So What About This Revolution...

[JimmyC]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government (though I may disagree with current administrations, congresses or supreme courts.) Fine by me. Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.

My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.

So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?

[JimmyC]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government (though I may disagree with current administrations, congresses or supreme courts.) Fine by me. Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.

My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.

So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?

[JimmyC]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government (though I may disagree with current administrations, congresses or supreme courts.) Fine by me. Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.

My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.

So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Errico Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Errico Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Errico Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always"

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Joe Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always" [/b]
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.

Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Joe Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always" [/b]
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.

Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

[Comrade Don]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 22 2006, 07:29 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 07:18 PM
So what do ALL OF YOU (Commies) believe will happen and why will Americans follow leaders of a socialist revolution? What will happen in America that gets people off their ass to march in the streets for your cause? I don't see it happening, but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
As a communist I hope the people of america tell any socialist leaders to politely fuck off

These types of questions are worthless, none of us have a crystal ball with which to see what will happen in the future. My oppinion on the matter can be summed up, to quote Joe Malatesta as; "not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow or within ten centuries, but that we walk toward anarchism today, tomorrow and always" [/b]
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.

Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.


Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html), seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...a terrible example of Anarchism. Try looking at the Syndicates in Spain in the 1930s...

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.


Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

Because the term anarchism was coined after Marx. But him an Bakunin did go at it a fair bit.

Unfortunatly for you, Libertarian communism is considered a form of communism, whether you like...I mean understand it or not.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.


Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html), seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...a terrible example of Anarchism. Try looking at the Syndicates in Spain in the 1930s...

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.


Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

Because the term anarchism was coined after Marx. But him an Bakunin did go at it a fair bit.

Unfortunatly for you, Libertarian communism is considered a form of communism, whether you like...I mean understand it or not.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2006, 07:34 PM
Firstly IMO, Your not a Communist your a anarchist which makes you as good as dead because Anarchism is not possible, the closest you would get to your utopia would be Somalia.


Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html), seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...a terrible example of Anarchism. Try looking at the Syndicates in Spain in the 1930s...

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.


Anarchism should not even be considered to be communist, Marx did not say one thing about Anarchism nor did any other Communist theoriest.

Because the term anarchism was coined after Marx. But him an Bakunin did go at it a fair bit.

Unfortunatly for you, Libertarian communism is considered a form of communism, whether you like...I mean understand it or not.

[Si Pinto]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.

[Si Pinto]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.

[Si Pinto]

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.

[An archist]

The missing link for a social revolution?
Capitalist companies will try to make more and more profits as is their nature. Probably they will go so far that people will get poorer and poorer until at some point, people say: "enough is enough" and rise up, what will happen next? no-one can tell.

[An archist]

The missing link for a social revolution?
Capitalist companies will try to make more and more profits as is their nature. Probably they will go so far that people will get poorer and poorer until at some point, people say: "enough is enough" and rise up, what will happen next? no-one can tell.

[An archist]

The missing link for a social revolution?
Capitalist companies will try to make more and more profits as is their nature. Probably they will go so far that people will get poorer and poorer until at some point, people say: "enough is enough" and rise up, what will happen next? no-one can tell.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 22 2006, 08:24 PM

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.
he means restricted on this forum....

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 22 2006, 08:24 PM

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.
he means restricted on this forum....

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 22 2006, 08:24 PM

I am not a cappie per se, but I am restricted because I support the United States concept of government

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Then why support something that you don't agree with, and have different views from?

Shouldn't you strive for what you truly believe in? Shouldn't you try to find the ideology which is closest to yours, or create your own and encourage like-minded people to join you?

When you ask 'what will make Americans get off their ass', you can then answer your own question...i.e. when they decide, like yourself, not to 'support' a concept of government that they have different beliefs to?

I hope this makes sense.
he means restricted on this forum....

[JimmyC]

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Si Pinto,

What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.

[JimmyC]

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Si Pinto,

What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.

[JimmyC]

You say that you are 'restricted' by your support for the US government, or concept of government?

I'm interested in what way you feel restricted, do you have beliefs that conflict or go beyond the concepts of the US?

Si Pinto,

What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.

[Tungsten]

Additives Free
Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html),
Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.

seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...
Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.

a terrible example of Anarchism.
Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.
The difference being...?

[Tungsten]

Additives Free
Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html),
Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.

seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...
Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.

a terrible example of Anarchism.
Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.
The difference being...?

[Tungsten]

Additives Free
Somalia? Somalia is a great example of Libertarian Capitalism (http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/000789.html),
Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.

seeing how the market is freer there than anywhere else, even children are bought and sold!...
Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.

a terrible example of Anarchism.
Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?

Also, calling me an Anarchist is somewhat incorrect. Im a Libertarian Communist, or more specifically an Anarcho-Communist there is a reasonable difference between the two terms.
The difference being...?

[An archist]

Somalia did have a government, no-one listens to it, and it's in exile. In Somalia there's a constant struggle for power and there's opression everywhere, Somalia is anti-anarchic.

Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.
Anarchism does not mean: the destruction of the state and capitalism at this very instant, it means, making people aware of present conditions and of the need for change, and so, gradually or suddenly building a better world, on small or large scale.

[An archist]

Somalia did have a government, no-one listens to it, and it's in exile. In Somalia there's a constant struggle for power and there's opression everywhere, Somalia is anti-anarchic.

Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.
Anarchism does not mean: the destruction of the state and capitalism at this very instant, it means, making people aware of present conditions and of the need for change, and so, gradually or suddenly building a better world, on small or large scale.

[An archist]

Somalia did have a government, no-one listens to it, and it's in exile. In Somalia there's a constant struggle for power and there's opression everywhere, Somalia is anti-anarchic.

Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.
Anarchism does not mean: the destruction of the state and capitalism at this very instant, it means, making people aware of present conditions and of the need for change, and so, gradually or suddenly building a better world, on small or large scale.

[Avtomatov]

Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).

[Avtomatov]

Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).

[Avtomatov]

Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:51 PM
What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.
My mistake,

Okay, that alters things a bit, but not that much.
-----------------

To answer your question..

I can't tell you when a revolution will happen, anymore than someone born in America or should that be 'The Americas' as they were known back then, would know when the American Revolution would have happened.

Now I'll ask my question in a slightly different way.

Your say in your opening line that you are 'not a cappie', so why support a '100% cappie' regime?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:51 PM
What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.
My mistake,

Okay, that alters things a bit, but not that much.
-----------------

To answer your question..

I can't tell you when a revolution will happen, anymore than someone born in America or should that be 'The Americas' as they were known back then, would know when the American Revolution would have happened.

Now I'll ask my question in a slightly different way.

Your say in your opening line that you are 'not a cappie', so why support a '100% cappie' regime?

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:51 PM
What I meant was I am a "restricted" member here at RevLeft.com. The Admin. has made it clear that if one "believes in the U.S. Constitution", that is support of capitalism If I began as a regular member, which I did not, my making that statement would cause someone to report me, then I'd become restricted.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe that I was restricted in my views, etc.
My mistake,

Okay, that alters things a bit, but not that much.
-----------------

To answer your question..

I can't tell you when a revolution will happen, anymore than someone born in America or should that be 'The Americas' as they were known back then, would know when the American Revolution would have happened.

Now I'll ask my question in a slightly different way.

Your say in your opening line that you are 'not a cappie', so why support a '100% cappie' regime?

[JimmyC]

Si Pinto,

I support the constitutional system which currently, by our decisions, allows capitalism to exist. In my lifetime, and my overall study of the 20th Century, I have seen that capitalism has continued to be "rolled back" or controlled.

Were we to be a heartless capitalist state, none of the various reforms would be in place, and there would be no 18th Amendment. If the wealthy elite controlled all decisions in America, they would not have allowed themselves to be taxed.

But I'm straying. I support the American governmental structure, the checks and balances of various areas of powers put into our governmental structure. With a majority vote in Congress, we could nearly abolish capitalism if we so chose to do so. Though we couldn't probably abolish private property itself without amending the constitution.

I don't view the United States as a regime. No one in executive power has ever tried to hold on to it beyond their legal limit.


An archist wrote:


Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.

This statement is oximoronic. Power will ALWAYS FILL OR ATTEMPT TO FILL ANY VACUUM. That's why Somalia is what it is. There is no definition for law, or enforcement of it, so natually selling children would always be allowed in an anarchy. It wouldn't be "illegal" to do so, because the notion of "illegal" wouldn't exist. Three days after anarchy would be attempted, someone would mount a rifle on their truck, and three weeks later everyone would have done the same. Three years later you'd have something resembling medieval Europe.

Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home. Better unite under the hammer and sickle.

[JimmyC]

Si Pinto,

I support the constitutional system which currently, by our decisions, allows capitalism to exist. In my lifetime, and my overall study of the 20th Century, I have seen that capitalism has continued to be "rolled back" or controlled.

Were we to be a heartless capitalist state, none of the various reforms would be in place, and there would be no 18th Amendment. If the wealthy elite controlled all decisions in America, they would not have allowed themselves to be taxed.

But I'm straying. I support the American governmental structure, the checks and balances of various areas of powers put into our governmental structure. With a majority vote in Congress, we could nearly abolish capitalism if we so chose to do so. Though we couldn't probably abolish private property itself without amending the constitution.

I don't view the United States as a regime. No one in executive power has ever tried to hold on to it beyond their legal limit.


An archist wrote:


Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.

This statement is oximoronic. Power will ALWAYS FILL OR ATTEMPT TO FILL ANY VACUUM. That's why Somalia is what it is. There is no definition for law, or enforcement of it, so natually selling children would always be allowed in an anarchy. It wouldn't be "illegal" to do so, because the notion of "illegal" wouldn't exist. Three days after anarchy would be attempted, someone would mount a rifle on their truck, and three weeks later everyone would have done the same. Three years later you'd have something resembling medieval Europe.

Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home. Better unite under the hammer and sickle.

[JimmyC]

Si Pinto,

I support the constitutional system which currently, by our decisions, allows capitalism to exist. In my lifetime, and my overall study of the 20th Century, I have seen that capitalism has continued to be "rolled back" or controlled.

Were we to be a heartless capitalist state, none of the various reforms would be in place, and there would be no 18th Amendment. If the wealthy elite controlled all decisions in America, they would not have allowed themselves to be taxed.

But I'm straying. I support the American governmental structure, the checks and balances of various areas of powers put into our governmental structure. With a majority vote in Congress, we could nearly abolish capitalism if we so chose to do so. Though we couldn't probably abolish private property itself without amending the constitution.

I don't view the United States as a regime. No one in executive power has ever tried to hold on to it beyond their legal limit.


An archist wrote:


Most people believe that anarchy is simply the lack of all government well it's not just that, anarchy is when people take responsability for their own actions, when people aren't opressed, when people are free to live and let live.

This statement is oximoronic. Power will ALWAYS FILL OR ATTEMPT TO FILL ANY VACUUM. That's why Somalia is what it is. There is no definition for law, or enforcement of it, so natually selling children would always be allowed in an anarchy. It wouldn't be "illegal" to do so, because the notion of "illegal" wouldn't exist. Three days after anarchy would be attempted, someone would mount a rifle on their truck, and three weeks later everyone would have done the same. Three years later you'd have something resembling medieval Europe.

Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home. Better unite under the hammer and sickle.

[Si Pinto]

teeny weeny contradiction here,


Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home.

Doesn't quite fit in with...


I am not a cappie per se

Goodnight..and sleep well

[Si Pinto]

teeny weeny contradiction here,


Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home.

Doesn't quite fit in with...


I am not a cappie per se

Goodnight..and sleep well

[Si Pinto]

teeny weeny contradiction here,


Alright, time for this cappie to do some chores around the house, so the real boss (that is the wife) is happy when she comes home.

Doesn't quite fit in with...


I am not a cappie per se

Goodnight..and sleep well

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.[/b]

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty". Here is a quote from Wikipedia:


Originally posted by "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism"+--> ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism")More recently, Somalia is cited by some as a real-world example of a stateless capitalist economy and a legal system. Since 1991, Somalia as a whole has had no internationally recognized government. Large areas of the country are ruled by unrecognized mini-states such as Somaliland, Puntland, and Southwestern Somalia. The remaining area, including the capital Mogadishu, is divided up into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords. In many areas there are thus no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and individuals and businesses pay money to private security guards and local warlords rather than 'taxes' to a constituted state.[/b]

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix. It's kind of strange that that point has to be beaten into the heads of some people... but then again, some people become Fascists :lol: . A system that promotes greed, and 'cutting corners' by squeezing the very last bit of labor out of the workers cannot be left unchecked. Hell, its not even 'stateless'! Out of the greed for capital, people band together to exploit in groups. Eventually controling pieces of the neighborhood like Mafia dons! If you want to try to debate the "legitimacy" of Capitalism, you have to look at this shining example of your "Free-Market Society". :lol:

("Tungsten")Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.[/b][/quote]
Seeing as it looks like you don't actually know what Libertarian Capitalism actually means, why are you arguing for it? Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people. Anarcho-Capitalism is taking the worst parts of Capitalism and letting it spread unchecked. I wouldn't be suprised to hear that people are exploited just as much as the poor citizens of Indonesia (another shining example of Capitalism's effects on the "morality" inside buisnesses. Passing the blame up the corporate ladder until it reaches the top, and nobody cares by then.) Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly. Or else it will end up killing thousands of people. Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.

("Tungsten")Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?[/b][/quote]
If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

("Tungsten")The difference being...?[/b][/quote]
Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), And finaly Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

Like I said before, if you want more in-deapth theory discussion, post about it in a different topic.


"JimmyC"@
Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.
Even though George Washington was a slave owner (http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/) I suppose, yes. He had a firm grasp on what the term "all men are created equal" ment. Yes I know that he changed his mind later in life, however if he really ment that he was opposed to slavery he would have ceased to "own" them. He convieniently took an 'Armchair Abolitionist' position, and let them free when his wife died, instead of when he realised that slavery was against the ideals of this new nation.


"JimmyC"
My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.
I don't speak for other people here, but I believe that as far as the Constitution goes, its a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of deal. Back in the 1780's I'm sure Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, Press, Assembly, or the right of petitoning was extremely progressive. Today I hardly see why this even needs stating. No shit you shouldn't restrict the ability of people to say what they want. No shit you shouldn't control the press. No shit people should be able to assemble freely. What we need is not just a strong desire to spread civil liberties, but to expand the right of individuals to have free access to health care, progressively tax everyone so we can raise the poor out of the slums, and into quality housing. I find little sympathy for people who salute the Constitution, and then turn around to take a dump on the poor.

What will I believe will happen? I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball. A friend of mine said that something may happen if the Bush administration fucks up the immigration issue, which I think could happen. If Bush creates another 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change). In the end it may be something we have no idea about at this time. Who knows? ;)

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.[/b]

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty". Here is a quote from Wikipedia:


Originally posted by "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism"+--> ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism")More recently, Somalia is cited by some as a real-world example of a stateless capitalist economy and a legal system. Since 1991, Somalia as a whole has had no internationally recognized government. Large areas of the country are ruled by unrecognized mini-states such as Somaliland, Puntland, and Southwestern Somalia. The remaining area, including the capital Mogadishu, is divided up into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords. In many areas there are thus no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and individuals and businesses pay money to private security guards and local warlords rather than 'taxes' to a constituted state.[/b]

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix. It's kind of strange that that point has to be beaten into the heads of some people... but then again, some people become Fascists :lol: . A system that promotes greed, and 'cutting corners' by squeezing the very last bit of labor out of the workers cannot be left unchecked. Hell, its not even 'stateless'! Out of the greed for capital, people band together to exploit in groups. Eventually controling pieces of the neighborhood like Mafia dons! If you want to try to debate the "legitimacy" of Capitalism, you have to look at this shining example of your "Free-Market Society". :lol:

("Tungsten")Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.[/b][/quote]
Seeing as it looks like you don't actually know what Libertarian Capitalism actually means, why are you arguing for it? Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people. Anarcho-Capitalism is taking the worst parts of Capitalism and letting it spread unchecked. I wouldn't be suprised to hear that people are exploited just as much as the poor citizens of Indonesia (another shining example of Capitalism's effects on the "morality" inside buisnesses. Passing the blame up the corporate ladder until it reaches the top, and nobody cares by then.) Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly. Or else it will end up killing thousands of people. Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.

("Tungsten")Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?[/b][/quote]
If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

("Tungsten")The difference being...?[/b][/quote]
Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), And finaly Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

Like I said before, if you want more in-deapth theory discussion, post about it in a different topic.


"JimmyC"@
Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.
Even though George Washington was a slave owner (http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/) I suppose, yes. He had a firm grasp on what the term "all men are created equal" ment. Yes I know that he changed his mind later in life, however if he really ment that he was opposed to slavery he would have ceased to "own" them. He convieniently took an 'Armchair Abolitionist' position, and let them free when his wife died, instead of when he realised that slavery was against the ideals of this new nation.


"JimmyC"
My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.
I don't speak for other people here, but I believe that as far as the Constitution goes, its a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of deal. Back in the 1780's I'm sure Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, Press, Assembly, or the right of petitoning was extremely progressive. Today I hardly see why this even needs stating. No shit you shouldn't restrict the ability of people to say what they want. No shit you shouldn't control the press. No shit people should be able to assemble freely. What we need is not just a strong desire to spread civil liberties, but to expand the right of individuals to have free access to health care, progressively tax everyone so we can raise the poor out of the slums, and into quality housing. I find little sympathy for people who salute the Constitution, and then turn around to take a dump on the poor.

What will I believe will happen? I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball. A friend of mine said that something may happen if the Bush administration fucks up the immigration issue, which I think could happen. If Bush creates another 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change). In the end it may be something we have no idea about at this time. Who knows? ;)

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")Libertarian capitalism has a government. Somalia didn't have one until the past few days.[/b]

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty". Here is a quote from Wikipedia:


Originally posted by "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism"+--> ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism")More recently, Somalia is cited by some as a real-world example of a stateless capitalist economy and a legal system. Since 1991, Somalia as a whole has had no internationally recognized government. Large areas of the country are ruled by unrecognized mini-states such as Somaliland, Puntland, and Southwestern Somalia. The remaining area, including the capital Mogadishu, is divided up into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords. In many areas there are thus no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and individuals and businesses pay money to private security guards and local warlords rather than 'taxes' to a constituted state.[/b]

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix. It's kind of strange that that point has to be beaten into the heads of some people... but then again, some people become Fascists :lol: . A system that promotes greed, and 'cutting corners' by squeezing the very last bit of labor out of the workers cannot be left unchecked. Hell, its not even 'stateless'! Out of the greed for capital, people band together to exploit in groups. Eventually controling pieces of the neighborhood like Mafia dons! If you want to try to debate the "legitimacy" of Capitalism, you have to look at this shining example of your "Free-Market Society". :lol:

("Tungsten")Sounds like do-as-you-like anarchism. You wouldn't be allowed to buy and sell pepople in libertarian capitalism.[/b][/quote]
Seeing as it looks like you don't actually know what Libertarian Capitalism actually means, why are you arguing for it? Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people. Anarcho-Capitalism is taking the worst parts of Capitalism and letting it spread unchecked. I wouldn't be suprised to hear that people are exploited just as much as the poor citizens of Indonesia (another shining example of Capitalism's effects on the "morality" inside buisnesses. Passing the blame up the corporate ladder until it reaches the top, and nobody cares by then.) Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly. Or else it will end up killing thousands of people. Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.

("Tungsten")Or a typical example? When there's no laws and no one to enforce them, what do you expect? Utopia?[/b][/quote]
If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

("Tungsten")The difference being...?[/b][/quote]
Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism), And finaly Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

Like I said before, if you want more in-deapth theory discussion, post about it in a different topic.


"JimmyC"@
Our government will be here for quite a while for the same reasons it was created by some of the most enlightened people is history.
Even though George Washington was a slave owner (http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/) I suppose, yes. He had a firm grasp on what the term "all men are created equal" ment. Yes I know that he changed his mind later in life, however if he really ment that he was opposed to slavery he would have ceased to "own" them. He convieniently took an 'Armchair Abolitionist' position, and let them free when his wife died, instead of when he realised that slavery was against the ideals of this new nation.


"JimmyC"
My presumption is that most commies don't believe that. Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society, where owning the tools of production is akin to owning people's lives.
I don't speak for other people here, but I believe that as far as the Constitution goes, its a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of deal. Back in the 1780's I'm sure Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, Press, Assembly, or the right of petitoning was extremely progressive. Today I hardly see why this even needs stating. No shit you shouldn't restrict the ability of people to say what they want. No shit you shouldn't control the press. No shit people should be able to assemble freely. What we need is not just a strong desire to spread civil liberties, but to expand the right of individuals to have free access to health care, progressively tax everyone so we can raise the poor out of the slums, and into quality housing. I find little sympathy for people who salute the Constitution, and then turn around to take a dump on the poor.

What will I believe will happen? I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball. A friend of mine said that something may happen if the Bush administration fucks up the immigration issue, which I think could happen. If Bush creates another 9/11 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change). In the end it may be something we have no idea about at this time. Who knows? ;)

[JimmyC]

Zero,

You chose your name well, as you are officially an idiot. Those comments were beyond dumb.

Glad you think the Bill of Rights is a "no brainer". Funny how the USSR, and the PRC, and every other "on the road to socialism" society never had them.

Funny how it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a Revolution (leftist version) WITH THEM IN TACT.

Boy you are DUMB!

No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

You can't have Marxism AND freedom of speech, press, and assembly. You're planting the seeds of counter-revolutionary spirit.

You didn't KNOW that?!?

Ask your friends here, they'll tell you

As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)

If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb. Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden. A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!

[JimmyC]

Zero,

You chose your name well, as you are officially an idiot. Those comments were beyond dumb.

Glad you think the Bill of Rights is a "no brainer". Funny how the USSR, and the PRC, and every other "on the road to socialism" society never had them.

Funny how it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a Revolution (leftist version) WITH THEM IN TACT.

Boy you are DUMB!

No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

You can't have Marxism AND freedom of speech, press, and assembly. You're planting the seeds of counter-revolutionary spirit.

You didn't KNOW that?!?

Ask your friends here, they'll tell you

As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)

If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb. Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden. A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!

[JimmyC]

Zero,

You chose your name well, as you are officially an idiot. Those comments were beyond dumb.

Glad you think the Bill of Rights is a "no brainer". Funny how the USSR, and the PRC, and every other "on the road to socialism" society never had them.

Funny how it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a Revolution (leftist version) WITH THEM IN TACT.

Boy you are DUMB!

No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

You can't have Marxism AND freedom of speech, press, and assembly. You're planting the seeds of counter-revolutionary spirit.

You didn't KNOW that?!?

Ask your friends here, they'll tell you

As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)

If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb. Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden. A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!

[Zero]

Why are you attacking me? I thought a person in his 40's would be more civil. :huh:

I don't subscribe to Leninism, I am a Anarcho-Communist. If you'd like to take a look at Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), you can clearly see that the USSR and the PRC are nothing special to me. It's simply another instance where State Socialism has turned into "Gangster Capitalism" (thanks for your termanology RS2K! :D )

I fail to see how the USSR and PRC comprise the entire "New Left" ideology. In fact, the USSR, and Leninism is often referred to as the "Old Left". Libertarian Marxists, or other Individualists and Leninists have as many dissagreements as the 'Cappies' and 'Commies' do in this section :rolleyes: .

People in other countries get killed for demanding simple liberties because they are subjected to direct oppression from their rulers, because their rulers are subjected to direct oppression from first world countries. Take a look at Indonesia for instance. To resolve unpaid debts the country had to whore its people out to the highest bidder. Those bidders were (of course) Nike, Gap, Old Navy, and other corporations (see Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)) these Corporations have forced some of the people there (CIA factbook says 245 million) into working extremely long shifts (a documentery I watched estimated that nearly 25% of the population works two jobs, and earns on average 1-3$ a day.) one child who was interviewed said that she works 36 hour shifts producing socks for (I think) Gap. These socks were sold for 8 pounds, and she recieved less then a pence per pair of socks. The manager required at least 300 pairs of socks to be made per day by each person.

Now you tell me, do you think that this is a good practice by Gap? Do you think that by having peaceful social movements that Gap will close down these sweat shops, and the World Bank will work with Indonesia to relieve it's enormous debt (which was given to relieve poverty, but mostly ended up in the pockets of the previous dictators.) I truely believe that this will not happen without an armed insurrection of the people in Indonesia, and other supportive countries. However even then, with the USA, UK, and many other 1st world countries continuously buying these products I have little doubt in my mind that we may pull another CoIntelPro, or assassinate leaders of this civil rights movement, so that these large corporations will still reside in America. It's truely a sad state of affairs when we have to keep these large entities in our country no matter how many families die in other countries.

We are not a world of "winner" and "looser" countries, we are a world of equals.

As far as Marxism goes, I'm not officially planted yet. I've only recently started reading into Leftist ideology for the past year or so. I align myself more with Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarcho-Communists.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)[/b]
Please refute me with statements, opinions, or other forms of real dialogue. Don't just insult me out of hand.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb.[/b]
I don't blame the Constitution for this, as the Constitution is ment as a frame for our Government, and its subjugation of the people. I blame the many presidents who have done little to nothing to equalise the wealth gap. I blame the presidents who have conducted a 'War on Litter', the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Cancer', the 'War on AIDS', but never seriously conducted a 'War on Poverty'. Sure Nixon tried it, but what was the product? Nothing.


"JimmyC"@
Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden.
Yes, thats it. I'll blame the people. When the media demonizes everyone who tries to make a difference, when the Police disrupt peaceful protests along with the local media (http://vftr.dnsalias.org:6969/torrents/vftr_fuckthecorporatemedia_320k_vp3.avi.torrent?3A 0608EC80E3AE5080BEA6ACBD093BB9E1BAFF86) (Here is information about watching the link I just gave you (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/videoguide.shtml)), and when the presidents suddenly cover up all talk about an issue and shift the talk to abortion, or same sex marrages...


"JimmyC"
A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.
Sure, its that easy :rolleyes: . When do you suppose that all the people who will loose money off of that proposition will agree to it? When do you think the hospital firms will agree to that? When do you think that the health insurance companies will agree to that? When do you think any company that profits off of the peoples misfortune will agree to that? With these huge campaign contributions that have been given to buy off votes... do you really think that any of this will happen?

Progressive change in America is impossible with the current administration, with the standing that corporations have in our election system, and with the greed-fueled system of exploitation already in place thanks to Capitalism Inc.

[Zero]

Why are you attacking me? I thought a person in his 40's would be more civil. :huh:

I don't subscribe to Leninism, I am a Anarcho-Communist. If you'd like to take a look at Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), you can clearly see that the USSR and the PRC are nothing special to me. It's simply another instance where State Socialism has turned into "Gangster Capitalism" (thanks for your termanology RS2K! :D )

I fail to see how the USSR and PRC comprise the entire "New Left" ideology. In fact, the USSR, and Leninism is often referred to as the "Old Left". Libertarian Marxists, or other Individualists and Leninists have as many dissagreements as the 'Cappies' and 'Commies' do in this section :rolleyes: .

People in other countries get killed for demanding simple liberties because they are subjected to direct oppression from their rulers, because their rulers are subjected to direct oppression from first world countries. Take a look at Indonesia for instance. To resolve unpaid debts the country had to whore its people out to the highest bidder. Those bidders were (of course) Nike, Gap, Old Navy, and other corporations (see Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)) these Corporations have forced some of the people there (CIA factbook says 245 million) into working extremely long shifts (a documentery I watched estimated that nearly 25% of the population works two jobs, and earns on average 1-3$ a day.) one child who was interviewed said that she works 36 hour shifts producing socks for (I think) Gap. These socks were sold for 8 pounds, and she recieved less then a pence per pair of socks. The manager required at least 300 pairs of socks to be made per day by each person.

Now you tell me, do you think that this is a good practice by Gap? Do you think that by having peaceful social movements that Gap will close down these sweat shops, and the World Bank will work with Indonesia to relieve it's enormous debt (which was given to relieve poverty, but mostly ended up in the pockets of the previous dictators.) I truely believe that this will not happen without an armed insurrection of the people in Indonesia, and other supportive countries. However even then, with the USA, UK, and many other 1st world countries continuously buying these products I have little doubt in my mind that we may pull another CoIntelPro, or assassinate leaders of this civil rights movement, so that these large corporations will still reside in America. It's truely a sad state of affairs when we have to keep these large entities in our country no matter how many families die in other countries.

We are not a world of "winner" and "looser" countries, we are a world of equals.

As far as Marxism goes, I'm not officially planted yet. I've only recently started reading into Leftist ideology for the past year or so. I align myself more with Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarcho-Communists.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)[/b]
Please refute me with statements, opinions, or other forms of real dialogue. Don't just insult me out of hand.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb.[/b]
I don't blame the Constitution for this, as the Constitution is ment as a frame for our Government, and its subjugation of the people. I blame the many presidents who have done little to nothing to equalise the wealth gap. I blame the presidents who have conducted a 'War on Litter', the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Cancer', the 'War on AIDS', but never seriously conducted a 'War on Poverty'. Sure Nixon tried it, but what was the product? Nothing.


"JimmyC"@
Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden.
Yes, thats it. I'll blame the people. When the media demonizes everyone who tries to make a difference, when the Police disrupt peaceful protests along with the local media (http://vftr.dnsalias.org:6969/torrents/vftr_fuckthecorporatemedia_320k_vp3.avi.torrent?3A 0608EC80E3AE5080BEA6ACBD093BB9E1BAFF86) (Here is information about watching the link I just gave you (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/videoguide.shtml)), and when the presidents suddenly cover up all talk about an issue and shift the talk to abortion, or same sex marrages...


"JimmyC"
A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.
Sure, its that easy :rolleyes: . When do you suppose that all the people who will loose money off of that proposition will agree to it? When do you think the hospital firms will agree to that? When do you think that the health insurance companies will agree to that? When do you think any company that profits off of the peoples misfortune will agree to that? With these huge campaign contributions that have been given to buy off votes... do you really think that any of this will happen?

Progressive change in America is impossible with the current administration, with the standing that corporations have in our election system, and with the greed-fueled system of exploitation already in place thanks to Capitalism Inc.

[Zero]

Why are you attacking me? I thought a person in his 40's would be more civil. :huh:

I don't subscribe to Leninism, I am a Anarcho-Communist. If you'd like to take a look at Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), you can clearly see that the USSR and the PRC are nothing special to me. It's simply another instance where State Socialism has turned into "Gangster Capitalism" (thanks for your termanology RS2K! :D )

I fail to see how the USSR and PRC comprise the entire "New Left" ideology. In fact, the USSR, and Leninism is often referred to as the "Old Left". Libertarian Marxists, or other Individualists and Leninists have as many dissagreements as the 'Cappies' and 'Commies' do in this section :rolleyes: .

People in other countries get killed for demanding simple liberties because they are subjected to direct oppression from their rulers, because their rulers are subjected to direct oppression from first world countries. Take a look at Indonesia for instance. To resolve unpaid debts the country had to whore its people out to the highest bidder. Those bidders were (of course) Nike, Gap, Old Navy, and other corporations (see Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)) these Corporations have forced some of the people there (CIA factbook says 245 million) into working extremely long shifts (a documentery I watched estimated that nearly 25% of the population works two jobs, and earns on average 1-3$ a day.) one child who was interviewed said that she works 36 hour shifts producing socks for (I think) Gap. These socks were sold for 8 pounds, and she recieved less then a pence per pair of socks. The manager required at least 300 pairs of socks to be made per day by each person.

Now you tell me, do you think that this is a good practice by Gap? Do you think that by having peaceful social movements that Gap will close down these sweat shops, and the World Bank will work with Indonesia to relieve it's enormous debt (which was given to relieve poverty, but mostly ended up in the pockets of the previous dictators.) I truely believe that this will not happen without an armed insurrection of the people in Indonesia, and other supportive countries. However even then, with the USA, UK, and many other 1st world countries continuously buying these products I have little doubt in my mind that we may pull another CoIntelPro, or assassinate leaders of this civil rights movement, so that these large corporations will still reside in America. It's truely a sad state of affairs when we have to keep these large entities in our country no matter how many families die in other countries.

We are not a world of "winner" and "looser" countries, we are a world of equals.

As far as Marxism goes, I'm not officially planted yet. I've only recently started reading into Leftist ideology for the past year or so. I align myself more with Anarcho-Syndicalists, and Anarcho-Communists.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")As far as using Washington's slave ownership (or Jefferson's for the matter of that), as a reason to discard out of hand the achievements of the Framers, once again, ZERO on that test score. (You must have seen a lot of those!)[/b]
Please refute me with statements, opinions, or other forms of real dialogue. Don't just insult me out of hand.


Originally posted by "JimmyC"+--> ("JimmyC")If you don't like the fact that the U.S. has a poor safety net for the poor, I won't argue with that. But to blame the Constitution is dumb.[/b]
I don't blame the Constitution for this, as the Constitution is ment as a frame for our Government, and its subjugation of the people. I blame the many presidents who have done little to nothing to equalise the wealth gap. I blame the presidents who have conducted a 'War on Litter', the 'War on Drugs', the 'War on Cancer', the 'War on AIDS', but never seriously conducted a 'War on Poverty'. Sure Nixon tried it, but what was the product? Nothing.


"JimmyC"@
Blame the American citizens for not making the U.S. more like Sweden.
Yes, thats it. I'll blame the people. When the media demonizes everyone who tries to make a difference, when the Police disrupt peaceful protests along with the local media (http://vftr.dnsalias.org:6969/torrents/vftr_fuckthecorporatemedia_320k_vp3.avi.torrent?3A 0608EC80E3AE5080BEA6ACBD093BB9E1BAFF86) (Here is information about watching the link I just gave you (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/videoguide.shtml)), and when the presidents suddenly cover up all talk about an issue and shift the talk to abortion, or same sex marrages...


"JimmyC"
A simple majority in both houses of Congress and a president's signature is all that's required for universal health care or 1/10 of all tax dollars to be spent on education.
Sure, its that easy :rolleyes: . When do you suppose that all the people who will loose money off of that proposition will agree to it? When do you think the hospital firms will agree to that? When do you think that the health insurance companies will agree to that? When do you think any company that profits off of the peoples misfortune will agree to that? With these huge campaign contributions that have been given to buy off votes... do you really think that any of this will happen?

Progressive change in America is impossible with the current administration, with the standing that corporations have in our election system, and with the greed-fueled system of exploitation already in place thanks to Capitalism Inc.

[KC]

Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society

Of course this is true! They were capitalists, and, like capitalism itself, they were once revolutionary and over time they have become reactionary. They were worried about protecting property and nothing more.



No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

The Bill of Rights expired the day the Patriot Act was passed. Have fun with your "rights"!

[KC]

Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society

Of course this is true! They were capitalists, and, like capitalism itself, they were once revolutionary and over time they have become reactionary. They were worried about protecting property and nothing more.



No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

The Bill of Rights expired the day the Patriot Act was passed. Have fun with your "rights"!

[KC]

Or, they believe that the framers of the Constitution were enlightened and progressive in 1787, but are not relivent to post industrial society

Of course this is true! They were capitalists, and, like capitalism itself, they were once revolutionary and over time they have become reactionary. They were worried about protecting property and nothing more.



No brainer! People get killed in other countries for attempting anything CLOSE to what we got here Bill of Rights-wise.

The Bill of Rights expired the day the Patriot Act was passed. Have fun with your "rights"!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:43 PM
Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).
here have a free gift (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:43 PM
Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).
here have a free gift (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:43 PM
Anarchism

1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and
undesirable and should be abolished.

2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.

3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to
anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand
Russell).
here have a free gift (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

[Tungsten]

Zero
(What's that, your IQ?)

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty".
I don't think so. I'm a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix.
True, which is why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people.
I've already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it's methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.

Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly.
You're confusing it with communism. A heavy-handed state isn't necessary, but of course, a believer in collectivised property (i.e. legalised theft) will naturally disagree.

Or else it will end up killing thousands of people.
How will it kill thousands of people? The more vague the argument, the less meaningful it is.

Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.
Adam Smith is hardly read anymore. To hear you and others citing him constantly just demonstrates how little you know.

If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).
At wikipedia? I don't think so.

[Tungsten]

Zero
(What's that, your IQ?)

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty".
I don't think so. I'm a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix.
True, which is why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people.
I've already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it's methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.

Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly.
You're confusing it with communism. A heavy-handed state isn't necessary, but of course, a believer in collectivised property (i.e. legalised theft) will naturally disagree.

Or else it will end up killing thousands of people.
How will it kill thousands of people? The more vague the argument, the less meaningful it is.

Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.
Adam Smith is hardly read anymore. To hear you and others citing him constantly just demonstrates how little you know.

If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).
At wikipedia? I don't think so.

[Tungsten]

Zero
(What's that, your IQ?)

Libertarian Capitalism also meaning Anarcho-Capitalism, and promoting its own warped version of "Individualist Sovereignty".
I don't think so. I'm a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."

Somalia shows that Capitalism and Anarchism don't mix.
True, which is why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

Pure Anarchism is a beutiful communal society based on the common good of man, without the horrible affect that Capitalism has had on people.
I've already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it's methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.

Capitalism needs a heavy-handed state, in every country in the world to function properly.
You're confusing it with communism. A heavy-handed state isn't necessary, but of course, a believer in collectivised property (i.e. legalised theft) will naturally disagree.

Or else it will end up killing thousands of people.
How will it kill thousands of people? The more vague the argument, the less meaningful it is.

Sounds like a great concept Adam Smith, go fuck yourself.
Adam Smith is hardly read anymore. To hear you and others citing him constantly just demonstrates how little you know.

If you want a more in-deapth discussion about Anarchism, post in a different topic. Or better yet, edcuate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).
At wikipedia? I don't think so.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")I don't think so. I'm a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.[/b]
Ah, alright. My bad. Though how do you expect a government to restrict itself to simply police and armies without expanding? How do you expect to keep a civil society without devolving into Corporatism?


Originally posted by "Tungsten"@
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."
...and 90% of the time the most current and reliable resource.


"Tungsten"
I've already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it's methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.
Alright, if Somalia 10 years ago was a Anarchist society then why was there such chaos? Maybe its because the people were simply dumped into such a place?

"Following the Ogaden war, the Barre regime violently suppressed opposition movements and ethnic groups, particularly the Issaq clan in the northern region, using the military and elite security forces to quash any hint of rebellion. By the 1980s, an all-out civil war developed in Somalia. Opposition groups began to form following the end of the Ogaden war, beginning in 1979 with a group of dissatisfied army officers known as the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF). In 1981, as a result of increased northern discontent with the Barre regime, the Somali National Movement (SNM), composed mainly of the Issaq clan, was formed in Hargeisa with the stated goal of overthrowing of the Barre regime. In January 1989, the United Somali Congress (USC), an opposition group of Somalis from the Hawiye clan, was formed as a political movement in Rome. A military wing of the USC was formed in Ethiopia in late 1989 under the leadership of Mohamed Farah “Aideed,” a former political prisoner imprisoned by Barre from 1969-75. Aideed exploited his Ethiopian support to form alliances with other opposition groups, including the SNM and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), an Ogadeen sub-clan force under Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess in the Bakool and Bay regions of Southern Somalia. In 1988, at the President's order, aircraft from the Somali National Air Force bombed the city of Hargeisa in northwestern Somalia, the former capital of British Somaliland, killing nearly 10,000 civilians and insurgents. The warfare in the northwest sped up the decay already evident elsewhere in the republic. Economic crisis, brought on by the cost of anti-insurgency activities, caused further hardship as Siad Barre and his cronies looted the national treasury."

So the people inherited a completely broken nation, torn with a destructive military dictatorship, and impovershed masses. The country is agragarian based with little rainfall, and dependant on fish, coal, and textile industrys. Yeah, that will evolve into a communal society instantly. <_< I&#39;m sure you agree that minimalist societies need time to develop and adjust.

If you want an example of Capitalism unchecked, take a look at the history and current situation in Indonesia.

And fine, if you flat refuse any article from Wikipedia, you can read a more in depth FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html).

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")I don&#39;t think so. I&#39;m a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.[/b]
Ah, alright. My bad. Though how do you expect a government to restrict itself to simply police and armies without expanding? How do you expect to keep a civil society without devolving into Corporatism?


Originally posted by "Tungsten"@
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."
...and 90% of the time the most current and reliable resource.


"Tungsten"
I&#39;ve already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it&#39;s methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.
Alright, if Somalia 10 years ago was a Anarchist society then why was there such chaos? Maybe its because the people were simply dumped into such a place?

"Following the Ogaden war, the Barre regime violently suppressed opposition movements and ethnic groups, particularly the Issaq clan in the northern region, using the military and elite security forces to quash any hint of rebellion. By the 1980s, an all-out civil war developed in Somalia. Opposition groups began to form following the end of the Ogaden war, beginning in 1979 with a group of dissatisfied army officers known as the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF). In 1981, as a result of increased northern discontent with the Barre regime, the Somali National Movement (SNM), composed mainly of the Issaq clan, was formed in Hargeisa with the stated goal of overthrowing of the Barre regime. In January 1989, the United Somali Congress (USC), an opposition group of Somalis from the Hawiye clan, was formed as a political movement in Rome. A military wing of the USC was formed in Ethiopia in late 1989 under the leadership of Mohamed Farah “Aideed,” a former political prisoner imprisoned by Barre from 1969-75. Aideed exploited his Ethiopian support to form alliances with other opposition groups, including the SNM and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), an Ogadeen sub-clan force under Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess in the Bakool and Bay regions of Southern Somalia. In 1988, at the President&#39;s order, aircraft from the Somali National Air Force bombed the city of Hargeisa in northwestern Somalia, the former capital of British Somaliland, killing nearly 10,000 civilians and insurgents. The warfare in the northwest sped up the decay already evident elsewhere in the republic. Economic crisis, brought on by the cost of anti-insurgency activities, caused further hardship as Siad Barre and his cronies looted the national treasury."

So the people inherited a completely broken nation, torn with a destructive military dictatorship, and impovershed masses. The country is agragarian based with little rainfall, and dependant on fish, coal, and textile industrys. Yeah, that will evolve into a communal society instantly. <_< I&#39;m sure you agree that minimalist societies need time to develop and adjust.

If you want an example of Capitalism unchecked, take a look at the history and current situation in Indonesia.

And fine, if you flat refuse any article from Wikipedia, you can read a more in depth FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html).

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"+--> ("Tungsten")I don&#39;t think so. I&#39;m a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist. Not many libertarians are anarcho capitalists.[/b]
Ah, alright. My bad. Though how do you expect a government to restrict itself to simply police and armies without expanding? How do you expect to keep a civil society without devolving into Corporatism?


Originally posted by "Tungsten"@
"The encyclopedia anyone can edit."
...and 90% of the time the most current and reliable resource.


"Tungsten"
I&#39;ve already mentioned the foolishness of defining an ideology on the basis of results instead of it&#39;s methodology. Pure anarchism is what Somalia has spent the past ten years under. No government, no property rights, no law, no beautiful communal society, no common good.
Alright, if Somalia 10 years ago was a Anarchist society then why was there such chaos? Maybe its because the people were simply dumped into such a place?

"Following the Ogaden war, the Barre regime violently suppressed opposition movements and ethnic groups, particularly the Issaq clan in the northern region, using the military and elite security forces to quash any hint of rebellion. By the 1980s, an all-out civil war developed in Somalia. Opposition groups began to form following the end of the Ogaden war, beginning in 1979 with a group of dissatisfied army officers known as the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF). In 1981, as a result of increased northern discontent with the Barre regime, the Somali National Movement (SNM), composed mainly of the Issaq clan, was formed in Hargeisa with the stated goal of overthrowing of the Barre regime. In January 1989, the United Somali Congress (USC), an opposition group of Somalis from the Hawiye clan, was formed as a political movement in Rome. A military wing of the USC was formed in Ethiopia in late 1989 under the leadership of Mohamed Farah “Aideed,” a former political prisoner imprisoned by Barre from 1969-75. Aideed exploited his Ethiopian support to form alliances with other opposition groups, including the SNM and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), an Ogadeen sub-clan force under Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess in the Bakool and Bay regions of Southern Somalia. In 1988, at the President&#39;s order, aircraft from the Somali National Air Force bombed the city of Hargeisa in northwestern Somalia, the former capital of British Somaliland, killing nearly 10,000 civilians and insurgents. The warfare in the northwest sped up the decay already evident elsewhere in the republic. Economic crisis, brought on by the cost of anti-insurgency activities, caused further hardship as Siad Barre and his cronies looted the national treasury."

So the people inherited a completely broken nation, torn with a destructive military dictatorship, and impovershed masses. The country is agragarian based with little rainfall, and dependant on fish, coal, and textile industrys. Yeah, that will evolve into a communal society instantly. <_< I&#39;m sure you agree that minimalist societies need time to develop and adjust.

If you want an example of Capitalism unchecked, take a look at the history and current situation in Indonesia.

And fine, if you flat refuse any article from Wikipedia, you can read a more in depth FAQ (http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html).

[Janus]

but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
The collapse of capitalism, maybe?

As for Somalia, throw in conflicts between different clans and warlords into that mix of what has already been mentioned and you will see why so many problems are developing there.

[Janus]

but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
The collapse of capitalism, maybe?

As for Somalia, throw in conflicts between different clans and warlords into that mix of what has already been mentioned and you will see why so many problems are developing there.

[Janus]

but what is the key event I am mmissing in my understanding of the future?
The collapse of capitalism, maybe?

As for Somalia, throw in conflicts between different clans and warlords into that mix of what has already been mentioned and you will see why so many problems are developing there.