Hopelessly Enslaved by Democracy
- Thread starter Gordon J Torture
- Start date
Re: RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
You're correct, however those who gained power always referred to Marxism and borrowed a great deal from it.
Derry McKinney said:
You're correct, however those who gained power always referred to Marxism and borrowed a great deal from it.
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
I've borrowed a great deal from banks over the years, yet nobody considers me to be a banker.
I've borrowed a great deal from banks over the years, yet nobody considers me to be a banker.
Re: RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
No, that made you the customer. Like Marxism made people victims.
Derry McKinney said:
No, that made you the customer. Like Marxism made people victims.
Re: RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
It has to a certain extent in a perverted way.
Derry McKinney said:
It has to a certain extent in a perverted way.
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
No it hasn't. If you read Karl Marx, then look at the communist powers, you quickly find that nothing approaching Marxism has been tried.
No it hasn't. If you read Karl Marx, then look at the communist powers, you quickly find that nothing approaching Marxism has been tried.
I have read Karl Marx many times.
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." --Karl Marx
Sounds to me that has been tried before.
"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." --Karl Marx
Sounds to me that has been tried before.
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
He also said, "Breakfast is cold, get me a beer." Or maybe not.
If you have read Marx, you know damned well that his theories were very complex and depended on the people deciding to take things into their own hands because corporations had developed monopolies or virtual monopolies and corrupted government.
The basis of his theory was that communism could not be forced from the top down, but must come from the bottom up. That does not describe any of the systems we've seen so far.
He also said, "Breakfast is cold, get me a beer." Or maybe not.
If you have read Marx, you know damned well that his theories were very complex and depended on the people deciding to take things into their own hands because corporations had developed monopolies or virtual monopolies and corrupted government.
The basis of his theory was that communism could not be forced from the top down, but must come from the bottom up. That does not describe any of the systems we've seen so far.
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
October 1917 did not lead to government pushed by the people though. It was a revolution that was failed by its leaders and there are few, if any, indications that those those leaders ever intended to develop a fully Marxist society.
October 1917 did not lead to government pushed by the people though. It was a revolution that was failed by its leaders and there are few, if any, indications that those those leaders ever intended to develop a fully Marxist society.
Here's an article you may find interesting:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/hisfram1.htm
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/hisfram1.htm
Indeed, those who see potential in something and want to further pursue it, and those who think that something is flawed despite the fact it has never been tested.
Yes you have already mentioned the 30 or 31 canadian soldiers that went to Iraq. But you still fail to address what walrus said. It appears walrus was one of those soldiers. I am going to re-post his post here, and I would like it if you would address what he has written. I think its important that we understand. So after reading it, I would appreciate your comments.
Walrus posted this:
As one of the people who is complicit in the allegations made in the article about Canada's attack on iraq, I feel compelled to respond.
The article is full of deliberate distortions made in order to amplify Canada's participation and deceive the public.
I'll deal with the allegations that directly involve me.
First, Canadian ships that were in the Gulf were there as participants in the Maritime Interdiction Force, enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq (which were still in force) and interdicting the possible movement of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives from Pakistan to Oman (under another UN resolution) - not escorting American forces in their attack on Iraq. At least one Canadian vessel has been part of this force since 1990.
The Canadian personnel manning the AWACS were monitoring air traffic over the Gulf in support of the MIF as part of the UN resolutions against Iraq - again we have been participating since 1990.
Canadian officers in Doha were there in support of the MIF not the American invasion and had no direct contact with the invasion forces.
American planes overflying Canada have been doing so since the Second World War and continue to do so as part of our NATO obligations.
Canadian troops going to Afghanistan did so as part of our commitment to the UN - long before the Americans decided to invade Iraq - what the Americans decide to do with their troops that leave there is their concern, not ours.
The Canadian troops who were serving on exchange programs were doing so as part of an ongoing program and is our only direct involvement in the attack.
-----
Canada's most questionable involvement relates to the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives by JTF2 in Afghanistan and the seizure of suspected Taliban or Al-Qaeda operatives by HMCS Algonquin: All of these people were turned over to American authorities and there is no record that I know of of their fates.
----
As far as the rest of the article goes, after reading the distortions with regard to the events I have personal contact in I have no doubt that the author is using the same techniques to distort the other allegations that he makes - all in order to promote his anti-war message.
Walrus posted this:
As one of the people who is complicit in the allegations made in the article about Canada's attack on iraq, I feel compelled to respond.
The article is full of deliberate distortions made in order to amplify Canada's participation and deceive the public.
I'll deal with the allegations that directly involve me.
First, Canadian ships that were in the Gulf were there as participants in the Maritime Interdiction Force, enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq (which were still in force) and interdicting the possible movement of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives from Pakistan to Oman (under another UN resolution) - not escorting American forces in their attack on Iraq. At least one Canadian vessel has been part of this force since 1990.
The Canadian personnel manning the AWACS were monitoring air traffic over the Gulf in support of the MIF as part of the UN resolutions against Iraq - again we have been participating since 1990.
Canadian officers in Doha were there in support of the MIF not the American invasion and had no direct contact with the invasion forces.
American planes overflying Canada have been doing so since the Second World War and continue to do so as part of our NATO obligations.
Canadian troops going to Afghanistan did so as part of our commitment to the UN - long before the Americans decided to invade Iraq - what the Americans decide to do with their troops that leave there is their concern, not ours.
The Canadian troops who were serving on exchange programs were doing so as part of an ongoing program and is our only direct involvement in the attack.
-----
Canada's most questionable involvement relates to the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives by JTF2 in Afghanistan and the seizure of suspected Taliban or Al-Qaeda operatives by HMCS Algonquin: All of these people were turned over to American authorities and there is no record that I know of of their fates.
----
As far as the rest of the article goes, after reading the distortions with regard to the events I have personal contact in I have no doubt that the author is using the same techniques to distort the other allegations that he makes - all in order to promote his anti-war message.
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
No. Capitalism has been tried to as full a definition as is possible under both democratic and authoritarian systems.
You are once again trying to confuse political and economic systems though.
No. Capitalism has been tried to as full a definition as is possible under both democratic and authoritarian systems.
You are once again trying to confuse political and economic systems though.
Re: RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
Is there a memo that goes out to some of you on how to spin comments? I'm just curious. I think I already said Marxism is political and Socialism is economical. Can we talk about any of these without making reference to capitalism?
Where has capitalism been tried? The US?
Derry McKinney said:
Is there a memo that goes out to some of you on how to spin comments? I'm just curious. I think I already said Marxism is political and Socialism is economical. Can we talk about any of these without making reference to capitalism?
Where has capitalism been tried? The US?
RE: Hopelessly Enslaved b
Then you went back and tried to compare capitalism to Marxism anyway.
The US, yes...but also in many smaller countries where the US, IMF, and World Bank forced open capitalism onto them. Those are places like Argentina. It's happened in Africa and South America and people have died from it. We've seen where those policies lead.
Then you went back and tried to compare capitalism to Marxism anyway.
The US, yes...but also in many smaller countries where the US, IMF, and World Bank forced open capitalism onto them. Those are places like Argentina. It's happened in Africa and South America and people have died from it. We've seen where those policies lead.