RRC Archives

I don't, enlighten me.

Does the name Karl Marx ring a bell?

But if it doesn't....

"The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that claim to be Marxist."

Certain types of wealth go into the bank, but other types of wealth do not. How much space you are allocated on the planet, how many natural resources you use, these are all things that currently are allocated based on how much money someone has. If you believe that natural resources are not a "finite sum", then we have nothing to discuss.

I'm not advocating any side of this conversation, just observing that, at some point people are going to decide that it's not "fair" that one person gets to have way more gasoline than another person just because of how much cash they have. Feel free to replace the word "gasoline" with "land", "food", "antibiotics", "ammo", etc. Currently, the status quo is maintained because the number of angry people (X) is less than the controlling forces of government: police and military (Y). One could envision a number of events that would increase X and/or decrease Y. Then anarchy happens.

Events like these have taken place over and over again throughout history: The French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, and even the LA riots and looting in Haiti are evidence of this natural process. The pre-revolutionary monarchs understood quite well that they had to keep their subjects just happy enough to prevent revolution. Lucky for us we have the NFL and NASCAR to keep the unwashed masses appeased.

I'd like to hear more about this "conservative revolution". Is it a revolution or an evolution? I can't really envision a violent event in which hoards of people would demand that more power be given to corporations. Now, if it took place slowly, over time (like the last 60 years), I could believe that. Please clarify.

Larry, I wanted Michael to explain it, in his own words. I getting really tired of people regurgitating info that they have heard/read from people of similar political leaning, without looking at the other side of the story with an open mind.

And please stop saying liberals. Like all liberals are the same. Its as stupid as thinking all conservatives are the same. What you are doing is dividing people and making things worse. Please watch the video in the link and think about the way you say things and your perceptions.

Enjoy.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/chima ... story.html

Andrew wrote: And please stop saying liberals.

No! I am a conservative, period. I do not wish to be called a "moderate", or "independent" (although that is how I register to vote because of the weak political parties we have), "free thinker" or any such other crap. I believe in limited governement where power is concentrated within the states and the people.

All are free to have different politcal views - but be honest about it. If you believe in a large controlling federal government that redistributes wealth then you are a liberal! Is that an insult? Would you rather be called a socialist or marxist?

michaelarmand wrote: I do not wish to be called a..."free thinker" or any such other crap.

Quoted for sheer awesomeness.

You didn't watch the video did you.


I also don't think you get what I am saying. You are making strong blanket statements that just aren't true. There are significant differences in belief amongst parties, and your stereotypes are borderline dangerous.

Please listen to the words of George Washington.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

P.S. By your definition you can't be a conservative. You used to drive a subaru and currently drive a Diesel VW station wagon.

L K Day wrote:"...Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that claim to be Marxist."

As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.
-George Orwell