: Now your switching boats in the middle of the stream. You acheived what to many is impossible. You used your God-given talents to the utmost and you are now in a enviable position at a relatively early period in your life. You did it, you said so yourself, you weren't given a seat at the university because of past discrimination or any other consideration. Your the one that applied yourself, nobody else. What in the world makes you think that others can't as well? Sure, probably not in scholastic endeavors but in other areas that are important nevertheless. Your proof that where many may fail a la Willie Logan, some nevertheless succeed.
Is it right that ANY should fail, is wealth the criterion of success, and is it really their fault that they fail? No, no and no. Any marginally humanitarian system recognizes this. Access to food, shelter, medicine, and to the more intangible goals like justice and freedom, should not be contingent on wealth.
: : As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, there are simply not enough physical resources to give the entire world a Western lifestyle; as such, the American Dream (as fed to the entire world) is nothing more than a deception; for the poor countries, there will be no 'golden reward'; because there isn't enough gold to give to everyone.
: Still, for a smart guy...
: There is simply no way, NO WAY, that you know that's true. Your saying that because it's a good guess based on extrapolating future events and current facts.
Do you have a better way to predictthe future? We are running out of resources RIGHT NOW> Desertification is reducing the amount fo fertile land all over the globe. Metal companies are beginning to recycle zinc from old cars, a very energy-inefficient process, because they've run out of fresh zinc reserves. The amount of wealth and resourecs in the world can be expanded, but only within limits; at some level, it is finite.
: And hell, who needs gold? If what you say is true then the economy of nations such as the US and Britain wouldn't keep expanding and everybodies standard of living would be stuck in the 1800's. As long as faith in the system remains strong, the system remains strong and will continue to produce the sort of wealth that Communists can only be dazzled by.
So does that eman if i jump off a building and think i can fly, I can fly? We aren't dazzled by your system. We've seen the system you espouse, and we know that it's rotten to the core.
: : : They are not to be trusted. How can you so glibly dismiss the dismal failures of the system that you champion?
How can you dismiss the millions of starving people and poor thatcapitalism has ebngendered? Teh wholeslae dispossession fo peopel from their land and ancient lieftsyle?the routine denial of medicine and shelter to those who need it? The suppression of free thought, everywhere and always? the gradual erosion of religion and tradition? the forcing of epopel into a lifetime of lienating, unskilled work? the genocides on every continent enacted in the name of capitalism?
First of all, the type of socialism or communism espoused by everyone on this board was not the system falsely called 'socialism' by the Soviets. Even if Stalinism and Maoism were bastardized variants of socialism, there are other varieties of socialism and communism which never led to failure and mass murder. Finally, even if you do count the crimes of Mao and Stalin against the LEft, they still don't hold a candle to what I just listed above.
: I've read 'Death of a Salesman', didn't really care for it. Have you read 'Darkness at Noon'? The author was a former Communist.
Arthur Miller is among the greatest American playwrights, a man who realized some striking truths and wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Koestler, on the other hand, was a mediocre Creationist hack.
: The Third World bears responsibility for it's actions, unless you feel that you are a present day Bwana and that dogma is superior to the dogma of other people, people perhaps with darker skin than yourself.
Yes, I'm sure the Third World really 'chose' to be underdeveloped. Lose the contempt and condescencsion, Frenchy. It impresses no one.
: At one time, not that long ago, the developed countries were shamed into leaving their colonies. That was the right thing to do. The former colonies have shown, so far anyways, that they would've been miles ahead if they had remained under colonial rule
So said the Fascists when they sent Jews and Communists to the concentration camps. Africa today, in terms of standard of living, is significantly better off than it was in colonial times; and the countries that have slipped backwarsd have done so largely because of climate change and teh AIDS epidemic. To say nothing of the routine rape and pillage of tehir countries that the neocolonial Western capitalist carry out. Most of all, Africa is free today. You can walk the streets without being murdered by the Belgians or having to tip your hat to the Portuguese. "Poverty in freedom is better than riches in chains", as Sekou Toure said.
And no, any condescending insults you make toward Africa will offend me just as much as if they were about India. I'm not a racist nationalist, unlike some people....
:(I'm talking about Africa here, not India, just so NJ doesn't take it the wrong way). Should now developed nations, in doing business w/ these countries send negotiators to negotiate against themselves? Should developed countries conduct their dealings at a self-imposed disadvantage? What would that say about the respect that all men are due? Being an anarchist is a sort of way to refuse to make a hard decision, you leave others the hard choices of saying what's right and what's wrong. You get to sit back and say "I'm superior to all of you because I don't engage in that sort of behavior, I follow my own rules and have my own standards." The day Anarchy hits is the day Darcy or me is gonna cut your throat. And the following day somebody will cut ours. That's Anarchy, like it or not.