Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#3801 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Bader
Your beloved communist lion system boasted that it would lead the world to paradise by getting rid of religion(Christianity). At the end of seventy years the persecuted and politically appointed Russian Church was in better shape than the all powerful state.
No comment you an make changes this.
I doubt if there has been any apology but the State recognises the Church today even though you dont.
The parody boomeranged and went back and hit the thrower.



Embracing Slavs tradition and culture, love for beauty of orthodox ritual has nothing to do with accepting the Jew as a God.
When chocolate is old and distasteful, one still can use the treasure box for entertainment and enjoyment.
Church is living museum with all its dignity and respect for splendid Slavic culture. :)
  • 0

#3802 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Bader
Argentina has refused to try and feed the dynasaur and starve their children and export their future.
What ethnicity owns any corporation is irrelvant likewise the
demands of what commodities.
Many thousands of African children have died from starvation and malnutrician because of these policies and their own leaders accepting globalisation as in Brazil and China to name just two who accept slave-labour on their people.
The comment that the third world is growing increasingly politically and economically independant ... is a new one on me.



Brazil and China. ; Critics of China, the biggest world economy is funny for me. It is on the world most purpose oriented country ; one may doesn
  • 0

#3803 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 02:31 PM

> > How could they all have been wrong? But they were obviously, or
> > perhaps they all went along with the lie that would bring a
> > "little
> > democracy" to Iraq and a "lot of oil" to the Western economies.
> > Hey,
> > not a bad idea. ;)
>
> Doug Says: Psssst. Say Bud, perhaps you have not heard the
> news? WMD have been found in Iraq - dozens of them. Further,
> Dr. Loftus testified they have found evidence that Saddam sent
> WMD to both Syria and Lebanon. So the WMD were there, dozens
> have been already found (Mobile Biological Weapon Labs and
> dozens of artillery shells and 122mm rockets containing chemical
> weapons) and many more will be found before the election. (Do a
> search on AP, UPI on Chemical weapons found in Iraq).
>
> Also, Saddam's connections to terrorism was provided via film
> when the Fedayeen, replete with AK-47's, suicide belts, and white
> martyr uniforms with the ubiquitous terrorist ski masks were
> filmed high stepping for Saddam on parade before the liberation
> of Iraq. So who do you think those Fedayeen were - Girl Scouts
> and their suicide belts were full of cookies?
>
> Saddam possessed WMD, was trying to get more, had purchased
> ICBM's from North Korea, and Saddam's Fedayeen were training with
> Al Qaeda and the Answr-Al-Islam gaggle of goons for years before
> the Iraqi liberation.
>
>
> So, who lied other than the Dems?
>
> Doug Grant ™
> >>

I expect you to remain busy for a while in ridding the world of WMDs... ;)

http://www.fas.org/i...t/wmd_state.htm
  • 0

#3804 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 02:55 PM

Bader, is someone copying us or just that this is common sense?;)

'The final, most ambitious (but pragmatic and realizable) EconomicDemocracy.org section is on the Dismantling Corporate Power -- by building, nurturing, and being able to successfully transition to an alternative economy.

By creating the lifelines allowing each of us to meet our basic needs (food, housing, healthcare, etc) and extras (culture, arts, music) so that though people won't have to quit their "day-jobs", for the first time ever they will have an honest choice, and the freedom to chose to do so if they so desire (the common phrase "Thank God It's Friday" in the mainstream economy suggests how most may vote with their feet, when we finally make a viable alternative available to them).'

At least they are not copycats. They changed the "water well" to "lifelines"...:cool:

http://www.economicdemocracy.org/
  • 0

#3805 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 03:08 PM

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy" -- Wendell Berry

It sounds convincing to me...;)

'Utopic? No! The seeds of Economic Democracy already exist today in Cooperative Supermarkets, Credit Unions, Community-Supported Agriculture, the Kibbutz, Indymedia.org, Ithaca Hours, and more. Section on "existing examples" to come'

see Analysis at...

http://www.economicdemocracy.org/
  • 0

#3806 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 03:18 PM

Bader, can't be someone is copying us, no other than Chomsky...;)

BARSAMIAN: [About 3 minutes before end of their alloted interview time:] You said the economic system is a grotesque catastrophe. What kind of economic system would you propose?

CHOMSKY: Well, that's a topic for another discussion because we're being kicked out of here, but I would propose a system which is democratic. Meaning that, it's long been understood -- in fact it's been a cliche, it has nothing to do with the left in fact, it's right through the American working class movement, you know, social thinkers, everybody, forever -- that you don't have democracy unless people are in control of the major decisions. And the major decisions, as has been long understood, are investment decisions, fundamentally investment decisions, what you do with the money, what happens in the country, what's produced, how is it produced, what are working conditions like, where does it go, how is it distributed, where is it sold. I mean, that whole range of decisions, that's not everything in the world, but unless that range of decisions is under democratic control, [what] you have is one or another form of tyranny.

That's as old as the hills and it's as American as apple pie, you don't have to go to Marxism or anything else, it's just straight out of mainstream American tradition. And the reason is perfect common sense. You think for three seconds: yeah, obvious. So, that's got to be at the core of it and that means a total dismantling of all the totalitarian systems. Corporations are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism, in fact they came out of the same intellectual roots in the early 20th century. So, just like other forms of totalitarianism have to go, private tyrannies have to go and they have to be put under public control -- and then you look at the modalities of public control. Like, should it be workers' councils or community organization or some integration of them, and what kind of federal structure should there be.

At this point, you're sort of beginning to think about how a free and democratic society might operate, and that's worth a lot of thought, but we're a long way from that. The first thing you've got to do in any kind of change is to recognize the forms of oppression that exist. I mean, if slaves don't recognize that slavery is oppression, it doesn't make much sense to ask them: "how are you going to live in a free society?" They think they do. And this is not a joke. Take say, women. Overwhelmingly and for a long time, they may have sensed oppression, but they didn't see it as oppression, they saw it as "life". The fact that you don't see oppression doesn't mean that you don't know it at some level. I mean, at some level, you know it. And the way in which you know it can take very harmful forms, to yourself and everyone else. That's true of every system of oppression. But unless you sense it, identify it, understand it, understand furthermore that it's not as in that article, "the genius of the market and a mystery," but perfectly understandable and not any genius of anything, and easily put under popular control.

(same source)
  • 0

#3807 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 05:24 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy" -- Wendell Berry

It sounds convincing to me...;)

'Utopic? No! The seeds of Economic Democracy already exist today in Cooperative Supermarkets, Credit Unions, Community-Supported Agriculture, the Kibbutz, Indymedia.org, Ithaca Hours, and more. Section on "existing examples" to come'


Morality and ethic don
  • 0

#3808 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 05:37 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
, if slaves don't recognize that slavery is oppression, it doesn't make much sense to ask them: "how are you going to live in a free society?" They think they do. And this is not a joke. Take say, women. Overwhelmingly and for a long time, they may have sensed oppression, but they didn't see it as oppression, they saw it as "life". )


How Kibbutz eliminate woman sense of oppression?

Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
One who believes himself the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they.:)
Jean Jaques Rousseau
  • 0

#3809 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 05:54 PM

Which candidate would be more likely to achieve significant tax reform?
George W. Bush (72%)
John Kerry (23%)
Ralph Nader (5%)

http://discussions.w...inside_today_us
  • 0

#3810 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 07 September 2004 - 06:36 PM

Originally posted by donquijote
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy" -- Wendell Berry

It sounds convincing to me...;)

'Utopic? No! The seeds of Economic Democracy already exist today in Cooperative Supermarkets, Credit Unions, Community-Supported Agriculture, the Kibbutz, Indymedia.org, Ithaca Hours, and more. Section on "existing examples" to come'



WoJ: Great you enjoy the humor! However, you interpret it wrong.
I did not suggest Capitalism was a peaceful system. I said it required less force because it was a more natural economic system as opposed to a government controlled one. You know full well a capitalist economic system will evolve under any socialist system in the form of an underground economy. It thrives without formal government. Due to it's illegality its governance or justice can however be quite brutal.

DonQ: You seem to imply that Capitalism has pollluted your beaches. I believe the public infrastructure is the province of government. Note the condition of City Hall or the State Legislature and you will be able to identify government priority.
Capitalist prioity is delivering the goods. The accountants and bankers priority is the bottom line.
The above quote re rats and roaches I found interesting. One must differentiate between natural and man-made law. Supply and demand are natural law and as stated earlier nature, quite brutally and relentlessly, tends to keep things in balance if we don't. That is why we need justice; to assuage nature's, and our own, brutality.
  • 0

#3811 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 12:08 AM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
Morality and ethic don-t eliminate economic laws; 2 +2 =4 in Kibbutz as well.

Let not your zeal to share your principles entice you beyond your borders.
~Marquis de Sade:)



In kibbutz 0>4, meaning you can $0 and still enjoy more than having $4 in capitalist economy...;)
  • 0

#3812 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 12:15 AM

Originally posted by woj1@cyberonic.
How Kibbutz eliminate woman sense of oppression?

Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
One who believes himself the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they.:)
Jean Jaques Rousseau



You think woman is free in capitalist economy? ha, ha, ha...;)

If the guy leaves her she's in deep trouble raising the children, working and having ends meet. In kibbutz she can kick the ******* out without fear of the jungle.:cool:
  • 0

#3813 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 01:07 AM

'By creating the lifelines allowing each of us to meet our basic needs (food, housing, healthcare, etc) and extras (culture, arts, music) so that though people won't have to quit their "day-jobs", for the first time ever they will have an honest choice, and the freedom to chose to do so if they so desire (the common phrase "Thank God It's Friday" in the mainstream economy suggests how most may vote with their feet, when we finally make a viable alternative available to them).' (http://www.economicdemocracy.org/)

I think this is important and people will love the idea of having better quality of life for less work. You can see how capitalism and communism makes you work and work for nothing, and people don't realize it's because someone is getting the best of it.:(

I sure can use the Pina Colada...:D

"We believe that in conditions of true freedom - not the temporary reactionary state induced by everyone suddenly being free of the need to secure money for their livelihoods after decades of feeling compelled - people would choose to spend some of their time in productive activities and some in leisure activities. (There is a point at which the clear distinction between the two breaks down, anyway)."


Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery
Are we "anti-work"?
Ah, yes...a good question (and a very common one, as well).

CLAWS receives many questions about whether we are anti-work, wondering if we think everyone should "quit their jobs and sit around drinking Pina Coladas all day". This gets to the heart of what CLAWS is about, so we'd like to expound on this at length.

Are we "anti-work"? No, it's not that simple. We are pro-leisure, and we think leisure has gotten a bad rap in societies driven by the Protestant/Puritan work ethic...but the best answer to the question of whether we are anti-work depends on how you define the word "work".

Paraphrasing Tony Gibson, we can define work simply as the expenditure of energy in a productive process, and leisure as the expenditure of energy without productive result. We're not saying one is good and the other bad - they're just two ways of being. We are not against being productive and we recognize the satisfaction that can result from being engaged in productive activity of one's own choosing. (Hey, we put together this Web site, didn't we?) So we aren't anti-work in this sense.

But we are critical of the mindset (supported, as it were, by social norms, government policies and collective fears of poverty) that results in people working against their will, and believing there is no other way to "survive". This results in taking jobs out of joyless obligation, need for money, coercion, or a desire to "get ahead" in some sort of competitive social status or consumer game, for example. We think such a mindset is at the root of many, many otherwise solvable social, economic, and environmental problems.

But many people today don't use the kind of simple, non-judgmental definition above. Many of us think of work not just as effort expended in a productive process, but as a "necessary evil" - in other words, work is what we have to do so we can support ourselves. If your concept of work is drudgery, if you think of your job as something you'd rather not do if it weren't for the money, if you simply can't wait to retire so you can "enjoy life" - that kind of thinking is what we define as wage slavery, and we seek to abolish it.

Here's a similar point from Pekka Himanen's book The Hacker Ethic (p. 49):

"Survival" or "You have to do something to earn your living" is the answer a great number of people will give when asked why they work (often responding in a mildly puzzled fashion, as if this went without saying). But strictly speaking, they do not mean mere survival - that is, having food and so on. In their use, survival refers to a certain socially determined lifestyle: they are not working merely to survive but to be able to satisfy the form of social needs characteristic to a society."


Here's another way to conceptualize the change involved: We must stop linking a person's needs with her/his deeds. In other words, we must break the link between employment in the service of profit and provision for citizens' food, shelter, health care, etc.

Taking a position like this often brings up questions like "but who would clean the sewers, take out the garbage, etc., if they were not motivated by something like money? Somebody's got to do the dirty work!"

Well, we believe that if things were set up right, people would choose to do this work, as well as many other kinds of work. "Choice" in this case does not mean "only do things you absolutely adore and take delight in". Take, for example, balancing your checkbook. Many of us don't do that just because we delight in it for its own sake - instead, it seems like a bit of a chore. But we do it nonetheless, because we would rather do it than accept the consequences of not doing it. No one is coercing us; we are choosing. And in the final analysis, we may find a unique sort of satisfaction in doing it after all, since it can make us feel responsible and organized.

Garbage collection can be looked at the same way. If society were set up so that the consequences of not removing your own refuse were living in a stench-filled apartment, we're willing to bet that people would indeed choose to do such jobs. Is that coercion? We don't think so.

If you believe that people would not do productive work, even tasks like refuse removal, without being coerced or given a paycheck, then we humbly suggest that your base assumptions about human nature and motivation be reconsidered. We at CLAWS aren't quite that cynical. (Take a look at some of our recommended books or do a Web search for further comments on this view of human nature.)

We believe that in conditions of true freedom - not the temporary reactionary state induced by everyone suddenly being free of the need to secure money for their livelihoods after decades of feeling compelled - people would choose to spend some of their time in productive activities and some in leisure activities. (There is a point at which the clear distinction between the two breaks down, anyway).

We are interested in transforming ourselves, our thinking, and society so that we may see all productive activities ("work") done for reasons of real pride, joy, concern for social welfare, and intrinsic satisfaction - not coercion, whether induced by money, social status, or conformity. We believe that the path toward this sort of society is likely to start with each of us examining our beliefs about work and jobs, and understanding the meaning of leisure. There is a difference between "jobs" and work, as we see it, though many people use these terms interchangeably.

Changes in the larger system are necessary, of course, and we support these efforts. However, our focus at this point is on what each of us can do in our day-to-day lives as individuals, and members of families and communities. Consider these words from an anonymous editorial in Freedom, November 15, 1958:

"One cannot legislate for the free society. It can only be born by the actions of men and women who have understood what freedom is all about and desire it more than anything else that society and political wordspinners have to offer by way of consolation prizes in its stead."

In sum, we don't believe CLAWS is anti-work...but we are pro-freedom, anti-wage-slavery and pro-leisure. If the only concept of "work" is people engaged in productive activity for the sake of money, profit, recognition, status, and so forth, however, then yes, we are anti-work. As always, of course, you can decide for yourself.

http://www.whywork.o...q/antiwork.html
  • 0

#3814 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 01:58 AM

Are you in favor of more work or more Pina Colada?

http://engforum.prav...?threadid=95705
  • 0

#3815 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 05:24 AM

Hey, Woj, time to remember the "good old days"...;)

Do you like Plattenbaus or American sprawl?

http://engforum.prav...149#post1028149
  • 0

#3816 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 06:02 AM

Chompsky's "investment decisions" equates with people being in control of money, their money, its either economic democracy or tyrany- same intellectual roots=non-democratic capitalism, marxism, fascism; are all what I have been saying all along.

The quotes from economic democracy.com and Whywork and Chopskys commenst are all in the Social Credit analysis.
The reason it is so familiar to us is that the principles of the coop
are the same as Social Credit which also analyses the fraudulent money system and designed one consistent with the principles of coops/democracy.
China is the exact opposite, so Woj although not in good company also is however in huge company. China is a copy of the State-Messiah, which means its Woj who worships The Jew.
  • 0

#3817 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 06:20 AM

I am as lazy as the next guy but if I find a purpose to what I am doing it is not drudgery or "work".

Equating work as a necessary evil is an indication the person has no understanding of the purpose of his work or has lost the reason it is being done. If it becomes purposeless it will become drudgery.

Sitting around for too long also becomes drudgery. You will eventually become bored with sitting on the beach. Once you have a tan or have watched enough girls go by going to the beach becomes purposeless. If someone forced you or you forced yourself to go beyond the point where you had achieved your purpose, it may have been to get a good rest, whatever, once any action becomes purposeless it is not desirable to do.
  • 0

#3818 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 07:27 AM

Howdy Pliny:

I will comment on what you have written. What you have written isnt the first and last, it could mean more, maybe any point explained better and you can elaborate on any point in response:
meaning this is no one shot each show.

The basic conception you have revolves around small govt because you stress that it is the cause of the major problems in
society and thus suggests that small govt is virtually your goal as
life would be largely so much better, with govt out of the economic and social spheres of life that one doesnt have to worry to much about much else as they will largely take care of themselves through the hidden hands of the market.
If govt doesnt have any interest in how industry functions and neither how people fare in employment then I have to say that the recent expose on Brazil is your model society. Industry will rape the enviroment and make slaves of people for anyone who
has the wherewithall to take advantage of opportunities. Since Govt enforces peace and the law etc, the peasants cant "revolt"
because the multi-national executives will blow the whistle and the law will come running to their aid.
Is it fair to say you are trying to speed up the transition from nationalism to unrestrained/unaccountable globalism?
Obviously the definition of Justice has an impact on the answer you give because the type of govt you support actually hasnt been clarified.

You probably didnt mean to infur that socialism isnt bad anymore than capitalism because the bad allegedly associated with them are only the downside of govt partnership, so socialism through small govt is an option. Which would require provincial govts and the force held at the federal level. I dont think you would want to go down that path. Woj might. It suggests the potential of the local govt to be more in touch with its local people as the
original Soviet was supposed to be, upon which I assume they have used the word democracy, to describe communism=
centralised democracy.

I would atke issue with your statement that the Keynsian model
prevails today. It doesnt. Reagan and Thatcher started following the School of Chicargo model, the guru's name escapes me at present. If I remember correctly I think he was a Von Hayek
disciple and Hayek was a Von Mises disciple was he not? By the end of the eighties the developed world had moved on from Keynes.
The keynsian model "was adopted by govt because it was interventionist ... allowed govts or banks if you prefer, to usurp all the wealth of the world and future production through debt"
Lord Keynes was called on to provide a means of getting the developed world back on its feet after the depression, it might have been after the war got going, I am not sure. It wouldnt have been govt that looked to Keynes it would have been the bankers. Social Credit was running hot because of the Crash,
the idea of debt free money outside of the bankers who had just let society down had great appeal. Social Crediters have always believed that it was their "competition" that caused the bankers to use a 'pump-priming' method through govt to take the wind out of the sails of the Social Credit movement. And it worked
because soon there was plenty of money and people getting back to work so they forgot about the problems of the money system. No doubt there were other reasons. Anyway it was only a metter of time and govt debt caused all those assets built up by Keynsian methods were sold off cheap to the sharp guys first in line who helped change to the Free Market.
There is no question that the international bankers control the money and the govts. You fail to make this clear as to who wears the pants.
More to follow.
  • 0

#3819 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 07:46 AM

I see you havent changed your earlier view of SC, although I gave you more than one website to familiarise yourself with it.
You claim SC:
puts money creation in the hands of a few
it most certainly must be a very expensive service
is outside the market
would be inflationary.

You have summarised the existing system, which SC has exposed like no one else has AND provided an alternative in more detail than anyone else has and which reverses the money-powers
dynamics so that it serves society instead of making society the servant of money-power.
If it was the same as the existing system, it would have made a fool of itself instead of becoming a very popular new idea. Those every things you accuse SC of doing are what it took acception to
about the debt money system. There were much smarter people than us who in the thirties would have torn C.H. Douglas to bits
if what you said was true.
Can you justify these four claims?

"if seperate from govt it may have a chance to be fair"
SC made a big issue out of seperating the money-supply function from govt for exactly the same reasons you would. Clearly you have little understanding of what you are talking about (SC).
  • 0

#3820 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 08 September 2004 - 09:09 AM

Here we go again Pliny:

Quoting C.H.Douglas, from his book (1931) The Monolpoly of Credit:
p65-66

"The difficulty in dealing with the subject (gold standard) arises largely from the fact that it has never at anytime been what it pretends to be. Originally gold itself was supposed to represent the only true and universally accepted claim for goods. Previously to 1914 the gold sovereign circulated freely in Great Britain, and the illusion of a gold currency was fairly successful. Within two days of the outbreak of war in 1914, however, the available stocks of gold sovereigns had been withdrawn from the banks by depositors who imagined that in this way they were safeguarding their possessions, with the result that it was necessary to declare
a moratorium, during the progress of which, treasury notes of a face value of 1pound and 10shillings were printed in large numbers and handed over to the banks for issue to their depositors. The fact that the Gold Standard was a fraudulent standard was demonstrated in twenty four hours"

The physical stocks of gold in the world couldnt match the volumn of money value.
How are people going to get gold in the first place even if there was enough?
People buy credit through interest rates. If people have to buy gold in order to have money, whats the difference. The banks will add the cost of them buying gold, which they can 'lend', to the interest and existing bank charges. Financial costs will go up and into prices. But the value of goods wont go up thus its inflationary.
Just imagine if one had to own a Nissan in order to use money. Shares in Nissan will jumpt through the roof. Same will happen to gold. How many could afford gold? we are back in Brazil again arent we?
Guess where the BUSH-ranger would make his next war?
South Africa.
You are going to have to work a lot harder Pliny to come up with
something socially attainable, if not physically attainable.

One last point, your overview was based on dialectic materialism
a Marxist (mischivious) perception of the world. Me and DonQ reject that, we know that there is/are an alternative(s) to capitalism and socialism which are better. However we appreciate your preference for smaller govt.
Personally I cant presume to know how big govt could/should/might be under Social Credit reform, I believe that would take care of itself and highly likely to shrink along with the volumn of money.
SC will deliver economic democracy and the more money people have in their pocket the less they like govt. Now isnt it strange how the rightwing political parties dont want to put more money in the populations pockets but they want less govt, which really means less taxes to pay. See the Right is just as motivated
by ideology and the monopoly of power as the Left, and neither
are really interested in solving the perenial problems and the social injustice. Both want the majority to work work work just to
live from week to week.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru