 |
| |
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
Thanks a bunch for getting a seriously intended thread closed, you guys. You know who you are 
Ming, please don´t close this one. It´s seriously intended (at least as serious as you can get in OT).
To return to business. Here´s my response to Dalgettis constructive criticism of my proposal.
------
We need to free ourselves from the fossil fuel. I say continue building new nuke powerplants , and push on with the fusion power research instead.
No, nuclear power is a threat to mankind. What we need to do is to lower our entire energy consumtion.
Why not ? If there is any place where a minimal amount of wildlife is damaged while resources are gathered, it is antarctica.
I´m against this perpetual exploitation of nature, we will not benefit (in the long run) by strip-mining Antarctica.
What exactly are you referring to?
GE crops that barrens the soil.
 toxic waste that is.
ALL waste. Organic waste spreads infectious diseases. Marine life is also threatened by irresponible dumping of rubbish. Fish get caught up in old fishing nets for instance.
not familiar with the subject.
It´s referring to two great dam projects (NOT nuclear, my mistake...  ) that will seriously affect the lifes of the people that live there.
I agree . We should use antarctica instead.
NO! we shall not use Antarctica as a dumping ground for our waste. If your country produces toxic waste you will also deal with it!
We support:
Actually , a much more correct decision , IMO,would be to produce most of the food in europe , and ship it to places where it's much more difficult to grow them.
No, this will increase the amount of transportation needed, and therefore also an increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus negating the benefit of centralized food production. This is after all not Civ you know... 
Lots of food is being destroyed to keep prices up, non?
Yes, but this will be rectified when we get a more just distribution of wealth.
most of them already are. It depends actually.
Well, yeah. Sort of, I guess...
it will never support the world. you know it , I know it .
Not if we continue to waste energy like we do now. If we aim for more effiecient energy systems for the industry and domestic areas it will work IMO.
sure, no pesticides . GM crops instead. And the transferring of genes from one species to another is VERY rare.
better ask PH , though, he's a pro.
Genetic engineering represents an intervention with unprecedented depth and power. Radical artificial alterations of the code of life, the genetic makeup, can be created. Such changes may have very complex consequences, difficult to foresee. Complications that cannot be imagined presently may occur.
Once released into nature the genetically engineered organisms and their altered genes may spread widely and uncontrollably century after century, yes indefinitely. Scientists have warned for a number of potential hazards, some of which may be serious.
Genetic engineering may cause changes in the biochemical processes of organisms in ways that are impossible to predict with present knowledge. Poisons, mutagens (substances causing genetic changes that may be harmful) and carcinogens (substances that stimulate the appearance of cancer) might be created in harmful concentrations.
Check this site for more info.
I am not sure . So do you mean we don't need sewers ?  
No, what I mean is that the sewer system we have today is inadequate. Therefore we must produce less waste. Less pollution = happier planet 
Last edited by Dr Zoidberg on 07-04-2002 at 21:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
this is all not adressing the core issue and has notning to do with communism
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
we need to focus on communism, not some of the other (sometimes good) ideas that people have
also issues that need action that those ideas address would often times be better addressed by communism
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
see
I think most issues (if not all)
are socioecoinomic in nature
and all that needs to be done to fix them is a proper application of communism (the actual system)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
once you start including extra issues
then it takes away from the important issue (which will go far to either fix or make easier to fix the other issues)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I actually disagree with Marx and Lenin (at least when I read them)
by and large most problems faced are socioeconimc in nature and will be fixed with communism
those that are not will be easier to fix in a communist society
therefore, since there is only so much fire that people have
the most effort should go to making communism real, and less to the other stuff (Since it will take care of itself mostly or be easier to solve afterwards or is much less a problem than those that communism solves)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
going communist is changing ourselves in the most deepest way
and the way that fixes the most ills
by spending a little effort here and there and the like
nothing get's done
or something get's done but it is to strong a solution to the problem and is a problem in and of itself (like affirmative action is currently)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the portion of your proposal that I agree with (which is a decent portion) are not that important regards to the central issue of communism
other things seem like they are either wrong, or chopping off the leg when it could be repaired and serve society well
also some statements are way to strong and would be worse than the current problem
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Proposal II
Aspects on the struggle:
"The emancipation of the workers will be the work of the workers themselves"
- ok I agree
"Socialism will be international or it will not exist."
- I disagree, this will only make things harder
On lesbian gay liberation:
- not important enough to make an issue when compared to communism (this is one of the issues which I think is different from communism and is so adressed best after communism)
(1) The oppression faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people is a reality in all countries of the world. The association of HIV with homosexuality has led to global stigmatization of sex between men and of sexual acts outside the monogamous heterosexual family. Sexuality in general is a political issue.
- not really sure what you are saying here, you are saying a lot (I might agree with some or all of it)
(2) The link between the oppression of LGBT people and women's oppression is key to our understanding and the struggles for liberation are consequently closely linked.
- disagree on the link
(3) We defend the necessity of autonomous movements of LGBT people, understanding that oppression cannot be overcome without self-organization.
- why does anything need to be said here?
(4) We fight for an understanding of the link between the lesbian/gay struggle and the workers' movement, while avoiding subordinating the lesbian/gay struggle to some other movement.
- disagree that there is a link
(5) We fight for an internationalist approach to this question. LGBT people are oppressed everywhere, albeit in different ways. The movement needs to organize internationally and in solidarity with the most oppressed.
- disagree on international approach
---------------
bascially why does a communist party worry about this, it has nothing to do with communism (or very little, which can be summed up as you stated elsewhere)
basically this is a different fight and is less important (and easier to solve once communism comes into being)
------------------------
On ecology:
-----------------
see above statements on how it is not as important and is not part of communism
------------
We demand:
A radical break with the exploitative system of agricultural export production in the dependent countries which produces famine and poverty.
- disagree with the assumption (it is a lack of structure which causes the problems (ie could be fixed by a working communistic system))
An immediate ban on the entire nuclear power cycle.
- shows you do not understand, nuclear power is currently the only promising power alternative to oil (and is safe and clean to boot)
- in otherwords I disagree strongly
An immediate ban on the production and use of toxic and dangerous substances such as chlorinated fluorocarbons and asbestos.
- not our issue (see above), ban is a little harsh and serves communism and us little (personally I would be in favor of limitations, but a communist regime would do this so..)
No economic exploitation of the Antarctic.
- why not?, and how is this in anyway related to communism
No to the destruction of the tropical rain forests and to the fatal pollution of the forests in the industrialized countries.
- how is this related (it might matter a bit if the nation we start is tropical but otherwise says nothing)?
Stop all agricultural practices which destroy the soil in the industrialized countries.
- how is this related, it is not important
Stop dumping waste into the seas, rivers and lakes.
- how is this related, would be taken care of by a communist nation (a true communist nation)
Prevent dangerous — and in the "Third World", with the slaughter of the Amazon Indians, even genocidal — nuclear power projects such as Kararao (Brazil) and Sardars Sarovar (India).
- why?
Ban all toxic waste transports and on the transfer of hazardous production processes to the dependent countries.
- why??
We support:
A system of agriculture in dependent countries that is primarily oriented to securing the basic necessities of the population.
- why??
Production of goods for civilian instead of military use.
- why??
Useful and planned use of energy instead of over-exploitation of nonrenewable energy sources: development of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind energy, energy from biological sources, etc.
- why (this is what nuclear power is doing by the way)
Ecological farming.
Development of public instead of private, individual transport systems, especially local transport and railway.
- OK, this is related to communism and I am pro
Filters and sewage works, etc., are insufficient. What is required is a fundamental industrial conversion which forbids environmental pollution right from the start.
- why?
A policy of recycling and radical avoidance of waste.
- why??
-----------------
I basically see nothing wrong with being involved in multiple parties and if you feel that strongly on these three subjects (Well you haven't really mentioned communism but I will assume you feel strongly there) then join three parties
IE join a green party, a gay/lesbian/bi party, and a communist party
by including that as our main point, you are subverting the energies of this party away from communism and into other things (which might have merit)
Women's liberation is not our issue
Men's liberation is not are issue
The earth is not our issue
Children's Liberation is not our issue
Gay liberatin is not our issue
Lesbian liberation is not our issue
Bi liberation is not our issue
Slavery is not our issue
Race is not our issue
Religion is not our issue
Communism is our issue
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
'all men are created equal despite race, creed or sexual preference'
this is as far as I would go on 'Gay Rights', the groups for things like 'Gay Rights' seem to go so far overboard so as to be rediculous and I include your statements in that
(I think that giving Gays'\Lesbians' the right to marriage is about as far beyond that original sentence fragment as is sane)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
I didn't even know what CPA stands for before I opened this. bad thread title
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
where is Kamrat??
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
Ecthelion, CPA stands for certified public accountant. 
=============
I some aspects, I agree with Comrade Miller, in that we need to keep focused on the main goal of communism. However, I disagree with the comrade on what that goal is. The goal of communism is not public ownership of companies, etc., but freedom. Specifically, freedom from necessity.
By freedom from necessity I mean the conditions of current human existence that require the vast majority of humanity to waste their existences slaving away to secure the material conditions necessary for existence. Most people spend their entire waking life either working to obtain the food, clothing, housing, etc. they need or are recovering from work and replenishing themselves for the next day's work. Despite the fact that we live comparatively better than our ancestors, it is but a gilded cage. Our ancestors standard of living may have been poor than ours, but they had substantially more free time in which to relate with other human beings, to produce art (folk art is still art), etc.
Revolution, economic democracy, public ownership of the means of production are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. By abolishing profit, by abolishing unecessary labor, by allowing people to have control over their workplaces, we anticipate that the overall amount of work necessary to produce the necessities of life will be diminished. This will increase the amount of time available for us to concentrate on those things that make us most human: socializing, producing art, science, exploring ourselves and the world, or even just more time to sit around and play Civ. 
Because our movement is a movement based upon freedom, we need to touch upon all things which enslave us. We need to speak out about all opression, because it is our aim to abolish it. We need to address the concerns that people have about those things that diminish their quality of life, because we aim to create a society which enhances our quality of life.
Because our movement is a movement which is opposed to the way things are, we need to know why things are the way they are. How did they come to be that way? Why are they still that way? Why have attempts to change it failed? In what ways they have succeeded? Most importantly, how do we get to where we want to be?
None of these questions can be answered by one person or even a small core group of highly educated people. The answers can only be discovered by the most rigorous debate and study and practice. Answers that were once true may no longer be true, because conditions have changed. Underlying truths may still be correct, but how do we apply them to the realities we face today?
Which brings me around to my original agreement with Jon. What is important is not so much a laundry list of agreements and demands upon reality. What is important is a method for understanding what tasks lie before us and what concrete activity is required of us.
Although I do believe that most of what Marx, Engels, etc. have written is as true today as it was in the days it was written, the most important weapon our former comrades left is their method. It runs like a golden thread through their writings. Understanding this method makes our task easier (though still herculean).
What is this thread? It is historical matieralism. It is my position that an understanding of historical materialism necessary for anyone who hopes to change the world.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2002 21:54
|