Faults of Communist Economics - A sea of contradictions

[Capitalist Fighter]

What i don't understand and see as a contributing factor to the failure of communist economics is if every service and business is nationalised, meaning its owned solely by the state and does not allow private ownership, then how will the state be able to provide for a country of presumably millions all its services and resources whilst paying for them all with no assitance from the people. Free enterprise of businesses and factories that produce consumer products allow the state in a capitalist nation to provide for the people the necessities such as health, education and housing. Under communism the state pays for every service which intail results in a lack of money for a range of services meaning low quality and bad results. Free enterprise frees up this clog in the system by allowing individuals with their own money to pay and provide for society's demands and consequently encourages the state to spend its money on the few and necessary needs of humanity. Communists states cannot simply support thousands of public businesses and enterprises. They jeopardise quality and quality.
Free enterprise serves as the helping hand to the government in providing the people with the best of both worlds; consumer products and those indispensable to ones survival.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Contemporary communist government's and their subsequent failures will attest to this theory.

[Guest]

I agree with most of what you said. If your interested I refutted the communist ideology in great detail under the post 'My odd little description of capitalism'. You seem like the type who could appreciate it.

What inspired you to visit this site and argue with such misguided people?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Sorry guest but i dont' have time right now to read the thread. It sounds interesting, however give me a few days, after i finish my sacs at school and history exam.
I found this site after searching about Che Guevara oddly enough. lol. I have read almost everything he has written from his works in the Che Guevara Reader to books about Che such as those by Jon Lee Anderson and that Spanish author George Constanzana or something. I find him one of the most interesting people in the world and though i don't agree with his political inclination to Marxism i respect him as a man who sought to rid the world of poverty, hunger and disease, despite his shortcomings in revolts in the Congo and Bolivia.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Guest on 10:27 am on June 12, 2002
I agree with most of what you said. If your interested I refutted the communist ideology in great detail under the post 'My odd little description of capitalism'. You seem like the type who could appreciate it.

What inspired you to visit this site and argue with such misguided people?


Please don't assume everyone who doesn't follow the same ideology as you is 'misguided'.

[Xvall]

"How will the state be able to provide for a country of presumably millions all its services and resources whilst paying for them all with no assitance from the people."

I believe, that in a true communistic society, the people will be the state. The proletariot will establish a democratic society, and therefore everyone in the society will work together. The people will asssist because the people will be Mining/Obtaining the resources needed to make the products that everyone needs. Seeing as the goal of a Communist society is to be monyless and classless, the 'state' should not really have to be paying for anything. The 'state' would merely be a tool to oversee production in the country, and make sure that it does not drop below the populations nececitties.


"Free enterprise of businesses and factories that produce consumer products allow the state in a capitalist nation to provide for the people the necessities such as health, education and housing."

Obviously, we both have the same beliefs that everyone should be able to have education, health care, and housing. You simply prefer a capitalistic system, while others here prefer a communistic one. This is your own opinion, and opinions vary from person to person.

"Under communism the state pays for every service which intail results in a lack of money for a range of services meaning low quality and bad results."

As I've said, there should be no need for things to be paid. The goal of the community would be to become self sufficient, having little need for much trade or purchase outside the country. Indeed it is true, that if the environment does not suit the needs of the community, there will be bad results. People will have lack of housing, materials, food, etc. Hopefully this would not happen. If it did however, that would indicate that the community would have to engange in trade with other nations. (Cuba is a good example of a country needing trade. Unfortunately the embargo greatly hinders this.)


"Free enterprise frees up this clog in the system by allowing individuals with their own money to pay and provide for society's demands and consequently encourages the state to spend its money on the few and necessary needs of humanity."

Once again, I cannot argue against this, it's your opinion.

"Communists states cannot simply support thousands of public businesses and enterprises. They jeopardise quality and quality."

In a communist country, there would be little need for many businesses or enterprises. Things would be distributed, likely in small storehouses. The goal of the communist society would be to do away with businesses and competition. For example, if people need much food, there would be no need for diffirent types of grocery stores. (Jewel, Osco, Dominicks, Whatever..) There would only be one chain, (General Grocerry Store) and the state would not directly control and manage these stores, it would become to hectic seeing at there would be many stores for the community. People fit for management positions will be the ones in charge of the stores, and making sure that everything runs smoothly.

(I appreciate that you actually put thought into writing this out, and didn't ramble on about Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. That must be why everyone here likes you..)

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 6:12 pm on June 12, 2002)


(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 6:13 pm on June 12, 2002)

[Anonymous]

Faults of the capitalist economics- 30% gets all 70%dies from hunger!

[Capitalist Fighter]

Drake i tend to use the term communism loosely. In my last post in this thread i actually envisaged the faults of a "socialist" society and began writing. In a socialist society, where there is a state, people get paid, businesses and stuff how would this work. That is why Cuba is struggling so badly at the moment. The receive no money from housing, education or health care and on top of this have to support every factory and communal enterprise on the island. That is why their main source of income is tourism and nothing government orchestrated on the island. The Cuban government receives no income and at the same time has to spend the budget on supporting every single business since nobody can for themselves start up an enterprise with their own money and support themselves. The government in a socialist state would drown of overwhelming debt and its incapability to support and provide for the population due to its obligation to the theory of socialism that everything must be owned, run and payed for by the state.

[Xvall]

Hmm.. I don't know much about the socialist ideology.. But a lot of other members on this fourm do.. Wonder why they haven't responded..

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from the anarchist on 6:16 pm on June 12, 2002
Faults of the capitalist economics- 30% gets all 70%dies from hunger!


B.S., 70% ARE NOT DYING FROM HUNGER, WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE?

[Moskitto]

Africa, Asia, South America, Streets of London.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Africa? London? Asia? Those are not the fault of the US!!!! Those are the responsibilities of those respective nations and countries within those named continents!!! Gosh, do all communists just blame other empires failures on the US? How dogmatic!!

[ID2002]

interesting idea....

However you fail to see the point: If one was true to ones own political ideology then their would be no failer. This much is true.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:47 pm on June 14, 2002
Africa? London? Asia? Those are not the fault of the US!!!! Those are the responsibilities of those respective nations and countries within those named continents!!! Gosh, do all communists just blame other empires failures on the US? How dogmatic!!

Are you blind as well as stupid? if you read the thread carefully you would know that they are talking about capitalist economics not America.

f00

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Mac OS Revolutionary on 8:53 pm on June 14, 2002

Are you blind as well as stupid? if you read the thread carefully you would know that they are talking about capitalist economics not America.

MAC, you're personal attacks merely diminish the legitimacy of your arguements. You know as well as I do that in this forum an attack on capitalism IS an attackon america!!

f00

[Fabi]

CI, you fail to realize, though, that it is not ONLY an attack on america....

(that does not mean that i will state my opinion on the 70%/30% here....)


CF, you already said that you were using the term 'communism loosely... just felt like adding that you are refering to STATE socialism and STATE communism...

[Capitalist Fighter]

Fabi i was referring to a socialist society, in which there is a state unlike a communist one. I corrected myself. In socialism, the stage before communism, there would be overwhelming economic and state failures as i have pointed out. This is another reason why communism most probably won't ever be reached.

[Guest]

Communist ideology does not deny that the existence of a state is nessecary. It is regarded as important for the formation of communism.

[Fabi]

not necessarily... (i am talking about anarchism here... anarcho-communists etc... anarchism is basically a form of socialism... or, the other way around, communism's last stage looks pretty much like anarchism to me...)

[Guest]

Yes, the intent was a utopian society. The grand paradox in Marxist theory is the fact that the Mao's and Castro's (men necessary for the violent overthrow of government in the name of theft) of the world will not relinquish their stranglehold over the system. Once implemented, communism tends towards the deterioration of men's free will. This is a direct result of the nature of the theory itself.

[Ernest Everhard]

in anycase 70 percent of the people are not dying from hunger, not even 10 percent.

[Xvall]

"Once implemented, communism tends towards the deterioration of men's free will. This is a direct result of the nature of the theory itself."

That just your opinion, and speculation. There is no way to prove that. Just because some 'communist' countrys, which I never believe are communist countries, did bad things, it does not mean that the theory of 'communism' is to take away individual rights. I can easilly say that the theory of 'capitalism' is to have ten year old in indoneasea make hundreds of Nike shoes for ten cents a day, that does not mean it's true.

[Power1]

Communism and Capitalism both have problems.

Communism just has far many more. My main problem with communism is it a system completely opposed to human nature.

Communism is the worst political system followed by democary.

[Fabi]

*waiting for power1 to be torn apart and stoned simultaneously*

[Power1]

Explain why i am wrong. Communism is an evil system. Read Orwell. Whats the point of being communist anyway you have no support in the west. It is the right that is now rising again.

[Moskitto]

Yeah, read Orwell. Incase you didn't know, Orwell was a leftist.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Power1 on 8:57 pm on June 15, 2002
Explain why i am wrong. Communism is an evil system. Read Orwell. Whats the point of being communist anyway you have no support in the west. It is the right that is now rising again.

It was an attack on totaltarianism not on communism.

[Power1]

He might have been a leftist. I don't care. He was still agaisnt communism. I'm talking about Animal Farm not 1984 anyway.

[Fabi]

orwell did not write about the evil of communism in 'animal farm', but about the evil of totalitarianism and how things would develop in a totalitarian (communist) system.
it doesnt have anything to do with communism or socialism per se.

(i just wondered if people were gonna tear you apart for saying that even democracy sucked...)

[Xvall]

Quote: from Power1 on 9:51 pm on June 15, 2002
He might have been a leftist. I don't care. He was still agaisnt communism. I'm talking about Animal Farm not 1984 anyway.


He even said that he only 'critiqued' it, he didn't hate it. And he LOVED Democracy, which you seem to hate. Communism can't be evil.. It's a theory, and unless you've seen a book go pick up a gun and start schooting people, you're wrong.

And Democracy is what allows the people to decide thigns in their lives, you fascist..

[Guest]

Quote: from Power1 on 9:51 pm on June 15, 2002
He might have been a leftist. I don't care. He was still agaisnt communism. I'm talking about Animal Farm not 1984 anyway.


I am a communist and Animal Farm is one of my favorite books. Orwell was a socialist, he supported the Russian Revolution. Animal Farm was a critique of Stalin not communism, dolt

[Power1]

Okay. I just thought Animal Farm was agaisnt communism. Democary is okay but it has got worse recently. Look at the crap leaders we have in democratic countries. Blair and Chirac are just two examples.

[Guest]

That I agree; bourgeois democracy always brings corruption.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Power1 on 9:09 pm on June 16, 2002
Okay. I just thought Animal Farm was agaisnt communism. Democary is okay but it has got worse recently. Look at the crap leaders we have in democratic countries. Blair and Chirac are just two examples.



I know what you're saying.. But like all socialists aren't bad, and all communists aren't bad, all democracy isn't bad either. But in some instances, it's a loose loose situation. Elect a greedy hog or elect a greedy hog..

[Guest]

Probably the worst aspect of democracy is in the way that it allows for a communist majority to completely dimantled the workings of the democratic. I think we are seeing this in the U.S., as left wingers are actively creating a nanny state. The more responsiblity that you give the government over your life, the more concessions regarding your freedoms that they ask of you.

[Xvall]

Oh No! The Government is loosing control of it's power that the PEOPLE are taking it back! Boo-Hoo!!

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 11:05 pm on June 16, 2002)

[Guest]

Nobody is dumb enough to think that communism is a political movement of the people. Democracy and communism are anti to each other. How does overthrowing the government to steal the unevenly distributed wealth, in order to create a two class system, solve the problem? This two class system always surfaces from a communist overhaul, the political favorites and the plebes. Of course, you are assumming that if your revolution works that you will be one of those political favorites and will receive a nice position as a result for your hard work. Let us suppose that your pathetic reactionary movement worked, what makes you think that your couterparts wouldn't kill you to cut you out of the score. There is no law among thieves. However, I suppose that is the only way that you could ever make it to the upper class, providing that you are most likely an unproductive member of soceity.

[Fabi]

ok, so tell me what is so democratic about a minority ruling the majority, i.e. capitalism
and so undemocratic about the majority having the power, i.e. some sort of communism/socialism???

please explain what is so democratic about a system where the majority can vote for one person and get another? (usa, england...)

i am not defending communism here... but please explain what is so great about capitalism...

[Guest]

This is CF,
Fabi, who said the minority rule in capitalism. Are you saying that rule emanates from wealth? That is incorrect. In capitalism people from ALL classes, regardless of economic and social standings are eligible to vote for their state and national leaders. The fact that we allow workers and capitalists to vote mean we attract not just the majority but EVERYONE in the state. Capitalism does not exclude anyone from voting.
I don't agree with the British and American system, in which ones vote can be worth more than another, however in capitalist theory and the electoral process that is not in fact what would happen.
In socialism however there are no national elections. Democracy does not exist nationally, only in small councils that represent different areas. All power emanates from the top, therefore if you don't have national elections to elect who leads your nation then how can you claim to be ascribing to democracy? That is why socialism has produced some of the most brutal and oppressive dictators on the planet, simply becasue there is no check to their power. That is not democracy!

[Hattori Hanzo]

CF open your eyes- sure all the people vote, all the blind people vote for either the fuckin' GOP and W or the god danm democrats and that dope Gore
it 's the people with money, soft money ;) , that get a true say in the corrupt government. at least the cappies admit the existence of soft mone :cheesy:

[Hattori Hanzo]

oh, and the cappies don't have a theory, it's just uncontrolled market- weeds choking out the flowers.
and democracy is seperate for e conomics, and is an essential in socialism

[Fabi]

yes, CF, as Hattori has already pointed out, too, i am saying that capital means power.
of course the wealthy are more powerful...

(btw, how much does it take to seriously run for president? 20 million $? probably around that number...)

just look at a capitalist and his workers... he can fire them, but they cannot fire him. they are dependent on him, or another capitalist, but the capitalists are not as dependent on them.
yes, of course you need employees in your factories and stores etc... but you can do without them longer than they can do without you.

just another really stupid and obvious example would be lawyers... of course the more money you have, the better your lawyer, the more likely you are to succeed in court...

people with big money control, literally, the media... 'sponsor' politicians... invade schools and make education even more ridiculous...

like one 'cappie' in this forum told me a little while ago, you only have the right to say something, which does NOT include the right to be heard...
sounds like some democracy to me...

[Fabi]

here is a nice one on 'freedom of speech'... a little off-topic.. sorry...

" FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

ACTION ALERT:
A Changed President-- or a New Repression?

June 17, 2002

President Bush's June 14 commencement address at Ohio State University was
a sign of a "revived" presidency, according to Washington Post reporter
Dana Milbank. "Bush basked in the adulation of 55,000 people who treated
him to waves of standing ovations in Ohio Stadium as he received an
honorary doctorate," according to the paper (6/15/02). "If there was a
protest in the stadium, it was not visible to reporters."

In contrast, wrote Milbank, when Bush received an honorary degree last
year from Yale University, "he was booed, heckled and greeted with a sea
of protest signs." While pointing out that Yale and Ohio State are
different places, the Post reporter asserted that "the real cause of the
difference in reception is the transformation of Bush and his presidency
since the September 11 terrorist attacks."

There may have been no protests visible to the Post reporter, but, as
other media reported, there may have been other reasons for this in
addition to "adulation" for Bush. According to the Columbus Dispatch
(6/15/02), students were warned ahead of time they faced arrest if they
showed any signs of dissent: "Graduates had been warned during rehearsal
on Thursday that they faced arrest if-- as was rumored-- some stood up and
turned their backs on Bush during his speech." The warning continued on
the day of the event as well, according to the Associated Press (6/14/02):
"Immediately before class members filed into the giant football stadium,
an announcer instructed the crowd that all the university's speakers
deserve to be treated with respect and that anyone demonstrating or
heckling would be subject to expulsion and arrest. The announcer urged
that Bush be greeted with a 'thunderous' ovation."

And some observers did, in fact, notice protests during the ceremony. As
reported in The Lantern (6/14/02), Ohio State University's campus paper,
"Three graduates and six audience members-- one draped in a Palestinian
flag-- actually did turn their backs but were hardly noticed by the crowd
of about 60,000." A demonstration held outside the stadium attracted a
small group of protesters as well (Columbus Dispatch, 6/15/02).

None of this information made it into Milbank's report.

ACTION: Please contact the Washington Post and ask them why attempts to
stifle dissent at George W. Bush's commencement address at Ohio State
University were not newsworthy.

CONTACT:
Washington Post
Michael Getler, Ombudsman
mailto:[email protected]
(202) 334-7582

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone. Please cc [email protected] with your
correspondence."

[Power1]

I said before that i didn't believe in Democary. I do actually believe in democary just not in its current form.

Our voting system and USA's needs to be changed to proportional reprenstation.This will lesson the powers of the big parties and give the smaller parties more of a say in how the country is run.

[Capitalist Fighter]

comrades, this theory that the elite control and rule the country can also be extended to socialism. Since there are no national elections where the people through an electoral process can vote for their leader, socialism contains a group, the elite members of the party and only the party, who nominate their leader and vote for him. Now that alienates the population as they had no say it that at all. The communist leaders in that small, elite group claim to be representing the views of the people but that of course is not the case. You claim the rich and minority rule in capitalism, yet the elite and minority it is proven rule in socialism. It is part of the theory.
I agree that running for president costs an absurd amount and each condidate should have a limited budget to make it fair however even this system of electoral democracy is better then NO electoral democracy.
The lawyer example was a good one however the state provides you with a lawyer if you are unable to afford one. This of course is also better to socialism where there were show trials, no courts of appeal and decisions made in a little less than a day. Socialism has simply being responsible through its historical examples as being a political system which to quote che, "turned men into wild, bloodthirsty animals". Subsequently quashing democracy, human rights and civic liberties. People here cannot deny that the best form of capitalism in the world has been better than the best form of socialism in guarantting these liberties.

[Fabi]

CF,

i somewhat agree with you, not to say totally so. i believe that power corrupts... whether in a capitalist state or in that form of socialism lenin himself described as 'state capitalism'.
this is the main reason i tend to some form of anarchism at the moment of my 'political orientation period'...

(liberty without socialism is chaos, socialism without liberty is slavery... dont remember who said it...)

[Capitalist Fighter]

By adhering to anarchy, Fabi do you seek that there be no lines, no order and no form of rule by either the people or a person? Every society needs some sort of heirachy? Anarchism to me sounds like every man for himself similar to the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous]

CI you are ssoooooo stupid i dindnt say it was americas fault i said it was CAPITALISM fault!!!!! if yuo thing America is the only capitalist state then go back to school and learn something about geography!!

[Fabi]

anarchists do not propose a lawless society. inly a society without oppression... (capitalism, state socialism...)
you need some sort of order (at leasat most people think so...) but you do not need hierearchy...

hierarchy is the means by which oppression can be realized... i am still reading about anarchy, but just read the first two or three pages of the anarchy faq at anarchismfaq.org to get an idea...

decades before the bolshevik totalitarian regime bakunin (an anarchist.. ;)) warned people of the 'red bureaucracy'... also anarchist (and feminist) emma goldmann was very dissappointed when she came to the post-revolutionary russia...


just go and get a rough understanding of anarchism... i am still learning about it... so far it seems like the 'best' system to me...

i am just so tired of people telling me i am an evil communist or evil anarchist or evil dunno-what.... all i am trying to do is learn...


'every man for himself' is rather a right-wing theory based on individualism, while anarchism is a form of socialism...

(liberty without socialism is chaos, socialism without liberty is tyranny.... or something like that... forgot who said 'that' originally...)

[dailydivet]

Democracy - where 51% of the population can have 49% exterminated! Yay!</sarcasm>

By the way, the reason why, in America, Gore didn't win (I will ASSUME he had the majority vote, which I could refute, but not for this argument) is because we live in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. We elect people to vote for us. Ever hear of the Electoral College? Yes. Apparently the Democrats haven't. Maybe they should have abolished the Electoral college BEFORE they started to whine about "majority this, majority that". The Electoral College was instituted so that our "majority" wouldn't be able to elect a Commie, or a KKK member, or a Facist.

Also, maybe there is some confusion, but the U.S. is NOT a Capitalistic society as much as Russia and Cuba and China were NOT Communist societies. We live in a Mixed Economy = more Big Brother control = more willingness for soft money! In a Laissez-faire Capitalistic society, Big Brother would be greatly reduced, and with less governmental power, the power of soft money greatly diminishes.

Please, make sure you know that U.S.A. is not a Democracy or a Laissez-faire country; please understand this before critiquing it! As it seems most people have problems with Big Brother, not big corporations... by the way, what was that child earning before he worked at Nike? Nothing? I suppose I'd rather have a dime than nothing, even if both meant starvation.

By the way, have you Commies in here noticed how badly Government institutions do in our society? I mean, public education sucks compared to homeschooling and private academies. Would kids in a communistic society have to go to government controlled schools (this is an honest question, because I'm not too learned about that topic)? And the post office? It is a joke! It seems that all government agencies somehow are worse then their private counterparts.


hierarchy is the means by which oppression can be realized

So, what would you say about naturally occuring heirarchies: I'm stronger than you therefore I can take your life away, I'm smarter than you therefore I can gather more food than you, I have full use of my body and you are handicapped therefore you will probably not survive in the wild? Have you ever thought of the concept that humans, although sharing the same basic human rights, are NOT born equal (with equal talents, abilities, or luck)?

In anarchy, who is to retain order? Whoever has the power to enforce order is automatically higher in the ladder than someone who cannot enforce order. And if we are equal, then we all must enforce order. This leads to the "I'm stronger than you, so my 'order' is more correct" chaos.

(Edited by dailydivet at 10:56 pm on June 22, 2002)

[Fabi]

"Democracy - where 51% of the population can have 49% exterminated! "

hey, guess what, i totally agree with you... at least i think so, right now. this is the reason why democracy on a bigger scale does not work. people should organize in small communities. they know best what's good for them in their own environment.


"Please, make sure you know that U.S.A. is not a Democracy or a Laissez-faire country; please understand this before critiquing it! As it seems most people have problems with Big Brother, not big corporations... by the way, what was that child earning before he worked at Nike? Nothing? I suppose I'd rather have a dime than nothing, even if both meant starvation. "

in other words, you would think it is perfectly alright for companies to pay starvation-wages. in other words it would be perfectly fine with you if the corporations did just that, again, if 'big brother' wasnt around here, anymore? gee, that sounds great. no, seriously, i know what you mean, but it does sound extremely cynical and for the above reasons i dont think it works.
the point is that i am against the alienation of labor and against worker's dependency on capitalists. profit is basically unpaid labor. and unpaid labor is theft... simple as that...


"In anarchy, who is to retain order? Whoever has the power to enforce order is automatically higher in the ladder than someone who cannot enforce order. And if we are equal, then we all must enforce order. This leads to the "I'm stronger than you, so my 'order' is more correct" chaos. "

well, the fact that anarchist societies and attempts were successfully realized on a number of occasions would be proof enough to at least show that anarchy can work.
anarchists oppose oppression and i suppose the killing of another person usually does count there... so, whoever tried to fuck up and be an asshole would be dealt with by the people... at least that would be one option...

also, and probably more importantly, you can of course be smarter and more productive and efficient than other people. you also get the fruits of your labor... you ARE allowed to work for what you want, as long as you dont use it to oppress others...


"In anarchy, who is to retain order? Whoever has the power to enforce order is automatically higher in the ladder than someone who cannot enforce order. "

what you are describing there is not the problem of anarchy, but precisely the problem of hierarchy... if you look at your argument you do not say that anarchy is not desireable, but you seem to imply that it is rather hard, if not impossible, to implement...
well, again, there have been examples of anarchy... (paris commune, many tribal cultures, spanish revolution, parts of germany after WWI)

i dont want to get into an argument about those examples, though, since they of course might be wrong... however, actually you dont need them to argue for anarchism.

back to your original quote and to my main argument: in an anarchist society, by definition, there are no people who have power over other people...
for examples, most anarchist i think would agree, you would elect delegates to represent you... it should be stressed that those delegates can be recalled at any time and are under imperative mandate, meaning they can only do what they were elected to do. if they act against the people's will they can be recalled immediately...


i hope this answered some of your questions and concerns... point out the weak points in my post, if you find any ;), so i can consider them and maybe reconsider my opinion or think about the problem some more....
( i think i forgot something... dammit.. i hate it when that happens...)