That's redundant, it's the same thing.
Results 21 to 36 of 36
That's redundant, it's the same thing.
Nono, a socialist is not by definition a social person. Being a social person is independent of your beliefs what society should look like.
(Edited by von Mises at 5:06 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)
Being a social person is being a conformist. Conform to society's standards. We are far away from being social people, we ask questions about what is going on. And try to eliminate the bad. A social person doesnt care, they only live to be friendly in that society.
ahhh, ok, then I must apologize.
Speak for yourself blibblob.
"Speak for yourself blibblob. "
what the hell does that mean?
Moral is based upon one's own decisions, not what society expects from us.
And looking at the amount of taxes we pay, the money we give away to charity and the hours we spent on helping other people I think that overall score is very positive. Needless to say that exceptions will always exist.
The reason the west even bothered with Zaire is because one of their anti-communist puppets (Mobutu) was in control. The aid wasn't meant for the people, it was meant for their fascist asspal.
And Im not even going to start about the parasitical pigs who involve themselves in Wall Street. The stock market is proof that success in the capitalist world isn't based on "hard work". The reason the Congo is the way it is today is because the Belgians racist imperialism didn't allow them to develop properly on their own.
For all you Cuba lovers, please read this article written by a Cuban: Mahatma Gandhi: What we Cubans can learn from, himhere
Ghandi ?!
LMFAO. What a joke.
Then don't read it.
I have read a part of it, and I don't really follow what it is saying. This man is using Ghandi quotes to explain why Cuba sucks. You must remember, India is VERY different then Cuba. India, the ENTIRE India, has been divided for over 50 years. Right now they are toeing the line in Kashmir. Pakistan and India together equal the whole of India. That is confusing because I do not know the offical name of the Indian nation. In the Indian subcontinent two nations stand pointing nuclear weapons at eachother. It is obvious that if Ghandi's message had suceeded that there would be ONE india, not two, and they would certainitly not have persued weapons of mass destruction.
~ Che Guevara, Man and Socialism in Cuba.
Read that article. It is on this site. It should dispell the myth that the article you provided created (or atleast as far as I have read...reading from the internet hurts my eyes so I do it in little chunks.
"'The war against hate is perhaps the last essential, definitive, and legitimate war.'
Jose Marti "
That quote is easily used against the article it closed. The article is preaching the hate against socialism, but the answers to the articles questions are rebuted in Man and Socialism in Cuba. I will not link you to it because if you go to the bottom of the page you can access it (it is located in the archives).
The last war must be against those who oppress, the neoliberals and thier dreams of Capitalism. From what you tell me of your ideology in your posts you are not a liberal. I will post an article in afew days after I find it again and show you the ideals of a liberal. Neoliberalism, which it seems you presribe to, does not belong in this section of che-lives. I hope you enjoy the cage of OI.
I won't. Frankly, I dont give a shit what a wishy-washy pseudo-non-conformist such as Ghandi's outlook is. Western petty-bourgeoisie love to praise Ghandi for his "successfull" campaign for independence through non-violence because it symbolizes conformity for opressed people to be able to BEG for their rights but not FIGHT for them (as well as accapting a remotely-better system in which they are still miserable).
Look at the situation in India today, 70% of the population is illiterate and lives in villages and slums, they lost Pakistan(which is now a zealotic islamic-fundamentalist state) and Bangladesh and nothing has been done about population control.
Successful revolutions, such as the Chinese revolution, are demonized by the West. Mao, however, doubled the life expectancy of the Chinese people, greatly enhanced education and medicare and provided women with their rightfull freedoms from patriarchy. Capitalists though (as well as bleeding-heart liberals), only point out the fact that he killed people and dismiss everything else, as if virtually every leader in the history of the world hasn't had people killed (especially post-WWII Amerika with its puppet-dictatorships in Latin America).
(Edited by El Brujo at 9:52 am on Mar. 4, 2003)
von Mises, shares don't give profit every time, the Zaire people could have lost a lot.
Repeal ban on Stalinists, says the beholder beneath.
Von Mises you said that in the captalist system 1+1=3
How?
If it's so why are the hard working country's, the third world, still so poor?
And why is then that they are competing each other?
Why is it, that if the one makes profit, the other looses.
Let no one charge that socialists have arrayed class against class in this struggle. That has been done long since in the evolution of capitalist society. One class is small and rich and the other large and poor....One consists of capitalists and the other of workers. These two classes are at war. Every day of peace is at the expense of labor. There can be no peace and good will between these two essentially antagonistic economic classes. - Debs
Know what? If he were a Tyrant he wouldn't allow other political parties like the PSDC (PArtido Social Demócrata de Cuba) based in Havana Cuba and opposing Fidel gov.
http://pscuba.org/
See?
Would a Tyrant allow this? Nope, so he is definitely not a Tyrant, don't believe the bullshit propaganda.
