Multae Sententiae is Latin for "many thoughts". Free thinking leads to Enlightenment. Enlightenment leads to happiness...
posted by Doctor Marco at 20:16
Wasn't he sent to prison once already? If so how did he get out?
Actually the answer was in the last paragraph of the article you linked to. Thanks.
This seems to be a disgraceful way to end the chapter of Pinochet's 89 year old life. --Alien's girlfriend
Gindy: thanks for commenting anyway. I have been very busy lately, no time to blog as I wishAlien's girlfriend: I do not understand very well what you mean. Do you wish a nice ending for the life of a murderer?
"I have been very busy lately, no time to blog as I wish"I still check in anyway. Now that summer is here I find myself having less time as well.
Interesting quiz on fascism a while back. Comments may/may not help.
What I mean, Dr. Marco, is that this is a disgraceful way to end anybody's life...a life of disgracing and disregarding the lives of other people is finally coming back to haunt him.--Hear, Speak, See no evil--A.G.
I'd be interested to hear a defense of your Marxist beliefs sometime. A direct question stemming from the "Museum of Creationism" article might be: how do you intend to motivate people to work if you forbid the accumulation of large amounts of wealth? I grant you, the notion of a museum of Creationism befuddles me as well, but your arguments against it seem to be shameless political posturing more than anything else. The guy who proposes to build such a thing is obviously an ass; don't stoop to that level in order to attempt to justify neo-Marxist beliefs.
A.G. : I understand now what you mean. I agree with youSebastianCraine: Although I think that all people who respect themselves should have an ideological background or framework, they should not be dogmatic. I do not use dogmas, I base the conclusions that I reach on facts. I will never say that Leningrad was occupied by the Germans, for example, and if I make a mistake I would publicly accept it. Accumulation of wealth is not bad to a certain extent. However, it should be limited for the benefit of society as a whole.
1) Leningrad was indeed occupied.2) Why?
I also asked, "exactly how one goes about motivating the individual (or even the collective) if it is not for the opportunity to accumulate wealth?" I for one, as a reasonably educated man such as yourself, find it difficult to believe that in the postmodern age (whereby i refer to the mentality that arose sometime after Blanchot, a mentality where some looming conception of Right and Wrong, Morality, and most importantly for this case, Justice, simply does not exist) you're going to fail every time at motivating the individual to be productive without a tangible incentive. And since the collective is just the aggregate of individuals, it will be difficult (to say the least) to attain any kind of Marxist utopia. The way I see it, the only way to accomplish this is to exert your will over the people directly. Fear of death is as good an incentive to work as money. What I mean to say here is, I would never work unless I was to be killed or paid handsomely. This principle - let's call it inertia - I believe applies broadly to our species; it also gives rise to the two post-industrial political systems we've seen so far - capitalism and totalitarian Marxism. The former, wherein the worker is paid for his labors, clearly works at least to some level (even you must admit that). The latter, however, has failed miserably - I need only cite the countries of the former Eastern bloc if you don't believe me, let alone the South American countries of which you speak (I'd much rather live here, in other words.) Now, with regard to the accumulation of wealth, so long as one is self-made, as they say, I can not find a single criticism that holds water. I will assert, however, that what I think you are really arguing against is inheritance. And I can concur. Privilage ought to be paid for by ones labors, not merely assumed upon the death of one's benefactors. Without inheritance, there is no undeserving privilaged class (see Bush, Kerry) who, despite their clear lack of merit, manage to purchase power. Without inheritance, only those with merit will wield power. And lastly, your final statement, "Accumulation of wealth is not bad to a certain extent. However, it should be limited for the benefit of society as a whole," is clearly dogmatic. Where is your argument? How is this not the very dogma that you claim to oppose? I'm not really trying to be a son of a bitch; rather, you've gone reasonably unopposed on here for a while and in my humble opinion, might need to sharpen those debating skills. Perhaps too much time fussing around with kidneys and being productive, not enough sitting around and bullshitting with assholes like me?
I am sorry but I cannot debate with someone who is incapable of accepting a mistake. The city which you are describing is probably Stalingrad, a city that was occupied almost 90% by the Germans at its worse.I am going to put an excerpt that at least will help you out with this piece of historyThe city of Leningrad, now known as Saint Petersburg, saw one of the greatest human tragedies of the entire War. Leningrad, a treasure of classical and baroque architecture on the Baltic Sea, was a city with a pre-war population of three million inhabitants. By August 1941, the Germans had reached the city's southern outskirts. Finnish forces had meanwhile recaptured the Karelian Isthmus North-West of the city, which they had lost after the Winter War in 1940.The city was completely cut off from all land access on 8 September 1941. As the Gulf of Finland was blocked as well, Leningrad's only contact with the outer world was a vulnerable waterway across Lake Ladoga, as Finnish command didn't agree to German requests to advance beyond the River Svir and to conquer the rest of the Lake's coastline. Since taking the city seemed too costly to the Germans, in the light of bitter Soviet resistance, they instead began the Siege of Leningrad in order to starve the city to death. Soon, electricity, water and heating for civilian housing had to be shut down. All public transportation stopped.Thousands of Leningrad citizens froze or starved to death in the first winter of the siege alone, dying at home in their beds or collapsing from exhaustion in the streets. Meanwhile, German artillery kept taking the agonised city under fire. The siege of Leningrad was to last for 900 days, yet Leningrad did not surrender. During this terrible seige, the starving population were driven to extreme measures to survive, some resorted to cannibalism. When Lake Ladoga froze in the winter, the so-called Road of Life was opened to the Soviet-held southern shore of the Lake, with an endless trail of trucks bringing food and supplies to the besieged city and evacuating citizens on their way back. Both the food and the civilian transports were constantly attacked by the Germans with artillery shelling and air raids.When Soviet forces eventually raised the siege in January 1944, over one million inhabitants of Leningrad had died from starvation, exposure and German shelling. The Soviet citizens who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who had participated in cannibalism were shot. 300,000 soldiers had perished in the defence and relief of Leningrad. Leningrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945, being the first city to receive that distinction.
You are impossible. My goal isn't to argue about the Second World War. Regardless, if what you want is a retraction, you may have it, but in many sources I've reviewed, once the "Road to Life" opened, a huge number of Soviet citizens were evacuated (something like 80% of the remaining population or 600K). When the Soviet army launched their counteroffensive, a large number of the Wehrmacht had moved into the city as it had been resupplied. The rest retreated, and this trapped force explains (again, according to what I've read) the large number of German casualties nearing the end of the 900 days. But again, seriously, I could be wrong - and I don't have any problem admitting this. It's been a while, so I'll defer. In any case, this isn't the point of the debate.
You are mixing Stalingrad with Leningrad. Thanks for admitting the possibility of mistake, I will not continue pushing for more.I will answer to your previous post, it is late and I am tired.
Thank you. In addition, Stalin (again, if I'm not mistaken) had a large percentage of the city's leadership shot due to the fact that their celebrity as "heros" posed a threat to his reign.
SebastianCraineThe term "Marxist beliefs" sounds extremely dogmatic, something that I probably would not accept. I need to question and Marx is always in question. A simple analysis of my 2 previous sentences, tells you that I do not have Marxist beliefs. What I have is an ideal for a better distribution of wealth. Analyze again my previous sentence. Better does not equal absolute equality among all people. The point is to find what degree of better is best. This is a matter of opinion and no better has yet been proven to be best. Some people believe the Nowegian model is better than the American model and viceversa. I just do not like to see uninsured people or beggars in the streets. As a consequence of what I have just said, accumulating wealth is not wrong, it is the degree of it what is has to be controlled in order to prevent the unevenness that leads to suffering of individuals. There is nothing dogmatic about that. Unevenness leads to instability. It is a historical fact. By preventing big differences in the amount of wealth of people of the same society we prevent its destruction. As I said in some other thread, it is a matter of survival, not of romanticism.I see a strong influence of Nietzsche when I read "exert your will". I am curious to see how far do you carry his philosophy.No country in the world has applied what Marx wanted to apply. The Soviet Union was not an industrialized country at the time Lenin seized power. The Soviet leaders tried to industrialize it by force, in order to make it look like what Marx proposed. Marxism was designed for Germany.Try living in South America, one or two years. You will have a great experience there.Stalin committed many crimes and his memory in the Soviet Union was downgraded by Khruschev.
Post a Comment
Copy and paste the HTML code in your webpage. Let me know through email so that I can link you!
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...Albert Einstein