Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2019, 11:22:26 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Blind Jaunting)
  Zimbabwe to nationalise all land (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Zimbabwe to nationalise all land  (Read 9002 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« on: June 11, 2004, 04:29:47 am »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2004, 06:53:15 am »

How was it brutal? What atrocities were committed?

How is the current government better?

Why is everyone poorer now?

Both Smith and Mugabe's regimes were/are evil. Case closed.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2004, 04:43:05 am »

When in history have Sub-Saharan Africans produced a real civilization???

No, the like 10 years of being Pharoah do not count.

Ghana
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2004, 04:49:20 am »

Zulu
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2004, 12:28:31 pm »

Zulu
Forgot those guys. That's what I call military organisation. Remember Isandlwana - that was not a battle that Black Adder would have enjoyed Wink

Khambula was *much* better Wink
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2004, 05:46:57 am »

No, I meant real civilizations, not make-believe tales.

i.e. cases where there is evidence of their existence...

Um... there have been trading links with sub-saharan africa since God knows how long!

There is a reason why the slave trade is known as the slave trade...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2004, 08:05:21 am »

Jens,

Yes, I'm quite aware of what feudalism is, so I don't need your lectures or any outside reading references. It's painfully clear from your post that my comment went way over your head.

Please explain what you define Socialism as.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2004, 08:41:37 am »

Al,

Come on, I know you're a smart guy. Forget for a minute that you and Jens are in love with theoretical bullsh*t and then go back and read what I said again. This has nothing to do with DEFINITIONS or THEORY...I am way past that. I'm talking about the practical impact of application of socialism on average citizens...try thinking in the real world and outside the cozy confines of the classroom.

Well I would argue that the Leninism is nothing more than "cargo cult socialism" and that as a result none of the old Commie countries can be (IMO) thought of as Socialist.

In the real world, the post war Labour government over here changed the U.K for the better by introducing the NHS and also saved millions of real people from dire poverty.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2004, 03:15:35 am »

Socialism--An economic and social system where production and ownership of goods and services is controlled by the state rather than private enterprise. This system is characterized by its belief in the utility of goods solely for benefit of society rather than profit. The goal being to create a society that is essentially classless, where individual wealth is subverted in favor of the common good, with government playing the most important role in determining the methods and levels of production. Socialism representing the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, the latter being the inevitable conclusion of socialist implementation. The final stage being complete equitable redistribution of goods, services and wealth.

Can we agree, that this is the historical definition of socialism? It's not out of a textbook, but a paraphrase of what I've learned over many years of study on this subject. If you say "no" then we probably have very little else to discuss because you have ignored several hundred years of history that went into that definition.

Ah. Marxism. Oh dear.
I'm no marxist and I would disagree that marxism=socialism.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2004, 10:15:13 am »

"I have said, both in writing and from the platform many times, that the impetus which drove me first into the Labour movement, and the inspiration which has carried me on in it, has been derived more from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than from all other sources combined"
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2004, 07:28:18 am »

Al and Jens,

What happened to you guys in this thread? I thought you were supposed to come back and tell me, the dictionary and the respected academicians of the world why we have the wrong definiton of socialism?

I suppose a simple answer would be a belief in community, equality, social justice, compassion and so on.
Remember the first man to be called a socialist was Robert Owen.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,341
United Kingdom


« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2004, 05:29:11 am »

It's Nationalize no 's'.

LOL!!!

Yeah, the Euro boys are not allowed to use "s" instead of "z" again until they come in here and defend their indefensible misinterpretation of the word "socialism"

Er... I just have.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC