Are Protoss Clones?

[KaiserStratosTygo]

My attempts at pulling a common enemy have failed!

This thread is a lost cause!

RETREAT MEN! D:

[DemolitionSquid]

My attempts at pulling a common enemy have failed!

This thread is a lost cause!

RETREAT MEN! D:

Indeed. Eco's the one who's gone off the deep end.

Socialism is Communism?

Communism doesn't want Government?

I almost pity the foo.

Almost.

[TheEconomist]

Go ahead and argue in ignorance like you always do. It's not like I'm getting a doctorate in this or anything. It's not like I've read over a hundred books on the subject.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

In Communism, there is no centralized government. There is only a collective ownership of property. Fact.

I'm not at all surprised that you know less about your 'vaunted religion' than is in the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article. That's about what I've come to expect from you.

You're confusing Leninism/Stalinism with Communism, even though you just claimed to understand that the Soviet Union was not Communist.

As for Socialism is Communism, clearly, you know nothing of Marxism and have never read any of his readings. Where do think these terms and ideas come from? I've read his works, but, of course, if I were to quote him directly, you'd just ignore it, like you just did now.

So, I'll have other socialists describe it to you:

Socialism, understood as a society in which the economy was socially owned and output was shared equally, would not be created, fully developed, separate from existing capitalist society. Instead, in historic terms, there would be a period during which capitalist society would be transformed into socialist society, a “transitional” period.

The struggle for a more just and genuinely human society, therefore, could not turn its back on the actually existing capitalist society. Just as a worker can only work with the tools and raw materials that are available, humanity in general could only create a new society with the “raw materials” provided by society’s past development.

http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2011/0...-to-communism/

Translation? Mankind is so fucked up from freely making its own decision that it will take many generations of enlightened, intellectual control to guide the people towards the correct path until they are mentally capable of taking care of their own decisions, but not before equality indoctrination has broken every flawed, chaotic impulse in mankind.

I'm now off to continue my much more fulfilling, more successfuly, more meaningful life than yours.

My attempts at pulling a common enemy have failed!

This thread is a lost cause!

RETREAT MEN! D:

Clearly, you're confused about the situation here. What you've done is the equivalent of interrupting a private conversation of the regulars at a bar, among people that have known each other a for a long time, and you've weaseled your way into the conversation as if you were a close friend. You are not. Look around you. This is not an active forum. This is not a place where rigid topic structure makes any sense. So, in ancient high school terms, go away, nerd, no one likes you.

[DemolitionSquid]

Communism is not government-less, that would be Anarchy.

Socialism is the middle ground between Capitalism and Communism where the government controls needs things that are too vital to be placed in a pure Capitalist market environment, like public health care.

Bottom line, you're fucking insane. I wash my hands of you.

[Visions of Khas]

I hate all of you.

[DemolitionSquid]

I hate all of you.

[Nissa]

Let the record show that I'm sorry, Khas. A very little bit sorry.

I looked up the definition of socialism for a paper, and apparently it's defined as a transitory stage that leads to communism.

[TheEconomist]

I looked up the definition of socialism for a paper, and apparently it's defined as a transitory stage that leads to communism.

I can understand Squibb not simply trusting me, but also doubting a Wikipedia article and Socialists themselves? Strange. He has nothing but surface knowledge about anything. He derives his terms and definitions from what he gleams from the words of politicians, no wonder he's so damn confused and wrong all the time.

Socialism is the middle ground between Capitalism and Communism where the government controls needs things that are too vital to be placed in a pure Capitalist market environment, like public health care.

No, again that is called market friendly. Put in economic terms, you provide the things not for any of the reasons you think (only politicians say that) but because some believe that capitalism is inherent weak on the demand-side and unchecked leads to imbalances in supply versus demand. They believe that government must push aggregate demand to certain levels through monetary (interest rates, money supply) and fiscal policy (infrastructure projects, subsidies, and health care) to maintain desired equilibrium outputs. Put bluntly, they believe through the labor-saving price setting and wage setting behaviors, capitalism leads ever more to a situation where the people don't have enough money to buy the goods they produce. Basically, it denies the societal benefits of an increase in the marginal product of labor, a completely false assertion as easy as evolution to prove.

Then there's Keynesianism, stemming from Keynes, who despised Communism, and wanted to save capitalism from itself. Almost all of the 'socialist' countries you admire, simply follow Keynes advice a bit more than Friedrich Hayek, that is the only difference.

If your system has a place for price mechanisms in planning then, by definition, it is a market economy. And, therefore, capitalism, since socialism is basically, by definition, a system to replace the price mechanisms from the planning process.

The core of the problem is simply that you don't want to call yourself a capitalist even though you are. You are ignorant of the ranges of capitalism from austrian, monetarism, keynesian/new keynesian, laissez-faire, and many others.

But, fine, don't believe me, what do I know, after all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic...conomic_system

Have The Economist magazine explain it to you, let's substitute Nordic/Scandinavian capitalism with socialism for a moment, since you think that's what socialism is. What is socialism? "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects. Also known as 'cuddly capitalism'"

that would be Anarchy.

No, anarchy is a lack of an authority of any kind. Again, you're just trying to intuit definitions from others. Retarded teenagers use it as a cry against government and schooling authority, so I'm not surprised you don't know what it truly means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

Communism is a VERY strong, central authority stemming from the people's collective ownership, not government.

I'll give one final attempt to educate you, but since I'm not beside you, I cannot force you to read the links I give to you and to read and understand.

http://classroom.synonym.com/differe...ism-17064.html

This is another explanation with direct quotes from Karl Marx as well as paraphrasing, it's not just interpretation like the other. If you don't believe or understand this, then once again you are beyond help. When have you ever acknowledged how wrong you are? Go ahead and argue about the definition of Communism with Marx himself for all I care. I only spend enough time with you to give an excuse to sort things out in my head for myself, and that time is now past.

I hate all of you.

Maybe next time you'll keep it on track once I get it back on? It's hard to respect topic boundaries when the topic creator himself doesn't until it gives him an excuse to whine. It's already hard enough to care given how dead this forum is.

[KaiserStratosTygo]

Go ahead and argue in ignorance like you always do. It's not like I'm getting a doctorate in this or anything. It's not like I've read over a hundred books on the subject.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

In Communism, there is no centralized government. There is only a collective ownership of property. Fact.

I'm not at all surprised that you know less about your 'vaunted religion' than is in the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article. That's about what I've come to expect from you.

You're confusing Leninism/Stalinism with Communism, even though you just claimed to understand that the Soviet Union was not Communist.

As for Socialism is Communism, clearly, you know nothing of Marxism and have never read any of his readings. Where do think these terms and ideas come from? I've read his works, but, of course, if I were to quote him directly, you'd just ignore it, like you just did now.

So, I'll have other socialists describe it to you:



http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2011/0...-to-communism/

Translation? Mankind is so fucked up from freely making its own decision that it will take many generations of enlightened, intellectual control to guide the people towards the correct path until they are mentally capable of taking care of their own decisions, but not before equality indoctrination has broken every flawed, chaotic impulse in mankind.

I'm now off to continue my much more fulfilling, more successfuly, more meaningful life than yours.



Clearly, you're confused about the situation here. What you've done is the equivalent of interrupting a private conversation of the regulars at a bar, among people that have known each other a for a long time, and you've weaseled your way into the conversation as if you were a close friend. You are not. Look around you. This is not an active forum. This is not a place where rigid topic structure makes any sense. So, in ancient high school terms, go away, nerd, no one likes you.

This is a forum, there are exactly 0 private conversations.

I will do as I please and if that bothers you, neat.

I just wanted a laugh, but now it's time I waste your own.

I am THE THIRD PARTY, AND my doctrine is as follows:

#1 I do as I please

#2 I do what I want

#3 I do what I wish

if I want to interrupt your marital squabble I shall do so, as it is my will.

And I am in the right, you basically gave me carte blanche (This is not a place where rigid topic structure makes any sense) Now I get to talk about tacos or something at my leisure

You want to have a private chat without interruption, take it to the PMs.

Now, I am unsure of your motives here, I was willing to leave, but you responded in a way (probably intentional) to draw me back in, if your intent was to make me feel bad or to leave, you have failed.

well, I'm here? where do you guys keep the scotch?

I hate all of you.

Then join me in the total destruction of reality, together we will purge this universe of all life and non-life alike!

[TTHGFDJ]

Human faces are a great way to pay homage to employees. There is also a political/social agenda over the design of human characters.