What/who made GOD?

[Shahumyan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Marxism is not based on logic. It is based on idiocy.

Marxism is just like Nationalism, or any other nonsense Ism that reared its ugly head in the 18th and 19th century. It creates a prism for the mind and all history is viewed by this prism.

Marxism is not "logical" because it is the antithesis of the very thing we call "nature", since it turns it upside its head. I will now quote Hitler from Mein Kampf regarding Marxism who does a far better job of summarizing this than I ever can ( despite the fact that National Socialism was another extension of Marx's ideas ):

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privelage of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus is denies the value of personality in man..."

I think the fact that you believe the truth comes from Hitlers statements is most worrying.

Also very worrying is the fact you think Marxism came about in the 18th century, when in fact it was the late 19th...

And the scaryest thing is your supposeed to be learning this stuff at college or whatever you call your institute of education...

They used the "natural" argument in the past, such as the "natural" right of kings to be at the top of society, and how naturally nobles were better than peasants, and how naturally politicians are better than workers at decision making...

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Shahumyan I think the fact that you believe the truth comes from Hitlers statements is most worrying.

Just because Hitler killed 3 million jews, does not make him an idiot. It makes him a racist xxxxxxx with a lot of power.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Shahumyan such idiocy, the fact is marxism is based on logic....however why let the truth spoil ur good story ey?

We can see how well Marxist "logic" has worked in the world.

Individual rights and freedoms have brought unprecidented wealth, a major rise in the standard of living and an all around better life for those living in said countries.

Collectivism and statism, when practiced to their logical ends, have brought wholesale death.

Cuba, China, Russia, Nazi Germany, etc. That is all that will ever become of Marxism. You can argue that that isn't actually what Marx intended, but what Marx claimed to desire can not be achieved by his means, which is what makes it illogical. The path that Marxists choose leads no where close to a benevolent, peaceful and prospourous world, it leads to death and no where else.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Shahumyan I think the fact that you believe the truth comes from Hitlers statements is most worrying.

Also very worrying is the fact you think Marxism came about in the 18th century, when in fact it was the late 19th...

And the scaryest thing is your supposeed to be learning this stuff at college or whatever you call your institute of education...

They used the "natural" argument in the past, such as the "natural" right of kings to be at the top of society, and how naturally nobles were better than peasants, and how naturally politicians are better than workers at decision making...

First of all, quoting someone doesnt mean you agree with everything they say. That on your behalf is a silly assumption, much like the creed of Marxism. Like I said, I don't agree with Hitler, since he is the antithesis of what I stand up for, liberty and the individual. It's just that Hitler was able to summarize what Marxism is about. Of course Hitlers doctrine is not too far. Stop living in a world of morally umambiguous "good" and "evil" or "class conflict".

Second of all, I said that Nationalism and Marxism along with all the other Isms that came out during the 18th and 19th century, in other words I was referring to many isms, not just Marxism. Once again this is a desperate, and perhaps a silly attempt at trying to correct me.

Third of all, "college" doesn't teach you to think critically, I am in college to be "vocationally trained", but learning is something we all do in our daily lives ourselves, but first there must be a thirst. Now go in the corner and think of what you've done.

The "natural" argument that I am referring to and the one that Hitler is referring to is that the world is organized according to this principle of inequality. Inequality of minds of characters and capacities, and subordination to these laws of nature. Now you can either accept that on its face value, or go chisel a statue of Marx with your hammer and sickle.

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Tramanian We can see how well Marxist "logic" has worked in the world.

Individual rights and freedoms have brought unprecidented wealth, a major rise in the standard of living and an all around better life for those living in said countries.

Collectivism and statism, when practiced to their logical ends, have brought wholesale death.

Cuba, China, Russia, Nazi Germany, etc. That is all that will ever become of Marxism. You can argue that that isn't actually what Marx intended, but what Marx claimed to desire can not be achieved by his means, which is what makes it illogical. The path that Marxists choose leads no where close to a benevolent, peaceful and prospourous world, it leads to death and no where else.

Nazi Germany? Wasn't Hitler fervently opposed to communism and anything of the like?

As for Cuba, had the USA not placed their embargo, it could've been a great success. It still has one of the highest literacy rate and one of the lowest infant mortality rate on earth..

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Shahumyan I think the fact that you believe the truth comes from Hitlers statements is most worrying.

Also very worrying is the fact you think Marxism came about in the 18th century, when in fact it was the late 19th...

And the scaryest thing is your supposeed to be learning this stuff at college or whatever you call your institute of education...

They used the "natural" argument in the past, such as the "natural" right of kings to be at the top of society, and how naturally nobles were better than peasants, and how naturally politicians are better than workers at decision making...

The natural agruement in the context you are stateing was not based in nature, but based on God. Kings claimed that they were chosen by God to be kings.

None the less, *that* argument is more consistant with Marxism, you've just replaced "God" with "society." So instead of God making the decisions about who should be a slave to whom, society, democracy, makes the decision.

I think that Anonymouse was using the term "natural" in the metaphysical context, meaning that Marxism is not consistant with the nature of man as a living conscious being, and thus cannot be practiced on this earth.

Marxism would require that man change his nature, but this is impossible. A pig cannot place his legs in the ground and hope to survive as a plant, and nor can plant walk around and kill its food, and a man cannot be anything more or less than a man, else he brings about his own destruction.

A=A, and any A that attempts to be B, C, D or E will end up not being any of those things, it will become non-A and will cease to exist. Anything that attempts to contradict its own identity will die, period.

Conversely, any A that acts consistant with A will survive and thrive, under normal circumstances.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Tramanian The natural agruement in the context you are stateing was not based in nature, but based on God. Kings claimed that they were chosen by God to be kings.

None the less, *that* argument is more consistant with Marxism, you've just replaced "God" with "society." So instead of God making the decisions about who should be a slave to whom, society, democracy, makes the decision.

I think that Anonymouse was using the term "natural" in the metaphysical context, meaning that Marxism is not consistant with the nature of man as a living conscious being, and thus cannot be practiced on this earth.

Marxism would require that man change his nature, but this is impossible. A pig cannot place his legs in the ground and hope to survive as a plant, and nor can plant walk around and kill its food, and a man cannot be anything more or less than a man, else he brings about his own destruction.

A=A, and any A that attempts to be B, C, D or E will end up not being any of those things, it will become non-A and will cease to exist. Anything that attempts to contradict its own identity will die, period.

Conversely, any A that acts consistant with A will survive and thrive, under normal circumstances.

You're wasting youre time with the Marxist from Manchester.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Nazi Germany? Wasn't Hitler fervently opposed to communism and anything of the like?

As for Cuba, had the USA not placed their embargo, it could've been a great success. It still has one of the highest literacy rate and one of the lowest infant mortality rate on earth..

As for Hitler and communism:
Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism are all sides of the same coin. There are two basic philosophies in politics: collectivism and individualism. The aforementioned political systems are all viariants or collectivism and all lead to the same place, it's just a different way to get there. The only philosophy based on individualism is Capitalism, and I'm not talking about America, I mean actual Capitalism, America is no where close.

To quote Ms. Rand:
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. "

As for the Cuban Embargo:
Out of every country in the world, America is the only one with a trade embargo, Cuba exports to The Netherlands 22.4%, Russia 13.3%, Canada 13.3%, Spain 7.3%, China 6.2% and imports from Spain 12.7%, France 6.5%, Canada 5.7%, China 5.3%, Italy 5.0%.

Opening up that market to trade with America wouldn't make the slightest difference, Cuba even received an addtional $68.2 million in economic aid in 1997 and the standard of living didn't clime an inch, and nor does the trade that Cuba does cause the standard of livling to rise.

Cuba's high literacy rate and low infant mortality rate aside, Cuba is not somewhere where you or I would want to live (unless one of us happend to be Castro's long lost nephew, or unless we don't really care much for our rights.)

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Tramanian As for Hitler and communism:
Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism are all sides of the same coin. There are two basic philosophies in politics: collectivism and individualism. The aforementioned political systems are all viariants or collectivism and all lead to the same place, it's just a different way to get there. The only philosophy based on individualism is Capitalism, and I'm not talking about America, I mean actual Capitalism, America is no where close.

To quote Ms. Rand:
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. "

As for the Cuban Embargo:
Out of every country in the world, America is the only one with a trade embargo, Cuba exports to The Netherlands 22.4%, Russia 13.3%, Canada 13.3%, Spain 7.3%, China 6.2% and imports from Spain 12.7%, France 6.5%, Canada 5.7%, China 5.3%, Italy 5.0%.

Opening up that market to trade with America wouldn't make the slightest difference, Cuba even received an addtional $68.2 million in economic aid in 1997 and the standard of living didn't clime an inch, and nor does the trade that Cuba does cause the standard of livling to rise.

Cuba's high literacy rate and low infant mortality rate aside, Cuba is not somewhere where you or I would want to live (unless one of us happend to be Castro's long lost nephew, or unless we don't really care much for our rights.)

Wow finally someone who finally summarized what I feel.

Indeed, all political systems are socialistic since they all repress the individual and do not respect the property rights of individuals, they vary in degree but all are the same in essence.

Glad you are part of the forum, I suddenly don't feel so lonely in what I state.

[Tramanian]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Wow finally someone who finally summarized what I feel.

Indeed, all political systems are socialistic since they all repress the individual and do not respect the property rights of individuals, they vary in degree but all are the same in essence.

Glad you are part of the forum, I suddenly don't feel so lonely in what I state.

Glad to know that I'm not alone on this issue.

If you haven't read Ayn Rand's non-fiction you really should, she lays down the most logical basis for Capitalism that I have ever read.

Of course, Politics is only one of five branches of philosophy, and her work with metaphysics, ethics, morals, and epistemology is absolutely suberb. A capitalist should never call himself a capitalist without having studied objectivism.

PM me if you want some recommendations in particular.