Global Warming? are humans to blame?

They are only polluted from the neck up.

 

I find this typically capitalist "differentiation" between socialism and marxism, rather interesting.

What makes you think that socialism is NOT Marxism...?

And, as someone who is full on communist (that'll be me, thank you very much), I am also baffled with this phrase "Marxism".

What the hell is that...? What exactly IS "Marxism"? I'd love to hear some explanation for the phrase. In my opinion is just as horribly wrong as "Darwinism".

Neither man has discovered anything radically different from the knowledge at hand in their time.

 

All Marxism is more or less socialist, but all socialism if not Marxist. If you are indeed a 'full on communist,' instead of simply calling yourself one for shock value and the consternation it may cause, you already know that.

Socialism is an economic system. Marxism is an economic theory, a sociological theory, a materialistic reinterpretation of history, and an anti-capitalism dogma -- all wrapped up into one wooly-headed world viewpoint, that seems to emphasize resentment towards anyone who has more money, goods or property than the average person.

 

Close, but wrong.

Marx' has submitted socio-economic theory that views the world from a dialectic perspective. It is a subject to change and evolution as people and technology progress.

It is not a "materialistic re-interpretation of history" because there is no such thing. Marx' theory is based on factual past. From gathering and hunting for the food, to modern industrial production of food, clothing and products for general consumption.

His only fault is that he came to conclusion that capitalism is not the end of the line in development of society and economy, which is something no capitalist wants to hear.

And he was right. No type of society lasts forever, and every society changes with time.

When some people become so rich that the rest of us wil live off their crumbs, as is already the case in capitalism (in usa 5% of people posess 95% of all the money, and the situation is similar in other capitalist countries), it is inevitable that the masses of hungry a nd poor will rebel.

It happened in every epoch, and to every society. Capitalism is just another oppressive regime that will run its' course and end in the same way it came: it will be overthrown by a revolution of the fed up.

Marx then made some predictions, just as every scientist does when they come up with some theory, how this may end.

Unlike Adams' gobbledegok about economy, which has been proven gazzilion times to be wrong, Marx had left us a couple of predictions that have turned into a reality in our times. And since his work was highly theoretical, it is subject to peer review, scientific criticism and change until proven right or wrong.

So far, he's doing just fine, and his is the only theory still around. And being confirmed by every day that goes by.

Instead of blind hatred, if you look at it, you will see many familiar elements which capitalists took and claim for theirs: like reduction of government's control (there's no wrong winger in the world that does not complain about governments having too much control in capitalism), elimination of money as a commercial tender (capitalists invented the credit and eftpos cards, not "Marxists"), freedom of individuals rather than mere" democracy" (capitalists defined democracy as two wolfs and one lamb deciding what's for lunch - "Democracy is not freedom.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb
voting on what to eat for lunch.
Freedom comes from the recognition of
certain rights which may not be taken,
not even by a 99% vote."
Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights", Los Angeles Times,
12 January 1992 - pure "Marxism" this statement ), anti-monopoly and diverse (competitive in capitalist version) market place is coming straight from "Marxism".

Where the capitalist brainwas comes in play is that "commies" want to steal "your" money and posessions and redistribute it to the poor.

Firstly you are NOT rich, so you would stand to BENEFIT from such a distribution. Secondly, Marx also gave us the context of such distribution: once the 5% usurp everything and leave the rest of 95% without everything, including jobs. Then, and only then, the 95% will demand more equal distribution of wealth.

For example, in socialist Yugoslavia, every citizen was entitled to 20 hectares of land. It was deemed to be your birth right to own the land and be independent (as in FREE) from being forced to buy the food from others. If you wanted it, it was yours for free.

I have 10 ha and I had to buy every square cm of it.

That is the difference.

So, while I am hapy that some people prefer to regurgitate the capitalist propaganda about "evil communism" to the undeucated and brainwashed lambs, the science teaches us that the progress is inevitable and unstoppable.

As we know from experience with capitalism and capitalist "democracy", not every progress is good. In feudalism, our grandfathers had to work only 3 months in a year to maintain the family.

That is because in the end it depends on the people themselves to choose the right (peaceful, respectful, constructive) or wrong (agressive, confrontational) path, regardless of the name they give it. Hitler and Mussolini called themselves (national-)socialists, yet the first people they started killing were socialists and communists, not jews or capitalists.

Science is not dogma and a brainwash. Religion (includes politics) is.

 

anyone have their mind changed?

 

I just did a quick search on Yogoslavia.
Land area ~ 102,350 km2
Population ~ 11.2 million

That works out to .91 hectares per person.If someone has 20 ha, they must be evil, rich, land barons!

So when are you going to divide it up with people that own NO land, or only 1 ha? After all, that would only be fair, right?

The only difference I see is that you seem to be promoting one way of life but live another.

And people aren't science either. The inherent flaw with all centralized systems is that all it takes is few successfully corrupt leaders to poison and bring the whole thing crashing down.
And history demonstrates conclusively that such an occurrence is inevitable too. People are just lazy and want the good life handed to them on a platter and have consistently supported those that claim they will do just that. Of course the people always end up screwed, but the first few generations get a free ride so what the heck.

Ultimately I don't care how you want to live, or the people in California for that matter. Just allow me to choose how I want to live my life.

 

woolly-headed ?

 

A communist is a socialist in a hurry.

 

What's so woolly-headed about noticing that the "free land for all" offer by the Yugoslav government was just another Big Lie by Big Government? There is no way each citizen of Y. could have gotten 20 ha of land. Even if you consider only adult males to be eligible for the "gift", which would have been most likely the case.

I suspect that had everyone taken up the offer, once the decent land was all assigned, a new "evil" type of person would have been created, someone asking for land that they didn't need. Just evil, greedy people taking away from the "truly" needy.

There are also people to whom owning 10 ha of land would fall into the realm of being "rich". So, I wondered how someone with masrapido's ideology could justify, to themselves, owning so much land while so many others do without.

Anyway, like global warming, this is just another one of those topics where you believe in one thing or the other and nothing is really going to change minds, so I'm outta this one.

 

When masrapido calls Karl Marx a "scientist," that pretty much puts an end to the discussion right there. There's simply no adequate rejoinder to such a preposterous statement....

But everyone has to believe in something, I suppose. I believe I'll go have a beer.

 

now there's an idear, time to hit the pub while I wait to see if Elicia can make dinner at the aquarium or not.

 

Hi Boston, & Troy,
You folk seem to be endowed with common sense and a voice of reason...

May I ask what is the current state of play on the Climate change issue...

Greenpeace audio today was on about their Arctic research vessel expressing concern at the rapidity of the melt of sea ice there... (I assumed it was current as I missed any inference or discussion relating to the date/year).

The discussion seemed to be expressing concerns as to the early melt - which to me means global warming, as the oceans of the world are what most influences climate change...

I keep an eye on the sea surface temperatures in the equatorial region around PNG as that is my preferred cruising ground... (A worsening GEC may facilitate my travels to that region)... and the temperatures seem to be on the rise and the warm waters area is expanding...

 

The arctic melt has been such that new shipping routes are opened.

http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110902/ew110902b.html

Tankers from Moermansk can now enter the Pacific through northern passage at the coast of Siberia.

The record of 2007 of arctic melt will be broken this year.

 

Good for commerce!

 

All world harbours gone when sea level rises 6 metres after greenland landice melts...

Bad for commerce

Source wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet