smooth bruce

The idea of a dependent society from what I have read is rubbish... I was reading somewhere recently, I think in Australia or New Zealand, where the level of people on welfare stayed ruffly the same for a decade and it was assumed that the same set of people, more or less, were on it. Someone actually did a research study recently and found that while the level of welfare stayed the same the turn over of people was massive and virtually no one at the beginning of the time period analyzed was on welfare at the end of the period. Not to mention the obvious major social issue, and one of the reasons it is integral to capitalism, that would arise from abolishing THE EVIL STENCH OF SOCIALIST BASED WELFARE... people with no money for bread, simply taking bread. Good point. There are also three models of state welfare, can't remember off the head, but the Scandinavian area operate on one, US, UK, Australia, Canada etc operate on another and there was a third (the least successful) I think relating to South America or Asia.

No it isn't. I think we have already covered the part where you live in a delusional world where Soviet Russia was 'communist' There is nothing voluntary about capitalism and no such thing as 'voluntary capitalism' as a phrase. State capitalism which 90% of us live under is called the WELFARE STATE. Welfare is an integral part of how advanced capitalist societies operate, it has nothing to do with 'socialism'. "Voluntary human action" "Work for less than the value of your labour or starve" Because you don't. You are posturing as if you know something and you have a rabid fixation with 'communism'. 1. Capitalism isn't a voluntary system - this idea is fucking ridiculous Where did you learn this shit? intro to economics 101? There is nothing voluntary about the relationship between capital and labor. 2. Welfare is an essential part OF state capitalism You try to proclaim the virtues of capitalism without even understanding integral pieces of the puzzle. You shouldn't even be claiming that I don't explain my position, YOU should know this part because YOUR the one in favour of the system. Yeah ok "set back by the logic" so far you have demonstrated almost no understanding of THE RED MENACE SOCIALIMSESZ! or your preferred system of state capitalism.

Yeah ok Dershowitz I give you two lols for this bit I give this one two lols as well. While you are living in a fairy tale maybe you can give me some more lols and explain away the part where the IDF murder people with US missles http://www.btselem.org/English/ You mean like every single other person in the entire world for the last 30 years minus the Israeli and US governments? 'Pipe and smoke it' is an Israeli propaganda term and it sickens me!

Oh are they? The poor plight of the Israeli citizens... 29.9.2000-31.1.2008 Occupied Territories / Israel Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces 4419 / 66 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians 234 / 471 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians 239 / 87

The ideas behind welfare are not 'socialist' they have been around for centuries and reflect basic human interests, none of which has to do with welfare in the context we are talking about. State capitalism - the modern welfare state. Welfare is an integral part of state capitalism - it has nothing to do with 'socialism' No they aren't. Another example of you knowing fuck all about 'socialism'

In the context of this discussion welfare has nothing to do with socialism (and everything to do with capitalism) and further convinces me you don't actually understand 'socialism' or really any history to do with the relationship between capital and labor.

It is a bad habit but it is also fairly redundant shit we are talking about A discussion I guess would be healthier but that would involve caring about trying to change the persons opinion or being open to changing your own and seeing as we are all just names on the internet it doesn't really matter that much. Plus like I have said it is redundant shit, you will find that a course on modern theories of the state will tell you the exact same shit.

Sorry. Russia happened first I tend to automatically make it the point of reference. I assume its what the other guy is talking about still. Same shit still, state, socialist elements destroyed, state takes control of production, etc. They can have the name communist all they like but if we are serious then a reasonable measuring stick would be Karl Marx theories and Marxist theories.

No, there was a state and there was no serious electing going on anywhere. Lenin destroyed all socialist elements of the society within weeks including things like workers councils. The mainstream of the Marxist movement considered Lenin's takeover as counter revolutionary. People like Bertrand Russel, and many modern historians, consider it a coup. Russia was never a communist society, ever. No it isn't like that. It was never a communist system. Socialist elements, small and pathetic as they are particularly for the US are firstly won through about 150+ years of class struggle and secondly bare no relation to the fact that it is a capitalist system. The global economy and the US are advanced capitalism. The state is not exclusive. No they are not. They are communist enough to be called communist because both the USSR and the US liked to consider it communism, but it wasn't. I'm not a communist, stupid assumption, and you obviously don't. 'centralized planning must fail therefore all socialist based ideas fail' yeah that is a real sound understanding of economics, except maybe if you venture outside a economics/commerce degree.

...

China was not communist either. There has never been any communist states. Life is grey and ideas are best kept loose but things like... democratic control of workplaces and the abolishment of a state are pretty basic principles that don't slip into that grey area.

No it wasn't and 'all forms of socialism MUST fail' is a joke because you obviously don't know anything about it. The Soviet Union was never a communist/socialist society, ever. Oh here is the problem... you have no understanding of 'economics'

The state owned the means of production... ie. Not communism/socialism.

There was nothing socialist about the USSR.

The Columbian military and para-military (as Juan has already pointed out being virtually the same) are one of the biggest terrorist groups in the world. Watch the US dollars flood (even more than before) into Columbia if Columbian and Venezuelan tensions rise.

Its called analyzing a piece of big media reporting it and it bares no reflection on you as a poster of this forum. Did you want us to discuss the piece? I'm assuming thats what you wanted because you posted it you fucking stupid cunt. Nice negative props as well. From this we can gather that its clear you cannot even follow what is a very basic conversation. You are a stupid fucking idiot.

Typically bad BBC report Well then if one random guy believes it then that is worth putting in the opening of the article. This is the type of 'journalism' you perform when you don't leave the green zone. This doesn't even get a source, are you fucking serious? I am not even going to touch on 'regards the US as an occupation force in Iraq'. The official enemy made a fairly solid and obvious statement... Ahmadinejad commented.... Ahmadinejad said... Ahmadinejad laughed off... what a crazy nut. Here is the only piece of Iranian 20th century history worth bringing up... again, I cannot fucking believe I am reading some of this shit. Taleban? Oh fuck off you are an international journal, did you seriously just write taleban? So... just like Iraq before... Well we can rest easy... According to the diplomats still? Or did you just start a paragraph with a four sentence word and sneakily make out like it was something other than your own smug words? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?!!?!?!?!?! IS THIS REALLY THE ICING ON THE CAKE COMING IN ON THE LAST SENTENCE? Incredible.

When people like Huckabee run for president I'm almost glad that the US is a business run society

lol

Who couldn't respect a man with a net worth of 50 billion dollars.... probably anyone on the entire earth with a fucking brain.

Sounds like you have switched on friends. Australia is like all prosperous western nations when it comes to the mood towards left wing politics, the same as everywhere else. Ignorant, through no fault of their own, people trying to pay mortgages and feed their kids rather than considering who is screwing them and how. Resentment towards the US seems the same as most places in the world, strong, but at the moment we are trying to save the whales so the frowning emoticon is aimed at the Japanese

The usual suspects, Howard Zinn, Edward Said rip, arhundati, etc Where am I being dogmatic in this thread? The cunt died, there is NO mention of his Western backed slaughtered in the news (standard news reporting, not forbes or business press), there is a very brief glance over of his "questionable human rights record" and high praise for "his" economic achievements. That is a pretty strong reinforcement of the propaganda model.

The US backed Suharto in a 1965 coup where he killed 500,000 "communists" which is a cold war propaganda term for any popular struggle with a shred of democratic process in it (aka peasants). Ten years later in 1975 Suharto invaded East Timor and killed 250,000 people, again with US backing, US weapons and the green light from both the US and Australia. In fact I think Ford (maybe Kissinger too) were in the country about two days before giving their approval but told him to wait until they had left. So this resulted in what some historians have argued was the worst genocide of the 20th century, worse than the holocaust, given the 1975 population of East Timor (one half of a small island) to death ratio was staggering. Regardless of that argument it pretty much comes in second worst. The original event was given minimal coverage and met with praise and the East Timor invasion was never reported in the agenda setting media. 30 years later he dies of kidney failure or something and the western media report a neutral summary of it on all the non-US media sources I have seen about "some people say he had questionable human rights records.... but he brought economic growth!". The dude was a fucking mass murderer on par with Hitler and not a single news report I have seen has even come close to breaking the "questionable human rights record" phrase and just coming out and saying it. Just imagine changing Suharto to Hitler "some people question his human rights records... but man that was some good economic growth!" In fact we don't even have to switch the names, they are both on the same level of evil mass murdering mother fucker. Thanks but I am going to take the world renowned scholar and important historical figure of the 20th century over the "herb" who subscribes a membership to a graffiti forum.

Not surprising there is no thread on this... Chomsky and Herman still have the propaganda model on lock down 30 years after writing it....

kums? hahahaha