Re: Socialism great idea

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Patriot_Gaymes wrote:

> "DGVREIMAN" wrote in message
> anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...

Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.

Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.

Socialism puts *people* before money.

The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.

Capitalism is a good thing, but not uncontrolled "pure" capitalism (ruthless capitalism).

People first!
;-)

[David E. Powell]

...that never works in practice.

[Eugene Griessel]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:17:31 -0800 (PST), "David E. Powell"
<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:

>...that never works in practice.

It's based on the premise that one can steal from the rich to give to
the poor. The theory however never addressed the problem of when you
have stolen all the rich have - and they now too are poor - where the
largesse is going to come from.

Eugene L Griessel

If a mime gets arrested, does he have the right to remain silent?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 25, 7:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
wrote:

> Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
> > "DGVREIMAN"  wrote in message
> > anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>
> Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.

Nope. The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
growth.

> Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.

Yes, this is a good thing. It creates the mo0st wealth froma given
set of inputs.

> Socialism puts *people* before money.

And the tens of millions of dead socialist due to famines, the Gulag,
etc were examples of putting people first?

> The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.

No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
poorer.

[Matt Wiser]

On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
wrote:

Socialism never worked in practice. Unless the only thing being
produced is mountains of corpses. Ever hear of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,
etc.? Probably not-unless you get out of your momma's basement.

[Eugene Griessel]

Vince would feel quite at home with them. He's already as adept as
they are at lying and fraud.

Eugene L Griessel

Failure is not getting knocked down . . . . .
Its not getting back up!

[Daryl]

On 11/26/2011 10:17 AM, David E. Powell wrote:
> ...that never works in practice.

What works is a mixture of many ideals. Not a single one by
itself works.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Matt Wiser]

>    Its not getting back up!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True: he'd fit right in with either Stalin's or Mao's propaganda
machinery. Until they purged him for whatever reason.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
>>
>>>"DGVREIMAN" wrote in message
>>>anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>>
>>Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>
>
>
>
> Nope. The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> growth.

Cancer grows fast too.

>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
>
>
> Yes, this is a good thing. It creates the mo0st wealth froma given
> set of inputs.

It *also* creates the most poverty.

>>Socialism puts *people* before money.
>
>
>
> And the tens of millions of dead socialist due to famines, the Gulag,
> etc were examples of putting people first?

And the hundreds of millions dead from famines, malnutrition, no
medical care, and the myriad of other maladys caused by uncontrolled
pure "free" capitalism.

>>The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.
>
>
>
>
> No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> poorer.

which: child labor laws, 8 hour days, overtime pay, workers comp insurance.

We Americans *like* our socialist laws.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Matt Wiser wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
>>
>>>"DGVREIMAN" wrote in message
>>>anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>>
>>Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>>
>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>>
>>Socialism puts *people* before money.
>>
>>The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.
>>
>>Capitalism is a good thing, but not uncontrolled "pure" capitalism (ruthless capitalism).
>>
>>People first!
>>;-)
>
>
> Socialism never worked in practice.

It works in the family unit and in our American socialist laws.

Unless the only thing being
> produced is mountains of corpses. Ever hear of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,
> etc.? Probably not-unless you get out of your momma's basement.

Count the dead caused by capitalism, and remember that
Communism was *caused* by Capitalism.

[Patriot_Gaymes]

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
news:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

...that never works in practice.

Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!

LOL!

[Frogwatch]

On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot.gay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> ...that never works in practice.
>
> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>
> LOL!

Communism "cause " by capitalism? Really? Does this fool know any
history? Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
China.
In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s. In China, there would
be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
caused famine in the late 50s and 60s. In Cambodia there would be
fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot. IN Ethiopa,
communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
there without communism.I could go on and on....
We have been thru this calculation and even if we allow that all
deaths in WW2 were caused by "capitalism" (simply not true as Japan
was not capitalist) then since the beginning of communism in Russia,
communism has intentionally caused the deaths of more than 4X the
number caused by capitalism
Capitalism is responsible for almost all of the wealth the world now
has and is responsible for our ability to produce food for 9 billion
people. Communist nations could not even feed themselves.

I do agree that pure unrestrained capitalism leads to instability and/
or monopoly so a minimum amount of govt control is a good thing.
Crony crapitalism is bad because it assumes that the govt is smarter
than the natural mathematics that control an economy, ie. bad ideas
should fail.

[Frogwatch]

In general, people like this Quinn fraud actually do know the bloody
history of communism and that it brought us more suffering than any
other political philosophy in it's short reign yet they espouse it
because they expect to be someone who profits from it. By espousing
it, they expect to be one of the fortunate few who is on top rather
one of the billions who suffer. Thus, it is pure selfishness and evil
that motivates them.

[Paul F Austin]

On 11/28/2011 11:03 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes"<patriot.gay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David E. Powell" wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> ...that never works in practice.
>>
>> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Communism "cause " by capitalism? Really? Does this fool know any
> history? Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
> China.
> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s. In China, there would
> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s. In Cambodia there would be
> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot. IN Ethiopa,
> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> there without communism.I could go on and on....

Here's a minor quibble. God knows I detest communism but the famine
associated with the Great Leap was caused by incompetent economics and
not even Marxian economics at that. Elsewhere, food control and famine
were standard tools of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Some of suggested that
Lenin inherited the idea from Tsarist methods of control but I've never
seen any Russian history that supports it.

Paul

[Frogwatch]

People who support communism knowing its faults and history do so
because they know that in a merit based system they would fail because
they have no merit. Consequently, they espouse a force based system
in which they hope to be part of those in control.

[William Black]

On 28/11/11 16:03, Frogwatch wrote:
>
> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s. In China, there would
> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s. In Cambodia there would be
> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot. IN Ethiopa,
> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> there without communism.I could go on and on....

You assume that what takes over in these countries is better...

That really is an unfounded assumption.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Eugene Griessel]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:14:28 +0000, William Black
<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 28/11/11 16:03, Frogwatch wrote:
>>
>> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
>> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s. In China, there would
>> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
>> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s. In Cambodia there would be
>> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot. IN Ethiopa,
>> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
>> there without communism.I could go on and on....
>
>You assume that what takes over in these countries is better...

Ethiopia, in particular, has been having regular famines since the
dawn of recorded history in the place.

Eugene L Griessel

A closed mouth gathers no feet.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 28, 12:28 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
wrote:

> >>Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>
> > Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> > America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> > growth.
>
> Cancer grows fast too.

So, do kudzu and bamboo. What's your point? Are you arguing that
economic growth is bad? If it is bad than fast growth would be a bad
thing. But... since economic gerowth is a good thing faster growth is
superior to slower. So to maximize the welfare of the people we need
social policies that promote growth, and that means capitalism.

> >>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> > Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> > set of inputs.
>
> It *also* creates the most poverty.

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out, it creates the most wealth form a
given set of resources. Socialism creates poverty, by using a given
set of imputs to produce less than it otherwise could, there is less
to go around and thus people are poorer.

In 19th century US the people were the richest in the world, which is
why the US attracted so many immigrants. They went where the money
was, and going to America meant an improvement in their standard of
living.

> >>Socialism puts *people* before money.
>
> > And the tens of millions of dead socialist due to famines, the Gulag,
> > etc were examples of putting people first?
>
> And the hundreds of millions dead from famines, malnutrition, no
> medical care, and the myriad of other maladys caused by uncontrolled
> pure "free" capitalism.

OK, where ARE they? Take 19th century America, which is the epitomy
of unfettered capitalism on a large scale, show me a single famine.
Socialist countries experienced mupltiple famines in a few decades,
and with people starving to death by the million. Show me that in a
capitalist country. Show me ONE in the US in the 19th century.

Maladies caused by capitalism? How about the maladies caused by
socialism? Socilaist countries were never bastions of good health.

BTW, Ireland was victim of the socialist policiy known as the Corn
Laws, which prohibited certain capitalsit econbomic adjustments to the
crop failure. So, the Irish potato famine does not qualify as
'capitalist'.

> >>The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.
>
> > No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> > poorer.
>
> which: child labor laws, 8 hour days, overtime pay, workers comp insurance.

All bad for workers by denying them choice. If you are willing and
able and want to work more than 8 hours because you need money a lot
more than you need free time, you are screwed. But in the converse if
you don't want to work long hours no one can force you to. All an
employer could conceivably do is fire you, and there are millions of
other employers. Socilaism has made peope unambiguously worse off.

> We Americans *like* our socialist laws.

So do the North Koreans like theirs. That doesn't mean they are an
improvement on their absence though.

[tutall]

On Nov 26, 10:10 am, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
> > > "DGVREIMAN"  wrote in message
> > > anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>
> > Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>
> Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> growth.
>
> > Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> set of inputs.

Shawn, would you agree that 19th C Americans had a higher level of
ethics, moral restrictions, what have you than can be found today.
And, that modern communication, along with the lower level of ethical
behavior has changed the playing ground so much that it's not a valid
comparison?
Corporations with global interests did not exist either. So much has
changed that this sort of harkening to an earlier age seems a refusal
to see how the modern world really works; self administered
ideological blinkers.

I would argue that the largest modern corporations have too little
self interest in or for the nation states where they operate. Based on
history would not expect that deregulating such extra territorial
entities would benefit anyone other than shareholders, seeing how
they've behaved in third world countries. They do shit in their own
nest without compunction when it profits them to.

> No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> poorer.

Oh shit, an ideologue wanting to throw out the baby with the
bathwater? Are you one of those that wishes to see the FDA and EPA
abolished?

[William Black]

Recent history in Ethiopia seems to indicate that many recent famines
have been deliberately encouraged as part of some sort of local conflict
(you can't really call them 'civil wars', they're a bit too low
intensity for that)

I was thinking more of the huge cock-up that resulted in four million
people dying in the 1943 Bengal famine.

And Bangladesh hasn't a marvellous record either.

Mind you, even Mao would have been hard pressed to manage the level of
slaughter managed in the Taiping absurdity.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 28, 1:05 pm, tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> > Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> > set of inputs.
>
> Shawn, would you agree that 19th C Americans had a higher level of
> ethics, moral restrictions, what have you than can be found today.

I think they had different values that were in many ways superior to
ours. They also had different values that in many ways are inferior
to ours. So, they were basically different.

> And, that modern communication, along with the lower level of ethical
> behavior has changed the playing ground so much that it's not a valid
> comparison?

No, not at all. They had modern communication in the 19th century,
just a different defintion of modern.

The comparison specifically *IS* valid. Nothing has changed in ways
that make socialism a good idea, definitely not superior to
capitalism.

> Corporations with global interests did  not exist either.

Of course they existed. Coorporations were created centuries before
*because* of global interests. Specifically they were very long range
trading companies.

> So much has
> changed that this sort of harkening to an earlier age seems a refusal
> to see how the modern world really works; self administered
> ideological blinkers.

Nothign relevant has changed, and I have all of a PHD in economics but
for the dissertation and piece of paper, so I do not suffer from "self
administered ideological blinkers". I can go into FAR more
mathematical detail than you could ever understand on these issues.

> I would argue that the largest modern corporations have too little
> self interest in or for the nation states where they operate.

OK. So what? Nation states are relatively new things on the world
stage anyway, and not I think an improvement. The company's job is to
look after the company's interests. Workers look after their own
interests. This way everyone's interests get looked after. Change
that equaltion and some interests don't get looked after and everyone
loses as a result.

> Based on
> history would not expect that deregulating such extra territorial
> entities would benefit anyone other than shareholders, seeing how
> they've behaved in third world countries.

OK, shareholders benefit. Why is that a bad thing? Ultimately the
return on YOUR savings is determined by how much shareholders
benefit. The return on your pension or mutual fund is shareholder
profit. If you eschew real assets to save only via bonds, their
return is predicated on how much companies are willing to pay to
borrow, which is predicated on... shareholder profits.

Increase shareholder profits and everyone benefits. Reduce it and
everyone loses.

> They do shit in their own
> nest without compunction when it profits them to.

So does government. What's your point? At least corporations have
balance sheets and the concept of profits. Government can and
regualarly does destry wealth with no ensuing benift to anyone
whatsoever.

> > No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> > poorer.
>
> Oh shit, an ideologue wanting to throw out the baby with the
> bathwater?

A rather well trained expert in this particular field (public policy
analysis) actually.

> Are you one of those that wishes to see the FDA and EPA
> abolished?

Yes. Show me the baby. For instance what the FDA does is keep drugs
off the market until they say they can be legally sold. Depriving
people of useful drugs kills them. *Every* FDA press release that
says 'recently approved drug X will save Y lives per year" means the
FDA just killed Y lives every year they kept X off the market.

The FDA approval process also adds to the cost of bringing new drugs
to market. When it costs $1 billion to bring a new drug to market,
that drug has to be priced to recoup that billion dollars. If it only
helps a few people, the price they will be charged will be quite
high. If the company can only hope to sell 1 million doses (and they
have expert staff to estimate this sort of thing), they need to charge
$1000 per dose. It doesn't matter that the drug only costs them 10
cents a dose to manufacture. If they can't make more money doing drug
R&D than they can doing something else, they will simply stop doing
drug R&D and new drugs won't cost $1000 a dose- they won't be
available at all for anyone at any price.

The FDA's rise to power was caused by the Elixir Sulfanilimide
disaster. Before penicillin sulfa drugs were it for anti-biotics.
Sulfas are a powder. Someone figured that a liquid form would be a
good idea. Sulfa + solvent + label "elixir sulfanilimide" and bob's
your uncle.

Unfortunately the guy in carge was a chemist, not a pharmacist. To a
pharmacist 'elixir' means the solvent is alcohol, which it wasn't.
(this is why so many medicines have alcohol as an ingrdaent, it is the
slvent and water won't work) A pharmacist would also have known that
the solvent used was toxic to humans. 100 people died. Major public
scandal and new laws and a newly empowered proto-FDA to enforce them.

Jump forward a few decades. Beta blockers. Widely used in Europe for
heart patients. Not approved by the FDA for use in the US yet. So,
after a shortened approval process (for a drug already in widesprad
use in Europe, and thus already known to be safe and effective...)
beta blockers were approved in the US as well.

14,000 people who would have lived in the US if they had been given
beta blockers DIED, every single year it took the FDA to allow beta
blockers to be used in the US. An elixir sulfanilimide every single
year for a century would cause less harm the the FDA did in a single
year of doing is job.

Before the FDA about 200 new drugs were introduced into the US
market. Last year (2010) the US managed to approve less than *40*,
which is a recent high...

Yes, I would GLADLY accept the risk of another elixir sulfanilimide
(damn long name...) for the benefits from disbanding the FDA. 100 is
a LOT less than 14,000 (per year...)

[Richard]

On Nov 28, 4:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot.gay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> ...that never works in practice.
>
> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>
> LOL!

Hi Ray! How's Boston weather?

[Richard]

On Nov 28, 1:29 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>

No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
obtain what was not rightfully theirs.

"Nationalization" is theft writ large.

[Jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:gcGdnWOoz4_-pU7T...@supernews.com...

> Matt Wiser wrote:

>>
>> Socialism never worked in practice.
>
> It works in the family unit and in our American socialist laws.
>
>

Why not forget all that came before and design the ideal
system from theory for ourselves?

I believe the way to go is to define the ideal creation or
system hat exists in all the universe, identify the process
responsible for that creation, and translate that to an
economic or political system of government.

I say the ideal creation or system is life and intelligence.
And that Darwinian evolution is the responsible process.

In terms of order vs disorder, biological evolution is
a competition between the subcritical behavior of
...genetics vs. the supercritical forces of ...mutation
When the two are critically interacting, then a third
form of behavior emerges, in this case called natural
selection.

Solid > Liquid < Gas
Static > Dynamic < Chaotic
Genetics > Natural Selection < Mutation

The middle emergent realm is where the two opposing
forces interact with each other. For a system of government
the forces for order and disorder are....the rule of law
and ...freedom respectively.

Rule of Law > Democracy < Freedom

When the two opposing forces freely interact and
are in an unstable equilibrium (critically interacting)
then just like life, the whole becomes more than the
sum of it's parts. When in balance, self-tuning feedback
mechanisms spontaneously appear and drive the system
towards the better solution.

Otherwise called self-organizing.

Too much order and a negative-sum game is established
where system collapse is inevitable.

If freedom dominates the system, of course we
have a chaotic system. Also a negative-sum game.

An evolving system must have equal parts 'dictatorship'
and 'anarchy'. Each endlessly competing with each other.
That's how a naturally evolving path to a better future
is built imho.

Is America a police state?
Or anarchy?

If you can't tell which of the two dominates
system behavior....we've hit the sweet spot.
When it's clear which opposing form rules
the system, then it's doomed.

[Jonathan]

"Richard" <the.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae86d7bc-fdac-4255...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
> about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
> obtain what was not rightfully theirs.

> "Nationalization" is theft writ large.

The idea behind communism and socialism is to
convince the public it's in their best interest if the
government takes all the wealth and power from them
and gives it to a few self-appointed rulers.

And then 'trust them' to give it back at some future date.
Such as when the revolution has become perfected.

Whenever that might be~

Nationalism is just a word used when communism
or socialism is no longer politically correct.

s



s

[red...@lava.net]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:17:30 -0500, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You do sound soooo last century....

http://rwor.org/socialistconstitution/index.html

- redvet

[William Black]

On 28/11/11 01:17, Jonathan wrote:
> "Richard"<the.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ae86d7bc-fdac-4255...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
>> about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
>> obtain what was not rightfully theirs.
>
>> "Nationalization" is theft writ large.
>
>
> The idea behind communism and socialism is to
> convince the public it's in their best interest if the
> government takes all the wealth and power from them
> and gives it to a few self-appointed rulers.
>
> And then 'trust them' to give it back at some future date.
> Such as when the revolution has become perfected.

You are the ghost of Ronald Reagan and I claim my five pounds...

One thing you're going to have to learn is exactly who your enemy is...

Do you remember when teachers, ambulance staff, nurses, midwives,
students, doctors, factory workers, shop assistants and fireman
crashed the stock market, wiped out Banks, took billions in bonuses and
paid no tax?

No, me neither...

[Paul F Austin]

Be careful of ad hom characterization. There have been a lot of very
capable Marxists in both academia and outside it and their motives may
be opaque to you or me but real to them. As an example, Sir Eric
Hobsbawm is a very highly respected historian whose work often falls
outside the Marxist universe yet is a devoted Marxist who views the body
count of Marxist-Leninism over its 80+ years history with equanimity.

Revolution (not just Marxian ones) attracts the sons and daughters of
newly middle-class families that have expectations that come from
University educations that things-as-they-are fail to satisfy.
Disproportionately, these people rather than the true poor form the
leadership cadres of many of the post-1789 revolutions. These people are
excluded from the governing classes of their place and time and seek to
make their way into power by other than "through the system" means.

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

None the less, since the revolution in agricultural yields starting in
the 1970s, most areas manage to raise enough food, averaged over a
fairly short period of time, to feed the local population. Political
disruption of production and distribution, including using famine as a
weapon against the enemies of those in power can account for many of the
famines in the last sixty years.

Tangentially, food aid that saves lives in the short run places local
tillers in a cleft stick, having to compete with a free good whose
distribution is _highly_ political.

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

Interestingly, Marx based much of his scientific case in Capital on data
regarding working class people in pre-industrial and early industrial
England, claiming that the state of living of the workers declined as
industrialization took off. He had a remarkable unwillingness to
actually talk to any workers and was very selective to the point of
falsifying data in making his case. It is little to wonder that Marx's
key predictions of the trajectory of capital into dwindling profits and
reduction of the number of capitalists surviving the resulting
competition bore no resemblance to the history following his death.

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

Ah, an actual sophomore, extrapolating from beerful conversation with
his peers.

Paul

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Jonathan wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:gcGdnWOoz4_-pU7T...@supernews.com...
>
>>Matt Wiser wrote:
>
>
>>>Socialism never worked in practice.
>>
>>It works in the family unit and in our American socialist laws.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why not forget all that came before

So we don't repeat past mistakes.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:28 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>>
>>>Nope. The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
>>>America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
>>>growth.
>>
>>Cancer grows fast too.
>
>
>
> So, do kudzu and bamboo. What's your point? Are you arguing that
> economic growth is bad?

No, I've *clearly* said uncontrolled growth is bad.

Are you saying uncontrolled growth is good? If not, which of
our socialist laws do you like?

If it is bad than fast growth would be a bad
> thing. But... since economic gerowth is a good thing faster growth is
> superior to slower. So to maximize the welfare of the people we need
> social policies that promote growth, and that means capitalism.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>>
>>>Yes, this is a good thing. It creates the mo0st wealth froma given
>>>set of inputs.
>>
>>It *also* creates the most poverty.
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't.

You don't seem to grasp the simple concept of "shear numbers" or
"absolute numbers" or "increasing numbers".

but i'll give you one more chance before i shitcan you as another old nut
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Frogwatch wrote:
>
> Communism "cause " by capitalism? Really?

Yes. You're an idiot. Almost literally. ...spectre...haunting Europe...read it son
;-)

[La N.]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jb1csi$ok3$1...@dont-email.me...

Me neither. So, that makes at least 2 of us, William.

- nilita

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 28/11/2011 18:56, Paul F Austin ha scritto:

>
> Here's a minor quibble. God knows I detest communism but the famine
> associated with the Great Leap was caused by incompetent economics and
> not even Marxian economics at that. Elsewhere, food control and famine
> were standard tools of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Some of suggested that
> Lenin inherited the idea from Tsarist methods of control but I've never
> seen any Russian history that supports it.

for "russian history" you mean post-1990 Russian history ? I highly
suspect that during the Soviet era no one dare to write about Czarists
methods applied by Lenin, even in the "free world"....

on the 1920s USSR famine, You must consider That in Russia/USSR WW1
continues until 1920-1 and amidst these 7 or so years was the Spanish
Influenza, no wonder that 1920's Soviet agriculture was in huge disarray
(you must notice also that rural russia is a first-rate logistical
fuckup even today, and because of well-known (and proven beyond every
conceivable doubt) defense reasons, no sane russian gov't will attempt
to improve internal communications above a certain point...,)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Italy has a very long history of this (I'm discussing it on another
s.m.n. thread, but I don't know from what NG you wrote and read) and I
agree that the core of 1776 and 1789 Great Revolutions was of middle and
upper-middle class, and those Revolution in the long term shows that is
betrayed, because was clear the forming of an "money aristocracy" in the
place of the "blood aristocracy" was in process, hence the rising of the
Socialism (european sense) and Communism.

this can give a more-or-less consistent rationale for the general
upheaval in process not only in the Arab world, but also in EU and USA.

Hobsbawm's writings is rather interesting, (in my eyes he is worth of
considered on the par with Marx, Engels and Lenin) and also is one of
the long tradition of UK writers on Italian matters I should recommend
to you the reading of his 1977 book on Eurocommunism, written as an
interwiew with one of the top leader of the Italian Communist Party,
whose name will really surprise you ;)

[Dennis]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

> Hobsbawm's writings is rather interesting, (in my eyes he is worth of
> considered on the par with Marx, Engels and Lenin) and also is one of
> the long tradition of UK writers on Italian matters I should recommend
> to you the reading of his 1977 book on Eurocommunism, written as an
> interwiew with one of the top leader of the Italian Communist Party,
> whose name will really surprise you ;)

Who is that? Not Berlinguer, I take it.

Dennis

[Richard]

On Nov 27, 7:17 pm, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Richard" <the.sar...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I did not use "nationalism", I used "nationali-ZATION" and did so
deliberately as they are two distinct concepts.

[Richard]

On Nov 27, 7:05 pm, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in messagenews:gcGdnWOoz4_-pU7T...@supernews.com...

So you prefer a gridlock via "denial of the commons"?

[Paul F Austin]

My main field of interest in military history and my reading of economic
history concentrates on early modern Europe. As a result most of my
research that touches on Tsarist Russia does so through the lens of
military history.

What motivated my comment was Malia's _Soviet Tragedy_, that describes
the Civil War as a war between the Bolsheviki and the peasants over
control of food (which culminated in the Terror Famine) as well as
Lenin's seizure of Petersburg's food supply and ration system as a means
of control.

Do you have any references on the demographic effects of the Spanish
Influenza on Russia? That would be of interest.

Paul

[Andrew Swallow]

On 29/11/2011 03:20, Paul F Austin wrote:
[snip}

>
> Interestingly, Marx based much of his scientific case in Capital on data
> regarding working class people in pre-industrial and early industrial
> England, claiming that the state of living of the workers declined as
> industrialization took off. He had a remarkable unwillingness to
> actually talk to any workers and was very selective to the point of
> falsifying data in making his case. It is little to wonder that Marx's
> key predictions of the trajectory of capital into dwindling profits and
> reduction of the number of capitalists surviving the resulting
> competition bore no resemblance to the history following his death.
>
> Paul

Yes. The mill founders were mostly skilled workers, born part of the
proletariat. Party members were bourgeoisie. However the propaganda
said other things.

Andrew Swallow

[Richard]

On Nov 25, 8:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>

wrote:
> Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
> > "DGVREIMAN"  wrote in message
> > anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>

> Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>

> Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>

> Socialism puts *people* before money.
>

> The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.
>

> Capitalism is a good thing, but not uncontrolled "pure" capitalism (ruthless capitalism).
>
> People first!
> ;-)

Socialism puts *people on the central planning committee* before the
people.

Fixed it for you. NC.

[Daryl]

I have seen nationalism in my own lifetime. Before my lifetime,
the Nazis uses Nationalism. Lenin used Nationalism to get into
power. It's not a government. I think the Russians say it best
when they talk about Mother Russia.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 15:10, Paul F Austin wrote:
>
> What motivated my comment was Malia's _Soviet Tragedy_, that describes
> the Civil War as a war between the Bolsheviki and the peasants over
> control of food

So it denies the White involvement?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 28, 8:20 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> We Americans *like* our socialist laws.
>
> > So do the North Koreans like theirs.  That doesn't mean they are an
> > improvement on their absence though.
>
> Interestingly, Marx based much of his scientific case in Capital

Stop right there. Marx never had a scientific case on any topic
whatsoever. At best he engaged in adolescent fantasizing about
economic topics. Reading Capital you will see case after case of mere
ignorant angsty adolescent speculation about the hows, whys and
wherefores of the operation of the economy. His analysis would have
been purile in a freshmen Micro 101 class.

Marx has no place in the pantheon of economics. There are no economic
theorems with his name on them. He contributed NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
the sum of economic knowledge and EVERY attempt to apply his theories
have led inexorably to disaster of a scale best described with terms
like "megadeaths".

.

on data
> regarding working class people in pre-industrial and early industrial
> England, claiming that the state of living of the workers declined as
> industrialization took off. He had a remarkable unwillingness to
> actually talk to any workers and was very selective to the point of
> falsifying data in making his case. It is little to wonder that Marx's
> key predictions of the trajectory of capital into dwindling profits and
> reduction of the number of capitalists surviving the resulting
> competition bore no resemblance to the history following his death.

Oh, you were going somewhere other than where I thought... nevermind.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

No, it does not. Show how our (U.S.) socialist laws have put "people
on a central planning committee before the people"...oh...say, our socialist
child labor laws or our socialist insurance laws (e.g. workers comp insurance).

your "fix" is retarded (in the dictionary sense)
;-)

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 28, 8:50 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
wrote:

> >>>Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> >>>America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> >>>growth.
>
> >>Cancer grows fast too.
>
> > So, do kudzu and bamboo.  What's your point?  Are you arguing that
> > economic growth is bad?
>
> No, I've *clearly* said uncontrolled growth is bad.

And what is the benefit of "control"? And which is the 'controlled'
economy? One where individuals control their own decisions, or the
one where individuals do not control their own decisions? I can see
you are a (let's say...) statist, so why do you think depriving the
people most in touch with the issues of control over decisioons mking
would be or even could be an improvement? Be specific.

> Are you saying uncontrolled growth is good?

Of an economy? Yes. Let me repeat that- YES!

> >>>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> >>>Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> >>>set of inputs.
>
> >>It *also* creates the most poverty.
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> You don't seem to grasp the simple concept of "shear numbers" or
> "absolute numbers" or "increasing numbers".

You don't seem to grasp the concept of poverty. Pick your arbitrary
line defining a 'poverty level'. Any line. A capitalist society will
have fewer people under that line with a given set of resources
available than a socialist society with the same resources will have.
Hong Kong is a favorite of example mine. It has *no* natural
resources, and yet managed US level living standards. On the other
hand socialist China managed to starve tens of millions of its people
to death with all the resources of China available and a LOWER
population density.

> but i'll give you one more chance before i shitcan you as another old nut

Right, when challenged on your purile crypto-fascism you run away like
a coward. You aren't original. You are merely trite. Stay or leave,
I don't care. I will NOT allow you to promote an ideoliogy as
malicious as socialism without fighting you every single time.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 12:41 am, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:

> on the 1920s USSR famine, You must consider That in Russia/USSR WW1
> continues until 1920-1 and amidst these 7 or so years was the Spanish
> Influenza, no wonder that 1920's Soviet agriculture was in huge disarray
> (you must notice also that rural russia is a first-rate logistical
> fuckup even today, and because of well-known (and proven beyond every
> conceivable doubt) defense reasons, no sane russian gov't will attempt
> to improve internal communications above a certain point...,)

Under the Czars they at least managed to feed themselves, which
communism couldn't manage. Forced collectivization and the
extermination of the Kulaks is what killed Russian productivity.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 28, 6:02 pm, Richard <the.sar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Nationalization" is theft writ large.

I disagree entirely! That is entirely false.

Nationalization is *robbery* writ large. Taking by force, rather than
stealth.

[Richard]

On Nov 29, 12:35 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>

Compare the health plan of any member of the US Congress vs that of a
medicare recipient.

You're still an idiot.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Shawn Wilson wrote:

> On Nov 28, 8:50 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Nope. The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
>>>>>America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
>>>>>growth.
>>
>>>>Cancer grows fast too.
>>
>>>So, do kudzu and bamboo. What's your point? Are you arguing that
>>>economic growth is bad?
>>
>>No, I've *clearly* said uncontrolled growth is bad.
>
>
>
> And what is the benefit of "control"?

Which are you, argumentative or retarded?

And which is the 'controlled'
> economy? One where individuals control their own decisions, or the
> one where individuals do not control their own decisions?

Socialism, like U.S. socialism, has individuals controlling their decisions.

> I can see you are a (let's say...) statist,

I can see you want to pigeon hole me...and wrongly.

> so why do you think depriving the
> people most in touch with the issues of control over decisioons mking
> would be or even could be an improvement? Be specific.

Do you still beat your wife?

>>Are you saying uncontrolled growth is good?
>
>
>
> Of an economy? Yes. Let me repeat that- YES!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>>
>>>>>Yes, this is a good thing. It creates the mo0st wealth froma given
>>>>>set of inputs.
>>
>>>>It *also* creates the most poverty.
>>
>>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>You don't seem to grasp the simple concept of "shear numbers" or
>>"absolute numbers" or "increasing numbers".
>
>
>
> You don't seem to grasp the concept of poverty. Pick your arbitrary
> line defining a 'poverty level'. Any line. A capitalist society will
> have fewer people under that line with a given set of resources
> available than a socialist society with the same resources will have.
> Hong Kong is a favorite of example mine.

then Vietnam is a favorite example of mine...French Capitalism
enslaved the Vietnamese people and the current socialism is *far* better.

But I prefer talking about U.S. socialist laws.

It has *no* natural
> resources, and yet managed US level living standards. On the other
> hand socialist China managed to starve tens of millions of its people
> to death with all the resources of China available and a LOWER
> population density.
>
>
>
>
>>but i'll give you one more chance before i shitcan you as another old nut
>
>
>
>
> Right, when challenged on your purile crypto-fascism you run away like
> a coward. You aren't original. You are merely trite. Stay or leave,
> I don't care. I will NOT allow you to promote an ideoliogy as
> malicious as socialism without fighting you every single time.

oh good...then please explain how our socialist child labor laws are malicious.

(or should i do as i said and shitcan this old non-thinking geezer)
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

oh...so Capitalism, not socialism, puts "people on a central planning
committee before the people"...make up your mind son

(not to mention the 30 million Americans with *no* health plan at all)
;-)

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 12:34 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>

wrote:

> >>>>>Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> >>>>>America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> >>>>>growth.
>
> >>>>Cancer grows fast too.
>
> >>>So, do kudzu and bamboo.  What's your point?  Are you arguing that
> >>>economic growth is bad?
>
> >>No, I've *clearly* said uncontrolled growth is bad.
>
> > And what is the benefit of "control"?
>
> Which are you, argumentative or retarded?

Ah, yes, the insults start. You can always count on socialists
resporting to insults when confronted with the holes in their pet
theories. If we were in person I am sure you would offer me
violence. Socialists are big on violence.

I asked you a simple question- "what is the benefit of control"? Can
you answer it or not? It is central to your position after all.
Answer it or concede that socialism is inferior to capitalism.

BTW, I spent three years in the infantry, after the usual stint at the
Benning school for wayward boys. I am utterly immune to Usenet
insults (and offering me violence would be a bad idea too...). Drill
sergeants couldn't get a rise out of me with literally months of
effort. You stand no chance whatsoever.

>    And which is the 'controlled'
>
> > economy?  One where individuals control their own decisions, or the
> > one where individuals do not control their own decisions?
>
> Socialism, like U.S. socialism, has individuals controlling their decisions.

No, it doesn't. People making their own decisions is the ne plus
ultra of *capitalism* not socialism. Socialism is predicated on the
state making decisions and imposing them on others.

> >   I can see  you are a (let's say...) statist,
>
> I can see you want to pigeon hole me...and wrongly.

No, socialism requires statism.

> >  so why do you think depriving the
> > people most in touch with the issues of control over decisioons mking
> > would be or even could be an improvement?  Be specific.
>
> Do you still beat your wife?

You are the one promoting socialism. Socialism is not capitalism.
Answer the question.

> >>>>>>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> >>>>>Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> >>>>>set of inputs.
>
> >>>>It *also* creates the most poverty.
>
> >>>No, it doesn't.
>
> >>You don't seem to grasp the simple concept of "shear numbers" or
> >>"absolute numbers" or "increasing numbers".
>
> > You don't seem to grasp the concept of poverty.  Pick your arbitrary
> > line defining a 'poverty level'.  Any line.  A capitalist society will
> > have fewer people under that line with a given set of resources
> > available than a socialist society with the same resources will have.
> > Hong Kong is a favorite of example mine.
>
> then Vietnam is a favorite example of mine...French Capitalism
> enslaved the Vietnamese people and the current socialism is *far* better.

Better than brutal colonial exploitation is the best you can do?
Sad. Capitalism is the best ANY system can do. So let's do that
instrad of anything else.

> >>but i'll give you one more chance before i shitcan you as another old nut
>
> > Right, when challenged on your purile crypto-fascism you run away like
> > a coward.  You aren't original.  You are merely trite.  Stay or leave,
> > I don't care.  I will NOT allow you to promote an ideoliogy as
> > malicious as socialism without fighting you every single time.
>
> oh good...then please explain how our socialist child labor laws are malicious.

They deporve people of options, and reducing an options set *never*
makes you better off, and usually makes you worse off.

[Bert]

In news:9aqdnb1lp79vzE3T...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent Quin,

Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

> Socialism puts *people* before money.

In fact, it puts The State before people, with predictable (and
historically verifiable) catastrophic results.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Keith W]

Well to be fair there was no party as such at the time.

While Marx and Engels fairly accurately reported the status of the
poor in industrial England they ignored the fact that most of them
had headed for the towns in search of a better life. Those in
the worst slums were the unskilled, unemployed and sick.

If you want a vision of exploitative behaviour in 18th and
19th century England the worst cases were in the countryside.

Farm workers would be hired for the year at an annual hiring fair.
If selected they would have to bargain for their wages which
would typically only be paid at the end of the year. The farmer
would be charging them for anything they needed in the interim
at monopoly prices. It was not unknown for the labourer
to be left with nothing at the end of his years labour.

In the latter half the 18th century prices increased by 60%
but agricultural wages rose by less than 25%. At the same
time the increasing demand for labour in the industrial
cities mean that wage rates almost doubled and industrial
workers were paid 60% more than agricultural workers.

Keith

[Eugene Griessel]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:23:29 -0000, "Keith W"
<keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Farm workers would be hired for the year at an annual hiring fair.
>If selected they would have to bargain for their wages which
>would typically only be paid at the end of the year. The farmer
>would be charging them for anything they needed in the interim
>at monopoly prices. It was not unknown for the labourer
>to be left with nothing at the end of his years labour.
>
>In the latter half the 18th century prices increased by 60%
>but agricultural wages rose by less than 25%. At the same
>time the increasing demand for labour in the industrial
>cities mean that wage rates almost doubled and industrial
>workers were paid 60% more than agricultural workers.

Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store


Eugene L Griessel

So what if there's a population explosion?
It's fun helping to light the fuse!

[Eugene Griessel]

On 29 Nov 2011 20:20:56 GMT, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:9aqdnb1lp79vzE3T...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent Quin,
>Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>> Socialism puts *people* before money.
>
>In fact, it puts The State before people, with predictable (and
>historically verifiable) catastrophic results.

And rarely gives a rat's arse for the "people" - also historically
verifiable - beyond naming various authoritarian state structures "The
People's".


Eugene L Griessel

Without doubt the greatest injury was done by basing morals on myth, for
sooner or later myth is recognised for what it is, and disappears. Then
morality loses the foundation on which it has been built. Lord Samuel

[Andrew Swallow]

Sounds like you are using a weird definition of theft.

Andrew Swallow

[William Black]

In fact the famines in Russian history that killed the
highest proportion of the population were in 1601-3 and 1891-2.

[Richard]

Dang. I had robbery in mind when I wrote theft- point taken.

I wonder what the reverse, e.g., the bank bail out would be called?
Theft perhaps after a fashion, but without the benefit of ownership -
reverse nationalization.

[Keith W]

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:23:29 -0000, "Keith W"
> <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Farm workers would be hired for the year at an annual hiring fair.
>> If selected they would have to bargain for their wages which
>> would typically only be paid at the end of the year. The farmer
>> would be charging them for anything they needed in the interim
>> at monopoly prices. It was not unknown for the labourer
>> to be left with nothing at the end of his years labour.
>>
>> In the latter half the 18th century prices increased by 60%
>> but agricultural wages rose by less than 25%. At the same
>> time the increasing demand for labour in the industrial
>> cities mean that wage rates almost doubled and industrial
>> workers were paid 60% more than agricultural workers.
>
> Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
> I owe my soul to the company store
>

Yep thats an old scam that was probably around when Moses was a lad.

Keith

[Keith W]

The 1601 event seems to have been a result of cooling from
a major volcanic eruption and affected most of europe to
various degrees.

The famine of 1891/2 was largely man made. While there were local
crop failures there was plenty of food in Russia which was able
to export large amounts of grain while hundreds of thousands of
its citizens were starving. The government provided little food
to the starving but paid recompense to landowners who's serfs
had starved to death.

The 1891-2 famine was bad enough killing perhaps half a million
people but the affects of the man made famines of 1921-23 were
far worse killing between around 5 million, the famine of 1932
killed almost 10 million and was the direct result of the collectivization
drive.

Keith

[Paul F Austin]

The technical term is rent-seeking, using political connections to
extract money.
Paul

[Andrew Swallow]

Fraud or charity are possibilities.

Andrew Swallow

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I will NOT allow you to promote an ideoliogy as
>>>malicious as socialism without fighting you every single time.
>>
>>oh good...then please explain how our socialist child labor laws are malicious.
>
>
> They deporve people of options, and reducing an options set *never*
> makes you better off, and usually makes you worse off.

ha ha ha...this nut thinks child labor laws are malicious.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Bert wrote:
> In news:9aqdnb1lp79vzE3T...@supernews.com "Dr. Vincent Quin,
> Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Socialism puts *people* before money.
>
>
> In fact, it puts The State before people,

Do you think our U.S. socialist laws (child labor, min wage,
8 hour days, etc) put the U.S. State before we the people?

Or are you another usenet nutball?
;-)

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 01:02, Richard wrote:
>
> No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
> about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
> obtain what was not rightfully theirs.

So why do they frighten you so much?

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 22:56, Keith W wrote:

but the affects of the man made famines of 1921-23 were
> far worse killing between around 5 million, the famine of 1932
> killed almost 10 million and was the direct result of the collectivization
> drive.

I think I'd like some proof of those numbers that didn't come from 'The
black book of Communism' or something similar.

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 18:30, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> Stop right there. Marx never had a scientific case on any topic
> whatsoever. At best he engaged in adolescent fantasizing about
> economic topics. Reading Capital you will see case after case of mere
> ignorant angsty adolescent speculation about the hows, whys and
> wherefores of the operation of the economy. His analysis would have
> been purile in a freshmen Micro 101 class.
>
> Marx has no place in the pantheon of economics. There are no economic
> theorems with his name on them. He contributed NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
> the sum of economic knowledge and EVERY attempt to apply his theories
> have led inexorably to disaster of a scale best described with terms
> like "megadeaths".

Goodness, he's got you frightened though.

Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?

You're not a banker are you?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 5:08 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Stop right there.  Marx never had a scientific case on any topic
> > whatsoever.  At best he engaged in adolescent fantasizing about
> > economic topics.  Reading Capital you will see case after case of mere
> > ignorant angsty adolescent speculation about the hows, whys and
> > wherefores of the operation of the economy.  His analysis would have
> > been purile in a freshmen Micro 101 class.
>
> > Marx has no place in the pantheon of economics.  There are no economic
> > theorems with his name on them.  He contributed NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
> > the sum of economic knowledge and EVERY attempt to apply his theories
> > have led inexorably to disaster of a scale best described with terms
> > like "megadeaths".
>
> Goodness, he's got you frightened though.
>
> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?

I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters. Marxism is not
dead yet. The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.

> You're not a banker are you?

What difference would it make if I were? You planning on making them
the new Kulaks, and marking them for extermiantion? Fascism always
needs its designated enemies.

[William Black]

On 30/11/11 00:36, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:08 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Stop right there. Marx never had a scientific case on any topic
>>> whatsoever. At best he engaged in adolescent fantasizing about
>>> economic topics. Reading Capital you will see case after case of mere
>>> ignorant angsty adolescent speculation about the hows, whys and
>>> wherefores of the operation of the economy. His analysis would have
>>> been purile in a freshmen Micro 101 class.
>>
>>> Marx has no place in the pantheon of economics. There are no economic
>>> theorems with his name on them. He contributed NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
>>> the sum of economic knowledge and EVERY attempt to apply his theories
>>> have led inexorably to disaster of a scale best described with terms
>>> like "megadeaths".
>>
>> Goodness, he's got you frightened though.
>>
>> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>
>
>
> I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters. Marxism is not
> dead yet. The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.

Absolutely paranoid.

Communism is dead duck and has been for years.

>> You're not a banker are you?
>
>
> What difference would it make if I were? You planning on making them
> the new Kulaks, and marking them for extermiantion? Fascism always
> needs its designated enemies.
>

Ah the snide insinuation that I'm someone who would like to exterminate
people.

How terribly American of you.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 5:54 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>
> > I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters.  Marxism is not
> > dead yet.  The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.
>
> Absolutely paranoid.

No, I can see the world around me.

> Communism is  dead duck and has been for years.

ObamaCare, TARP, GM, EPA, FDA Marx lives ever on. 5 of 6 US Courts
have ruled that the interstate cimmerce clause means the US government
can do ANYTHING it wants.

> >> You're not a banker are you?
>
> > What difference would it make if I were?  You planning on making them
> > the new Kulaks, and marking them for extermiantion?  Fascism always
> > needs its designated enemies.
>
> Ah the snide insinuation that I'm someone who would like to exterminate
> people.
>
> How terribly American of you.

Well, Fascism is an almost entirely European philosophy after all...

And, yes, communism is merely a flavor of fascism, they are the exact
same thing.

[Daryl]

And I introduce a new term; Corporate Republic. Where the
Corporation run the Government.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Jonathan]

"La N." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jb1tug$4lj$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jb1csi$ok3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 28/11/11 01:17, Jonathan wrote:
>>> "Richard"<the.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ae86d7bc-fdac-4255...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>>>
>>>> No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
>>>> about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
>>>> obtain what was not rightfully theirs.
>>>

>>>> "Nationalization" is theft writ large.
>>>
>>>

>>> The idea behind communism and socialism is to
>>> convince the public it's in their best interest if the
>>> government takes all the wealth and power from them
>>> and gives it to a few self-appointed rulers.
>>>
>>> And then 'trust them' to give it back at some future date.
>>> Such as when the revolution has become perfected.
>>
>> You are the ghost of Ronald Reagan and I claim my five pounds...
>>
>> One thing you're going to have to learn is exactly who your enemy is...
>>
>> Do you remember when teachers, ambulance staff, nurses, midwives,
>> students, doctors, factory workers, shop assistants and fireman crashed
>> the stock market, wiped out Banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no
>> tax?
>>
>> No, me neither...
>>
>
> Me neither. So, that makes at least 2 of us, William.


I was defending free market democracy, not Wall Street.

In theory, a properly managed democracy should have
a power/wealth structure where some 80% of the power
is in the hands of the top 20%. If I were to guess I'd say
that ratio in the US today is a very unhealthy 98% to 2%.

The US is the best example of a large free market democracy
which explains our leadership in the world, but we still have
a long way to go. There's all kinds of room for improvement
in the US, and especially the rest of the world.

Watching democracy spreading like fire today gives me
a very optimistic view of the future. We're not even close
to our potential.


Jonathan


s









>
> - nilita
>

[Jonathan]

"Richard" <the.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9d059408-b6ac-451b...@by4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 27, 7:17 pm, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nationalism is just a word used when communism
> > or socialism is no longer politically correct.

> s

> I did not use "nationalism", I used "nationali-ZATION" and did so
> deliberately as they are two distinct concepts.


Well I was 'thinking' nationalizing when I typed nationalism.
I was...really. Although to be picky, nationalization is
what nationalists...do.


Jonathan


s

[Keith W]

William Black wrote:
> On 29/11/11 22:56, Keith W wrote:
>
> but the affects of the man made famines of 1921-23 were
>> far worse killing between around 5 million, the famine of 1932
>> killed almost 10 million and was the direct result of the
>> collectivization drive.
>
> I think I'd like some proof of those numbers that didn't come from
> 'The black book of Communism' or something similar.

Actually the figures for 1932 come from Joseph Stalin who
said that at Yalta in one of his asides to Roosevelt and Churchill
of course he referred to them as Kulaks and counter revolutionaries.

Alternatively you could try Michael Ellman, "Stalin and the Soviet Famine
of 1932-33 Revisited", Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4
June 2007

Even the lowest modern estimates put the figure at a minimum of 3 million
dead in the Ukraine alone

The Russian State Archives have released the text of the order that
turned a poor crop into a famine


Provided by the State Archive of the Russian Federation.
Fond R-5674, Record Series 9, File 18, Page 304-307.

<Quote>
Directive of the Council for Labor and Defense
of the USSR Number 176/c regarding sequestration
of commoditized varieties of wheat from exportoriented
districts for the purposes of export.

"In order to assure competitiveness of Soviet wheat of the
1931 harvest on the international commodity markets, as
well as reduction of the number of sorts and varieties of
wheat, which causes significant difficulties with selling, the
following measures are ordered:

1. All wheat harvested in Crimea with exception of seed grain
and substandard grain, is reserved for the purposes of export

2. Set aside the following estimated amounts drawn from
the reserves harvested at kolkhozes and sovkhozes [stateowned
farms] of export quality wheat suitable for
commoditization (thousands of metric tons):

Sovkhozes
Kolkhozes
For Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine: 350 1000
For North Caucasus Region of Russia 425 675
For Lower Volga Region of Russia 250 580
For Middle Volga Region of Russia 300 --
Total: 1325
2255

Keith

[Jonathan]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:jb354e$ani$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/29/2011 7:45 AM, Richard wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 7:17 pm, "Jonathan"<wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> "Richard"<the.sar...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>
>>> news:ae86d7bc-fdac-4255...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> No, Communism was caused by coffee house conversation and the idle lay-
>>>> about customers, too unskilled to perform profitable labor, seeking to
>>>> obtain what was not rightfully theirs.
>>>> "Nationalization" is theft writ large.
>>>
>>> The idea behind communism and socialism is to
>>> convince the public it's in their best interest if the
>>> government takes all the wealth and power from them
>>> and gives it to a few self-appointed rulers.
>>>
>>> And then 'trust them' to give it back at some future date.
>>> Such as when the revolution has become perfected.
>>>

>>> Whenever that might be~

>>>
>>> Nationalism is just a word used when communism
>>> or socialism is no longer politically correct.
>>>
>>> s
>>>
>>> s
>>
>> I did not use "nationalism", I used "nationali-ZATION" and did so
>> deliberately as they are two distinct concepts.
>>

>

> I have seen nationalism in my own lifetime. Before my lifetime, the Nazis
> uses Nationalism. Lenin used Nationalism to get into power. It's not a
> government. I think the Russians say it best when they talk about Mother
> Russia.


Right, like George Bush saying we should be proud of
America for letting him and his buddies take all of our
money and freedom.

At least we still have McDonalds and video games.

[William Black]

You can't have one without the other.

To have free market capitalism you need banks because the entrepreneur
doesn't have sufficient capital to start a business.

> Watching democracy spreading like fire today

Where?

Not Egypt or anywhere else in the Middle East.

There it's just 'Here's the new boss, same as the old boss' and your
much vaunted United States is busy holding up repression and tyranny in
Bahrain because it suits the US military

[William Black]

On 29/11/11 01:41, Jonathan wrote:

Although to be picky, nationalization is
> what nationalists...do.

Is this a bot or just another plonker?

[William Black]

On 30/11/11 01:09, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:54 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>>
>>> I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters. Marxism is not
>>> dead yet. The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.
>>
>> Absolutely paranoid.
>
>
>
> No, I can see the world around me.

Where from?

The Midwest?

>> Communism is dead duck and has been for years.
>
>
>
> ObamaCare, TARP, GM, EPA, FDA Marx lives ever on.

If you honestly think Obama or any other US government institution is
Marxist then you're even further around the bend than I thought.

5 of 6 US Courts
> have ruled that the interstate cimmerce clause means the US government
> can do ANYTHING it wants.

Indeed, stark staring bonkers.

>
> And, yes, communism is merely a flavor of fascism, they are the exact
> same thing.

Utterly mad.

You're not some sort of (US flavour) libertarian are you?

[Jonathan]

"Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HM-dnTHAw_qgzUnT...@supernews.com...


> Ah, an actual sophomore, extrapolating from beerful conversation with his
> peers.

It's from my hobby of Complexity Science. Have you even
heard of that science? I can defend at length every sentence
of that post, perhaps you might be civilized enough to at least
say what's so sophmoric about it?

Otherwise your reply is no more educated or wise than
flipping a bird out the window, then speeding off.
So there~


Jonathan


s


>
> Paul


Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/


Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm


Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html

[Jonathan]

"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jb4258$a15$1...@dont-email.me...

I meant 'Wall Street' in the sense of the corrupt version
we see lately. We can have a free market democracy
without rampant corruption on Wall Street and rampant
incompentence in DC. At least I sure hope so.

We should be able to.

>
> To have free market capitalism you need banks because the entrepreneur
> doesn't have sufficient capital to start a business.
>
>
>> Watching democracy spreading like fire today
>
> Where?
>
> Not Egypt or anywhere else in the Middle East.

The idea and desire for democracy is spreading as
fast as smart phones. Lightning fast. Governments
all over the world are reeling from pro-democracy
movements. Ten years ago they all chanted 'Death to
America', now they insist we invade them too.

Unfortunately, democracy takes quite a bit of time
to get up and running.

I mean, some 15,000 Syrians have died just in the
last months fighting for democracy and an end
to dictatorship. That's about a fourth of all the troops
we lost in Vietnam over a decade.

In Egypt, the minute the interim government ticks
them off, a hundred thousand people show up
the next day. This is some breathtaking times
we're witnessing.

And the last two great hurdles to world-wide
democracy, Iran and China, aren't very far behind
and they know it.

>
> There it's just 'Here's the new boss, same as the old boss' and your much
> vaunted United States is busy holding up repression and tyranny in Bahrain
> because it suits the US military

We can't police the entire world, ya know. We are
taking on several at once, however. We'll get around
to all the dictators eventually.


Jonathan

s

[William Black]

How?

>> To have free market capitalism you need banks because the entrepreneur
>> doesn't have sufficient capital to start a business.
>>
>>
>>> Watching democracy spreading like fire today
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> Not Egypt or anywhere else in the Middle East.
>
>
> The idea and desire for democracy is spreading as
> fast as smart phones.

Oh the idea and desire is spreading fast enough.

Lightning fast. Governments
> all over the world are reeling from pro-democracy
> movements. Ten years ago they all chanted 'Death to
> America', now they insist we invade them too.

Nope.

Not so far.

> Unfortunately, democracy takes quite a bit of time
> to get up and running.
>
> I mean, some 15,000 Syrians have died just in the
> last months fighting for democracy and an end
> to dictatorship. That's about a fourth of all the troops
> we lost in Vietnam over a decade.

And so far they've achieved...

Nothing.

Well, except the Arab League has decided that they're going to
persecute the people living there by sanctions on them.

No mention of Assad or his cronies being unacceptable visitors yet.

>
> In Egypt, the minute the interim government ticks
> them off, a hundred thousand people show up
> the next day. This is some breathtaking times
> we're witnessing.

And the Egyptian army is busy rewriting their constitution and saying
that they're going to be above the law.

>> There it's just 'Here's the new boss, same as the old boss' and your much
>> vaunted United States is busy holding up repression and tyranny in Bahrain
>> because it suits the US military
>
>
> We can't police the entire world, ya know.

I'll settle for the USA not looking the other way when they have over
4,000 men on the ground and the local degenerate despot rolls in Saudi
fanatics police and soldiers to murder his own people.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 6:54 pm, William Black <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>
> >>> I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters.  Marxism is not
> >>> dead yet.  The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.
>
> >> Absolutely paranoid.
>
> > No, I can see the world around me.
>
> Where from?
>
> The Midwest?

What dofference does it make? Do you think some places are better
than others? What does where have to do with the substance of this
discussion? You're bringing up irrelevancies why?

> >> Communism is  dead duck and has been for years.
>
> > ObamaCare, TARP, GM, EPA, FDA Marx lives ever on.
>
> If you honestly think Obama or any other US government institution is
> Marxist then you're even further around the bend than I thought.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Socialist economic controls are socilaist economic controls.

> 5 of 6 US Courts
>
> > have ruled that the interstate cimmerce clause means the US government
> > can do ANYTHING it wants.
>
> Indeed,  stark staring bonkers.

No, that is what the said. According to the Commerce Clause the US
government can (according to them) regulate anything that *affects*
interstate commerce, and that is literally everything. They can
(according to them) require US citizens to participate in any economic
activity the government sees fit. There is no (according to them)
Constitutional limit on the US government's ability to control the
economic activity of every single American. Marxism 101.

> > And, yes, communism is merely a flavor of fascism, they are the exact
> > same thing.
>
> Utterly mad.

Really? The Communists didn't have a problem with the Nazis until
June 22 1941. It is only Communist propaganda that says they are at
all different, let alone some magical sort of opposite. Specifically,
the Nazis were never 'right wing'. They were *socialists*, hence the
derivation of the name- National Socialists.

Which of the following ideas do you think were not shared by both?

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from
work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and
treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as
treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of
all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the
immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply
to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given
to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the
State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national
requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners
without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The
abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in
land.

We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the
injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are
to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious
[deleted] to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to
reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the
responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of
the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be
adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science
of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning.
We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever
their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health
by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor,
by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory
games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of
associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be
suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and
literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk,
and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands
shall be dissolved.


In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong
central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the
political central parliament of the whole State and all its
organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees
representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws
promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the
federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the
foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their
own lives.

> You're not some sort of (US flavour) libertarian are you?

Because only libertarians think fascism is a bad thing or that freedom
is a good thing?

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

"Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot...@gmail.com> writes:

> "David E. Powell" wrote in message
> news:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...that never works in practice.
>
> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!

The crony part needs some explanation: without central banking and fiat
money (=no legal tender laws) there would be no such blow-ups, since
debt-based (worthless) money (i.e., more is required back than is ever
created, so a ponzi scheme from the start) would not remain the
"preferred" currency. People could switch between currencies as they
wished, and use whatever money they thought was useful to store the
value of their previous labour (money and currency being different, with
currency being one function of money, but store of value not necessarily
a function of currency).
--
Gernot Hassenpflug

[Matt Wiser]

On Nov 28, 7:45 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
> > "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> >news:gcGdnWOoz4_-pU7T...@supernews.com...
>
> >>Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> >>>Socialism never worked in practice.
>
> >>It works in the family unit and in our American socialist laws.
>
> > Why not forget all that came before
>
> So we don't repeat past mistakes.
> ;-)

In case you didn't know, or care, lunkhead (phony, fraud, shyster,
etc.), "Socialism" killed over a hundred million people. Three of
history's greatest mass killers were espousing "socialist" ideals.
Check up on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot when you aren't in your momma's
basement. (which is where your "university" really is)

[Shawn Wilson]

On Nov 29, 8:00 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In case you didn't know, or care, lunkhead (phony, fraud, shyster,
> etc.), "Socialism" killed over a hundred million people. Three of
> history's greatest mass killers were espousing "socialist" ideals.
> Check up on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot when you aren't in your momma's
> basement. (which is where your "university" really is)

Hitler was also Socialist...

[Paul F Austin]

I'm not familiar with the 19th economic history of Europe but the
history of the US had repetitive booms and busts all through the 19th
century with hard money and without a central bank.

Paul

[Eugene Griessel]

You find it in the Roman, and I daresay other, empires. Borrowing and
Lending have long been there. In the library of Ugarit one even finds
evidence of futures markets.

Eugene L Griessel

Cynicism means never having to say you're disappointed.

[Daryl]

Actually, you are correct. AS well as Thatcher for the
Faulklands, Pick a spot in Israel for the Israelis, Hilters party
in the 1930s, Lenin during the great revolution, Castro in the
50s, etc.. It's not a government, it's garnering the support of
the masses under a countries support.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/11/2011 04:01, Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:

> The crony part needs some explanation: without central banking and fiat
> money (=no legal tender laws) there would be no such blow-ups, since
> debt-based (worthless) money (i.e., more is required back than is ever
> created, so a ponzi scheme from the start) would not remain the
> "preferred" currency. People could switch between currencies as they
> wished, and use whatever money they thought was useful to store the
> value of their previous labour (money and currency being different, with
> currency being one function of money, but store of value not necessarily
> a function of currency).

well, and what alternative you suggest for replacing fiat money ? for
many US-related reasons, no major capitalist economy will endorse a
return to gold (or whatever specie) standard(s).....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 29/11/2011 21:23, Keith W ha scritto:

> While Marx and Engels fairly accurately reported the status of the
> poor in industrial England they ignored the fact that most of them
> had headed for the towns in search of a better life. Those in
> the worst slums were the unskilled, unemployed and sick.
>
> If you want a vision of exploitative behaviour in 18th and
> 19th century England the worst cases were in the countryside.
>
> Farm workers would be hired for the year at an annual hiring fair.
> If selected they would have to bargain for their wages which
> would typically only be paid at the end of the year. The farmer
> would be charging them for anything they needed in the interim
> at monopoly prices. It was not unknown for the labourer
> to be left with nothing at the end of his years labour.
>
> In the latter half the 18th century prices increased by 60%
> but agricultural wages rose by less than 25%. At the same
> time the increasing demand for labour in the industrial
> cities mean that wage rates almost doubled and industrial
> workers were paid 60% more than agricultural workers.

And the appalling condition of UK slums was also caused also by the lack
of urbanistic knowledge in mid-XIXth century; In the end UK's solution
to the worker's issues was form of _socialism_ (laburism coupled with a
_really_ strong welfare state)

same apply to the post-WWII germany; and the current EU intestine and
street political infighting is all around the keeping or discarding the
social welfare...

In this marx was in a sense correct: his two preferred countries for
starting the implementation of (actual) communist policy was indeed UK
and Germany, whose indeed eventually manage to successful implement a
very strong welfare state and socialdemocratic policies.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/11/2011 01:08, William Black ha scritto:


>
> Goodness, he's got you frightened though.
>
> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>
> You're not a banker are you?

I guess that he's a poor uninformed bloody colonial indoctrinated since
tender age that capitalism is the good thing and communists are evil
dark guys whose eat babies....

As Dante puts seven centuries ago, don't worry about him, but glance and
pass over it....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/11/2011 01:36, Shawn Wilson ha scritto:

>> Goodness, he's got you frightened though.
>>
>> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>
>
>
> I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters. Marxism is not
> dead yet. The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.

QED.

Dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 30/11/2011 02:54, William Black ha scritto:
> Utterly mad.
>
> You're not some sort of (US flavour) libertarian are you?

"Non ti curar di loro ma guarda e passa".....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[William Black]

On 30/11/11 02:45, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 29, 6:54 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Why are you frightened of a now discredited system of government?
>>
>>>>> I am frightened to all sorts of destructive monsters. Marxism is not
>>>>> dead yet. The same crypto-fascists still try to enact its policies.
>>
>>>> Absolutely paranoid.
>>
>>> No, I can see the world around me.
>>
>> Where from?
>>
>> The Midwest?
>
>
> What dofference does it make?

Thought so...

>>>> Communism is dead duck and has been for years.
>>
>>> ObamaCare, TARP, GM, EPA, FDA Marx lives ever on.
>>
>> If you honestly think Obama or any other US government institution is
>> Marxist then you're even further around the bend than I thought.
>
>
> Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

No organ of government quacks like a duck you buffoon.

> Socialist economic controls are socilaist economic controls.

Except they're not Socialist.

That you think they are does seem to say more about you than anything else.

>
> No, that is what the said. According to the Commerce Clause the US
> government can (according to them) regulate anything that *affects*
> interstate commerce, and that is literally everything. They can
> (according to them) require US citizens to participate in any economic
> activity the government sees fit. There is no (according to them)
> Constitutional limit on the US government's ability to control the
> economic activity of every single American. Marxism 101.

I see.

And, of course, you have examples of this...

Thought not...

> Really? The Communists didn't have a problem with the Nazis until
> June 22 1941.

That'll be why they were usually fighting in the streets against each other.

You confuse national issues and policies with internal politics.

It is only Communist propaganda that says they are at
> all different, let alone some magical sort of opposite. Specifically,
> the Nazis were never 'right wing'. They were *socialists*, hence the
> derivation of the name- National Socialists.

You mean the old 'German Democratic Republic' was democratic?

> We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

Could you define 'trust' here.

>
> We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

No problems with that one.

> We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

That sounds remarkably reasonable as well.

> We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class,

No problems with that either.

the
> immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply
> to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given
> to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the
> State, the provinces and municipalities.

That sounds reasonable as well.

> We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national
> requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners
> without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The
> abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in
> land.

Now the idea of nationalisation of land has been around for an awful
long time.

It's part of the original 'Agreement of the People'.

> We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the
> injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are
> to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

I think death is a bit strong, but I have a feeling that putting the
odd profiteering banker in jail for destroying the world's economy would
be fair.

> In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious
> [deleted] to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to
> reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the
> responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of
> the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be
> adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science
> of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning.
> We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever
> their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

That sounds reasonable.

> The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health
> by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor,
> by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory
> games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of
> associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

Not keen on compulsory games myself, but if you want it...

> Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be
> suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and
> literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk,
> and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands
> shall be dissolved.

That's obviously bonkers.

In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong
> central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the
> political central parliament of the whole State and all its
> organizations.

Again, bonkers.

Look, it's reasonably obvious that this is some sort of Nazi tract
putting forwards reasonable policies at first and hoping that nobody
reads it down to the bottom.

>> You're not some sort of (US flavour) libertarian are you?
>
>
> Because only libertarians think fascism is a bad thing or that freedom
> is a good thing?
>

Thought so...

[William Black]

He was doing so well.

And then you went and spoiled it for him...

[Andrew Swallow]

On 30/11/2011 01:09, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:54 pm, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>{snip}

>
>> Communism is dead duck and has been for years.
>
>
>

> ObamaCare, TARP, GM, EPA, FDA Marx lives ever on. 5 of 6 US Courts

> have ruled that the interstate cimmerce clause means the US government
> can do ANYTHING it wants.

They are not communist. Methodist possible but not communist.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 30/11/2011 12:13, William Black wrote:
> On 30/11/11 03:22, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:00 pm, Matt Wiser<mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In case you didn't know, or care, lunkhead (phony, fraud, shyster,
>>> etc.), "Socialism" killed over a hundred million people. Three of
>>> history's greatest mass killers were espousing "socialist" ideals.
>>> Check up on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot when you aren't in your momma's
>>> basement. (which is where your "university" really is)
>>
>>
>> Hitler was also Socialist...
>
> He was doing so well.
>
> And then you went and spoiled it for him...
>

Hitler was that sort of person. The only companies he approved of were
the ones that gave him money. The Nazis controlled industry through the
banks and by government controlled trade associations.

Andrew Swallow