Usa good or bad? The World?

[Jeansi]

Again you guys aren't looking at it from a basic point of view, your jumping ahead and saying "oh we need to teach them how to farm, run their own businesses, pull a rabit out of their ass etc...
Get these people Food and clean water and then worry about the rest.

-Tys

Giving them water only results in that they will not bother making food or water in the future either. I mean why would they? They get it for free from somewhere else.

Also, if every human on earth would use the same amount of water as an average american does per day, our ecological system would collaps in a few years. If I remember right there would only be enough water for 2 or 3 years if that was the case. What then?

[Lemon]

I say nuke the whales. That would solve all the world's problems.

[Nethila]

i didnt read everything, but i found a very amazing thing in this thread..

it's about USA and THE ENFORCER DIDNT POST ANYTHING..OMG :eek:

[ZeUs!!]

We banned him

[Pan]

i didnt read everything, but i found a very amazing thing in this thread..

it's about USA and THE ENFORCER DIDNT POST ANYTHING..OMG :eek:

He was banned where have you been

[Nethila]

hahahahahahaha


btw.. go watch Fahrenheit 9/11 if it's showing at your town, it's really good.

and about teaching developing countries how to farm and stuff.. well, the concepts are really good. but the way they are carrying out the procedure isn't good at all. All we do is just sell those 3rd world countries power tools and new technologies, new machines, without teaching them how to properly use them.

here's a section of an article i read ones:

"The transfer of techonologies from developed countries to the developing world through government technical assistance programs and private initiatives has gereated both growth and serious mistakes. Although new technologies have brought new products and increased productivity, often they have not only wasted resources but also created unnecessary difficult problems of adjustment. Concrete houses constructed in the African countryside have remained empty because villagers preferred their traditional huts. Buildings and equipments designed for a cold climate have been sent to the tropics. High speed diesel pumps have broken down and been abandoned for lack of expert mechanics and spare parts. Big factories have been idled for lack of skilled labor, scarce materials, and demand for their output. The mistakes are particularly striking and regrettable in the developing countries because they so clearly represent a misuse of resources that has left poor people less well off than they could have been."

this whole thing is called the Appropriate Technology Movement... which has failed.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune: here independent urban republic; there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy; afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

[ZeUs!!]

Who actually knows what they're talking about

[Jerome Scuggs]

I wrote all that btw. All of it.

edit: except the part where i copy/paste the communist manifesto

[Randedl]

That entire post was a copy/paste: http://www.gnostics.com/manifesto.html

PS, Jerome, here is a tip for writing an essay or thesis. . . You need to be able to understand and give your own thoughts to what you have read. Not copy and paste what somebody wrote a century ago.

[Jerome Scuggs]

yo for real have i ever posted anything that long and meant/cared about it

[Randedl]

not sure, i don't pay attention

[Nethila]

jerome needs to stop forum whoring


and here's the summary of the article i read:

[Jerome Scuggs]

i think the one thing nethila loves more than teamkilling is my nuts and how to get on them 24/7

[Vykromond]

Quoting Marx does not make you intelligent.

Just a heads-up.

(Rand, you took your Hobbes quote out of context) EDIT: To clarify, "out of context" isn't what I meant to say- "you used it incorrectly" was. If B implies not A, A does not necessarily imply not B.