is it zoidberg?

why not zoidberg?

No matter how great communism looks in theory, we all have to remember its a system that cannot be substain for long periods of time.

However, its a sign how much USA citizens are dissapointed in government, and how much they are desperate for changes

Seems to work at cuba.

cuba is being ruled by communist political party, theres no real communism @ cuba


afaik sweden tried once communism, your economy lasted for only half a year...

Like there's any country that applied the true communism model.
Afaik no ideological belief have worked very well the last 6000 years that humans have existed.

there was this land called.. YUGOSLAVIA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcH4aHOjnGo

edit:also Venesuela and the recently deceased Hugo Frias Chavez

Are you serious? Cuba sucks ass, it's a terrible country. I hate it when people use Cuba as an example for working communism. Live in Havana for a year and you can say that, but I doubt there's even the slightest chance that you'd still have the same opinion, or just don't say that if you haven't experienced actual commuism

How is this a sign they are desperate for changes? AFAIK every democratic country that would later go on to comprise NATO has had some sort of a Communist political party (sometimes several with conflicting doctrine) established in the 1920s or even earlier.

U S A

The Communist Party, USA was formed on September 1, 1919 in Chicago, Illinois as a result of a split in the Socialist Party of America.

Excript from their website

Damn bro, Obama must have pissed them off with lack of change so much that they travelled back in time and formed a Communist party in 1919.

read their slogan


or better not, ill explain, before u start asking stupid questions:


their marketing is based on disappointment coming from usa gov moves.

actually, hitler rised to power using such methods :-0

Well, what politician doesn't?

you sound like a total idiot. no offence.

i made an assumption they were new/gained popularity lately, and now have to make some things up :D

no, you don't.

Like that one?

Also, I thought I included USA when I mentioned "every democratic country that would later go on to comprise NATO" but seems the reference was outcluded :c

No Jonesy, what do you think?

One look at the program reveals: it's a Marxist-Leninist Party. But it seems to have not the usual cult of personality around Marx and Lenin, or the usual agitprop-crap, which is likeable and I feel bad for the members of the party considering all Americans want to drink their blood.

Didn't read a single word, have a [+] Jonesy

As it always happens with opposing ideologies, best one is a combination of them.

Like cheese and pineapple!

Precisely!

I think we should go back to monarchy and let Cooller be our immortal God-Emperor that would guide us through the darkness into enlightenment while fighting the forces of chaos and faggotry.

the real cure to the world problems is a massive decrease of the world population, or wait until the matrix becomes a reality,
maybe chose to live on some island with megan fox and angelina jolie or maybe some world as shown in the film avatar

If you look at what nature does, it will fix itself. When the population gets to big of a species, epidemics and parasites emerge, reducing the numbers. Although humans have found ways of dodging these natural controllers of population count, someday a real nasty ass virus will spread that is more resilient.

TL;DR nature always win, always.

not so sure, maybe, maybe not ...
I think mankind may come to an end pretty fast by self destruction,
either by flying drones, atomically nuking the shit out of the world or by some scientifically engineered virus killing the humans, pestilence 2.0 ...
pretty sure some engineered virus does already exist in some labs ...

Yeah i think that the humans are not meant to be in great numbers thus causing us to overload ourselves when we wake up at 4am from discobeats from the floor above.

How will nature win if we turn the entire planet into a pile of radioactive ashes?

Radioactivity is nature, it Will take some time but she Will comeback.
You think digging up some Old trash from under her finger nails Will shut her down?

I don't know, most post-nuclear prediction scenarios are not very optimistic about the state of our planet's ecosystem.

By the way, i might be wrong about this, but i'm fairly sure nuclear decay does not feature naturally on Earth, it's either created artificially or comes from extraterrestrial sources.

What do you mean by nuclear decay? Process in which radioactive material decays?

Nuclear decay is radioactivity.

So as I wrote you meant process.

Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting particles of ionizing radiation.

If a radioactive material doesn't decay then it doesn't emit radiation and it's harmless.
There are many earth sources of nuclear decay for example uranium ores.

You're right, i read up a bit on the subject and stand corrected. Should not talk about things i know little about. :f

OMG SOMEBODY NUKE THIS GAFFORT

YEA, FNKG POLE

the real cure to world problems, without having to kill 3/4 of worlds population, is getting rid of greed.


there are enough resources on this planet to make everyone live good life. but why should we if we can get awesome life for ourself, and let others die in pain.

Everyone check this out, definitely worth the watch

Wasn't the founder of Venus-project communist?

I've never found a reference to that

The venus project suggest that you should eliminate money and use distribute funds among the society equally. But since they assume that we wont need to work thanks to machines in the future, and that we dont overpopulate this isn't a sustainable model.

Overpopulation is definitely a current problem, which is not being addressed and I don't think it will be any time soon as each country is about their own business and individual problems.

That's why you would need a global survey and management of the world's resources and population. You can only predict how much you'll need and if it will suffice, if you know how much you got/can make. I think there's still plenty, but simply assuming doesn't get you anywhere...

the establishment knows whats best for us

I don't see overpopulation as THE problem to solve, because, as far as we know, there is already a very simple solution: education/empowerment of women.

Sounds great, but it forgets there are too many differences in countries and people for it to ever work.

Its actually easy to suggest solutions to most social problems, but getting other people to do them and carry them out is the problem.

Imagine going to a primitive muslim or african shithole and trying to have a real debate with them when they still kill people because they think they are witches, or prey to some fake ass god ten times a day, when they are so backwards and driven by their brainwashed culture you would not get anywhere.

And this would be with the leaders, never mind the millions of others who are worse variants.

I believe in the idea being towards top level intelligence and a real brit, but you can't implement such a change without wiping out billions to make it work. Or having a separate country for it to work.

Thinking the entire world is going to agree and behave in the same way is deeply flawed. If you wiped out the entire world and left two people on it to repopulate, then maybe yes.

The shit will hit the fan long before then and it will come down to who has the biggest teeth. As it always has done.

Yes culture is the biggest obstacle, always has been. The solution is education.

You said it yourself they are so primitive and backward, would you expect anything else from people coming from a shithole?

Don't forget those shitholes are still primitive because there's no real development and advanced countries have a lot to do with
that.

Thing is what is being done to overcome that? Would you rather try to bridge differences or keep investing in armies and wait for the next conflict?

Sure I'm a bit sceptical myself but it's the best only solution so far.

Its not a solution because a solution which has no chance of being implemented becomes nothing more than an ideal.

"solutions" like that could only be developed in a lab environment.

I would rather not give a shit, make my money, retire somewhere quiet and watch the world burn while staying far enough away to avoid getting burnt, cos that is what is going to happen, and all the brains or truth in the world is not going to change that.

That's your opinion I respect that. Though history has shown some unlikely events to occur, even though they didn't seem likely. But if you already made up your mind of what's coming up then yeah just try not getting burnt and pass by if you can get far enough.

Name one past event that was on the same scale as getting 7+ billion people to agree on the same thing?

The economic system, political systems, religion. Maybe not in that scale and not over night definitely.

Politics and religion are still radically different from place to place because they have radically different belief. While they are universal in existence, they are not universal in direction, which is what this project is suggesting the only way to make it that way is for a single country or demographic to dominate everyone else.

The economic system is pretty much a no brainer, even wild animals get the concept of scratching each others back or helping each other to catch food.

Agreed. I think it can be achieved sooner or later, problem is time is running out.

I would rather not give a shit, make my money, retire somewhere quiet and watch the world burn while staying far enough away to avoid getting burnt, cos that is what is going to happen, and all the brains or truth in the world is not going to change that.

Fuck. Stop that. I hate agreeing with you.

You should probably know I am probably going to retire to somewhere in Canada too :)

But ideally it will be New England USA.

Unless I go gay and move to key west.

That's not going gay, that's growing old and retiring :ASDF

Australia is where I want to go... nice weather, friendly people, hot girls, and the government actually gives support grants to qualified professionals should they immigrate with a standing job offer :O WHAT IS THERE NOT TO LIKE?

I do like OZ, but I can't be dealing with the heat and the fact that i might very well die if I go for a swim, or a walk in the woods.

Its just too much to deal with.

Doubt you'd face any lethal spiders in for example, the Sydney Opera house, but shark infestations are pretty fucked up. Half the animals are cute and cuddly, but the other half will fuck you up. (to be honest, kangaroos are vicious motherfuckers too, and will kick the shit out of you with their hind legs :D)

Jonesy, Mayweather or Guerrero who do you will win this cinco de mayo?

Maywheater, of course. Guerrero could have had a chance, but he will fail because he'll try to come at fight night with the higher weight advantage possible, being debilitated by the massive dehydration, and stupidly trying to fight overaggressive and to outmuscle a counterpuncher, and a very skilled and savy one.

Being from USSR, I never found socialism backed by communism a bad thing. People living the same ideas, having same purpose and goals actually produced a good society to live in. Russia is much worse of a place now socially and economically.

I find American paranoia about communism somewhere in between laughable and pathetic because 1. It's a greatest FAKE social scare ever imposed in USA. 2 It would simply not ever happened to american society 3. It's never been needed in US

Communism or even resemblance of it not going to happen, probably anywhere, probably ever again. Because communism relies on simple assumption - human equality, which is impossible on many levels.

The very ideas of equal society have been ruined by persons of INequality. Idiots with power, trying to become above others and idiots without power, trying to ride middleclass backs. Today, we have world at our finger tips due to massive spread of information and media, we know who we are, who people next to us are, who's better and who's worse and what each of those deserve. No one is going to march after some fake prophets and maniacs struggling for power . In 2013 we are so beyond that.

(that excluding the possibility of traumatic social change and manipulation by an event something like 911 x 1000)

People living the same ideas, having same purpose and goals actually produced a good society to live in.

Remind me why did you switch?

No one is going to march after some fake prophets and maniacs struggling for power. In 2013 we are so beyond that.

rotflmao

Ok, before you go on an anti-soviet roll like most of my eastern block friends, please know that russian peoples had/have/and will have respect for slavic brothers and offered nothing but help and promise of equality and honest life. How it failed is a different story. In many ways it was plain sabotaged.

To answer your questions

1. Reagan and gorbachev. It ruined a great country to no end. The reforms were ill prepared, the human factor showed it's disgusting side during the pressure, and lack of future , vision, and hope are still decimating the culture
2. Society is more laid back these days in general. While no clear statements can be made here, and there are TONs of conspiracy theories to fuel the argument, I believe people are better in general too.

had/have/and will have respect for slavic brothers and offered nothing but help and promise of equality and honest life.

*facepalm*
Don't even start.
Edit: After reading your post again - dunno why you drag "russian people" into this I have nothing against russian people. How even possibly russian people can offer what you said? You are mixing up concepts.

learn some history, poland was conquered by russia and became a satellite state of theirs, they imposed communism on them, etc. ...
I wouldn't call the relationship of poland to russia very friendly ...
can't expect a pole to like communism/udssr ...

Because communism relies on simple assumption - human equality, which is impossible on many levels.

how does democracy differ?
how does multiculturalism differ?

we werent conquered, we got sold out by UK&USA

Can you give me any hint on that?
I think poland wasn't able to put up any military resistance and so got conquered by military force of germany/russia, and after ww2 it was solely russia telling them what to do

yes and no


we got dp'ed by nazis and soviets, but our fate was decided on yalta conference, when we got sold out by uk and usa, so russians wouldnt stop fighting at old pl/ger border



ps. im impressed by your knowledge

USSR

1. Freed Poland from Nazis
2. Got a freebie on its territory from allies
3. Established familiar sociopolitical structure

What a conspiracy

1. Freed Poland from Nazis

Well they conquered Poland in alliance with nazis first.
Other points suggest symetricall relation which is false.

wtf?

I believe he's talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

more like

Ussr

1 Steal Poland from nazis
2 Establish familiar sociopolitical structure or in other words force a dictatorship
3 Steal every resource from Poland, and kill as many innocents you like
4 Feel surprised whenever a Polish express rancor to a russian

there was no communism in USSR

it was just an excuse for totalitary rules of Stalin etc etc

Stop right there with this "no real communism" bullshit.

in ussr they had money, private property and hierarchy... they are banned in communism ideology.


so its not bullshit.

The idealized Communism that you are conceiving is a soap bubble, it simply doesn't exist and CANNOT exist, the theory is contradictive by its own nature, it's not a "beautiful idea" in theory, it's an unachievable utopia.

Real communism is exactly what we see in USSR: political persecutions, lies, corruption, tons of propaganda and mass genocide, because that's the only communism mankind has ever seen and will ever see in practice.

Real communism is exactly what we see in USSR: political persecutions, lies, corruption, tons of propaganda and mass genocide, because that's the only communism mankind has ever seen and will ever see in practice.

its not, and ur stupid.

if asian says hes black, it wont change the fact hes fucking asian.



using communism as a lame excuse for totalitary rules is exactly the same.

People who believes in Communism never ceases to amaze me.

"The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny."
- Milton Friedman

... but go on believing that this disastrous combination will ever bring anything that isn't totalitarism.

Btw, sorry about the plus, misclick.

fuck this shit, read marx or, as it will take less time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

before u talk to me. as you have no idea what communism is, and keep repeating same biased bullcrap

i 2nd that

I thought only uneducated Brazilian teenagers would resort to the "read muh marx" argument, but it seems to be a widespread phenomena, a sympton of the mass psychosis that makes people glorify a failed genocidal ideology and impracticable economic system.

Over 100 millions died in the name of the revolution, my friend. Say whatever you want to shamelessly try to disassociate the guilt of those crimes from the ideology that motivated them.

dont change the topic.

you had no idea what word communism means

You changed the topic in every post since #44 and your knowledge about communism seems to boil down to definitions in Wiki and online dictionaries.

ffs, some brasilian faggot will dare to tell how bad communism is, even if he knows it only from books.


I LIVE IN A FUCKING POST-COMMUNISTIC COUNTRY DUMBASS, i knew more about it when i was 5, than you ever will.


e: also, i wasnt changing topics, just correcting your stupid and biased opinions about communism

have a plus

thank you kind sir, have a plus aswell

If you think that babbling out loud "U DUNNO NOTHING BOUT MUH COMMUNISM! READ MUH MARX LOL U WRONG U STUPID LOL" is something even close to "correcting" what I said, I feel bad for you, son.

I don't care where do you live, that's complety irrelevant, in fact, its just a shitty fallacy of authority.
Shame on you, bro.

You might be trollling or something, your intellectual dishonesty is way off limits here, I know I'm losing my time, but anyway...

The only kinda serious response you gave me was in #34, which is completely fucking laughable. So there was communism there because they had private property? money? hierarchy? LOL.

You talk about private property, you tell me to read fucking Marx, but it seems that you've never read anything of what he wrote about this subject, AND EVEN FUCKING WORSE, never read what other intellectuals wrote on this. I mean, intellectuals outside of the marxist intellectual limbo...

I don't really care how you define USSR, China, Cuba or any other, you have to understand that these kinds of things just cannot be achieved.

I just love how you said that "human imperfection denies us the perfect world". For you, it's not the fucking piece of shit theory that is wrong and cannot be brought to reality, it is human nature that is wrong. Of course it is, the enlightened master Marx never misses.

Go fuck yourself, kid.

PS: I didn't know you're 16. Now everything makes sense, at this age, we think we are at the very top of the world, knowing much better than anyone else.

im not 16, i said you cant drop school in poland till ur 16.

nice reading comprehension m8! no wonder yiu so stoopid

I punch you in the face - sorry, it's human nature!

I say extreme communism would be enforceable. It would get paralyzed economically in an instant but what our political philosophy expert hitsu meant was a matter of enforceability.

yeah exactly :<

communism is really beautiful idea, however humans imperfection denies us perfect world :X

communism is really beautiful idea

as well as "ethical" capitalism

excuse me but intenretz doesnt know term "ethical" capitalism.


actually capitalism is dirty by default, and it could be described by "survival of the fittest"....



thx god most modern governments mix it with socialism

any system is idiotic, but communism takes it on a whole nother level

here let me be your stalin

some people even idolize him, especially in russia saying he brought the country from its fit, do you know how stupid it sounds with russia having now only 2 major cities where you could say modern civilized life exists, thats how "great" communism is, its simply war against its own people.

you can edit your posts, u know?

excuse me but intenretz doesnt know term "ethical" capitalism.

I translated that from my mother tongue, that's why i put it between inverted commas. 2/10.
by the way, i would say that concept is known, you can google it and pick results from the first page (i liked a lot the one talking about Smith and Spencer).

point is in #29 i was stressing the difference between a concept and its realization, as proudhon or marx theories compared to how stalin or kim jong acted.

actually capitalism is dirty by default, and it could be described by "survival of the fittest"....
thx god most modern governments mix it with socialism

agree, that's why chinese capitalism (which i find darwinian) has no future in the long term.

i understood perfectly you post, just trolled a bit, habbit of mine :-)

to me capitalism sounds natural and communism forced.

It turns out there is something you know even more about than QL high level duel ;O

been good student so i know a lot of things

You're still a student because education in Poland is compulsory for everyone below 15 years of age.

16 actually

btw. i got interested in your profile pic's. have you read hayek ideas?

16 rofl

16 rofl

haha there I was thinking you were a complete twat and really stupid, but turns out you were just young :(

you'll still probably be fairly stupid when you grow up though, but it's not too late to change your ways)

well, it seems you are stupid and have problems with your native language.

gienek said school is compulsory till 15 in poland. i corrected him. you need to be 16 in order to drop school

Oh shit I am sorry, now you put this into context this makes so much more sense, and my (and anyone else's) attempted jibes at your age are now moot due to the fact you need to be 16 in order to drop school :(

missed the point completly, why im not suprised?

Because understanding sarcasm requires a small level of intelligence?

which you obviously lack, as my comment was sarcastic aswell?

oh the irony

sif you have the mental capacity for logical progressions required for sarcasm

you merely adopted the sarcasm i was born in it.

Hitsu, ESR's very own Tobias Fünke.

)

And suddenly, out of the blue, skullhead's full name jumped in front of my memory.

... and it's GONE :c

THANK YOU OLEG FOR I HAVE JUST GLANCED INTO THE EYES OF THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH BY THE GREAT COSMIC BRAIN.

KIFFLAM, BROTHER

I'm afraid I prematurely shot my wad on what was supposed to be a dry run if you will, so I'm afraid I have something of a mess on my hands.

I'd like to kiss that man between the cheeks

I'm afraid I just blue myself

The world's first analyst and therapist... analrapist if you will

If I may take off my pants and pull my analrapist stocking over my head

so how old are you?

depends on the day :D

Only if you're born before June.

No matter, you're 16 at best anyway.

:-0

didnt know

I approve this thread.

DIE MONSTER! YOU DON'T BELONG IN THIS WORLD!

inb4 demiurge

why this isn't nuked yet?

It's jonesy thread.

We don't nuke those.

well, you should

why?

Communism is wrong since his very core concept.

equality and common wealth is wrong?:>

Me getting as much money as the other guy who is working his ass off is wrong, I don't work hard to get money. That's not even my goal in life, so why on earth should I get as much as the guy working 22 hours a day to get his company started?

The only place I know communism has gotten closest to what communists wants is in spain, but that was anarchism.

It's always somewhere that communism stop and changes direction into totalitarianism. It will never go all the way, luckily so. For me communism is just force, you take what someone else worked for and give it to people who don't deserve it.

For me communism is just force, you take what someone else worked for and give it to people who don't deserve it.

That's one way of putting it

I see a lot of people here talking about the failure of communism, but no one is pointing the fact that most of the communist countries failed with this system because the heavy influence of capitalist countries. For instance at the end of the '80s Romania was isolated economically because the Romanian social system supposed to be bad in the eyes of the world -and I don't say that the system was perfect -because communism had to fail in order to prove the world that capitalism is the better system.
Of course that the communism failed, but let's pick up some facts regarding my personal experience and wealth these times and see the good and the bad here.

In the 70s in Romania you could live quite well. In fact, the standard of living was extremely high. Indeed, you could find decent food at decent price, everybody had a job and the possibility to get an apartment or a house was very good. Those were the times when the foreign communist influence, mostly the Russian tutelage was getting at decent levels, not squeezing our country anymore, and not dissipating at such extend to permit the capitalist foreign influence to interfere.
After Russia's influence in Eastern Europe weakened, the military parts getting separated and thus most communist countries getting isolated, economically through other, the life was getting worst.
After 1980 we did not have the possibility to buy whatever we wanted anymore and in the end, between 1988-1989, we could not even buy food as much as we wanted, because there was not enough for sell. The population had money but the possibility to spend the money was limited. This was caused by the economic isolation imposed by the capitalist countries -which by the way, facing at the time real competition used to create valuable goods, unlike now when they all just produce crappy manufacture, because there is no other competitive system to beat -and was also caused by the bad administration from the inside.
The country was hit from inside as well as from outside (although we did not have much food, people were not starving to death on the street, like the western propaganda would let you believe)

Another aspect is that because the isolation, much of the elites were living inside our country, the migration of intelligence was not running at alarming rates and the corruption at least in the educational system was quite low. There would have been hope if the system would have not collapse due to the two factors mentioned above. At the beginning of the 90s, in 1990-1991 we who were young could still meet at the University those students from the communist regime, and I tell you there was a very serious gap between the old and the new ones. They were so much better. Like I said before, the educational system in the country was very high, partly because the migration of intelligence was limited and partly because you could not buy your way to success in school, if you wanted to have access to higher education you had to earn this right.

But because the capitalist pressure and because the danger the capitalism represented for our system, and because the stupidity of our leaders, the entire national authority was getting into paranoia. We are talking here about those political decisions based on fear that the US and other western countries are experiencing right now, although the factors differ. This paranoia resulted in increased censorship, limiting ever more the right to free think and free expression and occasional repression against those who proved to be reticent to our propaganda.

I am not writing here an essay, so there I go forward with what some freaks will call amateurish analysis or poor/illogical factual presentation. I have to mention that I was the descendant of a very rich family backing from 1900 who owned over 40 ha and many houses animals gold and stuff, the type of families who were supposed to be later prosecuted by the communists, yet I found my grandparents in the 70s owning 2 houses in the village, my aunt owning a house in the town and my father owning an apartment in the same town. So although they only let us have a very big garden on top of these properties, taking most our land, it wasn't that bad, especially if you consider that no one in my family was ever a member in the communist party or a declared communist. If there would have not been for censorship and propaganda it would have been extremely well for us.

Jumping now in around 2000, I was working at the time for about 150 RON/month (about how much is this, about $50), while owning some of the land that the regime gave back to me. But because the regime did not give me back the tools needed to work that land and I did not have any experience I couldn't do much with that land. Short story long, now after 20 years of capitalism the population around here is working for about $250/month, while the price for food is over $100/month and renting a one room apartment is 100 euros. What if they want to buy clothes or god forbid, to get money to buy a house that is about 40,000 euros (around 200 salaries)? Just do the math!
Now, I expect that the whole explanation of this will be something like this: it is because the corruption, not because the capitalist system itself, but point blank the question is what is the difference between capitalism and communism, if most of the population cannot afford to buy most of the goods? Is this -the corruption -not a sign that the capitalist system is a failure of its own kind as well? I know, the evolution and all that, the fact that smarter people will live better and all, but this do not apply anymore, which is a very alarming thing, and maybe the sign that another revolution of some sort maybe new kind is coming.

To me, the only difference between capitalism and communism that I care to think about (from my point of view, not an investor these days, been and will be but not today) is the fact that capitalist systems are allowing their citizens the right to free speech (although this option is tending to get nullified, and it has always been silenced by those who have bigger voice). Capitalism is a social anarchy that tends to get by with socialist politics (the will of the voters, it is), while communism is a socialist society tending to make up with a lawful mix of anarchy, monarchy, capitalism and anything else.

Also let's not forget that the communist system represents a quite new experience for mankind and like many experiments after many fails it can succeed or not.

I actually took some time to read this through and Im surprised by your perspective on this.Altho I have no clue how it was to live in Romania, I doubt it was that ideal as you describe it.Especially when we know Ceausescu had plans with genetic experiments and overall repression similar to ones in DDR.Today we all know how he ended right?And when people are talking about communism in overall it gets instantly associated with Stalin, who had very little to do with communism itself if anything.From a historical view he is firstly remembered as winner over nazi Germany and Hitler,then secondly as a tiran and then in the end he might had something to do with actual communism.Communism starts with Marx and Lenin, the others are simply parts of the Chain.

When people say communism failed I cant simply agree with this statement,because its false, it just ended.Such statement is the same as if you said Alexander the Great failed at establishing the largest empire the world has ever seen at that point, because he didnt, he conquered the entire world that was known to Ancient Greece at that time.Others that succeeded him did not see it fit to continue his vision, so the empire crumbled to pieces.Same way Stalin did not see it fit to continue Lenins vision.Or the nationalists that were surppressed for half a century in Yugoslavia that erupted after Titos death.It did not fail, people were living in prosperty at that point, it simply ended with his death others did not want to continue this path.Same way in Venesuela, thats the best example of healthy functionating socialism, it did not fail over there!!Chavez just died and now people are scared of what will happen, they put their hopes to Maduro.However its still funny to read these silly romantic posts from polaks above that never experienced the real Socialistic-Communism.For example in Bulgaria the right to work was a right written in national constitution, today theire burning themselfs in the middle of the day.

Ceausescu died as a crimminal.Stalin died as Father of nation, yet nobody came to pay him a tribute.Nowadays random presidents that die, governments receive condolence letters, maybe a delegacy or a two.When Chavez died, yes he was a clown on an international level, but he wasnt ignored like the rest of them will.When TITO died, whole fucking world came down to his feet to pay him a tribute.A succesfull socialism is no BS its a real thing!But in the end it is not the system, its about the individuals that take part in history and make it succesfull, there is no bulletproof system from idiots and criminals.

edit: If theres something that failed in these days then its certanly this Euro joke!

I think communism might come again,
because the trends are that there will be less work for people because of automatization and more efficient processes ...
you can do much more now with much less people ...
and this trend is going to continue ...
what to do with all these unemployed people?
there are many possibilities for work, but noone is willing to pay for it, since most things you need are already provided by very few people with massive help of machines and very efficient processes ...
and don't tell me all these lies of society, that there always will be work, and the one who seeks work finds, etc. ... there are not as many workplaces created, as there are destroyed by automatization, there is just a competition that is growing and growing, just look back at 70's (in western europe), there were so many people with low qualifications, that nutured families, build houses, etc. ... nowadays you can have top qualification master degrees and you don't know what's going to happen ... the competition is growing and growing, and there will be no end to it ... everyone with just some common sense must realize that this system is going to collapse ... the one's realizing it aren't doing anything about it, they are just waiting .... and still like 80 - 90 % of society don't even realize that these things are going to end, they think that things are going to continue as before, because they don't know any different ...

socialism != communism

The work will just switch over to new things, I mean that's what people said before internet came. What happened then? there will always be work. It's just that it will move on to other things instead. Of course people have a hard time getting a job now, people also had a hard time getting a job after 1920's. It's not because of automatization, it's just bad times right now.

u dont have a slightest clue wtf I was talking about do u!? :)

Ceausescu's problems started when a few people that he trusted run out of the country, most notable Pacepa.
Some said that Pacepa was a very intelligent man who had some important role to the prosperity of the regime in the 70s. But let's not forget that Romanians have a very strong tendency to exaggerate the stories.
What seems more plausible is that Ceasescu did not trust the guys around him anymore, which resulted to an excessive concentration of power around his family. Yet his son Nicu did not show any interest or talent for leadership, while, although Ceausescu was not very smart, his wife, Elena, his other "help" to leadership, was much worst. From this resulted a disastrous internal policy.

Another bad influence for him was the Chinese leader at the time, Mao, with whom he had very close relations, because he looked for any opportunity to fight the Russians, so he allied with the Chinese who were recently experiencing the Sino-Soviet border conflict with the Russians for territorial claims. He learned from the Chinese dictator to have a taste for opulent popular manifestations, and maybe he thought that leading the population with an iron fist will strengthen the nation so that he will then be able to fight the Russians, if needed. By neglecting the complex factors that were at the cause of the successful Chinese resistance against the Soviets, thinking that it was because a "healthy" Chinese propaganda, he did a very painful strategical and economical mistake. Thank God that the Russians did not start a military campaign against him, at the time. In 1989 there were soldiers in the Army who did not know how to shoot a weapon, because the regime used the soldiers as labor force, instead to train them.
Not only the costs of such colorful propaganda and his decision to went down the path of the glorious leaders of history were at fault for the disaster. The people around him found a new way to easily please their leader, and after these incompetents obtained the posts they wanted, they remained there, pretending to serve the leader giving him precious information. This is why the State Security got so strong in the end. They were the blind eyes and the deaf ears of Ceausescu, while him and his family were to be the main drivers who ought to draw the general direction for the country.

At the end of the 80s he was completely out of reality. He was fighting the Russians politically on many occasions, but he was also a convinced communist. He believed that the communism prevailed here and that it will finally prevail all over the world not because the Russians, but because it is the better system. This is why he did not make connections between the strength of the communist system in other countries and the Soviet Union.
He went as far as to pay the country's debt to its last dollar, and he accomplished that. In December 1989, Romania's debt to other countries was zero dollars. He was doing it and was convinced that the population will not suffer because this decision. He believed that communism was better than capitalism and that the Romanian population is quite wealthy, till his last moment. This is why at their process, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu they were both looking shocked when the prosecutors accused them that the country is bankrupted and the people are very poor. And then one's gesture to another was like: "Let them talk. Liers!"

As for genetic programs and other advanced diabolic stuff that he was supposedly preparing, I'd say that given the intelligence of the entire political apparatus at the time, the possibility for them to show the slightest interest for such practices was quite low.

A person would get an impression that he is actually a positive historical figure.That he actually wanted to help Romanian people but was naive and betrayed.I find it difficult to grasp that he had communist beliefs if he intended to leave the leadership of the country within his family.That is not communism but feudalism.It is easier to me to draw a sidelines of Romanian regieme with the one they have in North Korea, it is passed from Father to Son.A communist leader does not build himself such monuments as the "Peoples House", whole Bucharest was plowed for that building.Its like in North Korea they want to show to the rest of the world their ideal "communist" society, wile nobody from the outside world treats them as a communist state.Even Chinks have somekind of elections within the Party.Id more attribute his illusion to someone thinking he is the absolute leader and there is no other in the world equal to him, that nothing can happen to him, hence the shocking surprise in the end.As implying from my previous post, to me this was more a clash of western vs eastern block that didnt really have much to do with real Capitalist or Communist values.These post WW2 leaders were more concerned about the capitalist side instead of focusing on themselfs,the development of own countries and the overall communist ideas.

I dont know if your perspective is overally accepted in Romania or not, but this is why it is so surprising to me that you have such perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrQaPPETpR4

1:42 must be the most known footage of him, the moment when his body guard comes to him telling him to start running, yet his brains are not able to process what exactly is happening at the moment.Television off the air.. look at all those people gathering to take him down.What I like about this vid is that it contains the amateur footage aswell, showing what exactly was happening on the streets.

now take a look at how Chavez the clown was burried!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZuN3KCFxM

Take a look at TiTOs funeral, the largest in history!!I know its a cheesy music vid., but captures the best footage of that historical moment!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-g9H4ZEFkM

There were some small exceptions..

However I find comments as these interesting aswell:

Communism is wrong since his very core concept.

And this newly invented term

as well as "ethical" capitalism

I need to ask why did communism appear in the first place?How could communism fail if something else went utterly wrong in the first place?Capitalism was a well established concept long before communism right?I find it funny how this same reinvented crap gets repacked in a new shinny foil and called "ethical" capitalism.

Lets take a few examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

Donald Trump, that documentary of Michael Moore etcetc.

I wonder how can a person go bankrupt 4x times, yet still be one of the richest in the world?About 2-3 days ago I heard theres 16.000 of BILLIONS of money accumulated in tax-heaven countries :DDD.I did not even imagine there is such number/amount of money in the world.If we know that money is not produced and we also know the money is not destroyed either its supposed to simply flow.. then we know that money just IS.Why is there the world economy in recesion then???I wont even bother calculating the amount that top10 from forbes own, but I wonder how can a person in his lifetime earn 70 billions.If we know that Capitalisms purpose is to continuesly expand, where does this stop?Capitalists say it takes money to make money, to give new jobs expand, maximise profits, but how can all of this sustain on a continuous level if it never stops.We know that money simply IS right??The rules on which the current economies stand are in contradiction with the capitalisms fundamentals would you not agree?The capitalism can only expand on the costs of the others, small man, the labour work.. there is this theory accepted by world economists that with these rules there will be only 4-5 BIG conglomerates dominating the World economies.. this might not be a bad thing.Everybody having exactly the same salleries,same costs,same expenses etc.But the disturbing part with all of this is that Capitalism also advocates that corporates must be in private possesion, because only private owners will know how to manage the best for the interest of the company and to maximisation of the profits.This leads to a conclusion that there wont be just 1% controling the rest of 99% but the numbers will move in a direction that couple of milipromiles will control the rest of the world right!?!?!?This is simply feudalism to me, we might made a progress in science,technology, but we did not make any progress since 1st industrial revolution in social arrangement!

"I dont know if your perspective is overally accepted in Romania or not, but this is why it is so surprising to me that you have such perspective"

I don't know what perspective are you talking about.

A person would get an impression that he is actually a positive historical figure.

nvm just a discussion.. that vid. with amateur footage pretty much sums it up for me.

Being naive is not a positive thing. In politics good intentions not sustained by successful actions in that direction is a bad thing. Good or bad person is debatable and have more in common with psychology or religion. Politics should never mix these things.

Good or bad person is debatable and have more in common with psychology or religion.

Id more attribute his illusion to someone thinking he is the absolute leader and there is no other in the world equal to him, that nothing can happen to him, hence the shocking surprise in the end.

Or maybe he fancy himself as the Sun King.. how would id go "Romania that is me"!?!?

Coooome on, when reality comes right there and lands couple of BIG SLAPS to their faces, all of them come up shockingly surprised with exactly the same excuses "ALL I DID WAS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE NATION".Did you already forget Sadam?????

Politics should never mix these things.

You should read this sentence that you wrote yourself a couple of more times and ask yourself whos confusing things..

"Id more attribute his illusion to..."
I was not talking about him this was in response to your assumption about my perception.

"You should read this sentence that you wrote yourself a couple of more times and ask yourself whos confusing things"
Once again you assume that I have feelings for Ceausescu, when I already told you that this is not the case, when I said something about mixing things.

I was stating the facts, at which point you said that I was talking driven by wrong perception. It is not my fault that under the heavy censorship and paranoid cult of personality Romania completely went out of debt and had a very strong educational system in universities. I was presenting the facts, the bad and the good altogether.

Education system was more or less the same on Balkans, somewhere better somewhere not, somewhere influenced by communism and somewhere not.The thing that was common to all of us was, that it was free and available to everybody.Today the difference is that we are adapting western system, more and more private schools are favored by our states/governments.Cant see how did Ceausescu have anything to do personally with our educational arrangement in any way!?

Is it easy to fight when you fight cyph, thats the US vs communism battle

Go home, you drunk

what did you call me?!

ELLO ELLO ELLO ELLO WHITE AMERICA, ASSASINATE MY CHARACTER

Let's redistribute EYO points for equality

but what about CA elo?

We take ELO from the opressive tier 4 guys and distribute through tier 2 and 3.

Those who disagree with this method, will be lined up against the wall and shot banned from quakelive.

Note: we need to redistribute plusses in ESR too, then we can live in the beautiful e-community of equality, without this opressive system of e-penis enlargement called "plus system", everyone will be equally famous and accepted.

without the plus system there would be one less incentive to write good posts and post funny pictures on sundays.

You capitalist pig!

thx dude, signed up for the CPUSA, talked to a nice lady so far. will see how the revolution goes.

See you in GULAG in 10 years.

Sooner than that if the CP in his CPUSA turns out to not be the one discussed here.

DUDE ASK THEM IF YOU CAN RUN FOR NY STATE IN THE NEXT BYELECTION.

[img1]

brasilian, mind to fuckoff?Go play with a ball or smth.

Molti nemici, molto onore.

popljugaj mi druze psyy :)

hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Bj2a_B574 xDDD

haha di to nade :P

What the fuck do you call this?

Just to clarify, I meant the concept of that picture, not the actual content:

Looks like a hybrid between a what a propane salesman thinks a flow chart should look like and a bar napkin with notes scribbled on it.

looks like a picture you'd find on /pol/ between ayn rand nudes and dnd classifications of political systems.

Here's a version which I presume doesn't aggress to such an extent upon your aesthetic vulnerability.

But it deeply aggresses on reason and on any kind of intellectual standard a person could uphold that is worth recognizing as such.

I knew what to expect, but read "37. Why Professors Hate the Market" and surley, I wasn't disappointed: they really are incompetent idiots who couldn't survive in the market place, they want to "destroy" markets and so on. I grew more desperate by the minute to find one argument worthwhile engaging, but no. But maybe that was my fault as I wouldn't expect to find much intellectual challenge in a publication by the central committee of the communist party of the soviet union or a opinion piece in Pravda. Defending different systems, but same standards.

Here's the context, in which the word 'destroy' was used:

They conclude that the market is fundamentally unfair in the
way it distributes resources, and resolve to do what they can to
destroy it through teaching and writing.

You must have been thinking too much about those Ayn Rand nudes while reading the whole section. I know hyperbole is fashionable and quite suitable when talking about hitsu's duel skills or Jamerio's BAFTA, but I'd expect a bit more serious approach towards other topics.

You expect people to be serious, but cite some austrian economics ideologue? Joke's on you I guess.

How about I quote some minor, irrelevant, irrational figure of some cult like bob avakian and then throw my hands up in the air when you call me out for it and tell you that I expected a serious discussion?

Besides what did I miss that you need to supply me with context of which I was fully aware? I actually avoided citing directly to spare me and you of the embaressement and to leave open to you the possibility to recreate these assertions with actual premisses based on evidence.

Every person with even a remote understanding of what science is and trying to do can only laugh about this anti-empiricist sect. But no, I was probably indoctrinated by some professor with enlightenment values (you know valuing evidence, decency in argumentation, etc.) to not understand the genius insights that professors are actually just envy 2d characters, jealous of the salaries of managers.

What does "austrian economics ideologue" even mean? I've been taught the distinction between positive and normative economics on my very empirics-orientated university. I guess that makes one of us.

Not that I am for making my case by appealing to authority, but the way you dismiss the finance minister of Austria, the economic advisor to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a Nobel laureate and a few other widely recognized in educational circles figures as anti-empiricist sect indicates that you just might be an example of "a scholar" Rockwell was writing about - close-minded and one that expresses animosity towards knowledge foreign to him.

Arguments? No, smearing is the new scientific way of making one's case.

Oh, and to leave you with a parting thought, here's Richard Feynman (I believe he's not an anti-empiricist cultist, but perhaps you have your own intel on that.) on the success of empiricism in social sciences.

What does "austrian economics ideologue" even mean?

A dictionary is highly recommended at this moment.

Not that I am for making my case by appealing to authority, but the way you dismiss [...]

But you do it nonetheless.

[...]the finance minister of Austria, the economic advisor to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a Nobel laureate and a few other widely recognized in educational circles figures as anti-empiricist sect[...]

And I dismiss many, many more people, for example all those anti-empiricists running under Oli Rehn (not an austrian I know). And there are no Noble laureates in economics, it's a marketing ploy by a swedish bank, nothing more. And what do I care what position some person occupied, they usually get there by serving power and privilege and authority. As a heuristic it is best to put an extra high burden of proof on what they say. But who are you talking about? The current finance minister is Maria Fekter.

[...]indicates that you just might be an example of "a scholar" Rockwell was writing about - close-minded and one that expresses animosity towards knowledge foreign to him.

Let's say a person says X will happen given Y and it doesn't happen. And then again X will happen given Y and it doesn't happen. And again. And again.
My conclusion: there might be something off with those basic assumptions. Maybe there is still some truth salvageable in the things said, that's a possibility and worthwhile pursuit, but adjustment seems necessary.
Your conclusion: anyone who critizises is a closed-minded whatever expressing animosity towards knowledge foreign to him.

Arguments? No, smearing is the new scientific way of making one's case.

Here we have reached the absolute heights of irrationality and that your able to actually make such a point, frankly, I'm astonished. You posted a book where a person smears and slams people because they don't agree with him, he isn't engaging in any honest representation of their arguments (or any representation at all for that matter) and he postulates the most ridiculous properties onto these people and than you cry wolf? Hypocrisy.

And what about your Feynman video?
So from the very known and immediately obvious limitations of the social sciences you conclude that it is somehow just to postulate whatever you want (you know, the exact thing the austrians do) and then declare with the utmost confidence that you have truth and knowledge. I knew the social sciences were brazen, but I didn't know they now openly admit to it.

What I conclude from that video is that which I conceive of as a rational way to proceed and maybe could be termed socratic, understanding how little we know, understanding how limited all these endavors are and therby rightfully diminishing their influence on decision making.

Last point, don't think your successful in changing the original points of that embarrassment of a book you posted. I'm aware of that attempt, which is understandable given the content, but improper since it was you who introduced it.

What does "austrian economics ideologue" even mean?

A dictionary is highly recommended at this moment.

I'd understand if you labeled him a libertarian ideologue or anarcho-capitalist ideologue, since these actually are ideologies. But because economics is a descriptive body of knowledge (Austrian, Neoclassical, Keynesian, whatever), calling someone an economics ideologue is a contradiction in terms, similar to calling someone a chemistry ideologue. It even doesn't matter whether a particular school of econ is empiricist or rationalist.

Not that I am for making my case by appealing to authority, but the way you dismiss [...]

But you do it nonetheless.

[...]the finance minister of Austria, the economic advisor to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a Nobel laureate and a few other widely recognized in educational circles figures as anti-empiricist sect[...]

And I dismiss many, many more people, for example all those anti-empiricists running under Oli Rehn (not an austrian I know). And there are no Noble laureates in economics, it's a marketing ploy by a swedish bank, nothing more. And what do I care what position some person occupied, they usually get there by serving power and privilege and authority. As a heuristic it is best to put an extra high burden of proof on what they say. But who are you talking about? The current finance minister is Maria Fekter.

All right, that works even better for me. I assumed you were into "intellectual accolades" given that's what I've encountered in a majority of discussions I've had with people from my uni. Sorry for doing so and I congratulate you on that point.

I meant Bohm-Bawerk, Mises and Hayek, respectively.

[...]indicates that you just might be an example of "a scholar" Rockwell was writing about - close-minded and one that expresses animosity towards knowledge foreign to him.

Let's say a person says X will happen given Y and it doesn't happen. And then again X will happen given Y and it doesn't happen. And again. And again.
My conclusion: there might be something off with those basic assumptions. Maybe there is still some truth salvageable in the things said, that's a possibility and worthwhile pursuit, but adjustment seems necessary.

You've left out the all other things being equal condition, which is of absolute necessity in if X, then Y statements and one that empirical work in social sciences doesn't address, because it is simply impossible to carry out controlled experiments. Counterfactuals are only hypothetical and to illustrate the degree of the problem, here's a recent example.

When the Obama stimulus was being sold to the public, Christina Romer came up with a chart to demonstrate the positive effects of the package on unemployment. (CLICK) This obviously failed miserably on Romer's own terms, but the proponents of the plan can still argue using a counterfactual that without the stimulus plan the economy would have been even worse than the red dots indicate. I don't blame them for it, because even according to the Austrians, their explanation is entirely plausible if we disregard economic theory and base our views solely on empirics, given that Romer obviously couldn't account for all the factors influencing unemployment..

Your conclusion: anyone who critizises is a closed-minded whatever expressing animosity towards knowledge foreign to him.

Well, you don't see me calling anybody something to the tune of anti-empirics cultist or austrian economics ideologue, do you?

Arguments? No, smearing is the new scientific way of making one's case.

Here we have reached the absolute heights of irrationality and that your able to actually make such a point, frankly, I'm astonished. You posted a book where a person smears and slams people because they don't agree with him, he isn't engaging in any honest representation of their arguments (or any representation at all for that matter) and he postulates the most ridiculous properties onto these people and than you cry wolf? Hypocrisy.

First of all, you seem to have latched onto this single chapter about college professors being anticapitalist. 1 chapter out of 103. Because you hold empirics in very high regard, for which I don't blame you, but simply demand consequence in your epistemological monism, allow me to ask if conclusions about the entire book would be statistically relevant with that meager of a sample?

Second of all, let's actually delve into Rockwell's words just a tiny bit.

The argument about increasingly incompetent people choosing a career in higher education, the one for which you have so strongly castigated Rockwell is actually a quote from the New York Times (the well-known bastion of libertarianism). I'm not saying that he doesn't agree with it, but it's clearly complimented by a similar opinion from the newspaper.

On the other hand, college officials fear that many of
them are going on, not because they are brilliant, but precisely
for the opposite reason: that they can’t cut it in the marketplace.
As the Times puts it, “this trend makes many college officials
fear that a smaller, and possibly less capable, group will choose
to become professors.”

And what about your Feynman video?
So from the very known and immediately obvious limitations of the social sciences you conclude that it is somehow just to postulate whatever you want (you know, the exact thing the austrians do) and then declare with the utmost confidence that you have truth and knowledge. I knew the social sciences were brazen, but I didn't know they now openly admit to it.
What kind of a straw-man is that? First of all, current economists haven’t got the faintest idea about methodology in economics. They typically read the article by Friedman on logical positivism as part of the curriculum and never go back to the issue convinced that it’s a settled matter, so your statement that those limitations are well-known and obvious to, say, econometricians, is an extension of your imagination. Second of all, since you’ve accused me of declaring with the utmost confidence that you have truth and knowledge (Where exactly did you pull it out from I have no clue.) tell me which school of economic thought is conceited enough to stipulate perfect or symmetrical information in so many of their models and which one is basically centered around discovering how is it that the social interactions (e.g. on the market) coordinate separated and subjective pieces of information in every man’s head towards an efficient use of resources.

What I conclude from that video is that which I conceive of as a rational way to proceed and maybe could be termed socratic, understanding how little we know, understanding how limited all these endavors are and therby rightfully diminishing their influence on decision making.
Wow, either you are completely blind to how econometric models are created and what sort of conclusions or, specifically, policy recommendations the authors of the models try to derive from them or you’re skillfully trolling me.
Last point, don't think your successful in changing the original points of that embarrassment of a book you posted. I'm aware of that attempt, which is understandable given the content, but improper since it was you who introduced it.

I simply don’t know where you’re coming from on that one. I haven’t attempted anything like the above, nor do I feel any need to do so.

Ugh, no response from the scientist I guess.

I blame the jews.

omg communists on my interwebs

omg communists on my interwebs

Jonesy is a rather cool guy.

nutin cool bout zombies yo