PreteenCommunist - ask me anything ^.^

What or who gave you the idea that communism is a good system? How old were you when you first started tutoring yourself about this ideology? Are your parents and siblings also communists?

 

speaking of ad hominem, in the USA Republicans would be criticizing you, pasting swastikas on your door, burning crosses in your lawn, and physically attacking you if you dared to openly declare yourself a commie = how do you feel about ?



(note that Democrats and others would not likely do so)

 

Communism may sound like all rainbows and lollipops to those who don't understand human nature.

 

Had to google it. So how did your mom get around the chastity thing?

 

And it's good to have hobbies . Especially ones that increase your critical thinking skills and thus make you an even better person. If you look at politics as a way to increase your knowledge about the world around you and the decisions other people make, then you got an immeasurable amount from it in my opinion. I just want to reinforce that it's perfectly okay to move in the direction that your soul yearns for.

Now, as for what the "individual" actually is. Fascinating question that's a lot less political and more spiritual in my view. To me, the "individual" compasses everything a person is. From the clothes you choose to wear, to the accessories and even yes the friends you choose to make.

All of that encompasses that which we call "free will", and free will is expressed by every person. The issue isn't so much free will, but how much free will are we willing to allow? Anarchy has shown us the absolute failure of free will as an unilateral concept. But Democracy isn't much better, as the expression and regulation of "free will" is limited purely in the political sense, and thus subject to change.

In my opinion, if we could all make optimal choices and have a optimal thought process(I outlined that in a post a few months back.), this would be the perfected human expression. And my Fascist-Technocracy is intended to create this world with a optimal thought process.

Communism tries to address the flaw of our free will, by consolidating it into the "community" view. In a sense, it tries to herd the human race. But you can't herd a free thinking person. It could have been done, in the era prior to the Enlightenment. But now that most people can read and write, and thus give an expression to their soul then free will must be regulated, but it cannot be negated.

In tying an individual to the State, it regulates Free Will by specifying where its free will can be expressed(IE: Within the State's bounds.) When people feel valued to be a part of a team, or work for their own individual gains(monetary benefits), it allows them to work together even with compelling differences.

And ideally, when people see that their free expression is protected and in fact enhanced by enabling the free expression of others, that free will can be woven in a philosophically mechanical way that brings out our potential.

Some people have compared the human brain to computers, but if the brain is the computer then the human body is the monitor. We need a technical society to express our technological views. Hence, Fascist-Technocracy. By incorporating rules, we're freer. Guided Freedom is true freedom. Universal freedom is slavery disguised as freedom.

 

- Disillusionment with...pretty much everything (I was a social democrat, and that was the first political label I ever really identified with, but I started doubting the efficacy of social democracy) and a heck of a lot of subsequent reading. The main appeal of communism was its avoidance of the waste, crises and general allocative inefficiency caused by ex post capitalist distribution, for me.

- It was the spring of 2014, so I was 12.

- My dad's an apathetic conservative, my mum's like a New Keynesian, and my poor brother (he's 11) just doesn't care and always has to put up with my mum and me debating at the table.

 

Well I don't think all Republicans are mentally living in the Red Scare. There are some quite reasonable Republicans on these forums at least.

]]

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't aware that there was anything about that in Jain teachings; it probably only applies to sadhu/vis (the equivalent of monks/nuns).

 

But you know, with communism, though they will tell you that it's the "people's government," it really isn't. It usually ends up with a very powerful government which is made up of human beings who are inherently greedy. It also doesn't encourage people to grow and they really don't have much incentive to be their very best. Though it may sound good on paper, I don't really think it is realistic.

 

Interesting...

Yea I'm not so sure about my German comprehension, French maybe, but my German is no good.

So you get bored of the same thing after a while? Understandable. So which direction are you going now then?

As for the left wing, I suppose that's the issue with having a multi-party system. Because with two parties, you get the extreme right and left from the party leaders and moderates get swept aside. But with more than one right or left wing party, you get like 30 of them, each one debating each other in addition to the other side of the spectrum, essentially making them all irrelevant. I suppose the right wing is just more solid as a group than the left.

 

Its hard to find reasonable Republicans, but yes, they do exist.

As for Jainism, with a lot of Indian religions (I'm Hindu), meticulous observance is not mandatory. Unlike Christianity, even if there is a Sabbath day, you don't have to honor it every time if you dont want to. So, only if you felt like it, would have to follow the chastity stuff. That's what makes them "peaceful" religions. So yea if the real zealous want to, they can, but if you were just like, you know what, I'm really busy for this holiday, you dont have to observe it then, and you won't technically be punished.

 

I think there is such a thing as a healthy balance of both socialism and capitalism. While we do need, as a society, to take care of our poor and help them, people should definitely have the choice to grow and prosper. I like our (the United States) form of government the best. While we are capitalists, we also have social programs to help those that need help. We have lots of opportunities for people to make their situations at least better. While it's not perfect, it beats a lot of other systems, IMO.

 

Oh come on! Talk about hyperbole. Jeez Louise.

 

You don't have to explain as the entire membership is ALREADY well aware why those countries never became communist.

THEY NEVER BECAME COMMUNIST BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY NATION TO EXIST AS A PURE COMMUNIST SYSTEM!!!!

Why?

BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST HUMAN NATURE!!!

Why?

BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GREEDY, WRATHFUL, SLOTHISH, PRIDEFUL, ENVIOUS, LUSTFUL, GLUTTONOUS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF BASTARD$ AND (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)E$!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Because it's Human Nature.

AA

 

Absolutely; well said.

Ok, but how is this a distinct entity, separable from everything else? (I'm a mereological nihilist, by the way, in case that's going to complicate things.)

Very interesting. Free will is another concept I have problems with, and I don't think either courses of action or the components of a person can be abstracted from the conditions in which they find themselves. That's to say, courses of action are entirely dependent and determined by circumstances in my opinion, much like the nature of an "individual." But that's not entirely relevant; I just thought I'd bring it up given the terminology you're using (I would suggest calling it "individual expression" or something rather than free will, to avoid the whole causality debate).

I'll need at least a brief definition of optimal before I can really comment. In any case, I don't think there's anything wrong with at least nominal unilateral "free will." In practice, there will always be limits, and I don't see the ultimate need for coercive, state-enforced limits.

I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on our hands. Communists will, in the vast majority of cases, be hard determinists who view the concept of an abstract individual as suspect at the very least. So it doesn't really matter to communists if a communist society will put into question a concept which we/they did not believe in anyway.

And anyway, what gives you the impression that communists want to suppress or curtail "free" thought? If anything, one of the goals of classless society is to remove the boundaries imposed on people's modes of thought by ruling-class ideology and the corresponding base-superstructure relations.

So are you saying we need a state to specify what freedoms people have? I don't see why that makes much of a difference. A lot of laws and platitudes about freedom do nothing more than pay lip service and fool a bunch of people. Nor do I really see why a state needs to impose any legal boundaries on what people can do.

But it's incredibly, incredibly refreshing to discuss with someone who does not think communism is some kind of hyper-statist society. I guess it takes one to know one.

 

I don't blame you for not wanting to trawl through a 40-page thread, but I've responded to this kind of argument multiple times. You'll probably find some sort of response by typing in a random page number, given how often I've had this discussion.

 

Oh that's cool, we have three languages in common! Do you know Hindi too? That might make it four if I want to count it (I usually don't, but I can generally watch Bollywood without subs, so my understanding is quite good).

Sociologically, I've been quite interested in Weber lately (not the crap in Protestant Ethic more his influence on the Frankfurt School and antipositivism and his ideas on rationality) and some of the more sane functionalists, like Parsons. I've also been reading up on some more German economic and sociological traditions, like ordoliberalism. The schools of thought which attract me most are systematic, materialist, non-reductionist and can be combined with the loosely structuralist mode of thought I learnt from Althusser's work, which will stay with me for a while yet.

Unfortunately so. The only real exception to that is France, where the now-mainstream National Front and the UMP (I forgot their new name) are dividing the rightist vote and the left is dominated by the Socialist Party, which makes me think the latter will win next year, but that doesn't make the situation any better for leftists because the PS are as full of baloney as the right.

 

Ababic, Pashto, Urdu and I need to brush up on my Hindi.

I was in Waziristan.

AA

 

I've been meaning to learn Hindi but my father is South Indian so we don't really use it. Neat, you like Bollywood. My mom's German and my cousins speak it but I've fallen out of practice and know like 1% of the language. French I take in school.

I actually appreciate Weber to some degree. Rationalism and all. "The fate of our times is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation and, above all, by the "disenchantment of the world"" It's a neat quote. Parsons just seems to make logical sense. He essentially pulled from Weber and translated his work into English and added his own touches to it.

I really do encourage you to look up how the economy was run under the fascists. I know I'm somewhat of a biased source, but I feel they combined the correct amount of government intervention with a private market, and combatted corporate greed but didn't compromise economic output. Hitler was deranged of course after a time, but did have some incredible input to say. (this is from Wikipedia)

"Hitler was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."
He was also quoted as saying: "I had only to develop logically what social democracy failed.... National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd ties with a democratic order.... Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings...."


I suppose. France will always lean, as a country, left, though. And they've always been incredibly socialist.

 

Thanks for the props. I try lol(Literally more than I should, but hey everyone has a quirk or flaw about them.)

It'll complicate it just on the sheer fact that I don't know what it is (the mereological part anyway, as far as nihilism I'm not sure if you meant nihilism in terms of overall outlook of the human experience(IE: Life derives no meaning) or if you meant a religious nihilism.

So I can't really say anything for or against that, until I know what it is. As far as how is it a separate unit from everything else. I can answer this in a stupidly simple way: You, as a child are born to your family(and as far as you're concerned, you're a part of the family unit) but insofar as the State is concerned, you live within the State but not necessarily a "part" of the State per say(especially as a child, and sometimes I felt regret at that.) Only actors(adult actors) can be seen as a part of the State.

But being thorough, I'd have to say it's separate because "you are you". You do have the choice to disobey your parents(I wouldn't recommend it unless you thought it absolutely necessary.) But it doesn't even have to be that radical. Like playing the piano? Dance classes? Etc. All of that is YOUR choice, and only yours.

The Communist view puts an emphasis on environment, the Fascist view doesn't necessarily negate the environment but puts it in perspective. If one believes in man's potential, one cannot simply say "Without the comforts of life, a person cannot succeed.". While it's more difficult to succeed in an impoverished situation than a flourishing one, I never understood(and disagreed) with the sentiment that
the person who was born poor, was meant to be poor.

I think both feed off of each other. The person makes the environment that he/she lives in, and the environment supports that person. There's no use in creating the world's best architecture if the people living in the environment will be destructive to negative ends.

This brings us to the ole-fashioned "chicken or egg" argument. Which came first?(Seriously, I want your opinion on what came first ). Logically speaking, the chicken came first because without the chicken, there's no egg. But metaphorically, the chicken is born FROM the egg. I look at our world as an egg, and the chicken must be born from a healthy egg.

It's up to the chickens presently born, to nurture the eggs of the future. We are chickens, infrastructure is the egg. If both man and environment are healthy, both can thrive off of each other. If one or the other is imbalanced, we need to correct that.

To summarize, I think Communism gives too much emphasis on the environment, and not enough emphasis on the Man. Whereas Fascism(and the Third Position) gives emphasis on the Man.(In the case of the Third Position's founders, they gave too much emphasis. I'm more able to draw a line in the middle to speak.)

Simply put: I can make a case to you, and you may strongly consider that case. But I cannot convince you to agree with me.(Honestly, and one of my greatest pet peeves with politics is that I cannot convince ANYONE really, until I get the reigns to do the job. I feel this is the same in any scenario. Why is it that people want proof of capability, before even giving the person a chance? For the first-time job seeker(like me), it's been absolutely devastating.

I KNOW I can do the job, but short of actually getting it, I can't prove that to you. I can only offer my reasoning lol. That's why it's important(and a lot easier for you with European support for education) to continue to get it, and get those degrees. I myself unfortunately after a hot start, slipped off and I can now only boast "some college experience".

These people want "proof" before performance, which is an idiosyncrasy but that's the world we live in. That's also partly why I'm drawn to politics. It'll be easier to give a philosophical argument to voters(though just as detestable)

Alright, individual expression is an easy compromise to make since it basically means the same thing. The whole terminology only matters in a political context and not the scientific/philosophical one in my opinion. Point is, we humans can be awesome if we choose to be .

I addressed the whole "element is supreme" thing above though. To summarize: I think it's 50/50 or at the most 60(will)/40(environment).
I've went from Liberalism to Libertarianism to Fascist-Technocracy and while my environment propelled me to search for answers, it was my will that led me to decide upon one.

Lol, emphasis on brief . My apologies for rambling sometimes. Optimal very simply is the right decision to make. Of course, you would probably want to narrow it further and wonder "who" or what decides the right "decision". I'd say, that would actually be the environment. Our environment gives us choices, and through those choices we must make decisions.

A thorough thought process is what allows people to make correct decisions. I want to create a world where such a thorough thought process prevails for people. And that's what I believe my Fascist-Technocratic world will do. The easier decisions are, the easier it will be to make the right ones. Even for a simpleton. The unification of the State and its People will be a new tomorrow.

Basically, I want everyone to critically think. If everyone is impossible, I want most people to think critically.

I'm going to be crude, and the only reason is to make it so straightforward: What are we, if not individuals? If you pinch somebody, they're going to feel it. If you see someone crying, you're seeing a real physical human being crying. It's not a ghost. To me the concept of an individual, both from the emotional-stratosphere and from the physical stratosphere is an undeniable reality.

Thus any thesis which relegates the individual as something lesser than, is an incomplete thesis. Some might then question me and say "AmericanNationalist, both Hitler/Mussolini saw the Individual as lesser than the State. If as you say that a thesis which relegates the individual as something lesser is incomplete, then isn't Fascism incomplete?"

It WAS incomplete, until I perfected it. Yes, that's a very egotistical statement I know. But I find that it's true. I added the Humanism to the Third Position that it was lacking. I further comprehended and understood what Mussolini was going for, hence also transcribing things for the 21st century was crucial. Turning it from the "Corporate State" to the Cooperative State, puts into focus that it doesn't negate any existence but compliments the existence of both Man and Government as an inseparable entity.

They were flawed men(as all flawed men were and are, and I'm sure I have mine.) But in taking this major risk, I finally found the answer to escaping the Left/right hell hole that's kept humanity trapped since the word "politics" came out of somebody's mouth.

Lol. It takes a hyper-statist to know what a hyper state is?(Though I adopt the ideology, I'm sure none of the AXIS leaders would be pleased with my moderations and improvements. They would've seen it as weakness to not take the whole "Military-State" thing. I'm more of a center-economist.) I'd like to say that it takes a radical, to know what a radical is.

But really, what is radical but acknowledging the reality that everyone knows is there, but they don't want to admit it?

I don't think we need the State necessarily to "specify" the rights that people have or need(though governments atypically play this role anyway. Even Communist ones. Again, the only form of "government" that doesn't do so is Anarchy.) No, in my vision of the Fascist-Technocratic State, I would like to govern society like a traffic light.

Green means go, yellow means slow down and no means stop. When we understand our personal freedoms in a much larger scope of universal responsibility, and shared mutual interests then we can make more use of our free will than presently. Right now, free will is as much of a drawback as it is a strength and it doesn't have to be that way.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the props. I try lol(Literally more than I should, but hey everyone has a quirk or flaw about them.)

It'll complicate it just on the sheer fact that I don't know what it is (the mereological part anyway, as far as nihilism I'm not sure if you meant nihilism in terms of overall outlook of the human experience(IE: Life derives no meaning) or if you meant a religious nihilism.

So I can't really say anything for or against that, until I know what it is. As far as how is it a separate unit from everything else. I can answer this in a stupidly simple way: You, as a child are born to your family(and as far as you're concerned, you're a part of the family unit) but insofar as the State is concerned, you live within the State but not necessarily a "part" of the State per say(especially as a child, and sometimes I felt regret at that.) Only actors(adult actors) can be seen as a part of the State.

But being thorough, I'd have to say it's separate because "you are you". You do have the choice to disobey your parents(I wouldn't recommend it unless you thought it absolutely necessary.) But it doesn't even have to be that radical. Like playing the piano? Dance classes? Etc. All of that is YOUR choice, and only yours.

The Communist view puts an emphasis on environment, the Fascist view doesn't necessarily negate the environment but puts it in perspective. If one believes in man's potential, one cannot simply say "Without the comforts of life, a person cannot succeed.". While it's more difficult to succeed in an impoverished situation than a flourishing one, I never understood(and disagreed) with the sentiment that
the person who was born poor, was meant to be poor.

I think both feed off of each other. The person makes the environment that he/she lives in, and the environment supports that person. There's no use in creating the world's best architecture if the people living in the environment will be destructive to negative ends.

This brings us to the ole-fashioned "chicken or egg" argument. Which came first?(Seriously, I want your opinion on what came first ). Logically speaking, the chicken came first because without the chicken, there's no egg. But metaphorically, the chicken is born FROM the egg. I look at our world as an egg, and the chicken must be born from a healthy egg.

It's up to the chickens presently born, to nurture the eggs of the future. We are chickens, infrastructure is the egg. If both man and environment are healthy, both can thrive off of each other. If one or the other is imbalanced, we need to correct that.

To summarize, I think Communism gives too much emphasis on the environment, and not enough emphasis on the Man. Whereas Fascism(and the Third Position) gives emphasis on the Man.(In the case of the Third Position's founders, they gave too much emphasis. I'm more able to draw a line in the middle to speak.)

Simply put: I can make a case to you, and you may strongly consider that case. But I cannot convince you to agree with me.(Honestly, and one of my greatest pet peeves with politics is that I cannot convince ANYONE really, until I get the reigns to do the job. I feel this is the same in any scenario. Why is it that people want proof of capability, before even giving the person a chance? For the first-time job seeker(like me), it's been absolutely devastating.

I KNOW I can do the job, but short of actually getting it, I can't prove that to you. I can only offer my reasoning lol. That's why it's important(and a lot easier for you with European support for education) to continue to get it, and get those degrees. I myself unfortunately after a hot start, slipped off and I can now only boast "some college experience".

These people want "proof" before performance, which is an idiosyncrasy but that's the world we live in. That's also partly why I'm drawn to politics. It'll be easier to give a philosophical argument to voters(though just as detestable)

Alright, individual expression is an easy compromise to make since it basically means the same thing. The whole terminology only matters in a political context and not the scientific/philosophical one in my opinion. Point is, we humans can be awesome if we choose to be .

I addressed the whole "element is supreme" thing above though. To summarize: I think it's 50/50 or at the most 60(will)/40(environment).
I've went from Liberalism to Libertarianism to Fascist-Technocracy and while my environment propelled me to search for answers, it was my will that led me to decide upon one.

Lol, emphasis on brief . My apologies for rambling sometimes. Optimal very simply is the right decision to make. Of course, you would probably want to narrow it further and wonder "who" or what decides the right "decision". I'd say, that would actually be the environment. Our environment gives us choices, and through those choices we must make decisions.

A thorough thought process is what allows people to make correct decisions. I want to create a world where such a thorough thought process prevails for people. And that's what I believe my Fascist-Technocratic world will do. The easier decisions are, the easier it will be to make the right ones. Even for a simpleton. The unification of the State and its People will be a new tomorrow.

Basically, I want everyone to critically think. If everyone is impossible, I want most people to think critically.

I'm going to be crude, and the only reason is to make it so straightforward: What are we, if not individuals? If you pinch somebody, they're going to feel it. If you see someone crying, you're seeing a real physical human being crying. It's not a ghost. To me the concept of an individual, both from the emotional-stratosphere and from the physical stratosphere is an undeniable reality.

Thus any thesis which relegates the individual as something lesser than, is an incomplete thesis. Some might then question me and say "AmericanNationalist, both Hitler/Mussolini saw the Individual as lesser than the State. If as you say that a thesis which relegates the individual as something lesser is incomplete, then isn't Fascism incomplete?"

It WAS incomplete, until I perfected it. Yes, that's a very egotistical statement I know. But I find that it's true. I added the Humanism to the Third Position that it was lacking. I further comprehended and understood what Mussolini was going for, hence also transcribing things for the 21st century was crucial. Turning it from the "Corporate State" to the Cooperative State, puts into focus that it doesn't negate any existence but compliments the existence of both Man and Government as an inseparable entity.

They were flawed men(as all flawed men were and are, and I'm sure I have mine.) But in taking this major risk, I finally found the answer to escaping the Left/right hell hole that's kept humanity trapped since the word "politics" came out of somebody's mouth.

Lol. It takes a hyper-statist to know what a hyper state is?(Though I adopt the ideology, I'm sure none of the AXIS leaders would be pleased with my moderations and improvements. They would've seen it as weakness to not take the whole "Military-State" thing. I'm more of a center-economist.) I'd like to say that it takes a radical, to know what a radical is.

But really, what is radical but acknowledging the reality that everyone knows is there, but they don't want to admit it?

I don't think we need the State necessarily to "specify" the rights that people have or need(though governments atypically play this role anyway. Even Communist ones. Again, the only form of "government" that doesn't do so is Anarchy.) No, in my vision of the Fascist-Technocratic State, I would like to govern society like a traffic light.

Green means go, yellow means slow down and no means stop. When we understand our personal freedoms in a much larger scope of universal responsibility, and shared mutual interests then we can make more use of our free will than presently. Right now, free will is as much of a drawback as it is a strength and it doesn't have to be that way.

 

Well, I read some of your blog to get an idea of what you actually understand about human nature, and honestly your blog entries, while they are articulate and you are a fantastic writer, are very naive and idealistic. You assume that people will fall in line and behave the way you would perhaps behave yourself or just expect others to be. Well, I'm sorry but that is not reality.

You seem to have devoted the entirety of your studies to only what looks good on paper without actually examining humans and human nature and how, yes (ugh), everyone is an individual.

- - - Updated - - -

Some advice, don't write "novels" on political message boards. Attention spans are limited, and people are not going to read novels here. Short, sweet and to the point. Some of you are great writers though, and very intelligent for being so young. I'm impressed.

Some of you are very young and don't really have a lot of life experience which teaches you things that books cannot.

 

Here is a perspective on marxism that I don't think has been raised before. I won't disclose the source right away because some will refuse to read it, but here goes:

From this the theology of liberation deduced that the situation, which must not continue, could only be overcome through a radical change in the structures of this world which are structures of sin and evil. If sin exerts its power over the structures and impoverishment is programmed beforehand by them, then its overthrow cannot come about through individual conversions, but through the struggle against the structures of injustice. It was said, however, that this struggle ought to be political because the structures are consolidated and preserved through politics. Redemption thus became a political process for which the Marxist philosophy provided the essential guidelines. It was transformed into a task which people themselves could and even had to take into their own hands, and at the same time it became a totally practical hope: Faith, in theory, became praxis, concrete redeeming action, in the process of liberation.

The fall of the European governmental systems based on Marxism turned out to be a kind of twilight of the gods for that theology of redeeming political praxis. Precisely in those places where the Marxist liberating ideology had been applied consistently, a radical lack of freedom had been produced, the horror of which now appeared out in the open before the eyes of world public opinion. The fact is that when politics want to bring redemption, they promise too much. When they presume to do God's work, they do not become divine but diabolical.

For this reason, the political events of 1989 have also changed the theological scenario. Until then, Marxism had been the last attempt to provide a universally valid formula for the right configuration of historical action. Marxism believed it knew the structure of world history, and from there it tried to show how history could be led definitively along the right path. The fact that the presumption was based on what was apparently a strictly scientific method that totally substituted faith with science and made science the praxis gave it a strong appeal. All the unfulfilled promises of religions seemed attainable through a scientifically based political praxis.

 

Actually I'd say that is not an unreasonable assumption...

...because while that is certainly the ideal, people tend not to act much like individuals. If they did, surely human history would not be dominated by various forms of tyranny, communism included.

 

Hindi's a beautiful, romantic language; I kind of think of it as the French of South Asia, although French has never really sounded that romantic to me, probably because I know it and so it isn't exotic. But yeah, it's gorgeous. Maybe that's because I've mostly heard it spoken by hot Bollywood actors <3. It might be an idea to brush up on the German; it's quite easy if you know English and are prepared to deal with cases (there are only four cases, it's not that bad).

Yeah, logic is the key. The thing I like most about those sociologists is their general mode of analysis; I also like Durkheim for that (and I like his writing style too). I used to think Marxism, because of its emphasis on being "scientific" and analysing things in a dialectical manner, was the only sociological trend whose mode of analysis I would find sufficiently comprehensive and relations-based, but some of the material coming from the "right" has been a pleasant surprise.

I don't know; to quote Shakira, I wanna try everything, but I think I'm going to go a bit more mainstream first (and anything involving large, permanent states gives me the creeps right now). Balance is certainly important within capitalism - I just don't think such a degree of state direction of the economy can really achieve it. I don't have a problem with greed as long as it doesn't upset the balance.

I think France is like Portugal; further left in rhetoric than reality. The kind of signature Latin "hot-bloodedness" in France, to pay a bit of homage to Weber's culture-invoking, seems to manifest itself as what looks like liberal-revolutionary fervour and "we the people" rhetoric, but in practice it is no more socialist than any other European state.

 

Oh brother.

You have GOT to get your head out of such books as they basically are worthless those being specific to having a descriptive transfer of thought from the author to the reader because the two people will ALWAYS have different states of perspective as well as completely different capabilities of thought and understanding as wee even more the completely alternate truths each person has or obtains and in such things truths being so subjective unto themseves have very little to ZERO value and this is why such considerations of various ideologies is best left to us with EXPERIENCE!!

Now I want you and the membership to know I consider not what but the manner in which I just wrote the above to be the single bggest pile of S#!# I EVER wrote!!

WHAT I said is factual and valid and it is NOT based upon opinion.

But what I wrote is an example of POOR COMMUNICATION!!!

AA

 

*will reply to everyone tomorrow; it's really late and I need to get offline*