Log in

View Full Version : What type of communist am I?



cary jebus
19th December 2007, 00:59
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws

Global_Justice
19th December 2007, 01:12
do u mean there must be a state in order to enforce laws in the revolutionary process? or there must be a state after that, even whe true equality and democracy has been achieved?

cary jebus
19th December 2007, 01:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:11 am
do u mean there must be a state in order to enforce laws in the revolutionary process? or there must be a state after that, even whe true equality and democracy has been achieved?
well a minimalist goverment when its achived but in order to mentain it htere must be something.

Robespierre2.0
19th December 2007, 02:58
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?

Qwerty Dvorak
19th December 2007, 03:07
Who says he was using it in the way "USians" use it? Liberalism becomes a negative term when it is used in an economic sense--I for one am socially liberal. In short social liberals acknowledge that a state, however necessary or favourable, is a repressive system and thus demand that a state should act only where completely necessary, not just for the fun of it. This is generally limited to protecting the rights of its subjects, and occasionally includes acting to vindicate the common good.

Nusocialist
19th December 2007, 03:21
Originally posted by Marxosaurus Rex+December 19, 2007 02:57 am--> (Marxosaurus Rex @ December 19, 2007 02:57 am)
cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high? [/b]
That is a valid enough point, many anarchists believe it.

Luís Henrique
19th December 2007, 10:32
If you want to know what kind of communist you are, ask the following questions instead:

- Do I belong to any communist organisation?

- Am I active?

- Do I belong to any working class organisation?

- Do I speak, write, debate, organise people, on behalf of the emancipation of the working class?

Being a communist is not a matter of belief, but of action.

Luís Henrique

cary jebus
19th December 2007, 12:06
Originally posted by Marxosaurus Rex+December 19, 2007 02:57 am--> (Marxosaurus Rex @ December 19, 2007 02:57 am)
cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high? [/b]
any communist who denies freedom to his people is not a real communist!

lvleph
19th December 2007, 12:19
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 19, 2007 07:05 am--> (cary jebus @ December 19, 2007 07:05 am)
Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 19, 2007 02:57 am

cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?
any communist who denies freedom to his people is not a real communist! [/b]
But how did Lenin deny freedom to his people? Obviously, things that are bourgeois "freedoms" were curtailed.

union6
19th December 2007, 12:26
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 19, 2007 10:31 am
Being a communist is not a matter of belief, but of action.

Luís Henrique
Couldn’t have put it better my self.

Jazzratt
19th December 2007, 15:54
Originally posted by lvleph+December 19, 2007 12:18 pm--> (lvleph @ December 19, 2007 12:18 pm)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 07:05 am

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 19, 2007 02:57 am

cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?
any communist who denies freedom to his people is not a real communist!
But how did Lenin deny freedom to his people? Obviously, things that are bourgeois "freedoms" were curtailed. [/b]
:lol:

Shifting goalposts much?

Q
19th December 2007, 17:33
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
A deluded and confused one.
Read a bit more about Lenin's ideas before you dismiss them as "non-communist".
You can find all of his works here (http://www.marxists.org/).

About the other points:
2. Forcing equality onto people? Who is going to enforce this and wouldn't that imply an unequal position?

6. Force veganism? What about my free choice not to?

7. You might want to explain "liberal" here, as it could be confusing lots of people (all capitalists use the word "liberal" aswell).

9. What kind of state? A bourgeois state is of course very different from a "workers state". In other words: Which class has power? Do you agree that the bourgeois state institutions (police, army, bureaucracy, parliament, etc.) should be put in the dustbin of history?

Also: please focus on the use of proper English, I'm not a native speaker and find your constructs and spelling a bit confusing.

cary jebus
19th December 2007, 19:10
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 19, 2007 03:53 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 19, 2007 03:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:18 pm

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 07:05 am

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 19, 2007 02:57 am

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?
any communist who denies freedom to his people is not a real communist!
But how did Lenin deny freedom to his people? Obviously, things that are bourgeois "freedoms" were curtailed.
:lol:

Shifting goalposts much? [/b]
no freedom of speach, no freedom of religion, etc.



cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
A deluded and confused one.
Read a bit more about Lenin's ideas before you dismiss them as "non-communist".
You can find all of his works here (http://www.marxists.org/).

About the other points:
2. Forcing equality onto people? Who is going to enforce this and wouldn't that imply an unequal position?

6. Force veganism? What about my free choice not to?

7. You might want to explain "liberal" here, as it could be confusing lots of people (all capitalists use the word "liberal" aswell).

9. What kind of state? A bourgeois state is of course very different from a "workers state". In other words: Which class has power? Do you agree that the bourgeois state institutions (police, army, bureaucracy, parliament, etc.) should be put in the dustbin of history?

Also: please focus on the use of proper English, I'm not a native speaker and find your constructs and spelling a bit confusing.
2. the police will enforce the laws
6. forced veganism... well should we allow oyur free will to murder as well?
7. civil rights, basic libertys, etc.
9. elected officels run the nation, and they work togetter with labour unions and workers.

Pawn Power
19th December 2007, 19:38
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 19, 2007 02:09 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 19, 2007 02:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:53 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:18 pm

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 07:05 am

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 19, 2007 02:57 am

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?
any communist who denies freedom to his people is not a real communist!
But how did Lenin deny freedom to his people? Obviously, things that are bourgeois "freedoms" were curtailed.
:lol:

Shifting goalposts much?
no freedom of speach, no freedom of religion, etc.



cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
A deluded and confused one.
Read a bit more about Lenin's ideas before you dismiss them as "non-communist".
You can find all of his works here (http://www.marxists.org/).

About the other points:
2. Forcing equality onto people? Who is going to enforce this and wouldn't that imply an unequal position?

6. Force veganism? What about my free choice not to?

7. You might want to explain "liberal" here, as it could be confusing lots of people (all capitalists use the word "liberal" aswell).

9. What kind of state? A bourgeois state is of course very different from a "workers state". In other words: Which class has power? Do you agree that the bourgeois state institutions (police, army, bureaucracy, parliament, etc.) should be put in the dustbin of history?

Also: please focus on the use of proper English, I'm not a native speaker and find your constructs and spelling a bit confusing.
2. the police will enforce the laws
6. forced veganism... well should we allow oyur free will to murder as well?
7. civil rights, basic libertys, etc.
9. elected officels run the nation, and they work togetter with labour unions and workers. [/b]

What type of communist am I?

You are not a communist.

Raúl Duke
19th December 2007, 20:46
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 18, 2007 07:58 pm
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
1-4

Yes

5

Ok

6
??? :blink:
Vegenism, especially forcing people to it, has nothing to do with communism.
Forcing people to be vegen for "their own good" is a very moralistic standpoint.
Whag are the penalties in the "socialist state" for breaking this law?

8
Its not that he wasn't a sincere communist; it is that his methods failed. Russia was a feudal country heading towards capitalism. However, he noted this and tried to modernize Russia, probably using some "capitalist" methods (NEP?) so to than head to socialism and than communism. However, it got screwed up (revisionism, degeneracy, whatever) and Russia ended up being capitalist.

7 and 9
There's no state in communism. You don't really need a state to have order. If you end goal is not stateless moneyless communism than you're not a communist but possibly a socialist.

Labor Shall Rule
19th December 2007, 20:55
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
1. This is the practical premise of all revolutionary communists.

2. The only 'equality' that is enforced is that the working class receives the total co-operative product of their labor, rather than having it portioned off to a private owner. The term 'equality' is implicitly bourgeois — humans have variating emotions, physical talents or disabilities, and behavioral traits that prevent it from becoming an obtainable fact.

3. See point 2.

4. See point 2.

5. I agree.

6. I don't think we should coerce people into making lifestyle decisions.

7. It is democratic, but 'liberal' carries a negative connotation — most 'liberals' are the 'gentler' politicians of the business-oriented party system.

8. The Bolsheviks, that were lead by Lenin, made colossus mistakes — but their intention was to not build an undemocratic, coercive super-state. They acknowledged that their country was the "weakest chain of imperialism," and on the historic basis of their economic backwardness, socialism would not sustain itself unless it spread to other countries. But the isolated worker's state, surrounded by a world-front of hostile capitalist countries, was defeated by the bureaucracy.

9. Why can't worker-assemblies and committees assume this function?

w0lf
19th December 2007, 23:21
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 19, 2007 07:37 pm


What type of communist am I?

You are not a communist.
Intelligent response. How Is he not a communist?


I think veganism being forced isn't bad. Healthier nation. Prosecuting christians wasn't very great. Control of arts wasn't good either.

cary jebus
19th December 2007, 23:36
by state I only ment concoils and law enforcement

Forward Union
19th December 2007, 23:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad. Healthier nation.
Why the hell would you say that? Fish and beef help mental development, milk isa good source of calcium etc etc. And even if it was healthier, while we're at it let's ban alcohol, and stop people using computers for more than 15 mins at a time. Shoot at people who sunbath for too long and force people to jog to work...A healthy workforce is a productive workforce.

:rolleyes:

Jazzratt
19th December 2007, 23:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad.
Then you should change your avatar and stop pretending to be an anarchist.


Healthier nation.

Yeah, we'd also be healthier if we prohibited drugs (like nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, caffeine and so on), we'd be healthier if citizens had a mandated exercise period during their day. A society that punishes people for unhealthy acts to make them healthy is worse than this one.


Prosecuting christians wasn't very great.

Why not? How is enforcing the destruction of a religious meme any different from the mandated eradication of a dietary system?

Cary Jebus


by state I only ment concoils and law enforcement

What's the class basis of their mandate? If the interests of the working class run counter to some of your more insane social engineering ideas how would you wish for the state to react?

Dros
20th December 2007, 02:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad.
You wanna know who else was a vegetarian?! HITLER!

:lol: :lol:

Just kidding.

But in all honest that is the most absurd thing I've read on this board in quite a while. I mean really. How can you claim to be an anarchist and advocate the most blatant misuse of authority? Life style choices need to be a choice!

Oh. And vegenism is not healthier than non-veganism per se. Not that that really matters.

I'm going to go get some veal cutlets for dinner now... :lol:

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 11:54
Originally posted by drosera99+December 20, 2007 02:18 am--> (drosera99 @ December 20, 2007 02:18 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad.
You wanna know who else was a vegetarian?! HITLER!

:lol: :lol:

Just kidding.

But in all honest that is the most absurd thing I've read on this board in quite a while. I mean really. How can you claim to be an anarchist and advocate the most blatant misuse of authority? Life style choices need to be a choice!

Oh. And vegenism is not healthier than non-veganism per se. Not that that really matters.

I'm going to go get some veal cutlets for dinner now... :lol: [/b]
1. VEGANISM IS ANTI-MURDER AND ANTI-RAPE TO ANIMALS!(no im not a member of peta or the ALF)
2. veganism in tests have been proven to be healthier if the diet is watched closy.

Jazzratt
20th December 2007, 12:59
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
1. VEGANISM IS ANTI-MURDER AND ANTI-RAPE TO ANIMALS!(no im not a member of peta or the ALF)
Caps lock doesn't make you correct, not being part of peta or the alf does not make your view any less insane. The terms murder and rape have very specialised definitions which do not apply to animals.


2. veganism in tests have been proven to be healthier if the diet is watched closy.

What tests - cite the specific tests. And if what you say is accurate it only illustrates that carefully watching one's diet is healthier. On top of that both myself and WT have pointed out why forcing people to do something in the name of health is insane.

lvleph
20th December 2007, 13:22
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 20, 2007 07:58 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 20, 2007 07:58 am)
cary [email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
1. VEGANISM IS ANTI-MURDER AND ANTI-RAPE TO ANIMALS!(no im not a member of peta or the ALF)
Caps lock doesn't make you correct, not being part of peta or the alf does not make your view any less insane. The terms murder and rape have very specialised definitions which do not apply to animals.


2. veganism in tests have been proven to be healthier if the diet is watched closy.

What tests - cite the specific tests. And if what you say is accurate it only illustrates that carefully watching one's diet is healthier. On top of that both myself and WT have pointed out why forcing people to do something in the name of health is insane. [/b]
And that is Speciest. Why can't Murder and Rape apply to animals?

However, I agree that being a Vegan should not be forced. But I am an Anarchist.

Orange Juche
20th December 2007, 15:49
Originally posted by Marxosaurus Rex+December 18, 2007 10:57 pm--> (Marxosaurus Rex @ December 18, 2007 10:57 pm)
cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high? [/b]
I love how you Leninists insist on throwing the label "petty-bourgeois" on anything that challenges Leninism on the left.

I would say this person would probably agree with Council Communism, if they were more informed on all this.

Orange Juche
20th December 2007, 16:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:18 am
But how did Lenin deny freedom to his people? Obviously, things that are bourgeois "freedoms" were curtailed.
Freedom of speech.

Running out in public and yelling "FUCK LENIN!!! FUCK COMMUNISM!" wasn't taken too lightly.

I get extremely irritated when the term "bourgeois freedoms" is used. True freedom either exists, or it does not. All freedom means is the ability to do something without coersion otherwise, and "freedom of speech" means (therefore) the ability to say anything without coersion to force otherwise, its as simple as that. If you are against allowing that, you are against freedom of speech. And thats fine, but admit it... without saying "bourgeois". I couldn't put it more plainly than that. And it is not a "bourgeois freedom" to allow anyone to say whatever they want, that freedom appiles to EVERYONE.

Real "Bourgeois freedom" would be along the lines of "freedom to own and run a factory.". It is a "freedom" which only applies to the bourgeois, and therefore, isn't truly a freedom anyways. It would be like slavery-ownership "rights." Its bullshit. Any freedom that could be labeled distinctly (such as "bourgeois") isn't a freedom. But for ANYONE to speak freely on their opinions, IS a freedom... not "bourgeois" freedom. Stop throwing the b-word, or the petty-b on things just because you don't like them, in some kind of sensationalist attempt to make the person you are countering look counter-revolutionary. Its fucking lame.

I am all for letting people say "Go capitalism!". Because when there is true socialism, and true communism, they'll be a joke anyways. I have no problem today if someone proposes feudalism, or organised a group in support of it. Its been proven bullshit. Its a joke... its been shown to be inadequate. You aren't going to abolish opinions by abolishing the right to freely express them. Thats a lazy, band-aid approach. It is impossible to just stop a line of opinion by force... it would be as successful as the war on drugs. Not to mention, banning their ability to say such things would only give creedence to opponents, who could come up with any bullshit line with words "totalitarian" and "oppression," and feed into working against the movement.

You'll stop them from being a threat by proving how obviously wrong they are. Not by trying to force them to stop.

Q
20th December 2007, 16:07
Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+December 20, 2007 03:48 pm--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ December 20, 2007 03:48 pm)
Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 18, 2007 10:57 pm

cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am

7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.

Sounds like petty-bourgeois reformism to me.

Communism is democratic, but it sure as hell isn't 'liberal' in the way USians use the word.

Also, Lenin not a true communist? Are you high?
I love how you Leninists insist on throwing the label "petty-bourgeois" on anything that challenges Leninism on the left.

I would say this person would probably agree with Council Communism, if they were more informed on all this. [/b]
He sounds more like he hasn't the first clue on communist thought; leninist, council or otherwise. That's not bad of course, we all had to learn. But that's why I pointed him to MIA, so he can actually read some stuff from the guy.

Robespierre2.0
20th December 2007, 16:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:48 pm

I love how you Leninists insist on throwing the label "petty-bourgeois" on anything that challenges Leninism on the left.

It was an assumption on my part, I admit, but the guy was using the same buzzwords U.S. politicians use ('liberty', 'liberal', 'democracy')
It just reminds me of 'radical' kids (whose dads totally own a dealership) who subscribe to some 'warm, fuzzy' version of socialism that has 'freedom of speech' and 'multi-party democracy' and 'doesn't repress anyone' while failing to realize how easily the capitalists can subvert and destroy this 'plush socialism'.

So yeah, it was elitist on my part. Sorry, my bad.

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 17:11
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 20, 2007 12:58 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 20, 2007 12:58 pm)
cary [email protected] 20, 2007 11:53 am
1. VEGANISM IS ANTI-MURDER AND ANTI-RAPE TO ANIMALS!(no im not a member of peta or the ALF)
Caps lock doesn't make you correct, not being part of peta or the alf does not make your view any less insane. The terms murder and rape have very specialised definitions which do not apply to animals.


2. veganism in tests have been proven to be healthier if the diet is watched closy.

What tests - cite the specific tests. And if what you say is accurate it only illustrates that carefully watching one's diet is healthier. On top of that both myself and WT have pointed out why forcing people to do something in the name of health is insane. [/b]
1. why are animals eescluded in murder and rape ill tell you, because humans hate animals and treat them like 2nd class civiens in my deffinition of murder - iirational(or without reason) killing of a self-concess lifeform. rape - to forcfully engage a self aware lifeform into a sexual act wether it be physyicly or mentaily.

2.
As with any diet, a vegan diet requires planning. However, when properly planned, a vegan diet can be considerably healthier than the traditional American diet.

In its 1996 position paper on vegetarian diets, the American Dietetic Association reported that vegan and vegetarian diets can significantly reduce one's risk of contracting heart disease, colon and lung cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity, and a number of other debilitating conditions. Cows' milk contains ideal amounts of fat and protein for young calves, but far too much for humans. And eggs are higher in cholesterol than any other food, making them a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

Vegan foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans, are low in fat, contain no cholesterol, and are rich in fiber and nutrients. Vegans can get all the protein they need from legumes (e.g., beans, tofu, peanuts) and grains (e.g., rice, corn, whole wheat breads and pastas); calcium from broccoli, kale, collard greens, tofu, fortified juices and soymilks; iron from chickpeas, spinach, pinto beans, and soy products; and B12 from fortified foods or supplements. With planning, a vegan diet can provide all the nutrients we were taught as schoolchildren came only from animal produccts.


The Problems with High-Protein Diets

High protein diets for weight loss, disease prevention, and enhanced athletic performance have been greatly publicized over recent years. However, these diets are supported by little scientific research. Studies show that the healthiest diet is one that is high-carbohydrate, low-fat, and moderate in protein. Increased intake of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables are recommended for weight control3 and preventing diseases such as cancer4 and heart disease.5 High-carbohydrate, low-fat, moderate-protein diets are also recommended for optimal athletic performance.6 Contrary to the fad diets currently promoted by some popular books, a diet that is high in protein can actually contribute to disease and other health problems.

Osteoporosis. Diets that are rich in protein, especially animal protein,7 are known to cause people to excrete more calcium than normal through their urine and increase the risk of osteoporosis. Plant-based diets, which provide adequate protein in addition to calcium through the consumption of leafy green vegetables, beans, and fortified fruit juices, can help protect against osteoporosis.

Cancer. Although fat is the dietary substance most often singled out for increasing one’s risk for cancer, animal protein also plays a role. Specifically, certain proteins present in meat, fish, and poultry, cooked at high temperatures, especially grilling and frying, have been found to produce compounds called heterocyclic amines. These substances have been linked to various cancers including those of the colon and breast.8-10 A diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables is important in decreasing cancer risk,4 not to mention adding more healthful sources of protein in the diet.

Kidney Disease. When people eat too much protein, it releases nitrogen into the blood or is digested and metabolized. This places a strain on the kidneys which must expel the waste through the urine. Kidney problems may result in individuals who are susceptible to disease.

Cardiovascular Disease. Diets high in fat and saturated fat can increase one’s risk of heart disease. High-protein diets often encourage consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products, which are all high in cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat. The most popular of the high-protein diets have been described as containing excessive amounts of these artery-clogging products.11 Adequate protein can be consumed through a variety of plant products which are cholesterol-free and contain only small amounts of fat.

Weight Loss Sabotage. Many individuals see almost immediate weight loss as a result of following a high-protein diet. In fact, the weight loss is not a result of consuming more protein, but by simply consuming less calories. Over the long run, consumption of this type of diet is not practical as it can result in the aforementioned health problems. As with any temporary diet, weight gain is often seen when previous eating habits are resumed. To achieve permanent weight loss while promoting optimal health, the best strategy involves lifestyle changes including a low-fat diet of grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables combined with regular physical activity.

Protein Checklist

High protein diets are unhealthy. However, adequate but not excess amounts of protein to maintain body tissues, including muscle, are still important and can be easily achieved on a vegetarian diet. If you are uncertain about the adequacy of protein in your diet, take inventory. Although all protein needs are individual, the following guidelines can help you to meet, but not exceed, your needs.

Aim for 5 or more servings of grains each day. This may include 1/2 cup of hot cereal, 1 oz. of dry cereal, or 1 slice of bread. Each serving contains roughly 3 grams of protein.
Aim for 3 or more servings of vegetables each day. This may include 1 cup of raw vegetables, 1/2 cup of cooked vegetables, or 1/2 cup of vegetable juice. Each serving contains about 2 grams of protein.
Aim for 2 to 3 servings of legumes each day. This may include 1/2 cup of cooked beans, 4 oz. of tofu or tempeh, 8 oz. of soymilk, and 1 oz. of nuts. Protein content can vary significantly, particularly with soy and rice milks, so be sure to check labels. Each serving may contain about 4 grams to 10 grams of protein. Meat analogues and substitutes are also great sources of protein that can be added to your daily diet.
References
1. Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. J Amer Diet Assoc 1997;97(11):1317-21.
2. Munoz de Chavez M, Chavez A. Diet that prevents cancer: recommendations from the American Institute for Cancer Research. Int J Cancer Suppl 1998;11:85-9.
3. Position of the American Dietetic Association: weight management. J Amer Diet Assoc 1995;95:809.
4. World Cancer Research Fund. Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. American Institute for Cancer Research. Washington, D.C.: 1997.
5. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet 1990;336:129-33.
6. Position of the American Dietetic Association: nutrition for physical fitness and athletic performance for adults. J Amer Diet Assoc 1993;93:691.
7. Zemel MB. Calcium utilization: effect of varying level and source of dietary protein. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:880-3.
8. Potter JD. Nutrition and colorectal cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1996;7(1):127-46.
9. Giovannucci E, Goldin B. The role of fat, fatty acids, and total energy intake in the etiology of human colon cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66(6suppl):1564S-71S.
10. De Stefami E, Ronco A, Mendilaharsu M, et al. Meat intake, heterocyclic amines, and risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Cancer Epidem Biomark Prev 1997;6:573-81.
11. Titchenal CA, Dobbs JC, Hetzler RK. Macronutrient composition of The Zone diet based on computer analysis. Med Sci Sport Exer 1997;29(5):S126.



Milk: No Longer Recommended or Required
A substantial body of scientific evidence raises concerns about health risks from cow’s milk products. These problems relate to the proteins, sugar, fat, and contaminants in dairy products, and the inadequacy of whole cow’s milk for infant nutrition.

Health risks from milk consumption are greatest for infants less than one year of age, in whom whole cow’s milk can contribute to deficiencies in several nutrients, including iron, essential fatty acids, and vitamin E. The American Academy of Pediatrics1 recommends that infants under one year of age not receive whole cow’s milk.

Cow’s milk products are very low in iron,2 containing only about one-tenth of a milligram (mg) per eight-ounce serving. To get the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance of 15 mg of iron, an infant would have to drink more than 31 quarts of milk per day. Milk can also cause blood loss from the intestinal tract, which, over time, reduces the body’s iron stores. Researchers speculate that the blood loss may be a reaction to proteins present in milk.3 Pasteurization does not eliminate the problem. Researchers from the University of Iowa recently wrote in the Journal of Pediatrics that “in a large proportion of infants, the feeding of cow milk causes a substantial increase of hemoglobin loss. Some infants are exquisitely sensitive to cow milk and can lose large quantities of blood.”3

Although concerns are greatest for children in the first year of life, there are also health concerns related to milk use among older children and some problems associated with cow’s milk formulas.

Milk Proteins and Diabetes

Several reports link insulin-dependent diabetes to a specific protein in dairy products. This form of diabetes usually begins in childhood. It is a leading cause of blindness and contributes to heart disease, kidney damage, and amputations due to poor circulation.

Studies of various countries show a strong correlation between the use of dairy products and the incidence of diabetes.4 A recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine5 adds substantial support to the long-standing theory that cow’s milk proteins stimulate the production of the antibodies6 which, in turn, destroy the insulin-producing pancreatic cells.7 In the new report, researchers from Canada and Finland found high levels of antibodies to a specific portion of a cow’s milk protein, called bovine serum albumin, in 100 percent of the 142 diabetic children they studied at the time the disease was diagnosed. Non-diabetic children may have such antibodies, but only at much lower levels. Evidence suggests that the combination of a genetic predisposition and cow’s milk exposure is the major cause of the childhood form of diabetes, although there is no way of determining which children are genetically predisposed. Antibodies can apparently form in response to even small quantities of milk products, including infant formulas.

Pancreatic cell destruction occurs gradually, especially after infections, which cause the cellular proteins to be exposed to the damage of antibodies. Diabetes becomes evident when 80 to 90 percent of the insulin-producing beta cells are destroyed.

Milk proteins are also among the most common causes of food allergies. Often, the cause of the symptoms is not recognized for substantial periods of time.

Milk Sugar and Health Problems

Many people, particularly those of Asian and African ancestry, are unable to digest the milk sugar, lactose. The result is diarrhea and gas. For those who can digest lactose, its breakdown products are two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Galactose has been implicated in ovarian cancer8 and cataracts.9,10 Nursing children have active enzymes that break down galactose. As we age, many of us lose much of this capacity.

Fat Content

Whole milk, cheese, cream, butter, ice cream, sour cream, and all other dairy products aside from skim and non-fat products contain significant amounts of saturated fat, as well as cholesterol, contributing to cardiovascular diseases and certain forms of cancer. The early changes of heart disease have been documented in American teenagers. While children do need a certain amount of fat in their diets, there is no nutritional requirement for cow’s milk fat. On the contrary, cow’s milk is high in saturated fats, but low in the essential fatty acid linoleic acid.

Contaminants

Milk contains frequent contaminants, from pesticides to drugs. About one-third of milk products have been shown to be contaminated with antibiotic traces. The vitamin D content of milk has been poorly regulated. Recent testing of 42 milk samples found only 12 percent within the expected range of vitamin D content. Testing of ten samples of infant formula revealed seven with more than twice the vitamin D content reported on the label, one of which had more than four times the label amount.11 Vitamin D is toxic in overdose.12

Osteoporosis

Dairy products offer a false sense of security to those concerned about osteoporosis. In countries where dairy products are not generally consumed, there is actually less osteoporosis than in the United States. Studies have shown little effect of dairy products on osteoporosis.13 The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study followed 78,000 women for a 12-year period and found that milk did not protect against bone fractures. Indeed, those who drank three glasses of milk per day had more fractures than those who rarely drank milk.14

There are many good sources of calcium. Kale, broccoli, and other green leafy vegetables contain calcium that is readily absorbed by the body. A recent report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that calcium absorbability was actually higher for kale than for milk, and concluded that “greens such as kale can be considered to be at least as good as milk in terms of their calcium absorbability.”15 Beans are also rich in calcium. Fortified orange juice supplies large amounts of calcium in a palatable form.16

Calcium is only one of many factors that affect the bone. Other factors include hormones, phosphorus, boron, exercise, smoking, alcohol, and drugs.17-20 Protein is also important in calcium balance. Diets that are rich in protein, particularly animal proteins, encourage calcium loss.21-23

Recommendations

There is no nutritional requirement for dairy products, and there are serious problems that can result from the proteins, sugar, fat, and contaminants in milk products. Therefore, the following recommendations are offered:

Breast-feeding is the preferred method of infant feeding. As recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, whole cow’s milk should not be given to infants under one year of age.
Parents should be alerted to the potential risks to their children from cow’s milk use.
Cow’s milk should not be required or recommended in government guidelines.
Government programs, such as school lunch programs and the WIC program, should be consistent with these recommendations.
References
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. The use of whole cow’s milk in infancy. Pediatrics 1992;89:1105-9.
2. Pennington JAT, Church HN. Food values of portions commonly used. New York, Harper and Row, 1989.
3. Ziegler EE, Fomon SJ, Nelson SE, et al. Cow milk feeding in infancy: further observations on blood loss from the gastrointestinal tract. J Pediatr 1990;116:11-8.
4. Scott FW. Cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: is there a relationship? Am J CLin Nutr 1990;51:489-91.
5. Karjalainen J, Martin JM, Knip M, et al. A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:302-7.
6. Roberton DM, Paganelli R, Dinwiddie R, Levinsky RJ. Milk antigen absorption in the preterm and term neonate. Arch Dis Child 1982;57:369-72.
7. Bruining GJ, Molenaar J, Tuk CW, Lindeman J, Bruining HA, Marner B. Clinical time-course and characteristics of islet cell cytoplasmatic antibodies in childhood diabetes. Diabetologia 1984;26:24-29.
8. Cramer DW, Willett WC, Bell DA, et al. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989;2:66-71.
9. Simoons FJ. A geographic approach to senile cataracts: possible links with milk consumption, lactase activity, and galactose metabolism. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 1982;27:257-64.
10. Couet C, Jan P, Debry G. Lactose and cataract in humans: a review. J Am Coll Nutr 1991;10:79-86.
11. Holick MF, Shao Q, Liu WW, Chen TC. The vitamin D content of fortified milk and infant formula. New Engl J Med 1992;326:1178-81.
12. Jacobus CH, Holick MF, Shao Q, et al. Hypervitaminosis D associated with drinking milk. New Engl J Med 1992;326:1173-7.
13. Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Melton J, Richelson LS, Judd HL, O’Fallon M. Dietary calcium intake and rates on bone loss in women. J Clin Invest 1987;80:979-82.
14. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Publ Health 1997;87:992-7.
15. Heaney RP, Weaver CM. Calcium absorption from kale. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:656-7.
16. Nicar MJ, Pak CYC. Calcium bioavailability from calcium carbonate and calcium citrate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1985;61:391-3.
17. Dawson-Hughes B. Calcium supplementation and bone loss: a review of controlled clinical trials. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;54:274S-80S.
18. Mazess RB, Barden HS. Bone density in premenopausal women: effects of age, dietary intake, physical activity, smoking, and birth control pills. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;53:132-42.
19. Nelson ME, Fisher EC, Dilmanian FA, Dallal GE, Evans WJ. A 1-y walking program and increased dietary calcium in postmenopausal women: efect on bone. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;53:1304-11.
20. Nielsen FH, Hunt CD, Mullen LM, Hunt JR. Effect of dietary boron on mineral, estrogen, and testosterone metabolism in postmenopausal women. FASEB J 1987;1:394-7.
21. Zemel MB. Role of the sulfur-containing amino acids in protein-induced hypercalciuria in men. J Nutr 1981;111:545.
22. Hegsted M. Urinary calcium and calcium balance in young men as affected by level of protein and phosphorus intake. J Nutr 1981;111:553.
23. Marsh AG, Sanchez TV, Mickelsen O, Keiser J, Mayor G. Cortical bone density of adult lacto-ovo-vegetarian and omnivorous women. J Am Dietetic Asso 1980;76:148-51.




The study, which aimed to understand the impact of vegetarian nutrition and the connected lifestyle on the risk of mortality, included around 1900 participants. These were divided into vegans (who abstain not only from meat but also from other animal products such as eggs or dairy products), vegetarians (who consume eggs and dairy products but no fish or meat) and moderate vegetarians (occasional meat and fish eaters).
On comparison with the general population, the study revealed a significant increase in life expectancy for the study participants. For every 100 deaths in the general population, only 59 deaths were recorded for the monitored group. The difference is even greater for male vegetarians with only 52 deaths.

However, entirely abstaining from meat consumption does not appear to be the healthiest nutritional lifestyle. Comparison of the three categories suggests that those who occasionally consume meat have an even lower risk of mortality than the other groups. For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and 60 among occasional meat eaters.

In addition to nutrition the researchers also gathered information about other lifestyle factors, such as smoking or physical activity. As expected, the scientists recorded that the average risk of mortality increased by 70 per cent in smokers. Risk of mortality was reduced by a third for those with high or moderate levels of activity compared to those with a sedentary lifestyle.

The results of the study suggest that while a low level of meat consumption may have a desirable effect on life expectancy, it is a balanced lifestyle, both in terms of nutrition and activity that leads to longevity.

Full results of the study will be presented at the Congress of the German Nutrition Society on the 13 and 14 March 2003 in Potsdam.



also that is not why we must ban it because meat is murder.

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 17:18
Originally posted by Marxosaurus Rex+December 20, 2007 04:56 pm--> (Marxosaurus Rex @ December 20, 2007 04:56 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 03:48 pm

I love how you Leninists insist on throwing the label "petty-bourgeois" on anything that challenges Leninism on the left.

It was an assumption on my part, I admit, but the guy was using the same buzzwords U.S. politicians use ('liberty', 'liberal', 'democracy')
It just reminds me of 'radical' kids (whose dads totally own a dealership) who subscribe to some 'warm, fuzzy' version of socialism that has 'freedom of speech' and 'multi-party democracy' and 'doesn't repress anyone' while failing to realize how easily the capitalists can subvert and destroy this 'plush socialism'.

So yeah, it was elitist on my part. Sorry, my bad. [/b]
but you see, if a majority of the people are capitalist then we must understand people want a capitalist goverment, and all we must do is convice people to become communist

themaskedavenger
20th December 2007, 17:26
First of all, the fact that you have to ask others what kind of communist you are is pathetic. You should be able to think for yourself and to figure it out on your own. If you dont have any idea then its called picking up a book and reading. That is the real underlying problem with this post.
The second biggest problem is your in ability to spell or type.
The guy who said that communism is about action, so far he's the one that has it right, everything else is just a matter of opinion.

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 17:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:25 pm
First of all, the fact that you have to ask others what kind of communist you are is pathetic. You should be able to think for yourself and to figure it out on your own. If you dont have any idea then its called picking up a book and reading. That is the real underlying problem with this post.
The second biggest problem is your in ability to spell or type.
The guy who said that communism is about action, so far he's the one that has it right, everything else is just a matter of opinion.
Ive read books I think im a "Green Left Democratic Communist" but im not sure...

Luís Henrique
20th December 2007, 17:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad.
No, it is not bad. It is awful.

I want a communism in which I can eat beef, not some kind of crazy dietary dictatorship.

It is incredible that people who accuse Lenin of suppressing liberty will come with such assholery...

Luís Henrique

Forward Union
20th December 2007, 17:51
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 20, 2007 05:10 pm

2. veganism in tests have been proven to be healthier if the diet is watched closy.


So has not drinking. But I still do it, because I find it enjoyable.


1. why are animals eescluded in murder and rape ill tell you, because humans hate animals and treat them like 2nd class civiens

They're not second class citizens, they're not even citizens they less than "sub human" Humans have human societies in which we form our own laws and constitons, Horses have horse societies. For one to grant the other a place in their society is compeltely insane.

Furthermore, animals kill eachother all the time, for numerous reasons, it's not always neccisary for them to do so, there's nothing wrong with that, it's nature.

Humans eat animals because they're tasty. That's it.


also that is not why we must ban it because meat is murder.

Meat is food. Murder is a human social construct and does not apply to things outside of humanity. Animals are not capable of "murder" are they?

Forward Union
20th December 2007, 17:53
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 20, 2007 05:34 pm
Ive read books I think im a "Green Left Democratic Communist" but im not sure...
What does that mean? Green presumably means concern for the environment, thats implied in communism, as is "democratic" they're both inherant parts of communism, and thus don't need to be attached as adjectives.

So you're a left communist? - except you have incredibly authorotarian, drakonian and dictorial views about enforced diets... :unsure:

Luís Henrique
20th December 2007, 18:19
Originally posted by Wat [email protected] 20, 2007 05:52 pm
So you're a left communist?
Of course he's not a left communist; if he was a left communist he wouldn't come here and ask what kind of communist he is.

To be a left communist you have to be engaged in a left communist organisation.

Luís Henrique

Raúl Duke
20th December 2007, 18:19
If meat is murder what do you do to the "murderers" who violate that law in the socialist state?

How about animals that kill others animals and humans just for their meat? Do they get punished for breaking the law in this socialist state? IF they don't yet humans do get punished wouldn't that be speciest (double standards, except inverted to favor animals over humans.)?

Not even radical left groups that include/mention vegetarianism (RAAN for example, although its the group that everyone loves to hate. :P) in their charter are this strict post-rev to my knowledge. (except maybe MIM, especially when it comes to sex.)

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 19:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 06:18 pm
If meat is murder what do you do to the "murderers" who violate that law in the socialist state?

How about animals that kill others animals and humans just for their meat? Do they get punished for breaking the law in this socialist state? IF they don't yet humans do get punished wouldn't that be speciest (double standards, except inverted to favor animals over humans.)?

Not even radical left groups that include/mention vegetarianism (RAAN for example, although its the group that everyone loves to hate. :P) in their charter are this strict post-rev to my knowledge. (except maybe MIM, especially when it comes to sex.)
1. they will get the same proiscution as if you murdered a human, life in jail.
2. not really, Its only because a animal dosnt know better they have no morals. they dont no better and besides there is no way for a naimal to be healthy on a vegan diet other hten humans and some speces of monkeys

cary jebus
20th December 2007, 19:31
Originally posted by Wat Tyler+December 20, 2007 05:52 pm--> (Wat Tyler @ December 20, 2007 05:52 pm)
cary [email protected] 20, 2007 05:34 pm
Ive read books I think im a "Green Left Democratic Communist" but im not sure...
What does that mean? Green presumably means concern for the environment, thats implied in communism, as is "democratic" they're both inherant parts of communism, and thus don't need to be attached as adjectives.

So you're a left communist? - except you have incredibly authorotarian, drakonian and dictorial views about enforced diets... :unsure: [/b]
I'm not authorotarian, I'm simply saying murder should be iilegal - me

Dros
20th December 2007, 19:55
1.) please learn how to spell/type.

2.) You make me laugh. Animals don't have morals, shouldn't be punished for their "crimes", and shouldn't be treated like 2nd class citizens? They aren't citizens! They're fucking animals! Do you want to give them voting rights? I hope the beetles don't vote as a block 'cause then were skrewed. You're imposing these human charecteristics onto animals. Murder is a social construction. It applies to human society. Your position is the worst kind of insane, idealistic, unmaterialistic, bullshit.

In essence, you are as bad as the Christian fascists who want to mandate christianity as the religion.

I have eaten meat thousands of times. I guess that must put me up there with Hitler.

themaskedavenger
20th December 2007, 20:36
you shouldnt even consider yourself a communist, but an extreme authoritative environmentalist.
and please, learn how to type, you spelling is horrendous

w0lf
20th December 2007, 20:57
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 19, 2007 11:49 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 19, 2007 11:49 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:20 pm
I think veganism being forced isn't bad.
Then you should change your avatar and stop pretending to be an anarchist.


Healthier nation.

Yeah, we'd also be healthier if we prohibited drugs (like nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, caffeine and so on), we'd be healthier if citizens had a mandated exercise period during their day. A society that punishes people for unhealthy acts to make them healthy is worse than this one.


Prosecuting christians wasn't very great.

Why not? How is enforcing the destruction of a religious meme any different from the mandated eradication of a dietary system?

Cary Jebus


by state I only ment concoils and law enforcement

What's the class basis of their mandate? If the interests of the working class run counter to some of your more insane social engineering ideas how would you wish for the state to react? [/b]
I never said I would force veganism myself.

Forced veganism isn't torturous. Stalin actually KILLED Christians.

Orange Juche
20th December 2007, 21:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:54 pm
In essence, you are as bad as the Christian fascists who want to mandate christianity as the religion.
I'd say thats a stretch. I'm definately not for forced veganism, but I don't think the world is simple enough to just lump those two, different things together.

Orange Juche
20th December 2007, 23:27
Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 12:56 pm
So yeah, it was elitist on my part. Sorry, my bad.
It happens :-)

cary jebus
21st December 2007, 00:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:54 pm
1.) please learn how to spell/type.

2.) You make me laugh. Animals don't have morals, shouldn't be punished for their "crimes", and shouldn't be treated like 2nd class citizens? They aren't citizens! They're fucking animals! Do you want to give them voting rights? I hope the beetles don't vote as a block 'cause then were skrewed. You're imposing these human charecteristics onto animals. Murder is a social construction. It applies to human society. Your position is the worst kind of insane, idealistic, unmaterialistic, bullshit.

In essence, you are as bad as the Christian fascists who want to mandate christianity as the religion.

I have eaten meat thousands of times. I guess that must put me up there with Hitler.
I got news for you, there wouldnt be any mentian of it in my nation, who cares if animals have a right to vote they wont do it anyway.

Kitskits
21st December 2007, 01:02
To me this whole animal thing seems to me an enormous manifestation of the peripheralism of emotion. My friend you've got zero logic.

Nature invented pain, which is the root of your problem. Pain brought on by the nervous system as pre-designed by DNA and stimulated by the animal tortures and rape whatever. If there was no pain in sentient beings, rape would be the same as touching the animal, killing would be just the ending of an animals life (no fear involved, no pain involved, nothing negative involved). Nature invented pain and that is the unbelievable thing about you ecologists and greens. You are idiots. If you think that if we are vegetarians or very friendly to animals, they will experience no pain. Yes probably the pain will be less but pain IS THERE. Pain also comes from animal-animal interaction, your beloved mother nature is cruel to the extreme. The nervous system is a life-time guarantee of experiencing pain and to a MUCH MUCH lesser extent, pleasure. Your enviromentalist solutions might be like UNICEF for the third world, give them a fish, in the wildest possibility teach them how to fish, but never eradicate hunger. It is dangerous peripheralism, and it is more idiotic when expresses itself in an authoritarian way.

Watch your emotions, don't let them overtake you when you think politics. The only possible solution in the global problem of pain (in animals and humans) which is your ONLY problem whether you realize it or not, is a co-operative and scientific world. It can become co-operative by communism, global communism and can be scientific by finally eradicating any sign of the old world darkness, which involves religion, idealism and such things. The problem is that you just don't see the problem in it's whole.

w0lf
21st December 2007, 02:43
Animals aren't citizens. "cary jebus" Don't get me wrong I'm a vegetarian. but animals cannot communicate with us enough to consider them citizens.
I do not see how rape and murder does not apply to animals though.

Jazzratt
22nd December 2007, 00:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:42 am
I do not see how rape and murder does not apply to animals though.
This is the essence of the arguments I've seen you guys put forward, so I shall reply to this, rather than wading through the multiple responses in the same vein you guys have given.

Quite simply for something to qualify as murder you must be taking the life of an entity rationally acting within society, (non-human) animals don't do that. (Non-human) Animals are incapable of being rational actors within society. The reasons are similar with rape.

RedKnight
22nd December 2007, 03:18
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 19, 2007 12:58 am
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
You are an eco-socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism).

Redscare102
22nd December 2007, 20:43
You aren't a communist. You may be some nutty form of socialist, however. From what I know (I'm still learning, though), I'm pretty sure that the end result of communism is a STATELESS society. I'm almost certain that, in communism, a workers state is just a temporary organ, before a stateless, classless society can exist.

Also, your views on veganism are, in my view, quite silly. I think that eating pork is bad, personally, because pigs are about as intelligent as dogs or cats. However... chickens, cows, sheep, turkeys, etc. are all fair game. They're not as intelligent as dogs, cats, or pigs, and banning eating of them is just a pointless restriction of personal freedoms.

EDIT: Also, health-wise, eating no meat is BAD. Go to India, and look at people (fundamentalist Hindus and Jains, primarily) who have never eaten meat in their LIVES. They are VERY unhealthy.

Orange Juche
23rd December 2007, 09:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:42 pm
EDIT: Also, health-wise, eating no meat is BAD. Go to India, and look at people (fundamentalist Hindus and Jains, primarily) who have never eaten meat in their LIVES. They are VERY unhealthy.
Now, I am no vegan... not even a vegetarian. Meat is fucking delicious.

But what you say isn't necissarily true. Its just that its far more difficult to maintain a good state of health if you are a vegan. You have to be very attentive to what you are eating and be careful to diversify your diet (within the boundaries of veganism). Jains don't typically have the dietary knowledge of western scientists, and simply don't eat living things, so of course there is a greater likelihood they will be unhealthy.

But it is possible to be both vegan, and healthy.

Rasmus
23rd December 2007, 13:20
Aren't humans carnivorous anyway?

I find it silly to enforce diet on people, since it, A; Will require a state to enforce (Which will hopefully be abolished following the revolution in favour of workplace democracy), B; Is an uneeded attack on personal freedom of choice. Yes, people may be healthier, but if people don't enjoy the food, their quality of living falls.

Also, my opinion is probably very biased, since I love meat. It's delicious, in most cases.

Luís Henrique
23rd December 2007, 15:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:45 am
Jains don't typically have the dietary knowledge of western scientists, and simply don't eat living things,
Jains eat what, rocks?

Vegetals are living things too!

Luís Henrique

Vargha Poralli
23rd December 2007, 16:53
Jains don't typically have the dietary knowledge of western scientists, and simply don't eat living things, so of course there is a greater likelihood they will be unhealthy.

No they generally are not.

Even in plants they don't take root vegetables like Onions,Garlic and Potatoes. But they are incredibly healthy. My suspicions is because of the dairy suppliment they usually take. That is one difference between vegans and Jains.


Originally posted by Luis

Vegetals are living things too!

They acknowledge that too I think. That is the reason they do not take root vegetables like Onions, Garlic etc.

davidbrooke
23rd December 2007, 17:57
Why would you be concerned with "what type of commuist you are?". The only thing you can do if your going to ask a question like that is to go do some reading. The most important is to become active inside an organisation - action is the best way to understand the workers struggle.

It may be more relevant to go and seek material that explores socialists/communists view on issues such as vaganism/vegetarianism.

cary jebus
23rd December 2007, 22:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:19 pm
Aren't humans carnivorous anyway?

I find it silly to enforce diet on people, since it, A; Will require a state to enforce (Which will hopefully be abolished following the revolution in favour of workplace democracy), B; Is an uneeded attack on personal freedom of choice. Yes, people may be healthier, but if people don't enjoy the food, their quality of living falls.

Also, my opinion is probably very biased, since I love meat. It's delicious, in most cases.
I woundnt ban it for health ban it because animals have feelings...





Vegetals are living things too!

yes but they don't have concessness.

Q
24th December 2007, 07:29
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 23, 2007 10:35 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 23, 2007 10:35 pm)
Vegetals are living things too!

yes but they don't have concessness. [/b]

Wikipedia
Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness)

It is highly debatable if animals actually are conciouss.
Besides us, dolphins and some species of monkeys, I don't think many are.

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 15:07
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.

Cryotank Screams
24th December 2007, 17:22
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 20, 2007 03:28 pm
1. they will get the same proiscution as if you murdered a human, life in jail.
You do realize how idealist and impractical that is right?

Luís Henrique
24th December 2007, 19:34
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 20, 2007 07:28 pm
1. they will get the same proiscution as if you murdered a human, life in jail.
So, if you swat a fly, you will be put in jail for life?

Luís Henrique

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 20:27
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.

Luís Henrique
24th December 2007, 20:53
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.
No, not by accident. A fly is bothering me, zooming around my head, or trying to land on my food, and I take a newspaper and deliberately, intentionally, "murder" it.

Life in jail?

Luís Henrique

Cryotank Screams
24th December 2007, 21:01
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 04:26 pm
flys have feelings
Prove it.

Jazzratt
24th December 2007, 22:00
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.
You're insane.

I'm going to have to answer your question with "the kind that should never, ever have their ideas implemented".

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 22:04
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 08:52 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 08:52 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.
No, not by accident. A fly is bothering me, zooming around my head, or trying to land on my food, and I take a newspaper and deliberately, intentionally, "murder" it.

Life in jail?

Luís Henrique [/b]
yes unless the food cause that can kill you.

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 22:05
Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 24, 2007 09:00 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 24, 2007 09:00 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 04:26 pm
flys have feelings
Prove it. [/b]
we have a brain they have a brain.

Kitskits
24th December 2007, 22:09
Your way of thinking:

Serial murderers have psychological problems, depressive people have psychological problems. Put the depressive people in jail to prevent a possible serial murder.

This conversation is a joke.

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 22:20
....wait what?

Luís Henrique
24th December 2007, 22:23
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 24, 2007 10:03 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 24, 2007 10:03 pm)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 08:52 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.
No, not by accident. A fly is bothering me, zooming around my head, or trying to land on my food, and I take a newspaper and deliberately, intentionally, "murder" it.

Life in jail?

Luís Henrique
yes unless the food cause that can kill you. [/b]
You are crazed.

Now tell us, if someone should be senteced to life in jail for killing a fly, what the penalty should be for a woman that has an abortion?

Luís Henrique

Kitskits
24th December 2007, 22:27
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:19 pm
....wait what?
it's the same logic as the 'humans have brain, flies have brain, humans have emotion, flies have emotion'.

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 22:36
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 10:22 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 10:22 pm)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:03 pm

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 08:52 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 08:26 pm
yes, flys have feelings, but its diff if you simply kill something by actident.
No, not by accident. A fly is bothering me, zooming around my head, or trying to land on my food, and I take a newspaper and deliberately, intentionally, "murder" it.

Life in jail?

Luís Henrique
yes unless the food cause that can kill you.
You are crazed.

Now tell us, if someone should be senteced to life in jail for killing a fly, what the penalty should be for a woman that has an abortion?

Luís Henrique [/b]
nothing, because afetushas on feelings and it puts thewomens life in danger

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 22:39
Originally posted by Kitskits+December 24, 2007 10:26 pm--> (Kitskits @ December 24, 2007 10:26 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:19 pm
....wait what?
it's the same logic as the 'humans have brain, flies have brain, humans have emotion, flies have emotion'. [/b]
I use the animal testing argument on this

scxientists say we test on them because there like us they say its morally right becauses there not like us

Luís Henrique
24th December 2007, 22:48
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:35 pm
nothing, because afetushas on feelings
Fetuses have brains, just like flies.


and it puts thewomens life in danger

Animals put human lives in risk, too.

Luís Henrique

w0lf
24th December 2007, 23:13
I'm vegetarian and animal rights but I would swat a fly. I think forced veganism in a nation would lead to many riots no one would follow that rule..If your a leader you should do what the people want.

Luís Henrique
24th December 2007, 23:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:12 pm
I'm vegetarian and animal rights but I would swat a fly.
But not kill a cow?

Luís Henrique

black magick hustla
24th December 2007, 23:30
all the policitized vegetarians i know are goddamn skinny hipsters who dress like the anarchists you see depicted in the covers of crimethinc's books,

i repeat, where are the anarchists that used to dress like malatesta or durruti?????????????????????????????????

w0lf
24th December 2007, 23:35
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 11:22 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 11:22 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 11:12 pm
I'm vegetarian and animal rights but I would swat a fly.
But not kill a cow?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Yes. I consider the two on different levels of society. Humans>Animals>Insects.

If you would kill an animal why not a human?

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 23:37
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 10:47 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 10:47 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:35 pm
nothing, because afetushas on feelings
Fetuses have brains, just like flies.


and it puts thewomens life in danger

Animals put human lives in risk, too.

Luís Henrique [/b]
1. not in the early stages
2. so your dog is a danger to you?

Cryotank Screams
24th December 2007, 23:43
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 06:04 pm
we have a brain they have a brain.
Stating this doesn't prove anything. Even if you could thoroughly prove that a housefly’s brain is so complex that it has feelings, emotions and so forth it seems irrelevant because when you swat a fly it's quick and painless. It is common knowledge that mosquitoes carry various viruses like malaria or 'West Nile' so what if some one killed a mosquito? Life in prison? I think you’re hurting you argument for Veganism tremendously by arguing that we shouldn’t kill insects and that it’s ‘murder’.

w0lf
24th December 2007, 23:45
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 10:47 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 10:47 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 10:35 pm
nothing, because afetushas on feelings
Fetuses have brains, just like flies.


and it puts thewomens life in danger

Animals put human lives in risk, too.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Your life is in danger when you pay for the carcass of a pig or cow?

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 23:46
umm............ :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: oh shi- it apears I have been partialy disproven....

now im human=animal>insect

w0lf
24th December 2007, 23:48
Originally posted by Rasmus+December 23, 2007 01:19 pm--> (Rasmus @ December 23, 2007 01:19 pm) Aren't humans carnivorous anyway?
[/b]
They are omnivores


[email protected] 23, 2007 09:45 am
Jains don't typically have the dietary knowledge of western scientists, and simply don't eat living things,
Jains eat what, rocks?

Vegetals are living things too!

Luís Henrique


There are such a thing as fruitarians.

cary jebus
24th December 2007, 23:51
but there insanly unhealthy

themaskedavenger
25th December 2007, 00:08
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 05:50 pm
but there insanly unhealthy
reading this argument is insanely unhealthy. all it does is piss me off.

cary jebus
25th December 2007, 00:47
Originally posted by themaskedavenger+December 25, 2007 12:07 am--> (themaskedavenger @ December 25, 2007 12:07 am)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 05:50 pm
but there insanly unhealthy
reading this argument is insanely unhealthy. all it does is piss me off. [/b]
I beleve you cought me.

Rasmus
25th December 2007, 00:52
Deleted due to excessive stupidity caused from sleep deprivation.

Kitskits
25th December 2007, 09:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:29 pm
all the policitized vegetarians i know are goddamn skinny hipsters who dress like the anarchists you see depicted in the covers of crimethinc's books,

i repeat, where are the anarchists that used to dress like malatesta or durruti?????????????????????????????????
HAahhahahahahahaha. I agree with you comrade. That vegeterian-anarchist current of fashion is pure shit. I prefer good old fashioned communist people :P :P

Q
25th December 2007, 12:33
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious.

cary jebus
25th December 2007, 15:13
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 25, 2007 12:32 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 25, 2007 12:32 pm)
cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious. [/b]
thats whatI ment.

Q
25th December 2007, 15:21
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 25, 2007 03:12 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 25, 2007 03:12 pm)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 12:32 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious.
thats whatI ment. [/b]
You mean that animals can feel pain or that animals are concious?

Luís Henrique
25th December 2007, 15:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:34 pm
Yes. I consider the two on different levels of society. Humans>Animals>Insects.
Insects are animals.


If you would kill an animal why not a human?

If you would kill a fly, why not a cow?

Luís Henrique

cary jebus
25th December 2007, 17:56
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 25, 2007 03:20 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 25, 2007 03:20 pm)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 12:32 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious.
thats whatI ment.
You mean that animals can feel pain or that animals are concious? [/b]
that animals are self-aware

Q
25th December 2007, 18:04
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 25, 2007 05:55 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 25, 2007 05:55 pm)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 12:32 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious.
thats whatI ment.
You mean that animals can feel pain or that animals are concious?
that animals are self-aware [/b]
Can you prove that, for example, an ant is self-aware?

Luís Henrique
25th December 2007, 18:10
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 24, 2007 11:36 pm
2. so your dog is a danger to you?
Of course, dogs compete with humans for the same food. Dogs harbour diseases that can be transmitted to humans.

Luís Henrique

cary jebus
25th December 2007, 18:36
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 25, 2007 06:03 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 25, 2007 06:03 pm)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 25, 2007 05:55 pm

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 03:20 pm

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 pm

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 12:32 pm

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 03:06 pm
I disagree I think if you have a brain you have feelings.
The question was not whether or not they can feel, any organism with a nerve system can probably feel pain. The question however was whether or not animals are conscious.
thats whatI ment.
You mean that animals can feel pain or that animals are concious?
that animals are self-aware
Can you prove that, for example, an ant is self-aware? [/b]
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.


Of course, dogs compete with humans for the same food. Dogs harbour diseases that can be transmitted to humans.

Luís Henrique

yesyes, but tell me would you kill your dog for defence? no, theres no reason too...

Q
25th December 2007, 18:47
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness.

themaskedavenger
25th December 2007, 19:55
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 24, 2007 06:46 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 24, 2007 06:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:07 am

cary [email protected] 24, 2007 05:50 pm
but there insanly unhealthy
reading this argument is insanely unhealthy. all it does is piss me off.
I beleve you cought me. [/b]
its CAUGHT not COUGHT.
is english your first language, cause if it isn't then I'll forgive the bad grammer

cary jebus
26th December 2007, 00:12
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 25, 2007 06:46 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 25, 2007 06:46 pm)
cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness. [/b]
I mean emotional feelings...

Q
26th December 2007, 00:41
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 26, 2007 12:11 am--> (cary jebus @ December 26, 2007 12:11 am)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 06:46 pm

cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness.
I mean emotional feelings... [/b]
So, animals can be jealous, revengefull... in love?

Raúl Duke
26th December 2007, 01:07
Originally posted by w0lf+December 24, 2007 06:34 pm--> (w0lf @ December 24, 2007 06:34 pm)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 11:22 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 11:12 pm
I'm vegetarian and animal rights but I would swat a fly.
But not kill a cow?

Luís Henrique
Yes. I consider the two on different levels of society. Humans>Animals>Insects.

If you would kill an animal why not a human? [/b]
Why not kill a human?
We don't have to kill them for food (well...there are always those moments when you are stranded and...). Although I guess we might have to kill our fair share in a revolution?
:D

cary jebus
26th December 2007, 02:27
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 26, 2007 12:40 am--> (Q-collective @ December 26, 2007 12:40 am)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 26, 2007 12:11 am

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 06:46 pm

cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness.
I mean emotional feelings...
So, animals can be jealous, revengefull... in love? [/b]
yes.

Q
26th December 2007, 02:30
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 26, 2007 02:26 am--> (cary jebus @ December 26, 2007 02:26 am)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 26, 2007 12:40 am

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 26, 2007 12:11 am

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 06:46 pm

cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness.
I mean emotional feelings...
So, animals can be jealous, revengefull... in love?
yes. [/b]
Can you prove that?

Anyway, this is seriously getting side-tracked. My conclusion on your original question: you're not a communist at all, not even close. You have some very weird and confused ideas on matters and are apparently not willing to learn, this makes you a progressive "leftie" at best (in which your type of "leftism" isn't linked to communism in any way).

cary jebus
26th December 2007, 02:54
Originally posted by Q-collective+December 26, 2007 02:29 am--> (Q-collective @ December 26, 2007 02:29 am)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 26, 2007 02:26 am

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 26, 2007 12:40 am

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 26, 2007 12:11 am

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 25, 2007 06:46 pm

cary [email protected] 25, 2007 06:35 pm
well, its the direct thought, if we have feelings and we are animals therefor they have feelings.
Again, the ability to feel is not self-awareness.
I mean emotional feelings...
So, animals can be jealous, revengefull... in love?
yes.
Can you prove that?

Anyway, this is seriously getting side-tracked. My conclusion on your original question: you're not a communist at all, not even close. You have some very weird and confused ideas on matters and are apparently not willing to learn, this makes you a progressive "leftie" at best (in which your type of "leftism" isn't linked to communism in any way). [/b]
I want privite property banned. t

Comrade Nadezhda
26th December 2007, 07:22
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 18, 2007 06:58 pm
ok heres a overview my belifes


1. privite enterpise should be iilegal
2. anying breaking equality should be banned
3. equality is the most imporent thing behid environmentalism, liberty, and democracy.
4. equality should be perserved
5. we should try are hardist ot help the environment
6. veganism should be consupitory.
7. "true communism" is liberal and democratic
8. lenin wasnt a true communist.
9. there must be state inorder to enforce laws
1) ok
2) what do you mean with "equality"

3) (see subquestions)
- why is environmentalism relevant? (expand, further)
- what is "liberty"?
- what do you consider "democracy"?

(liberty and democracy are incredibly vague terms. they are useless for this reason.)

4) furthermore, define "equality"

5) how is this more than "distraction politics"? (i.e. politics to distract from the purpose of proletarian revolution)

6) explain.

7) again, these are useless terms.

8) though I would expect you to explain this (which I do) that itself is self-explanitory in that you subscribe to a reformist rather than revolutionary viewpoint. lenin was a communist revolutionary. he wanted to raise classconsciousness among the entire proletariat; disregard your conception of the vanguard, dictatorship of the proletariat, the civil war, or whatever else you contribute to this remark.

Lenin argued for "democracy" he wanted to replace the bourgeois state apparatus (which is a minority democracy, a democracy excluding proletarians or working class people) with a proletarian state (i.e. the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat') he wanted to transfer the state power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. It is more complex than that, but if you read The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm) you'll have a better idea what I am referring to.

Before criticising Lenin and other revolutionary leaders for this type of thing in accordance to assumed values of bourgeois society, which if you are to go this route, you are definitely not arguing for proletarian movement. Remember that bourgeois values do not apply to proletarian revolution, thus the elimination of this society, so trying to put bourgeois societal structure into effect in the proletarian revolutionary movement and state apparatus (DotP) would be regressive and eliminate the purpose.

9) communist society does not exist during the existence of the state apparatus. the proletarian state exists as a transitional phase which it will "wither away" when it is no longer necessary; thus, the formation of communist society will be complete.

cary jebus
26th December 2007, 23:17
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....

w0lf
27th December 2007, 03:48
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way.

cary jebus
27th December 2007, 23:14
Originally posted by w0lf+December 27, 2007 03:47 am--> (w0lf @ December 27, 2007 03:47 am)
cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way. [/b]
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws.

Cryotank Screams
27th December 2007, 23:23
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 27, 2007 07:13 pm
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws.
Who said Anarchists want to abolish laws?

Forward Union
27th December 2007, 23:40
Yea. Anarchists support laws. Though many of them will go through a 40 min debate about how they're not laws, they're called something else. But in English, they're laws.

Jazzratt
28th December 2007, 14:18
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 27, 2007 11:13 pm--> (cary jebus @ December 27, 2007 11:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:47 am

cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way.
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws. [/b]
The phrase "we need laws" doesn't follow there. Could you explain why you are opposed to anarchism?

Comrade Nadezhda
29th December 2007, 11:36
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 28, 2007 08:17 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 28, 2007 08:17 am)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 27, 2007 11:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:47 am

cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way.
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws.
The phrase "we need laws" doesn't follow there. Could you explain why you are opposed to anarchism?[/b]
His views seem quite liberal.

(i.e. this post)

were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.

cary jebus
30th December 2007, 01:58
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 28, 2007 02:17 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 28, 2007 02:17 pm)
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 27, 2007 11:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:47 am

cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way.
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws.
The phrase "we need laws" doesn't follow there. Could you explain why you are opposed to anarchism? [/b]
with anarchy, whats going to enforce laws?

kromando33
30th December 2007, 02:28
Originally posted by cary jebus+December 30, 2007 01:57 am--> (cary jebus @ December 30, 2007 01:57 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:17 pm

Originally posted by cary [email protected] 27, 2007 11:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:47 am

cary [email protected] 26, 2007 11:16 pm
2. everyone has the same income
3.
IM green?
FREEDOM OF speach, reglion, etc
were everyone capitalist, or socialist. liberal or conserive. fascist or whatever IS the goverment.
5. the enviroment is just as imporent as the workers.
6. people shouldnt be allowed to harm animals
7. true communism has freedom unlike the false communism of hte USSR
8. HA! lenin wants a minority democracy, more like oligarchy. minority democracy is just that.
9. just a tmep gov....
Sounds like your an anarcho-trot. In a way.
dont get me wrong, im not a anarchist, we need laws.
The phrase "we need laws" doesn't follow there. Could you explain why you are opposed to anarchism?
with anarchy, whats going to enforce laws? [/b]
Well without class struggle and the aggravation of contradiction from society, any 'ideal' or 'perfect' communist society will inevitably break down in reactionism. The position is quite simple, how can you have a perfect society when the people are still in contradiction? Socialism assumes all people are imperfect, and sets out a process for building socialism through practical and pragmatic science - Marxism-Leninism.

Jazzratt
30th December 2007, 13:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:27 am
Socialism assumes all people are imperfect, and sets out a process for building socialism through practical and pragmatic science - Marxism-Leninism.
Oh please, the "science" of Marxist-Leninism has about as much veracity as astrology. You would recognise this if you looked at the class make up of places like China or the USSR and made empirical judgements about why they failed.

You talk of class struggle but you propose a system which represses not only the bourgeoisie but the majority of the proletariat, having pretty rhetoric is not enough you have to be relevant to the proletariat and able to deliver the promised freedoms.

Colonello Buendia
30th December 2007, 15:05
yeah, the USSR and China are hardly model socialist nations to base our theories on, hell there isn't a country to base our theories on...

Forward Union
30th December 2007, 15:18
Originally posted by cary [email protected] 30, 2007 01:57 am
with anarchy, whats going to enforce laws?
A police force.

Anarchism is a system in which the state is replaced with a Federation of community and workplace councils. The Workers councils will make the laws, statutes, and mandate the police and army. Until the bourgeoisie is defeated, at which point the army can be dissolved.

I use the term "police" as it's easier than explaining a "civil workers millitia" or whatever you want to call it. There would be an organ that fullfils the same role as the pigs in many ways, but would be democratically run by the workers, for the workers. This was the case in Anarchist Ukraine, Korea and Spain.

cary jebus
31st December 2007, 03:26
Originally posted by Wat Tyler+December 30, 2007 03:17 pm--> (Wat Tyler @ December 30, 2007 03:17 pm)
cary [email protected] 30, 2007 01:57 am
with anarchy, whats going to enforce laws?
A police force.

Anarchism is a system in which the state is replaced with a Federation of community and workplace councils. The Workers councils will make the laws, statutes, and mandate the police and army. Until the bourgeoisie is defeated, at which point the army can be dissolved.

I use the term "police" as it's easier than explaining a "civil workers millitia" or whatever you want to call it. There would be an organ that fullfils the same role as the pigs in many ways, but would be democratically run by the workers, for the workers. This was the case in Anarchist Ukraine, Korea and Spain. [/b]
I stand corrected.

kromando33
31st December 2007, 07:26
Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 30, 2007 01:28 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 30, 2007 01:28 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:27 am
Socialism assumes all people are imperfect, and sets out a process for building socialism through practical and pragmatic science - Marxism-Leninism.
Oh please, the "science" of Marxist-Leninism has about as much veracity as astrology. You would recognise this if you looked at the class make up of places like China or the USSR and made empirical judgements about why they failed.

You talk of class struggle but you propose a system which represses not only the bourgeoisie but the majority of the proletariat, having pretty rhetoric is not enough you have to be relevant to the proletariat and able to deliver the promised freedoms. [/b]
Lol, more petty defeatism I see, you are a bourgeois wetdream.

USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were indeed socialist, but were taken down the revisionist and capitalist paths after their deaths.