What I Would Like To See From Trump

[JakeStarkey]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

 

[ding]

1. The Joint Chiefs would shoot him.
2. No one is getting deported.
3. We are capitalist country.
4. Adopt fair trade instead of free trade. [ok]
5. Adopt single payer universal health care like the rest of the developed nations. [ok]
6. Mandate that in 10 years, all rooftops, both public and private, have solar panels installed on them. [ok]
7. Gas powered cars are here for a long time.
8. Non-organic farming is just fine.
9. We will still with the $$$.
10. Not bad.

You just agreed with a crazy person and proven that you are a socialist all in one fell swoop. That's really hard to do unless you are a stark raving idiot.

You got an F on your socialism project, so trot along.

OKTexas wants to live in a dictatorship.

But as long as Trump moves toward the center and acts with common sense, that's a whole lot better than thirty million hoped for.

lol, he just admitted to being a socialist. Not just any socialist mind you, but a white supremacist skin head socialist. And you believe I am the one who got an "F" on socialism?

Please do go back and enjoy your allegiance with him. You are made for each other.

You are what the Chinese would call a "running dog." Along with being a slave of the jews. I am not a White supremacist. White people just happen to be superior. What I actually am is a White Separatist. I have a picture for you. Stick it up your ass.

That's some mighty tough talk for an anonymous key board warrior. You got me all scared. What are you going to do? Put me on ignore. You and your pussy friends won't do shit. Cowards never do. Let me know when you pussies are ready to come out of the closet.

 

[kaz]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

 

[kaz]

1. The Joint Chiefs would shoot him.
2. No one is getting deported.
3. We are capitalist country.
4. Adopt fair trade instead of free trade. [ok]
5. Adopt single payer universal health care like the rest of the developed nations. [ok]
6. Mandate that in 10 years, all rooftops, both public and private, have solar panels installed on them. [ok]
7. Gas powered cars are here for a long time.
8. Non-organic farming is just fine.
9. We will still with the $$$.
10. Not bad.

You just agreed with a crazy person and proven that you are a socialist all in one fell swoop. That's really hard to do unless you are a stark raving idiot.

You got an F on your socialism project, so trot along.

OKTexas wants to live in a dictatorship.

But as long as Trump moves toward the center and acts with common sense, that's a whole lot better than thirty million hoped for.

lol, he just admitted to being a socialist. Not just any socialist mind you, but a white supremacist skin head socialist. And you believe I am the one who got an "F" on socialism?

Please do go back and enjoy your allegiance with him. You are made for each other.

You are what the Chinese would call a "running dog." Along with being a slave of the jews. I am not a White supremacist. White people just happen to be superior. What I actually am is a White Separatist. I have a picture for you. Stick it up your ass.

That's some mighty tough talk for an anonymous key board warrior. You got me all scared. What are you going to do? Put me on ignore. You and your pussy friends won't do shit. Cowards never do. Let me know when you pussies are ready to come out of the closet.

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

 

[ding]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

Well... he does support gay marriage and transsexuals using the bathrooms of their choice, so there is that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

Kaz just posted his own picture. But maybe gusto looks like that, too. And google and ding, too.

 

[ding]

You just agreed with a crazy person and proven that you are a socialist all in one fell swoop. That's really hard to do unless you are a stark raving idiot.

You got an F on your socialism project, so trot along.

OKTexas wants to live in a dictatorship.

But as long as Trump moves toward the center and acts with common sense, that's a whole lot better than thirty million hoped for.

lol, he just admitted to being a socialist. Not just any socialist mind you, but a white supremacist skin head socialist. And you believe I am the one who got an "F" on socialism?

Please do go back and enjoy your allegiance with him. You are made for each other.

You are what the Chinese would call a "running dog." Along with being a slave of the jews. I am not a White supremacist. White people just happen to be superior. What I actually am is a White Separatist. I have a picture for you. Stick it up your ass.

That's some mighty tough talk for an anonymous key board warrior. You got me all scared. What are you going to do? Put me on ignore. You and your pussy friends won't do shit. Cowards never do. Let me know when you pussies are ready to come out of the closet.

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

I love the quotes in your signature.

 

[kaz]

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

Kaz just posted his own picture. But maybe gusto looks like that, too. And google and ding, too.

Playground! It always sounds good to you when you do that, doesn't it Jake? Most people move past that phase when ... you know ... we're too old to go to playgrounds ...

 

[gusto]

What I would like to see Trump do, if only we had the technology, is to find Hitler's corpse, reanimate it and install him as dictator here. But seeing how that isn't going to happen, there are some other things I would like to see him do.

1. Get together with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and with the military might, seize power as dictator.
2. Do what Abraham Lincoln didn't get a chance to do. Deport most of the negroes. Preferably back to Africa. Or at least give them their own state. Because our multiethnic society just doesn't work!
3. Take control of all businesses and make them state run. Because capitalism is a cruel joke!
4. Adopt fair trade instead of free trade.
5. Adopt single payer universal health care like the rest of the developed nations.
6. Mandate that in 10 years, all rooftops, both public and private, have solar panels installed on them.
7. Mandate that in 10 years, all cars made be electric only. Though something like a single cylinder lawn mower type of engine would be allowable for heat and air conditioning.
8. Mandate that in 10 years, all farming be organic.
9. Dump the dollar! Our nation is over 18 trillion dollars in debt. We have around 61 trillion dollars worth of unfunded obligations. And each year we HAVE to pay 420 billion dollars just on the interest of our national debt. Like it or not, all that is too big of a hole for us to dig our way out of.
10. After 50 years, if human caused global warming hasn't already killed us all, go to something that is far better than democracy ever thought of being. Appoint all state and federal congressmen and representatives by lottery from among the general populace. The presidency would be replaced by a counsel of 12 with one of them being given the power to break ties. All these would be for the same four year term with half being
replaced two years apart. Instead of all being replaced the same year.

First one deported should be you to N. Korea.

You need to be deported to Africa.

You're the one wanting to live under a dictator, move you ass were they got one.

I would also like to see universal health care here. Like they have in the other developed countries on the planet. You can blow it out your ass if you think I'm going to move to some country where they have it. I will just support us having it here. Like it or not.

Feel free to support in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.

As I said, all of the other developed countries have it. As well as many third world countries. Such as Mexico. Look at the people in any of them. Is one of their hands full of shit? Or is it just you who is full of shit.

 

[ding]

1. The Joint Chiefs would shoot him.
2. No one is getting deported.
3. We are capitalist country.
4. Adopt fair trade instead of free trade. [ok]
5. Adopt single payer universal health care like the rest of the developed nations. [ok]
6. Mandate that in 10 years, all rooftops, both public and private, have solar panels installed on them. [ok]
7. Gas powered cars are here for a long time.
8. Non-organic farming is just fine.
9. We will still with the $$$.
10. Not bad.

You just agreed with a crazy person and proven that you are a socialist all in one fell swoop. That's really hard to do unless you are a stark raving idiot.

You got an F on your socialism project, so trot along.

OKTexas wants to live in a dictatorship.

But as long as Trump moves toward the center and acts with common sense, that's a whole lot better than thirty million hoped for.

Since the OP has admitted that his political affiliation leans to the socialist side and since my good friend, Jake, thinks he knows something about socialism, maybe this is a good opportunity for me to educate them both on the history of socialism.

"...in early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were -- State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the 20th century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the 19th Century.

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorships; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. This is typical of the Enlightenment in the 18th Century and of Marxism. Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive, and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism; radicalism had to surrender to socialism; and socialism could never resist communism..."

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: Harvard Commencement Address (A World Split Apart)

"It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive experience, be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of socialism. While it makes use of a voluminous literature familiar to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren. But this circumstance has its compensations. It provides us with a rare opportunity of receiving a systematic analysis of the theory and practice of socialism from the pen of an outstanding mathematical thinker versed in the rigorous methodology of his science. (One can attach particular weight, for instance, to his judgment that Marxism lacks even the climate of scientific inquiry.) World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct--also laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. The twentieth century marks one of the greatest upsurges in the success of socialism, and concomitantly of its repulsive practical manifestations. Yet due to the same passionate irrationality, attempts to examine these results are repelled: they are either ignored completely, or implausibly explained away in terms of certain "Asiatic" or "Russian" aberrations or the personality of a particular dictator, or else they are ascribed to "state capitalism." The present book encompasses vast stretches of time and space. By carefully describing and analyzing dozens of socialist doctrines and numerous states built on socialist principles, the author leaves no room for evasive arguments based on so-called "insignificant exceptions" (allegedly bearing no resemblance to the glorious future). Whether it is the centralization of China in the first millennium B.C., the bloody European experiments of the time of the Reformation, the chilling (though universally esteemed) utopias of European thinkers, the intrigues of Marx and Engels, or the radical Communist measures of the Lenin period (no wit more humane than Stalin's heavy-handed methods)--the author in all his dozens of examples demonstrates the undeviating consistency of the phenomenon under consideration. Shafarevich has singled out the invariants of socialism, its fundamental and unchanging elements, which depend neither on time nor place, and which, alas, are looming ominously over today's tottering world. If one considers human history in its entirety, socialism can boast of a greater longevity and durability, of wider diffusion and of control over larger masses of people, than can contemporary Western civilization. It is therefore difficult to shake off gloomy presentiments when contemplating that maw into which--before the century is out--we may all plunge: that "Asiatic formation" which Marx hastened to circumvent in his classification, and before which contemporary Marxist thought stands baffled, having discerned its own hideous countenance in the mirror of the millennia. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity. Shafarevich points out with great precision both the cause and the genesis of the first socialist doctrines, which he characterizes as reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity. Even though, as this book shows, socialism has always successfully avoided truly scientific analyses of its essence, Shafarevich's study challenges present-day theoreticians of socialism to demonstrate their arguments in a businesslike public discussion."
ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism

1. The Abolition of Private Property

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: 'Abolition of private property,'" (Communist Manifesto).

This proposition, in its negative form, is inherent in all socialist doctrines without exception and is the basic feature of all socialist states. But in its positive form, as an assertion about the actual nature of property in a socialist society, it is less universal and appears in two distinct variants: the overwhelming majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the communality of property (implemented in more or less radical fashion), while socialist states (and some doctrines) are based on state property.

2. The Abolition of the Family

The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. Again, the negative form of the principle is more common. As a positive statement about specific relationships between the sexes or between parents and children, it appears in several variants as the total obliteration of the family, communality of wives and the destruction of all ties between parent and child to the point where they may not even know each other; as an impairment and a weakening of family ties; or as the transformation of the family into a unit of the bureaucratic state subjected to its goals and control.

3. The Abolition of Religion

It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day.

Finally, in Plato's socialist system, religion is conceived as an element in the state's ideology. Its role amounts to education, the shaping of citizens' opinions into the forms necessary to the state. To this end, new religious observances and myths were invented and the old ones abolished. It seems that in many of the states of the ancient Orient, official religion played an analogous role, its central function being the deification of the king, who was the personification of the all-powerful state.

4. Communality or Equality

This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls "to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful," to abolish privilege. This tendency frequently gives rise to hostility toward culture as a factor contributing to spiritual and intellectual inequality and, as a result, leads to a call for the destruction of culture itself. The first formulation of this view can be found in Plato, the most recent in contemporary leftist movements in the West which consider culture "individualistic," "repressive," "suffocating," and call for "ideological guerrilla warfare against culture." We see that a small number of clear-cut principles inspired the socialist doctrines and guided the life of the socialist societies in the course of several millennia. This unity and interrelatedness of various socialist doctrines was fully recognized by their representatives: Thomas Müntzer cites Plato as an authority; Johann of Leyden studies Müntzer, Campanella considers the Anabaptists as an example of the embodiment of his system. Morelly and the anonymous author of the article in the Encyclopédie point to the Inca state as a corroboration of their social views, and in another article from the Encyclopédie ("The Moravians," written by Faiguet), the Moravian Brethren are cited as an example of an ideal communal order. Among late socialists, Saint-Simon in his last work, New Christianity, declares: "The New Christianity will consist of separate tendencies which for the most part will correspond to the ideas of the heretical sects of Europe and America." Further examples of this sense of kinship among the socialist currents of different epochs could easily be produced. We shall only point here to the numerous works with titles such as Forerunners of Scientific Socialism produced by spokesmen of the socialist camp, where among "forerunners" one can find Plato, Dolcino, Müntzer, More and Campanella. ...

It is of course true that in different periods the central core of socialist ideology was manifested in different forms: we have seen socialism in the form of mystical prophecy, of a rationalistic plan for a happy society or of a scientific doctrine. In each period, socialism absorbs certain of the ideas of its time and uses the language contemporary to it. Some of its elements are discarded; others, on the contrary, acquire especially great significance. This is not unusual: such a pattern applies to any other phenomenon of such historical scope.

In another work on socialism, I referred to religion as an example of the same kind of historical phenomenon which is transformed in the course of time just as socialism has been. Now, however, it seems to me that this juxtaposition rather underscores the unique character of socialist ideology--its unprecedented conservatism. Since the time when socialism's basic principles were formulated in Plato's system, the religious concepts of mankind have been completely transformed: the idea of monotheism has acquired universal significance in the world; the concept of a single God in three essences, God-manhood, salvation by faith and a series of other fundamental ideas have arisen. At the same time, the basic principles of socialism have not changed to this day; it has only altered its form and motivation. The unity and cohesiveness of the system of socialist conceptions becomes apparent, together with an astonishing conservatism, in the way that certain details recur again and again in socialist societies and doctrines that are little related one to the other and sometimes widely separated in time. The probability of accidental recurrence is negligible, unless we assume that the similarities are inexorably determined by their exceptional spiritual closeness. We shall cite only four examples from the large number of such coincidences:

a. The coincidence of many details in More's Utopia and the accounts of the Inca state, which lead to the question posed in the French Academy concerning the influence of these accounts on More (which would have been chronologically impossible).

b. The custom of mummification of the heads of state and burial in stepped tombs of pyramid-like design, which is met with in states with strong socialist tendencies (although the states in question may be separated by many thousands of years).

c. In Deschamps's True System we find this vivid detail: Describing the future socialist society, he says that "nearly all people will have almost the same appearance." Dostoyevsky expresses the same thought in the notebooks to The Possessed. The character who is called Pyotr Verkhovensky in the novel and Nechayev in the notebooks has this to say about the future society: "In my opinion even men and women with particularly attractive faces should be prohibited." (92: XI: 270) Dostoyevsky gathered material for his novel from the ideological pronouncements of the nihilists and the socialists, but neither he nor they could have known Deschamps's work, which was published only in our century.

d. In The Republic, Plato wrote that, among the guardians, "none have any habitation or storage area which is not open for all to enter at will." Aristophanes speaks about this in almost the same words in his Ecclesiazusae: "I'll knock out walls and remodel the city into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose."

This particular coincidence may be explained by the fact that the authors lived during the same epoch, but the motif is encountered again in More, who, in order to underscore the kind of communality in which the Utopians lived, describes the entrances to their dwellings: "The doors are made with two leaves that are never locked or bolted and are so easy to open that they will follow the slightest touch and shut again alone. Whoever wishes may go in, for there is nothing inside the house that is private or any man's own."

More, of course, had read Plato and could have borrowed the thought from him. But we meet with a law against the closing of doors in the Inca state as well. Still later, in Crime and Punishment, the character Lebeziatnikov expounds on the question of free entry into rooms in the future society: "It has been debated of late whether a member of the commune has the right to go into the room of another member, male or female, at any time. ..well, it was decided that he does." (92: VI: p. 284) This is not merely an artistic contrivance. Dostoyevsky understood the nature of socialism and anticipated its future role perhaps more astutely than any other thinker of the last century. Of the multitude of petty details that he knew about nihilist circles, he selected some of the most characteristic, among these the very same free entrance into dwellings mentioned almost two and a half thousand years earlier by Plato.

And finally, we encounter this motif in the first years after the revolution in Russia. The force of the explosion experienced then dislodged and threw to the surface deeply buried elements of socialist ideology that had earlier remained almost unnoticed and that were later again displaced from view. We will therefore be turning frequently to this period, which presents multiple facets of socialism in an entirely new light. In particular, there appeared at the time numerous ideas on how the new forms of life could overcome the old ways and make life more collective--for example, by replacing individual kitchens with huge factory-like kitchen facilities, or by housing the population in dormitories instead of apartments. One enthusiast published a book based, as he claims, on Trotsky's ideas (93): "It should be made clear that I do not consider the idea of rooms necessary; I believe that it will be possible to consider a room only as the living space of an individual person. After all, isolation in a room is quite unnecessary for collective man. ...The isolation needed in certain hours of love can be had in special pleasure gardens where the man and his female companion will be able to find the necessary comforts."

It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

Abolition of private property.
Abolition of the family.
Abolition of religion.
Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.

Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato's time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.

In a general sense, such an approach is not new. Book titles alone testify to that: The Socialist Empire of the Incas; The History of Communism and Socialism in Antiquity; State Socialism in the Fifteenth Century B.C., and so on. Wittfogel (in the work quoted above, 89) gathers vast amounts of material about the states of the ancient Orient, pre-Columbian America, East Africa and certain areas of the Pacific, for example the Hawaiian Islands, characterizing the states he describes as "hydraulic societies" and tracing the multitude of parallels between them and the contemporary socialist states. The history of the socialist doctrines is no less thoroughly researched, as can be seen from the numerous "Histories of Socialist Ideas," which usually begin with Plato. Koigen has even remarked ironically: "Socialism is as old as human society itself--but not older."

It would seem that this should be taken as the starting point of any attempt to understand the essence of socialism. Despite being quite general, such a point of view strictly limits the range of those arguments that are applicable: any explanations based on the peculiarities of a given historical period, race or civilization must be discarded. It is necessary to reject the interpretation of socialism as a definite phase in the development of human society which is said to appear when conditions are ripe. On the contrary, any approach to socialism ought to be based on principles broad enough to be applicable to the Inca empire, to Plato's philosophy and to the socialism of the twentieth century.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Suck on that Jake!

 

[kaz]

First one deported should be you to N. Korea.

You need to be deported to Africa.

You're the one wanting to live under a dictator, move you ass were they got one.

I would also like to see universal health care here. Like they have in the other developed countries on the planet. You can blow it out your ass if you think I'm going to move to some country where they have it. I will just support us having it here. Like it or not.

Feel free to support in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.

As I said, all of the other developed countries have it. As well as many third world countries. Such as Mexico. Look at the people in any of them. Is one of their hands full of shit? Or is it just you who is full of shit.

So you aspire to be like other countries? Yes, that's how we became the best, working to be like the others ...

 

[ding]

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

Kaz just posted his own picture. But maybe gusto looks like that, too. And google and ding, too.

There you go, Jake. Everything you ever wanted to know about the history of socialism from the definitive subject matter experts. Now would you like me to tell you all the ways you are a socialist? Or would you rather go and play with your little skinhead friend, gusto?

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

Well... he does support gay marriage and transsexuals using the bathrooms of their choice, so there is that.

Now the fanboys are showing their glitter. Sorry, guys, you are going to go after gusto and google.

I like that Trump is not going to build a wall.

 

[ding]

Better be careful, gusto's whaled on more than one guy, or so he says ...

Kaz just posted his own picture. But maybe gusto looks like that, too. And google and ding, too.

Look to the left for my picture, bucko. Where's yours?

 

[ding]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

Well... he does support gay marriage and transsexuals using the bathrooms of their choice, so there is that.

Now the fanboys are showing their glitter. Sorry, guys, you are going to go after gusto and google.

I like that Trump is not going to build a wall.

I like that you rationalize that a human being is being killed at abortion and deny your socialist tendencies while simultaneously holding discussions with white supremacist skinheads.

 

[ding]

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

Well... he does support gay marriage and transsexuals using the bathrooms of their choice, so there is that.

Now the fanboys are showing their glitter. Sorry, guys, you are going to go after gusto and google.

I like that Trump is not going to build a wall.

Was I responsible for you changing your avatar? You know I was.

 

[kaz]

First one deported should be you to N. Korea.

You need to be deported to Africa.

You're the one wanting to live under a dictator, move you ass were they got one.

I would also like to see universal health care here. Like they have in the other developed countries on the planet. You can blow it out your ass if you think I'm going to move to some country where they have it. I will just support us having it here. Like it or not.

Feel free to support in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up the fastest.

As I said, all of the other developed countries have it. As well as many third world countries. Such as Mexico. Look at the people in any of them. Is one of their hands full of shit? Or is it just you who is full of shit.

So you aspire to be like other countries? Yes, that's how we became the best, working to be like the others ...

kaz loves him sum gusto, and leg tingling action.

I like that Trump is not going to ban Muslims.

Jake loves wearing women's clothes and putting on too much lipstick, but that's another discussion ...

Well... he does support gay marriage and transsexuals using the bathrooms of their choice, so there is that.

Now the fanboys are showing their glitter. Sorry, guys, you are going to go after gusto and google.

I like that Trump is not going to build a wall.

Why would he not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like that there is not going to be an illegal deportation force.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I like that there is going to be a "go after the criminal illegals" effort. Good on that.

 

[gusto]

1. The Joint Chiefs would shoot him.
2. No one is getting deported.
3. We are capitalist country.
4. Adopt fair trade instead of free trade. [ok]
5. Adopt single payer universal health care like the rest of the developed nations. [ok]
6. Mandate that in 10 years, all rooftops, both public and private, have solar panels installed on them. [ok]
7. Gas powered cars are here for a long time.
8. Non-organic farming is just fine.
9. We will still with the $$$.
10. Not bad.

You just agreed with a crazy person and proven that you are a socialist all in one fell swoop. That's really hard to do unless you are a stark raving idiot.

You got an F on your socialism project, so trot along.

OKTexas wants to live in a dictatorship.

But as long as Trump moves toward the center and acts with common sense, that's a whole lot better than thirty million hoped for.

lol, he just admitted to being a socialist. Not just any socialist mind you, but a white supremacist skin head socialist. And you believe I am the one who got an "F" on socialism?

Please do go back and enjoy your allegiance with him. You are made for each other.

You are what the Chinese would call a "running dog." Along with being a slave of the jews. I am not a White supremacist. White people just happen to be superior. What I actually am is a White Separatist. I have a picture for you. Stick it up your ass.

If white's are superior, why do we need to separate, wouldn't we win any contest? Seems you don't know you're superior, but you know you're inferior. Rest assured though that white's aren't inferior, just you are

Were you talking to me? If so, Whites are superior. There is no "if" about it. And why separate? How many reasons would satisfy you. Why are flocks of birds all the same kind of bird. Why are schools of fish all the same kind of fish. Also, human history is full of instances of one group taking something from another group. That isn't likely to change. And do you know where the worst possible place is to have a potential enemy? Living amongst you. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.