PDA

View Full Version : I own 4 of the most Dangerous books of the 19th and 20th centuries



wheelchairman
06-02-2005, 11:18 AM
Ah Conservatives, in there life-long quest to prevent people from educating themselves, about anything, are now making lists of books that are purely evil.

And obviously this list must be spread around. Cuz I don't want none of you doing evil. Disgusting liberal bastards, y'all.

Anyways, I'm impressed.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
I own 4 from the top 10, and 2 from the Honorable mentions, but they all look like good reads.

JohnnyNemesis
06-02-2005, 11:25 AM
I'm reading the list now, and I must say that these descriptions are absolutely hilarious.


The Nazis loved Nietzsche.
The way that senetence right there was crafted...I found that particularly amusing.

Endymion
06-02-2005, 11:39 AM
i've only got one, and it's from the honorable mentions. the origin of species.

"harmful" education has to be the most idiotic phrase ever.

ermdevi@tion
06-02-2005, 12:04 PM
D'oh. 3 evil books in my collection. And 2 honourbale mentions. Guess I'm straight off to hell, right? :rolleyes:

Conservatives make me chuckle.

Little_Miss_1565
06-02-2005, 02:57 PM
Mmm...I love it when lists like these come out. It makes my birthday/Christmas wish lists so much easier to make!

Vera
06-02-2005, 03:05 PM
I thought America was BUILT on thoughts of Mill in his book "On Liberty", how can they consider it harmful?

Vera
06-02-2005, 03:15 PM
And where's Harry Potter?

death from above
06-02-2005, 03:16 PM
oh potheads not here right now

death from above
06-02-2005, 03:16 PM
but he told me he would be back later

0r4ng3
06-02-2005, 03:17 PM
I don't own any of those books. I don't own books, unless you count comic books. I'm such a retard, aren't I?

SkunkIt
06-02-2005, 03:56 PM
Wow! Most of those books look like ones i'd actually read and not fall asleep to, unlike those boring books I had to read in school, like Lord of the Flies and whatever other boring crap I had to read.

Little_Miss_1565
06-02-2005, 08:03 PM
Wow! Most of those books look like ones i'd actually read and not fall asleep to, unlike those boring books I had to read in school, like Lord of the Flies and whatever other boring crap I had to read.

What in fuck's name, may I ask, is boring about a bunch of pre-teen boys going batshit insane and dashing kids' heads open with rocks?

Not to mention decapitated pig's heads on sticks that talk and tell you to do bad things! How is this boring?

nieh
06-02-2005, 09:16 PM
And where's Harry Potter?

Are there any works of fiction on there? There's no Catcher in the Rye or anything like that either.

Sin Studly
06-03-2005, 12:06 AM
SkunkIt, Lord of the Flies is a hundred times more interesting than anything on that list. Have you ever tried to read Mein Kampf? Or Origin of Species? It's like wading through concrete.

Endymion
06-03-2005, 12:14 AM
atlas shrugged is a worse read, yet for some reason i've done it thrice.

Vera
06-03-2005, 03:30 AM
Are there any works of fiction on there? There's no Catcher in the Rye or anything like that either.
Ahh, point.

I just browsed it quickly and only now stopped to read the descriptions properly.

RXP
06-03-2005, 03:37 AM
I dunno some knowledge is harmful i.e. creating chemical weapons, nuclear bombs, learning about poisons, suicide methods etc.

Sin Studly
06-03-2005, 04:47 AM
Learning about suicide methods? You want even more people to fuck it up, put a bullet through the wrong nodes and drain taxpayers dollars vegetating in hospital for thirty years?

RXP
06-03-2005, 06:33 AM
Oh yeah I totally agree about suicide methods. I am just conforming to the mass opinion for sake of argument.

I believe suicide methods should be out there so people don't end up worse off than before. Groups like ASH are a good thing.

Vera
06-03-2005, 06:52 AM
Er, those books aren't about making bombs and shit. They're about communism and feminism and sexuality and politics.

phoenix
06-03-2005, 07:09 AM
they are "dangerous" i suppose to an extent,im sure theres a bunch of stuff thats been missed out....wouldnt know what though...i own 3
lord of the flies was....mmmm no i didnt like it

Noodles is gay
06-03-2005, 08:16 AM
Damn, I only own one of those books - lovely Nietzsche. :D


What in fuck's name, may I ask, is boring about a bunch of pre-teen boys going batshit insane and dashing kids' heads open with rocks?

Not to mention decapitated pig's heads on sticks that talk and tell you to do bad things! How is this boring?

I think it depends how you read it - if you have some old hag making you analyse every single line several times then it gets kind of tedious. But it's a good book, nonetheless.

Little_Miss_1565
06-03-2005, 08:51 AM
I think it depends how you read it - if you have some old hag making you analyse every single line several times then it gets kind of tedious. But it's a good book, nonetheless.

God forbid someone makes you think about literature. :rolleyes:

I don't agree that what's-his-nuts is a Christ figure, but I let my teacher go on and on and on about it, meanwhile I kept paying attention to the pig's head on a stick. No one is at his or her teacher's mercy if you can analyze what you want and back it up with enough theory, etc. that your teacher can't fault you for it.

Noodles is gay
06-03-2005, 09:31 AM
no, I don't mind the literature part but my teacher was extremely boring - she went on and on and on and on about each line during lessons, I didn't mind doing essays etc on it because it was cool book, but the lessons! ARGHG!!

Yeah I thought that christ-figure stuff was looking too deep and I think he was an example but that was it or something....I think his name was Simon..?

notoriousdoc
06-03-2005, 09:49 AM
no, I don't mind the literature part but my teacher was extremely boring - she went on and on and on and on about each line during lessons, I didn't mind doing essays etc on it because it was cool book, but the lessons! ARGHG!!

Yeah I thought that christ-figure stuff was looking too deep and I think he was an example but that was it or something....I think his name was Simon..?

Hey Jen :D :D :D

Mota Boy
06-03-2005, 09:49 AM
Alright, it's time for this thread to have a surprising plot twist - I'm actually siding with the conservatives just a little bit.

Hey, hey, put down those rocks - I said "just a little bit".

Only regarding a few books - specifically the ones related to communism, Mein Kampf and The Origin of Species. "Dangerous" is a hideous adjective to be ascribed to literature, personally I'd go with "deadly". To me, "dangerous" implies that the books (and the ideas contained within) still pose a threat and should be hidden away. "Deadly" describes the history of the ideas and the damage they've caused.

Communism and fascism killed tens of millions of people, both domestically and in international conflicts, over the 20th century. Stalin and Mao's attempted enforcement of what are, in my opinion, flawed ideologies (or, possibly, flawed implementations of ideologies) resulted in the deaths of more people than any war. The Origin of Species I add not because of its challenges to organized religion, but because of social darwinism, which led to the practice of eugenics, the ultimate result being the Holocaust.

I'd also add the Bible and Qu'ran and The Turner Diaries (a book highly influential to one Timothy McVeigh). There are almost certainly others, but this is just off the top of my head. Not that I want to ban such books, obviously, but I do think that books and ideas can be categorized as "dangerous", even though the implications and rhetoric surrounding it is silly.

nieh
06-03-2005, 04:59 PM
Ahh, point.

I just browsed it quickly and only now stopped to read the descriptions properly.

Yeah, I expected there to be a lot more fiction books on there, but it's all politics and science and stuff like that.

Not Ozymandias
06-03-2005, 08:25 PM
I only own the first 2 and only read the first, so I'm as dangerous as Alan Alda.

Did anyone else laugh at the phrase "conservative scholars"?

JohnnyNemesis
06-03-2005, 09:14 PM
Did anyone else laugh at the phrase "conservative scholars"?

*raises hand* I did.

ermdevi@tion
06-04-2005, 04:48 PM
I think I laughed most at:


He (Marx) could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

wheelchairman
06-05-2005, 10:46 AM
Communism and fascism killed tens of millions of people, both domestically and in international conflicts, over the 20th century. Stalin and Mao's attempted enforcement of what are, in my opinion, flawed ideologies (or, possibly, flawed implementations of ideologies) resulted in the deaths of more people than any war. The Origin of Species I add not because of its challenges to organized religion, but because of social darwinism, which led to the practice of eugenics, the ultimate result being the Holocaust.

The same arguments can be used about conservative thinkers who've had people who called themselves 'conservative' butcher millions of people as well, but we don't see Edmond Burke's works anywhere on there. And Marx never had political power. Although I see your point as to why Mao would be on there. But then you'd think that the lunatic from Jonestown wouldn't be there, you know, the guy who killed 93% of the population of his little town.

Or why several other authors had been added. It's a ridiculous list, even with Mao's and Hitler's works on there. (Since reading them, couldn't possibly hurt you.)

RXP
06-05-2005, 12:06 PM
Might as well add the classical jursprudence of Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith on there too. Cause it was theirs who deified private property which is the reason why we have our whole power base as it is now.

wheelchairman
06-05-2005, 12:15 PM
Might as well add the classical jursprudence of Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith on there too. Cause it was theirs who deified private property which is the reason why we have our whole power base as it is now.
:D
If you truly read upon your Marxism, you'd know why no marxist would put them on a 'dangerous' book list. Although, it's unlikely we'd make a dangerous book list.

RXP
06-05-2005, 01:02 PM
I dunno why actually. I'll take the UK for an example cause I know about c. 18th history. The classic writers as mentioned before kept banging on about how private property is divine will. How the state is nothing but the recognition of private proprety. These trends meant the upcoming industrilaists and landed gentry had an excuse to pass such draconian legislation like the enclsoure acts (privatising communal grazing grounds) and the bloody code (death sentence of property offences).

If a marxist would't say those are truly dangerous ideas I dunno why. Marxists like E.P Thompson, Douglas Hay and Bob Fine would say that Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith's jursprudence/political theory was very dangerous.

SkunkIt
06-06-2005, 12:04 PM
What in fuck's name, may I ask, is boring about a bunch of pre-teen boys going batshit insane and dashing kids' heads open with rocks?

Not to mention decapitated pig's heads on sticks that talk and tell you to do bad things! How is this boring?Seemed boring to me, but I thought the rock thing was pretty funny, but that's about it. I prefer real stories to fantasy, excluding mystical creatures and some demon stories.




SkunkIt, Lord of the Flies is a hundred times more interesting than anything on that list. Have you ever tried to read Mein Kampf? Or Origin of Species? It's like wading through concrete.
Once again, I prefer real stories to fantasy, excluding mystical creatures and some demon stories.

wheelchairman
06-06-2005, 03:25 PM
I dunno why actually. I'll take the UK for an example cause I know about c. 18th history. The classic writers as mentioned before kept banging on about how private property is divine will. How the state is nothing but the recognition of private proprety. These trends meant the upcoming industrilaists and landed gentry had an excuse to pass such draconian legislation like the enclsoure acts (privatising communal grazing grounds) and the bloody code (death sentence of property offences).

If a marxist would't say those are truly dangerous ideas I dunno why. Marxists like E.P Thompson, Douglas Hay and Bob Fine would say that Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith's jursprudence/political theory was very dangerous.
Because Marxists would say that these jurists, for their time, were the ideological representatives of the most progressive forces of society at the time. The same thing we say about the revolutions of the US and France, despite their completely non-Marxist attitudes, the same we say about Smithian economics, liberalism, and all that.

Mota Boy
06-06-2005, 03:56 PM
Because Marxists would say that these jurists, for their time, were the ideological representatives of the most progressive forces of society at the time.
Oooooh! I knew that! I knew that!

I'd give an actual response, but it's quittin' time. Until eventually.

RXP
06-06-2005, 04:09 PM
Because Marxists would say that these jurists, for their time, were the ideological representatives of the most progressive forces of society at the time. .


Oh I see meaning that it's a stepping stone in the eventual utopia.

What I termed "utopian fetishism" in that essay I sent to you :-)

Mota Boy
06-06-2005, 10:56 PM
WCM - C'mon, you know that Stalin carried out his great leap forward based upon Marxist ideals, right? That the "modernization" of crop production he attempted to enforce directly killed millions, right? I'm not counting the gulags, just the attempt at land reform. I also won't deny that many people have died in capitalist economies, but, first of all, no mass deaths can be directly linked to the idea of capitalism (note that I don't blame Marx for the murders, just people carrying out his ideas), and secondly, capitalism was better than what proceded it. Again, I don't blame Marx for the U.S.S.R. any more or less than I blame Darwin for eugenics (which saw many physically and mentally retarded people gassed in the United States in an effort to promote health for the overall population. I don't wish to debate the merits of the idea of communism, just the reality of its enforcement - as recently as... 1998? two million people died of famine in North Korea. This is more clearly linked to either fundamentally flawed or poorly-practiced (for the sake of argument I'll say again that this is poorly-practiced communism) communism than any sort of righ-wing dictator has ever killed his population through merely capitalist practices.



Might as well add the classical jursprudence of Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith on there too. Cause it was theirs who deified private property which is the reason why we have our whole power base as it is now.
Now Dush, I really hope that you aren't serious in those statements. As WCM alluded, you *are* aware of the ideas of property that existed prior to Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith, right? You are aware that, prior to prive property, the world was not a utopian state, correct? You do know about feudalism?

During that time, people didn't own their own land - the king did. The king charged them exorbitant taxes and punished them if they tried to leave - in Eastern Europe it was common practice to nail wandering serfs to a board by the ear to teach them to stay on the king's soil. Everything belonged to the king, there was no private ownership except that of the lords. What a glorious time! It's really too bad nastly ol' Hobbes and the like had to come along and promote the idea of individual ownership.

RXP
06-07-2005, 02:41 AM
In my best surfer accent..... duuuude of course I know that. I did feudalism when I was 12!

It's extremely hard to explain to someone who has no idea about english history. Basically re read my post again. In the 18th century custom became crime, the enclsoure acts made private public property all in the name of the upcoming industralists. There was indeed no utopia but the jurisprudence of authors stated earlier HELPED legitmize the rulling elites ends.

Akin to 'social darwinism' leading to freedom of contract in the supreme court and extreme inequalities in bargaining power hence injustices. That's the best analogy I can give you to make you understand.

I'm not saying Hobbes, Rossaneu and Smith MADE private property merely gave an excuse for the elites to take away communal grounds, crimilize customs enjoyed since time immorial and generally stamp their authority like the crown had previous.

Edit: and why exactly that is dangerous is because it allowed the proprieted to put their stamp on the law. In England the industrial revoultion was ushered in by progressive change in centuries past. The whole power base of the world (well westerb, but now even China) is based on this English concepts. I remember having a debate with Sic where he woudln't accept that the U.S legal system followed Englands (until he found out I was right!). Therfore the US legal system is a huge reason why the US is the superpower it is now. And if you believe in the "oh the US are evil" it can all be traced back to Hobbes, Rossaenu and Smith. There ideas changed traditional natural law ideas where equality was a bigger concern into a more selfish system.

Of course now days it's been mitigated by social welfare, and Mota (what's your name btw, I feel uneasy about peopel using my name without me knowing theirs!) you should know from all my posts how I don't think the US is some evil empire. so in reality I don't think the authors I mentioned wrote 'dangerou's books.

I was only saying htat for the sake of argument.

Cause IMHO that list is bullh sit. Einstein's 3 papers from 1905-1930(?) are clearly the most dangerous, anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant. His theories lead to E=mc2, leading to the automic bomb. His first lead to ideas of quantum mechanics which still could hold dire consequences for our entire universe.

(I bet I spelt Rossaenu 3 different times, 3 different ways in that post).

Endymion
06-07-2005, 03:14 AM
Cause IMHO that list is bullh sit. Einstein's 3 papers from 1905-1930(?) are clearly the most dangerous, anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant. His theories lead to E=mc2, leading to the automic bomb. His first lead to ideas of quantum mechanics which still could hold dire consequences for our entire universe.
he wrote five papers in 1905, the first was on the photoelectric effect which was a slap in the face to those who liked thinking of light as a wave. second was his phd thesis on the size of atoms. third was about brownian motion, fourth was special relativity and the last was e=mc^2.

RXP
06-07-2005, 03:28 AM
I never knew that was in one year omfg. The first one basically started the quantum revoultion. And his last paper was the basis that energy and mass are intertwined and can be converted which started peopel thinking about nucelar bombs. How many millions did it claim in Japan? How many millions more will it claim despite keeping the world safe?

That's the most dangerous idea and that is truly dangerous knowledge. Even Einstein himself said so. And I think even I would bow to his superior intellect.

Marx's theories, Hitler's facism and bull shit feminism (why is that even on the list?) pale in comparason to Einstein's ideas.

And particle accelerators, some misguided judge sitting on the supreme court wrote a book on how dangerous they were. It was kinda stupid for a judge to attempt to write a book about physics tho. And it showed.

RXP
06-07-2005, 04:15 AM
Here's a good quote from a book I'm just reading

"liberty, equality and the wealth of nations - all these were linked with the emancipation of private property"

i.e. it started off as a revoulatioanry idea from the old order but ended up something far different. Similar to Marxism ending up as Stalin's depostism. Good intentions leading to bad consequences because of ideological abuse.

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 06:25 AM
WCM - C'mon, you know that Stalin carried out his great leap forward based upon Marxist ideals, right? That the "modernization" of crop production he attempted to enforce directly killed millions, right? I'm not counting the gulags, just the attempt at land reform. I also won't deny that many people have died in capitalist economies, but, first of all, no mass deaths can be directly linked to the idea of capitalism (note that I don't blame Marx for the murders, just people carrying out his ideas), and secondly, capitalism was better than what proceded it. Again, I don't blame Marx for the U.S.S.R. any more or less than I blame Darwin for eugenics (which saw many physically and mentally retarded people gassed in the United States in an effort to promote health for the overall population. I don't wish to debate the merits of the idea of communism, just the reality of its enforcement - as recently as... 1998? two million people died of famine in North Korea. This is more clearly linked to either fundamentally flawed or poorly-practiced (for the sake of argument I'll say again that this is poorly-practiced communism) communism than any sort of righ-wing dictator has ever killed his population through merely capitalist practices.


The reason these deaths by Stalin are associated with Communism (unfairly might I add) is because the western press is very good at it's job at propaganda. The same reason why the deaths caused by capitalism are ignored (I guess I don't need to point out that every starving child, homeless person, etc. will die because of capitalism, and at this point you probably don't care either, however, for example, do you know what happened to the British Handloom weavers when large 'automatic looms' were set into place, which could do the work of 20 weavers? They mostly starved in the streets because they couldn't find any other form of employment. That's really quite the same as forced collectivization is it not?

As for Stalin's collectivization. That was *not* a communist idea, forced collectivization is something we had never supported (only the retarded "Stalinist"-kids of today would support that, because they can't find any fault in the guy.) Marx, Engels, Lenin, all clearly wrote that collective farms should compete in direct competitition with individual farms (obviously Marx, Engels, Lenin, thought the collective farms would outproduce very clearly the individual farms.)

And this really can't be used as an idea connected to the implementation of communism. With the exception of NK, there are no forced collectivization, (except in Russia, where the collective-farmers don't want to leave). There are no Gulags. And honestly, I wouldn't trust what anyone says about the DPRK, even less about the millions of deaths caused by famines, because it is such a closed nation. Although, have you read the National Lawyers Guild report? (the American NLG went as a delegation to North Korea in 2003, and their observations show that conditions aren't nearly as bad as the western media makes it out to be.) Either way, DPRK has distanced itself from Marxism-Leninism, by claiming to be above and beyond that ideology. They practice "Juche-thought."

And as a side note, Stalin never had a 'Great Leap Forward', that was Mao. And if you try to call China a communist nation, I'll laugh.

Mota Boy
06-07-2005, 03:01 PM
I didn't want this to go so much into communism v. capitalism, but I shouldn't've expected to say that Marx's ideas more or less killed nearly a hundred million people and expect you to say "Yeah, that sounds about right.".


The same reason why the deaths caused by capitalism are ignored (I guess I don't need to point out that every starving child, homeless person, etc. will die because of capitalism, and at this point you probably don't care either, however, for example, do you know what happened to the British Handloom weavers when large 'automatic looms' were set into place, which could do the work of 20 weavers? They mostly starved in the streets because they couldn't find any other form of employment. That's really quite the same as forced collectivization is it not?
Well, I'd be hard-pressed to put a homeless person dying of pnuemonia at the age of fifty in the same category as peasants starving in their thirties. Yes, children starve in this country, but I can't dig up numbers on it. I'm willing to bet it pails in comparison to the tens of millions that died from starvation in Russia and China.

What you're talking about is new technology. The cotton gin, McCormick reaper and automatic loom were all technological advances independent of ideology. As I said earlier, if society weren't capitalist at that time, the technology would've come of age in a feudalist society, and I'm sure conditions would've been significantly worse. You'll have a better argument if you point to mercantalism, though the state-run monopolies that did most of the exploiting were hardly capitalist in design. (I'll just sidestep the argument for capitalist-driven modernization for now.)


As for Stalin's collectivization. That was *not* a communist idea,

Marx, Engels, Lenin, all clearly wrote that collective farms should compete in direct competitition with individual farms
But that's my point. It was Stalin's misguided enthusiasm for communism that ended up creating the famines. Even though he was perveting Marx's ideas like social darwinism perverted Darwin's, people still died as a result of attempts to implement them. A whole lotta people.


And honestly, I wouldn't trust what anyone says about the DPRK, even less about the millions of deaths caused by famines, because it is such a closed nation.
Their need to import tons of free food speaks for itself, methinks. South Korea, a much less minerally rich nation, kicks NK's ass in any terms of measurable economic might or stardard of living.


And as a side note, Stalin never had a 'Great Leap Forward', that was Mao. And if you try to call China a communist nation, I'll laugh.
Yeah... make that "five year plan". My bad.


Mota (what's your name btw, I feel uneasy about peopel using my name without me knowing theirs!)
Mota


There ideas changed traditional natural law ideas where equality was a bigger concern into a more selfish system.
I'm trying and failing to think of a time between feudalism and capitalism where this utopian ideal of equality reined, Marx's idealistic image of fishing for a half a day and herding for the other notwithstanding. (though I admit I haven't studied European history in detail since tenth grade). Also, I'm completely ignoring the "greed is good" argument, which can be argued a helluvalot better than through Ayn Rand's idiotic attempts.

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 03:31 PM
Well, I'd be hard-pressed to put a homeless person dying of pnuemonia at the age of fifty in the same category as peasants starving in their thirties. Yes, children starve in this country, but I can't dig up numbers on it. I'm willing to bet it pails in comparison to the tens of millions that died from starvation in Russia and China.
Again there is the historical context. You are talking about modern day capitalism (as in the US today) while referring to the USSR of the 30's (at the peak of the American depression...) It wouldn't be so far off.

Besides, I believe most of the sources from the Russian archives state that it is between 1 million and 5 million who died under Stalin's reign (of 30 years). Now if you want to calculate in the casualties of WW2 be my guest, but that seems kinda ridiculous.

Anyways, as stated, forced collectivization was never a communist idea. Nor did Stalin claim it was. He did it for pragmatic reasons (obviously, Nazi-Germany right next door, he probably wanted to push the process through faster.)


What you're talking about is new technology. The cotton gin, McCormick reaper and automatic loom were all technological advances independent of ideology. As I said earlier, if society weren't capitalist at that time, the technology would've come of age in a feudalist society, and I'm sure conditions would've been significantly worse. You'll have a better argument if you point to mercantalism, though the state-run monopolies that did most of the exploiting were hardly capitalist in design. (I'll just sidestep the argument for capitalist-driven modernization for now.)
The difference is, under a planned economy, when people's jobs were obsolete, they were re-educated and relocated. Under capitalism they tended to starve. The process is still happening in a way, with the outsourcing of jobs from the IT sector etc. etc. Modern US economists are claiming that more jobs will open up for these people (ten years ago, IT *was* the new jobs.) etc. No it's not to the same extent as under Stalin, but then again there are numerous actions of the US in the past that can equal abuses under Stalin.

What it comes down to, is that you focus on the crimes of Stalin, and associate it with all of the Socialist states. Hoxha didn't have the same problems as Stalin, despite being the staunchest Stalinist ass around, he brought Albania to a nearly-self-sufficient level. (Yes, the same country, that 12 years ago went bankrupt due to pyramid schemes.)

Then we can go to Vietnam, which is a multi-party socialist state. Cuba a no-party state in which only various organizations run for parliament. Venezuela has just had a referendum to keep Chavez in power no crimes in his name. Then there is the mafia/Russian puppet Smirnoff in Transnistria, who hasn't done much collectivization either. Laos, Mongolia, Moldavia, it's all really the same story. We can go into the former Eastern Block, although I dislike calling them socialist since it was brought to them by the social-imperial guns of the USSR (and yes, I do separate different periods of socialist history, and I certainly don't uphold Stalin either.)

hmm I went off on a tangent there. Alright, moving on.




Their need to import tons of free food speaks for itself, methinks. South Korea, a much less minerally rich nation, kicks NK's ass in any terms of measurable economic might or stardard of living.
That is way too simplistic.
1. South Korea has had an arse-load of foreign help throughout it's existence.
2. North Korea did fine until the fall of the Soviet Union when it no longer had any trade partners that could sustain what it was trading before earlier.
3. South Korea did in the early 80's, a move that is no longer possible for countries to do. That was to develop, very quickly, an effective IT sector.

Although, if you think NK is truly that bad. I implore you to find a South Korean to talk to. I met one in France (this girl was no fan of NK, so I consider it to be rather reliable.) The North Korean immigrants in South Korea, wish they were back in North Korea.

If I were crazy, I'd tell you that the fact that they 'import free food' was a capitalist lie to dirty the name of North Korea. And that it's all lies. But I ask you, to look at it, a little more analytically. Why is that all the 'enemies' of North Korea, are giving it free food? This nation that we all hate so much. Are we giving this creepy little dictator in Pyongyang tons of food from the goodness of our heart? (anyone who says that, is automatically ignored.)

I don't normally defend North Korea (among communist circles), and North Korea, does distance itself from Marxism (as I said, they are all for that Juche Thought stuff. Have you seen Team America? The research was actually quite well done. You can see a lot of symbols unique to Juche and Pyongyang. The Juche tower. The Chisel, hammer, and paint brush (I think) and other stuff. I'd recommend going to a local KFA chapter (if you can find one) near where you live. They tend to sell Juche books rather cheaply (the people here in Denmark at least, seemed pretty desperate.) (KFA = Korean Friendship Association).

Anyways, sorry for the lengthiness of this post.

RXP
06-07-2005, 04:12 PM
I'm trying and failing to think of a time between feudalism and capitalism where this utopian ideal of equality reined

You are mistaking fact with projection or theory. (Christian) natural law permitted a man to seal when he was hungry. Modern jurisprudence held that property rights were more important. Thus it was more equal before. And I don't need to tell you marx never believed in *equality* in teh true sense. Natural law is more biblical and moral than positivism.

PS the fishing thing is so gay.

There was NO utopia. But there was an age of communal farms, customs of taking from the land whatever one needed. These were erased by capitalism in the name of the theorists I've cited before all for the ushuring in of the revoultion.

This is historical fact not Marxist interpretation. There's been plenty written on it and even the conservative/whig historians don't refute this because it's just plain fact and has little to do with interpretation. I can't stress enough the powerful obtained their power illegitamly in England. I guess it's akin to the manfiest destiny of the yankees stealing Indian land.

RXP
06-07-2005, 04:19 PM
Re: N. Korea

I don't get WCM about N. Korea. It's an awful regieme. It doesn't permit its people to speak. I've read your posts. I've swung myself far more to the left than I've ever been but I simply can't get your constant defence of N.Korea.

And Mota if we're talking about implementing idelogies going wrong my argument that private property leading to the whole power base of society now stands. It kills MILLIONS of people in the 3rd world and it's the reason why we're so far industralised which is pumping shit into our atmosphere which will truly have catastrophic consequences.

wheelchairman
06-07-2005, 04:42 PM
I thought I made it clear I dislike North Korea? I'm just playing devil's advocate. The same way I'm defending Stalin.

killboypwrheadjx
06-07-2005, 05:53 PM
I think I laughed most at:



Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
you laugh...i shudder

Betty
06-07-2005, 08:43 PM
it's the reason why we're so far industralised which is pumping shit into our atmosphere which will truly have catastrophic consequences.

Would you rather be not industrialized?

RXP
06-08-2005, 03:46 AM
Despite being a geek I'm an anti-technoglist. The world would be alot better without industry. I mean because of it, it's literally gonna be end of days. I mean literally. There's no cost benefit when the cost is climate change that will wipe humanity off the planet.

And WCM last time you were talking about N. Korea having no food issues since they have plenty of rice!

wheelchairman
06-08-2005, 05:30 AM
And WCM last time you were talking about N. Korea having no food issues since they have plenty of rice!
Jesus, they get like a kilo of rice a month or something, a kilo!

And RXP, you sound like a Primitivo-Anarchist. John Zerzan, the leader of that movement lived in the city I grew up in. You should probably try and find some of his works online, I don't agree with him, and you probably won't either, but still interesting nonetheless.

RXP
06-08-2005, 02:53 PM
I'll add him to my list for my dissertation reading.

Jesus
06-08-2005, 03:48 PM
I dunno why actually. I'll take the UK for an example cause I know about c. 18th history. The classic writers as mentioned before kept banging on about how private property is divine will. How the state is nothing but the recognition of private proprety. These trends meant the upcoming industrilaists and landed gentry had an excuse to pass such draconian legislation like the enclsoure acts (privatising communal grazing grounds) and the bloody code (death sentence of property offences).



You can add Ricardo and Malthus to the "dangerous list too".

God, yes, British history in the 18 and 19th century is so funny in a disgusting way. Like you said the enclosure of communal lands and the driving people of "their land" by force. Cause no person had a right to live anymore, only what he could gain on the "market". Then you get the limitations on the "poor laws" and "corn laws". Ireland exporting food to England during the great famine.
But then booooooom, all of a sudden the people didn't take it anymore. The Chartism movement etc. so the ruling elite realized they had to do something otherwise they would lose power. J.S. Mill's "popped up", he offered exactly what they were looking for. So for the time being the "classic writers" could be put in the fridge since they didn't need them anymore as a justification.

RXP
06-08-2005, 03:53 PM
Hmmm I dunno the reading I did only took me up to the 19th century and from then the classic writers idelogy seemed to be entrenched. Should read into it more.

Also the copy right Nazi's of today (MPAA) are doing what the ruling elites were doing to communal grazing grounds. By holding intelectual property rights in the same esteem as proprietary rights is the same as what went on back then. They are stealing out freedom! We must fight!

RXP
06-08-2005, 04:00 PM
Oh J.S Mill is a utalitrian ala Bentham. Now I see.

RXP
06-08-2005, 04:26 PM
And Maria you need to stop reading victorian england books and write in the standard english of today :-)

Betty
06-08-2005, 09:02 PM
Despite being a geek I'm an anti-technoglist. The world would be alot better without industry. I mean because of it, it's literally gonna be end of days. I mean literally. There's no cost benefit when the cost is climate change that will wipe humanity off the planet.


Sometimes I like the idea of less technology/industrialization because the world would be a beautiful and healthy place, etc. But what gets me is that pretty much goes hand in hand with preventing progress. And I can't imagine a thriving passionate society that avoids making progress. Humans constantly want to learn more, to discover and apply new information, and most new technology is in theory to better our lives, subjectively at least.

RXP
06-09-2005, 03:44 AM
Michelle, you sound like a physicist justifying the ridicolus costs of the new particle accelorators "humans strive for knowledge". No they don't!

Only the elite or a few strive for that knowledge and because usually they are most influential it gets done. You think the oridnary joe cares about technological progress? Sure if it makes his life easier. But ask him 200 yrs ago I'm sure he wouldn't give a damn.

Those who want technoloical advance are few in society.

My view of progress would be hapiness, yours would be technlogocial advance. I think we'd be much happier living a more natural life. But then again it is human nature to an extent. Because humans were bound to discover new things due to the eliete's inquisitive nature.

Betty
06-09-2005, 11:23 PM
I guess maybe I assume that since I feel that way, everybody must. How can you not want progress? Scientific, and thus technological, progress? For the artsies... it would be philosophical progress... understanding the world... etc.

Like (okay I've read far too many books like this)... imagine being thrown onto an uncolonized planet... would you just sit back and do nothing? No. You'd discover things... "Oh, you can make fire from flint" "Oh, you can make pots and pans from copper" "Oh, you can make paper from fibres" "Oh, you can make soap from..." etc, etc, etc. And on it goes until we are where we are today. Does this not seem like a completely natural and necessary progression?

To me it seems like the only way. But then again, maybe it's just because of my goal to devote my life to research.

I think a big part of happiness is productivity, taking pride in what you have accomplished in your lifetime. But maybe that's just me too.

AmieTripodi
06-09-2005, 11:41 PM
People.....the books themselves aren't evil (well.....not all of them). They're not saying that you'll go to hell if you read them. These particular books happened to inspire some evil people. It's not the knowledge by itself that's evil.....it's the misuse of that knowledge certain people did after reading them.

RXP
06-10-2005, 02:17 AM
It's the same with philosophers they argue that humanity strives for knowledge. But they clearly don't, only a few do. To be honest with me I'm so into technology and knowing how things work (inc. the universe) that I want to find out stuff. But I woudln't be so myopic to call that and only that progress. Also I'm not the type of person to speak for the masses. A 3rd world country would call feeding its people progress etc.

Vera
06-10-2005, 07:11 AM
I think one of the reasons humanity, in my opinion, strives for knowledge is so that we can improve lives of ourselves and others. It's true that in today's world, scientific research is sometimes done to benefit only a certain group of people - for example companies that finance the research but there's also research to get rid of such major problems as hunger.

And I think that saying humanity strives for something (knowledge, progress) doesn't mean every single person strives for that thing. I guess it just means that most people support it and believe it to be a good thing and aren't against it in ways that would stop the progress from happening. I don't personally try to find out how to prevent hunger in 3rd world countries but I appreciate that others are doing this and I donate money to charity to help their efforts.

Personally I don't think we can just get rid of the progress that has happened with industry but we can and should try to improve it, make it more environment-friendly etc.

Noodles is gay
06-10-2005, 11:27 AM
yeah! Now I own two of them! I got The Communist Manifesto today - 50p in a charity shop! :D

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 11:42 AM
meh only the first two chapters are worth anything. And no matter what introduction you have, it's bad. Although if you can get through it, and understand the theory used in the statements (it unfortunately, doesn't explain theory, just the products of the theoretical deduction. It can be quite fascinating.)

Noodles is gay
06-10-2005, 11:52 AM
It looks pretty good, and I have a really good book somewhere which has details about lots of philosophers and their theories etc, that should come in handy.

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 11:57 AM
It looks pretty good, and I have a really good book somewhere which has details about lots of philosophers and their theories etc, that should come in handy.
You'd probably get a better understanding of Marxism when reading it straight from the source.

The best ones are if you can get short version of 'The German Ideology' by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, or 'Socialism: Scientific and Utopian' by Friedrich Engels.

Although the manifesto of course, is a good starting point. I believe it lays down the basics of class analysis, class relations, and woman's rights.

Noodles is gay
06-10-2005, 12:01 PM
Awesome, I'll have to check them out; cheers.

I really like Nietzsche - what I've read by him seems pretty cool.

RXP
06-10-2005, 12:05 PM
If you read Marx read direct the other theorists he cites otherwise you'll just dogmatically read him when he meant to naturally flow his ideas.

wheelchairman
06-10-2005, 12:12 PM
Or at least a summary of his points. Or else works like 'On the Jewish Question' might come off as racist.

Nietzche is also very good. But much more understandalby written than Marx as well. But that's because Nietzche wasn't touching as many areas as Marx tried to.

Betty
06-10-2005, 08:58 PM
I think one of the reasons humanity, in my opinion, strives for knowledge is so that we can improve lives of ourselves and others. It's true that in today's world, scientific research is sometimes done to benefit only a certain group of people - for example companies that finance the research but there's also research to get rid of such major problems as hunger.

And I think that saying humanity strives for something (knowledge, progress) doesn't mean every single person strives for that thing. I guess it just means that most people support it and believe it to be a good thing and aren't against it in ways that would stop the progress from happening. I don't personally try to find out how to prevent hunger in 3rd world countries but I appreciate that others are doing this and I donate money to charity to help their efforts.

Personally I don't think we can just get rid of the progress that has happened with industry but we can and should try to improve it, make it more environment-friendly etc.

Exactly... progress does not have to be just scientific or just technological or just knowledge... it's progress in everything... overall as a society. It all goes together.

Also, "improving" current technology is also very much so progress. Once you develop something, then you strive to improve it. And at the point we are at, environmental improvement is a bigger and bigger deal.