Consumerism wins again!

[LSD]

In the battle between "traditional values" and capitalism, the ultimate victor is certain.


Originally posted by Short News
Pastor Convicted of Embezzlement - Sells Church to Buy a BMW

MANTECA, CA - A church pastor pleaded guilty to charges of embezzlement and is now awaiting sentencing. Randall Radic, 53, reportedly sold the church that he preached at for almost ten years so that he could purchase a BMW.

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=5...FTOKEN=62981699 (http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=52573&CFID=13875202&CFTOKEN=62981699)

Just another reminder to the superstitious here that we don't need a revolution to "destroy" your "faiths".

They're dying quite nicely on their own. :)

[Elect Marx]

Car...god...car...god. Wow, that was a tough choice; another devoted servant cashes out of the church :lol:

PRAISE JESUS! (give me a car suckers)

[violencia.Proletariat]

He must have had a shitty church then. :lol: The ones I've been in during my lifetime had nice archictectual designs and all kinds of sound system and television goodies.

[James]

hardly a new thing.
Reformation was arguably caused in part by such corruption in the clergy.

[Noah]

Lol...I like your point LSD.

[Clarksist]

A Beemer sounds real good right now.

At least, better then preaching about God for ten years.

I can see his dilemma.

[Columbia]

In the battle between "traditional values" and capitalism, the ultimate victor is certain.

QUOTE (Short News)

Pastor Convicted of Embezzlement - Sells Church to Buy a BMW
MANTECA, CA - A church pastor pleaded guilty to charges of embezzlement and is now awaiting sentencing. Randall Radic, 53, reportedly sold the church that he preached at for almost ten years so that he could purchase a BMW.

Just another reminder to the superstitious here, that we don't need a revolution to "destroy" your "faiths".

They're dying quite nicely on their own.


My Response:


In the battle between "socialist values" and capitalism, the ultimate victor is certain.

QUOTE (Short News)

Party member Doctor Convicted of Greed - Leaves rural practice for better citry practice
ANY PROVENCE, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA - A rural doctor and member of the PRC's Communist Party pleaded guilty to charges of greed and is now awaiting sentencing. Dr. XYZ, 53, reportedly left the practice that he had worked for over 20 years in a rural community in China so that he could start a new practice in one of the principle cities.

Just another reminder to the superstitious here, that we don't need a imperialism to "destroy" your "theories".

They're dying quite nicely on their own.

[ALL of this was true, and reported in the World radio broadcast and Pacifica Radio, except for the part about "awaiting sentencing". He's not being tried; what he did was totally allowed now in China.]

Mao at his finest.

P.S. Car...car...car...

[Clarksist]

Just another reminder to the superstitious here, that we don't need a imperialism to "destroy" your "theories".

They're dying quite nicely on their own.

Get a grip on yourself. China isn't a Socialist state, it isn't a communist/anarchist society, and frankly is not on the left. Greed itself, at least in this case, was propelled by capitalism.

And therefore, you have slammed nails into your own coffin.

[James]

Get a grip on yourself. China isn't a Socialist state, it isn't a communist/anarchist society, and frankly is not on the left. Greed itself, at least in this case, was propelled by capitalism.

And therefore, you have slammed nails into your own coffin.


Yet no doubt the other individual was christian.

[SmithSmith]

Also

A pastor was advertising the Ipod his saying “it is so simple and pure.”

[ItalianCommie]

Columbia,


China is as communist as much as Al Pacino is Italian.

Comrade Red Brigade wrote that. Shows just how much you know about communism.

You sound like some spoilt teenager from the O.C. now, knowing a bit more than Homer Simpson.

Capitalism reigns supreme in China now. I don't see anyone reversing that.

[commiecrusader]

Columbia... In a communist society a doctor wouldn't be any better off in a town than in a village. This proves how far from communism modern-day China is. I am constantly amazed by how ignorant and dumb some of OI's inhabitants are considering how often they are told what communism is... :lol:

[Columbia]

HA!

I am hardly "slamming nails into my own coffin, nor am I demonstrating that I misunderstand socialism.

It appears that (this is addressed to some, not all) you appreciation of irony swings only in your favor. (Mine, by the way, is far more balanced, and I can appreciate the irony in both stories.)


In the first case, you have someone representing himself as a church leader, only to be eventually shown as a fraud, or at least an abuser of the trust of others. He isn't living by the principles of Christianity (I'm not a Christain, but their tenant is to treat others fairly, or as you would be treated by others yourself.), and exposed himself to not be very "Christian".

In the second case, you have someone representing himself as a party member, a sworn advocate of socialism, choosing to make as much money as possible.

If you only see the irony on one side and not the other, that's your problem. And it's a serious one in a way, because it means your view is blurred by your prejudice.

Interestingly, by the many claims that the PRC isn't socialist, you're in far more trouble than the Christians. You see, they have tens of thousands of churches where the pastor would NOT exploit his/her congregation, while it is your opinion that such would be business as usual in a claimed to be "Socialist/Maoist/Communist/Whatever-it-is nation.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:10 PM

Interestingly, by the many claims that the PRC isn't socialist, you're in far more trouble than the Christians. You see, they have tens of thousands of churches where the pastor would NOT exploit his/her congregation, while it is your opinion that such would be business as usual in a claimed to be "Socialist/Maoist/Communist/Whatever-it-is nation.
Its not matter of the label they choose that we object to, its a matter of historical and material conditions, plain and simple, it was impossible to establish Socialism in China or Russia at those times, it would be plain absurd as well as turn Marxism on its head! Its not that we are aplogetics (I would have fully supported the Bolsheviks and Mao for other reasons), its simply that such a claim made by either you, or other "Marxists" is not consistent with the materialist conception of history!

[Columbia]

Zingu,

Naturally my comment is not consistent with a materialist view of history. You're at the "Religion" board, which is a sub-group of Opposing Ideologies. I challenge the entire view of materialism in the first place.

My support is for the structure of the United States, and the views and commentary of the Framers of our Constitution. Their arguments were occasionally concerned with class issues, but mainly concerned with the concentration of power, and the belief that power was normal part of life and government, and that was a fact of life. So you create a government with competing interests and checks and balances.

Most people at who are revolutionary could care less about such views that I have. They believe revolution is more or less inevitible. I believe they are in a fantasy land, and that the same issues discussed by our Framers are just as valid when applied to the Framers of the Russian or Chinese Revolution.

Since you mentioned these two contries, I'll discuss them.

In 1972-74, Richard Nixon made the claim that if the President does it in the name of national security, then it can't be illegal. He attempted to argue that the laws created by the legislature were not effective over his office.

As you remember, the federal court disagreed with him and ordered him to turn over documents which ultimately lead to his leaving office (a form of removal, as impeachment was on its way.)

Simply put, one branch attempted to claim it could define what American government was by itself, and another branch stepped in and say, "No."

Now, back to your Russian and Chinese issues:

My argument is that any Revolution of the nature that Socialists support will fail because there is never in any of these governments, parties or movements, another brach of authority which can stop the leaders themselves. And so these movements move in a direct line with everyone towing the line. There may be occasional infighting, and Trotsky may lose and Stalin may win, but in the final analysis, that's not the same as our check and balance approach.

So, in Russia, the socialist "train" got hijacked to militarist and planned economy land (a planned economy where the leaders had hidden golden parachutes for themselves and not anyone else), and there was nothing to do about the hijacking.

China was/is worse, because it's nothing more than a capitalist nation, whose party membership pretends at being socialist to stay in power. And as the PRC jumped the shark, what branch of Chinese Communists were able to "right the train", and say, "Excuse me, but we're not Communist anymore; can we get back to the Revolution instead of wondering around trying to buy the coolest cell phone?"

Now, those at this board will argue that one day another country, or workers in that country, will begin a process toward socialism. Why should I believe that such a movement will be the TRUE movement, when all the others got hijacked to murder-land, or hijacked to money-land?

[violencia.Proletariat]

My argument is that any Revolution of the nature that Socialists support will fail because there is never in any of these governments, parties or movements, another brach of authority which can stop the leaders themselves.

You clearly do not understand socialist theory. No third world undeveloped nation has been or will be "socialist". It does not have the material conditions to do so! Secondly this all powerful "state" is not a factor of socialism, Marx thought the Paris Commune was a good representation of socialist government, and this can never be compared to the USSR or China.


So, in Russia, the socialist "train" got hijacked to militarist and planned economy land (a planned economy where the leaders had hidden golden parachutes for themselves and not anyone else), and there was nothing to do about the hijacking.

In Russia, the material conditions were not there for there to be socialism! You cant have socialism without a proletariat, which did not exist in Russia at that time.


China was/is worse, because it's nothing more than a capitalist nation

Which is all that China could have become, the party members are the native bougeois of that country. Their "revolution" brought modern capitalism to the country.


Why should I believe that such a movement will be the TRUE movement, when all the others got hijacked to murder-land, or hijacked to money-land?

Who gives a shit what you think, you've already established yourself as a capitalist. We arent going to waste our time explaining theory to you if its unlikely you will be convinced.

[Columbia]

Nate wrote:

You clearly do not understand socialist theory. No third world undeveloped nation has been or will be "socialist". It does not have the material conditions to do so! Secondly this all powerful "state" is not a factor of socialism, Marx thought the Paris Commune was a good representation of socialist government, and this can never be compared to the USSR or China.

In Russia, the material conditions were not there for there to be socialism! You cant have socialism without a proletariat, which did not exist in Russia at that time.


I will take both of these comments of yours together. I competely disagree with you. Russia had a working class and every imaginable resource to build a powerful nation, socialist or otherwise. It is rich in resources and labor.

I am aware that Marx had a prejudice toward the Russians, and believed they were probably too underdeveloped for revolution, which he expected would probably happen in London before it would Russia.

But this is all by the way. I believe in fact that you are not being genuine. If you were around in the 1920's in Russia, and believed what you did and knew what you did about the future, you would not "give up the ghost", but would stick around and try to make it work, warn them about Stalin, and try to make a genuine socialist nation. I don't know this, I just believe it.

I believe history has agreed with me that socialism in Russia, China and Vietnam was "hijacked", or whatever metaphore you wish to use. Each of them were on the verge of it, but their leaders were too busy/are too busy protecting their own interests to practice socialism.


QUOTE
China was/is worse, because it's nothing more than a capitalist nation

Which is all that China could have become, the party members are the native bougeois of that country. Their "revolution" brought modern capitalism to the country.


Apparently we agree on something.



QUOTE
Why should I believe that such a movement will be the TRUE movement, when all the others got hijacked to murder-land, or hijacked to money-land?

Who gives a shit what you think, you've already established yourself as a capitalist. We arent going to waste our time explaining theory to you if its unlikely you will be convinced.


My dear sir:
I haven't come here to be convinced of anything. It is I who do not care what you believe. Remember we're at the opposing ideology forum, religion branch. This is where cappies like me hang out. If I needed to be convinced I would troll around on the regular forum.

Nate, something's wrong with what you said above and I hope you understood my response. When Russia was engaged in its revolution, socialists throughout America and Europe were very excited. They referred to it in much the same way we Americans referred to our country at its inception: A great experiment. Ours in democracy, theirs in socialism.

There wasn't an intelectual alive who was a socialist saying what you are saying now with 20-20 hindsight. All wanted Russia to succeed as a socialist nation. This is part of accepted history. though in the 1850's and 1860's, Marx was not keen on the Russians having a successful revolution, they came closer than anything France or Sweden has tried to achieve.

Though I don't agree with Lenin and Co., I admire them for what they attempted. Anyone who tries something new with good intentions and not murderous ambitions is fine by me.

But, since you have mentioned to me that I do not understand the theories behind socialism (and you may be correct), remember that I probably think you don't understand the concepts behind the Federalist Papers, and the dangers of absolute power, which my heros wrote of about 250 years ago.

I predict the downfall of all socialism that is based on a form of dictatorship of one person, or one party, or one anything, because all people are human, and the concepts discussed by the Framers of our Constitution were very sound in these regards.

I don't make this prediction to be mean and provoke you, it's just my view of the world.

If you have not read my other writings here, then you do not know that my main reason at this forum is not to debunk socialism, but to discuss my beliefs in the Union of the United States, and the prevention of its disunion. This may not be your issue, so peace be with you. We really only have and issue, you and I, if you, let's say, supported the disunion of the USA.

Otherwise, have a good evening,

Columbia

[Zingu]

will take both of these comments of yours together. I competely disagree with you. Russia had a working class and every imaginable resource to build a powerful nation, socialist or otherwise. It is rich in resources and labor.




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Its too late here to post a whole explanation, but its extremely funny that you said that because that is exactly what Leninists say, which only shows even deeper your interpretation of Marxism really is. (ML is going to hit me hard for this...hehe).


By the way, on a quick note by reading the drivel of you last post, it seems you have a completely idealistic interpretation of history...something close a person named Hegel (on a crude level)...

[James]

You clearly do not understand socialist theory.

And you CLEARLY do not understand christian theory.

You really don't see the double standards being shown by you guys in this thread?

[Zingu]

will take both of these comments of yours together. I competely disagree with you. Russia had a working class and every imaginable resource to build a powerful nation, socialist or otherwise. It is rich in resources and labor.

To add to this, its also something that is worthy to ask the leninists, who seem to think just like you.

Know what the NEP was? Well, there go you, materialist history....its proof that Socialism couldn't just be "established" in Russia with a wave of a wand, I think you should start talking to some Leninists to see what they think, since your thinking seems to be so similar.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:53 AM

You clearly do not understand socialist theory.

And you CLEARLY do not understand christian theory.

You really don't see the double standards being shown by you guys in this thread?
Yes, but its unfounded, religous aplogetics just simply blurt out for religious maniacs and extremists, the inquisition, Iranian morality squads...ect. ect. ect. that they were just "bad people who were twisting a good idea".

Or they just completely distance theirselves from "traditional" religion and accept a altered, tweaked form of "liberal" religion.

But for us, we're not apolgetics, its a matter of history, we're not saying it wasen't socialist because it was bad, lots of people died..ect., but because the material conditions simply were not there....and the class relations and society was at a stage that would make such a revolution, as redstar2000 sometimes calls it...an other 1789, wiping away the remanents of feudalism for preparation for industrial development..and capitalism.

But now....I believe the material conditions for communist revolution are rapidly emerging.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I will take both of these comments of yours together. I competely disagree with you. Russia had a working class and every imaginable resource to build a powerful nation, socialist or otherwise. It is rich in resources and labor.

Russia's SMALL working class, were in the cities. The majority of Russia were still peasants.

As for the bolded part, yes to build. Thats what the USSR did! But socialism is not industrializing a country. Its the tranistion from an industrialized country into communism. Russia was not industrialized until after the USSR.


I believe in fact that you are not being genuine. If you were around in the 1920's in Russia, and believed what you did and knew what you did about the future, you would not "give up the ghost", but would stick around and try to make it work, warn them about Stalin, and try to make a genuine socialist nation. I don't know this, I just believe it.

I wouldnt warn them about shit. That situation is way too hypothetical for me to talk about seriously. I have the understanding that IT COULD NOT WORK, AT ALL! I would have supported the revolution however because it brought Russia into modern capitalism.


I believe history has agreed with me that socialism in Russia, China and Vietnam was "hijacked", or whatever metaphore you wish to use.

How can you "hijack" something that doesnt exist? I am not making an excuse for China or the USSR like some others on the board, because I know what it really was and it was not socialist.


My dear sir:
I haven't come here to be convinced of anything.

And that is why I do not waste my time trying to convince you


Remember we're at the opposing ideology forum, religion branch.

And we are talking about socialism :lol:

I am aware of where we are posting, and I post here in order to combat reactionary theories and ideas. I hope those reading will choose my side, I realize that I will not convince most people who have decided they like capitalism, which is why I'm not trying to do that.


When Russia was engaged in its revolution, socialists throughout America and Europe were very excited. They referred to it in much the same way we Americans referred to our country at its inception: A great experiment. Ours in democracy, theirs in socialism.

And those people WERE WRONG!


All wanted Russia to succeed as a socialist nation.

If it were possible I would have wanted that too. But if you agree with the historical materialist concept, you would see that it WAS NOT POSSIBLE. And Marx was dead and gone before "Russian socialism" so people had time to read what he had to say.

Luckily I have the option of looking back at history as to not make mistakes like that today.


Marx was not keen on the Russians having a successful revolution, they came closer than anything France or Sweden has tried to achieve.

If I'm not mistake, Marx and Engels PREDICTED the Russian revolution long before it happened.

And you are wrong with your second statement, the Paris commune is an example of what Marx envisioned as "socialism". The commune happened 40+ years before the Russian revolution.


I probably think you don't understand the concepts behind the Federalist Papers, and the dangers of absolute power, which my heros wrote of about 250 years ago.

I have not read all of the fed papers, but I have read a few of them. Hopefully you have read some Marx too.

[Columbia]

Nate,

Thank you for many of your comments which I can't disagree with. (Remember that the comment about France was not mine, but anothers.)

You are correct that I have not read a lot about socialist theory. I don't appologize about this, it's just my closed minded view of things.

OK, I have to shut down now. My boyfriend took me out to lunch and I had 1/2 a bottle of wine, a Sangiovase (sp?) if you're curious, and i'm getting weird.

We're going to Las Vegas for the weekend, and he's all excited about the Superbowl. He says to bet the Superbowl on the overs. wow, am I zonked. I'm going home early. So much for working on the newspaper. He sneeked a bottle of wine on to campus. He's wrong and I'm out of it.

I'll talk with you all on Monday, and tell you about the superbolw and ,,, oh im fading.

i wish there were a joke.

bye

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:53 PM
Nate,

Thank you for many of your comments which I can't disagree with. (Remember that the comment about France was not mine, but anothers.)

You are correct that I have not read a lot about socialist theory. I don't appologize about this, it's just my closed minded view of things.

OK, I have to shut down now. My boyfriend took me out to lunch and I had 1/2 a bottle of wine, a Sangiovase (sp?) if you're curious, and i'm getting weird.

We're going to Las Vegas for the weekend, and he's all excited about the Superbowl. He says to bet the Superbowl on the overs. wow, am I zonked. I'm going home early. So much for working on the newspaper. He sneeked a bottle of wine on to campus. He's wrong and I'm out of it.

I'll talk with you all on Monday, and tell you about the superbolw and ,,, oh im fading.

i wish there were a joke.

bye
Las Vegas. I hate how I find all the lights so attractive...


I can't help but think, that city, and all the buildings, despite what they stand for, are very attractive.

[James]

But for us, we're not apolgetics, its a matter of history, we're not saying it wasen't socialist because it was bad, lots of people died..ect., but because the material conditions simply were not there....

and i'm saying that quite simply, the guy wasn't christian. May claim to be. May think he is. But he clearly isn't.
Its not a "liberal interpretation". Read the gospels: it is glaringly obvious what one is meant to do, and what one is not meant to do.