Communist Manifesto

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
This one's for Barry The Sprout

From Chase's calendar of events:

Communist Manifesto
February 26, 1848

Written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels on the eve of the revolutions of 1848, the Manifesto provided ideas for socialist and communist movements.

BTW, I don't want anyone to think my posting of this is a crack of any kind. It is not. I came across it this morning at the station and thought he might find this historical note interesting. (Isn't it a shame the disclaimer is almost as long as the post [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] )


[img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

---

Ta Ronn! I honestly wouldn't have known this otherwise. I would just like to point out that as Communist literature goes it isn't exactly the best you can read. Which is ironic I suppose. Try reading Capital (it may be 6000 pages, but this is not an easy subject [img]tongue.gif[/img] ).

And I honestly didn't know that either Donut. I will have to find the Japenese resteraunt in question. I think I know which one it is actually. Just off to find it...

And if anyone has any problems with Communism then I will be happy to answer them. But please don't just flame me for being different. Not that I am accusing you of doing that... I just know how these things can go sometimes.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


And if anyone has any problems with Communism then I will be happy to answer them.

---

That's very kind of you Barry, one thing that I never really understood is the characteristics of mechanistic materialism and Feuerbach's materialism. Can you explain this?

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


That's very kind of you Barry, one thing that I never really understood is the characteristics of mechanistic materialism and Feuerbach's materialism. Can you explain this?

---

Alright you Gooner git, you called my bluff. I will PM you about this, I worded my post badly.

Sorry everyone for appearing arrogant. Not my intention.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:


That's very kind of you Barry, one thing that I never really understood is the characteristics of mechanistic materialism and Feuerbach's materialism. Can you explain this?

---

OK, I'll take a shot in the dark here. Either the answer is one is good and the other bad, OR I think the answer could be 7.

Did I get it?

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by khazadman:
the workers did throw off their chains!why do you think communism collapsed in all but,what,three countries?and two of these are begging foreign companies to let them make their toys.capitolism rocks!capitolism beats standing in line all day for sand,i mean toilet,paper.cause that is basically why it collapsed.they wanted political and ECONOMIC freedom.
so marx wrote that trash over a pub?that explains it.
marx:hey engels,i got one.hic.religion is the opiate of the masses.
engels:thats a crock of s**t!hee hee.lets put it in.those idiots will buy it.

----------------------
CAPITOLISM ROCKS!

---

Galadria already brought the misspelling of Capitalism to light, yet you insisted on spelling it with an 'O' a further three times.

Why?

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WOLFGIR:
Hmm, I just had to butt in here

Seriously people, pure Marxism, Communism or capitalism will lead to downfall of man. Both fails because mankinds needs and nature are not taken into it. Man can not be only competing or only the equal.

Sorry to say this to all of you 100% sure people but see the downfall in all societies and see that most structures lives on the downfall of the people that can´t handle it and that leads to an underground feeling spreading that society is the enemy of people.

This is sooo very general written a newsagent could turn green with envy guys and gals but look around you and see what you prefer.

Personally I like a mixture of most things, government owned companies and free competition and a good social structure as a safety net. In the middle is actually were most people can find a common line of satisfaction.

So enough for politics for one day.. urrk politics.. geesh..

---

Awesome post, as ever Wolfgir. [img]smile.gif[/img] I concur wholeheartedly.

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Neb]

Wolfgir says it well, very close to my own viewpoints.

[John D Harris]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:


I didn't mean to imply that the state was being protected from the church. Rather I see it as a necessary seperation of two potent forces that have proven over time to draw the worst sort of people when mixed. Indeed the intent was to provide a state that was free of the religous prosecution that many of the time were escaping. In order for this basis to be satisfied, I find in unlikely that a scenario could be devised that would see the state endorse a concept like "good" and "evil" (the religous context of course... a decidedly Western concept) in a way that was consistant with the likely intent of the constitution. Perhaps that's why the courts have taken such a strict line in interpretation... anything less would be a slippery slope, much more open to the particular prejudice of the judge(s).

Personally I see the interpretation which is currently gaining favor (to uphold the rights of all to practice in their own way... as long as it's not sanctioned by any public body) as a reasonable balance between the sides. What I extremely dislike is our president using christian terminology when discussing groups of people that don't necessarily follow our belief system. It feels munipulative and again I think it's designed, not heartfelt. As a person I support his right to say anything he wants... but he's also the President of this country, and as such he reflects on us... and right now I feel he's not showing us in the best light. Perhaps he felt the need to fight fundamentalist "fire with fire", but in doing so he's lowered himself to pretty close to the level the other side is at... listen to the propeganda from both sides... some of it was hard to tell apart!

---

I'd agree with the vast majority of what you said there. Although I think the terms "good" and "evil" while used extensivly(sp?) in religion they are not Christian terms. I'd agree with your point if President Bush had used the terms "Saints" & "Sinners".