Barack vs. Hillary for the privilege to get their ass kicked by McCain.

Five Years in Hanoi Hilton, you know McCain learned to play the skin flute.
He may not be the first gay president, but he will be the oldest gay
president who was in the military and became a POW. How many chinks raped
our future President?

Meanwhile, Hillary will hopefully finally go away along with her drunken bum
husband and Barack will hopefully move in with Oprah and they can do talk
shows.

We need to skip to 2012 and hopefully something better will save America. It
isn't going to be Barack, Hillary, or McPOW.

On May 19, 11:03 pm, "KajaGooGoo" <Kajagoogo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Barack vs. Hillary for the privilege to get their ass kicked by McCain.

Five Years in Hanoi Hilton, you know McCain learned to play the skin flute.
He may not be the first gay president, but he will be the oldest gay
president who was in the military and became a POW. How many chinks raped
our future President?

Meanwhile, Hillary will hopefully finally go away along with her drunken bum
husband and Barack will hopefully move in with Oprah and they can do talk
shows.

We need to skip to 2012 and hopefully something better will save America. It
isn't going to be Barack, Hillary, or McPOW.



If John McCain actually pulls off a win, I will be finally convinced
of what I've suspected all along: The American people are idiotic
assholes.

How else can you explain the fact that the majority of American voters
continue to elect right wing Republican fascists for President? I
doubt that gas would be hovering around $4 a gallon if it weren't for
Bush. It's funny how most of these voters continue to vote against
their own economic interests when they pull the lever for
Republicans. George Bush's "base", and the only base he listens to,
is comprised of oil execs, Arabian oil jockeys, military contractors,
and the ultra-wealthy who want a tax cut even though they really don't
need it. I don't understand the rationale of those working class
people who continue to vote republican.

Republicans: evil and greedy warmongers

Democrats: deceitful and naive hypocrites

choose your poison.

they all suck ass.

masterclam5 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote
"Sean Carroll" <seanc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal's guard of
billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and
Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find
other people to fight for them.

Moreover, your needs, tastes and habits would never permit your
bureaucracy to divide the national income.

With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political
monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy.

For Soviet America will not imitate the monopoly of the press by the heads
of Soviet Russia's bureaucracy.

Hitherto America's conquest of nature has been so violent and passionate
that you have had no time to modernize your philosophies or to develop
your own artistic forms. Hence you have been hostile to the doctrines of
Hegel, Marx and Darwin. The burning of Darwin's works by the Baptists of
Tennessee is only a clumsy reflection of the American dislike for the
doctrines of evolution. This attitude is not confined to your pulpits. It
is still part of your general mental makeup.

This paragraph is still pretty relevant.

While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the
old race of Europe's Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its
original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic
machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the
problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races
there will come a new breed of men - the first worthy of the name of Man.

I'm a Lennonist music-wise, but I also like the inspriational comedy of
Groucho Marx.

Marxist-Lennonist for sure.

Je suis marxiste, tendence Groucho.

"bob bisconti's bowels" <BWARF at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote
"Sean Carroll" <seanc130 at (no spam) hotmail.com> spewed forth:

I haven't lived in a dorm for about 7 years. And when I did, there were no
steps.

I've never learned how to play a guitar. I've tried fooling around with
them
a few times, but the farthest I got was being able to just barely play the
first four notes of 'And I Love Her'. I have a lot of trouble with
pressing
the strings down hard enough, and with moving my hand on the frets quickly
enough to keep the chords flowing. I'm sure I could learn if I really sat
down and took some time and tried, but I just haven't gotten a chance yet.
I
understand that it's much easier to bend the strings on electrics than
acoustics, so I'd probably do better if I tried to learn on an electric
first. But I've only ever really had access to acoustics.

I've wanted for a long time to learn how to play an instrument, but it
just
hasn't happened yet. I have a saxophone I'm able to make a little bit of
slightly pleasant noise with, but I don't know how to really *play* it. I
took piano lessons as a child, but it was so long ago that the only thing
I
can remember is the notes to Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy'. I vaguely remember
using recorders and xylophones in an elementary school music class, but
again, too long ago for anything to be retained.

please tell us more about your life, i think there may be a detail or
two you haven't posted yet

Okay.

The very first orgasm I ever had was rubbing my penis up against a blanket
while I was watching one of the Sprint commercials with Candice Bergen in
the late 80s or early 90s.

Rather than cast the debate in such an all-or-nothing terms, why not
consider the possibility of gradually hybridizing the current system in
such a way that the tenets of the system that you ultimately want to
implement can be tested on a step-by-step basis? To me that makes sense
from the point of view of a scientist. Oh sure, you'll counter that the
systems are inherently incompatible, but you know what? At this point,
that's just a hypothesis too. What would it hurt to try?

"RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote

Rather than cast the debate in such an all-or-nothing terms, why not
consider the possibility of gradually hybridizing the current system
in such a way that the tenets of the system that you ultimately want
to implement can be tested on a step-by-step basis? To me that
makes sense from the point of view of a scientist. Oh sure, you'll
counter that the systems are inherently incompatible, but you know
what? At this point, that's just a hypothesis too. What would it
hurt to try?

The answer to this again hinges on the fact that it is the
materialistic, not idealistic, viewpoint that accurately describes
and explains the world.

When I first started to learn about socialism in high school, I
thought about it in the same terms you are thinking about it in: as
some sort of imaginary, ideal system, a better way of doing things
that can be implemented simply by deciding to. Most people's grasp of
the idea goes no further than that. Even Karl Marx, when he was a
very young student and had not yet developed his mature worldview,
thought about it that way.

But when he grew up, Marx realised that this is a fundamental barrier
to genuine understanding. It's not about abstract ideal systems that
somehow exist out there in some sort of Platonic perfection, where we
can freely pick and choose what we want. It's about the genuine
material, economic forces that drive society in analysable and
predictable ways. His contribution to socialism was akin to Galileo's
contribution to physics. Before Galileo, the Aristotelean worldview
that held sway posited that the order of nature could be discovered
by pure thought and reasoning. Galileo confronted the interesting but
ultimately useless mass of dogmas about how things 'act according to
their natures' with the test of direct experimentation, used to
create verifiable scientific hypotheses. He did not create the
rigourous, complete structure of physics that we know today; that
came later, from the work of Newton and others. But he did set up the
basic foundations of the scientific method as applied to physics.
Similarly, Marx swept away the mass of dogmas and speculations about
abstract systems that flooded the worlds of political theory, and
laid the foundation for a *scientific* theory of society, based on
the fundamental premise of historical materialism: that the basic,
material, economic foundations of society shape and determine the
nature of the political superstructure that exists. Politics is like
a distorted, rarefied reflection of economics; it seems to be a
completely separate world, evolving through its own set of abstract
principles, but it is actually constrained by the material economic
roots from which it grows.

Thus, the discussion is not at all about 'Should we use a capitalist
system or a socialist system? What are the good and bad parts of
each? What would be the optimal system for us to pick if we had free
choice?' It's about the material facts that (1) capitalist society is
based on a profound class divide between workers, who sell their
labour power for a wage, and capitalists, who own the means of
production and hire the workers to create value out of them; (2)
those capitalists accumulate their profits by a very specific and
measurable sort of exploitation of the labour of the workers -- that
is, they appropriate the entire value of the commodities created by
the workers, but only pay back to the workers a small fraction of
that value in the form of a wage; (3) the exploitation of one human
being by another therefore lies at the very root of the economic
foundations that determine how society operates; (4) this material
exploitation is reflected in the political and social alienation of
humanity, the constant crises that you can see our world suffering
everywhere you look; (5) in order to heal that social alienation, the
material exploitation at the root of the economic system must be
eradicated; (6) the people who control all the economic and political
resources that could be used to build a healthy, rational,
non-self-destructive society are all in the capitalist class, not the
working class, and therefore have a material interest in maintaining
the status quo, because they are the very ones who profit from the
exploitation that is corrupting our society; (7) it is therefore
impossible for a change to a more rational system to happen through
piecemeal reforms of the existing political structure, because that
structure was built by the capitalists and is controlled by the
capitalists; ( the only option remaining is to create an entirely
new power structure, independent of the material interests of
capital, through collective organisation of the working class and
their eventual seizure of control of the state from the capitalists.

Or, to break it down into the simplest terms possible, we can't
'hybridise' capitalism and socialism, gradually creating a more
rational system through minor alterations of a constant structure,
because the capitalists would never allow it. They profit from
keeping workers workers and bosses bosses. And they control all of
the large-scale structures and institutions of our society. Frederick
Douglass, the famous escaped slave, put it best:

'If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to
favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops
without ploughing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many
waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical
one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never
will.'

Sean Carroll <seanc130 at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

"RichL" <rpleavitt at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote


Rather than cast the debate in such an all-or-nothing terms, why
not consider the possibility of gradually hybridizing the current
system in such a way that the tenets of the system that you
ultimately want to implement can be tested on a step-by-step
basis? To me that makes sense from the point of view of a
scientist. Oh sure, you'll counter that the systems are
inherently incompatible, but you know what? At this point,
that's just a hypothesis too. What would it hurt to try?

The answer to this again hinges on the fact that it is the
materialistic, not idealistic, viewpoint that accurately describes
and explains the world.

When I first started to learn about socialism in high school, I
thought about it in the same terms you are thinking about it in: as
some sort of imaginary, ideal system, a better way of doing things
that can be implemented simply by deciding to. Most people's grasp
of the idea goes no further than that. Even Karl Marx, when he was
a very young student and had not yet developed his mature
worldview, thought about it that way.

But when he grew up, Marx realised that this is a fundamental
barrier to genuine understanding. It's not about abstract ideal
systems that somehow exist out there in some sort of Platonic
perfection, where we can freely pick and choose what we want. It's
about the genuine material, economic forces that drive society in
analysable and predictable ways. His contribution to socialism was
akin to Galileo's contribution to physics. Before Galileo, the
Aristotelean worldview that held sway posited that the order of
nature could be discovered by pure thought and reasoning. Galileo
confronted the interesting but ultimately useless mass of dogmas
about how things 'act according to their natures' with the test of
direct experimentation, used to create verifiable scientific
hypotheses. He did not create the rigourous, complete structure of
physics that we know today; that came later, from the work of
Newton and others. But he did set up the basic foundations of the
scientific method as applied to physics. Similarly, Marx swept away
the mass of dogmas and speculations about abstract systems that
flooded the worlds of political theory, and laid the foundation for
a *scientific* theory of society, based on the fundamental premise
of historical materialism: that the basic, material, economic
foundations of society shape and determine the nature of the
political superstructure that exists. Politics is like a distorted,
rarefied reflection of economics; it seems to be a completely
separate world, evolving through its own set of abstract
principles, but it is actually constrained by the material economic
roots from which it grows.

Thus, the discussion is not at all about 'Should we use a
capitalist system or a socialist system? What are the good and bad
parts of each? What would be the optimal system for us to pick if
we had free choice?' It's about the material facts that (1)
capitalist society is based on a profound class divide between
workers, who sell their labour power for a wage, and capitalists,
who own the means of production and hire the workers to create
value out of them; (2) those capitalists accumulate their profits
by a very specific and measurable sort of exploitation of the
labour of the workers -- that is, they appropriate the entire value
of the commodities created by the workers, but only pay back to the
workers a small fraction of that value in the form of a wage; (3)
the exploitation of one human being by another therefore lies at
the very root of the economic foundations that determine how
society operates; (4) this material exploitation is reflected in
the political and social alienation of humanity, the constant
crises that you can see our world suffering everywhere you look;
(5) in order to heal that social alienation, the material
exploitation at the root of the economic system must be eradicated;
(6) the people who control all the economic and political resources
that could be used to build a healthy, rational,
non-self-destructive society are all in the capitalist class, not
the working class, and therefore have a material interest in
maintaining the status quo, because they are the very ones who
profit from the exploitation that is corrupting our society; (7) it
is therefore impossible for a change to a more rational system to
happen through piecemeal reforms of the existing political
structure, because that structure was built by the capitalists and
is controlled by the capitalists; ( the only option remaining is
to create an entirely new power structure, independent of the
material interests of capital, through collective organisation of
the working class and their eventual seizure of control of the
state from the capitalists.

Or, to break it down into the simplest terms possible, we can't
'hybridise' capitalism and socialism, gradually creating a more
rational system through minor alterations of a constant structure,
because the capitalists would never allow it. They profit from
keeping workers workers and bosses bosses. And they control all of
the large-scale structures and institutions of our society.
Frederick Douglass, the famous escaped slave, put it best:

'If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess
to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want
crops without ploughing up the ground. They want rain without
thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar
of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be
a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must
be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will.'


Your analogy to scientific theories breaks down in that valid
scientific theories are testable. And we don't have to buy into an
entire scientific system without being able to test it one prediction
at a time.

The rest is dogmatic assertion, at least that's the way I see it.


....but the point is that the incompatibility between capitalism and

Your analogy to scientific theories breaks down in that valid
scientific theories are testable. And we don't have to buy into an
entire scientific system without being able to test it one prediction
at a time.

The rest is dogmatic assertion, at least that's the way I see it.

...but the point is that the incompatibility between capitalism and
socialism has been tested...in the laboratory of history. Capitalism is
voracious and unstoppable if it is given its head. In our country, where
this or that "socialist" program has been "allowed" to function for a
certain degree of time, capitialism eventually wishes to inhabit even that
space and to test it for profitability. Capital...which must create more
and more profit every year to survive, and keep in reserve a sizeable
population of under-employed persons who will thus work for low wages, and
(again to ensure profits) sell back to its workers (at inflated prices)
the fruits of their own labor, with (again for profit) planned
obsolescence built-in (thus further undermining any progress toward
communal strength)...will only "abide" socialist crumbs as long as it
appears "needed". Thus, the small change tossed to the masses by the New
Deal (to mollify a rising proletariate) has been "taken back" bit by bit,
simply because capital has been emboldened. We need to "disembolden" it,
but - if one truly desires a stable set of socialist processes -
capitalism will have to be beaten into the tomb.

On Jul 2, 5:17 am, Dale Houstman <d... at (no spam) skypoint.com> wrote:

Bigotron76 wrote:

fattuc... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote Communism is anti democratic.

Even the most dedicated communists have given up on communism. it is too
corrupt.

Yes - it is nice to know that capitalism is so free of corruption...

dmh


I doubt if anyone talking so much abt communism has ever lived in one
of those countries..

Unless you are a party member, you are nobody.....Now the chineese are
experiencing a different life...

Other than one party rule there is no communism in that system...