unknown to capitalism.

-- August

[quincunx5]

Yeah, but the problem is : thinking that it exists and it really exists naturally is really different.


Again two different words. One is a figure of our imagination. One is one of our attributes.



This does not reinforce your statement, in fact it reinforces mine. You are simply stating that when we achieve an interest, and another one develops, we wish to achieve that one as well. This was my whole point, but it is not greed. It is the pursuit of personal interests. And since personal interests are in fact the interests of the community, as no one can create something on his own, we are all in this together.


It is greed because achieving interests does not come to 100% of people equally at the same time. We produce with others so that we can consume by ourselves.



And since personal interests are in fact the interests of the community,


There is a clear distinction between 'personal' and 'community'. I still have to chew my own food, take my own shit, occupy my own space, and think my own thoughts.



And in that time, millions of people would suffer and die as a direct result of capitalism.


As if millions of people suffering and dying would not occur under any conditions.

World population was 1 billion in 1900. Today it is over 6 billion.
What happend? Capitalism. Fuck your millions.



as no one can create something on his own, we are all in this together.


And no one can create if they have to seek majority approval.



This is a contradiction to your earlier statement that greed is part of human nature. Humans cannot be both greedy and generous, as they are opposites.


They are not opposites, in fact they are really the same. I can't wait for your reaction - as it is so predictable.



Science is indeed important. But give it a thought: Pollution/diseases created by capitalism needs science very badly.....this......, therefore facilitate the progress of science.


Science is a result of capitalism. What you are saying is:
Pollution/diseases created by science hence it needs science very badly.....this......, therefore facilitate the progress of science.

Science is by definition a progressive thing. This is pretty obvious. Science is a double-edged sword. Science is both good and bad. Science has led to the very thing that would destroy us all: Thermonuclear War. Using science responsibly is most desirable.



When you think about this, people would not be drawn to science or doctors because they 'pay well'. They would be drawn there because it truly interests them, and in turn, it will eliminate laziness and in fact push science and medical research to new levels unknown to capitalism.


People are drawn to science because it interests them. Getting 'well paid' is just a side benefit. They are well paid because they are valuable and not everyone can do their job. Value is higher when there is scarcity.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 24 2005, 09:32 PM

you would still have councils which have some power over the area from which its council members are. These councils would comprise of the people themselves.

so then that give some people power others dont have surely
err no, as i said all people are in those councils, no exceptions.

[quincunx5]

err no, as i said all people are in those councils, no exceptions.


If all the people are in the those councils, then why did you even mention counsils?

Capitalism has counsils too. They are called individuals, families, friends, etc.
Everyone is in a group of 1 or more.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:15 AM


err no, as i said all people are in those councils, no exceptions.


If all the people are in the those councils, then why did you even mention counsils?

Capitalism has counsils too. They are called individuals, families, friends, etc.
Everyone is in a group of 1 or more.
because you cannot make decisions communaly if you never come together in one place to discuss and make decisions.

yes but those individuals havent got any power remember.

[quincunx5]

because you cannot make decisions communaly if you never come together in one place to discuss and make decisions.


And what exactly stops you from coming together?



yes but those individuals havent got any power remember.


The power of any group is nothing more than the sum of powers of all its individuals.

[KC]

Quincunx5, you're suggesting that we can have councils now? Do you take the short bus to school?

[quincunx5]

Quincunx5, you're suggesting that we can have councils now? Do you take the short bus to school?


You must be the one taking the short bus, for you can not read. I didn't bring them up.

[KC]

Capitalism has counsils too. They are called individuals, families, friends, etc.
Everyone is in a group of 1 or more.


Why would you say something as stupid as that? I mean, cmon. Seriously, do you know what a council is? And if so, why would you say something so stupid?

[quincunx5]

Exactly what is stupid about my comment?

coun·cil n.
1. An assembly of persons called together for consultation, deliberation, or discussion.
2. A body of people elected or appointed to serve as administrators, legislators, or advisors.
3. An assembly of church officials and theologians convened for regulating matters of doctrine and discipline.

The discussion or deliberation that takes place in such an assembly or body.

3 obviously doesn't apply.
2 doesn't apply, Soldier says that everyone is in one - hence no one is elected.
1 Can you not consult, deliberate, or discuss with yourself, your family, or your friends?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:52 PM

1 Can you not consult, deliberate, or discuss with yourself, your family, or your friends?
you can but the decisions made will mean nothing, because the government+corporations have control.

for example: a council decides that more wheat should be produced, well...in this system they can decide that..but it simply wont happen, in communism, it will.

[quincunx5]

you can but the decisions made will mean nothing, because the government+corporations have control.


And these are not councils on a bigger scale, except of the elected type?



for example: a council decides that more wheat should be produced, well...in this system they can decide that..but it simply wont happen, in communism, it will.


That is bullshit. If I decide to grow wheat - I will grow wheat. If a family, group of friends, local governments, state governments, public corporations, private corporations decide to grow more wheat - it will happen.

The problem in growing more wheat is that something else must be grown less. You can not get around the problem of scarcity.

If the council decides to bulldoze your house to make room for wheat - should that happen?

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22 2005, 08:54 PM
Yes, but he has excecuted a child for stealing in the past. Surely that isnt acceptable.
Surely that's bull crap.