Why are you communist?

[Imperial Power]

Id like to hear what makes you believe in the communist ideal. Especially I'd like to hear from the younger members of this board. A majority of you I don't believe are real communists. Just rebels trying to be differenate from the main stream. Also tell me if your into punk rock. The punk culture seems to spawn communism.

[peaccenicked]

the clash

White Riot

White riot-- I wanna riot
White riot-- a riot of my own
White riot-- I wanna riot
White riot-- A riot of my own

Black people gotta lot a problems
But they don't mind throwing a brick
White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick

An' everybody's doing
Just what they're told to do
An' nobody wants
To go to jail!

All the power's in the hands
Of people rich enough to buy it
While we walk the street
Too chicken to even try it

Everybody's doing
Just what they're told to do
Nobody wants
To go to jail!

Are you taking over
Or are you taking orders?
Are you going backwards
Or are you going forwards?

[Thine Stalin]

I don't like punk rock, but I do communism, I got my first taste of it when I was around 5 and was playing civilisation, I noticed that the communist goverment system was much more effective and the people were happier than in the republic and democratic goverments, I'd like to think i was a very literate child and so I read up on it, my dad explained the rest. Gradually as I grew older I began to learn about the basic ideals of a communist system, everyone being equal, I couldn't find a better society, and I imagined that with the competition with the capitalist nations technology could clip along at just as fast a pace as a free market country, and the people would be happier (should be happier) I also noticed that a communist economy was alot safer than a capitalist, While you can suddenly become a millioniare and then a bum the next day in capitalism, the market can crash, there are recessions, but in the communist system, since everything is circulated, there would be no national debt (so long as they didn't rely on other nations) thats a few of the reasons I am a communist

[El Che]

Why am i Socialist? because I have morals.

[Moskitto]

I don't listen to grebo music. I'm a socialist because I don't like a world where 15% of the world owns as much as the other 85%.

[libereco]

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

I think I was always a socialist (!) , influenzed by a lot of things. At some point I just became more concious.

It sickens me that we are not able, in a world where we have the resources and power to do so, to bring prosperity to the world, instead of just making profit.

added: And I do listen to Punk Rock a lot, simply because a lot of it deals with topics wich I hold dear, in a way wich I approve....and because I like the music.

I listen to a lot of music in general though.

p.s. my father just walked past my room singing commandante che guevara while i was typing this.... heh.



(Edited by libereco at 10:40 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)


(Edited by libereco at 11:46 pm on Feb. 14, 2002)

[Forever capitalism]

So you became a communist when you were 5 playing a computer game? Do people here read actually text books such as Marx, Engels and Lenin. Study history. Surely noone has read Capital Vol 1 2 3, and other Marx and communist writers books. How can people claim to be communist by merely brushing up on some theories such as equality and justice?? I'd like to think there was more to it then that. Surely history tells us that communism has failed regardless of the environment.

[peaccenicked]

forever illogical.
"Surely history tells us that communism has failed regardless of the environment."
Hence you never ask?
'Why not seek other formulas and admit that humankind is able to organise itself in a more rational and humane manner?'
You equate counter revolution with communism.
The defeat of socialism in poor countries is because the world market is dominant. Yes this is blaming capitalism for stalinism. It has its roots in capitalism and its psychology.
The capitalist success is at the expense of the majority.
"Today there are people sleeping under newspapers in the streets in the heartlands of imperialism. There is poverty, functional illiteracy, and the infant mortality rate in the US capital is twice Cuba's national average."
even a neo stalinist like castro can make boasts.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 2:25 pm on Feb. 15, 2002)

[Thine Stalin]

I guess you never read anything beyond that first line, I actually read Marx's 'dad kapital' and Stalin's 'stalin's kampf' dumbass

[Moskitto]

"I am a socialist because I am for humanity" - Eugene V Debs.

"If we do not cling onto riches, greed or selfsishness, then I believe we are getting closer to god" - Daniel Ortega

Actually the only Marx I read is the manifesto. I generally read Luxemburg.

[Thine Stalin]

I also read many of stalin's speeches and letters at www.marx2mao.org, they have a larger lenin and marx archive but I'm content reading through a 200 page essay of Stalin's every week or so.

[Xvall]

Nice excuse Imperialist.. But I'm afraid not..
People have claimed the same thing about rap, because it often speaks out agaisnt opressive authority. So they go and denounce it as 'gangbanger music' that 'young hoodlums' listen to, forever associateing any rap song with disobedience. You're claiming the same thing about punk music. I do sometiems listen to 'punk music' but it doesn't mean that I am a misguided child. I was interested in communism far before I even listen to this so called 'devil music'. I believe that it is a good form of society. Think about ants living in a colony....

- Drake Dracoli

[redpeekay]

I am a socialist because i think people should be more important than money
so many people can't get an education because it costs too much
so many people can't get health treatment because it costs too much
and, I don't see capitalism to be very efficient at anything other than destroying our planet and pissing people off
oh, and I'm into punk, but not for any political reasons, i just like the sound, i also listen to metal, classical, classic rock and techno

[Nateddi]

I haven't read das kapital, however I read the manifesto, State & Revo (lenin), What is to be done (lenin), and several modern day books which examine modern day corruptions of capitalist america. I did not become a socialist by playing a video game, however in this day and age kids are raised anti-communist. Whether a video game triggers off a need to research the subject realistically does not matter. Whatever triggers the desire to look into communism has nothing to do with a persons knowledge of communism.

Anti-Communist propaganda had a strangle hold on me. All my young life I have always been left wing. I have always considered right wing ideologists as fundementalist hypocrits that are ruining the world. Furthermore, I have considered myself very intelligent, moreso than greedy cramming sex-obsessed peers of mine who get straight a's. Nevertheless, I have never even knew what communism meant, I thought that the poor were nothing other than FEW lazy and irresponsible fallouts of society, I did not fully know capitalism or its relation to everything else around us, not relating to economics. To be completely frank, I thought that communism was a "good idea, but impossible to work" I didnt see many communists, so I never bothered to be interested enough to research the idea. All I knew was from passive learning when I was in middle school.

Long live the socialist revolution!

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:42 am on Feb. 16, 2002)

[RedCeltic]

A bit late... sorry... but peaccenicked is right in my case... blame it all on the clash and ' white riot'.. ;) Have that on vynal somewhere, maybe at my mum's house... tis all about the music ya know lad, and has nothing to do whatsosoever with personal ideals. :)

[Che Tania]

Hello Imperial,

I became a Kommunist many years ago. After spending time with Amerikans, I could not believe how spineless and uneducated they were. Many white Amerikans complain about the blacks robbing, raping, sodomizing their children, etc. Well, let me ask, why do they not grow up and fight back? It is as if they choose to be continuously victimized! Russians are also white, yet they are rarely victims of assaults!

Face it, Amerikans are stupid, lazy and uneducated.

[Placebo]

hey imperial,
i like punk rock...but i'm not really a communist, should i be? i came to this site to find out about the life and ideals of che...but since i'm into punk i apparently have to become a communist now? oh well...wonder where i sign up.
anyway, whatever you say about communism, you can't possibly criticise the ideal, its always been my understanding the ideal is equality and balanced treatment for all (though i'll admit i don't agree with the complete control and single party thing...perhaps social democracy would be better...some kind of com-ocracy as it were)
for all....and it will work sometime, people often say it never worked so its only a good theory
well look around you! democracy/capitalism doesn't work either! it just...stays there anyway
note to self: do something about that.
well i'll be off to listen to punk rock and join the young socialist party of ireland.

[Guest]

I think if you believe that communism is better than capitalism, you should be whatever you want to be. Its your choise, I am not here trying to stop people from becoming communist.

- this is Imperial Power

[Imperial Power]

No that actually isn't me but I like that fact your using unorthdox tactics. I suppose it's too hard to argue against me.

[Nateddi]

ah hell it was me. I am admiting it because I don't want comrades like peaccenicked or vox or CB or mosk to seem like lamers. Malte, don't get too pissed off at me, I thought of this before IP commented, but couldnt edit the post. I decided to make a joke out of the previous poster before the guest, but when I realized that I made a mistake, it was too late. sigh* im a disgrace. :sad:

(Edited by Nateddi at 4:47 am on Feb. 19, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

Well I have read through your responses. The basis for most of your communism is helping the poor. That is a noble idea, one that you think capitalism is unable to perform. But unfortunatly capitalism does more to help the poor then socialist state. Do you realize that every homeless person on the street could stay in shelters if they wanted? Do you realize that they could learn a trade skill if they wanted? The poor have more chance of success in the capitalist system them becoming a mindless drone in the socialist system. In the socialist system everyone is poor except for those kept rich by the corrupt governments that use communism to control the poor. The capitalist system is stronger and has with stood the test of time.

[munkey soup]

The punk music! it's corrupting my mind! Where is McCarthy when you need him! Vile communists and Socialists, thinking people should be equal!

[Imperial Power]

Well you can't deny it can you? Many punk rock fans are communist and many communists listen to punk rock. Not to say punk rock is bad but I think that is interesting.

[MindCrime]

I think you should launch a Fascist coup and instill heavy censorship, that would keep our numbers down, no?

Also: not evey homless person can get into shelters or get jobs or even learn a trade skill. There simply isnt enough of a welfare state in America to facilitate that. Even if, they would still be traped in low end jobs, working as wage slaves for the ruling elite.

Maybe Bush should show some of this "compassionate" conservatism and help disadvantaged people at home, instead of buying shiney new weapon systems to go killing abroad with and attracting more terrorism.

[itssoLARGE]

Because I human.
I listen to classic rock.

[Dynatos]

I'm a communist because I think it's better than capitalism for many resons and you have to be illiterat, ignorant or just stupid to not be able to see those resons.

I do listen to punk rock but i also listen to rock ,rap ,alternative ,techno ,and pop. I don't think it has anything to do with poitics.

[sabre]

my infatuation with Che got me into socialism and i realized it is the ideal system

i used to listen to punk, but dont anymore, but i dont mind it

i dont dress like a punk rocker either.

[red senator]

Actually, I would be a democrat if Gore had won the election, but after bush won, I was just like "this is horse-shit, a coke-head for a president? Damn!"
Anyway, I was just so pissed at conservatives that I knew something was wrong but I just couldn't figure it out. Finally, I read the manifesto and saw that the whole damn economic system was the problem (I would have never thought that there was an alternative to using capital and trade).

In response to your shitty "Homeless" argument:
Every homless person could just get some training (could he afford it) and get a job, huh? If this is so, then why are people who already have jobs getting laid-off in your ideal economy?

Oh yeah, the capitalist system has withstood the test of time because it is as simple as "I own this. I will sell this to you in exchange for something." You really can't fuck that up.

[angry]

LOL, true it is not easy to fuck that up :)
Well, I am a socialist/communist because I think the capitalist system is not working as well as i should be, people are starving and living on the streets, you say they can get shelters, they can not!
I speak of knowledge I have spoken to people and it is not so easy to get shelter about geting education the amircan system is way out of order!
I am a socialist/communist because I think to inheritate
lots of money without earning them just to be born with that fee in your hands is immoral!
Your healthcare is also way out of order!
the idea of eaquality is beutiful, I belive that the economic system has to be changed a certain bit, it could truly work!

[concerned]

Communist ans socialist seem to talk about justice and equality. It sounds beautiful, I must admit, but is it really possible to have both?

I we are all equal, is this justice? Someone that works really hard every day, or that discovers a new vaccine that benefits millions would have exactly the same living standard as someone who decides to be a mediocre and don't do much good for society. Is this fair, I ask?

Is this the kind of justice you talk about?

[oconner]

i'm not a punk rock fan or indeed a music fan. But I am a communist

[Domino]

I don't like punk rock either, at all. And I'm a communist. It's plain stupid to label an ideal with music... WTF?!

[angry]

Concerned, what does mediocre mean (excuse my knowledge on english) when I know what it means I can answer you..

[Hayduke]

I dont want to live in a system that is build to survive.

[guerrillaradio]

I'm not a Communist. I'm not even a Socialist. Or an Anarchist. I'm guerrilla fucking radio....how I hate labels.

I rejected capitalism when I realised that the US was greedy, selfish and self-centred. Originally I was Communist but I realised its obvious flaws all too easily. Ditto Socialism.

And yes I am a punk rock fan, and a Rage Against the Machine fan too, before you ask.

[concerned]

angry, mediocre means when you do something of not very good quality. Like for example in a university a mediocre student would be one that does the minimum work to pass all its subjects, but not really to excel and do his best performance.

[kidicarus20]

Yes i am punk rock. I listen to anti-flag, nofx (nofx criticize free markets), AFI, unseen, earth crisis, etc..
That's a dumb ass question though... Really has nothing to do with the theory of communism.
I listen to mostly straight-edge, they are anti-capitlaists too, and i'm a communist, come to my house and i'll show you how communist i am, beat your ass.


Your comment on capitalism protects the poor is fucking retarded. The poor person in no way can buy land, he can't even grow it because some capitalist whore "owns the land". Like you can fucking own land lol. communism THE COMMUNITY, decides what should be done with land, it's not private property, it's just the logical thing to do.

stfu, stupid republican. obviously punks beat your ass in hs or something (if you're even in HS).

[RedRevolutionary87]

i am a communist because...i refuse to accept that one should be considered better than someone else because he holds more paper, or because he is white and has a prick. i refuse accept a world where people bow to a god simply because he claims to eb better. i refuse to see children working to make your shoes, and yet still have nothing to eat. i refuse to let my children live in a world where they can be exploited, or exploit others, that is a freedom no1 should have. i refuse to think that one should produce things only if they make money, instead they should be produced only if they will benifit everyone. i refuse to live in a world where the farmer earns less than the insurance broker, where jobs pay more depending on how well you can screw someone out of their money, not by how much your product is worth. i refuse to live in a world where the human bodey has become a product, where the old rich man can fuck the younge poor girl shes hungry and he gets a kick out of it, and $10 isnt much to him, yet hed still never give it away. i refuse to live in a world where product is represented by paper, you cant eat your bills when there is a bad crop, money is an uneeded midle man. i refuse to live in a world where people say they are chosen by god or are his sone, and you should obbey them, why the fuck should i what about god makes him/her better than me, fuck you! and finally i refuse to live in a world where the freedoms of exploitation, slavery and rape are running rampent, while freedom to eat and live in decent conditions is abolised to some because of lack of money.

and that my friend is why i am a communist

POWER TO THE POWERLESS

[angry]

Concerned, if you are talking about the doctor and the street-cleaner example you people (capitalists) like to use against us, I will have to say that is not true...
they don´t get the same wages, but even if they did they are both doing an important job, I bet you know the importance of doctors, but the street-cleaner is also important ´cause if they weren´t any of them, we would probobly all get diseases and have need for doctors, but it isn´t that way they don´t get the same wages even in a communist society.
Where you talking about that..?

[concerned]

Angry, well, that was not precisely what I meant. But yeah, if you want to take it that way, there should be a big difference in salary of a doctor and a street cleaner. Why? Not becuase the job of the street cleaner is not important to society, but because the doctor needs many years of education on which he is not earning anything and a lot of dedication whereas anybody without any experience in anything can go into street cleaning. The extra effort of the doctor and the continuos learning that is needed in this profession must be rewarded a lot better.

But my argument was more leading towards, that in a socialist society, what incentives people to do their best? What encourages street cleaners to put up the extra effort to go to school and become doctors?, if their after tax earning difference is not going to be that great.

I personally believe that competition drives the best. You see in the olympics the best athletes bacause they work hard in order to be the best and win the gold medal. If the olympic comitee suddenly decided to not reward the best performance but give everyone silver medals irrelevant of their performance, how would you think the results would alter?

The ideas of commmunism, in which you have no competition and everybody cooperates and works together just don't work in real life. Competition is what drives excellence. Competition is what makes companies efficient, rewarding the ones the most successful ones and punishing the ones that are doing something wrong, or are providing a service or good to a society that society doesn't need or want.

And what do you think it of welfare? Can't you see that a lot of people who just plain don't want to work and just stay at home and watch TV all day are taking huge advantage of welfare! How does that make a society more productive? Welfare is a big think in socialist states, but it doesn't contemplate the possibility that people will turn and abuse it. Continuous abuse of welfare is beginning to be seen in Scandinavia in places like Sweden with high immigration, where the people coming in doesn't necessarily have the same high working morale of Scandinavians. People coming in sometimes just read welfare as the opportunity to live without working. Other people decide to work black and not notify the government so that they can have illegal double wages. Is this fair?

[SU37]

Im Communist cause the American goverment is screwed up and Capitali$m kills millions.



(Edited by SU37 at 2:45 am on May 12, 2002)

[angry]

Well, as I told you they don´t get the same wages (if we wanna go to that point again), I know just what you are talking about, but the doctor/street-cleaneer thing is diffrent in a communist system because in that system the one who decides to become a street-cleaner
was able to get education but he chose not to, (now we are into the discussion of freedom :)) the doctor on the other hand chose to become what he is, knowing that he would not have such high wages, and I think that would make a pretty good doctor (who is not in the game for money but for he is so interested).
So I am saying that what encourages people to do something, is to trust in humanity, I know that it is kinda childish to say this but we have to, we have to build up humanity, for it is not much left of it.
The wanting to do something great with your life,
and that a man who decides to stay at home and don´t do jack shit, can not say that he couldn´t go to school because his family is to poor, ´cause he could, he will then just face it people (normal people) would just look at him as some kind of looser.
I think there has to be a welfare system of some kind,
and the people (immigrants) would I think have to be under strong survailance (and for the rest of the unemployed workers, of course the what do you call it the money the you get from the system when you are unemployed (excuse my spelling), would be less than you would get than when you had a job And there we got a wanting to go to school.
So me point is that people should not get the same wages, just that the diffrence betveen them should not be so big as it is!
did that answer yor questions ?

[ID2002]

Just an example:

In British Columbia, CANADA....the provincial government decided to lower the minimum wage, strip out welfare and free health care, take away the right for collective agreement, and give tax breaks to the wealthy. When our Socialist government was in power we had way less unemployment than we do now!!

The people of BC are going to boy-cott the Provincial Government .... rally against them. They are going to kick out this Government, and place in a "socialist-democratic" one.

[oldman]

Right on, i wish the NDP could get elected, i don't mind paying taxes if everybody can have a bed with a roof over their heads, a full stomac, an education, healthcare

but i do not support unemployment, put these people to work, the only good thing the Harris govt did is try to introduce the workfare program, too bad it flopped, damn people around toronto think like american$

the best idea hitler ever had is to employ every able body to build wonders for Germany, most are still standing

[RedRevolutionary87]

actualy communism does believe in wage labour, that idea is completely stupid, people arent compensated for theyre labour with a salary they are given theyre need and a good society to live in, and i am a firm believer that all jobs are equaly and each should be given the same compensation on how hard they work, you could make it so the street cleaner has to finish the same amount of education as the doctor, this way you will have the damn best streetcleaners in the world, they will become more eficiant at what they do, all the now "low education jobs" will work quicker and be more productive, communism will give everyone an equal chance to show just how good they are at what they do best, and thats the bottom line

[concerned]

angry,
I agree with some of what you are saying. I believe that the difference in salaries shouldn't be kept under reasonable levels. And I believe that the best system is a compassionate capitalism, in which they work to make the differences reasonable between the workers.
What I don't agree with you so much is on the welfare point and on giving unemployment benefits for people who don't contribute to society at all.

I lived for a while in Sweden, and I met quite a lot of immigrants there which were literally doing nothing, you have no idea how much that angered me. And it wasn't like there wasn't any jobs. I agree that immigrants should be under close surveillance. People in Sweden though seem afraid to do this because they don't want to risk being called racists. For me it has nothing to do with racism, on the contrary, you opened the door of your country to immigration but you set some rules in which the people coming in have to contribute somehow, there is nothing wrong or racist about that.

And what you say about "trust in humanity" being what encourages people to do stuff, again sounds very nice, I don't know if that is a real possibility outside Scandinavia though.

[Communist Dominion]

im a communist because ive seen the woes of capitalism and have seen the countless lives lost in vein and think we need a complete reformation of state for the good of all humens.

[angry]

Concerned,
I understand you, and I agree in most of what you are saying :), I do understand it bothers you to see immigrants living on the welfare system without doing anything, if there are jobs, they should work! (no doubt about that) that´s is where my saying on "strong survaillance" comes into things, I don´t know if I am being to good if I say that the government should help the immigrants to get jobs or at least see to that they are doing something if there are jobs they can get!
One more thing, could you define "compassionate capitalism" for me a bit more..:)?

ps, sweden is a great country to live in, for my opinion the best in the world.

[concerned]

Angry,

Let's see, compassionate capitalism, would be a system in which the government would still be kept small ( I don't believe in big controlling government, it just leads to corruption, bureaucracy and inneficiencies), the companies and organizations would be left free, and taxes would remain relatively low, as they are in the US right now, but there would be some regulation as to the maximum possible differences in salary within a same company. In this way there couldn't be a manager earning 60 million dollars a year if all his employees aren't earning pretty darn well too. Let's say that for instance there is a norm that the difference cannot be more than, let's say 20 times. That would mean that the manager of this organization couldn't be eaning 60 million dollars unless the person who earns the least in his organization earns at least 3 million.

I still believe that capitalism is the best working system, although it is not perfect (no system is perfect), and I do believe that free enterprise and competition bring's out society's best. And I do believe there should be some considerable differences in earnings for different jobs, because I believe that in a real World people do need that incentive, but I believe these differences shouldn't be so ridiculously high as they sometimes are in the capitalist World.

I agree that Sweden is a nice country :). I lived there for a while and I still can't get over how nice, kind and polite the people are. My girlfriend is swedish by the way. But the US is a nice country too angry, you shouldn't have such a negative image of it. There are extremely nice people here as well, and not everybody is selfish or superficial as sometimes Hollywood would lead you to think. I am happy to live in the US.

[angry]

:) I understand you but I d not agree in all terms,
sorry to say but I think my aspect of the U$ is and will be negative until you do some serious changes on your government, sorry to say but, I think you live in a sick society.
pls don´t take this personally, I know there are nice people in th U$ too (I like to consider myself not stupid :)) but I am an anti-american person,

swedish girlfriend you say ;) you´re lucky pal, swedish women are the most beutiful creatures on earth :)
(besides from icelandic women of course ;) )

[concerned]

Angry,

I am not American, I am a colombian living in America. Unfortunately I had to leave my country because of the marxist guerrillas. But you are totally right, swedish girls are really something :) !. Icelandic girls looked very nice too. My only experience with Iceland is the airport, on which I stop often on my way to Sweden (Iceland Air has always the best fares!). There were quite some hotties at that airport let me tell you, makes me wish I had stayed a little longer... :)

America is not a sick society, c'mon! :) Just because you disagree with some government policies you don't have to be anti-american. Have you ever even been to the US?

[elizquierdista]

Concerned, just because of the guerrillas? Or was it also because of the paramilitares?

I believe that the U.S. portrays a false message in the youth, system, schools, etc. From little you are taught to strive big, to go for the money, to go for the mansion, to go for the expensive cars. Instead of being taught to help each other out, you're taught to keep to your own and so on. That the world is full of competition and you have to look out for #1 (yourself). This is why I cannot be a capitalist.

I'm from Argentina, and when I look at my country and see what it's become, it brings a tear to my eye. 10% of the popuation umemployed, 25% in poverty and rising. Kids in school are fainting because they've not enough to eat (watch BBC World once in a while). If you get 3 meals a day you're one of the lucky ones. MY country, Uruguay, and Brasil are perfect examples of capitalism (neo-liberalism [idea created by U.S.]). Look at these countries. Less than 10% of the population is rich (in every sense of the word), and less than 5% of it controls the economy and government.

I honestly, don't care how the Americans live their lives or what they think. Personally, I just want them to stop meddling in affairs that are not theirs. I cannot be a victim to the system that has killed its own, as well as others who were disloyal to it.

John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, Jimmy Hoffa, anfd others I'm sure.

Salvador Allende, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Líber Arce (indirectly), there are many more, I'm just too tired to type more.

[concerned]

Izquierdista, my personal reason for leaving was entirely the guerrillas. Farc was extortioning me and my family to give them money and threatened to harm us if we didn't do so. Actually we consider ourselves very lucky, because Farc don't usually give a warning, they usually kidnapp first and then ask for ransom. We were able to leave before anything bad happened to any of us.

It is really sad what it is happening in Argentina. And Brasil and Uruguay don't seem to be doing so good either (of the three I believe maybe Uruguay is the one who is doing best). However I don't believe you can blame your country's poverty on capitalism. I believe it has been more a result of very high levels of corruption both in the government and within companies (a lot of tax evasion). And also to stupid economic decisions like tying the argentinian currency to the dollar, which created a ficticious economy.

Look at Chile, they don't seem to be doing so bad. And I heard if they keep going the way they are they will joing the "first" world in a few years. As long as there is law and order, I believe capitalism can work relatively well.

And it is true what you say about the false message given to the youth, sytem and schools. But you cannot generalize the country like that. Yes, this might be true in places like California and Florida, and in the big cities it might be this way for a lot of people. But believe me, I know tons of people in the mid-west who are the complete opposite. I sincerely can tell you that here in the US, I've met some of the most generous, altruistic and kind people. You probably won't find a lot of these people in New York, but the US is not New York.

This is a very diverse country, keep that in mind. Don't try to stereotype all Americans into one frame.

[angry]

Concerned, I´ve been to minneapolis once for a few hours on my way to mexico, I´ve read a hole lot, I know I should not judge nations without at least having been there once :)
but america just sickens me in every way, the lies are the ones that bother me the most! and their education system is WAY out of order, half of them don´t even know where Iceland is, but then again as I said before I know that there are of course some good people there as in every country in the world.
and about the guerillas, that is awful, man o man, these are men who play under false identity!
nothing like real revolutionaries (che and co. I mean :))
Do you really get good prices from iceland air???
those sons of *****es are charging us (icelandic people)
way to much!!!
How old are you btw..?

[elizquierdista]

Don't get me wrong, Concerned, I wasn't questioning the FARC threat. I was just wondering if the paramilitares were also a factor. And like I said, not all of the U.S. is like that, but most of it (in my eyes) is. Of course I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), and we learn from our mistakes.

Yes, corruption has been a factor, but did you not hear about the declassified materials released on Wednesday (if I'm not mistaken, might've been Tuesday)? It showed how the U.S. interfered in the elections and fixed them back in early 70's. Had the U.S. not interfered the left woud've taken power, this of course would've been great. As it was in Chile, when Allende took power, he nationalized everything and kicked out (for lack of better words) foreign companies and corporations (mainly Americans). His first year was a tremendous success. The Americans (companies and government) then, angered and frustrated were to make the (Chilean) economy "scream". They (U.S.) only regained control after finding help from the treachery of Pinochet and other high government officials, and after killing those loyal to Chile (Shneider and others). They regained control by establishing a dictatorship that would last nearly 2 decades, during which there were tortures, disapearances, and mass murder.

[elizquierdista]

Sorry for the confusion on my prior post. The country whose election was fixed during the 70's is Uruguay.

[concerned]

Angry,
Well I wouldn't say the whole education system is out of order. Maybe in some states it is, but then again there is other places where it is good. I think the main problem with American education is that they don't really learn very much about the World, it is a very self-centered education, and they don't really seem to care that much for what is outside of their borders.
By the way, how did you like mexico? :)
Prices in Iceland Air air the most reasonable I have found to travel to Sweden. Is not necessarily that they are cheap, but all the others are so darn expensive. And also, going through Iceland is a pretty direct way. In off-season I have managed to find round trip flight from Boston to Stockholm at $340, which I think is pretty good. Season tickets are much more expensive though. I am 26 btw, how about you?

izquierdista,
No, the paramilitaries didn't really play a factor in our decision, they were not really part of the threat in our case. Although I am sure there are people that have had to leave because of the paramilitaries as well.

About the US interfering in the elections thing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had. This was the 70s, the cold war was still going on, the US could not afford to let another Latin American country fall to the left. The Soviet Union would have done the same thing if any of the Eastern European countries try to go to the right (although forced invasions seemed more effective to them).

I also have to disagree with you in that the left gaining power would have been great. I am a capitalist after all, don't expect me to agree with you on this one :). I think a socialist society can only more or less work under ideal conditions of low corruption such as the ones of Scandinavia. Could you imagine a "big government" such as the one needed in a socialist state with the levels of corruption of Latin America?! It would only lead to more abuses, more corruption, more money to steal.. all the money recolected in the new high taxes wouldn't go to welfare of any kind, but to the pockets of the now richer and more powerful politicians... well that's just my take on it anyway :)

[elizquierdista]

Concerned, I very much enjoy these posts. An exchange of different ideas in a civilized way (no cursing).
I do believe it (socialism) would've prevailed. Remember that the corruption in Uruguay and Argentina came from the right. Most of the left is honest and good. Another problem is disloyalty which was the undoing for Chile in '73. Those disloyal to Chile sided with the Americans, and helped overthrow a democratically elected government, as well as destroy a growing economy. In Argentina and Uruguay this also occurs but much more corruption is found.

[concerned]

Izquierdista,

I enjoy this exchange of ideas very much as well. I have to agree with you that most of the corruption came from the right. The right is usually more corrupt just for the fact that they are usually more ambitious. And there is nothing wrong with amibition, but unfortunately this ambition often turns into personal greed. This is particulary true in Latin America.

However I don't believe that under these circumstances of high corruption socialism would work much better than capitalism. Just because of the fact that suddenly you change a system from capitalism to socialism, the people are not going to change over night. Socialism talks and depends on all the people cooperating for the common good of society and not for their own "greedy" benefit. However even if socialism was imposed today in Argentina, the people will be the same, the greedy will still be there, most people will still have their own selfish desires. If you raise taxes to create a welfare system, people will start evading taxes even at a higher rate, and then there will be people who will start trying to abuse the welfare for their own particular needs.

Also the left can be more honest, but once they are in power and in control I am not sure how long it will remain that way. The guerrillas in my country started with high ideals as well, and as soon as they became powerful and money started coming in, they lost it all.

[angry]

Concerned,
I would say that the education system is out of order ´cause they are so self-centered, that is a big flaw, and the lack of interest in what is out of their borders is a BIG flaw :), that is like never going out of your house!
Mexico was great, the flaw with the trip was that we were in a tourist town but I travelled around the closest area, and thay surly are poor, sad, because they are very nice people :) great weather :) if you go there I would advice you not to take a taxi, they drive like maniacs :) it was fun (at least for me I like to drive fast), then you just get scared :)
I´m 16, ten years diffrence :)
btw, I saw Colin Powell today, he waved to me, that bastard, I don´t know if it was right but I showed him my finger...then he turned away in his car and with his twenty body guards...besides all the armed police me who were guarding him, all this protection for one man!
wack...:)

[ID2002]

Socialism is a "natural" political system. It has order. It works with the enviroment. It promotes sustainable economic practises.
I am Buddhist. Buddhism is a "strong socialist movement".
I live in a "socialist" country. We believe in bringing all races and people of all walks of life together to benift all for the betterment of the country. What I see in the US is "competition" "competition" "competition"...everyone is for themselves..."consumerism kills" and I see so much anger and jealousy in the eyes of the people.

....I believe socialism/ communism teaches respect for one another and the environment.
"we do so much with what we have" "we need little more than that"

"...this is why I am a left winger"

[elizquierdista]

On the guerrilla topic we are agreed as far as FARC is concerned. But would you really say ELN has gotten out of hand. Yes, I will admit they kidnap a lot, but they need the ransom money to keep their cause alive. And when the prisoners they have don't produce money (most probably because they're middle class or simply don't have enough) to pay off the ransom, the majority of the times they're released. Last week, ELN released forty something people as well as declaring new targets. The targets are oil ducts (I think that's how its said) owned by foreign companies.

[concerned]

Izquierdista:

Well ELN is not as harmful as FARC just because of the fact that they are very small and struggling to survive. But really, how does it help the country, or the poor, or the cause, to blow up oil pipes. More than 50% of the revenues of the oil that is extracted there go back to the regions in form of taxes and to social programs. By bombing these pipes they are only creating more poverty and chaos, nothing more, I fail to see how that can help Colombia or the poor in any way. There is no way an army of 3000 people, like ELN, are going to ever take control of a country like Colombia, so the only thing they are creating is terrorism and more poverty with their acts. I really feel to see how they are helping in any way to the improvement of Colombia. To make Colombia poorer and more terrified, is that the cause?, becuase that is the only thing they seem to be achieving (although I know that is not their motivation).

ID2002: Are you a poet? You definitely sound like one. Very beautiful words, but what exactly are you saying? That capitalism cannot possibly care about the environment? Capitalism is an economic system and it has nothing to do with how the government decides to regulate it's comapnies on environmental issues. Socialistic countries are usually more friendly for the environment just for tha fact that they don't seem to produce as much.

You see anger and jealosy in the eyes of the people?? really! Wow man, you are really something, a poet and a psychic, I can only see eyes in the eyes of the people. :)

And "sustainable economic practices", c'mon!

Face it, human nature is competitive, you only bring out your best when in competition. That's the whole deal with the olympics, how would you know who is better than who if they don't compete against each other. And if companies didn't compete against each other but it was the government coming and ordering them what to produce, how would the government know what to produce. What do the government ever knows about anything, much less what people really wants. There wouldn't be any quality products if it wasn't for competition, and I can assure you there wouldn't be much customer satisfaction either.


Angry,
I just think the education here has different priorities. They don't learn that much about the outside World because most Americans don't care about the outside World, they have a pretty big country here and they don't feel the need to travel outside as much as Europeans do. Europe is a clash of cultures and languages, and countries are relatively small making it very convenient for travel, this is a big incentive to travel and be curiopus about other countries, circumstances which Americans lack. But just for the fact that this makes Americans more self-centered and often ignorant about the outside World (again this is a generalization which is not always true) doesn't mean that education here is bad, it's just a different focus.


Mexico is a very nice place despite their problems :). I hope to go back there some day, the last time I was there only briefly and I really didn't get out of the tourist places. But yeah, the people are very friendly, it is really a good time :). Things seem to be improving for Mexico economically, let's hope so :).

What was Colin Powell doing in Iceland? I guess visitng the military base there, huh? Or maybe checking out the girls :).

[Ernest Everhard]

I'll expand on this in a few, i'm just really cracked out right now, but

Socialist countries have been historically and by comparison to capitalist countries egregiously less friendly to the environment.

Furthermore, It is capitalist industrial and post industrial development that instills the value of environmental protection. Look at the US, despite your huge misconceptions the US, with the worlds largest economy has the most stringent environmental regulations (more so than europe as well). In any case when consumers reach a certain level of welath, accrued by the effects of industrial and post industrial methods of production, they choose to protect the environment on their own, this comes about as a personal consumption choice. People can afford to pay more for environmentally friendly goods, and they do.
What I'm trying to say here is that if you want the environment to be saved capitalism provides the best and only answer, thats worked. That is ofcourse unless you desire us to live in your conception of a pre industrial eden. Ofcourse if thats the case I can say you're nothing but a nut and there's no need to debate as such a conception could only be justified by a conviction that might be almost religious in nature, so as to justify such an extremely irrational position.

[angry]

Concerned, have you been in jail or what? Colin was here ´cause of the NATO meeting..:)

[angry]

Concerned,
do you like USA that much..?

[angry]

Concerned,
do you like USA that much..?

[RGacky3]

Ernest Everhard capitalism destroyes the envyroment. People may like the enviroment, but when its a matter of enviroment or lots of money, they choose lots of money, thats the way capitalism works greed at the expense of other people or things ie the enviroment.

[RGacky3]

any way answerign the origional question. I like Industrial, dark ambient, power noise, harsh ebm. None of these genres have any thing to do with communism. The reason I am a leftist is becouse I lived in mexico city for 2 years and I saw the horrible things capitalism does. I am also half norwigen and I see all the wonderfull things socialism does.

[concerned]

RGacky3,
The good things socialism does, or the good things the biggest percentage of oil per capita in the World does? Norway wouldn't be too good without it.

Angry,
I had forgotten about the NATO meeting... these meetings are usually boring and I don't quite follow them. :)
Yes, I like the US very much. For a variety of reasons. On the first place because it gave me refuge after I had to leave my country. Secondly, it is a country where if you work hard and are willing to give in the extra effort, you really have all the tools to succeed and make a difference both for yourself and for others. Thirdly because of all of its freedoms. Also, the US seems to be the only country that understands what is going on in Colombia and is actually helping. The European Union has made nothing but mistakes when it comes to Colombia, they haven't even include Farc or ELN in their list of terrorists! Members of Farc and ELN often go to Europe and get granted protection (whereas normal colombian citizens harrased by these groups get rejected and sent back). Farc even has a representation office and a radio station in Stockholm. They keep all their money from their illegal activities safely in Swiss banks accounts, and since they are not even in the EU's terrorist list nobody can really do anything about that. Colombia and the US have repeatedly ask Switzerland to close those accounts, but they just don't want to listen.
Lastly, I know some great people here, I have great friends, and I can earn a pretty decent living to live very comfortably. I have a good life here, and I am grateful for that.

[Fabi]

i dont know about socialism and the environment, but the US are NOT too good on the environment...
drilling in alaska... sounds great....
and the US has the highes emission of Schadstoffe(you know what i mean.. dunno the word) in total and per capita in the world... and werent they the only one who didnt want to sign that paper about limiting that emission i was talking about?

[concerned]

Fabi,

The US is not drilling in Alaska, for your information, the project never passed congress (although I would have to say that I highly disagree with that, the US needs those resources and stop listening to those tree huggers).

And the US has a pretty clean environment for the huge amount of production they have. In Bogota or in Mexico City there is A LOT more polution although they produce far less. The US has done a good job in innovating an keeping polution levels relatively low.

And, do you even know what you are talking about? "weren't they the only one who didnt want to sign that paper limiting that emission..". Don't even know the name of the "paper" nor the emission but still feel the need to bring it up, huh. Ok let me help you with this one, it is the Kyoto Agreement. It was signed under the Clinton administration. You see Clinton is a democrat, and sometimes he cares more about making friends in Europe than what he did about doing what it is best for America. The Kyoto agreement basically imposed a huge burden on America (unlike to Europe) of 300 billion dollars to reduce CO2 emissions.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from concerned on 11:44 am on May 17, 2002
Fabi,

The US is not drilling in Alaska, for your information, the project never passed congress (although I would have to say that I highly disagree with that, the US needs those resources and stop listening to those tree huggers).

And the US has a pretty clean environment for the huge amount of production they have. In Bogota or in Mexico City there is A LOT more polution although they produce far less. The US has done a good job in innovating an keeping polution levels relatively low.

And, do you even know what you are talking about? "weren't they the only one who didnt want to sign that paper limiting that emission..". Don't even know the name of the "paper" nor the emission but still feel the need to bring it up, huh. Ok let me help you with this one, it is the Kyoto Agreement. It was signed under the Clinton administration. You see Clinton is a democrat, and sometimes he cares more about making friends in Europe than what he did about doing what it is best for America. The Kyoto agreement basically imposed a huge burden on America (unlike to Europe) of 300 billion dollars to reduce CO2 emissions.



concerned: (Obviously not about the planet.)

Point of information: 'Tree-Huggers?" The issue of drilling in Alaska has nothing to do with trees but carabu that are important to the Inuit.

The US can never become oil independant in it's wildest dreems. Even if the United States turned the entire state of Alaska into one gigantic oil well, we would still need to import oil.

We are today the fourth largest oil producer in the world, yet, are also the single largest consumer of it.

Logicly weighing the odds; compromising natural untouched landscape for only an extremely small step to petrolioum independance only ends up as small change. You would be giving up a great deal for an amount of oil that may only slightly lower oil prices.

[Fabi]

oooh... concerned... just shut up... i can bring up anything i want and you knew what i was talking about which is the most important... and i knew what i was talking about, too, but am not anymore all that confident of my english, especially when it comes to politics/environment etc... i am sorry to have been such an easy target... you didnt even seriously have to consider any of my criticism, great, huh?

and why was it such a great burden for the US? cause your CO2-emission is too high.
and i didnt say the drilled in alaska, i just said that it sounded great to do it.... even to consider it is downright... well, i dont wanna get personal cause maybe you're right.... but besides, i think you know what i mean....

[angry]

Concerned,
Why should the EU care for what is goig on in Colombia (I am not saying they shouldn´t) but they don´t have any interests there...
just like the US don´t care so much about europe...

[Fabi]

im really really tired... didnt mean to sound offensive.....

[Fabi]

"You see Clinton is a democrat, and sometimes he cares more about making friends in Europe than what he did about doing what it is best for America. The Kyoto agreement basically imposed a huge burden on America (unlike to Europe) of 300 billion dollars to reduce CO2 emissions. "

and it wasnt about making friend.... it IS about being careful with our environment... why shouldnt the rest of the world be concerned? it's not as if the US was the only country on the planet... america's CO2-emission has consequences for the whole world... and i think it'd be kinda nice for the US if this planet stayed for some more years... ;)

[concerned]

RedCeltic:
The word "tree huggers" is commonly used to refer to environmentalists, I wasn't indicating any actual trees being cut in Alaska.

And I am perfectly aware that by drilling in Alaska the US would not become independent of foreign oil. But even if it's a small percentage, that is billions of dollars less that have to go to Saddam Hussein and can stay at home for better purposes. The US is already too dependent in foreign oil, and any action towards reducing that dependency should be welcome.

Anyway, it's a matter of priorities, obviously the congress agrees with you, I would have to say I disagree.

Fabi:
The CO2 emissions in America is not higher than that in Europe, if we take into account the level of production. Europe's production is lower than the US, so consequently less CO2 is emited, but it doesn't necessarily means they are more efficient, they are not as a matter of fact.

The Kyoto agreement placed most of the burden on US shoulders, which is unfair. And by the way there is no proof to date that CO2 emissions are so harmful for the environment at all. Some believed it is responsible for global warming, but recent research actually suggest that this is not the case at all, and actually global warming is due to natural causes like deep sea volcano eruptions, which nobody can do anything about. There is quite a controversy about this. You could spend 300 billion dollars in reducing CO2 emissions just to find out that that wasn't the problem in the first place.

Angry,
You are right, they shouldn't. They shouldn't care. I would be really happy if they didn't. But the sad thing is that they do, they do care about Colombia, only that they don't seem to understand what is going on there very much and thus make major mistakes and end up helping the people they are not supposed to help. They are just helping to fuck things up even more.

In their confusion they end up protecting the terrorists, while failing to give protection to the victims of these terrorists. I would just be happy if Europe stayed out of it. They clearly don't understand what is going on and are just worsening things tremendously.

[Anarcho]

:: waits patiently for concerned to get flamed ::

[Fabi]

here is something i stumbled across... have fun... it's about the environment and kyoto and den haag (or the hague, or what it's called in english...)

"Rare, Not Well-Done

U.S. coverage of climate change talks

By Rachel Coen

In November 2000, delegates from over 160 countries met at the Hague to decide how best to achieve the pollution reductions mandated by the Kyoto climate treaty, the 1997 protocol to combat global climate change. The talks failed spectacularly, in large part because of the U.S.'s obstructionist stance.

Within the U.S., news coverage of the talks was extremely sparse, and at times misleading. Despite the high stakes involved in global warming, and the U.S.'s central role in it--both as the most powerful country at the negotiating table and as the world's biggest polluter--there's a good chance that Americans relying on mainstream U.S. media remain unaware of the anti-environmental demands made in their name.

None of the three major television networks followed the progress of the Kyoto negotiations on their nightly newscasts, though NBC did air a story after the talks failed (11/25/00), and briefly noted the talks' failure again on their Sunday Today morning show (11/26/00). CBS Evening News (11/25/00) summed up the global climate talks in a two-sentence report on their collapse, concluding simply that "the U.S. and the European Union each blame the other" for the impasse at the Hague. CBS's only other coverage of the talks had been a lighthearted mention on The Early Show (11/23/00) of protesters throwing a pie at U.S. negotiator Frank Loy.

ABC's lone mention of the issue (11/24/00) seemed almost accidental, when the negotiations came up in World News This Morning's weekly chat with the managing editor of the Financial Times. CNN addressed the story several times on Ahead of the Curve (11/20/00, 11/22/00, 11/23/00, 11/24/00, 11/27/00), and PBS's NewsHour addressed it once (11/29/00). These few reports represent the extent of mainstream American television coverage of the Kyoto talks.

Compromise or con game?

U.S. print media did a better job, but still not a good one. Overall, print coverage downplayed the intensity of international and environmentalist criticism of the U.S., and gave few specifics about which U.S. negotiating positions were causing controversy.

Of major U.S. newspapers, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and USA Today devoted the most attention to the story. Excluding short "news briefs" and including opinion pieces, the New York Times ran 14 stories on the talks in November, the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post eleven each (with the majority of the Post's news pieces in the Finance section), and USA Today seven.

The foreign press paid more consistent attention to the talks, and covered them with significantly greater attention to detail. The London Times, Independent and Guardian each ran more than 20 articles in November dealing with the climate talks and their implications. In marked contrast to the U.S. press, most of the European articles presented what were described as obstructionist U.S. tactics as central to the story. Here's a sampling of headlines from overseas, all from November 20:


"Gas-Guzzling U.S. Under Fire at Global Warming Talks" (Agence France Presse)
"U.S. Blamed for Climate Treaty Talks Deadlock" (London Daily Telegraph)
"Climate Talks Fail to Close Rift with U.S." (London Guardian)
"U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut Global Warming" (London Independent)
"Pollution Pact Under Threat as America Is Accused of Con Trick" (London Times)
On the same day, the New York Times presented a quite different take on how the talks were going: "U.S. Move Improves Chance for Global Warming Treaty."

What pro-environment move was the New York Times referring to? The Kyoto agreement requires the reduction of fossil-fuel emissions like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming, of which the U.S. is by far the world's largest producer. The "new stance" that the Times celebrated was the U.S.'s new willingness to compromise on its highly controversial demand that it be allowed to count forests as major credits in meeting the emission-reduction targets mandated by the protocol.

Since vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide, the reasoning goes, the U.S. should get points simply for not cutting down its existing forests. Counting such "carbon sinks" as emission reductions would allow the U.S. to skip many of the more expensive and inconvenient environmental measures the Kyoto agreement proposes, like redesigning industry to reduce pollution at its source. Essentially, the U.S. went from insisting on a measure that would allow it to sidestep emissions reduction requirements, to agreeing to negotiate on it.

While papers like the London Times (11/20/00) described this U.S. proposal as one that "threatens to derail" the entire Kyoto conference, putting the U.S. "at loggerheads with Britain and the rest of the European Union," the New York Times (11/20/00) went to some length to portray the U.S. as a constructive partner in the talks, saying that the U.S.'s "new stance" will "brighten prospects" for the Kyoto treaty's finalization, and that "despite outward discord," delegates "seemed poised for compromise."

As the talks progressed--or failed to progress--the U.S. stance became even more controversial in Europe: The London Guardian headline, "U.S. Berated for Wriggling Out of Treaty Pledges; EU Fury Grows as Americans Try to Exploit Loopholes" (11/22/00), captures the tone of much of the European press.

Dueling targets

Carbon sinks weren't the only contentious issue at the Hague, but they were perhaps the most central and inflammatory one. The original U.S. proposal asked that all 310 million tons of carbon dioxide absorbed annually by U.S. forests be counted toward the U.S.'s Kyoto reduction commitment. In the new proposal greeted so optimistically by the New York Times, the U.S. announced that it would settle for 125 million tons of carbon sink credits (Independent, 11/27/00).

The London Daily Telegraph (11/22/00) reported that after examining this new American proposal, the European Union found that, far from being a genuine compromise, the plan (of which carbon sinks were only one aspect) would actually have allowed the U.S. "to increase its emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 percent, instead of cutting them by 7 percent by 2010 as it is required to under the Kyoto treaty." The London Observer (11/26/00) reported the same statistic, adding that "if this formula were accepted, it would have meant that Sweden and Finland would be allowed to increase their fossil fuel emissions by up to 40 per cent."

Rejecting the 125 million ton plan, the EU suggested a credit of 7.5 million tons—an offer overlooked by much of the U.S. press—which the U.S. in turn rejected. Eventually, under the auspices of conference president Jan Pronk, an eleventh-hour deal granting the U.S. 50 million tons of credit was proposed. Friends of the Earth International, an environmental group critical both of the U.S. stance and the Pronk plan, estimated in a press release that even "on a strict reading" of the Pronk plan, global emissions could "rise by more than 5 percent" by 2012, thus accomplishing "the exact opposite" of the Kyoto treaty's original target for world emissions reduction of 5.2 percent (11/24/00).

All of the EU member countries except for Britain rejected Pronk's plan as a regressive capitulation to American interests. The talks collapsed.

This rather crucial piece of information--that according to many estimates, the U.S. was seeking to raise, not lower, its carbon dioxide emissions--was omitted from most U.S. newspaper accounts. Based on a search of November articles in the Nexis database, neither the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or USA Today reported the EU's finding that the U.S. "compromise" plan would have allowed America to increase carbon dioxide emissions.

Early on in the talks, however, the Washington Post did run one opinion piece (11/12/00), written by staffers from the World Wildlife Fund and the National Resources Defense Council, that condemned the U.S.'s "creative accounting" as "Orwellian" and estimated that the original U.S. carbon sink proposal could allow the U.S. to introduce "up to an 18 percent increase in emissions--and claim it had met its 'reduction' target!" The Post did little to examine this claim in any of its news articles, though the paper did once (11/25/00) quote French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet as saying that the Pronk plan "would actually end up increasing emissions, not reducing them."

The Chicago Tribune also came close to evaluating what impact the U.S. proposals might have on emissions. The paper paraphrased Voynet's criticisms of the Pronk plan in one article (11/25/00), but did not include further specifics on the possible emissions increase elsewhere in its coverage.

"Odd culprits"

The New York Times excluded from its coverage evidence that might have discredited official American assertions of the "practicality" of the U.S. position. Nowhere in the Times' coverage of the conference--all written by reporter Andrew C. Revkin--was there any mention of the charge that the U.S. was trying to increase its emissions.

The Times uncritically reported chief American negotiator Frank Loy's claim that a plan incorporating carbon sinks was not only "both effective and cost-effective," but also eminently practical, since it was the only plan likely to be approved by "a highly skeptical" U.S. Senate. In every article about the conference that he wrote last November, Revkin omitted the obvious critique of such assertions--that much of the world believes the U.S. carbon sinks proposals were neither effective nor practical, but were in fact a recipe for accelerating climate change.

So what did the New York Times attribute the failure of the talks to? "Part of the problem was a cultural rift" between Europe and America, explained Revkin (11/26/00). Because of the strength of industry-hostile Green parties in Europe, the EU "never found a way to compromise with the United States, where the environmental movement increasingly works with industries to bring change."

Revkin elaborated this theme in the article "Odd Culprits in Collapse of Climate Talks" (11/28/00), in which he suggested that "a rift between branches of the environmental movement" was a decisive factor in the collapse of the talks. On one side were parties with a "pragmatic, if imperfect, approach" to combating climate change. On the other, "unyielding" environmental ideologues who subjected the U.S. to "vitriol."

Revkin reported that the EU objected to the carbon sinks proposal as "a back-door way" to reduce U.S. emissions targets. True enough, but the EU also objected to the fact the U.S. proposals could reduce those targets so far that they became negative numbers. The effect of excluding this information from the article, and from the Times' overall coverage, was to make opposition to the U.S. appear ridiculous, leaving readers to wonder why European environmentalists were so unreasonable.

Europeans, for their part, may have wondered why Americans allowed their government to scuttle the Kyoto talks. Perhaps the explanation is that, thanks to the U.S. media, most Americans hardly even knew the talks were happening, much less what was at stake. The next round of the talks is scheduled to begin in May 2001.
"


i'll try to find something specifically about CO2 emissions, too...

[angry]

You don´t expect us to read this do you..? :)
concerned,
that is not good if we are trying to help and cannot, but at least we try,
that´s my point where we try to help we can make kistakes, but america where it can help they don´t...
they just seem to care so damn little...

[concerned]

Angry,
I know the European Union has very good intentions. But unfortunately their actions are not only not helping, but worsening things by making the guerrillas stronger, legitimizing their struggle and providing them with protection.
And I am not sure what you mean by America where it can help they don't. In the particular case of Colombia they have helped quite a lot let me tell you, just last year they gave to Colombia 1.6 billion in aid and it is also training the colombian army to defend against the kind of terrorism that our country is facing.
Can you give me specific examples where America could help and doesn't? Because if you want I could give you tons of specific examples where America is in fact helping and making a difference.

Fabi,
I don't believe most Americans care that much about the environment to follow a boring thing like this on the TV. I don't even think people in Europe apart form activists are that much more concerned either, maybe the only thing that makes it a little bit interesting is the opportunity it gives them to find yet another reason to criticize the US. Of course the US is the bigger polluter in terms of carbon dioxide because there is a ton more cars here and a lot more industry going. But as I said it is still not certain whether carbon dioxide is actually negatively impacting the environment that much. Anyway, if you truly care that much about the environment, and are not just using this as yet another way to attack the US, I am not the person you should be discussing this with, because I am not really that concerned (see the irony here :) ), I think the World has more bigger immediate problems than that.

[Fabi]

Quote: from Ernest Everhard on 1:37 pm on May 16, 2002
Socialist countries have been historically and by comparison to capitalist countries egregiously less friendly to the environment.

Furthermore, It is capitalist industrial and post industrial development that instills the value of environmental protection. Look at the US, despite your huge misconceptions the US, with the worlds largest economy has the most stringent environmental regulations (more so than europe as well). In any case when consumers reach a certain level of welath, accrued by the effects of industrial and post industrial methods of production, they choose to protect the environment on their own, this comes about as a personal consumption choice. People can afford to pay more for environmentally friendly goods, and they do.
an extremely irrational position.


this was the reason for my environment related posts.... it is not about me being concerned, i just think what ernest wrote is wrong... and i think i gave good reasons why...
actually it is not about bashing america, or capitalism or socialism, it is just about people not telling me all the time that the US is the greatest and this and that and blablabla....

which leads me to another point...
"I just think the education here has different priorities. They don't learn that much about the outside World because most Americans don't care about the outside World, they have a pretty big country here and they don't feel the need to travel outside as much as Europeans do. Europe is a clash of cultures and languages, and countries are relatively small making it very convenient for travel, this is a big incentive to travel and be curiopus about other countries, circumstances which Americans lack. But just for the fact that this makes Americans more self-centered and often ignorant about the outside World (again this is a generalization which is not always true) doesn't mean that education here is bad, it's just a different focus.
"

a lot of people i know here are really, really ignorant, too, but still the american high school students i met were incredibly ignorant.... of course not all of them were, but it was higher than what i was used to...

i think that is why people dont like america... or what i didnt like about being there... when ignoratn people who didnt know shit had to tell me over and over again how great the US were... the prob was that they didnt have any comparison and simply repreated over and over again what they heard their redneck parents say----

great was, though, that there were not only more ignorant people, but more people who knew what they were talking about, too... maybe not about things outside of the US, but about other topics....

dont you think it's important for all americans to learn about the world? especially when they're supposed to vote in a country that is really, reallly important in almost all international affairs?


angry,
dont read it.... you dont have to...
it was basically saying (proving one might dare to say) that american media didnt cover the whole kyoto and the hague meetings in any acceptable way... they omitted (often) the fact that american plans would have even increased their CO2-emission....

[angry]

Concerned,
I am talking about they don´t help where they don´t have any interests, like they don´t do so much of helping work in african third world countries..(don´t get me wrong I know they do something, but nothing like europe is doing ..)..in colombia they have interests in stopping communism in spreading..(am I right about the "terrorists" are communists, pls correct me if I am wrong?)they help where they have interests that is what I mean..:)

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Thine Stalin on 7:43 pm on Feb. 14, 2002
I don't like punk rock, but I do communism, I got my first taste of it when I was around 5 and was playing civilisation, I noticed that the communist goverment system was much more effective and the people were happier than in the republic and democratic goverments, I'd like to think i was a very literate child and so I read up on it, my dad explained the rest. Gradually as I grew older I began to learn about the basic ideals of a communist system, everyone being equal, I couldn't find a better society, and I imagined that with the competition with the capitalist nations technology could clip along at just as fast a pace as a free market country, and the people would be happier (should be happier) I also noticed that a communist economy was alot safer than a capitalist, While you can suddenly become a millioniare and then a bum the next day in capitalism, the market can crash, there are recessions, but in the communist system, since everything is circulated, there would be no national debt (so long as they didn't rely on other nations) thats a few of the reasons I am a communist

Hey sounds like how I learned

[concerned]

Angry,

sorry for the late reply, I am and have been quite busy in the last time. The US helps in losts of places where they don't have any interest whatsoever. In African countries there are tons of volunteer workers from America and aid. Why did the US went to Somalia? What can the US get out of a country like Somalia? They also had no deal in the balkans, that was mainly a European problem, but still the US went and try to improve the ethnic clensing situation. There are tons of examples.

And yes, the some of the terrorists (not all) from Colombia claim to be communists, but that is for the only purpose of trying to legitimize their illegal activities which are very profitable for them.

I am going to start a new thread, with some article I read in Financial Times about Europe, I would like to see your comments there :) . I won't be able to post very often though because I am so busy.

[comrade 3stan]

i want my damn society be change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[comrade 3stan]

i believe in equality!!!!!!!!! that simple!

[angry]

concerned, I´d be glad to post there, on what forum do you intend to post this at..?

[Smoking Frog II]

1. Civilization is great [especially when you choose the communism gov't]
2. is it fair hat people should have more than they deserve?

Die konig von froshen, Rauchen Frosch Zwei
The king of frogs, smoking frog II

[Fabi]

"Die konig von froshen, Rauchen Frosch Zwei
The king of frogs, smoking frog II"

actually it is
"König der Frösche" and "Rauchender Frosch Zwei"....

[deadpool 52]

The more direction you give a people, the more lost they become.

People know what to do, when you point to the moon, they are going to look at your finger, so the best leader is one who uses the will of the people, and yet has them do what he wants.

[SBR]

I do not wish to label myself. I was born in America. But I am not American. I am human. Since I was very little I have enjoyed the empty fruits of America's wonderful economic system. I have lived in the middle class and watched my parents struggle for useless items that ultimately bring neither happiness or any value to life. I have gone without food when money was short. My life has not been hard but from my position I can see all. Americans work hard so they can ultimately enjoy life. The facts are that they do not enjoy this life and continue in an endless cycle of work for little peace or happiness and ultimately bringing paranoia and insecuritys. The belief that you must die for what is meaningless. When I was little and I seen all these wonderful things I had I realized none of it brought me happiness. Useless junk. When walked around my neighborhood or went anywhere I seen all of these old item that probably were in shiny wrappers and were sold to happy consumers that inevitable brought them neither happiness or fulfilment. I watched TV and seen shows showing utopian families never having to worry about their life. And I seen other shows showing this worlds reality and yet one major theme came out of both: Apathy. I talked to my parents alittle bit about social veiws or any regular person for that matter and there answers were the same: "If the poor and unfortunate worked hard enough they could succeed, there are plenty of opportunities, some people perfer to be poor". And the same theme rears its head:" I dont cares its not my problem". Humanity suffers and people get rich and buy huge expensive items they may use only once or twice. Regular people and even the poorer people make money and spend there money on items that keep them entertained. Is life so hopeless and bleak that people must snuggle up to the warm glow of a TV to have any enjoyment in life, the answer to that is obvious: Yes. The same people you would call drones if they lived within a communist/socialist society are just that, drones. Tell me what it is that you are gaining out of this lifestyle, that justifys your life? All the expensive and ultimately useless items? The ability to travel ? In the end you go to school you work, you buy lots of items, put in it a big square box you call a house raise a family and die. Perhaps happy in a ignorant and simple way but still ultimately drone-like. Look at it all of the examples, does it not sound like that of an ant colony? That of a drone being born into a certain job hoarding goods for your survival raising the next generation as you were raised and dying. Now you talk about that those who work so hard towards a goal should reap its benifits. But the sad thing is you use a poor example. For the man who works hard to become a millionaire he gains nothing more then alot of zeros and lots of lost time. but you use a perposterous example of the research scientist who finds a cure to a diseise then earns millions of dollers for his hard work, unlike the research scientist who lives in this socialist system who earns nothing in monetary compesation for his discovery. Now why must helping your fellow man now be accompied by reward much like a dog who does a trick for a peice of meat. But understand this, research scientists are rarely independent nor have the money or resources to discover these miracle cures. They are sponsered by pharmacutical companies or universites who in the end will of course reap the benifits of this new discover, the researcher who made the discovery perhaps being noted and compensated in some way. The worse part of this situation is that because these sponsers control these discoveries they may sell it to the highest bidder, the cure ultimately never making it to those poor uninsured people dying under yesterdays newspaper. So no one wins. What is it that a scientist earns in the socialist society, nothing he can hold but he has love, pride, and the thanks of all those who now will not have to suffer with their horrid disiese. Honestly, I question any person who gets into a field just for the money. For who would you rather be helped by the docter whos only wish in life is to help people or the docter who sees you only as a doller sign. What happend to humanitys wish to help people. Its funny to see that many of the most conservitive and powerful men in America are Christian, yet forget the most fundlemental rule of helping their fellow man. You say a capitalist society is capable of helping the poor and unfortunate. Your right. But that is not its inherit goal, so in the end almost all people within this system develop a incurable apathetic atitude that is so destructive and putrid that to even to look at these people living their lives should make any open minded person sick. Soclialism/Communisim cliched words for humanities true longing and truely civilized mode in life. To help others and grow with your fellow human rather then hoarding material goods and shuning all those who do not have your taste in useless ideals and styles of life. Are you trying to justify your life by being different and having more power and stuff then other people? How would you rather live and die, alone and seperated by prejudice and feeling of superiority that is only rewarding in your head, or loved and remembered as friend and kind person who was apart of the community. Ignorance is bliss, hope is for those who wish, stop trying to be better then everybody else and join humanity, what are you afraid of ? Is it that you might like it and lose the security of your narrow veiws and be wrong ? Parish the thought, for whos number one in the end ? You. You are are not free, for it is you who holds you back from lifes true rewards.

[angry]

Magnificant!
This is what I have been saying all along..:)
you put it just right!

For all the others, if you look at this and say "no way, this is to long" read it this is the best article I have read in a long time..

[Guest]

People who claim the world would be a better place with out riches, where everyone is equal, disgust me. Basically, there are three types of people who subcribe to this demented worldview.
The first being, those who wish to eliminate the wealth of others since they have none of there own. Furthermore, these jealous types lack the strength of character to ever achieve the success necessary for upward mobility. Trully a despicable human.
The second are those of the priviledged class who had their wealth handed to them by some fortunate happenstance. They feel guilty for having so much when others have so little and agree that others should have the right to what is rightfully theirs. In general, they do not know the value of hard work or the dollars they are privledged to own. Squandering their wealth they never achieve greatness.
Lastly, exists the most dangerous type. He is the man that knows the contradiction in the worldview that they preach, but see it as a way of manipulating the previous two classifications in order to pillage the assets of all people equally. They seek to control the hearts and minds of other men. When socialism or communism is put into practice they are the men who either distort the standing political system or violently overthrow it in order to achieve the 'ideal' state. Be wary of these murderous types for one day you may be their friend while the next you have been exterminated.
In reality, all three must exist for the evil, which is the idealogy behind communism and socialism to be carried through to its only logical conclusion. The screaming mob that advocates murder and theft, the ungratefull and cowardly class that won't dispute such actions, and the leaders who have the stomach to create such an abomination. An oppressive, stagnant state is the only form that can be embodied by such an immoral philosophy.

[Guest]

Hey SBR,

Your post reminds me of that whining song by P.O.D called "Youth of the Nation". Your problem is that you are depressed. Personally, I take great joy in the trivialities of buying a candy bar or many other useless consumeristic trinkets. These are signs of a healthy economy where much of the capacity of our nation's resources can be applied to producing such senseless items. It is fun. A word that I suggest you get acquanted with. Fun is the direct result of having the freedom to enjoy life. Some of my best memories revolve around the way things are and have been in America. Of course, being conscious makes me aware of the many tragedies throughout the world. Our system does not guarantee happiness, only the right to pursue it. For me and many others this will be a life long pursuit, because life has its ups and downs. If you desire a flatlined emotional state where hapiness is guaranteed, I suggest you take prozac (soma). One thing that you can count on is the human suffering necessary for a communist or socialistic state. If you are a masochist, continue supporting your flawed ideals you will get what you ultimately desire. As for me the ideal state is a place where people take responsibility for themselves, don't know the meaning of the word whine, and control there own destiny.

Have you ever asked the man under the newspaper what he is doing there? I have plenty of times. Most of them would rather obliterate themselves than live. I happen to believe that they should be held accountable for their decision making process. That is exactly what is happening when they are sleeping under a newspaper. We are not living under any sort of ascribed status. If these people desire to quit making excuses, the opportunity for them to enhance there lives exists and should not be handed to them. A communist country would not tolerate these types because everyone must work and they don't have the right to chose when or where. Ask yourself which is better, freedom or slavery. Personally, if I were a bleeding heart I would be more conserned about the families who are living in their cars rather than the bum under the newspaper.

[Guest]

If I were homeless I would have more pride than to dive in dumpsters, and more sense than to sleep under a newspaper. America is a vast land full of riches. I would go the the wilderness, build shelter, and survive off of the land. I'd rather be eating duck than some dumpster food infected with super-tuberculosis. I'd rather use a hide for a blanket than a newspaper. I'd rather enjoy the tranquilty of being alone in prestine forest than scolded at the local bus station. I'd rather rely on myself and my ability rather than the altruism of those who despise me. You get the picture. The problem for the men under the newspapers remains the wild is too far from the liquor store and every time they have had to rely on themselves they have failed.

[Fabi]

Quote: from Guest on 10:51 am on June 3, 2002
A communist country would not tolerate these types because everyone must work and they don't have the right to chose when or where. Ask yourself which is better, freedom or slavery. Personally, if I were a bleeding heart I would be more conserned about the families who are living in their cars rather than the bum under the newspaper.


guest, it does not apply to all communist theories that you cannot choose where you work.

prozac is another good example of corporations doing wrong, by the way.

"Though Prozac is one of the world's best-known commodities, its most terrifying potential side effect, "akathisia," remains virtually unknown. Akathisia has been described as a unique form of inner torture that, prior to the development of psychiatric drugs, probably never existed. Knowledge of the side effect, however, has been around for a while. In 1978, 10 years before "fluoxetine" would be brought to the US market and become the bestseller known as Prozac, initial clinical trails had already warned of akathisia and other problems. Minutes from Lilly's Prozac project team in that year noted that, "Some patients have converted from severe depression to agitation within a few days; in one case the agitation was marked and the patient had to be taken off [the] drug . . . There have been a fairly large number of reports of adverse reactions."

As the Forsyth case and others would go on to reveal, Lilly's internal records revealed considerable awareness within the company. A letter sent to them from the British Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1984 reads: "During the treatment with [Prozac] 16 suicide attempts were made, two of these with success. As patients with a risk of suicide were excluded from the studies, it is probable that this high proportion can be attributed to an action of the preparation." Similar concern was expressed by German authorities in 1985, where Prozac is sold as "Fluctin," and with required warnings of possible akathisia and suicide. A Lilly document dated from March of that year even quantifies the problem, suggesting a rate of suicide for Prozac 5.6 times higher than for the antidepressants that were popular before the rise of the SSRIs – the tricyclics. "The benefits vs. risks considerations for fluoxetine [Prozac] currently does not fall clearly in favor of the benefits," the document concludes. By 1986, clinical-trial studies comparing Prozac with other antidepressants showed a rate of 12.5 suicides per 1,000 users compared to only 3.8 per 1,000 on older, non-SSRI antidepressants, and 2.5 per 1,000 on placebos.

After Prozac's entry into the market in 1988, reports quickly surfaced to confirm that the beast Lilly saw in the laboratory had now, without warning, been unleashed upon the public. In 1990, a report appeared in the American Journal of Psychiatry on the "Emergence of Intense Suicidal Preoccupation During Fluoxetine Treatment." Two Harvard psychiatrists and a registered nurse described cases in which patients developed serious preoccupations with suicide soon after being given Prozac. "We were especially surprised to witness the emergence of intense, obsessive, and violent suicidal thoughts in these patients," they commented. "It was also remarkable how violent these thoughts were. Two patients fantasized, for the first time, about killing themselves with a gun, and one patient actually placed a loaded gun to her head. One patient needed to be physically restrained to prevent self-mutilation."

Two years later, in July 1992, another article appeared, this time in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Again, the article had two senior researchers among its authors, one of whom was a leading expert on akathisia. The psychiatrists stressed in the report that, prior to going on Prozac, none of their patients had a history of significant suicidal behavior. "All described their distress [while on Prozac] as an intense and novel somatic-emotional state; all reported an urge to pace that paralleled the intensity of the distress; all experienced suicidal thoughts at the peak of their restless agitation; and all experienced a remission of their agitation, restlessness, pacing urge, and suicidality after the fluoxetine [Prozac] was discontinued."

The finding that these problems emerge soon after an SSRI drug is taken, and then disappear soon after the drug is withdrawn, provides compelling evidence that the problem is often the drug and not, as the makers of SSRIs have insisted, the depression. Anthony Rothschild and Carol Locke, also of Harvard Medical School, reported three such cases in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 1991. All three individuals had previously attempted suicide while being treated with Prozac – in fact, each had jumped from great heights and had managed to survive. In turn, all three had been put back on Prozac, only to complain of the same strange desire to kill themselves."

I tried to kill myself because of these anxiety symptoms. It was not so much the depression," said one of the individuals, a 25-year-old woman. Another, a 47-year-old man, complained that "this is exactly what happened the last time I was on [Prozac], and I feel like jumping off a cliff again." Reflecting on these cases, the Harvard researchers stressed that patients need to know that such overwhelming symptoms are the side effects of medication, and are treatable. "Our patients had concluded their illness had taken such a dramatic turn for the worse that life was no longer worth living." Reports that Prozac might be unsafe at any dose had Lilly running scared. As early as 1990, one executive stated in an internal memo that, if Prozac is taken off the market, the company could "go down the tubes." With the US Food and Drug Administration asking questions, Lilly was pressed to show that their drug was safe. The result was published on September 21, 1991.

Authored by Lilly employees, the report claimed to represent all existing data comparing Prozac with either older antidepressants or placebos. In fact, the data had been hand-picked to favor the drug and the company. The analysis dealt with 3,065 patients, less than 12 percent of the total data from Prozac studies at the time. Among those whose data were left out was the very population most likely to become suicidal – the five or so percent of patients who dropped out of the clinical trials because they experienced unpleasant side effects after taking Prozac.

The Lilly study was rejected by the New England Journal of Medicine. Publication in the British Medical Journal was not as high profile, but it would have to do. And it did. With the study in hand, and with repeated assurances from Lilly that their drug was safe, the FDA's Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee gave the drug a clear bill of health in September 1991, concluding that there was "no credible evidence of a causal link between the use of antidepressant drugs, including Prozac, and suicidality or violent behavior." Prozac was saved.

It was not until trials like the Forsyth case that Lilly's internal documents would surface, revealing the depth of the deception. This included statements from the Prozac working group in 1978, acknowledging problems with akathisia and drug-induced psychosis. Also among the documents was evidence that the company had drafted (but later abandoned) a package insert for Prozac stating that, "Mania and psychosis may be precipitated in susceptible patients by antidepressant therapy." And there was a memo dated October 2, 1990, which referenced an upcoming Prozac symposium. "The question is what to do with the 'big' numbers on suicidality," the memo states. "If the report numbers are shown next to those for nausea, they seem small."

The Lilly papers also contain a series of memos referencing a study by two Taiwanese doctors entitled "Suicidal attempts and fluoxetine (Prozac) treatment." In a 1992 memo, a Lilly employee reports, "Mission accomplished. Professor Lu will not present or publish his fluoxetine [Prozac] vs. maprotiline suicidality data." In a similar case, Lilly lawyers obtained a cease-and-desist order against Robert Bourguignon, a Belgian doctor who was soliciting his colleagues' impressions regarding Prozac side effects. Bourguignon eventually prevailed, and his survey, "Dangers of Fluoxetine," appeared in the Lancet in 1997. "

source: prozacspotlight.org



also you should try to find out about the different concepts of 'equality'...
you did not elaborate on which kind of equality you were refering to.

equality does not necessarily mean that we would have to be identical drones, programmed to work in some sort of big communist state.
you will also find many communists (and socialists) who oppose this sort of state communism or state socialism since it simply puts the state as an exploiter and employer in place of the capitalists.

i hope you will at least consider the arguments i gave and the points i made.

[Son of Scargill]

Quote: from Guest on 11:04 am on June 3, 2002
If I were homeless I would have more pride than to dive in dumpsters, and more sense than to sleep under a newspaper. America is a vast land full of riches. I would go the the wilderness, build shelter, and survive off of the land. I'd rather be eating duck than some dumpster food infected with super-tuberculosis. I'd rather use a hide for a blanket than a newspaper. I'd rather enjoy the tranquilty of being alone in prestine forest than scolded at the local bus station. I'd rather rely on myself and my ability rather than the altruism of those who despise me. You get the picture. The problem for the men under the newspapers remains the wild is too far from the liquor store and every time they have had to rely on themselves they have failed.


Guest,I realize that you are talking about N.America when you say you'd vanish into the wilderness.But try doing that in the UK.Within weeks(if not days)you'd be arrested for tresspass,poaching and possibly charged with damage to property for building a shelter.Every square inch of the UK is owned by someone or some organisation and they sure as hell don't want scruffy proles messing up THEIR picturesque countryside,and eating THEIR wildlife.And it's pissing down all the time.

[Zippy]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 7:17 pm on Feb. 14, 2002
A majority of you I don't believe are real communists. Just rebels trying to be differenate from the main stream.
I agree that that is how some people originally get into politics, but you can't beleive some people on here get all their political feelings from a Sex Pistols cd.

I got into left-wing politics through two people: my grandad and Maggie Thatcher. :)

Zippy.

[IzmSchism]

Che.

[Guest]

i don't called my self a true communist but i do favor communism, with some modification, it could be a wondeful thing(or in a pure form)!!( i think pure communism is good but unrealistic, just like capitalism, in a pure form is really a good thing but lets face it we human race are born ,act think differently(including corucption,greed etc) there are always someone out there to oppose (anything))
i want to be able to think communist, and other ways too.......to make a place for everyone, a better place....
i hope in the future, action could be taken! because i don't believe one day everyone will wake up and say :' we need to care for our human first'. or ' we need to improve the way of life for everone' or'we need to change'!!

...................zenirus....................

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Guest on 4:28 am on June 4, 2002
i think pure communism is good but unrealistic, just like capitalism, in a pure form is really a good thing but lets face it we human race are born ,act think differently(including corucption,greed etc)

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=215&start=50 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=215&start=50)

[The Ax]

Hey,
I'll tell you why i'm communist. Because i have empathy. Empathy for the people who are dying, Empathy for the people who are starving, Empathy for the people who are oppressed and believe it or not, people like you, who are not smart enough to want to help and to greedy to want change. I can also tell you why you are a capitalist your capitalist, because your apathetic and you are to selfish to give a shit about anyone but yourself. Your the kind of person who is anti-communist because you are greedy and then make crappy excuses for your greed like oh, it'll never work and oh, its against human nature. Its against your nature because your a fucking greedy dipshit. And as far as i can see i haven't seen a capatilist model that works either!!

The Ax

[Guest]

Capitalism has worked within this country since its inception. It has not collapsed because of inefficiency. Sure it is not perfect, since in order too survive under this system one must make there own way. A suitable role for a person in this society is not dished out by the powers that be. A person must chose there own role in the world. Honestly, I would rather have the choice.
I hear many communists state that the reason they follow the left is because they feel the pain and suffering of the rest of the world. Does success bring about this inhumanity of which you speak? Is it the fault of 'capitalist pigs' of America, or rather the corrupt governments under which they live? Many times the offending governments are communist. How much foreign aid can be tracked to communist countries? Very little. Who supports the United Nations? The United States does.
I think it is about time that we withdraw our support for for the rest of the world and let them try it alone. The ungrateful reaction we are getting from those that we try to help is typical of any sort of welfare. It breeds resentment. Those receiving the help resent the fact that they are weak enough to need it. This is why they bite the hand that feeds them.
One final point, if you claim to hate capitalism why then do you support communism? Communism, every time that it has been practiced actually becomes state capitalism. Since land and labor are cheap and abundant, the machines of industry become most important, thereby making humans expendable. I ask you which system is most inhumane, state run capitalism or capitalism rooted in free enterprise?

[Guest]

Fabby,

I am familiar with the drastic side effects that Prozac can cause. This is why I would not take it. Many other pharmaceuticals present the same danger, but the problem is not only the responsibility of the companies that manufacture it or the FDA. The known side effects of any drug can be found in the Physicians Desk Reference, or can be requested by the patient before they take the drug. Much of the problem lies in the fact that there are alot irresponsible consumers out there looking for a quick fix with as little work as possible on their part.
That is precisely the point I was making. If you do not wish to think but would rather abdicate your responsibilty to do so, bury your head in the sky and suffer the consequences. Even if the effect is deep psychosis, and possible suicidal tendencies.

[Fabi]

the communist countries you (some guest) talked about are ones that i personally do not consider communist.
i assume that you are thinking of 'communist' russia for example, but in my eyes that was merely state capitalism, which i would fight, even if it was for the sake of capitalism.

at the moment, though of course that is subject to constant change with everything new i learn, i am in favor of some sort of libertarian solcialism/anarchism.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Quote: from The Ax on 9:09 am on June 4, 2002
Hey,
I'll tell you why i'm communist. Because i have empathy. Empathy for the people who are dying, Empathy for the people who are starving, Empathy for the people who are oppressed and believe it or not, people like you, who are not smart enough to want to help and to greedy to want change. I can also tell you why you are a capitalist your capitalist, because your apathetic and you are to selfish to give a shit about anyone but yourself. Your the kind of person who is anti-communist because you are greedy and then make crappy excuses for your greed like oh, it'll never work and oh, its against human nature. Its against your nature because your a fucking greedy dipshit. And as far as i can see i haven't seen a capatilist model that works either!!

The Ax



Ax that is an extremely ignorant and childish statement. All capitalist are greedy? Come on. In reference to your remarks about communism, do you think the people in North Korea and Cuba are oppressed? Do they share freedom of speech, opposition, expression? People in North Korea are starving. There has been famine there for years now. In Cuba they have to line up hours for a loaf of break.
Capitalism rewards somebody fairly in most cases for their contribution. It contains national elections which are the highest form of democracy since all power emanates from the top. It gives people the right and freedom to trade, start a business and enterprise, produce for society and provide their services to the people. They are in control of their lives, choose what to study, where to work. Capitalism is not a selfish system as its competition in the end ultimatley aids the people, greater competition means great production, quality and ideas. It would be selfish to produce the bare minimums and not provide for the community the things they would want, not merely the basics and necessities. Capitalism has at least proven successful in nations such as U.S., Australia and many nations in Europe. Communism has failed in all its experiement cases.
Also the failures of the third world cannot be classified as the failures of capitalism as the third world by definition is neither capitalism or communism.

[Fabi]

there have been studies on competition vs cooperation and cooperation has proved better in a lot of aspects.... for example efficiency...

for i do not remember where i read it and because you might of course question the validity of the studies, i will not make it my main point to defend it.
i do, however, doubt that capitalism encourages competition. in fact today there are less and less corporations sharing the market and the money made from it. and these few hundred (opposed to thousands of corporations before) are actually very much entwined, leading to quasi-monopolies and an actual LACK of competition.
this is due at least party to several anti-trust laws reagan found unimportant in the eighties.

also we do not have pure capitalism anymore, either. without all the laws restricting corporations and helping people to achieve something, i.e. in pure capitalism, we would be off way worse, meaning that your argument actually happens to favor some sort of socialism.

"Capitalism has at least proven successful in nations such as U.S., Australia and many nations in Europe. Communism has failed in all its experiement cases. "

first, most, if not all, achievements in favor of worker's rights or women's rights and similar ones, happen to not go back to the benevolence of the capitalists, but to the often anarchistic movements by the workers/people FOR the people.

second, communism has never been actually given a chance, just as much as communism has often not given itself a chance by staying FOREVER in the transitional stage of the proletariat's dictatorship, or rather the dictatorship of the party.
the USSR for example was not communism, but rather state capitalism, the state being the monopolist capitalist. mussolini once described fascism as the combination of government and businesses, if i remember right, which would lead me even to the conclusion that 'communist' russia was nothing more than fascism in one of its most evil forms.

third, that example of the U.S. and Australia and european nations as a proof of succesful capitalism in action is very weak and misleading, in my opinion.
i suppose you were led to this conclusion by the fact that things have been improving, for the people.
however, your argument could be applied to the time of slavery without having to alter anything.
slavery existed for hundreds of years and conditions had been steadily improving for slaves all over the world and even in the U.S. does that make slavery right?

that argument could also be applied to fascism and stalinism, where 'improvements' of various sorts, be they economic or in some cases of social nature, where noticeable.
in fact, that was the reason why hitler got elected and why people followed him. of course not all people were treated fairly, but the majority had better conditions (e.g. finally employed again). does that justify nazi-germany?

(if i was to quote some inspiration for my arguments, some speech of noam chomsky would be one.... dont remember exactly....)

no harsh feelings... take my arguments into consideration...

[Guest]

Try reading somebody besides Noam Chomsky for a change. The man is a sophist.

[Fabi]

solely based on the mentioning of noam chomsky you completely disregard any of the facts i gave and points i made or at least do not consider them worthy of being answered to?

[Fabi]

and where did i say i only read chomsky?
as a matter of fact i havent read any of his books yet because i happened to have other priorities.

[Guest]

Quote: from Fabi on 2:40 pm on June 4, 2002
the communist countries you (some guest)

Is there any information on how to become something other than guest?

[Fabi]

in the upper left of the page you should see a little bar............ (register , profile , log-in , lost password, active users, help and so on....) click on help to get help, or otherwise just go ahead and click on register to do just that... ;)

happy registering.. (were you the guest i was debating with?)

[Nateddi]

Fabi; we temporarily disabled registering.