| 24th August 2007 09:34 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Mine's Rudy. I don't think Hialry(sic) will appeal to enough independents & that's where elections are won & lost. |
| 24th August 2007 09:52 PM |
|
|
| Boss |
Charlton Heston is a piece of shit. |
| 24th August 2007 09:52 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
the good wrote:
Gee, the collapse of the soviet union ring a bell? Chuck, your boring. I need to find something else to do.
Yet, here you are 
I've already touched upon this subject. Try to keep up.
The Soviet Union didn't "collapse", it was dismantled by the party-state elite---BIG difference.
The "collapse" cliche', beloved by bourgeois theorists in the West, rests upon a very simplistic theory of social change that treats economies like mechanical devices that can breakdown or become unworkable.
Kotz and Weir:
"The evidence does not support the claim that a collapse of the Soviet planned economy due to its own internal contradicitons explains the demise of the system.
........
While much of the Soviet population, along with Gorbachev and his associates, favored an expanded role for market forces in the Soviet economy, polling evidence shows that only a small minority in the former Soviet Union wanted the sort of capitalism found in the US. The rapid rush to capitalism does not appear to have flowed from a popular desire for this direction of development.
It also appears that a large majority of the people in the former Soviet Union, with the exception of some of the smaller republics, wanted to preserve the Union. A referendum on preserving the Union won with 76.4 per cent of the vote only nine months before the Union was dismantled."
(Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, Routledge 1997, pp.3-4)
"Economic restructuring during the perestroika years took place in three stages. In stage 1, during 1985 and 1986, a relatively modest change was implemented. In stage 2, during 1987 through 1989, a more radical reform was carried out, although within the bounds of a socialist economy. The years 1990 and 1991 marked the third stage of economic change. IN THAT PERIOD THE PRO-CAPITALIST COALITION GAINED SUFFICIENT POLITICAL STRENGTH TO PUSH ECONOMIC CHANGE BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF SOCIALIST REFORM. THE SOVIET ECONOMY DID NOT BEGIN TO CONTRACT UNTIL STAGE 3 - WHEN POLITICAL MEANS WERE WERE USED TO START DISMANTLING THE SYSTEM. THIS SEQUENCE DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE VIEW THAT THE SOVIET ECONOMY COLLAPSED DUE TO ITS OWN INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS."
(Ibid, p. 75)
|
| 24th August 2007 10:00 PM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Mine's Rudy. I don't think Hialry(sic) will appeal to enough independents & that's where elections are won & lost.
I don't vote for liberals regardless of what party they are in |
| 24th August 2007 10:02 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
glencar wrote:
That other a-hole Brainbell Jangler (aka FPM) also only posts political agit prop. I've yet to see anything Stones-related by either twit.
[Edited by glencar]
Hey Bush taint licker,
Here's some Stones related stuff for you. I saw the Stones in Hampton on December 18th, 1981---right up front---and you know what? It sucked balls. Rushed and sloppy as hell. Keith and Ron seemed drunk. Big waste of time.
The way some of you guys hold that show up as some kind of fantastic performance is absolutely hilarious.
Oh yeah, I think Some Girls is a crap album too.
|
| 24th August 2007 10:05 PM |
|
|
| robpop |
quote:
Dan wrote:
I don't vote for liberals regardless of what party they are in
I won't vote for any good 'ol boys now matter which party they belong to.
[Edited by robpop] |
| 24th August 2007 10:19 PM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
The Soviet Union didn't "collapse", it was dismantled by the party-state elite---BIG difference.
(Ibid, p. 75)
Yeah, I read the nonsense you cited to prove the soviet union didn't "collapse". Just citing a source doesn't make a dumb point valid.
|
| 24th August 2007 11:57 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
Alphabetical list of rightwing dictators, reactionary movements, and other reprehensible figures empowered/materially supported by the US:
It seems as though the number one criterion for getting a job as the head of a client state is a willingness to butcher leftists. Indeed, the use of unsavory rightists by the United States began neither with the anti-Castro Cuban emigre community, nor with the Afghan mujaheddin alumni, oh Nelly no!
[the dates provided are sloppily done, I concede. At times, they are just the general duration of the given regime (e.g., Selassie). Most others are the duration of US support while the regime lasted (e.g., Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.)]
Abacha, Sani (Nigeria: 1993-2000)
Afwerki, Isaias (Eritrea: 1993-2002)
Amin, Idi (Uganda: 1971-1979)
Arévalo, Marco (Guatemala: 1985-1991)
Bakr, Ahmad (Iraq: 1968-1979)
Banzer Suarez, Hugo (Bolivia: 1971-1978)
Bao Dai (Vietnam: 1949-1955)
Barak, Ehud (Israel: 1999-2001)
Barre, Siad (Somalia: 1979-1991)
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Begin, Menachem (Israel: 1977-1983)
Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953, 1955-1963)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-1964)
Bokassa, Jean-Bedel (Central African Republic: 1966-1976)
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal (Brunei: 1984-2002)
Botha, P.W. (South Africa: 1978-1989)
Branco, Humberto (Brazil: 1964-1966)
Carmona, Pedro (Venezuela: 2002)
Cedras, Raoul (Haiti: 1991)
Chamoun, Camille (Lebanon: 1952-1958)
Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-1949/Taiwan: 1949-1975)
Christiani, Alfredo (El Salvador: 1989-1994)
Chun Doo Hwan (S. Korea: 1980-1988)
Cordova, Roberto (Honduras: 1981-1985)
Diaz, Porfirio (Mexico: 1876-1911)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-1963)
Doe, Samuel (Liberia: 1980-90)
Duvalier, Francois (Haiti: 1957-1971)
Duvalier, Jean Claude (Haiti: 1971-1986)
Eshkol, Levi (Israel: 1963-1969)
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1969-2002)
Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-1975)
Fujimori, Alberto (Peru: 1990-2002)
Habre, Hissen (Chad: 1982-1990);
Hassan II (Morocco: 1961-1999)
Hitler, Adolf (Germany: 1933-1939)
Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-1999)
Hussein, Saddam (Iraq: 1979-1990)
Kabila, Laurent (CDR: 1997-1998)
Karzai, Hamid (Afghanistan: 2001-2002)
Khan, Ayub (Pakistan: 1958-1969)
Koirala, B. (Nepal: 1959-1960)
Lon Nol (Cambodia: 1970-1975)
Marcos, Ferdinand (Philippines: 1965-1986)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Meir, Golda (Israel: 1969-1974)
Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia: 1995-2002)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire: 1965-1997)
Moi, Daniel (Kenya: 1978-2002)
Montt, Efrain (Guatemala: 1982-1983)
Mubarak, Hosni (Egypt: 1981-2002)
Museveni, Yoweri (Uganda: 1986-2002)
Musharaf, Pervez (Pakistan: 1999-2002)
Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)
Netanyahu, Benjamin (Israel: 1996-1999)
Noriega, Manuel (Panama: 1983-1989)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Omar, Mohamed (Afghanistan: 1996-2001)
Ozal, Turgut (Turkey: 1989-1993)
Pahlevi , Rezi (Iran: 1953-1979)
Papadopoulos, George (Greece: 1967-1973)
Park Chung Hee (S. Korea: 1960-1979)
Pastrana, Andres (Colombia: 1998-2002)
Peres, Shimon (Israel: 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996)
Perez Jimenez, Marcos (Venezuela: 1952-58)
Pinilla, Gustavo (Colombia: 1953-1957)
Pinochet, Augusto (Chile: 1973-1990)
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-1998)
al-Qaddafi, Muammar (Libya: 1969-1971)
Rabin, Yitzhak (Israel: 1974-1977, 1992-1995)
Rabuka, Sitiveni (Fiji: 1987, 1992-1999)
Al Sadat, Anwar (Egypt: 1970-1981)
Selassie, Halie (Ethiopia: 1941-1974)
Salazar, Antonio (Portugal: 1932-1968)
Saud, Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1944-1969)
Seaga, Edward (Jamaica: 1980-1989)
Shamir, Yitzhak (Israel: 1983-1984; 1986-1992)
Sharett, Moshe (Israel: 1953-1955)
Sharon, Ariel (Israel: 2001-2002)
Smith, Ian (Rhodesia: 1965-1979)
Somoza Sr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1936-1956)
Somoza Jr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1963-1979)
Stroessner, Alfredo (Paraguay: 1954-1989)
Suharto, General (Indonesia: 1966-1999)
Syngman Rhee (S. Korea: 1948-1960)
Tolbert, William (Liberia: 1971-1980)
Trujillo, Rafael (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)
Tubman, William (Liberia: 1944-1971)
Uribe, Alvaro (Colombia: 2002)
Videla, Jorge (Argentina: 1976-1981)
Yeltsin, Boris (Russia: 1991-1999)
Zaim, Hosni (Syria: 1949)
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed (Pakistan: 1977-1988)
other nasty nasties:
RPF (contra French client Rwanda);
SPLA contra Islamist Sudan, (a French client);
clients in Cameroon, Congo, Ivory Coast, Togo and Benin, after subverted elections (contra French proxies);
AFDL (Kabila);
Dalai Lama (Tibet);
bin Laden’s al Qaida;
Savimbi’s UNITA
Nazi war criminals and collaborators knowingly rescued in the years after WW2 by US intelligence for use as covert assets against the USSR:
R. Gehlen; O. Skorzeny; A. Brunner; O. von Bolschwing; W. von Braun; M. Lebed; A. Vlasov; I. Docheff; K. Dragonovich; I. Bogolepov; C. Bolydreff; A. Berzins; H. Herwarth; K. Barbie; I. Demjanjuk; W. Dornberger; V. Hazners; B. Maikovskis; E. Laipenieks; N. Nazarenko; L. Pasztor; R. Ostrowsky; L. Kairys; P. Shandruk; T. Soobzokov; S. Stankievich; and literally thousands of others.
http://www.apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm
The Dalai Lama? A "nasty nasty"?? WTF??? Who wrote this list, the Butchers of Beijing?
  |
| 25th August 2007 12:48 AM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
the good wrote:
Yeah, I read the nonsense you cited to prove the soviet union didn't "collapse". Just citing a source doesn't make a dumb point valid.
Kotz and Weir get their numbers on growth rates for the Soviet economy during 1980-91 from the Joint Economic Comittee and the IMF. The data clearly show that the contraction started in 1990-91 (-2.4% in 1990, and -12.8% in 1991) when economic planning was virtually eliminated by the pro-capitalist coalition within the party-state elite.
The referendum cited above was held in 9 of the 15 Soviet republics, representing 93% of the total Soviet population. 147 million people voted and 76.4% approved the preservation of the Union---definitely NOT a revolution from below.
If it's such a dumb point, than it should be easy for you to put something up that refutes their data; yet, you offer nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You've been schooled, son.
|
| 25th August 2007 12:51 AM |
|
|
| BONOISLOVE |
The world is so peacefully sublime with the wonderful decisions from our politicians, headed by non other than George W. "The Bushy" Bush. Nighty night! He's so cute and gayish with his little cute puppies and his dolly prize wife and children.
Heston a piece of shit? It's not true! I think he's really a human. |
| 25th August 2007 12:57 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
OK, so howe about His Holiness the Dalai Lama?
Here's a link to an interview in Mother Jones magazine (not exactly a reactionary rightwing rag):
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/1997/11/thurman.html |
| 25th August 2007 12:58 AM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
The Dalai Lama? A "nasty nasty"?? WTF??? Who wrote this list, the Butchers of Beijing?
Friendly Feudalism - The Tibet Myth
by Michael Parenti
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Parenti_Tibet.htm
|
| 25th August 2007 01:28 AM |
|
|
| Rodney_King |
i am not a one trick pony! |
| 25th August 2007 02:02 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Please, you don't need to go through the archives but maybe just show us a couple. I've yet to recall any. And posting a Tshirt of "dumb George Bush" on the london thread doesn't count. Postings pictures of odd assorted kids on the internet doesn't mean jackshit. Crazy had a kid or two as I recall. Allegedly.
Well, let's see, there have been several posts promoting "It's Not Easy" as the Stones' most underrated song or the unplayed tune I'd most like to hear live. Then there was my conclusive argument establishing "Anyway You Look At It" as the worst Stones song ever. There were many others, but those come to mind.
As for the "aka FPM" nonsense, I suppose the wiser course is to ignore such rudeness. It really is bad form. If I needed any proof, there must be a post somewhere from young Steve Cronen ("Child of the Moon") thanking me and my wife for the ride to his first Stones concert (the Tacoma Licks show) and remarking on the drawing my younger daughter made for him.
I asked whether you have any children for a reason. I have observed that parenting and the parent-child bond have a humanizing effect which reveals the commonality among people of divergent viewpoints. The contrast between the civility of Riffhard, every bit as much of a reactionary as you, and the constant, corrosive discourtesy of the likes of you and Fudji Joe is a case in point. |
| 25th August 2007 03:23 AM |
|
|
| BONOISLOVE |
I like dyke! |
| 25th August 2007 06:34 AM |
|
|
| MikeyC613 |
john edwards could win it all... |
| 25th August 2007 07:35 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
Hey Bush taint licker,
Here's some Stones related stuff for you. I saw the Stones in Hampton on December 18th, 1981---right up front---and you know what? It sucked balls. Rushed and sloppy as hell. Keith and Ron seemed drunk. Big waste of time.
The way some of you guys hold that show up as some kind of fantastic performance is absolutely hilarious.
Oh yeah, I think Some Girls is a crap album too.
So your musical views are as poorly thought out as your political views. You are, indeed, an idiot. |
| 25th August 2007 07:36 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
MikeyC613 wrote:
john edwards could win it all...
He seems like such a lackluster candidate this year. He's like McCain on the GOP side. |
| 25th August 2007 08:27 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
August 24, 2007
gunguys.com
Ted Nugent, NRA Board Member, Threatens to Kill Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton During Vicious Onstage Rant
GunGuys.com is urgently demanding that the National Rifle Association immediately remove Ted Nugent from his position as a board member of the NRA after Nugent threatened United States Senators and Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
This is the latest in a series of unacceptable extremist rhetoric -- and in this case a threat against the life of U.S. Senators -- from NRA role model and activist, Ted Nugent.
According to Rolling Stone magazine:
Renegade right-winger Ted Nugent recently went on a vicious onstage rant in which he threatened the lives of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary,” he continued. “You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming “freedom!”
This isn’t the first time Nugent has been caught spewing hatred. Last January, the guitarist caused a scandal for Republican Texas governor Rick Perry when he, among other abhorrent comments, wore a Confederate flag shirt and insulted immigrants at Perry’s inauguration event. In July, Nugent was quoted in a Wall Street Journal story blaming “stoned, dirty, stinky hippies” for “rising rates of divorce, high school drop-outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes.”
Gun Guys.com will have more to say about this vile and disturbing rhetoric from the National Rifle Association soon. But for now, it is incumbent on the NRA to forcefully and categorically distance itself from its board member, Ted Nugent, by demanding his immediate resignation from the board of directors.
Second, Gun Guys.com is calling on the NRA to apologize both to Senators Obama and Clinton and pledge to disavow all forms of hate speech and threats to political candidates from individuals affiliated -- in this case as a member of its governing body -- with the National Rifle Association.
In the 2000 presidential election campaign, Charlton Heston, then head of the NRA, called for the lynching of Al Gore during a Michigan campaign rally for George W. Bush.
The NRA's failure to immediately remove Ted Nugent from the NRA's board will signal its complicity in these contintued threats and vile rhetoric.
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| 25th August 2007 10:06 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
quote:
MikeyC613 wrote:
john edwards could win it all...
The dipshit couldnt win his own state as a VP running mate.Or any other states for that matter.If Kerry picked Gephart he might have picked up Missouri and 1-2 other mid west unionized states and won the election....Edwards????...no freakin way .... |
| 25th August 2007 11:04 AM |
|
|
| Dan |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
The dipshit couldnt win his own state as a VP running mate.Or any other states for that matter.If Kerry picked Gephart he might have picked up Missouri and 1-2 other mid west unionized states and won the election....Edwards????...no freakin way ....
Gephardt is semi popular in one congressional district, don't really see him picking up any extra states in 2004. But the Democrats are going to pick up a few more in 2008 than in 2004 and that will be with either Edwards, Clinton or even Obama. |
| 25th August 2007 11:46 AM |
|
|
| the good |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
Kotz and Weir get their numbers on growth rates for the Soviet economy during 1980-91 from the Joint Economic Comittee and the IMF. The data clearly show that the contraction started in 1990-91 (-2.4% in 1990, and -12.8% in 1991) when economic planning was virtually eliminated by the pro-capitalist coalition within the party-state elite.
The referendum cited above was held in 9 of the 15 Soviet republics, representing 93% of the total Soviet population. 147 million people voted and 76.4% approved the preservation of the Union---definitely NOT a revolution from below.
If it's such a dumb point, than it should be easy for you to put something up that refutes their data; yet, you offer nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You've been schooled, son.
Nobody said it was a revolution from below. (I might point out that the Russian revolution wasn't either) People look out for themselves. That's what they do. So it doesn't matter what rate the economy was growing at, people grab what they can. Capitalism has always recognized this. Its curious that the Soviet sytem failed after 70 years of marxism. Why? Because Soviets in positions of power wanted something more. Not even 70 years your your silly marxist religion could change that. That's why it failed. Because it was based on a false premise about human nature. Even the Soviets figured that out after 70 years. You still haven't. Because marxism is your religion, and your a religious nut.
[Edited by the good] |
| 25th August 2007 04:32 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
the good wrote:
Because it was based on a false premise about human nature. Even the Soviets figured that out after 70 years. You still haven't. Because marxism is your religion, and your a religious nut.
Well Thought out and EXTREMELY salient analysis my Stonesian Buttercup .
I would like to nuzzle you .
Joey Putin ' |
| 25th August 2007 05:04 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
BONOISLOVE wrote:
I like dyke!
You may want to jump into the Retrolove "Am I gay?" thread. |
| 26th August 2007 01:54 AM |
|
|
| BONOISLOVE |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
You may want to jump into the Retrolove "Am I gay?" thread.
That is kinda passé, you funny looking man with elbows and a frown, but thanks.
I am not "gay", I just love "everybody". Is that wrong? |
| 26th August 2007 03:00 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
He seems like such a lackluster candidate this year. He's like McCain on the GOP side.
He went crazy too? |
| 26th August 2007 12:49 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
the good wrote:
Nobody said it was a revolution from below. (I might point out that the Russian revolution wasn't either) People look out for themselves. That's what they do. So it doesn't matter what rate the economy was growing at, people grab what they can. Capitalism has always recognized this. Its curious that the Soviet sytem failed after 70 years of marxism. Why? Because Soviets in positions of power wanted something more. Not even 70 years your your silly marxist religion could change that. That's why it failed. Because it was based on a false premise about human nature. Even the Soviets figured that out after 70 years. You still haven't. Because marxism is your religion, and your a religious nut.
[Edited by the good]
LOL! You don't back up your claim that the FSU "collapsed" AND you retreat into an absolutist conception of human-nature to cover your religious devotion to capitalism!! Bourgeois ideologues are a predictable lot.
While some ruling classes have had the intellectual honesty to tell the ruled 'things are this way because we want them this way,' i.e., 'might makes right,' most ruling classes have appealed to a higher authority. In medieval times, when the mode of production was primitive, the ruling class asserted that an invisible deity supported the social relations. Today, when capital owns and controls science, the ruling class asserts that 'human nature,' scientifically 'proven,' supports today's social relations.
An appeal to 'human nature' has as its chief advantage, unyielding finality. If a certain behavior, such as the 'profit motive,' is as irresistible as a sun rise, then resistance is futile. If 'human nature' is 'hard-wired' into the central nervous system of every individual on the planet, then any attempts to socialize the means of production and inaugurate communist social relations are bound to fail. 'Human nature' is like gravity: get used to it.
Alan Greenspan: "The history of the 20th century has been a testing ground for innumerable theories of social and economic organization that have been tried and found wanting. The way people respond to incentives and rewards persists from generation to generation suggesting a deeply embedded set of stabilities in human nature. We see this, for example, in remarkable consistencies in the behavior of markets over time. Nonetheless, history is strewn with examples of economic and social systems that have tried to counter, or alter, human nature and failed... The lesson that appears to be emerging is that only free market systems exhibit the flexibility and robustness to accommodate human nature'
('Market Capitalism,' Vital Speeches of the Day, 1 May
1998, p. 419).
Such is the ideology of capitalism.
Although there certainly must be a 'human nature' that reflects the genetic endowment of all humans to some extent, it is unclear WHAT precisely that may be. After all, humans don't live in the natural world, they live in societies---and societies are man-made environments. These environments, history will confirm, have changed a great deal over the centuries.
Once, it was 'human nature' to own slaves (or to be a slave); now it is not. Either slave-owning WAS 'human nature' for hundreds of years or slave-owning DENIED 'human nature' for hundreds of years. History conclusively demonstrates, one way or the other, that 'human nature' is susceptible to cultural adaption. It is NOT fixed. Furthermore, the 'human nature' of the slave-owner is to exploit the slave while the 'human nature' of the slave is to end the conditions that enslave him: 'human nature' is subject to class differentiations.
After acknowledging the cultural impact upon 'human nature,' it must also be acknowledged that 'human nature' is as varied and as contradictory as individual human behavior itself.
The family unit is an example of primal co-operation (supporting unproductive members, for example); simultaneously, the family unit is an example of primal competition (sibling rivalry, for example). Both claims are correct only if accepted dialectically, as a unity of opposites, acknowledging that BOTH co-operation and competition are components of 'human nature.' (Furthermore, every family will evince differing ratios of each of these conflicting behaviors.)
To say that 'human nature' applies to all equally is to assert that it is absolute. This premise denies both individuality and free will. As it is clear that human behavior has a great range of distinctiveness and contradiction, not to mention a significant reliance upon cultural context, it is clear that any assessment of 'human nature' requires INTERPRETATION.
The emphasis of interpretation is largely a matter of ideological orientation---and helps demonstrate the folly of attempting to MONOPOLIZE such a wide-ranging phenomenon as 'human nature.'
Nevertheless, all ruling classes are in business to stay in business---and will use all the resources at their disposal to make a claim for an absolute 'human nature,' i.e. a 'human nature' that THEY define as characteristic of certain social relations.
For example: there are millions of crimes perpetrated yearly and millions of criminals locked up which attest to the tenacity of crime yet no ruling class has ever suggested that crime is 'human nature,' with its implication that whatever is 'human nature' must be accepted. After all, criminals are a statistically infinitesimal part of the population. But then again: so is the capitalist ruling class---and their rule, as they will tirelessly repeat, is in full accordance with 'human nature.'
What ultimately supports the hegemony of the claim to correctly interpret 'human nature'---as the final authority concerning all things human---is the material ABILITY to defend its interpretation. As offensive as it may sound, might ultimately DOES make right. NO monopoly on 'human nature,' not to mention its metaphysical twin 'morality' or its political twin 'freedom' is ever achieved without a monopoly on force.
Is THAT 'human nature'? No---I would say that that is a product of class conflict, a social custom. And customs, like societies, CAN be changed---indeed, as the forces of production evolve, societies MUST change; with these changes come fresh interpretations of 'human nature,' a 'human nature' that substantiates the new social relations.
[Edited by Chuck]
[Edited by Chuck]
[Edited by Chuck]
[Edited by Chuck] |
| 26th August 2007 01:00 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
glencar wrote:
So your musical views are as poorly thought out as your political views. You are, indeed, an idiot.
Ha ha---just the type of transparent response I expected from one of the nerdy, right-wing, fan-boys on this site.
See folks---if you don't like the same records, or shows, or (fill in the blank) you're an idiot according to this nasty little bourgeois baboon.
Of course, what he's really saying is that I'm guilty of HERESY. LOL. |
| 26th August 2007 01:06 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
You really like the word bourgeois, huh?
Capitalism rocks!! Money,money,money!! Yeah baby, yeah!!!
I am bourgeois capitalist rock and roll fan!! Much like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards!!
Riffy |
| 26th August 2007 01:12 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You really like the word bourgeois, huh?
Capitalism rocks!! Money,money,money!! Yeah baby, yeah!!!
I am bourgeois capitalist rock and roll fan!! Much like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards!!
Riffy
Well zippadeefreakindooda! Good for you. |
|
