On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red
> > Russia. It was a commie state. I remember it all too well. Joe Sixpack might
> > not give a shit about how much it sucks elsewhere. I do, I was there.
>
> Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is
> a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is
> simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that
> exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivious to the conditions
> he himself lives in.
Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about
anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the
Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt'
knowledgeable about cyphers, or the NSA either for that matter. By
talking on this list, you're not talking to the average American, so you
can't take that exist hatch. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the
Average American(tm) couldn't tell you in 5 seconds where Austra is if you
gave him a globe. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the Average
American(tm) couldn't tell you how much of his money went to taxes
either, or how his car, phone, or computer work.
Quite honestly, I know both commie theory and have experienced it on my
own back. Remember, I lived in a commie state when I was a kid. I know
exactly what the conditions are. Can you say the same?
Unlike you, I haven't read Marx in the comfort of my own liberty. I
didn't chose to read commie propaganda. It was forced upon me.
Repeatedly. I didn't have the luxury of even learning about anything
OTHER than communism at the time.
Until I escaped the evil clutches of the communist regieme, I had no idea
how any other place or how any other system was. I can honestly say that
it was brainwashing at its best. No, I didn't believe a word of it
because what was said and what was done were at odds with each other. I'm
not a blind believer in faith.
Just because I've read Marx doesn't mean I'll believe it. Just because
I've read the bible, doesn't mean I'll believe it either any more than
reading Lovecraft will get me to belive that gigantic intelligent squid
and semi-plant/semi-animal elder ones live under the Artic caps either.
Bullshit may be entertaining, but it's not reality. Not being able to
tell them apart is a bad thing.
> Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist
> Manifesto; and if they HAVE read the Manifesto, they say something good
> and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real
> world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist
> tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of
> life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule.
Just because the Average American condems or promotes something doesn't
make them wrong either. Why is it do you think that they say "sounds
great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world?" How do you know how
much the Average American knows or doesn't know? How do you know that
lack of firsthand experience or reading it makes them unknowledgeable
morons or experts? You're assuming this, no? If not, where's your proof
exactly?
> It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point
> so relevent.
Look, the Average American will also tell you that getting a hot iron
shoved up your ass isn't a good thing either, and I guarantee you that
precisely less than 10 Americans have experienced getting a hot iron
shoved up their ass. Does that make their point less valid? Do they need
to know the medical theories behind why getting a hot iron shoved up your
ass is bad for you? Do they need to experience it first hand to know it's
bad?
> No matter how (insert adjective) X is, denouncing it before
> you know what X actually is, and is not, is rubbish at best .. insanity
> at worst.
My above paragraph proves by counter exaple that your above point is
bullshit.
> I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin
> because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick
> for resources.
Any as a side issue, I'll answer that with a question: "Why am I
personally responsible for feeding and clothing them?" As a second aside,
"why does the money Uncle Sam take from me not reach them?" If it did, we
wouldn't have homeless motherfuckers on the streets. The answers to these
questions point out just how bad communism/socialism is. To take from the
worker as to feed the incompetent is socialism, which is half a step from
communism.
> These unfortunate souls might have taken up, say, basket
> weaving as a hobby rather than computer programming (unlike the majority
> of people who are likely to read this list) and as such (since hand-made
> baskets aren't in particularly high demand these days) are doomed to
> taking shitbox minimum wage jobs, probably part-time with no
benefits;
> since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to
> keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency.
And that's my fault exactly how again? If they're incompetent, they
deserve what they get. I'll add this: those unfortunate souls who
realized that basket weaving won't get them food are the ones that are
taking classes and improving themselves so that they will get food later.
Those that don't are evolution in action, and shouldn't be a burden to the
workers.
> Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford
> to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs
> to help the honest, working poor. And, our caring Uncle Sammy takes our
> money to see that this is the case. Fine by me (I'd rather live here
> and let Sam have some of my coin than live in say, that Red satellite you
> were talking about).
Oh bullshit. If worker doesn't make a decent wage, he can always work
elsewhere. Unless of course he's a basketweaving drone.
Yes, I agree that I'd rather make 50% of the money I earn and let Uncle
Sam's protection racket let me make that 50% than be in a commie buttfuck
state, but let's not have any illusions. A mafia by any other name is
still a mafia.
> The name escapes me at the moment, but some Capitalist asshole/theorist
> once said something along the lines of:
>
> "The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple:
> nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to
> our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit."
Yes, morons are plentiful. Besides, as it turns out, manual labor is
inefficient and expensive. That's why those who make machines make
profits. The drones of course form unions and strike at this rather than
finding other ways to earn money and become rich themselves. Face it,
manual labor is worth far less than intelectual. Teach a man to fish
rather than give him a fish and all that. And the man that invents a
fishing net, or a fish farm will always profit more than the one who hunts
fish with spears; certainly more than the one that begs you to get him a
fish.
No one forces anyone to be poor. If anything your above quote works even
better in a commie state. Marx had it right. Religion is indeed the
opiate of the masses. Stalin understood this, so did Lenin. They turned
communism into a quasi state-religion with lofty speeches and dangled the
promises of great 5 year leaps forward into industry.
Same as the church's promises of entry to heven if the serfs obeyed the
royalty. Yet what did the communist workers gain? Dick, and more promises
of a utopia followed by more demands for personal sacrifice and more labor
with less and less rewards. What did the posh party politicians get?
Luxury living. Worker's paradise and non-expoitation of a worker's work
indeed!
> With some consideration, it seems obvious to me that in any socio-economic
> system that places such high importance on money it is mere causality
> that pure economic entities, like corporations, will become powerful
> controlling forces; and that power and control shall be exerted upon their
> closest subjects: the laborers .. aka, the people.
Not when people can refuse to work or buy their products and services.
This is a ridiculous arguement. Microsoft doesn't force me to run
Windblows, nor does Intel force me to buy their hardware. I get to chose.
Just because 99% of the morons buying a Pee Cee (aka upside down toilet)
line their pockets doesn't mean that either of those entities forced them
at the point of a gun. No matter how hard BillG may spew "A chicken in
every pot, and Windows on every PC" it won't make it so. Nor does
everyone in Redmond work for Microsoft. Nor does everyone in Redmond own
a Windows running Pee Cee.
So if your above paragraph had an ounce of truth, where's the proof?
> I don't know what socio-economic system would work best; but I DO know
> that I will never like that which places shackles on the souls of men.
Indeed.
> Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
> "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
>
>
