World leaders behaving like children [Archive]

Spino

11-15-2005, 18:26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

So you think proclaimed that the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americas) should be closed to future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs?

Winnar!!! ~:handball:

Once again you failed to look before linking. If you're going post a link you might want to double check to make sure that link doesn't weaken your argument. Wiki's page on the Monroe Doctrine mentions the Roosevelt Corollary, a hefty addition to the doctrine which grants a virtual license to police the Americas (albeit later reversed in the 1930s much to the chagrin of its supporters).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary

"Announcement of the new "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine

As a result, he added a new "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine. In his address to Congress on December 6, 1904, he claimed that the United States had the right not only to oppose European intervention in the Western Hemisphere but to intervene itself in the domestic affairs of its neighbors if those neighbors proved unable to protect U.S. investments in the region on their own. Roosevelt issued his corollary: "Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation," he announced in his annual message to Congress in December 1904, "and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power." Roosevelt tied his policy to the Monroe Doctrine to win public acceptance.

Wardo

11-15-2005, 18:27

Like two Venezuelan Journalists said:

"Chavez is the perfect example of the Latin American Idiot."

Proletariat

11-15-2005, 18:37

What a pair of imbeciles. I don't blame Fox for yanking his guys, but acting as if it's some slight towards all of Mexico is a bit much. Now he's compounded Chavez's stupidity with his own.

Latin American politicians always make me feel happier with what we've got up here.

Geoffrey S

11-15-2005, 18:48

They're almost like forumgoers. ~;p

yesdachi

11-15-2005, 19:57

They're almost like forumgoers. ~;p
No their not.

Yes they are.

No their not.

Yes they are.

No their not.

Yes they are.
~D

Adrian II

11-15-2005, 20:01

No French-bashing today? :mellow:

Redleg

11-15-2005, 20:15

Maybe I could say something about this. The vision of the americans in general here is falling by the minute, but the problem is not this, the problem is that the president of Mexico, mr. Fox, didn't know his place

Actually Mr Fox is very well aware of his place. The economy of his country is dependent upon the United States, in many ways - tourism, manafacturing, and low and behold the money sent by citizens of Mexico working in the United States back to Mexico.

Mr. Fox is very awar of what NAFTA does for Mexico - probably more so the Mr. Chavez.

and started to babble a lot of crap against the anti-(how do you call it?)"summit"? Saying things that were selfevident false, like: "...the ALCA will bring prosperity to Latin America", or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he is just like Chavez said.

Maybe you should stop believing the progaganda put out by the Chavez government and take a good look at Mexico and other Latin American countries and how they have benefited from NAFTA.

But then it requires a minimum belief in the capitialistic economic system .

To say NAFTA doesn't work for the benefit of Latin America is to ignore all the criticism from the United States about how NAFTA is stealing jobs from the United States and outsourcing them to Mexico and other countries that are in the agreement.

He also believed he had the power to give orders to the president of my country (Kirchner). The fight begun there and from then on mr. Fox has being Babbling incoherences in the edge of lost political support. The "pet" president of Uruguay has also taken a similar possition.

Now about the article, yes very funny, I wonder if anyone of the americans have seen the anti-summit, I assure you that your jaw will drop with that (though I'm more inclined to that line of thought).~:joker:. Aside from the every persistent narrow version of the so called democracy defended by US.

Please Mr. Fox explain how this is an insult to the mexicans?~:rolleyes:

One can really never truely understand Latin American Politics - even those who live in the middle of it - can't often see the picture that they paint themselves into.

Redleg

11-16-2005, 01:22

I say we do with away with NAFTA, personally.

:duel:

Not at all - it needs some work - but like the European Union - a viable trade union must be established in the America's if we are to compete on the world market.

Soulforged

11-16-2005, 01:35

Actually Mr Fox is very well aware of his place. The economy of his country is dependent upon the United States, in many ways - tourism, manafacturing, and low and behold the money sent by citizens of Mexico working in the United States back to Mexico.

Mr. Fox is very awar of what NAFTA does for Mexico - probably more so the Mr. Chavez.Who's talking of NAFTA? I'm talking of the ALCA...Even so you misunderstood me, I was saying that because Mr. Fox speaked to the south like he had the authotity to do so.

Maybe you should stop believing the progaganda put out by the Chavez government and take a good look at Mexico and other Latin American countries and how they have benefited from NAFTA.No Red, I've studied a little economy, and I don't say does things because I eat propaganda, I say it because neoliberalism is a strong weapon to destroy competition, I could expand this a little if you want me to do it...

But then it requires a minimum belief in the capitialistic economic system .I believe in it. I believe that it's one of the worst opression system ever. But neoliberalism has it's own particular characteristics that are bad for poor developed countries, countries in development.

To say NAFTA doesn't work for the benefit of Latin America is to ignore all the criticism from the United States about how NAFTA is stealing jobs from the United States and outsourcing them to Mexico and other countries that are in the agreement.In fact you're wrong. First because I was talking about ALCA. Second because one thing does not leads to the other. But again I could explain it basically, if you want.

One can really never truely understand Latin American Politics - even those who live in the middle of it - can't often see the picture that they paint themselves into.
Of course not Red, of course not...Should I say why it's that way? Or perhaps I should say the same about anyone habiting any ecosystem?

Redleg

11-16-2005, 02:51

Who's talking of NAFTA? I'm talking of the ALCA...Even so you misunderstood me, I was saying that because Mr. Fox speaked to the south like he had the authotity to do so.
NAFTA is the precursor to FTAA or ALCA depending on which initials one wishes to use.

No Red, I've studied a little economy, and I don't say does things because I eat propaganda, I say it because neoliberalism is a strong weapon to destroy competition, I could expand this a little if you want me to do it...

Nope - I know what it is.

I believe in it. I believe that it's one of the worst opression system ever. But neoliberalism has it's own particular characteristics that are bad for poor developed countries, countries in development.

Capitalism is the path to the greatest growth in all real terms.

In fact you're wrong. First because I was talking about ALCA. Second because one thing does not leads to the other. But again I could explain it basically, if you want.

No need as stated above NAFTA is related to FTAA. The fact that NAFTA has led to some improvement of the Mexican economy is what make the possiblity of the FTAA or ALCA important to the economies of the America's to include the United States.. But go ahead prove me wrong if you can.

Of course not Red, of course not...Should I say why it's that way? Or perhaps I should say the same about anyone habiting any ecosystem?

Take the statement for what it is - a blinding fact of the obvious.

Wardo

11-16-2005, 05:50

What is interesting is that recently Chavez may have commited a big mistake that might make possible for ALCA to become a reality a little bit sooner.

Venezuela has signed an agreement with the Mercosul which is another block in the continent, the problem is that Venezuela is already a member of another block and a country cannot be a member of two blocks if each of them have different policies and tariffs, Chavez was lured with the idea that a strong Mercosul is important to oppose ALCA, but the fact is that if Chavez adopts the Mercosul policies and tariffs it will effectively break the other block, and since those countries are already more aligned with the USA it is possible they will sign bi-lateral trade agreements with the US instead and kiss the Mercosul good-bye.

So, you already have alot of countries with bi-lateral trade agreements with the US (which is bad for everybody else when compared to a trade block) which are favourable to the ALCA, and a bogged Mercosul which doesn't work and who's only salvation may be to merge with a greater ALCA, so all you need is a regime change in this and that country.

Globalization cannot be halted by a group of buffoons. ~:grouphug:

Soulforged

11-16-2005, 06:05

NAFTA is the precursor to FTAA or ALCA depending on which initials one wishes to use.
But it's not ALCA, is it?

Nope - I know what it is.Oh I know that you know what it's, why is that you always believe that I'm trying to teach you something, in fact I'm sure you've a lot more to teach me. But I was talking about the effects of neoliberalism in poor developed countries like mine, I could explain to you what it will cause.

Capitalism is the path to the greatest growth in all real terms.Wrong, unless you consider the society as a union of parts, wich will lead to the incorrect conclusion of individual growth = social growth. I can see that you clearly notice some of the problems of communism, but when you speak of capitalism it appears that your faith in it, overtakes your senses, maybe I'm wrong. This is for further discussion, but the growth, socially considered, is in capitalism, nothing more than a fiction.
Also you're reducing justice to patrimonial growth.

No need as stated above NAFTA is related to FTAA. The fact that NAFTA has led to some improvement of the Mexican economy is what make the possiblity of the FTAA or ALCA important to the economies of the America's to include the United States.. But go ahead prove me wrong if you can.If you're being empirist, then just look at South America for example, look what neoliberalism does. It's like opening the cage to a lion, a cage full of rabbits. I'll try to put it short, not recurring to links or quotes. When neoliberalism was finally instaurated here, begining with the military government from 1976 and on, with the support of USA of course, it caused terrible pain here. We have until that moment a closed economy, we only exported and imported certain things, things that were allowed by pacts made with other nations, with England for example (wich has his own history). The industries here (that's heavy industries), the ones that clearly leaded to the improvement of economy, were never developed fully, in fact we only had a single firm of automovilistic industry (Torino), wich didn't last long. The real history behind is that the landowners here always have had the real power, they didn't let the government in turn to take policies more allied with industrial development, the most important was the government of Peron (1943-1955 and 1973-1976), wich was first overthrowed by an alliance in wich the Church and the landowner class was involved, with their own interests. In 1976, again the same happened a goverment overthrowned, by another allience, and again the Church, the "terratenientes" (landowners) and part of the military. The last took control. They begun with a policy to enrich themselves. They made a pact, we allow total opening to the multinationals to come here and do their work, and you pay us, refering to the other classes. Not to talk about the justice system, wich was of course totalitarian. The multinationals, mainly american, took over. The little and grand industry here, were not able to compite so they were destroyed or bhought. The products of the multinationals were of best quality and cheaper too. The problem presented in various fronts: our economy was paralized in the old model of primary production, the secondary and terciary production were, in the best cases, ignored. The inflation arose unstopable, wich leaded to the state making private debts public (I don't have to tell what that means do I?). The impository charges lowered on the "Aduana" (the frontiers) for imported products, wich meant an instantaneous increase on the taxes that affect all the population, the IVA here and others(Impuesto al valor agregado, "Agregated value tax"). The state also started to sell public titles to international banks, mainly to reduce debts with companies and private debts of the same state, also to increase the money in hands of the population, that way increasing effective demand (the demand that concrets on buying something), this made the state dangerously weak. There were other consecuences that are not essencial to the subject, also I think you can get the picture. Luckyly this state was not so stupid to concede all the demands that the companies made. But to paint it more clearly, one of the Ministers of Economy in this period was a member of one of the most important companies here, the impartiality was evident. But wait the history is not over yet, in fact it's getting better. After the "facto" government was over, there came little Alfonsín, wich intended to do the stupidest thing of all, privatization, in a country where the state was so weak that even today must accept demands of particulars, in a country that was beated over and over by competition. He fell to the eternal "apriete" (pressure) that existed here. In his place came Menem. Well he ended with this chain of events. He implanted privatization, wich leaded to a great public debt, that all argentinians have to pay until today, it didn't even increased the funcionality of the ex-public companies (water supply, electric, etc). But that's not all. Being the multinationals able to prey over a weakened government, they asked for absurd demands, that shouldn't be accept in a serious country, the sad thing is that this country isn't serious, if you want to call it country. I'll not list all the demands that they made and the state accepted but, they showed a noticeable impartiality. Of course the companies made this demands to "assure" and Rule of the Law, as they saw it, jeopardazing forever the other social classes. They even achieved to not pay taxes and to invert all their profits in the international, not here, so this was a capital fleeing. This leaded to the poor economical, social and political situation that we live today. It wasn't only corruption, the country wasn't preapered to this kind of compromises. Guess what the situation has not changed. And through the rest of South America a similar situation...
Now if Mr. Bush is ready to accept an equal treatment, no partialities, and accept too, that we must develop an industry wich can compite, then I've no problems to accept the ALCA, but right now it's impossible without jeopardizing our condition even more.
Of course there's the cultural even nationalistic problem here wich will not allow any american ideology to enter. I assure you that I form no part in it...

Take the statement for what it is - a blinding fact of the obvious.Sorry Red, but I think you're blind. The explanations of the south american politics are different just based on circumstances, is to long too explain it to you, and I'm not the best to do it, but believe me it has an explanation. On the subject of the ALCA, well read my explanation, is not the best, but is the best I can give you. It's a granted fact that social science is almost impossible made on camp investigation located in the same system that you want to study, but believe what you want. If you want to convince me of the wonders of neoliberalism, then go ahead, I can be convinced.
You can see some political phylosophy of my history, and South America in general in the Moreno's quote in my signature, the sentence is a general summary of our fate.

Redleg

11-16-2005, 06:24

But it's not ALCA, is it?

That is why its called a precursor.

Oh I know that you know what it's, why is that you always believe that I'm trying to teach you something, in fact I'm sure you've a lot more to teach me. But I was talking about the effects of neoliberalism in poor developed countries like mine, I could explain to you what it will cause.

Fine

Wrong, unless you consider the society as a union of parts, wich will lead to the incorrect conclusion of individual growth = social growth. I can see that you clearly notice some of the problems of communism, but when you speak of capitalism it appears that your faith in it, overtakes your senses, maybe I'm wrong. This is for further discussion, but the growth, socially considered, is in capitalism, nothing more than a fiction.

Your opinion - the growth of capitalism has increased every aspect of human life - be it comforts that you enjoy in your home, your automobile, and even the internet. So to call me wrong on this statement is a failure to consider the development of the world's economic system.

Also you're reducing justice to patrimonial growth.

Not at all

If you're being empirist, then just look at South America for example, look what neoliberalism does. It's like opening the cage to a lion, a cage full of rabbits. I'll try to put it short, not recurring to links or quotes. When neoliberalism was finally instaurated here, begining with the military government from 1976 and on, with the support of USA of course, it caused terrible pain here. We have until that moment a closed economy, we only exported and imported certain things, things that were allowed by pacts made with other nations, with England for example (wich has his own history). The industries here (that's heavy industries), the ones that clearly leaded to the improvement of economy, were never developed fully, in fact we only had a single firm of automovilistic industry (Torino), wich didn't last long. The real history behind is that the landowners here always have had the real power, they didn't let the government in turn to take policies more allied with industrial development, the most important was the government of Peron (1943-1955 and 1973-1976), wich was first overthrowed by an alliance in wich the Church and the landowner class was involved, with their own interests. In 1976, again the same happened a goverment overthrowned, by another allience, and again the Church, the "terratenientes" (landowners) and part of the military. The last took control. They begun with a policy to enrich themselves. They made a pact, we allow total opening to the multinationals to come here and do their work, and you pay us, refering to the other classes. Not to talk about the justice system, wich was of course totalitarian. The multinationals, mainly american, took over. The little and grand industry here, were not able to compite so they were destroyed or bhought. The products of the multinationals were of best quality and cheaper too. The problem presented in various fronts: our economy was paralized in the old model of primary production, the secondary and terciary production were, in the best cases, ignored. The inflation arose unstopable, wich leaded to the state making private debts public (I don't have to tell what that means do I?). The impository charges lowered on the "Aduana" (the frontiers) for imported products, wich meant an instantaneous increase on the taxes that affect all the population, the IVA here and others(Impuesto al valor agregado, "Agregated value tax"). The state also started to sell public titles to international banks, mainly to reduce debts with companies and private debts of the same state, also to increase the money in hands of the population, that way increasing effective demand (the demand that concrets on buying something), this made the state dangerously weak. There were other consecuences that are not essencial to the subject, also I think you can get the picture. Luckyly this state was not so stupid to concede all the demands that the companies made. But to paint it more clearly, one of the Ministers of Economy in this period was a member of one of the most important companies here, the impartiality was evident. But wait the history is not over yet, in fact it's getting better. After the "facto" government was over, there came little Alfonsín, wich intended to do the stupidest thing of all, privatization, in a country where the state was so weak that even today must accept demands of particulars, in a country that was beated over and over by competition. He fell to the eternal "apriete" (pressure) that existed here. In his place came Menem. Well he ended with this chain of events. He implanted privatization, wich leaded to a great public debt, that all argentinians have to pay until today, it didn't even increased the funcionality of the ex-public companies (water supply, electric, etc). But that's not all. Being the multinationals able to prey over a weakened government, they asked for absurd demands, that shouldn't be accept in a serious country, the sad thing is that this country isn't serious, if you want to call it country. I'll not list all the demands that they made and the state accepted but, they showed a noticeable impartiality. Of course the companies made this demands to "assure" and Rule of the Law, as they saw it, jeopardazing forever the other social classes. They even achieved to not pay taxes and to invert all their profits in the international, not here, so this was a capital fleeing. This leaded to the poor economical, social and political situation that we live today. It wasn't only corruption, the country wasn't preapered to this kind of compromises. Guess what the situation has not changed. And through the rest of South America a similar situation...
Now if Mr. Bush is ready to accept an equal treatment, no impartialities, and accept too, that we must develop an industry wich can compite, then I've no problems to accept the ALCA, but right now it's impossible without jeopardizing our condition even more.
Of course there's the cultural even nationalistic problem here wich will not allow any american ideology to enter. I assure you that I form no part in it...

Very long will take some time to digest - maybe tomorrow after some sleep.

Sorry Red, but I think you're blind. The explanations of the south american politics are different just based on circunstances, is to long to explain it to you, and I'm not the best to do it, but believe me it has an explanation. On the subject of the ALCA, well read my explanation, is not the best, but is the best I can give you. It's a granted fact that social science is almost impossible made on camp investigation located in the same system that you want to study, but believe what you want. If you want to convince me of the wonders of neoliberalism, then go ahead, I can be convinced.
You can see some political phylosophy of my history, and South America in general in the Moreno's quote in my signature, the sentence is a general summary of our fate.

Again read the statement for what it is.

One can really never truely understand Latin American Politics - even those who live in the middle of it - can't often see the picture that they paint themselves into.

A blinding statement of the obvious.

Soulforged

11-16-2005, 07:09

Your opinion - the growth of capitalism has increased every aspect of human life - be it comforts that you enjoy in your home, your automobile, and even the internet. So to call me wrong on this statement is a failure to consider the development of the world's economic system.Wrong again. This is all considering the society as a sum of it's parts. The economical growth takes place in the individual, who protected by the law can deny a major part of this growth to the rest of society. Capitalism is based on individual accumulation of capital, but of course the capital is based on fictions, that appear to the irreflexive mind, like unlimited sources. The fact is that a big part of society is growing when the others, the "unadapted" are falling. Even if they all grow, the social possitions ramain the same.

Not at all Then you don't believe that your previous statement is a just end? Fine by me, I believe the same... :shrug:

Again read the statement for what it is.
One can really never truely understand Latin American Politics - even those who live in the middle of it - can't often see the picture that they paint themselves into.
A blinding statement of the obvious.But again Red I can see the picture, no clearly, because nobody cans with out a scientifical method, but I can see it, and I've posted it.

Redleg

11-16-2005, 08:56

Wrong again. This is all considering the society as a sum of it's parts. The economical growth takes place in the individual, who protected by the law can deny a major part of this growth to the rest of society. Capitalism is based on individual accumulation of capital, but of course the capital is based on fictions, that appear to the irreflexive mind, like unlimited sources. The fact is that a big part of society is growing when the others, the "unadapted" are falling. Even if they all grow, the social possitions ramain the same.

It is you who is incorrect not I. Your attempting to place Capitalism into a catergory that I have not alluded - I view Capitalism for what it is - an economic system.

You have not shown where Capitalism is not this -

Capitalism is the path to the greatest growth in all real terms.

You have only shown your opinion on Capitalism - that is not one and the same.

Then you don't believe that your previous statement is a just end? Fine by me, I believe the same... :shrug:

I believe the above statement is a truism. Capitalism again provides the path to the greatest growth in all real terms. It also has the greatest potential in insuring the economic growth of the nation and the society.

But again Red I can see the picture, no clearly, because nobody cans with out a scientifical method, but I can see it, and I've posted it.

Science only explains so much - to much dependency on science is just as bad as to much dependency on Philisophy - one must have a mix of both to each proper conclusions.

Wardo

11-16-2005, 21:24

A classic was mentioned here, Goebbels must be near, the USA interventionism.

The Dictators use it to wash their hands, the Americans made we do it, we only made it because we had the aid of the Americans, blame them.

The Communists use it to wash their hands, we are fighting against Americans, we are doing this for our country against the Americans, blame them.

There you go, everyone's clean, nothing like blaming your problems on the good ol' USA, it has allowed more people to justify their actions than any other country in the world. ~:cool:

Soulforged

11-17-2005, 05:52

It is you who is incorrect not I. Your attempting to place Capitalism into a catergory that I have not alluded - I view Capitalism for what it is - an economic system.I too, but every economic system has an agregated faction, to the so called society, if you want to see everything in abstract you can even justify murder.

Capitalism is the path to the greatest growth in all real terms.I wonder what do you mean by growth again? Is it stature growth, population growth...If it's patrimonial growth then, ok, but it only represents the capital growth of the individual not of society as a whole. In a capitalist system classes are maiteined by law, this justifies the no-contribution of some part of society, while forcing the other part to be exploited. I wonder what you call real too? If it's patrimony then you're wrong. As the concept of money, of mercancy, the patrimony is another fiction, part of the "fetichism".

I believe the above statement is a truism. Capitalism again provides the path to the greatest growth in all real terms. It also has the greatest potential in insuring the economic growth of the nation and the society.Should I repeat it again. Nation is a fictionary term while there exits an state, but about society...Do you really eat that? Society is more than a sum of parts. If you've some part with the %75 of the total product of the entire country, you can't call it society, and of course you can't call it just, when this part relies on social positions and fictions to mantain higher ground. Society is only society and the human is only human when every human treats the other like an human, not like a proletariat and a capitalist, a cop and a criminal. So no, it represents the increment of Brute Internal Product, I agree, does this means that the whole society gets the benefits of capitalism, no. But again even if all the people are living lives that they consider to be enjoyable in USA, symbol of capitalism, even then the social classes remain, the strong prey on the weak, the owner class prey on the worker class. Capitalism needs that to mantain itself. But let's not turn this into a capitalism versus communism (or anarchism) discussion, I've presented my points regarding your request.

Science only explains so much - to much dependency on science is just as bad as to much dependency on Philisophy - one must have a mix of both to each proper conclusions.You mean phylosophy on the latin american policies or politics...Oh well then there's lots of books about that. But as I said the quote of Mariano Moreno in my signature pretty much sums it up, you'll need to live here to fully understand what I mean.

There you go, everyone's clean, nothing like blaming your problems on the good ol' USA, it has allowed more people to justify their actions than any other country in the world.And how about an impartial possition? You should notice Wardo that the dictatorship in my country and yours was in the middle of the Cold War. Mais e sua opinion meu amigo, fais o que voce quer con iso.~:cheers:

Redleg

11-17-2005, 06:23

I too, but every economic system has an agregated faction, to the so called society, if you want to see everything in abstract you can even justify murder.

I am not speaking in abstract

I wonder what do you mean by growth again? Is it stature growth, population growth...If it's patrimonial growth then, ok, but it only represents the capital growth of the individual not of society as a whole. In a capitalist system classes are maiteined by law, this justifies the no-contribution of some part of society, while forcing the other part to be exploited. I wonder what you call real too? If it's patrimony then you're wrong. As the concept of money, of mercancy, the patrimony is another fiction, part of the "fetichism".

You are incorrect - in capitialism classes are not maintained by law - everyone has the exact same potential regardless of where they are born.

Should I repeat it again. Nation is a fictionary term while there exits an state, but about society...Do you really eat that? Society is more than a sum of parts. If you've some part with the %75 of the total product of the entire country, you can't call it society, and of course you can't call it just, when this part relies on social positions and fictions to mantain higher ground. Society is only society and the human is only human when every human treats the other like an human, not like a proletariat and a capitalist, a cop and a criminal. So no, it represents the increment of Brute Internal Product, I agree, does this means that the whole society gets the benefits of capitalism, no. But again even if all the people are living lives that they consider to be enjoyable in USA, symbol of capitalism, even then the social classes remain, the strong prey on the weak, the owner class prey on the worker class. Capitalism needs that to mantain itself. But let's not turn this into a capitalism versus communism (or anarchism) discussion, I've presented my points regarding your request.

And again Nations are not a fictionary term - you live in a nation - I live in a nation. Both have their own laws and customs of the society. Captialism offers both nations true economic growth. When one argues that nations are a fictionary term - well there is no point discussing the issue farther. IT smacks of rethoric and rethoric only.

You mean phylosophy on the latin american policies or politics...Oh well then there's lots of books about that. But as I said the quote of Mariano Moreno in my signature pretty much sums it up, you'll need to live here to fully understand what I mean.

No I mean exactly what I stated.

Wardo

11-17-2005, 08:53

And how about an impartial possition? You should notice Wardo that the dictatorship in my country and yours was in the middle of the Cold War. Mais e sua opinion meu amigo, fais o que voce quer con iso.~:cheers:

What's parcial about my opinion?~:confused:

Did I missed anyone?

Soulforged

11-18-2005, 07:51

You are incorrect - in capitialism classes are not maintained by law - everyone has the exact same potential regardless of where they are born.You've come to the worst of fiction created by burgoise law. There's no real change for everybody, there's real chances for someones and no change for others.

And again Nations are not a fictionary term - you live in a nation - I live in a nation. Both have their own laws and customs of the society. Captialism offers both nations true economic growth. When one argues that nations are a fictionary term - well there is no point discussing the issue farther. IT smacks of rethoric and rethoric only.Nation is fictionary because it tries to hide reality from what it's. You live in Texas right? Well then surely you don't have the same customs, or even the same social uses, than a man who lives in New York. And notice that I'm using your country as an example, where outrageous examples of separation (that's ideal separation) of the people are hard to find. If I use my country as an example it will be even worst. The truth is that the state keeps the struggle between classes, thus separating culture and forcing fictiounary nation upon us.
About capitalism, OK...I'll not argue this again...

No I mean exactly what I stated.WOW Slow down, did you think it was an attack? It was a question...Jesus...~;)

What's parcial about my opinion? You tend to defend too much the USA, you even came up here when the referemdum came up negative saying exactly this: "Don't worry people of USA (or americans don't remember) the bolivarian republic..." as if you owned something to USA. You clearly were impartial then. But no in this case I was talking about my possition...Could it be that I was impartial? Or did I blame everything on USA, wich will not be hard because it's one of the worst cases of interventionism that I've seen (not only for the kind of interventionism, that in times past was limited to internal affairs, but also because of the quantity). I really don't know what your possition is, but about that old statement, it speeks by itself, of it of course, not of you.

Redleg

11-18-2005, 09:19

You've come to the worst of fiction created by burgoise law. There's no real change for everybody, there's real chances for someones and no change for others.

Again you would be incorrect - plently exambles of poor individuals with drive making it to the top. Bill Gates anyone. Plenty of examble to go around - for examble my Great-Grandfather was one of three children of a woman abandoned by his father in 1890 during the Gold Rush to Alaska. Needless to say they were dirt poor - he happened to make his own way into the a postion that he was comfortable finicially - even to the point that during the depression he was making a decent living.

You have fallen for the leftist - communist propaganda - the terms you have used demonstrate it very well

Nation is fictionary because it tries to hide reality from what it's. You live in Texas right? Well then surely you don't have the same customs, or even the same social uses, than a man who lives in New York.

Tsk Tsk - bad comparison - I have lived in 8 different states in the United States. Don't go off the narrow defination of where I am located now.

And notice that I'm using your country as an example, where outrageous examples of separation (that's ideal separation) of the people are hard to find. If I use my country as an example it will be even worst. The truth is that the state keeps the struggle between classes, thus separating culture and forcing fictiounary nation upon us.

Again wrong - your attempting to sell me on a political philisophy that has not worked.

About capitalism, OK...I'll not argue this again...

And your still incorrect

WOW Slow down, did you think it was an attack? It was a question...Jesus...~;)

And the answer to the question still remains the same - No I mean exactly what I stated. And you assumed where there was no basis for assumption

Wardo

11-18-2005, 12:08

You tend to defend too much the USA, you even came up here when the referemdum came up negative saying exactly this: "Don't worry people of USA (or americans don't remember) the bolivarian republic..." as if you owned something to USA. You clearly were impartial then. But no in this case I was talking about my possition...Could it be that I was impartial? Or did I blame everything on USA, wich will not be hard because it's one of the worst cases of interventionism that I've seen (not only for the kind of interventionism, that in times past was limited to internal affairs, but also because of the quantity). I really don't know what your possition is, but about that old statement, it speeks by itself, of it of course, not of you.

What, you can read minds now? ~:joker:

Yeah I came here because the press is too slow! Well, not that the press has much space for Latin America or that anyone should bother reading about it, but anybody who follows the PowerPuff Girls Castro-Chavez-Lula (without the super-powers~;p ) would like to know they don't have the power to force stuff down the throat of at least one of the three countries (I guess in the future it will be Castro-Chavez-Kirchner?).

Well, I owe to the USA the possibility to blame any problems on them, but I don't, what I can seriously thank them for, however, is for George W. Bush, because of his financial deficit in the US, ALOT of investments came land down here, now you never thought I could find at least one good thing about that guy did you. ~D

But I'm only talking about putting all the guilt on the USA leaving all Argentinians without any share of it, that would be like forgiving Galtieri or ignoring his doings because he suffered from British Imperialism, you get my point? I'm not saying anything against your opinion, just that it can't be used as an excuse, and I'm not saying you are using it as an excuse either, it's just a comment.

Soulforged

11-19-2005, 00:54

Again you would be incorrect - plently exambles of poor individuals with drive making it to the top. Bill Gates anyone. Plenty of examble to go around - for examble my Great-Grandfather was one of three children of a woman abandoned by his father in 1890 during the Gold Rush to Alaska. Needless to say they were dirt poor - he happened to make his own way into the a postion that he was comfortable finicially - even to the point that during the depression he was making a decent living.You still don't get it. Certain number of people let's say X, is going to be forever in the "top" (the content of X can change depending on the situation of the country, less financial security more likely), another number let's say Y will be forever on the bottom (again the content can change). All this is mainteined by the state and by the laws. I still don't get why people try so hard to defend a regime that treats people by capital accumulation or social possition. However you're always there to criticize things like communism, wich has it's flaws, but you've to admit that this is surprising.

You have fallen for the leftist - communist propaganda - the terms you have used demonstrate it very wellYou've fallen to the capitalist propaganda...See is easy to say it, much harder to demonstrate that I'm wrong and you're right...

Tsk Tsk - bad comparison - I have lived in 8 different states in the United States. Don't go off the narrow defination of where I am located now.What does this has to do with anything?~:confused:

Again wrong - your attempting to sell me on a political philisophy that has not worked.LOL- You're giving me a big laugh Red. What's not working? The separation of classes, the fiction of the mercancy, the explotation of the worker class (wich in countries like yours could be very well disimulated)? You must be really blind Red. The state has done it work very well I presume?~:joker:

And your still incorrectAre you seriously answering my questions or just posting things around to see my reaction?

Redleg

11-19-2005, 01:28

You still don't get it. Certain number of people let's say X, is going to be forever in the "top" (the content of X can change depending on the situation of the country, less financial security more likely), another number let's say Y will be forever on the bottom (again the content can change). All this is mainteined by the state and by the laws.

Its you who doesn't get it - where is my economic status maintained by the state or the law. That is pure BS.

I still don't get why people try so hard to defend a regime that treats people by capital accumulation or social possition. However you're always there to criticize things like communism, wich has it's flaws, but you've to admit that this is surprising.

Its an economic system - not a political regime. Communism as implemented is both an economic and a political regime. Where laws were indeed made to seperate the classes - even more then what Capitalism has ever done. Again your speaking propaganda and don't recongize it.

You've fallen to the capitalist propaganda...See is easy to say it, much harder to demonstrate that I'm wrong and you're right...

Actually its easy to prove - your posts are full of it. Regime when speaking about Capitalism. Saying that class structure is written into the law - when its not. But nice try.

What does this has to do with anything?~:confused:

Go back and read your statement - you will figure it out

LOL- You're giving me a big laugh Red. What's not working?

Communism and anarchism. Name one system that has demonstrated and survived over time that used either system on the national level. When speaking of communism I mean a communist system that is true communism not the Marxist-Lenin-Stalin bastardization of communism.

The separation of classes, the fiction of the mercancy, the explotation of the worker class (wich in countries like yours could be very well disimulated)? You must be really blind Red. The state has done it work very well I presume?~:joker:

The fiction is in your posts - easy to spot if you seperate yourself from attempting to use the terms straight out of the marxist catalog of failures.

Are you seriously answering my questions or just posting things around to see my reaction?

Your questions are not questions but accusations. You have not made a single valid point - just marxist indoctrination propaganda.

Soulforged

11-19-2005, 20:38

Its you who doesn't get it - where is my economic status maintained by the state or the law. That is pure BS.I don't know...I don't even know you. But you seem to go beyond the model and beyond my statements. The world doesn't revolves around you. The law simply mantains the status quo of opression, should I say more to you.

Its an economic system - not a political regime. Communism as implemented is both an economic and a political regime. Where laws were indeed made to seperate the classes - even more then what Capitalism has ever done. Again your speaking propaganda and don't recongize it.Sorry did I say political in any place? No I said regime, the regime not always has to be political. Communism has been confused with a political regime, because in it many people don't find democracy. You see in that system the freedom is the end not the begining. Laws to separate the classes? WOW What a bold statement? Sorry Red, but that's hard to believe, not in theory of course, because in theory that's false, but care to show me a proof in reality? Capitalism as I said parts from the premise of unlimited growth and resources, wich is false, so a great number of people will always be the producers while the others the ones that enjoy the product. Believe me I never recognize propaganda, even more when there's no proof of it.

Actually its easy to prove - your posts are full of it. Regime when speaking about Capitalism. Saying that class structure is written into the law - when its not. But nice try.Sorry regime=capitalism, you'll not find that in any communist "propaganda", it was totally my invention...LOL- Written into the law :no:. Ok I'll give you an example, by granting private property and defending it with coertion, you're setting the basis for social separation and classism.

Go back and read your statement - you will figure it outThat's your usual answer, no I don't figure it out, please indulge me, if you've time of course...

Communism and anarchism. Name one system that has demonstrated and survived over time that used either system on the national level. When speaking of communism I mean a communist system that is true communism not the Marxist-Lenin-Stalin bastardization of communism.I already gave you one many times "Commune of Paris", I think that Aenlic provided you one too, Barcelona in 1960. Of course they don't survived, but the question is why? It was because the central government didn't accepted the separation, in the first they executed them. Now does this means that they're not gonna work, of course not, you cannot get to conclussions from this statements of yours, they only demonstrate that the state is the beast that has always been, and that the nation is forced and not freed.

The fiction is in your posts - easy to spot if you seperate yourself from attempting to use the terms straight out of the marxist catalog of failures.Ok Red maybe you need to relax a little. They're not easy to spot, and you've missed them over and over.

Your questions are not questions but accusations. You have not made a single valid point - just marxist indoctrination propaganda.Ohhh...I see I'm the one that has not made a single valid point. I've noticed the flaws of Communism, you seem to love capitalism to much and cannot see it's failures. Saying things like capitalism separates less than communism is totally incorrect. But go ahead your head is already made upon this points, you'll not see reason. In any case I want to test you if you allow me...What are the flaws of capitalism? Just answer this question (knowing that nothing is perfect then capitalism has to have some flaws no?)

Redleg

11-20-2005, 17:18

I don't know...I don't even know you. But you seem to go beyond the model and beyond my statements. The world doesn't revolves around you. The law simply mantains the status quo of opression, should I say more to you.

Now now - who stated that the world revolves around me. Tsk Tsk - your arguement has gotten weaker not stronger. Spouting marxist propaganda often does that.

Sorry did I say political in any place? No I said regime, the regime not always has to be political.

You might want to check out the definition of Regime. It implies politics and it is defined as rule, among other things.

Communism has been confused with a political regime, because in it many people don't find democracy.

Not confused at all - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Castro - all made communism based upon Marx politicial.

You see in that system the freedom is the end not the begining.

Then its a worse system then Capitalism - Capitalism starts with everyone have the same equal potential,.

Laws to separate the classes? WOW What a bold statement?

Yep one that you made and now you seem to be backing away from. No such law exists in capitalism. Monarchies which often use capitalism as an economic policy have such laws - but they are not just a capitialistic economic model.

Sorry Red, but that's hard to believe, not in theory of course, because in theory that's false, but care to show me a proof in reality?

The United States has no laws that establish an economic class and protected by the law. Everyone has the same potential to succeed in gaining wealth. There were laws based upon race - which becomes one of the errors of capitalism - but its not one of class.

Capitalism as I said parts from the premise of unlimited growth and resources, wich is false, so a great number of people will always be the producers while the others the ones that enjoy the product.

And your model is false here - producers and consumers is what capitalism is based upon. The error in Capitalism is indeed that it considers resources as an unlimited supply - in some ways it is wrong however in many ways it is correct.

Believe me I never recognize propaganda, even more when there's no proof of it.

Now that is funny since your last couple of posts consist primarily of know Marxist ideological based rethoric.

Sorry regime=capitalism, you'll not find that in any communist "propaganda", it was totally my invention...

And invited by someone you buys into the marxist propaganda. Nice attempt to back peddle the way out of that one.

LOL- Written into the law :no:. Ok I'll give you an example, by granting private property and defending it with coertion, you're setting the basis for social separation and classism.

Incorrect - Private Property is not a law that enforces class structure.

That's your usual answer, no I don't figure it out, please indulge me, if you've time of course...

That because you should be smart enough to figure it out. Certain terms are the basis of the Marxist Ideolog and your posts are laden with it.

I already gave you one many times "Commune of Paris", I think that Aenlic provided you one too, Barcelona in 1960. Of course they don't survived, but the question is why?

Because they did not have popular support.

It was because the central government didn't accepted the separation, in the first they executed them.

Revolutions only succeed when they have popular support - I can name many examples of revolutions succeeding because it had the support of the people. Communism and Anarchism does not have the support of the people and therefore they are doomed to failure. The government can only enforce its rule at the consent of the people.

Now does this means that they're not gonna work, of course not, you cannot get to conclussions from this statements of yours, they only demonstrate that the state is the beast that has always been, and that the nation is forced and not freed.

Your conclussion is incorrect. The nation represents the will of the people - when it interests seperate from the desires of the people - the government begins to decline or is overthrown.

Ok Red maybe you need to relax a little. They're not easy to spot, and you've missed them over and over.

Completely relaxed - and yes marxist indoctination is easy to spot - certain words key a reader into the doctrine.

Ohhh...I see I'm the one that has not made a single valid point.

Nope you have not made one single valid point about Capitalism nor the topic of this thread.

I've noticed the flaws of Communism, you seem to love capitalism to much and cannot see it's failures. Saying things like capitalism separates less than communism is totally incorrect. But go ahead your head is already made upon this points, you'll not see reason. In any case I want to test you if you allow me...What are the flaws of capitalism? Just answer this question (knowing that nothing is perfect then capitalism has to have some flaws no?)

LOL communism as practice seperated the classes worse then capitalism ever did. THe governing elite - and then all the workers below.

Weakness of Capitalism is the same as most. THe primary examble is the tendency toward abuse of resources, be it workers, natural resources or the market.

Soulforged

11-20-2005, 18:35

Now now - who stated that the world revolves around me. Tsk Tsk - your arguement has gotten weaker not stronger. Spouting marxist propaganda often does that.Sorry Red you tried to proove something by telling me that you were in more than one state, so I didn't see the point in that to refute mine. :shrug:

You might want to check out the definition of Regime. It implies politics and it is defined as rule, among other things.Perhaps then in the translation it looses it's meaning.

Not confused at all - Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot, Castro - all made communism based upon Marx politicial.No they didn't all those regimes (did I use it well here?) are and were based on the cult to one person, it's like replacing God for a single person, that alone nulifies the purpose of communism wich is equality.

Then its a worse system then Capitalism - Capitalism starts with everyone have the same equal potential,.No you don't understand what that means. The idealistics systems start for the fiction that everyone is free, thus everyone thinks that there's nothing to fight. The materialist system sees that lie and tries to fight to achieve real freedom, thus freedom is the result, not the begining.

Yep one that you made and now you seem to be backing away from. No such law exists in capitalism. Monarchies which often use capitalism as an economic policy have such laws - but they are not just a capitialistic economic model.It appears that you're getting on your nervs Red. You should read the whole statement, when in fact you were the one stating that there were laws in communism to separate the classes even more, in practice it could be in favor of the government against the people dominated, but in capitalism is another thing.

The United States has no laws that establish an economic class and protected by the law. Everyone has the same potential to succeed in gaining wealth. There were laws based upon race - which becomes one of the errors of capitalism - but its not one of class.Read again Red you might figure it out. You stuck yourself in formalities, when in fact the simple protection of private property in a world with limited resources leads to competence, leads to separation.

And your model is false here - producers and consumers is what capitalism is based upon. The error in Capitalism is indeed that it considers resources as an unlimited supply - in some ways it is wrong however in many ways it is correct.Seriously are you understanding my english? I said that capitalism was based on producers and consumers. We've the exploited worker wich goes to the fabric to produce a bag of candies (of course is not that simple but is just for example). Then we've the officinist (who of course gains a lot more profit) who consumes it. When I said that I was refering to the one who in the line of work occupates the possition of the producer only, against the one who only is a consumer, of course some idealist will say that the officinist also produces, that's totally false.

Now that is funny since your last couple of posts consist primarily of know Marxist ideological based rethoric.And this is even funnier, because you'll never find the "capitalist regime" in the words of Marx or Engels. Try again Red.

And invited by someone you buys into the marxist propaganda. Nice attempt to back peddle the way out of that one.Didn't understand very well what you said, but I think I get this. Are you gonna expend your time trying to say what I did so a answer in the same way...Later you accused me of making accusations, guess who started it.

Incorrect - Private Property is not a law that enforces class structure.You're kidding me right? See the post above.

That because you should be smart enough to figure it out. Certain terms are the basis of the Marxist Ideolog and your posts are laden with it.Some of them are, that's true, however you've mistaken them. Others are from anarchism.

Because they did not have popular support.So you call the central power of a nation "popular support". Nice turn of the concepts.

Revolutions only succeed when they have popular support - I can name many examples of revolutions succeeding because it had the support of the people. Communism and Anarchism does not have the support of the people and therefore they are doomed to failure. The government can only enforce its rule at the consent of the people.Ufff...Ok Red, you seem to be lost. The commune of Paris was totally consensual. Some people gathered together and said lets take advantage of the french revolution. I can bet that the anarchist Barcelona was too.

Your conclussion is incorrect. The nation represents the will of the people - when it interests seperate from the desires of the people - the government begins to decline or is overthrown.The nation...There we go again. What's the "will of the people"? If it's mensurable, I must say you that the government is still standing here, even when they didn't represent the majority of the people for quite sometime, with the exception of Perón perhaps. The government isn't even declining. That's another fiction Red. In reality the state alienates the people by force it sustracts power from it's real owner and uses cohercion to get results.

Completely relaxed - and yes marxist indoctination is easy to spot - certain words key a reader into the doctrine.I already answered this above. However you don't seem to be relaxed, but anyway, it's your problem not mine.

Nope you have not made one single valid point about Capitalism nor the topic of this thread.The topic of this thread was to world leaders behaving like children, what valid point do you want? You started this whole discussion of capitalism good, communism bad, and you're now pointing your fingers at me. I've made a lot of valid points on this second discussion but you keep ignoring them, believing that all of that is marxist doctrine. The funniest thing of all is that you call it doctrine sometimes and sometimes you call it propaganda.

LOL communism as practice seperated the classes worse then capitalism ever did. THe governing elite - and then all the workers below.I know that. I even pointed it above. But the problem is that you said "laws" wich separated.

Weakness of Capitalism is the same as most. THe primary examble is the tendency toward abuse of resources, be it workers, natural resources or the market.How does capitalism abuses of workers? How does it abuses of resources wheter they're natural or not? When you say as most, what are you talking about, facism?

Redleg

11-21-2005, 00:13

Sorry Red you tried to proove something by telling me that you were in more than one state, so I didn't see the point in that to refute mine. :shrug:

Not at all - you made an assumption based upon what my stated location is.

Perhaps then in the translation it looses it's meaning.

Then use the word in spanish that you wish for the concept to me.

No they didn't all those regimes (did I use it well here?) are and were based on the cult to one person, it's like replacing God for a single person, that alone nulifies the purpose of communism wich is equality.

Those regimes followed the logical fallacies of Marx.

No you don't understand what that means. The idealistics systems start for the fiction that everyone is free, thus everyone thinks that there's nothing to fight. The materialist system sees that lie and tries to fight to achieve real freedom, thus freedom is the result, not the begining.

Freedom is the begining and the end in capitalism. So its you who might not understand the meaning.

It appears that you're getting on your nervs Red.

Not at all - have I cussed or insulted you yet?

You should read the whole statement, when in fact you were the one stating that there were laws in communism to separate the classes even more, in practice it could be in favor of the government against the people dominated, but in capitalism is another thing.

Laws in communism do indeed seperate the classes - Marxist doctrine calls for the destruction of several classes in fact. There is no such doctrine or law in a Capitalist economic policy

Read again Red you might figure it out. You stuck yourself in formalities, when in fact the simple protection of private property in a world with limited resources leads to competence, leads to separation.

You are again incorrect - the pocession of property does not equate to laws being made by the government to force the seperation of classes. In fact even communists have private property.

Seriously are you understanding my english? I said that capitalism was based on producers and consumers.

Must have because I wouldn't have stated that if I understood your point.

We've the exploited worker wich goes to the fabric to produce a bag of candies (of course is not that simple but is just for example). In which you get a fair wage under capitalism.

Then we've the officinist (who of course gains a lot more profit) who consumes it. Who pays a fair price based upon the fair wage, the cost of materials, transportation, and all other factors involved in producing a good.

When I said that I was refering to the one who in the line of work occupates the possition of the producer only, against the one who only is a consumer, of course some idealist will say that the officinist also produces, that's totally false.

Worker - is producer - is consumer. Its really a simple equation and is not false. You produce goods of one type - to earn a wage - to consume goods of another type. Very basic capitalism - very simple- and never false.

And this is even funnier, because you'll never find the "capitalist regime" in the words of Marx or Engels. Try again Red.

Tsk Tsk - try again - your comments follow marxist doctrine very well.

Didn't understand very well what you said, but I think I get this. Are you gonna expend your time trying to say what I did so a answer in the same way...Later you accused me of making accusations, guess who started it.

Mr Chavez with his attack on Mr. Fox.

You're kidding me right? See the post above.

Not at all - everyone has the right to own private property. I own property - someone that makes 5,000 dollars has private property - the very idea capitalism it to gain property. It does not however make the government establish laws to develope class structure. If Johnny who makes 15,000 dollars a year has private property - Fred who makes 1,000,0000 also has private property - both can have property based upon their ability to pay. In fact in a capitalistic society Fred can end up changing places with Johnny in a matter of days based upon how they manage their capital.

Some of them are, that's true, however you've mistaken them. Others are from anarchism.

And I am correct -

So you call the central power of a nation "popular support". Nice turn of the concepts.

Thats because you have crossed from Capitalism as an economic model to how governments work. Capitalism is an economic model. Anarchism and Communism are both economic and political models.

Ufff...Ok Red, you seem to be lost.

I am never lost - ~:joker:

The commune of Paris was totally consensual. Some people gathered together and said lets take advantage of the french revolution.

However they did not have the popular support of the people - hence they were forced to disband.

I can bet that the anarchist Barcelona was too.

Same thing - they were a minority of people surrounded by the majority.

The nation...There we go again. What's the "will of the people"? If it's mensurable, I must say you that the government is still standing here, even when they didn't represent the majority of the people for quite sometime, with the exception of Perón perhaps. The government isn't even declining. That's another fiction Red. In reality the state alienates the people by force it sustracts power from it's real owner and uses cohercion to get results.
I already answered this above. However you don't seem to be relaxed, but anyway, it's your problem not mine.

Not fiction at all - care to guess how many revolutions have happen because the popular will of the people desired the overthrow of the government.

The topic of this thread was to world leaders behaving like children, what valid point do you want?

That Mr. Chavez violated common sense when he called Mr. Fox a lap dog of the United States.

You started this whole discussion of capitalism good, communism bad, and you're now pointing your fingers at me. Actually I didn't. Care to check out your first post.

Maybe I could say something about this. The vision of the americans in general here is falling by the minute, but the problem is not this, the problem is that the president of Mexico, mr. Fox, didn't know his place and started to babble a lot of crap against the anti-(how do you call it?)"summit"? Saying things that were selfevident false, like: "...the ALCA will bring prosperity to Latin America", or he doesn't know what he's talking about or he is just like Chavez said. He also believed he had the power to give orders to the president of my country (Kirchner). The fight begun there and from then on mr. Fox has being Babbling incoherences in the edge of lost political support. The "pet" president of Uruguay has also taken a similar possition.

Now about the article, yes very funny, I wonder if anyone of the americans have seen the anti-summit, I assure you that your jaw will drop with that (though I'm more inclined to that line of thought).. Aside from the every persistent narrow version of the so called democracy defended by US.

Followed closely by my response which was post #16.

So be who started the course of the discussion?

I've made a lot of valid points on this second discussion but you keep ignoring them, believing that all of that is marxist doctrine. The funniest thing of all is that you call it doctrine sometimes and sometimes you call it propaganda.

Funny isn't. Marxist doctrine and Marxist propaganda. THere is a lesson in that for you - you might actually figure it out.

I know that. I even pointed it above. But the problem is that you said "laws" wich separated.
Wrong you are the one that claimed capitalism has laws to seperate the classes - Communism as envisioned by Marx and practiced by the USSR, China, and North Korea actually have laws that seperate people into groups.

How does capitalism abuses of workers? How does it abuses of resources wheter they're natural or not? When you say as most, what are you talking about, facism?

Most economic systems are prone to some form of abuse of the workers and the resources be it capitalism, facism, socialism, communism and yes even anarchism. The difference in the abuses is that with capitalism real growth.

Soulforged

11-21-2005, 01:00

Not at all - you made an assumption based upon what my stated location is.Yes Red, but my point was another, not to succesfully grab your location. Get it.

Then use the word in spanish that you wish for the concept to me.
I believed this was an english forum.

Those regimes followed the logical fallacies of Marx. Oh I know some logical fallacies, but please tell me what ones are you talking about?

Freedom is the begining and the end in capitalism. So its you who might not understand the meaning.First capitalism is an economic model, doesn't cares about freedom, communism has little to do with that (directly of course). I said materialism and idealism, not capitalism.

Laws in communism do indeed seperate the classes - Marxist doctrine calls for the destruction of several classes in fact. There is no such doctrine or law in a Capitalist economic policyAgain show me one Red. But in fact you are turning the concepts again. It destroys the classes, not destroys some classes and leaves others. The premisse refers to the existence of classes not to killing people.

You are again incorrect - the pocession of property does not equate to laws being made by the government to force the seperation of classes. In fact even communists have private property.Then it's not communism. Private property is against the basic premises of communism. Private property separates because there's no unlimited resources, so some will have real chances and some others no.

In which you get a fair wage under capitalism.In wich you get exploited by the capitalist.

Who pays a fair price based upon the fair wage, the cost of materials, transportation, and all other factors involved in producing a good.And don't forget plusvalue and product alianation.

Worker - is producer - is consumer. Its really a simple equation and is not false. You produce goods of one type - to earn a wage - to consume goods of another type. Very basic capitalism - very simple- and never false.You didn't understand that. I clearly said in the work chain, in the work chain you've a real producer and a real consumer.

Tsk Tsk - try again - your comments follow marxist doctrine very well.No they don't. They follow it, but poorly, and not all is marxist doctrine.

Not at all - everyone has the right to own private property. I own property - someone that makes 5,000 dollars has private property - the very idea capitalism it to gain property. It does not however make the government establish laws to develope class structure. If Johnny who makes 15,000 dollars a year has private property - Fred who makes 1,000,0000 also has private property - both can have property based upon their ability to pay. In fact in a capitalistic society Fred can end up changing places with Johnny in a matter of days based upon how they manage their capital. Exactly and he turns the exploited one. The unequality worship in your posts is so evident...~:rolleyes: . However you seem to forget the fact that there isn't enough resources to please everybody, so someone is gonna win in this social darwinism.

Thats because you have crossed from Capitalism as an economic model to how governments work. Capitalism is an economic model. Anarchism and Communism are both economic and political models.Yes but you asked for examples. Then you came with "will of the people" uncomprobable concepts from the time of Rousseau. Later you tell me this. They didn't survive because the central government, the beast that both want to overthrown, killed them, sure that's popular support isn't it?

I am never lostI can give you a flash light for emergency purposes.

However they did not have the popular support of the people - hence they were forced to disband.When they didn't? From where are you coming with this statements? Where's the proof?

Same thing - they were a minority of people surrounded by the majority.Certainly truth, but one thing is to separate yourself because you thing you can do something better and make it work. Another thing is that the rest of the people don't like it, because it's against somekind of national feeling or loss of power (that's you saying it, not I) and then they go and kill them all and force them into the nation again, under the power of the state.

Not fiction at all - care to guess how many revolutions have happen because the popular will of the people desired the overthrow of the government.The will of the people is fictionary Red...As God. It has the same qualities.

That Mr. Chavez violated common sense when he called Mr. Fox a lap dog of the United States.Violeted commmon sense? What do you mean? Fox is a dog, he has demosntrated it through his statements.

Actually I didn't. Care to check out your first post.And where is the dicotomy capitalism-communism in that post?~:eek:

So be who started the course of the discussion?You?

Funny isn't. Marxist doctrine and Marxist propaganda. THere is a lesson in that for you - you might actually figure it out.No I might not. You're biased towards communism.

Wrong you are the one that claimed capitalism has laws to seperate the classes - Communism as envisioned by Marx and practiced by the USSR, China, and North Korea actually have laws that seperate people into groups.Red if you keep turning the words like this I'll just leave the discussion. No I did say that, but the point is other. The point is that you said that I was telling that communism in reality doesn't separetes people, wich is not true, and that you said that communism has laws that do that. Care to show some of those laws?

Most economic systems are prone to some form of abuse of the workers and the resources be it capitalism, facism, socialism, communism and yes even anarchism. The difference in the abuses is that with capitalism real growth.Have you even readed some of the anarchist theorists? You're certainly biased Red. But again what's real growth?:shrug:

Kaiser of Arabia

11-21-2005, 01:06

So, Comerade Soulforge, the Commisar has sent me with this new leaflet of Propaganada for you to use in this thread. He warns you to use it wisely, lest you be sent for 're-education' in Gulag.

In Soviet Russia, forge souls you!

Hail Lenin!
-Comrade Kaiser
~D

solypsist

11-21-2005, 01:35

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/13TonGimp/2005_11_20t084730_450x319_us_bush_c.jpg

Kaiser of Arabia

11-21-2005, 01:37

Heh, that's kinda funny.

Leet Eriksson

11-21-2005, 01:46

In Soviet Russia, forge souls you!

That doesn't make sense.. ~;p

It should go as:

In Soviet Russia, Souls forge you!

Redleg

11-21-2005, 01:52

Yes Red, but my point was another, not to succesfully grab your location. Get it.

Oh I got it the first time - and your point was incorrect hince the response you got/

I believed this was an english forum.

Well your lose then - since the term regime in english does not mean what your attempting to state.

Oh I know some logical fallacies, but please tell me what ones are you talking about?

Probably the exact same ones your aware of,

First capitalism is an economic model, doesn't cares about freedom, communism has little to do with that (directly of course). I said materialism and idealism, not capitalism.

So attempting to change concepts again?

Again show me one Red. But in fact you are turning the concepts again. It destroys the classes, not destroys some classes and leaves others. The premisse refers to the existence of classes not to killing people.

- in practice it accomplished something else now didn't it. The destruction of class was done by killing. And yes in practice communism destoried classes - and left others, and created a new elite class.

Then it's not communism. Private property is against the basic premises of communism.

SO they share the shirt off of their back and their underwear with each other?

Private property separates because there's no unlimited resources, so some will have real chances and some others no.

All have the same potential - that is the point of capitalism

In wich you get exploited by the capitalist.

Which in turn the worker is exploiting the capitalist by insuring he gets a wage for his labor. Its an equal exchange if done correctly since both must agree to the labor versus wage.

And don't forget plusvalue and product alianation.

Hince the other factors based upon where the product is manafactured and sold.

You didn't understand that. I clearly said in the work chain, in the work chain you've a real producer and a real consumer.

That is actually what I stated - producer - consumer. The worker is a producer of labor - the product (wage Payer) is consumer of the labor.

No they don't. They follow it, but poorly, and not all is marxist doctrine.

Which makes me still correct.

Exactly and he turns the exploited one. The unequality worship in your posts is so evident...~:rolleyes: . However you seem to forget the fact that there isn't enough resources to please everybody, so someone is gonna win in this social darwinism.

resorting to the old marxist doctrine tactic now are we - unequality worship - what a hoot. Both have the same potential therefor they are equal. Social Darwinism does not apply in Capitalism, all are equal all have the same potential.

Yes but you asked for examples. Then you came with "will of the people" uncomprobable concepts from the time of Rousseau. Later you tell me this. They didn't survive because the central government, the beast that both want to overthrown, killed them, sure that's popular support isn't it?

That because your models for success of both pure communism and anarchism are not conclusive proof of either system being successful. They did not have the popular support necessary to survive.

I can give you a flash light for emergency purposes.

Got three already - no more are necessary.

When they didn't? From where are you coming with this statements? Where's the proof?

The proof is in the failure of both systems - no need for me to proof that both attempts were failures - it already exists in history.

Certainly truth, but one thing is to separate yourself because you thing you can do something better and make it work. Another thing is that the rest of the people don't like it, because it's against somekind of national feeling or loss of power (that's you saying it, not I) and then they go and kill them all and force them into the nation again, under the power of the state.

Look you just contradicted yourself with this post and your next.

The will of the people is fictionary Red...As God. It has the same qualities

LOL - you just lost major discussion points - the will of the people does exist since you just stated it yourself.

Violeted commmon sense? What do you mean? Fox is a dog, he has demosntrated it through his statements.

So Mr Chavez is an idiot? I don't like Mr. Fox myself - but a lapdog to the United States he is not. The failure is both yours and Mr. Chavez's. machismo strikes again in South America affairs.

And where is the dicotomy capitalism-communism in that post?~:eek:

It was the lead to this discussion was it not? ~:rolleyes:

No I might not. You're biased towards communism.

Not at all - I just enjoy discussing it as the failed economic and political system that it is.

Red if you keep turning the words like this I'll just leave the discussion. No I did say that, but the point is other. The point is that you said that I was telling that communism in reality doesn't separetes people, wich is not true, and that you said that communism has laws that do that. Care to show some of those laws?

When you show a law that actually states that the Nation will seperate people into the following classes.

Have you even readed some of the anarchist theorists?

One or two - there proposed system is doomed to failure.

You're certainly biased Red. I know what my baised views are - the question is do you realize what yours are.

But again what's real growth?:shrug:

Take a look at any nation that has a capitalist system in place - you see postive growth in all areas.