Capitalism isn't working, says virtually everyone
Robert Peffers
By Murray Dobbin | November 9, 2009
Surprise, surprise. People around the world are expressing their
doubts that cowboy capitalism is good for them. At the same time that
the media are running Berlin Wall stories ad nauseam (who cares?) a
poll for BBC World News shows that there is a certain nostalgia for
communism and some regrets about the fall of the Soviet Union. The
poll, of 29,000 people in 27 countries, showed that only 11 % thought
that free market capitalism was working well. According to the BBC web
site story "In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did
more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it
stands. Almost a quarter -- 23% of those who responded -- feel it is
fatally flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and
35% in Brazil."
And government -- as in government operating the broad public interest
-- is also on the agenda with majorities in 22 of 27 countries calling
for wealth to be distributed more evenly. "Majorities almost
everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating
business."
As for whether or not the demise of the Soviet Union was a good thing,
western developed countries say
yes by large majorities. But in developing countries and the former
"Eastern Bloc" communist nations, who actually experienced communism,
the trend is away from the capitalism they have been treated to for
some 20 years. Pluralities in Egypt, Indonesia, India and the Ukraine
and Russia all said the fall of the Soviet union was a "bad thing."
Twenty per cent of Canadians said the capitalist system was "fatally
flawed" and another 40 % said it could be fixed with regulation and
reform. That compared with 23% and 50% respectively for those polled
in the U.S.
The survey didn't ask what should be done or what system might replace
the current one.
Murray Dobbin has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social
activist for 40 years. A board member and researcher with the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives, he has written five studies for the
centre including examinations of charter schools, and "Ten Tax Myths."
Murray has been a columnist for the Financial Post and Winnipeg Free
Press and contributes guest editorials to the Globe and Mail, the
Toronto Star and other Canadian dailies.
Crap Detector
Yes, if we could only have the standard of living, and quality of life
of the Cuban people under Marxism.
Archie
>
> ***
> Yes, if we could only have the standard of living, and quality of life
Every day and in every way you and "Chom" are getting closer and
closer. You and him are grasping at the same pathetic straw today.
Chom Noamsky
There's that pedestal of virtue. There's that condemnation handed down
from high. All you're missing is a Sunday morning TV show.
Archie
>
> There's that pedestal of virtue. There's that condemnation handed down
> from high. All you're missing is a Sunday morning TV show.
Greed is good - virtue is bad.
There you go Lambourn - your brethren in Orwellian anti-logic.
Chom Noamsky
Anti-logic? Bourgeois revolutions are going strong and holding favour
everywhere polled. According to that survey, the majority say free
market capitalism has problems but can be fixed. You're in the camp
that says it is fatally flawed... a minority camp.
It must be some kind of Archie logic you're referring to (maybe some of
your motivated reason) because rational people would interpret that
survey to mean people are still generally favourable towards free market
capitalism.
You'll also note there is no mention of what the dissatisfied camp would
replace capitalism with. You just assume it's socialism.
Roy
==
Totalitarian socialism perhaps?
==
frederick
"Robert Peffers" <auldbobp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55ae8d59-771e-455d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Capitalism isn't working, says virtually everyone
> By Murray Dobbin | November 9, 2009
=
Yes Capitalism isn't working !. It has gradually been degraded over the
past 100 years by the very people who swore by it's virtues. Capitalism ,
the same as every other governing system must be nurture and regulated
or it is bound to fail.
The downfall began because human nature is spiced with greed and a
struggle for superiorality. Those who were profiting by capitalism
lost the will to keep prices in line with costs, and to keep their own
wages in line with their employees wages. Today we see articles on the
market that cost a few dollars to produce selling for hundreds of dollars.
I see articles that cost about $10.00 dollars to manufacture selling for
over $1000.00. we see many CEO's drawing hundreds of thousands in salary
while their employees have to use the food bank for survival. For many of
those any other social order would be better.
frederick
"frederick" <harv...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:guSdnaDHVYoDgmfX...@posted.sasktel...
>
A long time back there used to be an "Excess Profits Tax" so that anyone who
marked up his profits beyond reason was subjected to a tax. For a good
capital system , money must be socialized. and used as a medium of exchange
in and for the public good. In other words capital must be just a tool
that keeps the system running and not be allowed to gather into huge sums
where it can be used for buying control of other people.
Chom Noamsky
By 2025 there will be 8 billion human units on the planet, a doubling of
the population in five just decades.
Something is working well, namely advances in medicine and food production.
Maybe capitalism is working too well...
Archie
>
> By 2025 there will be 8 billion human units on the planet, a doubling of
> the population in five just decades.
>
> Something is working well, namely advances in medicine and food production.
>
Too many people? You are a dispicable pig.
As low as a human can go.
Chom Noamsky
A response so predictable I could have wrote it for you.
When the planet hits the point of resource exhaustion, Archie will be
the first one standing on your head to save himself.
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d11fb12e-75a5-4628...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
...so starchie, do you believe human beings have the right to reproduce to
such numbers they exhaust every available resource until the billions left
are condemned to utter destitution...?... are you saying that human morality
in reproduction is the equivalent of a virus which destroys its
host....?.... are you entirely certain the pedestal where you've placed your
moral superiority isn't actually a hole...?...
Archie
>
> A response so predictable I could have wrote it for you.
>
> When the planet hits the point of resource exhaustion, Archie will be
> the first one standing on your head to save himself.
I'm guessing you believe in eugenics. The notion to get rid of
perceived undesirables held some currency in the early part of the
last century in Canada by some leading social democrats as well as
some on the extreme right. Of course the Nazis adopted a serious
initiative re: eugenics as well as genocide.
The vague notion that too many people are the problem is a deep and
often subconscious exclusionary sentiment that finds full expression
in fascist politics. Thomas Malthus believed that improvements in
technology would lead to population growth that would by now be
unsustainable. His primitive views have been dismissed by
sociologists.
Societies that have progressed and thrived have had population growth
level off. In parts of the world where population growth in high the
need for economic development remains high.
Like Malthus you see people as the problem. In your mind the poor -
their access to food and health care is a problem. For you, even in
the face of a billion people on this planet malnourished, you see
capitalism as working too well in terms of population growth.
I know you'll scream and cry and deny what you were really getting at
when you wrote this but I've been arguing with you long enough to know
better. You know what you are and I know what you are.
Archie
>
> ...so starchie, do you believe human beings have the right to reproduce to
> such numbers they exhaust every available resource until the billions left
> are condemned to utter destitution...?... are you saying that human morality
> in reproduction is the equivalent of a virus which destroys its
> host....?.... are you entirely certain the pedestal where you've placed your
> moral superiority isn't actually a hole...?...
What? No big words this time? Are you drunk?
"Chom" is a dolt, yes, but he doesn't actually need you to ride
shotgun with every post he makes. It looks a tad wierd.
klunk
"Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:184997f2-60d8-46e1...@g7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
...so starchie... since you haven't addressed my questions, I'll take your
response as a "yes".... aside from that... do you also really believe that a
single post from me in a thread where you've exchanged several with chom
actually constitutes "riding shotgun with every post he makes".... or are
you just lying again...?... shall I expect your response to be another
accusation of me as a liar...?... and should I just simply accept your
unexamined view of the world as evidunce of your moral superiority....?...
btw... if you're so certain your views on how utopia should be constructed
are so infallible, then why do you have such difficulty articulating
them...?.... perhaps if you drew some pictures, you might be able to bypass
your insecurity with "big words".... ;-)
frederick
============================
==
I sit here and can only wonder what kind of a person would write
insultting crap like this for public display. Such insults should be
reserved for when you are standing in front of a full length mirror.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
Capitalism is working just fine. It is not, however, a philosophy
of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as
it's satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function
of the eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism"
on philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation
to human purpose.
Dhu
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
Chom Noamsky
Is there anything I could possibly say or comment that you couldn't spin
sinister? Yes, I'm an evil eugenicist and I'll kill my own mother once
she's too weak or sick to fend for herself. You're always looking for
evil in people, and if you look hard and long enough I'm sure you'll
find some. Not only do you have virtuous pedestal syndrome but you're
an extreme pessimist when it comes to human nature.
How about China's one child policy? The authorities enforce that pretty
strictly and it applies to about 40% of the population. The Chinese
government states it helped curb social, economic and environmental
problems. Evidently, they think people are the problem in China.
Pretty sinister, eh? Only in an authoritarian state like China could
they get away with such a policy. Me, I'm absolutely a big supporter of
proactive population control via birth control and family planning, but
not governments ripping babies out of wombs or one-child policies.
That's for communists like you.
Truth be told, some of the most horrible and brutal population control
operations in history have taken place under socialism. Take for
example the roughly 35 million Ukranians systematically starved off
their land in order to implement collectivization. Nazism was a form of
socialism and look at what it did to the Jewish population, mowed
through millions. Mao, a hardcore Marxist, is responsible not only for
millions of living Chinese deaths but is the founder of China's family
planning and one-child policy. That policy is responsible for
preventing roughly 250 million new little human units to be born. North
Korea only killed off about two million in the last two decades,
although that was involuntary population control called starvation.
Everywhere there is socialism there is genocide.
Do you even know how ridiculous you sound when you start talking about
population control and eugenics in the context of socialism?
Chom Noamsky
Just imagine a Jesus wannabe with Tourette syndrome, and there you have
archie.
Roy
> frederick wrote:
> > "Archie" <akenn...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
==
Yes, I can imagine such a creature with uncontrollable invective
spewing forth. Archie sometimes explodes with really nasty insults.
Yep, he fits your description quite well.
p.s. It's a tough job riding shotgun but someone has to do it.
==
Roy
wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Nov 11, 9:13 am, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campb...@neotext.ca>
>
> > It is not, however, a philosophy
> > of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>
> > People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as
> > it's satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function
> > of the eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism"
> > on philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>
>
> > To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation
> > to human purpose.
>
>
>
>
> > Dhu
>
> > --
> > Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Commerce and capitalism go together like cheese and wine, or in your
case...cheese and whine.
==
Chom Noamsky
> btw... if you're so certain your views on how utopia should be constructed
> are so infallible, then why do you have such difficulty articulating
> them...?
You noticed that too, eh. That's because Archie's nirvana exists only
as half-baked ideals in his little noggin. His intellectual heroes
never could make those ideals work, although certainly not for lack of
trying. That's why he can't detail the applied side of anything he
parrots. Civilization is an organic thing, it's far too complex and
dynamic for the Narodnik intelligentsia to engineer from the top down.
The problem is nobody can ever agree on the definition of utopia.
Archie's definition of utopia is my definition of hell. So we end up
making our own definitions and pushing them. If Archie thinks he can
define utopia for me or you or anyone, that's his first and biggest
mistake in life.
Canuck57
> Capitalism isn't working, says virtually everyone
> By Murray Dobbin | November 9, 2009
Capitalism is working just fine.
But no one wants more North American debt. Losing money to welchers
kills capitalism. So we capitalists don't lend money to spoiled,
defunct and dysfunctional debtors. Liberal goverment debt management
and ponzi schemes are failing, so what? You expect capitalism to invest
in losers when even the losers don't invest in themselves?
Shows how really stupid so many have become and how far this depression
has to go to clean out the bullshiters, ponzi money schemes and
corruption. This depression will take that entitlement attitude out of
most.
Looking a the latest Canadian/US numbers, not only is North America
still going into a depresion, the total job loss now far exceeds the
last two combined! It may actual end up being larger than the last 3
recessions shortly. Worse yet, we are still going into it.
The good part is since government can't bailout us all, and you can bet
they are already working on savign their asses, the lessons are coming
to debtors everywhere.
Canuck57
You are a net debtor are you not?
Certainly a sour puss welcher debtor attitude. Just go off and declare
bankruptcy.
Canuck57
>> Capitalism is working just fine.
>
> Not for the serfs, wage slaves and lumpen proletariate.
True. But surfs vote for those who screwed it up. If surfs want it to
change, they need to change who and how they vote. A little less
bullshit and feel good promises, and more integrity and better fiscal
management.
>> It is not, however, a philosophy
>> of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>>
>> People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as
>> it's satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function
>> of the eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism"
>> on philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>
> You are confusing commerce and capitalism you ignorant arse.
>
>> To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation
>> to human purpose.
>
> Repeating it as often as you like but it will never be true.
Agreed. We all work for profit, be it a dividend or wages it is income
from commerce and capitalism. No idiot (except for government waste)
invests their labour or their money into lost causes to loose it.
Stupid turds want companys to lose money but they themselves will not
pay employers to work as they loose money. Not any difference at all.
Neither party is going to engage the other where either one is setup to
loose.
Seems like empathy for others needs is sorely lacking in the
liberal-socialist greed world.
Roy
wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> will just advocate that other people kill their own offspring. Part of
> your evil is in being a rank hypocrite.
>
> >You're always looking for
> > evil in people, and if you look hard and long enough I'm sure you'll
> > find some. Not only do you have virtuous pedestal syndrome but you're
> > an extreme pessimist when it comes to human nature.
>
> authority. However, intelligent people realize quickly that you
> aren't.
>
> > How about China's one child policy? The authorities enforce that pretty
> > strictly and it applies to about 40% of the population. The Chinese
> > government states it helped curb social, economic and environmental
> > problems. Evidently, they think people are the problem in China.
>
>
> > Pretty sinister, eh? Only in an authoritarian state like China could
> > they get away with such a policy.
>
> and the communists thought it necessary to take such harsh measures to
> dig China out of the economic hole it was in.
>
> It has now dug itself out of the hole and the policy is being seen as
> excessive, punitive and unnecessary.
>
> At the same time, giving everyone a right to offspring is surely
> better than allowing the rich and connected to have all the offspring
> they can afford, and demanding, ala Chimpsky, that the poor abort.
>
> >Me, I'm absolutely a big supporter of
> > proactive population control via birth control and family planning,
> >but not governments ripping babies out of wombs
>
> unborn children aren't babies. However, you won't hesitate to
> identify them correctly when you believe that doing so will further
> your political agenda.
>
> >or one-child policies.
> > That's for communists like you.
>
>
>
>
> > Truth be told, some of the most horrible and brutal population control
> > operations in history have taken place under socialism. Take for
> > example the roughly 35 million Ukranians systematically starved off
> > their land in order to implement collectivization.
>
>
> >Nazism was a form of
> > socialism
>
>
> >and look at what it did to the Jewish population, mowed
> > through millions. Mao, a hardcore Marxist, is responsible not only for
> > millions of living Chinese deaths but is the founder of China's family
> > planning and one-child policy. That policy is responsible for
> > preventing roughly 250 million new little human units to be born. North
> > Korea only killed off about two million in the last two decades,
> > although that was involuntary population control called starvation.
>
> first half of the last century.
>
> > Everywhere there is socialism there is genocide.
>
>
> > Do you even know how ridiculous you sound when you start talking about
> > population control and eugenics in the context of socialism?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The Ukraine famine was not a population control operation."
The collectivization of Ukraine by Stalin and his minions resulted in
mass starvation. All of the grain and livestock were seized and even
the gardens were destroyed in order to teach the peasants that
resistance to collectivism was futile. In effect the man-made famine
controlled the population through starvation. Perhaps you should do
some reading of history before you yip.
==
Neil K
"Duncan Patton a Campbell" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@neotext.ca...
Capitalism is a human social construction.
When it operates within that great human philosophy we call ' fee
enterprise' it can be the most efficient means of both production AND
distribution ever known.
But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
needs regulation.
This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production.
Some want to call this socialism ..... so be it
Whatever you want to call it its on it's way.
Canuck57
Lots of whiners today. All sorry angry asses that didn't save enough
during good times.
Chom Noamsky
> Capitalism is a human social construction.
> When it operates within that great human philosophy we call ' fee
> enterprise' it can be the most efficient means of both production AND
> distribution ever known.
> But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
> needs regulation.
> This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
> 'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production.
> Some want to call this socialism ..... so be it
> Whatever you want to call it its on it's way.
So what are you agitators agitating about then? If socialism is
evolutionary, not revolutionary, then all you need do is sit back and
wait for utopia to happen.
Also, if what you say (er, Marx says) is true, then the Venezuela
experiment is doomed. That's because its bourgeois capitalist phase
never had a chance to mature. It's not nearly developed enough to
sustain the cost of a comprehensive welfare state.
Funny how the can.politics neo-Marxists agree that socialism can't work
until it has a strong capitalist economic machine to support it.
Chom Noamsky
>> "The Ukraine famine was not a population control operation."
Genocide is synonymous with population control. What happened in the
Ukraine in 1932/1933 was genocide. It was a deliberate and systematic
starvation of millions of people. The Soviet Union EXPORTED 1.7 million
tonnes of grain while this political famine was going on.
>> The collectivization of Ukraine by Stalin and his minions resulted in
>> mass starvation. All of the grain and livestock were seized and even
>> the gardens were destroyed in order to teach the peasants that
>> resistance to collectivism was futile. In effect the man-made famine
>> controlled the population through starvation. Perhaps you should do
>> some reading of history before you yip.
>> ==
>
> ROFLMAO. Perhaps you should develop some reading comprehension skills
> before you post.
You need more omega-3 in your diet. Without it the brain turns to jelly
an rots (moose meat is a great source of omega-3).
frederick
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:COCKm.6257$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
=
We are discussing the Capital system here , not my personal situation.
However I am neither a debtor nor a creditor but happily retired. The
Capital system could easily reclaimed by putting it through a socialist
era for about 5 years. The socialist have a way of making things work
for the good of the country Notice the way they reclaimed Saskatchewan
several times especially after such people as Grant
Devine and the Conservatives tore it apart.
frederick
>
> Capitalism is working just fine. It is not, however, a philosophy
> of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
> ================
BUT WHO generates the profit and WHO takes the profits
Take a look and you will see the masses out there working their asses off
generating profits.. and a few white collars counting THEIR
profits-------- This is why Capitalism has failed. their must be a fair
and honest relationship between these groups that each can respect
==================
> People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as
> it's satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function
> of the eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism"
> on philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>
> To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation
> to human purpose.
==============
restated .>> ------requires regulation by all humans to serve the capital
needs of all humanity
>=============
>
>
> --
Chom Noamsky
I notice you've been bunking with Archie a lot these days... pretty much
every post he makes. Kind of weird since Archie calls himself a
libertarian socialist, someone supports a woman's right to choose and
other individual liberties like that.
I guess opposites really do attract ;)
Chom Noamsky
We need fair market capitalism, not free market capitalism.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> Neil K wrote:
>
>> Capitalism is a human social construction. When it operates within that
>> great human philosophy we call ' fee enterprise' it can be the most
>> efficient means of both production AND distribution ever known.
>> But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
>> needs regulation.
>> This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
>> 'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production. Some
>> want to call this socialism ..... so be it Whatever you want to call
>> it its on it's way.
>
> So what are you agitators agitating about then? If socialism is
> evolutionary, not revolutionary, then all you need do is sit back and
> wait for utopia to happen.
The "Time is on my side Fallacy", eh? The only way time is on our
side is that we can't have our feet held to the fire forever: our
time in this place is "shortened" by mortality.
It's really a matter of travel arrangements on the way to the smokestack:
do we go coach-class or in boxcars?
Dhu
>
> Also, if what you say (er, Marx says) is true, then the Venezuela
> experiment is doomed. That's because its bourgeois capitalist phase
> never had a chance to mature. It's not nearly developed enough to
> sustain the cost of a comprehensive welfare state.
>
> Funny how the can.politics neo-Marxists agree that socialism can't work
> until it has a strong capitalist economic machine to support it.
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> frederick wrote:
>> "Duncan Patton a Campbell" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.11...@neotext.ca...
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:37:54 -0800, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Capitalism is working just fine. It is not, however, a philosophy of
>>> existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>>> ================
>> BUT WHO generates the profit and WHO takes the profits
>> Take a look and you will see the masses out there working their asses
>> off
Yes: but who takes the profit is a question outside the function of
the machine: that is a Political Decision.
>> generating profits.. and a few white collars counting THEIR
>> profits-------- This is why Capitalism has failed. their must be a
>> fair and honest relationship between these groups that each can respect
>> ==================
>>
>>> People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as it's
>>> satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function of the
>>> eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism" on
>>> philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>>>
>>> To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation to
>>> human purpose.
>> ==============
>> restated .>> ------requires regulation by all humans to serve the
>> capital needs of all humanity
Yes. Because both the "Free Market" and "Capitalism" are human constructs
they are amenable to regulation for human ends and purposes.
>
> We need fair market capitalism, not free market capitalism.
There IS NO "FREE" MARKET. It is wholly a human construct: bees
and bears DO NOT engage in capitalism.
As to "Fair", how to define it? I like the term equitable, because
it implies (equatable?) that things that are not the same can be
treated as the equal when viewed in a particular light or within
the the constraints of some social agreement's definitions.
Roy
> socialist.
>
> >someone supports a woman's right to choose and
> > other individual liberties like that.
>
> regarded as sacred and inviolate.
>
> > I guess opposites really do attract ;)
>
> all bone stupid. ;-) Sadly, you are just a little bit brighter than
> they are so they give you god status.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...what a Saskatchewan gopher you
are.
==
Roy
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:59 -0800 (PST), Cut Off By Google
>
>
>
>
>
> <think.un...@dlcwest.com> wrote:
> >x-no-archive: yes
>
> >> > November 9, 2009
>
>
>
> that looks down on some while you think you know better. Lenin,
> Trotsky and Stalin thought the same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> It is not, however, a philosophy
> >> of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>
> >> it's satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function
> >> of the eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism"
> >> on philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>
>
> >> to human purpose.
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even in the "classless socialist world" there ARE classes of
people...no matter how poor you are there are always those who are
more poor. Its all a matter of degree.
IMHO COBG is an elitist, socialist or otherwise.
==
Canuck57
> On Nov 10, 11:15 pm, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>> A response so predictable I could have wrote it for you.
>>
>> When the planet hits the point of resource exhaustion, Archie will be
>> the first one standing on your head to save himself.
>
> I'm guessing you believe in eugenics. The notion to get rid of
> perceived undesirables held some currency in the early part of the
> last century in Canada by some leading social democrats as well as
> some on the extreme right. Of course the Nazis adopted a serious
> initiative re: eugenics as well as genocide.
Eugenics is an inevitable step in the evolution of mankind.
> Societies that have progressed and thrived have had population growth
> level off. In parts of the world where population growth in high the
> need for economic development remains high.
They level off out of starvation and resource availability, or perhaps
predators.
> Like Malthus you see people as the problem. In your mind the poor -
> their access to food and health care is a problem. For you, even in
> the face of a billion people on this planet malnourished, you see
> capitalism as working too well in terms of population growth.
People are the problem, as if there were no poeple there would be no
problem. Get over it.
And capitalism isn't responsible for people propensity to over populate
and have more kids than they can afford to feed and raise. It is our
own ignorance and stupidity and it is alive and well in places like Africa.
> I know you'll scream and cry and deny what you were really getting at
> when you wrote this but I've been arguing with you long enough to know
> better. You know what you are and I know what you are.
Good, you should move on. Some people never learn and can't ever
rationalise facts. That is why so many make good sheep.
Canuck57
> Do you even know how ridiculous you sound when you start talking about
> population control and eugenics in the context of socialism?
Not entirely baseless.
Sell pepple on the socialism but give them slalism and marxist....
pretty common tactic even today. Take Chavez, started with the
socialist promises and the population sucked it up like candy. Changed
the consitution, now people disapear in the night for not working like
slaves.
Now, to turn it around takes a bloody revolution or war.
Socialism is a selling tool for control over the people and when it
turns ugly, well history is repeated once again.
Canuck57
> "Archie" <aken...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> On Nov 10, 9:59 pm, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>>> By 2025 there will be 8 billion human units on the planet, a doubling of
>>> the population in five just decades.
>>>
>>> Something is working well, namely advances in medicine and food
>>> production.
>>>
>>> Maybe capitalism is working too well...-
>> Too many people? You are a dispicable pig.
>>
>> As low as a human can go.
>
> such numbers they exhaust every available resource until the billions left
> are condemned to utter destitution...?... are you saying that human morality
> in reproduction is the equivalent of a virus which destroys its
> host....?.... are you entirely certain the pedestal where you've placed your
> moral superiority isn't actually a hole...?...
I would agree. Eventually mankind will destroy the host earths ecosystem
with regards to our needs. And over population will likely be a big
part of it and drive war for resources. Biological, nuclear or other,
mankind will eventually prey on it's own in the absence of something
preying on us to keep the herd size in balance.
Current growth of mankinds population mimics cancer. The outcome is
likely going to be the same on a planetary scale. But nature, the
Earth's ecosystem will recover and lend rise to a new species post-human.
There is no moral superiority here, just a realization of some
fundimental facts of history, paleontology and mankinds behavior to
date. There is also what we can't control, say a giant asteroid or
non-visible gama radiation come our way that we have no way to stop it.
Maybe even the same kind of thing that thinned the dinosaurs, and the
last one wiped them out.
Canuck57
> klunk wrote:
>
>> btw... if you're so certain your views on how utopia should be
>> constructed are so infallible, then why do you have such difficulty
>> articulating them...?
>
> You noticed that too, eh. That's because Archie's nirvana exists only
> as half-baked ideals in his little noggin. His intellectual heroes
> never could make those ideals work, although certainly not for lack of
> trying. That's why he can't detail the applied side of anything he
> parrots. Civilization is an organic thing, it's far too complex and
> dynamic for the Narodnik intelligentsia to engineer from the top down.
>
> The problem is nobody can ever agree on the definition of utopia.
> Archie's definition of utopia is my definition of hell. So we end up
> making our own definitions and pushing them. If Archie thinks he can
> define utopia for me or you or anyone, that's his first and biggest
> mistake in life.
Agreed. One far too many routinely make.
frederick
Aren't you revising history a little soon in the game. A person in
Chavez's position does what he is forced to do by his detracters. I
dont't know what is right or wrong in his sphere of action but I would still
give him a bit of credit for his efforts.
Canuck57
What the hell is the difference?
An individual is a capitalist, they work providing services to others
for profit, whore or steal for a living. The money they get is profit
for their efforts.
Company is a group of people. Works the same but it is a collective.
So being anti-capitalist is being anti-company... or anti-collective
people wanting to make a profit.
I am sure you do something so you can eat. The only question is it
services (work), whoring or stealing for profit?
> However I am neither a debtor nor a creditor but happily retired. The
> Capital system could easily reclaimed by putting it through a socialist
> era for about 5 years. The socialist have a way of making things work
> for the good of the country Notice the way they reclaimed Saskatchewan
> several times especially after such people as Grant
> Devine and the Conservatives tore it apart.
We are all capitalists, none of us do something for nothing. Even
socialists! Every try to motivate someone who will not have something
to gain by co-operating? It is impossible. Say we all got paid the
same, a socialist primary concept, then be I the PM, brain/heart surgeon
or drug addict or bum, we get paid the same.
Then we can all sit on our asses and see who is going to do the work.
Because if I work, you will steal it from me. If you work, I will steal
from you. My guess, the hungriest one is going to be the first to work,
and tell the rest to piss off.
True socialism is guaranteed to fail for that reason alone. But better
yet, politicians sell it as it has appeal to the stupid and naive.
Usually to control the herd with stupid ideals and not a practical
solution they don't have.
Canuck57
Chavez would make sure even if the wealth was developed, it never made
it to the peoples hands. His socialist rants were to get power over the
people, now they have to live with the reprecusions of the fact they
voted for him. In the end, quick to give up their constituition for
Chavez gave them squaler, hardship and neither a halthy capitalism nor
socialism. Just slaves to the big ass hole at the top. And their
cronies of course.
Archie
>
> Capitalism is a human social construction.
> When it operates within that great human philosophy we call ' fee
> enterprise' it can be the most efficient means of both production AND
> distribution ever known.
> But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
> needs regulation.
> This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
> 'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production.
> Some want to call this socialism ..... so be it
> Whatever you want to call it its on it's way.
>
control of societies away from the wealthy class. My guess is pretty
much everybody is a socialist buit do not know it.
As for me - I will be satisisfied only when the means of production
are used to satisfy the vital needs of everybody. There is more than
enough evidence to show that this chore cannot be left to the
capitalist system or in the hands of the capitalists - they will be
the first to tell us that this is not their goal or responsibility.
The slaves however believe - like superstitious fools, that somehow it
will work. Either that or they don't give a fuck. The latter is a
position that is hard to respect.
Chom Noamsky
> Typical socialist thinking; 'lumpen proletariate', the very thinking
> that looks down on some while you think you know better. Lenin,
> Trotsky and Stalin thought the same thing.
Profile of Neil and Archie:
klunk
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
news:KCCKm.51482$Db2.42690@edtnps83...
my version of utopia is contingent on decentralized power (this one's a
major stickler for me - whether it's a form of centralized governance or
concentrated corporate or other form of power) , true equality amongst
individuals (at least with respect to their value as human beings),
unrestricted access to education (and a participatory form of it for younger
students where parents and the community in general are involved) and
health-care (including mental health care) and effective regulation of
systems to prevent abuse (including abuse of power), as well as truly
transparent and accountable governance...
...beyond that... I don't really care about the specifics.... but I would
like to see an overhaul of many of the things our societies seem to value
such as material gain (by instead of valuing wealth for its own sake to
rewarding/acknowledging/increasing emphasis of the value on characteristics
such as intelligence and the value of one's contribution toward society in
general) , social roles (such as developing greater respect for teaching as
a profession) and superficial definitions of beauty which distort the
perceptions of the na�ve and create their own dysfunctions....
klunk
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qpHKm.15590$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
thx... it's nice to know we can actually agree on something... ;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Nov 11, 9:13 am, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campb...@neotext.ca>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:37:54 -0800, Robert Peffers wrote:
>> > Capitalism isn't working, says virtually everyone By Murray Dobbin |
>> > November 9, 2009
>>
>> It is not, however, a philosophy
>> of existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>>
>> People who take it for a Life Philosophy will be disappointed, as it's
>> satisfaction of their Greed is merely co-incidental: a function of the
>> eye of the beholder. Similarly for those who oppose "Capitalism" on
>> philosophical grounds: it's a bit like being opposed to green cheese.
>
> You are confusing commerce and capitalism you ignorant arse.
>
You are simply too stupid and GREEDY to allow yourself to understand
what I'm saying. You and that Dogan Princess, Michael Moore, need
to take your history to heart. The Puritan revolution simply opened
up a franchise on the greed that had been the sole domain of the
Emperor/Pope. Saying the Crutch has the "answer" is like saying
the Paleolithic has the answer to air pollution.
Dhu
>> To repeat, Capitalism is just a mechanism that requires regulation to
>> human purpose.
>
> Repeating it as often as you like but it will never be true.
>
>> Dhu
>>
>> --
>> Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
klunk
"Duncan Patton a Campbell" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@neotext.ca...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:52:41 +0000, Chom Noamsky wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>> "Duncan Patton a Campbell" <camp...@neotext.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.11...@neotext.ca...
>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:37:54 -0800, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Capitalism is working just fine. It is not, however, a philosophy of
>>>> existence but an economic engine for the generation of Profits.
>>>> ================
>>> BUT WHO generates the profit and WHO takes the profits
>>> Take a look and you will see the masses out there working their asses
>>> off
>
>
> Yes: but who takes the profit is a question outside the function of
> the machine: that is a Political Decision.
which is why we have swings between ideological extremes because ultimately,
the engine of politics is reaction....
Archie
> Neil K wrote:
> > Capitalism is a human social construction.
> > When it operates within that great human philosophy we call ' fee
> > enterprise' it can be the most efficient means of both production AND
> > distribution ever known.
> > But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
> > needs regulation.
> > This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
> > 'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production.
> > Some want to call this socialism ..... so be it
> > Whatever you want to call it its on it's way.
>
> evolutionary, not revolutionary, then all you need do is sit back and
> wait for utopia to happen.
>
> Also, if what you say (er, Marx says) is true, then the Venezuela
> experiment is doomed. That's because its bourgeois capitalist phase
> never had a chance to mature. It's not nearly developed enough to
> sustain the cost of a comprehensive welfare state.
>
> Funny how the can.politics neo-Marxists agree that socialism can't work
> until it has a strong capitalist economic machine to support it.
Capitalism, as it is, can hardly be called free enterprise. It is
mammoth state married to monopoly capitalism. Entrepreneurs have been
driven out of business and now even rather large capitalist firms
can't compete with the monster capitalism has become.
I agree with Neil. If we can return to small scale entrepreneurship
along with strong social programs where everybodies vital needs are
guaranteed, we'd have freedom and security. Real free enterprise is
nothing like what exists today however and we need to usurp that
monster. We need to take back control of societies.
As Neil points out, capitalism itself is incorrigible and that is why
we need to base the productive forces within the control of the
citizens. If capitalism could be fixed - if we could grow and maintain
Swedish types of capitalist societies - what could be wrong with it?
The problem is - we can't.
Whatever we call it, we need to start the wheels of production working
again and we need to re build infrastructure again and we need to
provide the basics for each and every person. It doesn't matter what -
ism tag we put on that. It just happens to be called socialism in
common parlance.
You might be right about Venezuela - jumping the socialist gun. I hope
you are wrong.
frederick
> frederick wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:COCKm.6257$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>> "Robert Peffers" <auldbobp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> We are all capitalists, none of us do something for nothing. Even
> socialists! Every try to motivate someone who will not have something to
> gain by co-operating? It is impossible. Say we all got paid the same, a
> socialist primary concept, then be I the PM, brain/heart surgeon or drug
> addict or bum, we get paid the same.
>
> Then we can all sit on our asses and see who is going to do the work.
> Because if I work, you will steal it from me. If you work, I will steal
> from you. My guess, the hungriest one is going to be the first to work,
> and tell the rest to piss off.
>
> True socialism is guaranteed to fail for that reason alone. But better
> yet, politicians sell it as it has appeal to the stupid and naive. Usually
> to control the herd with stupid ideals and not a practical solution they
> don't have.
================================
-==
That is one stupid mixed up expression of socialism and of Capitalism.
The original , early 1900's capitalism was almost the same as socialism.
The main difference in the two theories is that socialism attempts to use
money for the good of all the citizens while modern unworking capitalism
allows one group of people to profit from the labour of others and then
to use their profits to overpower the majority. The only reason
socialism fails is because the moneyed people weild their power and demand
alliegence from those without money. True socialists are people who
believe that humanity is more valuable than making large
profits---Capitalists believe that ever bigger profits and monetary power
are the most important things in the world---no one can have both
Archie
> "Canuck57" <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:GFHKm.30023$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > frederick wrote:
> >> "Canuck57" <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>news:COCKm.6257$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
> >>> frederick wrote:
> >>>> "Robert Peffers" <auldbobpeffer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > We are all capitalists, none of us do something for nothing. Even
> > socialists! Every try to motivate someone who will not have something to
> > gain by co-operating? It is impossible. Say we all got paid the same, a
> > socialist primary concept, then be I the PM, brain/heart surgeon or drug
> > addict or bum, we get paid the same.
>
> > Then we can all sit on our asses and see who is going to do the work.
> > Because if I work, you will steal it from me. If you work, I will steal
> > from you. My guess, the hungriest one is going to be the first to work,
> > and tell the rest to piss off.
>
> > True socialism is guaranteed to fail for that reason alone. But better
> > yet, politicians sell it as it has appeal to the stupid and naive. Usually
> > to control the herd with stupid ideals and not a practical solution they
> > don't have.
>
> ================================
> -==
> That is one stupid mixed up expression of socialism and of Capitalism.
I sit here and can only wonder what kind of a person would write
insultting crap like this for public display. Such insults should be
reserved for when you are standing in front of a full length mirror.
Right back atcha sunshine.
Chom Noamsky
I guess it all depends on what kind of slavery you prefer. Capitalists
like wage slavery, socialists like forced labour. If you say that's
false then pick your choice of socialist states, past or present, and
imagine how long you would last not working. Not even in Cuba is labour
voluntary. In a recent Internet news item a dissatisfied Cuban women
said you either work or you don't eat. You won't go to jail for not
working, but you'll go hungry and exist near starvation on state rations
alone. In practical terms it amounts to forced labour. Even wage
slavery is preferable to existing half fed.
Chom Noamsky
> LOL. One of my rightwing friends once accused me of being the biggest
> snob he'd ever met.
He probably meant sob.
Chom Noamsky
> WTF are you yammering about? Like Orwell I believe that the lumpen
> proletariate are civilization's last best hope. The ruling class and
> middle class don't give a ra about freedoms and liberties.
Neither do the anti-choice.
klunk
> LOL. One of my rightwing friends once accused me of being the biggest
> snob he'd ever met.
as a reaction to your drama queen histrionics, no doubt.... ;-)
Canuck57
You mean like Chavez! How do you stop Chavez from happening in your
little socialist nirvana? With rocks?
Canuck57
> Chavez.
Not accrding to world organizations monitoring them. Oh, it improved
for awhile but one the consitution was altered it deteriorated right
back again.
frederick
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
> frederick wrote:
>>
>> That is one stupid mixed up expression of socialism and of Capitalism.
>> The original , early 1900's capitalism was almost the same as
>> socialism.
>> The main difference in the two theories is that socialism attempts to
>> use money for the good of all the citizens while modern unworking
>> capitalism allows one group of people to profit from the labour of
>> others and then to use their profits to overpower the majority. The
>> only reason socialism fails is because the moneyed people weild their
>> power and demand alliegence from those without money. True socialists
>> are people who believe that humanity is more valuable than making
>> large profits---Capitalists believe that ever bigger profits and
>> monetary power are the most important things in the world---no one can
>> have both
>
> I guess it all depends on what kind of slavery you prefer. Capitalists
> like wage slavery, socialists like forced labour. If you say that's false
> then pick your choice of socialist states, past or present, and imagine
> how long you would last not working. Not even in Cuba is labour
> voluntary. In a recent Internet news item a dissatisfied Cuban women said
> you either work or you don't eat. You won't go to jail for not working,
> but you'll go hungry and exist near starvation on state rations alone. In
> practical terms it amounts to forced labour. Even wage slavery is
> preferable to existing half fed.
============================
=
Tell me---who's news broadcast are you listening to ? Who's books and
newspapers do you read. I will bet one could hear some juicy tales about
your country written from the other side I do not put too much faith in
either side's propaganda but try to read between the lines and use common
sense. I travel up north a few miles ,past some reserves and see the ragged
, hungry waifs. I drive through the city slums and see beggars,
prostitutes, rundown housing etc. You have to expect that when the law
allows profits to be made off the backs of the poor.
frederick
Right back atcha sunshine
===============
Thank You--- you actions reveal your personality.
frederick
=
Your paranoia is showing. I would hope that there are enough reasonable
people in Canada to hold our country on an even keel.
But There are millions of people in Venezuela who are overjoyed with his
government though we will never see that printed in our papers.
DOES IT REALLY MATTER what kind of government, communist liberal,
socialist conservative or dictator so long as we have so long as we
maintain the right to change it. A change would certainly shake the bugs
out of our capitalism. and it might even be interesting to see.
Chom Noamsky
> Your paranoia is showing. I would hope that there are enough reasonable
> people in Canada to hold our country on an even keel.
> But There are millions of people in Venezuela who are overjoyed with his
> government though we will never see that printed in our papers.
> DOES IT REALLY MATTER what kind of government, communist liberal,
> socialist conservative or dictator so long as we have so long as we
> maintain the right to change it. A change would certainly shake the bugs
> out of our capitalism. and it might even be interesting to see.
And there are millions of people not overjoyed with Chavez's government:
http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/10/27/en_pol_esp_over-60-percent-of-v_27A2956931.shtml
Chom Noamsky
> I sit here and can only wonder what kind of a person would write
> insultting crap like this for public display. Such insults should be
> reserved for when you are standing in front of a full length mirror.
>
> Right back atcha sunshine
> ===============
> Thank You--- you actions reveal your personality.
There's something just at the subconscious level going on with Archie...
not sure what it is but it isn't mentally healthy.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
>> >Not for the serfs, wage slaves and lumpen proletariate.
>>
>> Typical socialist thinking; 'lumpen proletariate', the very thinking
>> that looks down on some while you think you know better. Lenin,
>> Trotsky and Stalin thought the same thing.
>
> WTF are you yammering about? Like Orwell I believe that the lumpen
> proletariate are civilization's last best hope. The ruling class and
> middle class don't give a ra about freedoms and liberties.
>
That's an utterly elitist viewpoint if ever I saw it.
Ultra-Montain is the label that comes to mind.
Not only knowing better what is good for the serfs
than they do but having the gall to hold them up
as an example you do not emulate ...
Roy
wrote:
ultramontain:
adj. ultramontane, beyond the mountains (especially the Alps); one who
believes in concentration of power in the hands of the Pope (Roman
Catholic Church)
==
Roy
>
> > CutOffByGooglewrote:
>
> > >> "The Ukraine famine was not a population control operation."
>
> > Genocide is synonymous with population control. What happened in the
> > Ukraine in 1932/1933 was genocide.
>
> No it wasn't.
>
> >It was a deliberate and systematic
>
> > starvation of millions of people.
>
> How many actually died is a matter of considerable debate, as are the
> underlying motivations for it. However, genocide is a term that
> describes actual attempts at the elimination or erradication of a race
> or ethnic group: American indians, Armenians, and Jews have been
> victims of genocide.
>
> Ukranians never were.
>
> >The Soviet Union EXPORTED 1.7 million
> > tonnes of grain while this political famine was going on.
>
> An Ireland and India exported food during their famines. Were the
> Irish and Indians also victims of genocide at the hands of the British
> empire?
>
> > >> The collectivization of Ukraine by Stalin and his minions resulted in
> > >> mass starvation. All of the grain and livestock were seized and even
> > >> the gardens were destroyed in order to teach the peasants that
> > >> resistance to collectivism was futile. In effect the man-made famine
> > >> controlled the population through starvation. Perhaps you should do
> > >> some reading of history before you yip.
> > >> ==
>
> > > ROFLMAO. Perhaps you should develop some reading comprehension skills
> > > before you post.
>
> > You need more omega-3 in your diet. Without it the brain turns to jelly
> > an rots (moose meat is a great source of omega-3).
>
> We eat fish, lots of fish. And bread with flax.
Well, the flax should "clean you out" at least...and make your hair
shiny.
==
frederick
> Cut Off By Google wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> On Nov 11, 4:25 pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Chom Noamsky wrote:
>>>> Neil K wrote:
>>>>> Capitalism is a human social construction.
>>>>> When it operates within that great human philosophy we call ' fee
>>>>> enterprise' it can be the most efficient means of both production AND
>>>>> distribution ever known.
>>>>> But the system., capitalism, always gravitates to monopoly therefore
>>>>> needs regulation.
>>>>> This is how Marx analyzed the situation; he went on to predict the
>>>>> 'rational man' would eventually regulate the means of production.
>>>>> Some want to call this socialism ..... so be it
>>>>> Whatever you want to call it its on it's way.
>>>> So what are you agitators agitating about then? If socialism is
>>>> evolutionary, not revolutionary, then all you need do is sit back and
>>>> wait for utopia to happen.
>>>> Also, if what you say (er, Marx says) is true, then the Venezuela
>>>> experiment is doomed. That's because its bourgeois capitalist phase
>>>> never had a chance to mature. It's not nearly developed enough to
>>>> sustain the cost of a comprehensive welfare state
>>>> until it has a strong capitalist economic machine to support it.
Socialism would work fine All it needs is the good will of the citizenry
and for capitalists to stop trying to wreck every mechanism that they
set up . Socialism is the only political system that can bring the
developing nation up to having a reasonable standard of living. If left to
its own development then Socialism gradually embraces capitalism.
This is the true way to democratic capitalism ( that we are trying to
establish) without hardship nor warfare.
=================================
Chavez would make sure even if the wealth was developed, it never made
>>> it to the peoples hands. His socialist rants were to get power over the
>>> people, now they have to live with the reprecusions of the fact they
>>> voted for him. In the end, quick to give up their constituition for
>>> Chavez gave them squaler, hardship and neither a halthy capitalism nor
>>> socialism. Just slaves to the big ass hole at the top. And their
>>> cronies of course.
>>
>> The people of Venezuela are better off know than they were before
>> Chavez.
>
> Not accrding to world organizations monitoring them. Oh, it improved for
> awhile but one the consitution was altered it deteriorated right back
> again.
>Did you read that in a venezuelan newspaper or see it on a venuezelan T V
=============