Communism as described by Marx and Engels is nothing like the communism that existed in Russia and and exist in China. The main focus was on giving people the opportunity to decide for themselves. Marx and Engels would have a major bone to pick with the USSR and with China today. Considering the message of his song it's not surprise that the state known as the USSR would have a problem with it.AussieReaper wrote:
Then surely the Communist countries would have loved such a song?JohnG@lt wrote:
I think you're missing a big part of what the lyrics mean. It was very very clearly Marxist. Hell, people STILL think that communism and the destruction of money will create world peace etc. Idiots yes, but w/e
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
This is the dream of a Marxist utopia on earth where there is no class struggle or strife. One world government etc. Marxism requires the destruction of religion in order to exist.
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
More marxist utopia garbage.http://www.prague.net/john-lennon-wallJohn Lennon and the Communist regime
Lennon was a hero to the pacifist youth of Central and Eastern Europe during the totalitarian era. Prior to 1989 when communism ruled, western pop songs were banned by Communist authorities, and especially John Lennon´s songs, because it was praising freedom that didn’t exist here. Some musicians were actually jailed for playing it!
When John Lennon was murdered in 1980 he became a sort of hero to some of the young and his picture was painted on this wall, for whatever reason right here, along with graffiti defying the authorities. Don’t forget that back then the Czech people had few opportunities to express their feelings with their lack of freedom. By doing this, those young activists risked prison for what authorities called “subversive activities against the state”.
But the threat of prison couldn’t keep people from slipping there at night to scrawl graffiti first in the form of Beatles lyrics and odes to Lennon, then they came to paint their own feelings and dreams on the wall.
The Communist police tried repeatedly to whitewash over the portrait and messages of peace but they could never manage to keep the wall clean. On the second day it was again full of poems and flowers with paintings of Lennon. Even the installation of surveillance cameras and the posting of an overnight guard couldn’t stop the opinions from being expressed.
Even Communist nations saw it as anti-establishment, but not pro-Communism.
It's a shame that a dream of Utopian society is tarnished with the McCarthist "Communism" and therefore "Bad" routine even to this day.
@MacBeth
You have an awfully rose-tinted view of Christianity. What about the disparity in living conditions between the common people and those in the clergy in the Middle Ages? The imposition of taxes by the Church back then too? What about practices such as the payment of indulgences? What about the Spanish inquisitions? Just look at the Vatican nowadays, sickening wealth while half of Africa starves... how very Christian.
Religion synopsised the accepted rules of conduct for mankind to progress as a civilisation, it's the one great achievement of religion in the grand scheme of things... but it's still just the social contract wrapped up in a fairy tale. Saying that religion begot morality, or vice versa, is a chicken-egg argument.
You have an awfully rose-tinted view of Christianity. What about the disparity in living conditions between the common people and those in the clergy in the Middle Ages? The imposition of taxes by the Church back then too? What about practices such as the payment of indulgences? What about the Spanish inquisitions? Just look at the Vatican nowadays, sickening wealth while half of Africa starves... how very Christian.
Religion synopsised the accepted rules of conduct for mankind to progress as a civilisation, it's the one great achievement of religion in the grand scheme of things... but it's still just the social contract wrapped up in a fairy tale. Saying that religion begot morality, or vice versa, is a chicken-egg argument.
Ugh, either communism would have to change a bunch of their views or Christianity would have to give up a bunch of their beliefs in order for there to be a reconciliation between the two.JohnG@lt wrote:
The biggest mistake Marx ever made was to be an atheist. He would've had a lot more people following his social and economic theoriesBraddock wrote:
With just a few amendments...
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
...this song becomes about as Christian as it gets when it comes to Jesus Christ's worldview: everyone equal, no materialism, no false idols before God, no violence towards your fellow man. I guess Jesus must have been "fucking Marxist" then?
Ideas like original sin, and the perfect sinless man, Jesus, would have to be given up along with the general idea of an after life. The very idea of a life after this one which your prior actions here determine the consequences in the next would have shit on the entire "choose to live how you want" thing of communism.
They wouldn't work together unless one would have to change in order to meet the others needs. Aside from that no Bishop in Europe at the time would have signed off on communism which would have abolished his role in society as a high ranking authoritative figure.
Firstly, I'm not at all religious, hell I'm practically on the borderline of complete nihilism.Braddock wrote:
@MacBeth
You have an awfully rose-tinted view of Christianity. What about the disparity in living conditions between the common people and those in the clergy in the Middle Ages?The same disparity existed between the nobility and the common people. It's just how things usually play out that some people become extremely wealthy and help their friends and family achieve wealth and power also. Existed before Christianity and after, has nothing to do with religion. The imposition of taxes by the Church back then too?The Churches needed ways to pay for their services as the "go between" for you and God and to provide for their clergy and alike. As well as people are naturally like having nice things. That's humanity for you. What about practices such as the payment of indulgences? What about the Spanish inquisitions?Again more about wealth than religion. The Spanish wanted the rich Jew's and Muslims lands, they just used Christianity as an excuse. Just look at the Vatican nowadays, sickening wealth while half of Africa starves... how very Christian.Look at Ireland and Africa or hell all of Europe and Africa or all of the entire world and Africa. The ball bounced one way and one group got lucky and aren't willing or maybe even able to totally give up their wealth, luxury, and standards to even out things with the rest of humanity. Nothing new there.
Religion synopsised the accepted rules of conduct for mankind to progress as a civilisation, it's the one great achievement of religion in the grand scheme of things... but it's still just the social contract wrapped up in a fairy tale. Yes it is just the social contract wrapped up in a fairy tale but the same way Neiztche and Ayn Rand explained their philosophy through philosophical novels is the same way Christianity explains their views. The bible is a bunch of moral tales put together in a story taking places during a historical period. Saying that religion begot morality, or vice versa, is a chicken-egg argument.I'm saying there was shift in the accept morality throughout Europe as a result of Christianity. They went form glorifying Roman Gods whom raped and killed at will to glorifying a person whom wouldn't kill anyone. You can see the shift from the Old Testament which God was a vengeful lunatic to the New Testament in which God is forgiving and merciful.
Secondly highlighted area, read them in the post. Hate cutting shit up.
Communism can just bide it's time for now. Technology will kill of theology eventually.Macbeth wrote:
Ugh, either communism would have to change a bunch of their views or Christianity would have to give up a bunch of their beliefs in order for there to be a reconciliation between the two.
Ideas like original sin, and the perfect sinless man, Jesus, would have to be given up along with the general idea of an after life. The very idea of a life after this one which your prior actions here determine the consequences in the next would have shit on the entire "choose to live how you want" thing of communism.
They wouldn't work together unless one would have to change in order to meet the others needs. Aside from that no Bishop in Europe at the time would have signed off on communism which would have abolished his role in society as a high ranking authoritative figure.
Theology will always be around. Hell all it takes is one bad event; recession, a really shitty war, famine, etc. and theology will begin to go back on the rise. Recession of 08 had churches all over the U.S. filled up again with people praying to their god for help and so on. Aside from that religion always has the ability to claim their god is above and beyond their comprehensions, this reality, technology, and so on.AussieReaper wrote:
Communism can just bide it's time for now. Technology will kill of theology eventually.Macbeth wrote:
Ugh, either communism would have to change a bunch of their views or Christianity would have to give up a bunch of their beliefs in order for there to be a reconciliation between the two.
Ideas like original sin, and the perfect sinless man, Jesus, would have to be given up along with the general idea of an after life. The very idea of a life after this one which your prior actions here determine the consequences in the next would have shit on the entire "choose to live how you want" thing of communism.
They wouldn't work together unless one would have to change in order to meet the others needs. Aside from that no Bishop in Europe at the time would have signed off on communism which would have abolished his role in society as a high ranking authoritative figure.
Get used to relgion being around forever a bit more liberalized though. Communism will never take over the world unless resources are limitless and easily/quickly produced in a way sort of like the Star Forge from KOTOR. Otherwise you will always need somebody to make or get something.
That's something I think we can agree on the most easily in regards to public school systems.Braddock wrote:
What's the difference...
A Christian pupil's parents complaining because their child has to sing a song that contradicts her faith.
A Muslim pupil's parents complaining because their child has to celebrate Christmas even though it contradicts her faith.
...I don't see any difference? Keep religion out of school altogether, it causes too many fucking problems.
@Macbeth...
• You said in your original post that Christianity changed the prevailing attitudes towards the distribution of power and wealth throughout Europe. You said the Church held up values such as modesty, meekness, chastity, forgiveness. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in this, given that those in the Church lived in relative luxury compared with much of the squalor in the middle ages. The Church also showed incredible bloodlust and vengeance during the tyranny of the Spanish inquisition - hardly in keeping with their values of peace and forgiveness.
• You say the Church needed ways to pay for their services as the "go-between" between the laymen and God, and to provide for their clergy. This is a rose-tinted view of the situation in my opinion, the practice of indulgences in particular showed how willing the Church were to dispense with true religious morality in favour of economic wealth, and by extension power (which they used to influence the ruling regimes of the time). The church became a business enterprise in Europe and it still operates as a de facto business enterprise to this day, as illustrated by the wealth accumulated by the Vatican and their reluctance to even foot the bill for the recent child abuse compensation claims in Ireland recently.
• As a retort to my comparisons between the wealth of the Vatican and the poverty of Africa you compare other Western nations to Africa, that's all well and good but these Western nations are not claiming to be the representative body of God's will on earth, and they are certainly not putting themselves up on some moral pedestal for others to emulate.
• In terms of morality you say that there was a shift in the accepted morality throughout Europe as a result of Christianity. As I said before, I believe religion's greatest achievement was wrapping the social contract up in a fairy tale that people would accept en masse in more ignorant times... for society to progress as a whole certain conventions were necessary and Christianity tuned into this, just as other religions tuned into it. This does not necessarily mean that religion created morality, it just tuned into it and solidified it into something more tangible for the masses.
• You said in your original post that Christianity changed the prevailing attitudes towards the distribution of power and wealth throughout Europe. You said the Church held up values such as modesty, meekness, chastity, forgiveness. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in this, given that those in the Church lived in relative luxury compared with much of the squalor in the middle ages. The Church also showed incredible bloodlust and vengeance during the tyranny of the Spanish inquisition - hardly in keeping with their values of peace and forgiveness.
• You say the Church needed ways to pay for their services as the "go-between" between the laymen and God, and to provide for their clergy. This is a rose-tinted view of the situation in my opinion, the practice of indulgences in particular showed how willing the Church were to dispense with true religious morality in favour of economic wealth, and by extension power (which they used to influence the ruling regimes of the time). The church became a business enterprise in Europe and it still operates as a de facto business enterprise to this day, as illustrated by the wealth accumulated by the Vatican and their reluctance to even foot the bill for the recent child abuse compensation claims in Ireland recently.
• As a retort to my comparisons between the wealth of the Vatican and the poverty of Africa you compare other Western nations to Africa, that's all well and good but these Western nations are not claiming to be the representative body of God's will on earth, and they are certainly not putting themselves up on some moral pedestal for others to emulate.
• In terms of morality you say that there was a shift in the accepted morality throughout Europe as a result of Christianity. As I said before, I believe religion's greatest achievement was wrapping the social contract up in a fairy tale that people would accept en masse in more ignorant times... for society to progress as a whole certain conventions were necessary and Christianity tuned into this, just as other religions tuned into it. This does not necessarily mean that religion created morality, it just tuned into it and solidified it into something more tangible for the masses.
Really? The end result is the same. Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.Braddock wrote:
Unbelievable. You debate with someone, there's a little back and forth, he gives the impression of being reasonably intelligent, and then... BOOM!Dilbert_X wrote:
Clearly socialism and communism should be taught in schools then, so monoculturalists like yourself would have a clue.JohnG@lt wrote:
Difference between communists and socialists is about this big [].
Something more advanced than 'capitalism is teh winz0r socialsim = fail' at least.
...Get that shit on the curriculum ASAP!
Socialism's difference is that it attempts to harness the rational self interest that is inherent in mankind in ways that communism could never do. How is this achieved? By the enslavement of those who desire more in life, by those who lack that desire. So, you pile on a bunch of social programs, you raise some taxes and over time you reach an end state where the social programs are so large and the taxes so high that society ceases to function in the capitalistic way that it did in the beginning. The end result is communism, it just took longer to get there and people feel better about the path taken because it isn't as jarring as a revolution would be.
The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Bitch about capitalism all you want, that mostly comes out of ignorance. The lies and half truths I read on a daily basis describing it show me that 95% of the people who think they know something about capitalism, know jack shit. This isn't only from the socialists, it comes from 'my side' as well.
People are stupid. They don't seek knowledge on their own or do the research necessary to understand a subject. This applies even more to a difficult topic like economics because the language used is not the same as that used in ordinary daily language (in much the same way that the language a doctor uses is different from the laymens when describing the same injury). Frankly, reading most of what is typed on the internet is a source of frustration because it's like playing the telephone game. I have to interpret what people are really trying to say and then look at the source. Words like capitalism and socialism have different meanings to different people because it depends on which variation of the telephone game they played and who can be credited as the original source. Yes, I am being an arrogant prick, but this crap frustrates me to no end.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Braddock wrote:
@Macbeth...
• You said in your original post that Christianity changed the prevailing attitudes towards the distribution of power and wealth throughout Europe. You said the Church held up values such as modesty, meekness, chastity, forgiveness. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in this, given that those in the Church lived in relative luxury compared with much of the squalor in the middle ages. The Church also showed incredible bloodlust and vengeance during the tyranny of the Spanish inquisition - hardly in keeping with their values of peace and forgiveness. Before Christianity there were "people of faith" whom were hypocrites, it's very much our nature to say the 'right' thing but do the opposite. The same acts were happening before in Europe and all over the world and still occur today in secular states. It's more a problem with human beings than with Christianity.
The moral shift was among the general populace whom have to follow the prevailing morality while the upper class can ignore or pretend to follow the prevailing morality. The shift is most important among the general populace, since the uppers will usually not do as they wish anyway.
• You say the Church needed ways to pay for their services as the "go-between" between the laymen and God, and to provide for their clergy. This is a rose-tinted view of the situation in my opinion, the practice of indulgences in particular showed how willing the Church were to dispense with true religious morality in favour of economic wealth, and by extension power (which they used to influence the ruling regimes of the time). The church became a business enterprise in Europe and it still operates as a de facto business enterprise to this day, as illustrated by the wealth accumulated by the Vatican and their reluctance to even foot the bill for the recent child abuse compensation claims in Ireland recently.Again it's a people thing. Though some people joined because they believed others didn't and joined the clergy to make money. They were successful at gathering donations and alike and ended up with large amount of wealth for their services. Much like Ivy league schools in the U.S. adopted business like attitudes in regards to education and became the most prestigious schools in the world while schools like Oxford in the U.K. took a socialist route to education and is looking at budget set backs. Business like attitudes are generally successful.
• As a retort to my comparisons between the wealth of the Vatican and the poverty of Africa you compare other Western nations to Africa, that's all well and good but these Western nations are not claiming to be the representative body of God's will on earth, and they are certainly not putting themselves up on some moral pedestal for others to emulate. People are hypocrites, sorry to say. The Vatican isn't full of highly evolved supermen whom are above greed and lust.
• In terms of morality you say that there was a shift in the accepted morality throughout Europe as a result of Christianity. As I said before, I believe religion's greatest achievement was wrapping the social contract up in a fairy tale that people would accept en masse in more ignorant times... for society to progress as a whole certain conventions were necessary and Christianity tuned into this, just as other religions tuned into it. This does not necessarily mean that religion created morality, it just tuned into it and solidified it into something more tangible for the masses.Religion does create morality in the fact that is helps set "rights, wrongs, goods, and bads" at whatever it chooses. It doesn't create it as in "there was a vaccum before religion where anything went". Before relgion, natural law prevailed for probably a good while before somebody created gods and set some moral standards that were not guided by pure instinct.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-01-18 16:41:52)
You sound like your entire world view comes out of a book.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? The end result is the same. Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.
Socialism's difference is that it attempts to harness the rational self interest that is inherent in mankind in ways that communism could never do. How is this achieved? By the enslavement of those who desire more in life, by those who lack that desire. So, you pile on a bunch of social programs, you raise some taxes and over time you reach an end state where the social programs are so large and the taxes so high that society ceases to function in the capitalistic way that it did in the beginning. The end result is communism, it just took longer to get there and people feel better about the path taken because it isn't as jarring as a revolution would be.
The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Bitch about capitalism all you want, that mostly comes out of ignorance. The lies and half truths I read on a daily basis describing it show me that 95% of the people who think they know something about capitalism, know jack shit. This isn't only from the socialists, it comes from 'my side' as well.
People are stupid. They don't seek knowledge on their own or do the research necessary to understand a subject. This applies even more to a difficult topic like economics because the language used is not the same as that used in ordinary daily language (in much the same way that the language a doctor uses is different from the laymens when describing the same injury). Frankly, reading most of what is typed on the internet is a source of frustration because it's like playing the telephone game. I have to interpret what people are really trying to say and then look at the source. Words like capitalism and socialism have different meanings to different people because it depends on which variation of the telephone game they played and who can be credited as the original source. Yes, I am being an arrogant prick, but this crap frustrates me to no end.
Have you ever set foot in a socialist country? You do realise that we are allowed to own our own businesses, grow our own crops, own our own possessions, and criticise our leaders in a free and democratic society? We have banded tax systems and options for private superior healthcare plans if we are so inclined. Yes, we pay taxes (as do Americans), but for our tax Euros we expect social systems that provide a little more than can be expected in places like America. We are proud to have healthcare systems that will not allow fellow citizens to die on the side of the street. Our welfare programs are not open-ended and are only intended as a helping hand for people who find themselves out of work and need a hand to get back in the game (that's what we pay our taxes for). It's called socialism because we believe in the concept of society, we are not out to slit each others throats or trample over each other to "get to the top".
You talk about socialism as though we are all on some inevitable road to ruin. How do you explain countries like Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland, which consistently kick the shit out of America in international studies regarding the best places to live on earth?
Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-18 16:47:05)
ITT: walls of text.
Norway is propped up by the fact that it's a small population sitting on large oil deposits. Denmark is a small population propped up by Maersk. Switzerland is a small population propped up by it's banks. The only one with long term suvivability is Switzerland. Norways oil is running out and Denmark will eventually drive away Maersk.Braddock wrote:
You sound like your entire world view comes out of a book.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? The end result is the same. Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.
Socialism's difference is that it attempts to harness the rational self interest that is inherent in mankind in ways that communism could never do. How is this achieved? By the enslavement of those who desire more in life, by those who lack that desire. So, you pile on a bunch of social programs, you raise some taxes and over time you reach an end state where the social programs are so large and the taxes so high that society ceases to function in the capitalistic way that it did in the beginning. The end result is communism, it just took longer to get there and people feel better about the path taken because it isn't as jarring as a revolution would be.
The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Bitch about capitalism all you want, that mostly comes out of ignorance. The lies and half truths I read on a daily basis describing it show me that 95% of the people who think they know something about capitalism, know jack shit. This isn't only from the socialists, it comes from 'my side' as well.
People are stupid. They don't seek knowledge on their own or do the research necessary to understand a subject. This applies even more to a difficult topic like economics because the language used is not the same as that used in ordinary daily language (in much the same way that the language a doctor uses is different from the laymens when describing the same injury). Frankly, reading most of what is typed on the internet is a source of frustration because it's like playing the telephone game. I have to interpret what people are really trying to say and then look at the source. Words like capitalism and socialism have different meanings to different people because it depends on which variation of the telephone game they played and who can be credited as the original source. Yes, I am being an arrogant prick, but this crap frustrates me to no end.
Have you ever set foot in a socialist country? You do realise that we are allowed to own our own businesses, grow our own crops, own our own possessions, and criticise our leaders in a free and democratic society? We have banded tax systems and options for private superior healthcare plans if we are so inclined. Yes, we pay taxes (as do Americans), but for our tax Euros we expect social systems that provide a little more than can be expected in places like America. We are proud to have healthcare systems that will not allow fellow citizens to die on the side of the street. Our welfare programs are not open-ended and are only intended as a helping hand for people who find themselves out of work and need a hand to get back in the game (that's what we pay our taxes for). It's called socialism because we believe in the concept of society, we are not out to slit each others throats or trample over each other to "get to the top".
You talk about socialism as though we are all on some inevitable road to ruin. How do you explain countries like Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland, which consistently kick the shit out of America in international studies regarding the best places to live on earth?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So they force you to sit there and watch it?Braddock wrote:
I'm still legally obliged to pay €160 per annum for the TV licence though... no choice there.LividBovine wrote:
You have a choice to turn it off do you not?Braddock wrote:
I have to sit through the fucking Angelus every day at six o'clock on the supposedly secular State broadcast network RTÉ... so it's swings and roundabouts I guess.
Just continue to brainwash your children at home and things should be fine.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Oh hardly, Europe isn't heading to some kind of communist utopia, nor is Australia to pick two examples.JohG@lt wrote:
Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.
Thats odd, the US economy - and society - would have collapsed just a year ago but for massive socialist intervention.The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Not that I think intervention is a good thing, but less bad than total economic collapse.
Unbridled capitalsim would collapse a lot quicker than communism IMO.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-18 17:54:30)
Fuck Israel
How does that fit with your narcisissm?Macbeth wrote:
Firstly, I'm not at all religious, hell I'm practically on the borderline of complete nihilism.
Fuck Israel
Keep thinking that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Oh hardly, Europe isn't heading to some kind of communist utopia, nor is Australia to pick two examples.JohG@lt wrote:
Taking the socialist path is just the more insidious, long view on how to get to communist utopia rather than an uprising by the proletariat.Thats odd, the US economy - and society - would have collapsed just a year ago but for massive socialist intervention.The best part though? It can never work. Society would collapse long before the socialists could even see the finish line.
Not that I think intervention is a good thing, but less bad than total economic collapse.
Unbridled capitalsim would collapse a lot quicker than communism IMO.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I will, you keep the blinkers on theres a good chap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Keep thinking that.
Fuck Israel
Have you ever actually studied economics at all? Like, picked up a book by Friedman, Keynes, Mill, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Sowell or any number of other writers and thinkers? I seriously doubt it.Dilbert_X wrote:
I will, you keep the blinkers on theres a good chap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Keep thinking that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Keynes is considered left wing, but his principals is what has helped Australia avoid a recession, and on more than one occasion too.
I do know that socialism and communism are different, and I do know what a monopoly is.JohnG@lt wrote:
Have you ever actually studied economics at all? Like, picked up a book by Friedman, Keynes, Mill, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Sowell or any number of other writers and thinkers? I seriously doubt it.Dilbert_X wrote:
I will, you keep the blinkers on theres a good chap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Keep thinking that.
Fuck Israel
He was a neo-mercantilist.AussieReaper wrote:
Keynes is considered left wing, but his principals is what has helped Australia avoid a recession, and on more than one occasion too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And his philosophies are a big part of why we're rolling along nicely.JohnG@lt wrote:
He was a neo-mercantilist.AussieReaper wrote:
Keynes is considered left wing, but his principals is what has helped Australia avoid a recession, and on more than one occasion too.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Keynesian macroeconomics leads to massive inefficiency via government intervention. The more his theories are applied instead of free market principles, the more inefficient the market becomes. Government is not the solution by any means. Believing that it is and that Keynes' theories are the savior of your country plays into the hands of meddlers who should stick to their law practices instead of trying to run a command economy.Spark wrote:
And his philosophies are a big part of why we're rolling along nicely.JohnG@lt wrote:
He was a neo-mercantilist.AussieReaper wrote:
Keynes is considered left wing, but his principals is what has helped Australia avoid a recession, and on more than one occasion too.
You want a perfect example of Keynesian philosophy run amok? Look no further than my own country and the 11 trillion dollar deficit and the current recession caused by political meddling in the free market.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This.Varegg wrote:
In this particular case I would have explained to my kids what the song is really about ... and that if they believe in God that this song is far from a threat to their believes ...
It's a tribute to an ideal world without war because with no religion, no countries and no material possesions there would be nothing left to fight wars over ... quite simple ...
My interpretation of the song is that it basically lists excuses man makes for his heinous behavior towards his fellow man...and asks us to imagine what it would be like if we didn't have those excuses--and even moreso--didn't have reason to make those excuses.
Even those with strong faith understand that man has many times twisted religion to suit his earthly goals, completely in contradiction to the true teachings of his religion. That's why the song isn't a slam on those who believe, but rather those who would twist others' belief to suit their worldly goals.
At least, that's my view.
Edit: And replace "religion" with "country" or any of the other things Lennon lists. Same general principle applies.
Last edited by FEOS (2010-01-18 20:08:33)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular