Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/10/05 12:34 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

The people were manipulated by a greedy man into believing that the revolution had finally come. It was a power shift to get a man not from the original ruling class in power, but he became the image of everything that was hated in the rich. That is why it was not a communist revolution.

Right. That's not what would happen in any other case, and it's not like his power got to his head or anything.

I think its something worth fighting for, but it will only work if the great majority throw off their mental chains.

According to you: Personal greed = having a higher standard of living than someone
else. And there's never been a socialist government because no one wants to get the
same wages for different kinds of work. Talk about not fair.

EVERY job in society has just as much importance as any other job, though i have less credit for beauracracy and those that manipulate figures. We would need less doctors if we had more cleaners, for example. And less cleaners if we had more doctors.
And you mistakenly refer to Communism, not socialism. Fair enough considering i'm talking about capitalism in a negative light. People should not seek to have better things than their fellow man when it means people die of over work and famine.

Why is having more material goods than someone else so important to you? Why do you need to feel more important than someone else?

It's not. I don't need more, I just want some. I don't care if I had less than anybody else, but I highly doubt that there would be the same kinds of goods in a socialist society.

Everyone wants some. Go tell the people who are starving in africa, or the streets of Brazil that you have these things and are happy with it.

The system makes a hole in the soul, and replaces it with the desire to make yourself look better than others.

Not really. Capitalism plays on the desires of humanity: to better yourself and improve through hard work. Capitalism doesn't create a void in the soul, (though excessive materialism can) it just is the natural state of mankind.

Capitalism exploits mans sense of boredom created by his own intelligence. Boredom is a strong motive force to do anything, as it can grate as much as physical pain.

Profits for large businesses kills people. The profit becomes the aim instead of bettering society and humanity, the aim is to become rich and seek to have more than anyone else.

No they don't. They give people jobs. Even if they are poorly compensated and work in hot sweatshops, they are still better off than what they were.

No, not better off. Existing, not living. Slaving away so that those at the top can sit back, drink they're million dollar wine and smoke their uber-expensive cigars.

Profits are of course the natural aim for a business, but in order to maximize profits, businesses have to keep prices at the market clearing price, donate to charities, and work with community programs. They do good things, even though it's a ploy to make more money.

People who have the skills to manufacture things that many of us cannot, a natural talent are exploited and get paid shit amounts for it. Maybe not if they live in the USA, but look outside your own goddamn country. Its views like this that make people call YOU AS A COUNTRY arrogant.

Oh wah. Aside from the fact that skilled labor always gets paid more than unskilled labor, where would they work if not for the giant corporations who exploit them? Aside

For themselves? It is possible to run a business ethically.

from that, even if they are paid shitty wages, we still get the products cheaper as a result. If textile workers in Cambodia formed a union and demanded double their wages, our prices would be doubled.

OH NO FUCKING HELL WORKERS WANTING MORE THAN THEY GET! THEY MUST BE GREEDY AND SELFISH!

Think of all the poor people in this country who wouldn't be able to buy clothes because of that. It's views like yours that make people call YOU AS AN IDEOLOGY shortsighted and ignorant.

Since the poor people are the target as a whole, who would benefit, and since this is an artificial dived created by the system, i doubt very much there would be a problem.
Wow, we can get products cheaper - proof of false consciousness caused by consumer culture. Forget that the people have shitty lives through no fault of their own, just reap the benefits. Twat.

Because they like the intellectual challenge of building these computers, of improving life for everyone, and not just a select few.

No, it's pay. They do good work, they are improving society, and they are getting paid better than a fry-cook.

You riddled me about why they would in communist society. Why do you refer to what happens in capitalism as an answer?

Why do people create cancer cures now? Sure, fame and money will be part of it, but who would get involved who truly hated their job? Its not like its a menial job that requires not training.

Who would get involved without the incentive of high pay? There is no such thing as a pure humanitarian, and under a socialist system you'll find that out really quick.

False assimption based on capitalist teachings. That is all i can say.

So how do you fix all these problems? You don't, it's impossible. A socialist society, even if successful, will never thrive like a capitalist society. Capitalism is what makes health-care, prescription drugs, computers, breakthroughs in science, and redistribution of wealth possible. There is clear incentive to make a hell of a lot of money and benefitting mankind in the process.

Prove to me that these things are impossible in a communist society. You cant, so STFU.

Sure I can, take a look at history. Your claim, that a socialist government has never happened in the West, should be proof enough. You can't prove to me that these things are possible in a communist society, and the burden of proof is in your alley.

Nope. Socialism has not happened because it is not the riches interests, who originally seized power by violence. Proof? Slavery, Conquest.

Thinking objectively can be removed from humanity (so why cant greed?)

How witty of you to remove what you have no answer for. Yes i removed yours because it was distracting from what i actually said

I've heard a lot about this old skool synthesiser. Is there any synth out there that resembles it, as i've heard the 808's go for hundreds if not thousands now.

What would legality be of a Roland 808 soft synth emulator be, if it exists?

Sorry for not putting this in the software synth post, but its not quite appropriate. i feel anyway.

At 4/10/05 09:53 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 4/9/05 03:19 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: Thing is, the evidence that things are going wrong everywhere can only be seen in statistics, which are easily manipulated, never mind invented.

No, the problem is people. See, sometimes I go outside and talk to people, and I realize things.

Exactly what the ruling class wants you ALL to think.

Yes, working for the noboility of benefiting humankind is all well and good, but a lot of people are lazy bastards who won't do that.

It's an unfortunate failing of society, but we need to fix that before we fix the economic system.

Revolution and a new government is the answer. The only thing i fear is that we will get fooled like the russian peoples did with stalin, and the Chinese did with mao etc :S

So yes, we do need to fix society, but they are both inexorably linked.

At 4/10/05 09:37 AM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 4/10/05 07:10 AM, SpamWarrior wrote: Socialism has never truly existed in a large scale government. As for communism, communist revolution has never happened, ever.

What about the overthrow of the Czar after WWI? Why wasn't that a communist revolution.

The people were manipulated by a greedy man into believing that the revolution had finally come. It was a power shift to get a man not from the original ruling class in power, but he became the image of everything that was hated in the rich. That is why it was not a communist revolution.

What? How can you tell these outrageous lies you say? The fact that Mao, and Stalin had palaces and called for the people to worship them, just like any capitalist religious leader or monarch. The fact that these governments were CALLED communism is irrelevant. They were Dicktators, greedy, selfish and following CAPITALIST values.

My point is that they were given power for the benefit of the people and they used it and abused it hard. When you're given huge amounts of centralized power, I don't care if you're Mother Theresa, it's going to corrupt you. And that's what socialism is. It's giving all the power to an extremely centralized government.

The governments have always been tools of the system. There has never yet been a socialist government spoiled by people seeking their own wealth that i've heard of.
This is because these people were born with capitalist values of personal greed corrupting them, since they were in the majority of the world, it is easier to accept them, since everyone else is doing it, its ok, isnt it?

People tend to remember when things go wrong more than when they go right :S

Whether they were put there purposefully to discredit communism, or whether they were after it for their own gain, the same shit happened. People are losing faith in communism.

For good reason. No one wants to live that way. Except for people who insist on everyone having the same income.

Why is having more material goods than someone else so important to you? Why do you need to feel more important than someone else?

The system makes a hole in the soul, and replaces it with the desire to make yourself look better than others.

So you admit business has an influence on the government?

Duh. That bankruptcy bill is straight from the credit card companies. Now people are actually going to have to pay back their debt! Business has an influence on government, and that's not a bad thing at all. Rather than hungry for ultimate political power, they are just hungry for profit.

Profits for large businesses kills people. The profit becomes the aim instead of bettering society and humanity, the aim is to become rich and seek to have more than anyone else.

Only in a civilisation where the individuals seek their individual wealth blatantly at the expense of others. I believe that if all the wealth and resources were distributed fairly, those that work can be treated as middle class, those that dont can fuck off and go hunt their own food.

Capitalists don't gain their wealth at the expense of others. A lot of us are born into a system where we don't have to work as hard because our parents have money, and that's not fair, but neither is life.

People who have the skills to manufacture things that many of us cannot, a natural talent are exploited and get paid shit amounts for it. Maybe not if they live in the USA, but look outside your own goddamn country. Its views like this that make people call YOU AS A COUNTRY arrogant.

Also, let's think of your argument. Who's going to supply computers if the income is all fixed for everybody? Why would someone work to build computers if they could cook fries for the same income? Why would someone try to create a new cancer curing drug if they were going to get paid the same as someone who cuts hair for a living? If the government assigned jobs to people, people would get resentful if they only got the amount of salary that everyone else did.

Because they like the intellectual challenge of building these computers, of improving life for everyone, and not just a select few.

Why do people create cancer cures now? Sure, fame and money will be part of it, but who would get involved who truly hated their job? Its not like its a menial job that requires not training.

Only people who still seek greed at the expense of other people would be resentful.

So how do you fix all these problems? You don't, it's impossible. A socialist society, even if successful, will never thrive like a capitalist society. Capitalism is what makes health-care, prescription drugs, computers, breakthroughs in science, and redistribution of wealth possible. There is clear incentive to make a hell of a lot of money and benefitting mankind in the process.

Prove to me that these things are impossible in a communist society. You cant, so STFU.

A truly socialist government has never existed in the west. EVERY form of government we have seen is an example of the abuse of power. The corporations arent the issue, really, not anymore. They are the places with the obvious wealth, i want to find the people behind EVERYTHING who dont need such crude displays of power.

Good luck. Aside from the fact that the current system works pretty darn well, Man will never be given complete power without abusing it.

This is because we have been educated and divided into being greedy. Thinking objectively can be removed from humanity, so why not greed?

At 4/10/05 04:07 AM, Seizure_Dog wrote:

At 4/10/05 02:04 AM, Crazy_Train wrote: you do know if you rip a cd(if you own it) in music match it will format it to mp3. btw mm is free

I only have Windows Media Player and when it rips it puts it in *.wma, it's a bitch. And everytime I download a free MP3 ripper it expires >:(

Hmmm, if you own the cd i suppose it'd be ok to download it, so you can wave the cd's in the feds face when they come to own you. :P

At 4/10/05 07:43 AM, Denvish wrote:

At 4/9/05 06:59 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: Downloads of my tracks has nearly doubled, yet the scores have gone down for them both. Anyone got any idea? Or is the people i pissed off in politics trying to hurt me?

I think if you piss people off, then the obvious method of revenge is for them to zero your Flash and/or Audio. I personally think that the most damage is caused in the AP by other audio artists, eager for a place on the first page of a genre. Due to the fact that not many people vote on audio, a single zero-vote can make a BIG difference to a submission's score. However, there's not a great deal that can be done about it until the AP gets an overhaul; which is in the pipeline, but no ETA.

Hmmm. Well i'd like to see that the names of people who vote on songs go into a register, and then if an artist is suspecting bias and revenge attacks for voicing their opinion, the perpetrators can be punished. I dont think everyone should be able to see who votes for who, and that the register is only accessible to newgrounds staff, obviously.

The reason people dont vote on audio is because they get no points to, its not in their interest to vote.

I can see the potential problems of giving people points for voting on audio, but surely it wouldnt be any different to giving people points for voting on flash.

Its silly because I make people feel stupid so they lash out. Its very inhuman. But enough of biggin up my debating skills, i'm gonna go learn some much needed musical skills.

At 4/10/05 01:24 AM, NorwayClock wrote: Does anyone know where to find a site with songs that don't have tabs. So I can find the actual notes for the songs? I'm trying to recreate Judas Priests - Breaking the law with a software synth and I need the notes for the bass and guitar. Can someone help?

I've not come across one yet, doesnt mean they dont exist. Try doing it purely by ear, or have you shifted the key and octave and put so many effects on that it warps your brain?

I'm not tryint to be a dick, just that you will be a better artist if you learn to do it by ear.

At 4/9/05 08:46 PM, corupthamster1 wrote: stop complaining if someone likes u they will vote high

You miss my point. Entirely.

At 4/9/05 10:28 PM, The_General_Public wrote:

The uber compressed version, which looks simply stupid by itself is

Rich people = evil
Poor people = oppressed

You could say that in 1000 words and it would still be just as stupid

Only because you lack the open mind to understand it. Heh, good choice of name, now i can make some generalisations.

YOU the general public are controlled by the machine, divided by different beliefs, into blaming everything that goes wrong on everyone else.

The current target of hate is Muslims.
It has been the Blacks (slavery), the Catholics, the Communists, the socialists. The Italians (mafia or scrubbers) , the Irish (pissheads, gangsters, terrorists AND scrubbers) . And this is just in america, and theres more to come.
People of Latin American descent "damn mexicans/puerto ricans stealing our jobs"
The General Public is controlled by many prejudices.

Bullshit? Impossible? Nazi Germany - controlled by the prejudice that everything was the Jewish peoples fault, well, that and some scary people in dresses with guns were telling them it.

A ruling government has always blamed a group of people for all problems in the world.

Current favourites are immigrants and Muslims. Sure, they cause trouble, but that suits the machine's purposes. Not all Muslims are racist nobheads, not many probably to be honest. Not all immigrants are evil scrubbers. These people are often trying to escape poverty by coming to the places they seeing benefitting from their original countries labour.

In other places and times. the working class just accepted their role, because they were blinded by the system into believing that they are honestly inferior to the rich.

At 4/10/05 12:57 AM, Hyperdragoon wrote: The problems with Socailism and Communism is putting way to much faith in human nature. People always will want to get ahead in life. I think of capitalism as a way of giving everyone a shot without screwing over everyone else. Though i'm the first to admit thousands are ripped off in corporate america weekly.

Capitalism is built on scrrewing over the poorest, who do the hardest physical work.

The people at the bottom of the pile, who do all the hardest work get the shittest pay.

They could survive without microsoft and other corporations, but could these places have been built or survive without them?

The people who are lucky enough to have work that can pay enough for them to live and get their material goods put their money straight back into another part of the machine.

All this serves is the businesses, the businesses grow bigger and the people who work see a minimal wage increase. Many arent even told that the business is doing well, if there are no stocks and shares available, ie private ownership company.

If by corporate america, you mean some "poor" middle class family loses their second home, boo hoo i care about as much as a hurricane cares for even the largest greasy fart. If you mean you see the working class getting ripped off, how can you say its the best way?

At 4/9/05 11:27 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 4/9/05 03:34 PM, Gladius1000 wrote: Well I thingk that Sociolism can work...With a small population below 1,500 1,000.Other than that socialism falls apart within 5/10 years...

Communism can work in that small an area. The Bush folk in Africa are communists (although if you asked them what they were, they would answer "pop click beeble dilt pleck.") That's because they don't really understand power. Silly Bush people.

Whys it silly? Whilst they arent making technological progress, they arent harming the environment or ozone layer on the scale that we are.

At 4/9/05 10:26 PM, The_General_Public wrote:

At 4/9/05 06:22 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 03:34 PM, Gladius1000 wrote: Well I thingk that Sociolism can work...With a small population below 1,500 1,000.Other than that socialism falls apart within 5/10 years...

Proof?

the khoisan peoples of southern africa. of course they're being slowly destroyed by the more numerous bantu, but if you ignore that fact....

I Have no idea what you're talking about. Got link?

In the meantime i'll just assume that they destroy each other because they dont know any better, or maybe theres a long term feud dividing them. Please explain the relevance to large scale technologically advanced society.

At 4/9/05 09:17 PM, Rooster349 wrote: I'm not even going to pretend that I read your arguments.

Socialism is the government completely owning all property, as opposed to the "businesses" owning everything.

My question to you is: What difference does it make who runs the government? The people who own it are going to get the most out of it.

There is no such thing as a large government that isn't tainted by it's power, and we've seen it throughout history. Socialists and communists have ravaged the shit out of their people and ruled with fear. It's because too much power is given to the

Socialism has never truly existed in a large scale government. As for communism, communist revolution has never happened, ever. For communism to work requires a larger scale than just a few countries to become it, as the capitalists will use sanctions against them, and if that didnt work, easy, just distract people with terrorist assaults and make the police clamp down on the population, whilst telling them its for their own good

What? How can you tell these outrageous lies you say? The fact that Mao, and Stalin had palaces and called for the people to worship them, just like any capitalist religious leader or monarch. The fact that these governments were CALLED communism is irrelevant. They were Dicktators, greedy, selfish and following CAPITALIST values.

Whether they were put there purposefully to discredit communism, or whether they were after it for their own gain, the same shit happened. People are losing faith in communism.

government. At least in our government, the businesses can keep the government in check to some extent, and visa versa.

So you admit business has an influence on the government?

There are injustices in our system: of course it's always more impressive when someone like Condolezza Rice succeeds than when someone like President Bush succeeds, but at least everyone have a chance to succeed, we're not stuck in the same job getting the same pay as everyone else. A civilization cannot thrive in that manner.

Only in a civilisation where the individuals seek their individual wealth blatantly at the expense of others. I believe that if all the wealth and resources were distributed fairly, those that work can be treated as middle class, those that dont can fuck off and go hunt their own food.

So, you obviously have distrust in corporations, but how can you explain your trust in a large socialist government when time and time again they abuse their power?

A truly socialist government has never existed in the west. EVERY form of government we have seen is an example of the abuse of power. The corporations arent the issue, really, not anymore. They are the places with the obvious wealth, i want to find the people behind EVERYTHING who dont need such crude displays of power.

At 4/9/05 07:56 PM, Dark_Neo_Dragon wrote: Sorry for the "think think". I mean just "think"

I apologise, i would have been nicer if i realised english wasnt your first language. I have this name, and my other name. As for mixing, mixing what? You tell me what you want to do and I or someone else will try to help.

Please read the forum before asking questions. You may learn something of value. Read the post by Denvish called "Suggestions for a stickied topic" there is loads of information about many programmes there.

I wouldnt be bothered, but this forum only opened today or yesterday or soemthing, and its nowhere near the size of the other forums yet.

At 4/9/05 06:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Spamwarrior, what a long winded set of posts, were you vaccinated with a gramma phone needle. Think like readers digest, compress that long winded shit.

Just to emphasise. This is the compressed version as much as i can and have it make any sense.

The uber compressed version, which looks simply stupid by itself is

Rich people = evil
Poor people = oppressed

Everything is rich's fault, one way or another.

Quite easy to argue with, isnt it? Thats why it is larger, so that i can cover the key points in more detail.

At 4/9/05 06:59 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/9/05 06:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Think like readers digest, compress that long winded shit.

This is nothing compaired to what Karl Marx actually wrote. Besides, he gave the details necissary to actually have intelligent discussion. He tried giving us the synopsis once before... didn't go over very well. Anyway back to business.

The communist manifesto would probably take up about 300 posts if annotated and explained, so just because you cant handle the big words, whoever you are, stop crying and read. If you have a reading difficulty, get someone to help you with it.

At 4/9/05 06:28 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: But these monarchies were still rich ruling class, still part of the system. Indeed, they may have been benevolent, tho i do not know to which you refer. This would be combined with the existence of outright evil monarchies to make people prefer the nicer ones, and hence walk into mental slavery. Ie, civil war to remove the 'bad' king and put in place the 'good' one.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of King David, herolded as one of the most
fair kings in history. The problem was his sons made a mess of the place when they

It is history, which is so blatantly a construct of the ruling class it makes me cry that people dont get it. History is written by the winners. The winners are the ruling class, who can decide which parts of history get destroyed to suit their own aims. It suits them well to have a mythical king who was amazing to his people and benevolent and wise. Maybe he existed, i cant deny it for certain. But either way, this image can be used to exploit the people.

both tried to take over. My point was more along the lines of absolutely no system is perfect enough to handle such a burdon. To remove greed, corruption, and deciet in one fell swoop is nearly a mathamatical impossibility and definately a human one.

This belief has been instilled into you since you were born, that humans are imperfect and greedy, and wrong, and that everything that goes on is there own fault. That is why it appears impossible. I can see a socialist society based on Buddhist beliefs working, but a more militant ideology is needed first, so that those who have nothing can have something.

Actually, I just realized a bit of a paradox in your argument. You want to remove notions of greed, corruption, and deception from the human race entirely... correct? Didn't you start your last thread with the notion that Clinical Psychology was a tool of the government bent on making people conform to their social norm. But isn't that exactly what you are proposing to do with your own system, force people to conform to YOUR social standards? I understand there is a difference between the two, but it still stands that you are taking power away from the people.

Indeed, it would be to my social standards, if i was the leader. It is a position of great responsibility and danger that i will never want. Thing is my values do not DIRECTLY promote death of the lowest caste/class/rank whatever you call it, since everyone will have enough to live on if they work. If they do not want to work, they can go hunt their food, or starve.

There you go, a practical solution for sorting out people who dont want to work for the benefit of man.

Downloads of my tracks has nearly doubled, yet the scores have gone down for them both. Anyone got any idea? Or is the people i pissed off in politics trying to hurt me?

If i have any talent, it'll shine through a pile of shit, and if not, then no matter how much i buff up the shit it wont shine.

I appreciate that my mixes arent amazing, but i dont think i'm good, so i fail to see how these people damage me.

I wouldnt give a shit at all, but good artists like Kingbastard and MonkeyBullman who have class have the same shit happening to them.

Is newgrounds the place for progressive experimental music, or should we jump ship and go elsewhere where we may be appreciated?

I'm just speculating.

Whilst their is the miscellaneous category, the numb kid who blam everyone probably do it because they do not understand what the word means. Maybe techno should be split into commerical style, and acid/experimental.

Cos music that is actually CREATIVE and not following outdated notions of what music should be is getting blammed by people who want to hear more of the safe reassuring music with predictable builds etc. Young people, and stupid people. Inexperience and ignorance both giving the same result.

At 4/9/05 06:08 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/9/05 05:42 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: Indeed, it does have possibility to go horribly wrong whilst greed is still bred in the hearts of men. There would be a necessity for a benevolent, nearly fascist in method of political control until personal greed was hammered out of the heart of mankind.

But that is just the thing, it would take some kind of kind fascism to have any chance of getting rid of greed... if it is possible at all. However, what is the possibility that something like that would happen? Even with some of the best monarchies with the best rullers, government corruption still existed. I can see how your principles could be integreated into socialism without too drastic of effort but what you want to do is strait out of science fiction (didn't they have a similar system in start trek?).

But these monarchies were still rich ruling class, still part of the system. Indeed, they may have been benevolent, tho i do not know to which you refer. This would be combined with the existence of outright evil monarchies to make people prefer the nicer ones, and hence walk into mental slavery. Ie, civil war to remove the 'bad' king and put in place the 'good' one.

I like your ideas Spamwarrior, but an idea is only as good as it's execution and that needs alot of work.

Thank you for fueling the machine that is my brain. I'm sure something good'll come out of it someday.

At 4/9/05 06:01 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:
And please, stop making these topics. Two is more than enough to discuss your ideas.

Heh, i didnt write that bit. Oh well.

At 4/9/05 03:34 PM, Gladius1000 wrote: Well I thingk that Sociolism can work...With a small population below 1,500 1,000.Other than that socialism falls apart within 5/10 years...

Proof?

I doubt we've ever had any true political system ie left/right, everything ends up as a horrible compromise to try keep everyone happy. The supposed socialist party in the UK acts like the conservative party, and vice versa. No difference, except when it comes to welfare it seems.....

At 4/9/05 04:29 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: I agree with you for the most parts, except the ones about revolution and religion.

I don't think that a bloody revolution to establish a communist society would be justified, let alone necessary. If we were to enter a new era, I wouldn't want it to be shadowed by the fact that it began with outrageous violence. In my opinion, we should try to change the world either democratically -- I know it seems almost impossible, but if people will start realizing the long term effects of capitalism soon enough, we might be getting closer to that -- or through a peaceful revolution, which is not a completely unknown phenomenon in the history, take the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, for

I had never heard of that, but things like that happen to promote the illusion that evil leaders can have their hearts changed. Thing is, i bet people had family in that army too.... Would you shoot your own sister on anyones orders? Its an extreme example but surely you see the point.

example, or the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or the fact that Mahatma Gandhi organized masses of people into non-violent resistance, general strikes and such, which eventually helped India gain independence. Whenever his supporters got out of control, he'd just go to a hunger strike.

Again, he was an actual good man, as far as i know, yet he has been accounted for by the system. Also in the end it just created greater division of the people, so much so that they had to get their own countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh i think it is.

Either way, the change should always have the majority of people supporting it.

Not when it is the majority that are fooled by the system, and the minority that can see through it.

About the religion - I don't see how it's so bad. Even though there are many corrupt religious leaders, there's nothing wrong with religions themselves (unless of course we're talking about a specific religion that teaches very questionable values). Most religions despise gathering lots of earthly property. This should fit very nicely into communist ideals. A religion like Buddhism teaches you self-discipline and the art of meditation. Also religion teaches morality and the ability to respect others to those people who don't learn that themselves. I realize that most religions are ruined by extremists and hypocrites though.

Indeed, religion is an interesting topic. No one can say for sure where it started, i personally believe they started after someone ate some mushrooms they found in a forest. This is getting close to a slightly irrelevant issue, of whether they were insane, or correct in this idea, so i wont go there.

Indeed, religion tells people not to gather earthly goods, so that they will be rewarded in the next life. It would fit nicely with communism to an extent, indeed. But there is institutional hypocrisy, as highlighted by the Pope and the Vatican

"ooooh you shouldnt speak ill of the dead" I've been pointing out hypocrisy long before he died, and i will continue long after the next backwards thinking old man comes into power.

The Pope and the Catholic Church have LOADS of money. Yet they're creed is to not covet material goods and worship God. There is the argument that the people who built the palace were showing they're love for God, and maybe they were. However they arent around anymore, and they're are innumerable pieces of culture kept there now. Theres enough wealth in the catholic church to eliminate at least half of world poverty i reckon, if redistributed.

However the church that is supposed to help the poor cripples them. For example, the devout catholics in africa, who cannot use condoms despite the population control.
This is eugenics at its ugliest in my opinion. A race of people is being killed off by the worlds most feared uncurable illness, just because "God" wants them to have uprotected sex. I smell bullshit. If this God also gave us free will to act as we please, then surely protected sex would be ok?

Another prime example. The British Monarch. Head of BOTH the state religion and the figurehead of the state. "The Divine Right" to rule. Mostly ignored these days, but the power the monarch had at the time has never been stronger than then.

The republican party, openly funded by Right wing christian groups. I find this even more ironic that America is Fundamentalist Christian, as didnt the founding fathers say something about their being no state religion? Please correct me if i'm wrong....

I myself am not Christian, I'm an agnostic. It's not that I think there's anything wrong with Christianity, I just don't believe in it.

Heh. I believe in a force more powerful than ourselves, that is supernatural, but what it is yet i cannot yet decide.

At 4/9/05 03:26 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/9/05 03:19 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: This is a myth perpetrated by the ruling class. Everytime someone comes to power with socialist values, something goes wrong.

Thing is, the evidence that things are going wrong everywhere can only be seen in statistics, which are easily manipulated, never mind invented.

So you are saying that greed is not part of the human condition? I think your constant badgering of the rich proves otherwise.

I am "badgering" the rich because i want equality. I dont want their wealth. I just want people to stop dying due to poverty and famine, which the richest have more than enough power to fix. They just wont.

And please, stop making these topics. Two is more than enough to discuss your ideas.

It is relevant to all aspects of life. There fore a topic per part is a fair amount i feel.

At 4/9/05 03:23 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Since I've already got a pretty good fell for what you are saying, and agree with your general concepts... I'd like to get back to a point from the Clinical Psychology Thread.

Ok.

However, if the entire working class rose up against the rich, there could be a phenomenal amount done. To work as the system likes is to slow the freedom of the working class.

and

You seem to underestimate my ideal of worldwide revolution. I mean the entire working class throwing off their mental shackles simulataneously and demanding what is rightfully theirs.

People tried to criticise that view by saying "Oh, i'm a prick, wouldnt that be hypocritical for the w/c to seek wealth through violence"

No, it'd be entirely justified for the crimes against them and their ancestors.

The first would be what is more important, giving greater equality to the working man quickly or justly? If you directly take what you want from the rich you are then no better then they are. Consider this, you get a bunch of people together that are poor. They start stealing from the rich till the point where they are suddenly fairly wealthy themselves. Who is to say that then would then be nice to the poor that they came from? After all, you demonize the rich for how they treat those below them. What better are the poor to steal what they want from the rich? Sure when they start they have less money than the rich, but the fact that they can steal gives the poor power over the rich. They havn't done anything to restructure society, just turn it upside down.

Indeed, it does have possibility to go horribly wrong whilst greed is still bred in the hearts of men. There would be a necessity for a benevolent, nearly fascist in method of political control until personal greed was hammered out of the heart of mankind.

One thing that I'm kinda confused about what you are saying and that is you want to create an equal society (communism I believe) which relies on the inate goodness of the person. As you have already pointed out with the example of the rich, when people have unrestricted power they abuse it. Call me crazy but I don't see any form of check and balances in your system which worries me. Correct me if I'm wrong but so far all you've thought through is the past, present and revolution... without too much toward the extended future. What sort of government solution would you employ to have power stay with the people, avoid having any group from having to much power, and avoid the legistical nightmare of a complete democracy?

I'm not too sure i believe in communism, in its extreme form. It would not occur instantly after the revolution, as the greedy would have to be found and expunged.

I'd say the best way to get things done would be to find the best trustworthy person, who is the nicest person and absolutely DOES NOT want to be leader, and then make them lead, by persuasion or a pointy stick.

Well since the energy of the system of government would not be tied up in confusing the people, then national referendum would be more realistic than ever before, though probably still a tiresome process.

And if people disagreed, and violence was caused, people with same/similar beliefs would be deported together to start a life with their values elsewhere. Those who seeked greed at the expense of fellow man would get to be deported to the Siberian Desert.

Brutal, and yes, just as brutal as any method of the rich.

But they have abolutely no fear of people whinging and complaining, unless it happens on mass, as that leads to revolution. There fore instant, simultaneous violence is the only answer.

Either that or the systems other fear, someone who rises through the ranks and then blows the entire thing wide open, who knows what the world's owners truly look like.
Not likely, people who squeal disappear. Its Mafia\gangland culture on the largest possible scale.

You are correct, the future has not been properly considered, but there is no socialist future until the people all know the message. To make it more credible i will begin to give it more thought.

I should've done politics at college :S Sociology and Psychology arent quite the same, though they are all interconnected, all born of philosophy :S

At 4/9/05 08:18 AM, _Nevyn_ wrote:

Lots of valid points snipped

:: At 4/8/05 01:10 PM, SgtSandbag wrote:

Although I think animals should still have basic rights, I want to respond to what Damien Flagg wrote about humans being animals. Indeed we are animals, but we are capable of abstract thought. Last time I checked, a dog can't ponder the universe or decipher emotion or complex problems. Also, humans are the only animals who theoretically have a soul, so that sets up above most life.

humans cant think abstract to. do you know how the universe works??? can you understand how time is slowed down on light speed? can you prove that their is a god? can you prove animals cant think abstract. and how the hell is it theoreticly proven that humans have a soul????

The problem is that we cannot communicate. People have been trying, but its hard enough to understand what they think of a new rubber ring or a pond than the deepest mysteries of life. However, if an animal has soul, by generalisation we have a right to eat them and abuse them as they would gladly to us. The predators anyway.

I'm not trying to cause offence, just stir up some trouble :)

How animals are treated and perceived can have big effects on how people treat each other. For example, the earlier quoted idea that those who are cruel to animals, have often been abused in some way and grow up to be vicious people, does have some truth in it.

I think mindless violence against animals is wrong, for humanity's sake as much as the animals, it makes us more savage beast in the long term and soon people dont see the difference between some rabbit they kicked to death and fellow human beings.

However, you cant go giving your food rights at the expense of your fellow man. Animal testing is necessary.

Can you see many of these activists willing to put themselves on the table to be prodded around etcetera?

NO. But they will enjoy the benefits of such testing if it suits their purpose. Ie receiving treatment for cancer which was almost CERTAINLY tested on animals first.

Would you refuse treatment, just cos the fluffy wuffy wittle bunnies died for it?

If so, how noble, and how stupid.

Brings me on to the issue which someone raised earlier. It is nearly always something small and fluffy that is getting 'liberated'. Rats, mice, rabbits.

All these creatures if left unchecked could actually eat all the food in the world in a century or two, just based on sheer rate of breeding. I'm glad nature has natural controls called the relationship between predator and prey.

None of these motherfuckers seem to care about the more savage animals.

I've yet to hear of a crocodile getting liberated, or a killer whale, or a type of mosquito getting rescued.

Its all based purely on the "aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww" factor.

At 4/9/05 02:24 PM, corupthamster1 wrote: alright thanks and the samples i was talkin bout were the 8 packs

Ah ok. Well if you use them credit the artists and/or Sony.

At 4/9/05 01:17 PM, Elfer wrote: In theory, socialism is the best system possible, but in reality, it doesn't work due to human nature.

This is a myth perpetrated by the ruling class. Everytime someone comes to power with socialist values, something goes wrong.

Thing is, the evidence that things are going wrong everywhere can only be seen in statistics, which are easily manipulated, never mind invented.

At 4/9/05 01:35 PM, corupthamster1 wrote: is it ok to use samples from acidplanet.com in ure music? or do u gotta get permission or sumthin

Depends on the context. They give away free samples every week/month, i cannot remember. If you want to use one of the artists work, you best get permission out of politeness if possible, since they are all in the same boat as us, tho most of them are years ahead of me. If you try to get permission and get actually no reply, use it and credit them, but be prepared to have to withdraw your work.

The free samples are called 8-packs. They're completely lucky dip on whether you like them or not, but they are good to learn how to use acid at a basic level. Its like a jigsaw for sound basically, but theres more than one end result :)

At 4/9/05 11:37 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Will you quit making these stupid topics?!

Only if the rich are overthrown. Will you shut up asking me to shut up?

At 4/9/05 11:22 AM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 4/9/05 10:32 AM, SkyCube wrote:

Why can't people get it into their heads that the. foetus. is. already. dead.

Lets see, to get the dead fetus, you abort it, which is "killing" a future child and person.

You state this as though it is obvious social fact. This is an issue that nobody agrees on yet.

As skycube says, why waste something that can save lives in future just because you dont like where it comes from? This would be killing two if the fetus is human and sentient, and one if it is not. Either way its an unnecessary death that could be prevented.