PDA

View Full Version : 'Glenn Beck': Liberation Theology and the Political Perversion of Christianity



Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 12:25 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596703,00.html

GLENN BECK, HOST: I know this is a long walk for most Americans. But it is critical, because this is a perversion of basic American understanding of value. Basic misunderstanding of the make-up or the or God. And it's the only way out of this mess is God. And if we lose our way to him, we're in trouble.

We're talking about Liberation Theology and the different uses of it, OK? There are also uses that are not theological, they are just philosophy. Aspects of Liberation Theology explains how predominantly white members of the Weather Underground, like William Ayers and Jeff Jones, who are still in this system now, they were also into black liberation philosophy.

Why? Because it's about the oppressed and the oppressor. Remember, these are people who, besides blowing stuff up, were also having a sexual revolution, trying to smash monogamy. This isn't about God to them in any shape or form. But the goals are the same.


snip

The Black Panthers and anyone who subscribes to Liberation Theology are perverting the message of Christianity and it goes straight to evil. It is the same way radical Islamists pervert the message of Islam.

But at this instance, they are perverting an already perverted message. The message of social justice and redemption through redistribution and collective redemption, there is no such thing as that. And this is why it's critical that you understand this.

Because Jeremiah Wright is a Liberation Theology creature. He studies and knows Cone, William Ayers, Liberation Theology. All of these people I shouldn't say "all." A lot of the people around the president have grown up in the '60s with either the mix of the Liberation Theology, or the liberation philosophy.

I've got news for you, there is a huge difference between collective salvation and individual salvation. Individual salvation, you can be free and we can disagree with each other. Collective salvation, well, then the policies of the government, well, they they start to become very, very bad, because if you stand against the policies of the government and you are the oppressed that is in charge of the government, well, you can excuse all kinds of things.

As I said in the beginning of this program, there are those in the country right now that must divide us for power. They're going to try to make this episode of this program about race. I ask you to watch the show in context. This has nothing to do with race. African-Americans, it has nothing to do with African-Americans. There are white people saying the same thing.

It has everything to do with power. When I said this guy is it said on the bottom in this clip "America's Black Hitler." It doesn't matter. He's saying the same thing. Hitler was white. He is saying the same stuff. He's black. What does race have to play a role in?

In time, it is played over and over and over again, because it is a formula. The same outcome, a different group of people, but the formula creates the same mess. And it explains what you are beginning to see in America today. It is a formula that I will expose next.
Read the whole transcript, it's interesting.
I'm not surprised by Wei Wei sudden interest in group salvation and why he has Jeremiah Wright for an avatar.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 12:38 AM
The pieces....all coming together now....

lacarnut
10-04-2010, 01:45 AM
The pieces....all coming together now....

You are learning, boy.

noonwitch
10-04-2010, 09:14 AM
Is Beck trying to get FOX a tax exemption or something?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-04-2010, 09:17 AM
The pieces....all coming together now....

Go away moonbat. You have the avatar of an America hating racist piece of shit, that says all that needs to be said about you.

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 09:20 AM
Is Beck trying to get FOX a tax exemption or something?

Noonie have you ever noticed that no one ever tries to disprove what Glenn Beck says, they always attack him personally. Judge his words by their truthfulness, read his article and disprove what he says.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 10:09 AM
The pieces....all coming together now....

Do you have any substantive arguments, or is this all you've got?

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Glenn Beck on socialism
Glenn Beck on anti-colonialism
Glenn Beck on Liberation Theology


the only three wise men I need!

noonwitch
10-04-2010, 11:07 AM
Noonie have you ever noticed that no one ever tries to disprove what Glenn Beck says, they always attack him personally. Judge his words by their truthfulness, read his article and disprove what he says.



I thought I was attacking his words-I don't catch his show that often, but whenever I do, he's either preaching, yelling, writing on his chalkboard or crying.

I will criticize this-he compares everything on the left to Hitler. Medical care reform is like the Nazis, public education is like the Nazis, "if we don't do something soon, it'll be too late". He gets a concentration camp survivor to describe the horror she survived, then he implies that medical care reform is the first step to sending people to camps. He is as bad as all the stupid DUers who compared Bush to Hitler.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Glenn Beck on socialism
Glenn Beck on anti-colonialism
Glenn Beck on Liberation Theology


the only three wise men I need!

I thought that your holy trinity was Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 11:31 AM
I thought I was attacking his words-I don't catch his show that often, but whenever I do, he's either preaching, yelling, writing on his chalkboard or crying.

I will criticize this-he compares everything on the left to Hitler. Medical care reform is like the Nazis, public education is like the Nazis, "if we don't do something soon, it'll be too late". He gets a concentration camp survivor to describe the horror she survived, then he implies that medical care reform is the first step to sending people to camps. He is as bad as all the stupid DUers who compared Bush to Hitler.

So you aren't necessarily denying the facts he presents you don't like his method of delivery.
I can understand that.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 11:40 AM
So you aren't necessarily denying the facts he presents you don't like his method of delivery.
I can understand that.

I'll deny the facts he presents.

Glenn Beck's entire shtick is based on a few things:

1. America is on the road to Socialism.
2. Socialism is evil and means taking your freedoms or your stuff away.
3. Democrats lean far far left,and are helping push America towards Socialism.


Even though he spends every other episode screaming and crying about socialism, this is the only time that I'm aware of that he actually gets someone who identifies as a socialist on his show, and every single thing is entirely undermined by the socialist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqy3BmMBGs

They disagree on the very definition of socialism, on what a socialist country is.

I can see why he doesn't bring these people on his show very often and instead just talks about it himself.

the same thing again, with a communist leader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxG98hNSDQI



They aren't even talking about the same thing. It's funny

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 11:43 AM
Even Beck here rails against Big Business who only sees American people like Consumers. Business that see countries only as markets.

"that's the problem"

I agree Glenn Beck!!

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 12:19 PM
I'll deny the facts he presents.
1. America is on the road to Socialism.
2. Socialism is evil and means taking your freedoms or your stuff away.
3. Democrats lean far far left,and are helping push America towards Socialism.

One cannot deny facts. One can deny the interpretation of facts, but I would assume that the facts themselves are, well, facts.

Regardless, I'm going to have to start listening to Beck if those are his premises. He's right on all three.

Oh, and Beck isn't alone in thinking that Socialism is a perpetual failure. I believe that you said something along those lines not that long ago... Now where did I put that quote...? Ah! Here it is!

Let me say unequivocally, as many liberals have said, that the 20th century experiment of actual socialism was an absolute political ,economic, ethical, and social FAILURE!

Absolutely.

No one is talking about going back to the USSR or starting a new Leninist party.

Not anyone.

You're arguing against dead ideas and I agree that those policies failed and we should learn from those failures.

So, if Beck is arguing against socialism, and you agree that socialism has failed, then you ought to be happy that he is making the case for not imposing it here.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 01:10 PM
Nothing is static or dead, everything is changing. Socialism needs to be re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century, both from Socialist powers of the time and from Capitalist powers as well.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Nothing is static or dead, everything is changing. Socialism needs to be re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century, both from Socialist powers of the time and from Capitalist powers as well.

One could say the same thing of Nazism, that it needs to be "re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century." Maybe the Concentration Camps could compost instead of cremating the dead? It would certainly be greener.

Socialism failed because its basic premises are unworkable. The assumption that you cannot lead your own life, but must have it led for you by government-appointed experts, is a pernicious doctrine that saps people of all initiative, destroys self-sufficiency, imposes politics on every personal and economic decision and corrupts everything that it touches. The Gulags, Laogai, killing fields and every other atrocity of the last century's flirtation with the disease of collectivism aren't symptoms of aberations, they are the core pathologies of a system that destroys freedom in the name of equality of ends.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 01:41 PM
One could say the same thing of Nazism, that it needs to be "re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century." Maybe the Concentration Camps could compost instead of cremating the dead? It would certainly be greener.

Yes one could say that. I don't know why anyone would say that though. One could say that about any system or idea or ideology, however that doesn't make it a good idea.

I'm not suggesting Nazism should return ever, and I think the concentration camps and the rest were a demonstration of the greatest evils mankind is capable of. I don't want that to come back, but it's been said that Fascism is the hallmark of a failed revolution.

Example: Pre-nazi germany was ripe for revolution, but instead they got bogged down in a nationalistic ideology that pointed at boogymen as the source of their problems, fascists took control and commited some of the worst acts in history.

Same with Afghanistan. A once hotbed for liberal thinking in the middle east, they had schools for girls, a thriving culture, even groups of socialist revolutionaries independent of the Soviet invasion.

We sided with the religious fundamentalists, gave them weapons to stomp down their leftist revolution, and what we ended up with is another death-obsessed fascist regime holding power in the area.

No Nazism and Fascism should not return, I'm not suggesting that, even though I guess one "could".



Socialism failed because its basic premises are unworkable. The assumption that you cannot lead your own life, but must have it led for you by government-appointed experts,

Socialism is more about giving individual people who aren't born wealthy the power to live their life how they want to. Whether in the privacy of your home or within your workplace, socialists believe every person should be able to have direct influence over their lives and their work.


is a pernicious doctrine that saps people of all initiative, destroys self-sufficiency, imposes politics on every personal and economic decision and corrupts everything that it touches. The Gulags, Laogai, killing fields and every other atrocity of the last century's flirtation with the disease of collectivism aren't symptoms of aberations, they are the core pathologies of a system that destroys freedom in the name of equality of ends.

Absolutely we must learn from the mistakes of the past and reinvent a new socialism that has matured pass these points.

We can look at American capitalism and blame that for Slavery, jim crow laws, internment camps, the patriot act, ect. however that would be silly, the truth is that American capitalism evolves constantly. However, it is true that exploitation is at the very core of Capitalism, any capitalist interested in NOT exploiting his workers would lose his business very fast.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 03:36 PM
Yes one could say that. I don't know why anyone would say that though. One could say that about any system or idea or ideology, however that doesn't make it a good idea.
Which is my point.


I'm not suggesting Nazism should return ever, and I think the concentration camps and the rest were a demonstration of the greatest evils mankind is capable of. I don't want that to come back, but it's been said that Fascism is the hallmark of a failed revolution.

Example: Pre-nazi germany was ripe for revolution, but instead they got bogged down in a nationalistic ideology that pointed at boogymen as the source of their problems, fascists took control and commited some of the worst acts in history.
The Nazis considered themselves revolutionary, as well as Socialists (funny how you keep forgetting that it was the National Socialist Workers Party). And while the Nazi camps were truly an abomination, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Cambodians, come to think of it, every communist state, had its own version. In fact, the very term "concentration camp" was coined by Trotsky as a place to concentrate counter-revolutionary elements. In short, there is no difference between the murders committed by the Nazis and the murders committed by the communists, except in the minds of leftists who continue to pretend otherwise.

Same with Afghanistan. A once hotbed for liberal thinking in the middle east, they had schools for girls, a thriving culture, even groups of socialist revolutionaries independent of the Soviet invasion.

We sided with the religious fundamentalists, gave them weapons to stomp down their leftist revolution, and what we ended up with is another death-obsessed fascist regime holding power in the area.
Again, you willfully miss the point. Afghanistan's urban elite predated the Soviet invasion and didn't survive it. It wasn't the religious fundamentalists who destroyed the country, it was the war that put them into power. Once in power, they perpetuated evil, but had the Soviets not overthrown the liberal order, they would have been confined to their goatherding. Instead, the Soviets destroyed the country and empowered the only people tough enough to fight back after they had reduced the cities to rubble.


No Nazism and Fascism should not return, I'm not suggesting that, even though I guess one "could".
Why not? What makes the murders committed in the name of Nazism more odious than the murders committed in the name of communism? Why is it okay to blight lives under decades of failed economic policies that impoverish everyone but a few party elites under a hammer and sickle, but not okay to blight lives under a swastika? Both destroy liberty and force people into horrific totalitarian systems that crush them. You pretend that the butchers of the gulag, laogai and killing fields are somehow less odious than the butchers of Dachau and Auschwitz, but there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.


Socialism is more about giving individual people who aren't born wealthy the power to live their life how they want to. Whether in the privacy of your home or within your workplace, socialists believe every person should be able to have direct influence over their lives and their work.
And my daughter believes in Santa Claus. She's six. What's your excuse?

Socialism is about setting everyone equal, which means that you have to take away everything that everyone has in order to dole it out. Do I make more than you do? Have I, through intelligence, hard work and skill amassed a fortune while you have not? Well, under socialism, you get to take my wealth and distribute it to those who haven't put in the time, effort or risk.


Absolutely we must learn from the mistakes of the past and reinvent a new socialism that has matured pass these points.
Same old BS about how socialism has just never been done "right." What you miss is that the closest that anyone has come to doing it right was Cambodia. Pol Pot managed to truly equalize the economic output and input of every Cambodian and everything that comes with it, disease, death, anarchy, poverty and destruction, followed. But even his system wasn't perfect. Some people still had more than others, which is why some survived. Someday, you or someone like you will get it "right" and accomplish absolute equality, and you will victimize yourself as well as others. We'll know that it's been done "right" because no one will have survived it.


We can look at American capitalism and blame that for Slavery, jim crow laws, internment camps, the patriot act, ect. however that would be silly, the truth is that American capitalism evolves constantly. However, it is true that exploitation is at the very core of Capitalism, any capitalist interested in NOT exploiting his workers would lose his business very fast.
You could, but that would require that you ignore history (which, come to think of it, you do). America was founded at a time in which slavery had been entrenched in the landscape. Capitalism made it obsolete, and the south, which clung to a pre-capitalist plantation mindset couldn't deal with it. That's why the northern industrial cities increased their population far faster than the south, because capitalism provided more work, for more pay, and the south couldn't compete. If you blame capitalism for racism, then how do you explain Cuba's apartheid against blacks? How about the virulent ethnic hatreds among the various peoples of the old USSR? What about China's ethnic cleansing of Tibet under Mao? If capitalism was responsible for the internment of Japanese-Americans, then what economic system was responsble for enslaving and murdering millions of Russians and Chinese? As for the Patriot Act, that wasn't capitalism that caused it, it was jihadis murdering 3,000 people in one morning. I suppose that you can blame that on supply and demand (as the supply of murderous Islamic violence increases, the demand for effective countermeasures also increases), but that's not exactly the same thing.

Finally, you make the claim that capitalism exploits. Bull. Capitalism liberates. A boss who treated his workers with the corrupt, autocratic methods that you mistake for management would soon find himself unable to keep talent, and would eventually end up trying to maintain his business with the dregs of his industry, whoever his competitors didn't want. Henry Ford became a billionaire by building an assembly line system that emphasized the skills of his workers, who he paid better than any other people in the world at that time. Ford knew that if his workers couldn't afford to buy his cars, then there was no point in making them. He provided capital, risking everything that he had and could get because he believed in his vision, and in doing so, built a new industry. Compare what he did for Detroit to what politicians have done to it and you see the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 03:54 PM
The Nazis considered themselves revolutionary, as well as Socialists (funny how you keep forgetting that it was the National Socialist Workers Party).

hahaha Do you believe the Fairness Doctrine is fair because that's the name? Do you believe only Patriots support the patriot act? Why don't we just attach "Freedom" to the title of every bill because everyone knows Freedom is good.


And while the Nazi camps were truly an abomination, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Cambodians, come to think of it, every communist state, had its own version.

The United States too. Internments camps. Forced labor. Counter-revolutionary witch hunts.

It's the hallmark of any strong power trying ot hold onto it.


In fact, the very term "concentration camp" was coined by Trotsky as a place to concentrate counter-revolutionary elements. In short, there is no difference between the murders committed by the Nazis and the murders committed by the communists, except in the minds of leftists who continue to pretend otherwise.

Again, you willfully miss the point. Afghanistan's urban elite predated the Soviet invasion and didn't survive it. It wasn't the religious fundamentalists who destroyed the country, it was the war that put them into power. Once in power, they perpetuated evil, but had the Soviets not overthrown the liberal order, they would have been confined to their goatherding. Instead, the Soviets destroyed the country and empowered the only people tough enough to fight back after they had reduced the cities to rubble.

I'm saying Afghanistan was a center of Middle Eastern liberalism. They were way ahead in terms of civil rights and education. The Soviets invaded but we decided to side with the religious fundamentalists and they survived thanks to millions of dollars and weapons being funneled to fight them. The academics, leftists, and urban elite as you call them had all of their cultural influence robbed by force by the religious fundamentalists, fighting what they saw as an EVIILLLL of socialism. What we have now is those same guys, the good guys, our guys, still hoarding power over afghanistan and it's causing problems for us now.

Afghanistan was having socialist revolutions on their own, independent of the Soviets.



Why not? What makes the murders committed in the name of Nazism more odious than the murders committed in the name of communism? Why is it okay to blight lives under decades of failed economic policies that impoverish everyone but a few party elites under a hammer and sickle, but not okay to blight lives under a swastika? Both destroy liberty and force people into horrific totalitarian systems that crush them. You pretend that the butchers of the gulag, laogai and killing fields are somehow less odious than the butchers of Dachau and Auschwitz, but there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

How many people have the United States military killed this decade? Are those acceptable?

I am not down with mass murder, done by Nazi's or done by Soviets. Also I'll say again and again we can't repeat mistakes from the past, socialism, the idea of radical emancipation lives on but we have to remember the mistakes from the past and never repeat them



And my daughter believes in Santa Claus. She's six. What's your excuse?

Socialism is about setting everyone equal,

No it's not. You're already wrong here.


which means that you have to take away everything that everyone has in order to dole it out.

No. That's not the case. Socialists don't care about your personal property.


Do I make more than you do? Have I, through intelligence, hard work and skill amassed a fortune while you have not? Well, under socialism, you get to take my wealth and distribute it to those who haven't put in the time, effort or risk.

No one wants your house or car or dog or boat or whatever you buy with your money. Funny though that you really believe all you've gained is from your own work. Even when I was poor I knew living in this country gave me a lot of benefits that some people don't get.





Same old BS about how socialism has just never been done "right."

No. I think the old socialist ideas can be scrapped as practical and are useful as tools towards moving forward, but I'm not a fan of the "The USSR would have worked had they been MORE communist" excuse.

The USSR failed and did a lot of horrible things. I have no need nor desire to defend those things.



What you miss is that the closest that anyone has come to doing it right was Cambodia. Pol Pot managed to truly equalize the economic output and input of every Cambodian and everything that comes with it, disease, death, anarchy, poverty and destruction, followed. But even his system wasn't perfect. Some people still had more than others, which is why some survived. Someday, you or someone like you will get it "right" and accomplish absolute equality, and you will victimize yourself as well as others. We'll know that it's been done "right" because no one will have survived it.

Again I think you're missing the point of socialism.



You could, but that would require that you ignore history (which, come to think of it, you do). America was founded at a time in which slavery had been entrenched in the landscape. Capitalism made it obsolete, and the south, which clung to a pre-capitalist plantation mindset couldn't deal with it.

Why couldn't they deal with it? If the people in the South had an outdated, faulty system, and the new system was far better, why weren't the Southerners jumping ship and taking up that system? Why did they fight so hard to defend the institution?

I don't think they were simply stupid, they were some of the best businessmen of their time, so why was the South so resistant to accepting the new capitalist model demonstrated in the north?

Don't forget too the geographic influences that changed the type of labor that could be done.



That's why the northern industrial cities increased their population far faster than the south, because capitalism provided more work, for more pay, and the south couldn't compete. If you blame capitalism for racism, then how do you explain Cuba's apartheid against blacks? How about the virulent ethnic hatreds among the various peoples of the old USSR? What about China's ethnic cleansing of Tibet under Mao? If capitalism was responsible for the internment of Japanese-Americans, then what economic system was responsble for enslaving and murdering millions of Russians and Chinese?

By racism I mean the cultural kind of racism seen after the civil war (it's been documented plenty that although slavery was alive and well before the war, whites and blacks were often civil and sometimes even kind to each other, as long as they knew their place. Often times blacks were in the home caring for children, often times even loved.

It wasn't until they posed an economic threat (no longer slaves, now able to compete for work) that racism flaired up.

Personally, I like the Split Labor Theory of Ethnic Antagonism, and I mean American racism.

You're right though lots of people suffered and died in those places.


As for the Patriot Act, that wasn't capitalism that caused it, it was jihadis murdering 3,000 people in one morning. I suppose that you can blame that on supply and demand (as the supply of murderous Islamic violence increases, the demand for effective countermeasures also increases), but that's not exactly the same thing.

You know this is the goal of terrorist acts. Attacking civilian centers is done to delegitimize the government. The power of a terrorist attack is in the response from Authorities. What they want by doing these terrorist acts is to cause the reacting government to clamp down on their own citizens, take away rights, and lose the support of the people.




Finally, you make the claim that capitalism exploits. Bull. Capitalism liberates. A boss who treated his workers with the corrupt, autocratic methods that you mistake for management would soon find himself unable to keep talent,

Assuming of course there's a rich and abundent supply of jobs available for people to get, rather than a shortage and an overstuffed labor market like exists in reality.

As long as you are hungry and there are very few jobs available, employers can treat you like shit and there's nothing you can do because you still have to eat.



and would eventually end up trying to maintain his business with the dregs of his industry, whoever his competitors didn't want. Henry Ford became a billionaire by building an assembly line system that emphasized the skills of his workers, who he paid better than any other people in the world at that time. Ford knew that if his workers couldn't afford to buy his cars, then there was no point in making them.

Exactly. Ford was the better sort of capitalist. He had a business model that focused on his workers, and his model prospered. Also during this era the super wealthy members of our population were taxed at 80-90% to pay for huge social spending and of course war spending. Things today we love to have but hate to pay for.

AmPat
10-04-2010, 05:13 PM
Glenn Beck on socialism
Glenn Beck on anti-colonialism
Glenn Beck on Liberation Theology


the only three wise men I need!You're missing one---YOU!

AmPat
10-04-2010, 05:17 PM
Nothing is static or dead, everything is changing. Socialism needs to be re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century, both from Socialist powers of the time and from Capitalist powers as well.
That's not what you said: :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
Let me say unequivocally, as many liberals have said, that the 20th century experiment of actual socialism was an absolute political ,economic, ethical, and social FAILURE!

Absolutely.

No one is talking about going back to the USSR or starting a new Leninist party.

Not anyone.

You're arguing against dead ideas and I agree that those policies failed and we should learn from those failures.

Arroyo_Doble
10-04-2010, 05:49 PM
Once again, the Jesuits fuck things up.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 06:53 PM
hahaha Do you believe the Fairness Doctrine is fair because that's the name? Do you believe only Patriots support the patriot act? Why don't we just attach "Freedom" to the title of every bill because everyone knows Freedom is good.
Except that if you read the Nazi Party's documents, you find that they were, in fact, socialists. For example, under the Nazis, private property rights were conditional, based on whether or not they advanced Nazi economic goals, and if they didn't, the state could nationalize the property (which happened to Junkers, among others). Agricultural and industrial central planning was also a prominent feature of Nazi economics. Selling agricultural land was prohibited and farmers were kept tied to the land, just as in the USSR. The compulsory cartel law of 1936 allowed the minister of economics to make cartels compulsory and permanent, and compel industries to form new cartels. Financial investment was regulated in accordance with the needs of the state. Nazi government financing eventually dominated private financial investment, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 193334 to approximately 10 per cent in 193538. Heavy business-profit taxes limited self-financing of firms. Nazi language indicated death or concentration camp for any business owner who pursued his own self-interest, instead of the ends of the State, even to the point where it was stamped on the silver Reichsmark coins("Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" or "The common good before self-interest" sounds like something that you'd have written, doesn't it?).
Nazism promoted profit limitations, rent abolition, and increased social benefits (for German gentiles, only) and denounced conservatives as reactionary, bourgeois enemies of the German nation.


The United States too. Internments camps. Forced labor. Counter-revolutionary witch hunts.
It's the hallmark of any strong power trying ot hold onto it.
Yet another game of moral equivalence. Not buying it.


I'm saying Afghanistan was a center of Middle Eastern liberalism. They were way ahead in terms of civil rights and education. The Soviets invaded but we decided to side with the religious fundamentalists and they survived thanks to millions of dollars and weapons being funneled to fight them. The academics, leftists, and urban elite as you call them had all of their cultural influence robbed by force by the religious fundamentalists, fighting what they saw as an EVIILLLL of socialism. What we have now is those same guys, the good guys, our guys, still hoarding power over afghanistan and it's causing problems for us now.

Afghanistan was having socialist revolutions on their own, independent of the Soviets.
ROFLOL!!! You can't be this clueless! Afghanistan was a constitutional monarchy, about as far removed from a socialist revolution as possible, before the Soviet invasion.


How many people have the United States military killed this decade? Are those acceptable?
This is despicable. Have you no moral compass at all, that you can equate the US military, one of the most humane and restrained militaries in history, with the savage, brutal campaigns of mass supression of liberty of the dictatorships of the left? Again, you can't be this clueless.

I am not down with mass murder, done by Nazi's or done by Soviets. Also I'll say again and again we can't repeat mistakes from the past, socialism, the idea of radical emancipation lives on but we have to remember the mistakes from the past and never repeat them
You make the same mistake that socialists always make. You look at every socialist regime in history and see the mass murder, and assume that it's an aberration. It isn't. As the programmers like to say, it isn't a bug, it's a feature. You can't simply deny people the fruits of their labor, consign them to some bureaucrat's idea of equality and then live happily ever after. Those "counterrevolutionaries" will always stand in the way of the progressive's agenda, which is why he has to put them up against the wall.

No it's not. You're already wrong here.
The hell I am. One of us doesn't know what socialism is, and as is usually the case, it's the one who still believes in it.

No. That's not the case. Socialists don't care about your personal property.
As long as I don't have more of it than they think I should.

No one wants your house or car or dog or boat or whatever you buy with your money. Funny though that you really believe all you've gained is from your own work. Even when I was poor I knew living in this country gave me a lot of benefits that some people don't get.
And the greatest benefit was knowing that the system wouldn't keep you from rising out of poverty. During my starving artist days, I was probably poorer than you were, but I also knew that America didn't owe me anything. My success in life was due to my own efforts, and the system that allowed me to reap the benefits of them. I've known lots of people who worked their way up from nothing, and more than a few who idled their way down to it. America's unique culture, its capitalist culture, gives those who are willing to make the effort the chance to realize their dreams. No promises, no guarantees, just the chance, but that's more than you get under socialism.

No. I think the old socialist ideas can be scrapped as practical and are useful as tools towards moving forward, but I'm not a fan of the "The USSR would have worked had they been MORE communist" excuse.

The USSR failed and did a lot of horrible things. I have no need nor desire to defend those things.
No, you just want to try them again, under a new name. We get it. Really.

Again I think you're missing the point of socialism.
Nope. See it quite clearly, thanks.

Why couldn't they deal with it? If the people in the South had an outdated, faulty system, and the new system was far better, why weren't the Southerners jumping ship and taking up that system? Why did they fight so hard to defend the institution?
I don't think they were simply stupid, they were some of the best businessmen of their time, so why was the South so resistant to accepting the new capitalist model demonstrated in the north?
Because economics was only one factor. The south and the north were radically different in other ways. The culture of the south was rural, the north, urban. Southerners saw northerners as corrupt city punks who lived on top of each other in decadent squalor. Northerners saw southerners as the cast of Deliverence, but with less teeth. Throw in the immigrant culture of the north, and you have the makings of a huge divide. Then throw in the economic disparity. The north needed southern textiles for northern mills. The economy depended on it, but the south could get more from Britain, whose mills had been in business far longer. The northern answer was export tariffs, which almost always passed the house (where representation was proportional), which the south felt was a corrupt political mechanism to deny them their economic rights. Slavery was an emotional issue that galvanized the north, but the economic, political and social differences also guaranteed a conflict.

It wasn't until they posed an economic threat (no longer slaves, now able to compete for work) that racism flaired up.
I never thought that I would hear a leftist talk about slavery as being preferable to freedom, unless it was slavery to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Go figure.


You're right though lots of people suffered and died in those places.
Yes. And all you got was this crappy t-shirt.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-lousy.jpg


You know this is the goal of terrorist acts. Attacking civilian centers is done to delegitimize the government. The power of a terrorist attack is in the response from Authorities. What they want by doing these terrorist acts is to cause the reacting government to clamp down on their own citizens, take away rights, and lose the support of the people.
You act as though the Patriot Act was directed against US citizens. It wasn't. But, feel free to cite a specific instance where the act imposed a threat to American liberty.

Assuming of course there's a rich and abundent supply of jobs available for people to get, rather than a shortage and an overstuffed labor market like exists in reality.
As long as you are hungry and there are very few jobs available, employers can treat you like shit and there's nothing you can do because you still have to eat.
So, you're saying that business owners are kinder under Socialism? That a state-owned monopoly is going to treat you better than a small business that has to compete with other businesses, even in a down job market? What you don't get is that under socialism, no business ever has to worry about losing workers, because the state is the only employer, so the incentive to treat workers well is absent. After all, your boss is also your political boss, and your union rep, so you have no option but to take what is dished out. No competition equals no freedom.

m00
10-04-2010, 08:23 PM
Nothing is static or dead, everything is changing. Socialism needs to be re-created, re-imagined, learning from all of the mistakes of the 20th century.

Why? To what end?

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 09:51 PM
Why? To what end?

So that Wei can feel good about redistributing other people's money, and so that he can lord it over his neighbors, the ones who make more in a month than he does in a year, and who he resents for his failures. Wei wants to put them in their place, you see.

AmPat
10-04-2010, 10:32 PM
So that Wei can feel good about redistributing other people's money, and so that he can lord it over his neighbors, the ones who make more in a month than he does in a year, and who he resents for his failures. Wei wants to put them in their place, you see.

Major, You took him to the woodshed as usual and he still won't get it. He is an example of the truly stuck on stupid crowd. Faced with the facts, he plugs his ears and refuses to learn. One day he may learn that he is entitled to make his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Rockntractor
10-05-2010, 12:01 AM
How many people have the United States military killed this decade? Are those acceptable?

I am not down with mass murder, done by Nazi's or done by Soviets. Also I'll say again and again we can't repeat mistakes from the past, socialism, the idea of radical emancipation lives on but we have to remember the mistakes from the past and never repeat them






Wei Wei you need to do some editing here, people get banned for dissing the military.
It's a little late for editing with all the quotes posted, why don't you apologize and explain that that's not what you really mean!.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 02:45 AM
Um the military does kill people isn't that what soldiers are trained to do? They are the best killing machines in the history of the world, and most of us are proud of that, what's the problem?

Wei Wu Wei
10-05-2010, 02:47 AM
I don't think Spartans were very apologetic about the beastliness of their soldiers either.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-05-2010, 07:47 AM
hahaha Do you believe the Fairness Doctrine is fair because that's the name? Do you believe only Patriots support the patriot act? Why don't we just attach "Freedom" to the title of every bill because everyone knows Freedom is good.

Of course not. But when you look beyond JUST the name, the policies are also about government ( or if you prefer "the peoples") control. In the case of Hitler the words DO match the actions. Hitler was absolutely in the socialist camp.




The United States too. Internments camps. Forced labor. Counter-revolutionary witch hunts. It's the hallmark of any strong power trying ot hold onto it.

You will notice these were ALL introduced by liberal Icons - who despite your objections - SHARED a common ideology with the Soviet and German etc. leaders who instituted them also. i.e. They believed in the rights of the government (people) over the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. That is the hallmark of socialism. The rights of the people over the rights of the individual. It is a recipe for such things. That is why socialism is EVIL.



I'm saying Afghanistan was a center of Middle Eastern liberalism. They were way ahead in terms of civil rights and education. The Soviets invaded but we decided to side with the religious fundamentalists and they survived thanks to millions of dollars and weapons being funneled to fight them. The academics, leftists, and urban elite as you call them had all of their cultural influence robbed by force by the religious fundamentalists, fighting what they saw as an EVIILLLL of socialism. What we have now is those same guys, the good guys, our guys, still hoarding power over afghanistan and it's causing problems for us now.

Wait. We were not the ones who invaded Afghanistan then. How can you turn it around so incredibly to make the U.S. the bad guys when the Soviets invaded it??? Come ON!!!



Afghanistan was having socialist revolutions on their own, independent of the Soviets. Afghanistan was a Soviet satellite state and when the people revolted against the socialist leaders, the soviets came in to re-install a socialist government that could quell the resistance.

You forget they FIRST justified their invasion saying they were INVITED by the Afghan govt (of course the Soviets being who they were, soon installed their own socialist who was even MORE malleable.





How many people have the United States military killed this decade? Are those acceptable?

Not as many as the left would like to claim. Most of the deaths have been caused by the terrorists that we are trying to STOP. Do you blame the police when a gang goes on a killing spree??


I am not down with mass murder, done by Nazi's or done by Soviets. Also I'll say again and again we can't repeat mistakes from the past, socialism, the idea of radical emancipation lives on but we have to remember the mistakes from the past and never repeat them

Wei, what you seem to miss is that WE ARE repeating the mistakes of the past and YOU are advocating policies that speed us down that path. Socialism and State-ism IS THE mistake.
The problem with socialism and other statist philosophies is that they in reality concentrate power in the hands of the few. When a government has the ability to control your very health and indeed your life and death, they CONTROL YOU. All it takes is that someone with bad intentions to gain power and then you DO have another Hitler. If government is not given the power in the first place, they cannot control the people and we are far more able to resist the Hitlers that come along.


No. That's not the case. Socialists don't care about your personal property.

My personal property IS MY BUSINESS - I own it, I built it from scratch. So you are wrong on this.



No one wants your house or car or dog or boat or whatever you buy with your money. Funny though that you really believe all you've gained is from your own work. Even when I was poor I knew living in this country gave me a lot of benefits that some people don't get.

Because of CAPITALISM. Socialist want to take the REASON we have those benefits- which is FAR worse than them taking the personal property itself. If you have a free market, you can always earn enough to get more "things". But if you take the method of earning that money and producing wealth, then you have destroyed all hope.



Again I think you're missing the point of socialism.

No. You have been sold a LIE about socialism. The people selling you that lie originated in or were greatly influenced by the Soviet Union and their KGB policies of sowing unrest in the west.



You know this is the goal of terrorist acts. Attacking civilian centers is done to delegitimize the government. The power of a terrorist attack is in the response from Authorities. What they want by doing these terrorist acts is to cause the reacting government to clamp down on their own citizens, take away rights, and lose the support of the people.

So let's OBLITERATE the terrorists with a multifaceted attack instead of the PC way we have been doing it.






Assuming of course there's a rich and abundent supply of jobs available for people to get, rather than a shortage and an overstuffed labor market like exists in reality.

So let's adapt policies that ENCOURAGE people to start businesses or expand the ones they own, instead of PUNISHING them when they succeed.


As long as you are hungry and there are very few jobs available, employers can treat you like shit and there's nothing you can do because you still have to eat.

Why would an employer try to increase his profits (and thus the number of jobs) if by doing so he actually makes LESS money for him to keep??? OR at least he must RISK the money he has already earned?? It is worth the extra effort and risk to hire more people??





Exactly. Ford was the better sort of capitalist. He had a business model that focused on his workers, and his model prospered. Also during this era the super wealthy members of our population were taxed at 80-90% to pay for huge social spending and of course war spending. Things today we love to have but hate to pay for.

The only reason we supposedly "love" this is because people have become dependent on it. There are FAR more attractive alternatives but Democrats use fear tactics to defeat them - all so they can have more control over people.

Zathras
10-05-2010, 09:23 AM
I don't think.

fixed.

Odysseus
10-05-2010, 03:02 PM
Um the military does kill people isn't that what soldiers are trained to do? They are the best killing machines in the history of the world, and most of us are proud of that, what's the problem?
We in the military are disciplined, decent people who are trained to kill in defense of our country, not to satisfy some primitive urge, a distinction that you conveniently ignore, but the fact that you ignore it is telling. If the US military were comprised of indiscriminate killers, the last thing that you'd do is taunt us, just as if the US government were really interested in punishing dissent, it's the last thing that you would ever do. You'd never have the guts to confront real violence or tyranny, and you know it. The fact that you feel safe making these comments is a compliment to our restraint. The fact that you make these insulting comments from the safety of your home, as opposed to face to face, is an indictment of your cowardice.


I don't think Spartans were very apologetic about the beastliness of their soldiers either.
Moral equivalence again? You are set on being tedious, aren't you?

FWIW, the later Roman Empire was not very apologetic about the lack of manliness in the capitol. They just accepted that it was the right of the citizens to kick back and let others defend them, right up until the Goths sacked the city, raped their wives, burned their homes and carried their children off into slavery. I'll take your perception of my "beastliness" (which, BTW, sounds like something a Victorian matron would say) over my perception of your effeminate weakness any day.

djones520
10-05-2010, 03:09 PM
We in the military are disciplined, decent people who are trained to kill in defense of our country, not to satisfy some primitive urge, a distinction that you conveniently ignore, but the fact that you ignore it is telling. If the US military were comprised of indiscriminate killers, the last thing that you'd do is taunt us, just as if the US government were really interested in punishing dissent, it's the last thing that you would ever do. You'd never have the guts to confront real violence or tyranny, and you know it. The fact that you feel safe making these comments is a compliment to our restraint. The fact that you make these insulting comments from the safety of your home, as opposed to face to face, is an indictment of your cowardice.


Moral equivalence again? You are set on being tedious, aren't you?

FWIW, the later Roman Empire was not very apologetic about the lack of manliness in the capitol. They just accepted that it was the right of the citizens to kick back and let others defend them, right up until the Goths sacked the city, raped their wives, burned their homes and carried their children off into slavery. I'll take your perception of my "beastliness" (which, BTW, sounds like something a Victorian matron would say) over my perception of your effeminate weakness any day.

Word.

Arroyo_Doble
10-05-2010, 03:18 PM
The fact that you feel safe making these comments is a compliment to our restraint.

The civilian population supports the military apparatus of this nation. Its citizens, through representative government, express their political will through that same apparatus. I am surprised you feel it takes "restraint" to participate in the defense of a politically diverse nation; which includes those who have less than adoration for the very people who protect them. The fact that he feels safe isn't a compliment to your restraint; it is a compliment to the governing institutions of this nation, the economic might of its population, and the tradition of dignity and honor found in those who serve our country.

Perhaps there needs to be compulsury service because there appears to be a growing gulf between the protectors and the protected.

djones520
10-05-2010, 03:23 PM
The civilian population supports the military apparatus of this nation. Its citizens, through representative government, express their political will through that same apparatus. I am surprised you feel it takes "restraint" to participate in the defense of a politically diverse nation; which includes those who have less than adoration for the very people who protect them. The fact that he feels safe isn't a compliment to your restraint; it is a compliment to the governing institutions of this nation, the economic might of its population, and the tradition of dignity and honor found in those who serve our country.

Perhaps there needs to be compulsury service because there appears to be a growing gulf between the protectors and the protected.

I take it you've never seen a Fred Phelps rally. Or a pack of raving moonbats calling us baby-killers and murderers. Or the DU.

The fact that those people can feel, and always will feel, safe around us, is a compliment to our restraint.

Arroyo_Doble
10-05-2010, 03:37 PM
I take it you've never seen a Fred Phelps rally. Or a pack of raving moonbats calling us baby-killers and murderers. Or the DU.

The fact that those people can feel, and always will feel, safe around us, is a compliment to our restraint.

If you let every douchebag out there get under your skin, you are going to go nuts.

djones520
10-05-2010, 03:44 PM
If you let every douchebag out there get under your skin, you are going to go nuts.

Thing is, that I don't let it get to me. I know those nutfuckers for what they are. And while in some third world country, you might get a shell popped off into your chest for saying something like that, here we will just walk away.

I smile at these people because of that.

Arroyo_Doble
10-05-2010, 03:52 PM
Thing is, that I don't let it get to me. I know those nutfuckers for what they are. And while in some third world country, you might get a shell popped off into your chest for saying something like that, here we will just walk away.

I smile at these people because of that.

There wilbur ... that is "great."

Odysseus
10-05-2010, 04:23 PM
If you let every douchebag out there get under your skin, you are going to go nuts.
Exactly. Which is why a douchebag like Wei can feel secure taunting us. He knows that I won't act on it. If he thought that I would, he'd never do it.

The civilian population supports the military apparatus of this nation. Its citizens, through representative government, express their political will through that same apparatus. I am surprised you feel it takes "restraint" to participate in the defense of a politically diverse nation; which includes those who have less than adoration for the very people who protect them. The fact that he feels safe isn't a compliment to your restraint; it is a compliment to the governing institutions of this nation, the economic might of its population, and the tradition of dignity and honor found in those who serve our country.
Why would someone who respects the nation's governing institutions and the traditions of dignity and honor found in those of us who serve our country refer to us as "killing machines"? Or equate us with the butchers found in the military forces of the Soviet Union or China, who casually committed mass murder in the name of their states? Wei's contempt for the governing institutions of this nation and our traditions of dignity and honor are obvious. I'm simply pointing out that if he really believed that we were no different from the thugs in the militaries of the communist states that he admires, he'd never have the courage to say it to our faces, because thugs would not respond with restraint.


Perhaps there needs to be compulsury service because there appears to be a growing gulf between the protectors and the protected.
No thanks. The thought of having to instill discipline and espirit de corps in the likes of you and Wei is the stuff of nightmares. But I'll take compulsory access: Any institution of education that takes federal funds must, IAW the Solomon Amerndment, provide access to their campus for military recruiters.

Arroyo_Doble
10-05-2010, 04:34 PM
The thought of having to instill discipline and espirit de corps in the likes of you ... is the stuff of nightmares.

Then leave it where it belongs; to the enlisted.

CueSi
10-05-2010, 06:20 PM
We in the military are disciplined, decent people who are trained to kill in defense of our country, not to satisfy some primitive urge, a distinction that you conveniently ignore, but the fact that you ignore it is telling. If the US military were comprised of indiscriminate killers, the last thing that you'd do is taunt us, just as if the US government were really interested in punishing dissent, it's the last thing that you would ever do. You'd never have the guts to confront real violence or tyranny, and you know it. The fact that you feel safe making these comments is a compliment to our restraint. The fact that you make these insulting comments from the safety of your home, as opposed to face to face, is an indictment of your cowardice.


Moral equivalence again? You are set on being tedious, aren't you?

FWIW, the later Roman Empire was not very apologetic about the lack of manliness in the capitol. They just accepted that it was the right of the citizens to kick back and let others defend them, right up until the Goths sacked the city, raped their wives, burned their homes and carried their children off into slavery. I'll take your perception of my "beastliness" (which, BTW, sounds like something a Victorian matron would say) over my perception of your effeminate weakness any day.


Well...what we have is...

They're coming in yo' empire
Snatchin yo' people up ....
enslavin' n' rapin' em

So you need to hide yo' kids
Hide yo wife
get yo' emperor
'cause they fighin' errybody out here.

Sorry. I know it's history. But I saw Bed Intruder.

~QC

Odysseus
10-05-2010, 06:22 PM
Then leave it where it belongs; to the enlisted.

I can't imagine any enlisted Soldier putting up with you or Wei for much more than it would take to organize a blanket party.

Arroyo_Doble
10-05-2010, 06:30 PM
I can't imagine any enlisted Soldier putting up with you ... for much more than it would take to organize a blanket party.

You should try to stretch your limited imagination more.

Odysseus
10-05-2010, 06:48 PM
You should try to stretch your limited imagination more.

My imagination is fine, thanks. If I find it hard to imagine you avoiding a blanket party, perhaps it's because I can visualize you earning one.

Sonnabend
10-05-2010, 07:42 PM
Perhaps there needs to be compulsury service because there appears to be a growing gulf between the protectors and the protected.0


"The difference,'" Rico answers, "lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not"

You cannot instil virtue into a man, he must accept it or embrace it in and of himself.

Which is why we both have an all volunteer military

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 09:19 AM
My imagination is fine, thanks. If I find it hard to imagine you avoiding a blanket party, perhaps it's because I can visualize you earning one.

The Army must have changed a great deal where blanket parties are for people you disagree with politically.

Ree
10-06-2010, 09:35 AM
You should try to stretch your limited imagination more.
Some would say the same to you....

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 10:11 AM
The Army must have changed a great deal where blanket parties are for people you disagree with politically.

While I disagree with your politics, it's your snarky tone that would get you the blanket party. You get off on being a gadfly, and gadflies eventually get swatted.

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 10:21 AM
While I disagree with your politics, it's your snarky tone that would get you the blanket party. You get off on being a gadfly, and gadflies eventually get swatted.

I blame Stripes.

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 12:47 PM
I blame Stripes.

No doubt. I can see where SFC Hulka's big toe would have done you some good.

djones520
10-06-2010, 12:50 PM
While I disagree with your politics, it's your snarky tone that would get you the blanket party. You get off on being a gadfly, and gadflies eventually get swatted.

We do it differantly in the AF. All the libs get sent to Dyess AFB. I'd take the blanket party.

True story, the only two flaming libs that I know of in the AF both got stationed there. Drove one of them to get out of the AF.

CueSi
10-06-2010, 01:28 PM
We do it differantly in the AF. All the libs get sent to Dyess AFB. I'd take the blanket party.

True story, the only two flaming libs that I know of in the AF both got stationed there. Drove one of them to get out of the AF.

Is Texas really that bad?

~QC

djones520
10-06-2010, 01:33 PM
Is Texas really that bad?

~QC

Dyess is. You breathe syphillis in the air there. It's almost like being on a Navy base.

Arroyo_Doble
10-06-2010, 02:24 PM
No doubt. I can see where SFC Hulka's big toe would have done you some good.

Lighten up, Francis.

CueSi
10-06-2010, 02:25 PM
Dyess is. You breathe syphillis in the air there. It's almost like being on a Navy base.

HEY!! One of my good friends is a Naval Officer! And it more smells like Herpes around SOUTHCOM. :p

But,I gotta know: why are Naval Officers cat people as opposed to dog people? I've been DYING to know that.

~QC

djones520
10-06-2010, 02:31 PM
HEY!! One of my good friends is a Naval Officer! And it more smells like Herpes around SOUTHCOM. :p

But,I gotta know: why are Naval Officers cat people as opposed to dog people? I've been DYING to know that.

~QC

*coughs* Cause their in the Navy. *coughs*

Odysseus
10-06-2010, 05:07 PM
HEY!! One of my good friends is a Naval Officer! And it more smells like Herpes around SOUTHCOM. :p

But,I gotta know: why are Naval Officers cat people as opposed to dog people? I've been DYING to know that.

~QC

Are you asking if they're pussies? :D

m00
10-06-2010, 08:38 PM
The Army must have changed a great deal where blanket parties are for people you disagree with politically.

Blanket Parties are part of "don't ask don't tell."

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.


Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?


the founding fathers.

THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 12:42 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.


Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?


the founding fathers.

THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.

No, they weren't anti-colonists. They were anti-tyranny, something you and the rest of the little Marx lovers out there are for.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 12:43 PM
lol okay buddy wanna explain what anti-colonialism is?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 12:45 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.


Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?


the founding fathers.

THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.


lol okay buddy wanna explain what anti-colonialism is?

here's some help: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anti-colonialism

It's another Marxist theory.

While Karl Marx never published a theory of imperialism, he referred to colonialism in Das Kapital as an aspect of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. Using the Hegelian dialectic, Marx predicted the phenomenon of monopoly capitalism in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), hence the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!"). Lenin defined imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism" (the subtitle of his outline), the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world. Lenins theory of imperialism has since been adopted by a majority of Marxists. The Marxist-Leninist view of imperialism primarily addresses the economic rather than military or political (though these are related) dominance of certain countries over others.
Marxist theories of imperialism, or related theories such as dependency theory, focus on the economic relations between countries (and within countries, as outlined below), rather than the more formal political and/or military relationships. Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another. This Marxist usage contrasts with a popular conception of 'imperialism', as directly controlled vast colonial or neocolonial empires.
Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development with five simultaneous features as outlined below:
1) Concentration of production and capital has led to the creation of national and multinational monopolies - not as understood in liberal economics, but in terms of de facto power over their enormous markets - while the "free competition" remains the domain of increasingly localized and/or niche markets:
Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. (Ch. VII)
(Following Marx's value theory, Lenin saw monopoly capital as plagued by the law of the tendency of profit to fall, as the ratio of constant capital to variable capital increases. In Marx's theory only living labor or variable capital creates profit in the form of surplus-value. As the ratio of surplus value to the sum of constant and variable capital falls, so does the rate of profit on invested capital.)
2) Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been replaced by finance capital (repeating the main points of Rudolf Hilferding's magnum opus, Finance Capital), with the industrial capitalists being ever more reliant on finance capital (provided by financial institutions).
3) The export of the aforementioned finance capital is emphasized over the export of goods (even though the latter would continue to exist);
4) The economic division of the world by multinational enterprises, and the formation of international cartels; and
5) The political division of the world by the great powers, in which the export of finance capital by the advanced capitalist industrial nations to their colonial possessions enables them to exploit those colonies for their resources and investment opportunities. This superexploitation of poorer countries allows the advanced capitalist industrial nations to keep at least some of their own workers content, by providing them with slightly higher living standards. (See labor aristocracy; globalization.)
For these reasons, Lenin argued that a proletarian revolution could not occur in the developed capitalist countries as long as the global system of imperialism remained intact. Thus, he believed that a lesser-developed country would have to be the location of the first proletarian revolution. For this reason, Leninism places an exceptionally strong emphasis on the struggle against imperialism. [1]
War is generally seen as a method of furthering imperialist interests, which is why Marxists generally see antimilitarism and opposition to 'capitalist wars' as an integral part of anti-imperialism. The relationship of Marxists and other radical left-wing groups with anti-war movements often involves them trying to convince other activists to turn pacifism into anti-imperialism - that is, to move from a general opposition to war towards a condemnation of the economic system that is seen as driving wars (or from pacifism to specific anti-imperialist antimilitarism). [2]
The Soviet Union, which claimed to follow Marxism, also claimed to be the foremost enemy of imperialism and supported many independence movements throughout the Third World. However, at the same time, it can also be argued that it was imperialist, as it asserted its dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe. This has led many to accuse the Soviet Union of hypocrisy, and it is often used as an argument for the idea that the Soviet Union did not, in fact, follow Marxist principles, or alternatively, for example by anarchists, as an argument for the failure of Marxism as a solution to imperialism.
The term "anti-imperialism" is today most commonly used by Marxists and those with closely similar ideas (anti-capitalism, a class analysis of society). Others who might be accurately described as anti-imperialists, and who would probably accept the description, nevertheless tend to use different terminology.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 12:55 PM
It's another Marxist theory.

While Karl Marx never published a theory of imperialism, he referred to colonialism in Das Kapital as an aspect of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. Using the Hegelian dialectic, Marx predicted the phenomenon of monopoly capitalism in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), hence the slogan "Workers of the world, unite!"). Lenin defined imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism" (the subtitle of his outline), the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world. Lenins theory of imperialism has since been adopted by a majority of Marxists. The Marxist-Leninist view of imperialism primarily addresses the economic rather than military or political (though these are related) dominance of certain countries over others.
Marxist theories of imperialism, or related theories such as dependency theory, focus on the economic relations between countries (and within countries, as outlined below), rather than the more formal political and/or military relationships. Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another. This Marxist usage contrasts with a popular conception of 'imperialism', as directly controlled vast colonial or neocolonial empires.
Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development with five simultaneous features as outlined below:
1) Concentration of production and capital has led to the creation of national and multinational monopolies - not as understood in liberal economics, but in terms of de facto power over their enormous markets - while the "free competition" remains the domain of increasingly localized and/or niche markets:
Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system. (Ch. VII)
(Following Marx's value theory, Lenin saw monopoly capital as plagued by the law of the tendency of profit to fall, as the ratio of constant capital to variable capital increases. In Marx's theory only living labor or variable capital creates profit in the form of surplus-value. As the ratio of surplus value to the sum of constant and variable capital falls, so does the rate of profit on invested capital.)
2) Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been replaced by finance capital (repeating the main points of Rudolf Hilferding's magnum opus, Finance Capital), with the industrial capitalists being ever more reliant on finance capital (provided by financial institutions).
3) The export of the aforementioned finance capital is emphasized over the export of goods (even though the latter would continue to exist);
4) The economic division of the world by multinational enterprises, and the formation of international cartels; and
5) The political division of the world by the great powers, in which the export of finance capital by the advanced capitalist industrial nations to their colonial possessions enables them to exploit those colonies for their resources and investment opportunities. This superexploitation of poorer countries allows the advanced capitalist industrial nations to keep at least some of their own workers content, by providing them with slightly higher living standards. (See labor aristocracy; globalization.)
For these reasons, Lenin argued that a proletarian revolution could not occur in the developed capitalist countries as long as the global system of imperialism remained intact. Thus, he believed that a lesser-developed country would have to be the location of the first proletarian revolution. For this reason, Leninism places an exceptionally strong emphasis on the struggle against imperialism. [1]
War is generally seen as a method of furthering imperialist interests, which is why Marxists generally see antimilitarism and opposition to 'capitalist wars' as an integral part of anti-imperialism. The relationship of Marxists and other radical left-wing groups with anti-war movements often involves them trying to convince other activists to turn pacifism into anti-imperialism - that is, to move from a general opposition to war towards a condemnation of the economic system that is seen as driving wars (or from pacifism to specific anti-imperialist antimilitarism). [2]
The Soviet Union, which claimed to follow Marxism, also claimed to be the foremost enemy of imperialism and supported many independence movements throughout the Third World. However, at the same time, it can also be argued that it was imperialist, as it asserted its dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe. This has led many to accuse the Soviet Union of hypocrisy, and it is often used as an argument for the idea that the Soviet Union did not, in fact, follow Marxist principles, or alternatively, for example by anarchists, as an argument for the failure of Marxism as a solution to imperialism.
The term "anti-imperialism" is today most commonly used by Marxists and those with closely similar ideas (anti-capitalism, a class analysis of society). Others who might be accurately described as anti-imperialists, and who would probably accept the description, nevertheless tend to use different terminology.

cool so which part of this do you disagree with?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 01:07 PM
cool so which part of this do you disagree with?


All of it. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist like you.
I see nothing wrong with colonialism, personally.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 01:12 PM
http://wongfuproductions.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/psyduck.gif


you cannot be serious.

noonwitch
10-08-2010, 01:15 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.


Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?


the founding fathers.

THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.


Like CIM said, Beck is using specific definitions of terms like "anti-colonialism" and "anti-imperialism", as Marxist ideology defines them. I'm not a fan of imperialism or colonialism, but I'm also not a Marxist.

Tyranny can come from imperialists, colonialists, democracies, communist states or any other type of government. Certain conditions will contribute to fueling a Marxist revolution-a corrupt and/or brutal dictatorship (Baptista, Samoza), clueless imperials who live in luxury while the "peasant class" starves (the Russia of Nicholas II), an unpopular war that costs many "peasants" their husbands, fathers and sons (Russia, again), and so on.


One of my issues with Beck is that while he is busy condemning all socialist/marxist philosophy, he is ignoring the situations that led to marxist uprisings in history. If he is going to condemn the wrongs of Lenin, for example, he must condemn the stupid and selfish mistakes made by the Romanovs that made an uprising possible. Communist philosophy was not born in a vacuum. It was a response to one type of brutality that sounded good in theory and ended up being as bad as the system they overthrew.

djones520
10-08-2010, 01:16 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.


Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?


the founding fathers.

THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.

*facepalm*

Anti-Colonialism?

Wrong....

Most colionialist President in America's history?

(D) Woodrow Wilson

CueSi
10-08-2010, 01:24 PM
All of it. I'm not a Marxist-Leninist like you.
I see nothing wrong with colonialism, personally.

So like this, then? :D


http://wongfuproductions.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/psyduck.gif


you cannot be serious.

lawdamercy, yes! Awhaddisyatinkdisis?

I find it interesting that the British - - whom my parents were subject to until the 1960's (Jamaica) bring up (humorously) what Caught may be getting at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A

~QC

Rockntractor
10-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Like CIM said, Beck is using specific definitions of terms like "anti-colonialism" and "anti-imperialism", as Marxist ideology defines them. I'm not a fan of imperialism or colonialism, but I'm also not a Marxist.

Tyranny can come from imperialists, colonialists, democracies, communist states or any other type of government. Certain conditions will contribute to fueling a Marxist revolution-a corrupt and/or brutal dictatorship (Baptista, Samoza), clueless imperials who live in luxury while the "peasant class" starves (the Russia of Nicholas II), an unpopular war that costs many "peasants" their husbands, fathers and sons (Russia, again), and so on.


One of my issues with Beck is that while he is busy condemning all socialist/marxist philosophy, he is ignoring the situations that led to marxist uprisings in history. If he is going to condemn the wrongs of Lenin, for example, he must condemn the stupid and selfish mistakes made by the Romanovs that made an uprising possible. Communist philosophy was not born in a vacuum. It was a response to one type of brutality that sounded good in theory and ended up being as bad as the system they overthrew.
Three years before our current political situation Glenn Beck condemned the corporatism that led to this.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 01:27 PM
cool so which part of this do you disagree with?


So like this, then? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A

~QC

I just think the want to conquer is a natural part of the human spirit. I'd rather see America being the conquerer than the conquered.

Arroyo_Doble
10-08-2010, 02:02 PM
*facepalm*

Anti-Colonialism?

Wrong....

Most colionialist President in America's history?

(D) Woodrow Wilson

Moreso than Theodore Roosevelt?

djones520
10-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Moreso than Theodore Roosevelt?

Teddy got the ball rolling, no denying that. Wilson took that thing full blast though. Hell, he even had multiple expeditionary forces in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. Latin America was his personal playground for installing puppet regimes.

The Savage Wars of Peace. I just finished that book two days ago. An amazing look into the history of American imperialism.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 04:42 PM
What's the problem with imperialism on our part?

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 07:15 PM
I just think the want to conquer is a natural part of the human spirit. I'd rather see America being the conquerer than the conquered.

What is considered "natural" are actually values and attributes of the ruling class internalized by the common people.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 07:18 PM
What's the problem with imperialism on our part?

Really? Imperialism is a-okay as long as AMERICA does it...? why? do we have some special place where we can do atrocious things? this is absurd. You're seriously trumpeting imperialism!

Imperialism is by it's very nature oppressive, it's tyrannical, it's antithetical to any ideas of freedom.

You're really willing to go to the farthest extremes of political oppression and you view socialism as bad? my god....

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 07:19 PM
What is considered "natural" are actually values and attributes of the ruling class internalized by the common people.

No, what is considered natural by me is based on my own observations and beliefs as well as my study of history. Why must everything be a battle of Marxist class warfare to you?

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 07:20 PM
Anti-colonialism has historically been tied to people opposing the colonizing force of the British Empire. We used to be a colony of the exploitative British Empire and our Declaration of Independence and our entire Revolution was founded on the realization that such an institution was WRONG.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 07:21 PM
No, what is considered natural by me is based on my own observations and beliefs as well as my study of history. Why must everything be a battle of Marxist class warfare to you?

Why don't you just stop reading entirely and live your life based on your own limited experience. Stay in a bubble and never EVER question your own assumptions.

This is how to live.




Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

"WOW That sounds fantastic!" - a teenager who likes the history channel

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 07:22 PM
What is considered "natural" are actually values and attributes of the ruling class internalized by the common people.


Really? Imperialism is a-okay as long as AMERICA does it...? why? do we have some special place where we can do atrocious things? this is absurd. You're seriously trumpeting imperialism!

Imperialism is by it's very nature oppressive, it's tyrannical, it's antithetical to any ideas of freedom.

You're really willing to go to the farthest extremes of political oppression and you view socialism as bad? my god....

Imperialism is only oppressive because your communist mentors told you it was.
Your idea of freedom is a communitarian lifestyle and/or a Socialist government, so obviously our ideas of freedom are very different.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 07:24 PM
Why don't you just stop reading entirely and live your life based on your own limited experience. Stay in a bubble and never EVER question your own assumptions.

This is how to live.





"WOW That sounds fantastic!" - a teenager who likes the history channel

No, I don't just watch the history channel. I happen to love history and most of my reading is history books, much moreso than fiction.

Odysseus
10-08-2010, 08:48 PM
Both Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich said that Obama is an Anti-Colonialist.
Funny, you know who else was an anti-colonialist?
the founding fathers.
THe prime example of anti-colonialism? The Declaration of Independence.
Uh, no. They were colonists. Their only problem with Britain was that the Crown had forgotten that as long as they were British subjects, they had the same rights as Englishmen. It was the abrogation of those rights which led to the Revolutionary War, and it wasn't until more than a year into the conflict that the idea of independence became the cause of the rebels.

Moreso than Theodore Roosevelt?
Much more. In addition to the AEF in Europe, Wilson sent troops to Central and South America repeatedly to impose his version of order. Teddy Roosevelt inherited the Spanish possessions taken during McKinley's term, but did not expand upon them, and only fought to maintain order and suppress rebellion in the Philippines.

Really? Imperialism is a-okay as long as AMERICA does it...? why? do we have some special place where we can do atrocious things? this is absurd. You're seriously trumpeting imperialism!

Imperialism is by it's very nature oppressive, it's tyrannical, it's antithetical to any ideas of freedom.

You're really willing to go to the farthest extremes of political oppression and you view socialism as bad? my god....
Funny thing is, the US colonies in the Pacific were the only ones that maintained a resistance against the Japanese, so apparently being an American colony wasn't all bad.

Marxist theories of Imperialism assume assume that whenever a (for lack of a better term) First World nation has a presence in a Third World nation, it is to the detriment of the latter. But the English system of colonization provided real benefits for most of the nations that Britain colonized. If you look at the post-colonial records of the world's nations, you find that the only stable democracies are the former British colonies, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, the Caribbean and, until they gave it to China, Hong Kong. There are former British colonies that aren't democratic or stable, such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and the like, but those were tribal enclaves before Britain arrived, and remained so after they left. OTOH, the former Spanish, Dutch, German and French colonies have a singularly poor record of self-government after the Europeans departed. The Soviet presence in their former colonies was of such a vile character that no one in their right minds would consider it a beneficial influence. The US has several possessions which may be called colonies, including Puerto Rico, Guam the US Virgin Islands, Hawaii and Samoa. Of these, at no time has a majority of any of their populations sought independence, and many have turned it down. Hawaii actively sought and achieved statehood. Clearly, America is doing something right.

Why don't you just stop reading entirely and live your life based on your own limited experience. Stay in a bubble and never EVER question your own assumptions.
This is how to live.
From what you've written here, that doesn't seem to be working out too well for you, so I'd recommend that CITM consider the source before taking up your advice.

No, I don't just watch the history channel. I happen to love history and most of my reading is history books, much moreso than fiction.
That puts you well above Wei. Don't be discouraged by his ignorance, just use him to practice debating with morons.