Interesting debate on existance of god, worth a read 2
- Thread starter RPGlover12
- Start date
- Status
2fast4u
New member
im not saying u dont listen to the other side in general, no no! im not generalizing that, sir! im talking about religious questions ONLY which is the only aspect i can judge, the point is i thought u would be willing to discuss these points with us and bring other points which show that the bible is right (is it?). we wanna have a discussion here, at least thats wot i thought. ???
Tri-Force
Philosopher Warrior
ill admit that i have no desire to see the other side again. i say again becasuse i have seen it all before and looked at it and wondered but now i believe SO MUCH that my belief system is valid and right that i have no need so to say to see the other side. the side im on and in and with is the side i love, if that makes any sence. Religion is the ONLY thing that i dont sway on when debateing. if it was a discusion with other religious people then i would listen and be open but with people wo dont believe i just find it hard to see their point of view because i cant relate to it. hope that clears some things about me up.
Last edited:
sytaylor
Sy
Tri-Force said:
the fact religion gives you what you want is not an excuse to be ignorant, you dont wanna think about life iwthout religion? theres a closed mind if ever i saw one... i live on "that side" and i can tell you its pretty damn good if you already have the morals and reason for living in your life.
sk8bloke22
roll for life
this thread is so boring now.
2fast4u - u prefer anarchism or orthodox marxism?
might as well get an interesting discussion going.
2fast4u - u prefer anarchism or orthodox marxism?
might as well get an interesting discussion going.
OP
RPGlover12
New member
- Thread Starter
- #194
hey guys sorry for long time no chat for that cause i've been busy but anyway here is something that i foudn taht could be usefull and hope so
click here to go to the site
ok check it out
click here to go to the site
ok check it out
yogaman
Banned
Was too lazy to follow up this whole discussion - but one thing (I'm not a hardcore christian - just a softy :blush: ).
I had a (hardcore) christian as gf. She was nice and all .... very good-lookin' and all the stuff. The only prob was that she never wanted to come out for parties - later I even discovered she wasn't in for a BEER ??? ..... Well, u can guess how our relationship turned out
.....
so one good advice: NEVER EVER GET IN LOVE WITH "EXTREME RELIGIOUS PEOPLE" - they have pretty much a fundamentalist aura - and they can break ur heart !!
I had a (hardcore) christian as gf. She was nice and all .... very good-lookin' and all the stuff. The only prob was that she never wanted to come out for parties - later I even discovered she wasn't in for a BEER ??? ..... Well, u can guess how our relationship turned out
..... so one good advice: NEVER EVER GET IN LOVE WITH "EXTREME RELIGIOUS PEOPLE" - they have pretty much a fundamentalist aura
- and they can break ur heart !!
2fast4u
New member
sk8bloke22 said:
i am denifitly not an anarchist. i like to define myself as a marxist-leninist. means my understatement of socialism is a very idealistic (i do see that), but very liberal one (liberal means its not communism, which is very authoritative). lets just say i advocate the fundamental basics of socialism as defined by karl marx and friedrich engels.
sk8bloke22
roll for life
2fast4u said:
marist-leninism wasnt particaularly based much on marx and engels original concept of capitalism. firstly lenin was focused only on the revolution. he was largely influenced by nechayev's 'catachism of the revolution' which solely about seizing power. the revolution, for marx, was more a stage in the 'inevitable' chain of events that are forced to happen due to changes in the economic base. in fact, lenism is quite hypocritical, as lenin claimed to be the heir of Marx, yet marx believed that revolution could only occur during the peak of high capitalism. russia in 1917 hadnt even moved into the lower stages of capitalism, so lenin was hardly co-ordinating his revolution with marx and engels original concept. from wat ive studied about marixist-lenisim, there is little evidence that lenin was prepared to alow the state to 'wither away' as marx predicted. infact, quite contradictory, one of lenin's policies allowed certain farmers to gain profit, again a complete contradiction to marx's great hatred of profit.
im not really a marxist, but i do hav a respect for the fellow. he obviously understood the mechanisms of capitalism well. another thing, marxism is a bit outdated now, as the war between TWO classes is a bit irrelevant nowadays, as there are loads of different groups to consider, that werent an issue in marx's days, eg. different race's, the middle-class, etc.
sorry for any typos there, im knackered. just thought id start up a more interesting topic
2fast4u
New member
marx defines the highest stage of capitalism as imperialism - so speaking it's the peak of capitalism. yet thru the outbreak of ww1 this stage was reached by all european major powers and the usa. therefore, russia's revolutionary development was exactly how marx had predicted it. however, revolutions in other countries failed: in most of these countries the monarchie and the militarism was stronger than in russia, which had been backwards for decades before. thats were we hit the limits of the marxist' theory that the revolution is historically unavoidable.
new economic policy (nep, 1923). this allowed little private ownership and profit for farmers. to be strict, lenin adopted a principle of capitalism in his revolutionary government. history tells us that capitalism is a more efficient economic system, yet capitalism is the root of injustice.
marx' told us that u have to know capitalism to fight it. consequently, he understood each aspect of it. u may not share this, but marx not only was a briliant economic mind. in my opinion, he was the greatest thinker of all time. he wrote the basis for a world that would be a better one for humanity. then we have the irony of history, that stalinism turned communism into an oppressive form of government, which was near to fascism. ???
well, marxism is not a strict doctrine like the bible, which is fundamental and unchangeable. marxism is in a stage of development, which has adjusted to current situations. i think u r focusing on the fundamental writings of marxism (which r obviously outdated in many aspects).
sk8bloke22
roll for life
ah but, russia hadnt entered any form of an industrial revolution, so that would make Marx's prediction wrong, as he predicted as transition from the lower to higher stages of capitalism. u cant just skip the industrial revolution to imperialism, as each stage contained the seeds for the next stage. capitalism barely existed in russia before the revolution....Marx used Britain and Germany as his examples of where revolution was likely to occur first sa they pioneered capitalism. lenin wasn't even totally working class, i mean u probably more than me about this, but from wat i do know, he had quite a bourgouise upbringing. marx explained that revolution would occur at the end of the dialectical relationship between the proletariat and the employer, which would also mark the end of high capitalism. from wat im aware, such a relationship couldnt hav existed between the worker and the employer, as big businesses hadnt really began to flourish, like they did in Britain and Germany. the main opposition to lenin, or for lenin, was the monarchy. also, democratic centralism, lenin's form of party organisation, pretty much strengthened the position of the vanguard, suggesting that there was no intention to allow the state to fall apart.
but yea, i agree with u, marx is definitely one of the greats in politics. im pretty much against the dictatorship period, and the violence, but the "wrest" of power could be achieved in different ways. for instance in mexico and entire city was seized temporarily by a group of revolutionary computer hackers...im not quote sure of the exact story, but im sure its on the net somewhere.
im probably more an anarchist, but i find marx really really interesting.
but yea, i agree with u, marx is definitely one of the greats in politics. im pretty much against the dictatorship period, and the violence, but the "wrest" of power could be achieved in different ways. for instance in mexico and entire city was seized temporarily by a group of revolutionary computer hackers...im not quote sure of the exact story, but im sure its on the net somewhere.
im probably more an anarchist, but i find marx really really interesting.
2fast4u
New member
sorry, this took a while. here we go again ...
ay, agreed. the problem is that imperialism very well existed, as far as my definition of imperialism applies. russia was a) imperialistic b) oppressive c) totalitarian. this all creates futile ground for a revolution, plus a lost war with millions of deaths and the ppl near starvation. don't forget that the russian social democratic party was split into the bolsheviks (majority) and the mencheviks (minority) (not sure about the spelling :blush. the split was made with 1 or 2 votes majority as far as i remember, so actually russia originally not approaching a radical revolution, but a socialistic/socialdemocratic reform. the fact that lenin disproved marx' 'theory of social evolution' does not disprove marx in his socialist thesis, that its the way into a better world.
the same way with cuba btw, which was not in the age of the industrial revolution but in a country that was suffering from a dictatorship of a us-controlled puppet-government. originally this revolution was very nationalistic and not an open revolution but a guerilla war. socialism is spreading like nothing else in all countries that are suffering from any oppression. history proves that and i believe future will too.
agreed again, but a vast majority of the great socialists are originally from bourgeois families or even capitalistic ones. socialism was made for the proletariat - but not by the proletarians.
---
marx has been disproved in his assumption that the change from capitalism to socialism is historically unavoidable. however, with socialism he created an ideology that should bring humanity exactly those things that it had missed in the age of the industrial revolution: human rights, freedom, prosperity. now, i have to say that capitalism has achieved that for its followers, while the rest of the world is used as the ones that have to provide this for us, we who live in the capitalistic countries. 'old' marxism is outdated and not-existant anymore. modern marxism can be found largely in the anti-globalization movement, new socialistic formations all over the world and so on. like i said, marxism is not a doctrine and the main goal - the replacement of capitalism as a system that divides man into classses (not only the capitalist class, the bourgeois class and the workers class - yes they still exist - but also the world: north and south!). capitalism has brought the world so far that it is - once again right now (just read the news about bush's newest imperialistic developments ???) - its about to destroy itself. i blame this war mainly on capitalism but we already had a topic about that.
ay, agreed. the problem is that imperialism very well existed, as far as my definition of imperialism applies. russia was a) imperialistic b) oppressive c) totalitarian. this all creates futile ground for a revolution, plus a lost war with millions of deaths and the ppl near starvation. don't forget that the russian social democratic party was split into the bolsheviks (majority) and the mencheviks (minority) (not sure about the spelling :blush
. the split was made with 1 or 2 votes majority as far as i remember, so actually russia originally not approaching a radical revolution, but a socialistic/socialdemocratic reform. the fact that lenin disproved marx' 'theory of social evolution' does not disprove marx in his socialist thesis, that its the way into a better world.the same way with cuba btw, which was not in the age of the industrial revolution but in a country that was suffering from a dictatorship of a us-controlled puppet-government. originally this revolution was very nationalistic and not an open revolution but a guerilla war. socialism is spreading like nothing else in all countries that are suffering from any oppression. history proves that and i believe future will too.
agreed again, but a vast majority of the great socialists are originally from bourgeois families or even capitalistic ones. socialism was made for the proletariat - but not by the proletarians.
---
marx has been disproved in his assumption that the change from capitalism to socialism is historically unavoidable. however, with socialism he created an ideology that should bring humanity exactly those things that it had missed in the age of the industrial revolution: human rights, freedom, prosperity. now, i have to say that capitalism has achieved that for its followers, while the rest of the world is used as the ones that have to provide this for us, we who live in the capitalistic countries. 'old' marxism is outdated and not-existant anymore. modern marxism can be found largely in the anti-globalization movement, new socialistic formations all over the world and so on. like i said, marxism is not a doctrine and the main goal - the replacement of capitalism as a system that divides man into classses (not only the capitalist class, the bourgeois class and the workers class - yes they still exist - but also the world: north and south!). capitalism has brought the world so far that it is - once again right now (just read the news about bush's newest imperialistic developments ???) - its about to destroy itself. i blame this war mainly on capitalism but we already had a topic about that.
- Status