Fighting for what you mentioned above is not "building America", at least, that's not how I define it to be. Building America means building capitalism, means stealing land from native Americans and killing them. It means oppressing and exploiting thousands upon thousands of workers. It means mass transportation of slaves from Africa to the US to work for nothing.
That's what I define as "building America", and yes, that's certainly not noble or good. Although some patriots here might disagree.
Well, we'll have to disagree. I know fighting for capitalism is probably a dirty thing to collectivists, but that capitalism created a standard of living that I currently enjoy. I am a proud capitalist and am thankful for the work of people before me who created the environment where hard work, smart work, good ideas, efficiency, and risk are rewarded.
Land theft and slavery were not unique to this country by a long shot, so I'm not sure why you're pinning that on the US.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I see you've been paying attention in high-school, and that's not a compliment.
France was the first bourgeois democratic society in the world, not the US, so get your facts straight. Besides, the US has always been a two-party state, as opposed to western-European parliamentary republics, which are more advanced, so there goes the myth of "the worlds first and best democracy".
Throw in whatever extra wording you want, man. The United States was the first "liberal democracy." A bourgeois democracy is something you communists like to call "socialism." Plus, France's experiment with the Red flag lasted about a week until the army came in and crushed it. I saw the play Marx in Soho.
As for the comment on third world countries, are you on drugs? They were colonized by that "beacon of democracy" for over a century! No wonder they're "just now beginning to imitate".
Now that's retarded.
Read a book and then discuss politics please. I suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
The third world countries were backward when the Europeans showed up and they're still backward. Nothing has changed. Even now that they've just begun to imitate us, they still can't get it right. They immediately have dictators as soon as they try.
Now that's retarded.
You are clearly a brainwashed Marxist. Have a free thought, chum. I take my public highschool education with a grain of salt since it came from commie douchebags like yourself.
Here's a little critique on "A People's History of the United States" from a leftist:
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable..."
Well, we'll have to disagree. I know fighting for capitalism is probably a dirty thing to collectivists, but that capitalism created a standard of living that I currently enjoy. I am a proud capitalist and am thankful for the work of people before me who created the environment where hard work, smart work, good ideas, efficiency, and risk are rewarded.
Land theft and slavery were not unique to this country by a long shot, so I'm not sure why you're pinning that on the US.
I'm not just pinning that on the US, don't get me wrong, I am opposed to every capitalist state, but this thread is about the US, so that's why I'm focusing on that at the moment.
Capitalism created that standard of living, of course, and I agree with you. I'm not saying capitalism shouldn't have happened. It was a necessary stage of human development.
But what about now. Is capitalism still doing that? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Third world nations are not able to develop because the more advanced capitalist nations are preventing them from doing so. Massive monopolies are buying up technologies and preventing their development so that they can get more profits with their current commodities, and by doing so are retarding the progress of technological development.
Capitalism is now obsolete, and it has been for about a century.
I have a question for you. Don't you think it's selfish for you to be thankful for your current living standard and being proud of the "builders" of America for the same reason, while knowing all the bad they did? And believe me, they did a lot of bad things. The genocide of native Americans was the largest in the history of mankind.
I have a question for you. Don't you think it's selfish for you to be thankful for your current living standard and being proud of the "builders" of America for the same reason, while knowing all the bad they did?
Yes, it is selfish. Yes, I am selfish. Since I don't believe in anyone is actually altruistic, the only motivation for people is to act in their self-interest. If that self-interest benefits others, that is a bonus. I try to make the best decisions for me and for my family when confronted with choice.
And capitalism has been dead for a century? Wow. I think this past century has been a shining example of collectivist failures and capitalist successes.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'm not just pinning that on the US, don't get me wrong, I am opposed to every capitalist state, but this thread is about the US, so that's why I'm focusing on that at the moment.
Capitalism created that standard of living, of course, and I agree with you. I'm not saying capitalism shouldn't have happened. It was a necessary stage of human development.
But what about now. Is capitalism still doing that? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Third world nations are not able to develop because the more advanced capitalist nations are preventing them from doing so. Massive monopolies are buying up technologies and preventing their development so that they can get more profits with their current commodities, and by doing so are retarding the progress of technological development.
Capitalism is now obsolete, and it has been for about a century.
I have a question for you. Don't you think it's selfish for you to be thankful for your current living standard and being proud of the "builders" of America for the same reason, while knowing all the bad they did? And believe me, they did a lot of bad things. The genocide of native Americans was the largest in the history of mankind.
Yes, it is selfish. Yes, I am selfish. Since I don't believe in anyone is actually altruistic, the only motivation for people is to act in their self-interest. If that self-interest benefits others, that is a bonus. I try to make the best decisions for me and for my family when confronted with choice.
And capitalism has been dead for a century? Wow. I think this past century has been a shining example of collectivist failures and capitalist successes.
Amen. "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith articulates this perfectly. Self-interest causes a general increase in wealth in economies. It's as true today as it was back then.
Whereas, command economies cannot but fail. There is no other option for them.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Throw in whatever extra wording you want, man. The United States was the first "liberal democracy." A bourgeois democracy is something you communists like to call "socialism." Plus, France's experiment with the Red flag lasted about a week until the army came in and crushed it. I saw the play Marx in Soho.
From that link: "Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy."
Can be seen as is not the same as it being so. I don't see it as that, you may, but historical evidence is on my side. And no, bourgeois democracy is not socialism. Bourgeois democracy is any democratic system in which capitalism reigns. And it's not important how long the French revolution's effects lasted, the point is that it was the first bourgeois democratic society. The US was not.
The third world countries were backward when the Europeans showed up and they're still backward. Nothing has changed. Even now that they've just begun to imitate us, they still can't get it right. They immediately have dictators as soon as they try.
That depends on your definition of backward. But yes, economically and technologically they were less advanced. That's why the Europeans were able to colonize them. But has it always been so? The Persian empire, just a few centuries before, was more powerful and technologically advanced than any European power. Does that give them the right to colonize Europe?
Would you have supported the colonization of Europe by Persia? I really doubt it. Or what about the take-over of Eastern-Europe by the Soviet Union. I'm sure you oppose that, right? But why? By your logic they should've been allowed to colonize Eastern-Europe because they were economically and technologically more advanced....or wait, can it be that you are just biased to the US and western-Europe doing that?
I think you are.
You are clearly a brainwashed Marxist. Have a free thought, chum. I take my public highschool education with a grain of salt since it came from commie douchebags like yourself.
Funny. The US education system is controlled by commies? No wonder there are so many commies in the US today! That totally makes sense.....weirdo.
Here's a little critique on "A People's History of the United States" from a leftist:
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable..."
Yes, it is selfish. Yes, I am selfish. Since I don't believe in anyone is actually altruistic, the only motivation for people is to act in their self-interest. If that self-interest benefits others, that is a bonus. I try to make the best decisions for me and for my family when confronted with choice.
Don't be surprised when others decide to do the same to you in the future.
And capitalism has been dead for a century? Wow. I think this past century has been a shining example of collectivist failures and capitalist successes.
I said obsolete, not dead.
And for your information, the Soviet Union advanced economically more than any capitalist state has in the history of mankind, during the first and second five year plans. And guess what? They didn't need millions of black slaves to do it with.
And for your information, the Soviet Union advanced economically more than any capitalist state has in the history of mankind, during the first and second five year plans. And guess what? They didn't need millions of black slaves to do it with.
Yeah! Plus 100 million people were killed! Whoops!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
And for your information, the Soviet Union advanced economically more than any capitalist state has in the history of mankind, during the first and second five year plans. And guess what? They didn't need millions of black slaves to do it with.
So your system is good for a couple of 5 year runs until it devolves into bread lines?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I expect others to act in self-interest. I also expect to continue to do the same. It is those who rely on others who end up surprised.
Individuals doing this is not really important. But when a class does this, that's when it starts to become interesting. Especially when the majority class, the working-class, starts doing this.
So your system is good for a couple of 5 year runs until it devolves into bread lines?
Well, no. Firstly it wasn't "my kind of system" at that stage either. Even though it was planned, the people who planned it could have certainly done a better job. A lot of resources went to private places of the top party leaders and such. So a lot of bad also happened.
But in general it proves that the system is superior to the capitalist system, which is based on the anarchy of production. While the US was in a state of economic ruin, one which affected every other major capitalist power as well, the USSR was left almost entirely unaffected by it.
This was because the economy was not regulated by the unstable and anarchistic market system. The USSR industrialized in 10 years. Western-Europe and the US took about a century to achieve the same level of development, and not only that, they required mass exploitation of workers and in some cases the use of slaves (see US).
This economic system that was in place was founded by the working-class taking over the means of production of the country. Sadly the top of the party took it over, and even though at first they did a relatively good job of planning it, they screwed up as time went on. Free Market mechanisms were introduced to the system after Kruschev took over power.
The supply and demand system, albeit in a less obvious form than in capitalist states, was introduced to some sectors of the economy, resulting in the profit motive being introduced back.
So factories that used to be told to produce a good that was needed by the population were now told to produce whatever good they thought would yield the most profit....sound familiar?
It's not a coincidence that the USSR's economy began to decline after Kruschev rose to power.
Anyway, I believe that it would've been a lot better if the workers themselves held control of the means of production, and I believe that that's how it should be done in the future.
Did anyone else think that the last guy in the third video, the one that said: 'Incinerate the bloody bastards. Take 'em straight to hell like we did to the Japanese in world war II' Looks a lot like Jewish Porn King Seymore Butts?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I'd rather be dead than Red. If someone ever tried to turn this country into what Shapur thinks it should be, I'd be completely in favor of putting each and every one of them in jail.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
You should watch it. I nearly shat myself laughing. At least watch part three. The best bit is when they get people to pin flags on the countries they think America should invade next, and one guy looks at mainland Australia (labeled North Korea), and is surprised at how much bigger it is than Tasmania (labeled South Korea).
CNNNN was a great show while it lasted, so was the Chaser's war on everything, which was done by the same guys. I hope they make it back onto TV in the near future.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
You should watch it. I nearly shat myself laughing. At least watch part three. The best bit is when they get people to pin flags on the countries they think America should invade next, and one guy looks at mainland Australia (labeled North Korea), and is surprised at how much bigger it is than Tasmania (labeled South Korea).
CNNNN was a great show while it lasted, so was the Chaser's war on everything, which was done by the same guys. I hope they make it back onto TV in the near future.
I'd love to invade Australia sometime.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I'd rather be dead than Red. If someone ever tried to turn this country into what Shapur thinks it should be, I'd be completely in favor of putting each and every one of them in jail.
I don't think the majority, i.e., the working class, would give a shit.
Here's a little critique on "A People's History of the United States" from a leftist:
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable..."
The book is shitty history. It's crap. Zinn's own left-wing comrades say so.
Not everyone says so. Historians and critics will praise or dismiss Zinns book depnding on their own personal values. A right wing neo-con won't like it, and neither will many C.E.O's of multi-nationals, although many intellectuals without a capitalist axe to grind are likely to heap praise upon it. It all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on. Some people see history merely as a series of different politicians and wars. Others see it as a series of popular grass-roots struggles against oppression, and the advance of human rights and real democracy. You obviously hail from the former type.
Not everyone says so. Historians and critics will praise or dismiss Zinns book depnding on their own personal values. A right wing neo-con won't like it, and neither will many C.E.O's of multi-nationals, although many intellectuals without a capitalist axe to grind are likely to heap praise upon it. It all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on. Some people see history merely as a series of different politicians and wars. Others see it as a series of popular grass-roots struggles against oppression, and the advance of human rights and real democracy. You obviously hail from the former type.
Here's a little critique on "A People's History of the United States" from a leftist
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable..."
Okay, forgive me but I haven't read any of the post about this; but I just had to say that THE BEST thing about those video clips was the news bullitons moving across the bottom of the screen? FUCKING CLASSIC!!!!! Alright, Beverley Hills 90210 is on TV now, so I gotta go.... Good night y'all!
I also like to celibrate other cultures. I think one can appreciate and enjoy other cultures without 'losing their idenity'.
I agree. I think that co-existing with other cultures helps both cultures to evolve and flourish. I don't know what I'd do without my lamb Rogan Josh curries with poppadoms and mango chutney.
I agree. I think that co-existing with other cultures helps both cultures to evolve and flourish. I don't know what I'd do without my lamb Rogan Josh curries with poppadoms and mango chutney.
you certainly have a point there...on both points...
I'd rather be dead than Red. If someone ever tried to turn this country into what Shapur thinks it should be, I'd be completely in favor of putting each and every one of them in jail.
I agree. I think that co-existing with other cultures helps both cultures to evolve and flourish. I don't know what I'd do without my lamb Rogan Josh curries with poppadoms and mango chutney.
I don't think the majority, i.e., the working class, would give a shit.
You could not be more wrong! You don't think the working class would give a shit? The working class would be the first in line to defend the system.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Comments
Well, we'll have to disagree. I know fighting for capitalism is probably a dirty thing to collectivists, but that capitalism created a standard of living that I currently enjoy. I am a proud capitalist and am thankful for the work of people before me who created the environment where hard work, smart work, good ideas, efficiency, and risk are rewarded.
Land theft and slavery were not unique to this country by a long shot, so I'm not sure why you're pinning that on the US.
Throw in whatever extra wording you want, man. The United States was the first "liberal democracy." A bourgeois democracy is something you communists like to call "socialism." Plus, France's experiment with the Red flag lasted about a week until the army came in and crushed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#18th_and_19th_centuries
See? U.S. first liberal democracy.
The third world countries were backward when the Europeans showed up and they're still backward. Nothing has changed. Even now that they've just begun to imitate us, they still can't get it right. They immediately have dictators as soon as they try.
Now that's retarded.
You are clearly a brainwashed Marxist. Have a free thought, chum. I take my public highschool education with a grain of salt since it came from commie douchebags like yourself.
Here's a little critique on "A People's History of the United States" from a leftist:
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable..."
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385
The book is shitty history. It's crap. Zinn's own left-wing comrades say so.
-Enoch Powell
I'm not just pinning that on the US, don't get me wrong, I am opposed to every capitalist state, but this thread is about the US, so that's why I'm focusing on that at the moment.
Capitalism created that standard of living, of course, and I agree with you. I'm not saying capitalism shouldn't have happened. It was a necessary stage of human development.
But what about now. Is capitalism still doing that? It seems to me that the opposite is true. Third world nations are not able to develop because the more advanced capitalist nations are preventing them from doing so. Massive monopolies are buying up technologies and preventing their development so that they can get more profits with their current commodities, and by doing so are retarding the progress of technological development.
Capitalism is now obsolete, and it has been for about a century.
I have a question for you. Don't you think it's selfish for you to be thankful for your current living standard and being proud of the "builders" of America for the same reason, while knowing all the bad they did? And believe me, they did a lot of bad things. The genocide of native Americans was the largest in the history of mankind.
Yes, it is selfish. Yes, I am selfish. Since I don't believe in anyone is actually altruistic, the only motivation for people is to act in their self-interest. If that self-interest benefits others, that is a bonus. I try to make the best decisions for me and for my family when confronted with choice.
And capitalism has been dead for a century? Wow. I think this past century has been a shining example of collectivist failures and capitalist successes.
i love capitalism
Amen. "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith articulates this perfectly. Self-interest causes a general increase in wealth in economies. It's as true today as it was back then.
Whereas, command economies cannot but fail. There is no other option for them.
-Enoch Powell
From that link: "Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy."
Can be seen as is not the same as it being so. I don't see it as that, you may, but historical evidence is on my side. And no, bourgeois democracy is not socialism. Bourgeois democracy is any democratic system in which capitalism reigns. And it's not important how long the French revolution's effects lasted, the point is that it was the first bourgeois democratic society. The US was not.
That depends on your definition of backward. But yes, economically and technologically they were less advanced. That's why the Europeans were able to colonize them. But has it always been so? The Persian empire, just a few centuries before, was more powerful and technologically advanced than any European power. Does that give them the right to colonize Europe?
Would you have supported the colonization of Europe by Persia? I really doubt it. Or what about the take-over of Eastern-Europe by the Soviet Union. I'm sure you oppose that, right? But why? By your logic they should've been allowed to colonize Eastern-Europe because they were economically and technologically more advanced....or wait, can it be that you are just biased to the US and western-Europe doing that?
I think you are.
Funny. The US education system is controlled by commies? No wonder there are so many commies in the US today! That totally makes sense.....weirdo.
Unless you've read it yourself and provide reasons for you finding it crap, that means nothing to me.
Also, lay off the insults, how old are you?
Don't be surprised when others decide to do the same to you in the future.
I said obsolete, not dead.
And for your information, the Soviet Union advanced economically more than any capitalist state has in the history of mankind, during the first and second five year plans. And guess what? They didn't need millions of black slaves to do it with.
12.
Commies belong in jail.
-Enoch Powell
Yeah! Plus 100 million people were killed! Whoops!
-Enoch Powell
Agreed. Go back a page to see who started the flaming.
100 million people were killed during the first and second five year plans? Wow...just...wow.
I expect others to act in self-interest. I also expect to continue to do the same. It is those who rely on others who end up surprised.
Noted. The difference doesn't change my comments above.
So your system is good for a couple of 5 year runs until it devolves into bread lines?
Individuals doing this is not really important. But when a class does this, that's when it starts to become interesting. Especially when the majority class, the working-class, starts doing this.
Well, no. Firstly it wasn't "my kind of system" at that stage either. Even though it was planned, the people who planned it could have certainly done a better job. A lot of resources went to private places of the top party leaders and such. So a lot of bad also happened.
But in general it proves that the system is superior to the capitalist system, which is based on the anarchy of production. While the US was in a state of economic ruin, one which affected every other major capitalist power as well, the USSR was left almost entirely unaffected by it.
This was because the economy was not regulated by the unstable and anarchistic market system. The USSR industrialized in 10 years. Western-Europe and the US took about a century to achieve the same level of development, and not only that, they required mass exploitation of workers and in some cases the use of slaves (see US).
This economic system that was in place was founded by the working-class taking over the means of production of the country. Sadly the top of the party took it over, and even though at first they did a relatively good job of planning it, they screwed up as time went on. Free Market mechanisms were introduced to the system after Kruschev took over power.
The supply and demand system, albeit in a less obvious form than in capitalist states, was introduced to some sectors of the economy, resulting in the profit motive being introduced back.
So factories that used to be told to produce a good that was needed by the population were now told to produce whatever good they thought would yield the most profit....sound familiar?
It's not a coincidence that the USSR's economy began to decline after Kruschev rose to power.
Anyway, I believe that it would've been a lot better if the workers themselves held control of the means of production, and I believe that that's how it should be done in the future.
-C Addison
-Enoch Powell
it's funny that you think i'll watch.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
You should watch it. I nearly shat myself laughing. At least watch part three. The best bit is when they get people to pin flags on the countries they think America should invade next, and one guy looks at mainland Australia (labeled North Korea), and is surprised at how much bigger it is than Tasmania (labeled South Korea).
CNNNN was a great show while it lasted, so was the Chaser's war on everything, which was done by the same guys. I hope they make it back onto TV in the near future.
-C Addison
I'd love to invade Australia sometime.
-Enoch Powell
I don't think the majority, i.e., the working class, would give a shit.
Not everyone says so. Historians and critics will praise or dismiss Zinns book depnding on their own personal values. A right wing neo-con won't like it, and neither will many C.E.O's of multi-nationals, although many intellectuals without a capitalist axe to grind are likely to heap praise upon it. It all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on. Some people see history merely as a series of different politicians and wars. Others see it as a series of popular grass-roots struggles against oppression, and the advance of human rights and real democracy. You obviously hail from the former type.
do you just ignore things?
from my window to yours
PS. sorry; I'm drunk
I agree. I think that co-existing with other cultures helps both cultures to evolve and flourish. I don't know what I'd do without my lamb Rogan Josh curries with poppadoms and mango chutney.
you certainly have a point there...on both points...
from my window to yours
Really, why?
naděje umírá poslední
Oh hell yeah. I absolutely adore foreign food.
You could not be more wrong! You don't think the working class would give a shit? The working class would be the first in line to defend the system.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
The working class is on my side. They hate commie fucks.
-Enoch Powell