Socialism in France
-
hubird
a witz is jewish (and German) for joke, thought this word is also used in english, I maybe wrong tho 
Wolf-o-witz was a joke, and a bad one
You're too cynical Gary, maybe it says more about the political situation you're damned to live in (obviously) than about the general idea of your insights justifies
Do jail time?
he leaves with a year salary, 400.000 dollar netto.
You can build some schools in 'development' countries with that mony...
b is decorum, she, her now politically lame position that is, is a product of recent history, but politically and financially completely irrelevant.
Wish she was to replace Wolf-o-witz, that would be a huge improvement, seriously
Wolf-o-witz was a joke, and a bad one
You're too cynical Gary, maybe it says more about the political situation you're damned to live in (obviously) than about the general idea of your insights justifies
Do jail time?
he leaves with a year salary, 400.000 dollar netto.
You can build some schools in 'development' countries with that mony...
b is decorum, she, her now politically lame position that is, is a product of recent history, but politically and financially completely irrelevant.
Wish she was to replace Wolf-o-witz, that would be a huge improvement, seriously
she's his boss.
have you never heard of congolese diamonds and rubber? how about dutch royal shell?
does all traffic stop when she goes by, just like in the middle ages?
try making crude. lewd, majorly public mockery of her and see what happens....
but this thread is not about our discussions about her....
have you never heard of congolese diamonds and rubber? how about dutch royal shell?
does all traffic stop when she goes by, just like in the middle ages?
try making crude. lewd, majorly public mockery of her and see what happens....
but this thread is not about our discussions about her....
-
hubird
I am quite aware of the power of supra-democratic processes and systems.
At high school already I made a script about 'the Amarican Imperialism', as an example of the way a nation can rule it's acces to raw materials and at the same time have a one-man-one-vote democracy internally.
That script was mainly a simple extraction of that book with the same name (forgot the writer's name), as I was blue, but I learned a lot
Later, in my student time, I learned to connect these global processes of state based exploitation of the world with marxistic theories of the dynamics of the struggle between labour and capital.
Democracy intervened Karl Marx's theories, as it was the answer to the threatening revolution.
Representative democracy therefor is the ultimate national answer to the labour/capital struggle, and sofar there's nothing better.
The more or less educated middle class in modern democratic nations have the conservative power, and is blackmailed by the multinationals.
If you accept the exploitation of the world, we make you rich.
Locally, the reserve army of labour forces of the underclass has the role which internationally has the proletariat.
In Holland it is the Turkish/Maroccan and Antillian 'import' population, in France the suburb's population from Algerian and others.
Work if there's work, die silently when there isn't.
Yet, this knowledge, which you might subscribe or not, didn't make me desperately, politically.
I'm quite positive actually
So far, no political system serves us, citizens, better than the parliament democracy.
I mean, historically, democracy is extremely young.
What's a few centuries?
It is the system that fits perfectly the modern industrial/information society of free citizens who wanne be free to live according to their own principals.
The challenge is, we have to extrapolate this concept of individual freedom and representitive democracy from 'nation' level to international level.
We left streight kolonialism some time ago, now it's time to pick up our responsibility to do something more positive.
Sending home Wolf-o-witz is a good start
But leave us b, as she's nice
And Sarkozy?
He will learn it the hard way, it won't last so long.
At high school already I made a script about 'the Amarican Imperialism', as an example of the way a nation can rule it's acces to raw materials and at the same time have a one-man-one-vote democracy internally.
That script was mainly a simple extraction of that book with the same name (forgot the writer's name), as I was blue, but I learned a lot
Later, in my student time, I learned to connect these global processes of state based exploitation of the world with marxistic theories of the dynamics of the struggle between labour and capital.
Democracy intervened Karl Marx's theories, as it was the answer to the threatening revolution.
Representative democracy therefor is the ultimate national answer to the labour/capital struggle, and sofar there's nothing better.
The more or less educated middle class in modern democratic nations have the conservative power, and is blackmailed by the multinationals.
If you accept the exploitation of the world, we make you rich.
Locally, the reserve army of labour forces of the underclass has the role which internationally has the proletariat.
In Holland it is the Turkish/Maroccan and Antillian 'import' population, in France the suburb's population from Algerian and others.
Work if there's work, die silently when there isn't.
Yet, this knowledge, which you might subscribe or not, didn't make me desperately, politically.
I'm quite positive actually
So far, no political system serves us, citizens, better than the parliament democracy.
I mean, historically, democracy is extremely young.
What's a few centuries?
It is the system that fits perfectly the modern industrial/information society of free citizens who wanne be free to live according to their own principals.
The challenge is, we have to extrapolate this concept of individual freedom and representitive democracy from 'nation' level to international level.
We left streight kolonialism some time ago, now it's time to pick up our responsibility to do something more positive.
Sending home Wolf-o-witz is a good start
But leave us b, as she's nice
And Sarkozy?
He will learn it the hard way, it won't last so long.
hehe..
they are all false paradigms. the true political struggle is between freedom and tyranny, anyway.
left-right, liberal-conservative, most political terms are about confusion.
but at least in america, conservative means "more on your own", conserving man's natural nature as a soveriegn independant being, so less under control of any central "authority". "liberals" are mostly "socialists", people who think that problems are solved best through government. they are "liberal" in how government is applied. of course, in the city, some regulation and centralization is required, since the large number of people in a small space must cooperate for the general good. some tyranny is needed in the city to keep the extreme behaviors under control(since people can't avoid meeting it if it exists in a small space), and to keep potential tyrants under control.
here's a problem already....conservatives traditionally limit expansion of government power, liberals expand it-except since 1913 or so....(see edward bernays) the idea in america is that when the country started, there had been a revolution and every man who wasn't property was free, no longer the property of the king. this is the state which is being "conserved" by a "conservative".-except in washington in 2007....
they are all false paradigms. the true political struggle is between freedom and tyranny, anyway.
left-right, liberal-conservative, most political terms are about confusion.but at least in america, conservative means "more on your own", conserving man's natural nature as a soveriegn independant being, so less under control of any central "authority". "liberals" are mostly "socialists", people who think that problems are solved best through government. they are "liberal" in how government is applied. of course, in the city, some regulation and centralization is required, since the large number of people in a small space must cooperate for the general good. some tyranny is needed in the city to keep the extreme behaviors under control(since people can't avoid meeting it if it exists in a small space), and to keep potential tyrants under control.
here's a problem already....conservatives traditionally limit expansion of government power, liberals expand it-except since 1913 or so....(see edward bernays) the idea in america is that when the country started, there had been a revolution and every man who wasn't property was free, no longer the property of the king. this is the state which is being "conserved" by a "conservative".-except in washington in 2007....Gary you are wrong,
Under the conservative White House and Congress, the government has expanded more than ever in history. Remember the Bush/Gore debate? Bush said that he was "against nation building". That turned out to be the biggest lie in history.The second biggest lie in history was that he is "a uniter not a divider". Liberals want to help people but conservatives just want to kill people and invade our privacy. They are not about letting people be, that is a crock. They want to legislate what you can do in your bedroom. They say they believe in "the sanctity of human life", yet they jump at the chance to execute people and if it is outside our borders, don't expect a trial. Countless murders through "collateral damage", is considered not a big deal. Is it any wonder that the world hates us? I am sorry that Tony Blair was such a Bush butt kisser. Gary, it's a great system if you are wealthy but for the other 90%... not good at all. Let's talk about what the conservatives are doing to us. I have friends who work for the Department of Homeland Security. Sadly, my friends can no longer party with me since on any day of the week they might be asked to pee into a cup. How degrading! Meanwhile, the state owned alcohol store is selling cheap vodka to pregnant women. The clerk there told me on Friday that she couldn't wait to get home, get drunk, and pass out. That is a state employee. That's the attitude. kiss-ass. This isn't the worst country but it has to be one of the arm pits of this filthy stinking world.
Under the conservative White House and Congress, the government has expanded more than ever in history. Remember the Bush/Gore debate? Bush said that he was "against nation building". That turned out to be the biggest lie in history.The second biggest lie in history was that he is "a uniter not a divider". Liberals want to help people but conservatives just want to kill people and invade our privacy. They are not about letting people be, that is a crock. They want to legislate what you can do in your bedroom. They say they believe in "the sanctity of human life", yet they jump at the chance to execute people and if it is outside our borders, don't expect a trial. Countless murders through "collateral damage", is considered not a big deal. Is it any wonder that the world hates us? I am sorry that Tony Blair was such a Bush butt kisser. Gary, it's a great system if you are wealthy but for the other 90%... not good at all. Let's talk about what the conservatives are doing to us. I have friends who work for the Department of Homeland Security. Sadly, my friends can no longer party with me since on any day of the week they might be asked to pee into a cup. How degrading! Meanwhile, the state owned alcohol store is selling cheap vodka to pregnant women. The clerk there told me on Friday that she couldn't wait to get home, get drunk, and pass out. That is a state employee. That's the attitude. kiss-ass. This isn't the worst country but it has to be one of the arm pits of this filthy stinking world.
What do you mean "these days" There never was a difference and I never said there was a difference. I'm talking about the difference between the ideology of people who call themselves "conservatives" and those who call themselves "liberal". A fiscal conservative is a rare breed. To me a fiscal conservative is simply someone who hates poor people.
We tried the trickle down theory and it didn't work. It was a miserable failure.
We tried the trickle down theory and it didn't work. It was a miserable failure.
whatever. neocons com from the teachings of Leo Strauss, a Trotskyite; and the Rockefellers brag about having funded the communist revolutions in Russia and China, so where are the liberals and conservatives?
Fascists are "right wing" and Socialists are "left wing" and yet there was a fascist National Socialist People's Party. both socialism and fascism ultimately lead to a totalitarian state, every time. the argument is between freedom and tyranny, period. these confusing titles are simple a different interpretation of "Divide and Rule" or "Order out of Chaos".
Fascists are "right wing" and Socialists are "left wing" and yet there was a fascist National Socialist People's Party. both socialism and fascism ultimately lead to a totalitarian state, every time. the argument is between freedom and tyranny, period. these confusing titles are simple a different interpretation of "Divide and Rule" or "Order out of Chaos".