text:
Quantity in Basket:
0 |
Oceanic Alpha 8 Octopus
Easy to use and easy to maintain. That's what I love about the Alpha 8 Octopus!
Makes a great safe second.
Oceanic Alpha 8 Octopus Description:
The Alpha Standard. The standard by which all other entry-level regulators are judged. For recreational divers looking for professional performance at a reasonable price, the Alpha 8 Octopus makes the adventure of diving that much easier to experience.
Oceanic Alpha 8 Octopus Details:Best Price / Performance ratio in its class Patented orthodontic mouthpiece Nitrox Compatibility Oceanic Alpha 8 Octopus Specifications:


text:
By Quinn Hopkins
The Band:
- JIRO OSAMU: Batman Japan. Manga shop owner. Former student of crime-fighter Mr. Unknown.
- DAISUKE YAGAMI: Jiro's best friend since childhood, and the only one who knows he's Batman Japan.
- MISAKI HASEGAWA: Jiro's ex-girlfriend and the daughter of his former sensei, Mr. Unknown. Attending The University of Tokyo.
- CASSANDRA WU SONG-CAIN: Black Bat, daughter of the world's deadliest assassins, and a former Batgirl.
- STEPHANIE BROWN: Gold Bat, daughter of unrepentant criminal, and (also) a former Batgirl.
- HIRO OKAMURA: Thirteen year-old genius, engineering professor at the University of Tokyo.
- VINCENTE BARBOSA: The Crow, a Japanese-Brazilian entrepreneur with a love for industrial espionage.
- KAKALINA "KITTY" KATO: Beckoning Cat, a Japanese pop star turned vigilante, and twin-sister of the villainous Forked Cat (Tabby Kato).
- MR. MUJINA: No Face ("the Japanese Clayface") is a faceless pimp who prostitutes pieces of himself, The Claydolls; he is protected by his golem, Dogu.
- KAPIKA "TABBY" KATO: Forked Cat, the undead sister of Kitty Kato; loyal devotee of the undyingLord Death Man.
- RASHOMON: A baby orphaned at a playground near the remnants of Kyoto's ancient gate, Rashomon, channels the psychical energies of every corpse and unwanted baby ever abandoned at the gate.
- RED CLAW: Red Claw, wealthy heiress, and Japan's #1 assassin.
- BRUSHOGUN: Brushogun, a man with the ability to paint things into life via his ink-brush spear,Irezumi.
The Beats:
"Welcome to Japan, Batman. You wont' survive the experience."
- Zaibatsu (aka Most-Excellent Super-Bat)
The symbol of the Bat has taken hold of Japan, and not everyone is happy about that.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
No fire at Rookies
The fire alarm at Rookies was apparently inadvertently set off while its batteries were being changed. The fire department's response has been cancelled.
E-mail Newsletter
Top stories from the Lake Country area. Tuesday afternoons and Thursday mornings.
Enter your e-mail address above and click "Sign Up Now!" to begin receiving your e-mail newsletter
Get the Newsletter!
» Mukwonago observes Memorial Day
» Put some Spring in your step this weekend
» KM softball team upsets No. 1 seed
» Citizens seek to block Milwaukee Street project
» Congressmen fight for recognition of Delafield's Civil War hero
» Mukwonago selects new Village Administrator
» Lake Country fire talks continue
» AHS, KM golfers move to sectionals
» Prairie View holds benefit bake sale tonight
» DNR board approves acquisition along Oconomowoc River
» Zion collects items for Oklahoma families
MORE: See full gallery
SUBMIT: Post Your Photos now
Do you have news or a nonprofit event that you would like to share with the community? Whether it's a community organization, a business, a local school, or a notable neighbor, we'd love to hear about it.
- Stone Bank July 4th Parade and Festival
- Maple Avenue students lead effort to help Oklahoma schools hit by tornadoes
- Templeton band to perform spring concert
- LinkedIn Instructor Offers Free Class May 29 at Brookfield Public Library
- Westcott chosen as high school associate principal
- Victoria Vox Ukulele Concert & Workshop
- Dac Talks
- Childrens Summer Art Camps & Workshops
MORE: See the rest of Your Stories
SUBMIT: Post Your Story now
Lake Country residents share their views on news, happenings and current events.
LivingLakeCountry.com features more than a dozen community bloggers - a group of volunteer conversation leaders who are up on the latest topics and never short on an opinion. Just a few are pictured here. Check out the rest and see what they have to say!
View All Blogs
Discussion Guidelines
Do you want to become a Community Blogger? LivingLakeCountry.com welcomes your thoughts and opinions. Contact us for more information:
I want to blog


text:
Spend $200 to get free UPS ground shipping!
The Winter White Python ADA Belt is a one size wrap belt, handcrafted with Genuine Argentinean leather. This timeless piece functions with every style in your closet. The Winter White Python belt is 3" wide at widest central part and is made of a non-bulky, thin leather.
View our ADA Wrap Belt Video to learn the different ways to wear this belt.
Winter White Python: One Size
Leave a comment or review about WinterWhitePython


text:
All Articles Tagged "dealing with atagonizers"
Dealing With Childish Adults: What Happens When Bullies Grow Up But Don't "Grow Up"?
I had to pull over in traffic, because my phone was ringing off of the hook. Numbers and names I didn't recognize or hadn't seen grace my phone's screen in a long time were illuminated in white and boasted an incessant clipped ringtone of Janelle Monáe.
Everyone had something to tell me.
My Twitter mentions are usually solemn: A friend will ask about my writing, a reader will ask me for an update, an unknown will follow intrigued by something I penned. I left the Internet drama of my youth on Myspace.
Or so I thought.
Apparently, there was a girl who thought I was dating her man, FIVE YEARS AGO, and decided to lash out at me because she recognized my avatar. The first mention was typical, a this-is-the-trick-who-tried-to-steal-my-man tweet. That didn't bother me. However, the tweets that followed were completely out of line. She began to strew my personal business all over her timeline. Family business. Things I'd only told to a few people I'd considered close friends.
1) I've never met this girl, didn't recognize her avatar or her name.
2) If this is how you felt, why not handle it five years ago?
3) Why are you handling ANYTHING with the "other" woman? Why not solve the problem that lies between the both of you? THE MAN.
4) Who is this brother, who was/probably-still-is a close friend, and why would he choose to share my personal business to anyone?
I raced home to handle my research. I scoured Myspace and Facebook looking for someone who did not exist—she'd changed her name since then. I lingered on the pages of ex-boyfriends and male friends trying to see if any of their top friends resembled her face. I blocked her and anyone else who'd retweeted her foolishness. My infuriation was born in the fact that someone whom I was probably still close to had divulged my most personal secrets to someone they were briefly involved with.
After resolving that I wouldn't find our connection, I gave up. I was bothered that my business and falsehoods lay in cyberspace, but didn't want to succumb to using my Twitter as a battleground. My girls tweeted, text, and called pleading with me to respond to her. I refused to give her any shine on my timeline. I didn't want to be bothered with a back and forth based on something that happened years ago. However, one friend in particular made an amazing suggestion.
"That whole display this evening was some high school s**t. She had all of her little minions retweeting and disrespecting you. Complete childishness. If I were you, I'd do what I do best– write a post on her behind."
A light bulb flickered inside of me. I jumped on to my bed, flipped open my MacBook and prepared to lash out in literary elements galore. I scoured her timeline, looking for bits and pieces of her life, preparing to defend myself against "women like her."
I was halted.
As I traveled back in time, I couldn't help but feel sorry for this girl. Her mutterings were laced with wanting and longing.
"Damn, I wish I had a boyfriend right now."
"Just got home from work, lonely."
"Cooking for one tonight."
"I really want to stop working retail and live my dream."


text:
EmEditor (text editor) Forum Index Beta Version Bug Reports Head-start version: EmEditor Professional v11.1.2 beta | Register To Post |
Flat | Previous Topic | Next Topic |
Poster | Thread |
Yutaka | Posted on: 3/2/2012 3:36 pm |
Webmaster Joined: 9/28/2006 From: Redmond Posts: 2424 |
Head-start version: EmEditor Professional v11.1.2 beta Today, we are releasing EmEditor Professional v11.1.2 beta.
Updates from v11.1.1 beta include: NEW FEATURES - The new "Add to/Remove from Markers" command was added. By default, the context menu includes the "Add to/Remove from Markers" instead of the "Add to Markers" command. - The "Replace" command was added to the menu appeared when right-clicked on the Markers toolbar. - The "Prompt to remove one marker from the list" check box and the "Show or hide the markers toolbar automatically" were added to the Options tab of the Customize Markers dialog box. === To Download === If you are already using v11.1.x beta, you can Check for Updates on the Help menu to download the update. If you are still using the released version, this new beta version will not be checked automatically from the EmEditor update checker. However, once you install this beta version, new future beta versions will be checked automatically. Please click one of the links below to download: http://www.emeditor.com/pub/emed32_11.1.2_beta.exe (32-bit installer) http://www.emeditor.com/pub/emed64_11.1.2_beta.exe (64-bit installer) The portable version can be created by installing using the installer, and selecting "Import and Export" on the "Tools" menu, and "Set up a removable drive such as a USB drive with default settings". Notes: Only English, Japanese, and Korean user interfaces are up-to-date. Explorer windows may be automatically closed during the upgrade install. The registration key for v11 is the same as the key for v10. If you are a registered user of EmEditor Professional v10 or v11, you can have your registration key resend at: https://www.emurasoft.com/support/send_keys.php Thank you for using EmEditor Professional!
Flat | Previous Topic | Next Topic |
Subject | Poster | Date |
» Head-start version: EmEditor Professional v11.1.2 beta | Yutaka | 3/2/2012 3:36 pm |
Re: Head-start version: EmEditor Professional v11.1.2 beta | Deipotent | 3/5/2012 7:22 am |
Register To Post | |


text:
What's New
How to Find Us
Cycles for Change Excited to Offer Youth Apprenticeship for Summer 2013
After our successful second attempt we are very excited to again be able to offer a program for youth that is directed at engaging youth in bicycle mechanics by offering a paid apprenticeship. The focus of the program is to further Cycles for Change's mission by engaging our community in order to empower people to use bicycles as an alternative form of transportation. Apprentice mechanics will learn bike maintenance and repair skills, receive training on the operation of a small business and non-profit, and help co-teach bike repair classes for youth and adults. To apply fill out the application and email it to email@example.com
Sibley Bike Depot is Cycles for Change
Sibley Bike Depot is now Cycles for Change! After considering more than 100 different new name suggestions over the winter, the organization chose Cycles for Change (C4C) as a name that more closely embodies the organization's continuing vision for utilizing the bicycle as a tool for community building, sustainability, leadership development, and progressive social change. We understand that this change will take some time to get used to. Please help spread the word by telling your family, friends and colleagues about the name change!
Asa Diebolt designed our amazing new logo and visual identity.
Earn-a-Bike Program Featured in Star Tribune
The Star Tribune has published a great article about our Earn-a-Bike program at Cycles for Change!
Press for Cycles for Change in Bicycle Times Magazine!
Check out this article on the growing popularity of cycling in the Twin Cities, and the bike-centered social justice movement that is growing with it.
Cycles for Change Partners with Gordon Parks High School
Cycles for Change is very excited about our partnership with Gordon Parks High School to teach basic bicycle maintenance for Physical Education credit. The Students from Gordon Parks created a video to highlight their school, and featured our partnership. Watch and enjoy:
Combine biking and bussing as transportation!
Have you ever wanted know how to put your bicycle on a bus? C4C is excited to have a new MetroTransit rack for you to try. Stop by anytime during our shop hours and give it a try. If you have any questions we are here to help. Feel free to look at this resource from Metrotransit.
See what people are saying about us In The News!
Are you looking for a way to help C4C? Do you have time to devote outside of open hours? Check out a list of projects with which we would love help.


text:
"The Riptide Ultra-Glide" is, like Dorsey's previous Serge novels, simply fun. No social issues, no in-depth characters, no scintillating dialogue, yet Dorsey hooks the reader with his unabashed enthusiasm and devotion to all things Florida. Here, Serge wants to have his own reality show but on his way to fame has to deal with bullies, those who extort the elderly, pain clinics and Wisconsin residents Patrick and BBarbara McDougall who pick the wrong hotel. There's also a war erupting between the Kentucky mafia and Mexican drug lords.
And amid all those laughs, readers also will learn something about the Sunshine State — though it's doubtful that Dorsey ever would equate his Serge novels with an education, unless it was a lesson in humor.


text:
Arrival Details
Eastern Illinois University is located in Charleston, 10 miles east of Interstate 57 on Route 16. Once you have reached the city of Charleston, travel to 7th Street (just past Old Main [castle building]) and turn right (south). Travel south until you reach the MLK, Jr. University Union). Turn right into the entrance leading into the Union parking lot. Pull up under the walkway to unload your packages. There will be someone to assist you with unloading. If you do not have any packages to unload, please proceed to the designated parking lot.
Shuttle vans will transport you from the O'Brien Stadium parking lots to the MLK, Jr. University Union. Look for the "Job Fair Shuttle" signs on the vans. The shuttle vans will run during the following times: 8:00 am - 9:30 am and 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm.
Check-in for employers will begin at 8:00 am at the Grand Ballroom on the 2nd floor of the University Union. Each employer will be provided with a covered 8-foot table, a tablesign and chairs.
You are welcome to ship your display or career fair materials to our office prior to your arrival. Please send packages to:
Diane Smith
Eastern Illinois University
Career Services
1301 Human Services Center
600 Lincoln Avenue
Charleston IL 61920
Packages must be received by Friday, November 2.
Fall Education Job Fair Agenda
8:00 am: |
Employer Check-in Begins |
8:00 am - 9:30 am: |
Shuttle Service available |
9:00 am: |
Career Fair Opens |
1:00 pm: |
Career Fair Ends |
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm: |
Box Lunch for recruiters |
1:00 pm - 2:30 pm: |
Shuttle Service available |
Contact Diane Smith at firstname.lastname@example.com or call 217-581-8423.
We look forward to seeing you at the


text:
Green Acrylic
Select Material: Select a Material Oak Red Acrylic Green Acrylic Blue Acrylic Pink Acrylic Purple Acrylic
Add your own Custom Text for FREE! (40 character maximum)
Enter Custom Text Below: If you would like text to be split into 2 lines, please type a / (slash) where the line break should go. (Will be centered along the bottom edge of ornament)


text:
This is a rare 1961 Corvette with the 315HP fuel injected engine, 4-speed manual transmission, posi-traction, and power windows. It is also optioned with... More
1976 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, Two owner California car. This car is a very good driver. Body in very good condition. Everything works except air... More
1967 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible, last year of the C2, arguably the best year, low miles survivor, has had paint and interior redone to Original... More
1966 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray. Numbers matching 325HP 427 engine and Muncie M-21 close ratio 4-speed transmission. Two owner car, fully documented history with service... More
1960 Chevrolet Corvette, Frame off restoration nearly complete. 270 HP motor NOM with 2x4 carb setup. The car runs great and looks beautiful. Soft... More
1966 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible, 327-300 HP Muncie 4 Speed 355 Posi Rear End Low Mileage Silver Pearl Exterior-Black Interior, Very Desirable Color Combo Black Convertible Top Complete with Soft Top... More
One owner 2011 Corvette Grand Sport with only 7,330 actual miles! We have the original window sticker showing $66,535.00! The paint is factory Black... More
1982 Corvette Coupe 1982 Corvette Coupe equipped with a 350 and Automatic Transmission. Nice Silver Blue Exterior with Dark Blue Leather Interior. This... More
1966 Corvette Coupe 427/425hp 1966 Corvette Coupe with a Numbers Matching 427/425hp and 4 Speed Manual Transmission. Original 974 Code Rally Red Exterior... More
1960 Corvette Convertible 1960 Corvette Convertible equipped with a 283/245hp and 4 Speed Manual Transmission. Nice Tuxedo Black Exterior with Silver Coves Red... More
2003 Corvette Z06 2003 Corvette Z06. Nice Millennium Yellow Exterior with Rare Mod Red Leather Interior. Equipped with the LS6 (346/405hp) and 6... More
1963 Corvette Split Window Coupe 1963 Corvette Split Window Coupe equipped with a 327/300hp and 4 Speed Transmission. Original Code 900 Tuxedo Black... More
1958 CHEVROLET CORVETTE ROADSTER 283/270H.P 2X4BBL V8 4/SPEED YEAR: 1958 MAKE: CHEVROLET MODEL: CORVETTE BODY: CONVERTIBLE COLOR: SNOWCREST... More
In 2006 this was flat-out the fastest, baddest production Corvette in history with a 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds. 506 HP ONE OWNER LOW... More
OH YEAH, 430HP IN AN OPEN-TOP TOURING POWERHOUSE! ONE OWNER AND LIKE-NEW MILES ON THIS 3LT NAVIGATION EQUIPPED CONVERTIBLE, Bose Premium Audio System, Head-Up... More


text:
Information for Philosophy Job Applicants
Claremont McKenna College is a private liberal arts college located in Claremont, California, 35 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. For the past four years, we have been ranked eleventh overall among the nation's 266 liberal arts college as measured by U.S. News & World Report. The college has top-tier students and a serious commitment to scholarship.
Scholarly Community: One of the most attractive things about Claremont McKenna College is that it is part of a six-college consortium: five undergraduate liberal arts colleges (Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Scripps, Pitzer, and Harvey-Mudd) and Claremont Graduate University. These colleges are physically contiguous, so your colleagues at other colleges are at most a five-minute walk away. Effectively, then, each of us has about 20 colleagues in philosophy, so we combine the faculty size of a large research university and the intimacy of a small liberal-arts college. There is more information about the five-college resources here.
Scholarship: Both the College and the Department of philosophy are committed to serious scholarship. You can get an idea of our research interests and publication records by looking at the faculty page. We've published in such journals as Philosophical Studies, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, Faith and Philosophy, Philosophical Quarterly, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, and Ethics; and we've published books with such presses as University of Illinois Press and Oxford University Press. Our tenure standards are rigorous, but not so overwhelming that they prevent our faculty from having a serious focus on teaching.
Teaching: At Claremont McKenna faculty are given the opportunity to seriously engage with their students. The teaching load is 2-2, courses are almost always capped at 19, and many classes are even smaller. Our students are among the best in the nation. 85% are in the top 10% of their graduating class, and their median SAT scores are 1410.
Location: The town of Claremont is close to downtown Los Angeles but far enough east that it doesn't suffer from the problems (e.g., traffic problems) of a large city. Claremont itself is a pleasant college town. The thing people like least is the smog and accompanying heat, which for about a month each summer reaches the 100's. (Though without humidity.) The town has plenty of benefits that compensate for the heat. You enjoy the ability to travel to Los Angeles for major cultural sites such as the many Los Angeles art museums, the philharmonic, and the Los Angeles Opera. The town is also good for people who love the outdoors, since we are situated at the base of a 10,000 foot mountain with wonderful hiking. The best thing about the location may be the almost-constant California sunshine.


text:
Followers: 9924 / Following: 1366 / Tweets: 9842
Kill Cliff is a sports recovery beverage developed by a former Navy SEAL. A portion of proceeds go to The Navy SEAL Foundation and other military charities.
Loren Ridinger (lorenridinger)
Followers: 298891 / Following: 760 / Tweets: 46205
Co-founder of http://t.co/37jSZudR, Sr. VP http://t.co/3kAMe4zW. Successful Internet, Cosmetics and Fashion Entrepreneur. Social media addict, love people, love
Want to be featured here and get more followers too? Find out how on Twitter Counter


text: I received 6 wristbands from Toyota. 2 appear to be general admission for weekend (orange/red in color with 2012 Stagecoach) on them. The other 4 are brown in color, 2 with pink writing that say FRIDAY ONLY and 2 with green writing that say SATURDAY ONLY. Does anyone have these and know what they mean? Is there only 2 admissions and the Friday and Saturday only are once you are in the venue or are the Friday only and Saturday only admission into the venue just on those days?


text:
I'm not picking a fight.
I'm just saying that often our disagreements reach an impasse when we come to the different usage of terms which we have: You have some very particular ideas about words like "god", "the soul", "liberalism" ..etc. If the terms we start from are different, we can hardly expect to agree ... and if we appear to agree, we might actually not - if our terms aren't exactly the same in the first place. Dagoth Ur wrote:See here for example, I'd probably say that Liberalism upholds personal property which Communism doesn't have a problem with, but the idea of "private ownership of the means of production" is more of a means than an end for most Liberals.
Truth is that marx saw the human rights, as all perceived within the context of private property. The society of the bourgoise, based on the human rights, is a society of egoistic individuals that the measure of their freedom is not the degree of their unification in society, but from their isolation from eachother
"... the human right to freedom is not based on the assiciation of man with man, but contrary on the separation of man from man" (Marx). The right of private property is "the practical use of the right to freedom of man" (Marx), is the right of everyone for themselves, regardless of others and independently from the society to use and manage the property, that is "right of self-interest" (Marx). Equality is equality of liberty described above: "equality is that the law is equal for all - or defend someone either persecuting" (Constitution of 1795). therefore "None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves. "(Marx). The only link that unites these people is a natural necessity, the private interest, the preservation of their property and egoistic personality. In general this aspect is considered in marx;s "on the jewish question", bur rather in brief and complex. I've read a nice article by V.A Vazioulin (R.I.P yesterday) "The paradoxes of dignity under Marxism", but I can;t find it in english. --------------- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... -question/ The droits de l'homme, the rights of man, are, as such, distinct from the droits du citoyen, the rights of the citizen. Who is homme as distinct from citoyen? None other than the member of civil society. Why is the member of civil society called "man," simply man; why are his rights called the rights of man? How is this fact to be explained? From the relationship between the political state and civil society, from the nature of political emancipation. Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man, the droits de l'homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society – i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 2. "These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property." What constitutes liberty? Article 6. "Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others," or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791: "Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others." Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself. Why is the Jew, according to Bauer, incapable of acquiring the rights of man? "As long as he is a Jew, the restricted nature which makes him a Jew is bound to triumph over the human nature which should link him as a man with other men, and will separate him from non-Jews." But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself. The practical application of man's right to liberty is man's right to private property. What constitutes man's right to private property? Article 16. (Constitution of 1793): "The right of property is that which every citizen has of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry." The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one's property and to dispose of it at one's discretion (à son gré), without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it. But, above all, it proclaims the right of man "of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry." There remain the other rights of man: égalité and sûreté. Equality, used here in its non-political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberté described above – namely: each man is to the same extent regarded as such a self-sufficient monad. The Constitution of 1795 defines the concept of this equality, in accordance with this significance, as follows: Article 3 (Constitution of 1795): "Equality consists in the law being the same for all, whether it protects or punishes." And security? Article 8 (Constitution of 1793): "Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property." Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the concept of police, expressing the fact that the whole of society exists only in order to guarantee to each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property. It is in this sense that Hegel calls civil society "the state of need and reason." The concept of security does not raise civil society above its egoism. On the contrary, security is the insurance of egoism. None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves. It is puzzling enough that a people which is just beginning to liberate itself, to tear down all the barriers between its various sections, and to establish a political community, that such a people solemnly proclaims (Declaration of 1791) the rights of egoistic man separated from his fellow men and from the community, and that indeed it repeats this proclamation at a moment when only the most heroic devotion can save the nation, and is therefore imperatively called for, at a moment when the sacrifice of all the interest of civil society must be the order of the day, and egoism must be punished as a crime. (Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., of 1793) This fact becomes still more puzzling when we see that the political emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community, to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man, that, therefore, the citoyen is declared to be the servant of egotistic homme, that the sphere in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not man as citoyen, but man as private individual [bourgeois] who is considered to be the essential and true man. "The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man." (Declaration of the Rights, etc., of 1791, Article 2) "Government is instituted in order to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights." (Declaration, etc., of 1793, Article 1) Hence, even in moments when its enthusiasm still has the freshness of youth and is intensified to an extreme degree by the force of circumstances, political life declares itself to be a mere means, whose purpose is the life of civil society. It is true that its revolutionary practice is in flagrant contradiction with its theory. Whereas, for example, security is declared one of the rights of man, violation of the privacy of correspondence is openly declared to be the order of the day. Whereas "unlimited freedom of the press" (Constitution of 1793, Article 122) is guaranteed as a consequence of the right of man to individual liberty, freedom of the press is totally destroyed, because "freedom of the press should not be permitted when it endangers public liberty." ("Robespierre jeune," Historie parlementaire de la Révolution française by Buchez and Roux, vol.28, p. 159) That is to say, therefore: The right of man to liberty ceases to be a right as soon as it comes into conflict with political life, whereas in theory political life is only the guarantee of human rights, the rights of the individual, and therefore must be abandoned as soon as it comes into contradiction with its aim, with these rights of man. But, practice is merely the exception, theory is the rule. But even if one were to regard revolutionary practice as the correct presentation of the relationship, there would still remain the puzzle of why the relationship is turned upside-down in the minds of the political emancipators and the aim appears as the means, while the means appears as the aim. This optical illusion of their consciousness would still remain a puzzle, although now a psychological, a theoretical puzzle. The puzzle is easily solved. Political emancipation is, at the same time, the dissolution of the old society on which the state alienated from the people, the sovereign power, is based. What was the character of the old society? It can be described in one word – feudalism. The character of the old civil society was directly political – that is to say, the elements of civil life, for example, property, or the family, or the mode of labor, were raised to the level of elements of political life in the form of seigniory, estates, and corporations. In this form, they determined the relation of the individual to the state as a whole – i.e., his political relation, that is, his relation of separation and exclusion from the other components of society. For that organization of national life did not raise property or labor to the level of social elements; on the contrary, it completed their separation from the state as a whole and constituted them as discrete societies within society. Thus, the vital functions and conditions of life of civil society remained, nevertheless, political, although political in the feudal sense – that is to say, they secluded the individual from the state as a whole and they converted the particular relation of his corporation to the state as a whole into his general relation to the life of the nation, just as they converted his particular civil activity and situation into his general activity and situation. As a result of this organization, the unity of the state, and also the consciousness, will, and activity of this unity, the general power of the state, are likewise bound to appear as the particular affair of a ruler and of his servants, isolated from the people. The political revolution which overthrew this sovereign power and raised state affairs to become affairs of the people, which constituted the political state as a matter of general concern, that is, as a real state, necessarily smashed all estates, corporations, guilds, and privileges, since they were all manifestations of the separation of the people from the community. The political revolution thereby abolished the political character of civil society. It broke up civil society into its simple component parts; on the one hand, the individuals; on the other hand, the material and spiritual elements constituting the content of the life and social position of these individuals. It set free the political spirit, which had been, as it were, split up, partitioned, and dispersed in the various blind alleys of feudal society. It gathered the dispersed parts of the political spirit, freed it from its intermixture with civil life, and established it as the sphere of the community, the general concern of the nation, ideally independent of those particular elements of civil life. A person's distinct activity and distinct situation in life were reduced to a merely individual significance. They no longer constituted the general relation of the individual to the state as a whole. Public affairs as such, on the other hand, became the general affair of each individual, and the political function became the individual's general function. But, the completion of the idealism of the state was at the same time the completion of the materialism of civil society. Throwing off the political yoke meant at the same time throwing off the bonds which restrained the egoistic spirit of civil society. Political emancipation was, at the same time, the emancipation of civil society from politics, from having even the semblance of a universal content. Feudal society was resolved into its basic element – man, but man as he really formed its basis – egoistic man. This man, the member of civil society, is thus the basis, the precondition, of the political state. He is recognized as such by this state in the rights of man. The liberty of egoistic man and the recognition of this liberty, however, is rather the recognition of the unrestrained movement of the spiritual and material elements which form the content of his life. Last edited by ckkomel on 09 Jan 2012, 16:35, edited 1 time in total.
Quote: however here, why one should identify "the fruits of his labor and industry" with "private property" and not personal property, and ... " "the fruits of his labor"? (as Shigyalov also notices) And afterall, the concept of society as a "collection of individuals" is wrong? I mean I understand how Marx mean it, but on the other one, abolishing this notion, of individuals that each of them has specific rights, no matter what the "society" (ie the state) says, can lead to major misunderstandings and arbitrary actions against the individual. Or an individual is always seen as a citizen? (On the latter one, and the separation that marx him self does, I always wondered why the Soviets never used the term "soviet citizen" but rather "soviet man/men" or "soviet people" only. Οcourse this is an abstract philosophical question because in practice "of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income" means the right to sell(dispose) the goods, and accululate capital out of this commercial transaction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
Heh, the communism as "youthful idealism" story. Here (considering my country, Slovakia, is post-communist) it is "communism is for grumpy old people who still hold onto the old times" excuse instead.
reactionary slovakia!
Shit, I wish I had more time to write this... I have to leave shortly, so take this as part 1 of my response:
Quote: No, they're not. Liberty (of property; the freedom to pursue your self-interest which must necessarily collide with all other self-interests due to property) and equality (before the law; it is this equality, the equality-as-property-owners of all people, which causes the material inequalities of bourgeois society) are realized and suck, while "brotherhood" (as the third of the classical French ideals) has never been more than an empty phrase which is not reflected in liberal theory due to its shallowness. Quote: If you're referring to the "political compass" approach, that's wrong. The political compass with its separate axes regards the "authoritarian/libertarian" axis as a scale of state involvement in the economy; to be a "libertarian" in that sense is to fight for the individual rights of property owners. Quote: The "necessity" and "inevitability" of socialism is a twofold thing, it's full of contradictions. On one hand, it's a historical inevitability because the development of the productive forces objectively tends toward situations where they shake off the limitations that the respective relations of productions impose on them, i.e. technological progress will inevitably destroy the socio-economical superstructure that is capitalism - file sharing kills the entertainment industry just like the appearance of mechanized industry killed feudal ways of production. On the other hand, socialism is a necessity because the proletarians, in their subjectivity, must necessarily overthrow the current state of affairs if they want to create socio-economic circumstances in which they can be truly human. But these two aspects (rather: "moments") are inextricably interconnected. "Capitalism must fall, but we have to do it." Quote: Hilarious. Quote: That's patently wrong. No Marxist-Leninist would disagree with them - Marxism-Leninism is sadly fatally entangled in its bourgeois-moralist roots here. Others, however, would, for the following reasons: Human "rights" are, at their core, inseparable from civic duties. Human rights are legislation, they are what states have to grant to their citizens in exchange for their citizens' allegiance and subordination. That means that they also find their natural limitations: The right to life is limited by the draft, the right to education is limited by the state's refusal to finance tertiary education for everybody, etc. It is the state that allows us these rights. The right to free speech can then only be realized within the state-given circumstances. Now these circumstances also include private property, so the state that says "you can say whatever you want" is the same state that keeps the printing presses and TV studios under firm control of the bourgeoisie. Human rights are the bourgeois edition of "the King's grace". They are worthless. The people of the world don't need an authority to allow them to say what they want. Quote: I'm sure they were. Otherwise, their actions make no sense at all - they were either communists or clinically insane, but they all seem too clever to be insane, so we have to assume that they really meant well. Quote: Maybe you're confusing libertarianism with true anarchism here. Just a hint. Besides, part of the awesomeness of Marxism is that it does not "uphold values". That would be idealist. Idealism is a philosophical tradition in which the world is explained mainly by what happens in people's heads, it gives priority to consciousness. Idealists uphold values and usually think that if everybody were just a bit more nice to each other, the world would be beautiful and nice. Bourgeois ideology is at its core idealist; especially libertarianism is pure idealist garbage. Marx, Engels, Lenin and most other classical Marxist theorists have all spent very much time fighting idealism. Marxism is materialist. That means that we give priority to matter. We give priority to what really happens, objectively, and draw our conclusions from that. We don't tell people to be nice, we examine the world and arrive at explanations for why people aren't nice. So while idealism is like, "the world is stupid because people are mean to each other, let's be nice!", materialism is like "the world is stupid because of certain socio-economic systems which force people to compete with each other, let's abolish these systems so we can be happy".
That's a good explanation. But tell me, should people be allowed to chose their religion (or not), or have a fair election? In my opinion, of course they should. It's just what has become a fundemental part of society. How angry would people be if the state just got up an said "All of you have to be Hindus", or something like that?
In a communist society, we recognize that certain things like being able to woship as you please is just obligatory. That is a Libertarian concept. Back to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, many would say that they saw their people little more than meat tto be grinded for the state. That might not be true, but if it were true, then I sure wouldn't want them representing my ideology. Mabool wrote:You're deliberately dwelling on the property based "rights" whereas I was referring to certain abstract qualities which liberalism "champions" - things like racial, sexual and religious equality. I fail to see how these values are necessarily bound to a capitalist economy. Mabool wrote:Nihilism is a good starting point for things, but leaving it as an end seems utterly pointless. Why bother with any sort of Socialism if it doesn't matter? Mabool wrote: I put a whole extract from the Marx's jewish question (that nobody read it as it seems lol) where all these things are analyzed in brief.. Common sense, however, perceive the human rights not on this framework. For all the people is for example a right to have whatever opinion they want, or the right to publicly express it. Or do whatevert they want with themselves as long they don't harm any other (ofcourse where is the limit of harming the other, is set by the bourgoise law, and here's the subtlety of the whole question) However, Marx states: Quote: I think that marx just pointed out, how private property is the basis of all human rights in bourgois law, because the whole difference is made by this :"The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law". so in socialist law, where, for example, private property is considered a harm to the rest, how is this definition of "liberty" wrong? As for this:n "It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself", I don;t see any wrong with it. That's why it is called "human rights" and not "social rights". Are the basic rights, that a single ("isolated") human, has by the time their born. There are two conflicting views.. The one is like the one that m. Thatcher stated very clearly "there is no society, there are just individuals". Well, the negation of this would be "there are no individuals, just society". In this latter one, "society" can decide what a specific individual must do, and because "society" cannot decide just like that, it is the state that will decide in the name of the society as a whole.. How far can the state intervene in the life of a single person? What rights does the state have on a single person's life and what rights does this person have to protect him form "society"? Has the state the right to do whatever it wants to a person, or the "society's" liberty is somehow restricted? I, personnaly, believe, that a person (yes, isolated, separated, withdran to himself etc) must have certain rights, that no "society" or state can break. If you agree with this, what rights would that be? would be this different, from the commonly known "human rights"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
Shigalyov wrote: Why do you think that? Under developed capitalist relations of production, almost everything becomes a "means of production" and therefore "private property". You can make a shitload of money using your phone and computer, or even pen and paper. The line that communists often draw between "personal" and "private" property seems to me to be an illusion - especially after the advent of modern information technology. There is no reason to draw this artificial line and "stop" the historical process of negation of property at a certain point (as if we could!). Using things and owning things are two different matters, anyway. The main justification for the entire "personal property" thing seems to be "I want to keep my tooth brush and underwear" - but why should anyone else even want these things after you've used them? To truly own these things, you'd have to defend them with violence (or the threat of it). Would you shoot somebody or call the cops on them if they took "your" toothbrush? Pure personal property as a category on its own besides private property seems to me to be ridiculously unnecessary. Humanity can share everything. And with things like cars, personal property is in fact a reactionary, harmful thing. Quote: How is their beloved market supposed to work without it? If they don't understand its central role in their entire world view, that doesn't mean it's not there. Quoting Marx, ckkomel wrote: lolol and you mocked me about quoting Marx, the philosopher? Quote: To perceive society as a collection of individuals is a positivist mistake. Society is not a random "collection", it is a social system (or rather, a multitude of such systems). In bourgeois society, there truly appears to be some degree of randomness because everybody is an isolated, atomized "individual" (the Latin "individuum" means exactly the same as the Greek "atomon" - you can't divide it, it's a (prison) cell, sorry for the pun.) - a highly abstract monad, which enters into random business connections with random other people - compare the commodity fetish: Everybody is equal, everybody can do what they want as long as they don't harm others, everybody is a monad, everybody is effectively an abstract bank account and a legal-economical subject, a station for the commodities to rest a while during circulation - and relations between people appear as relations between things. Your identification of society with the state is, if I may say it, very symptomatic of ML reflecting bourgeois crap of the highest degree. If society consists of the state, does that mean we're parts of the EU-national state machines we live in? Of course not, otherwise it wouldn't use violence against us. So, clearly, society and the state aren't necessarily equal. Can they be equal? Yes, but only in one specific moment: When the state socializes the means of production - as Engels says, this is also its last act. This in turn means that after capitalism, there won't be a state which could "act arbitrarily" against people, and that the entire question of human rights is a profoundly bourgeois one which just does not relate to us in the slightest. The only "right" I would accept is the right of everybody to satisfy their needs to the biggest extent possible with the current development of the productive forces. However, this is not a "permission" like the bourgeois human rights. Considering that every person has different needs and wants, this isn't even something that could theoretically be granted to people by a state, since only the people themselves know what they need and want, so this is something that everybody has to define, claim and act on continuously, for themselves. Communism gives us the power to do so collectively, rationally, and in a planned and proportionate fashion. Communism is the mode of production in which humanity constantly fulfills its own dreams. Quote: Because citizens are atomized, subjugated individuals. Liberated working masses are neither atomized nor subjugated. Quote: Well, that's what Marxism-Leninism is, amirite? ML socialism has been outdeveloped. To want to go back to a previous state of affairs which obviously collapsed due to its own contradictions is to spit in the face of dialectical and historical materialism. Das_ALoveStory wrote: Again, one important part of materialism is that we don't talk about how things "should" be. We look at how things are. (This also explains why Marxism is anti-morality: Morality consists entirely of phrases that say how something "ought to be", which is by definition idealist and subjectivist and anti-scientific and fruitless.) I would guess that under communism, atheism will be by far the most widespread world view. I can't imagine anybody persecuting Christians though. Why would anyone do that if there's no state? About elections, as we can currently witness in Russia, modern information technology is making it extremely hard, or impossible, to have unfair elections, so... but then again who would you want to elect? Bourgeois elections are instruments of oppression which "should" be boycotted and attacked. But after capitalism, of course we'll choose people who do stuff for us. Nobody knows if this is going to happen by way of secret ballots or just "community decisions" as in "you're good at this, do it" or even a volunteer-based approach, even though I think the latter two options look more promising than the boring old vote counting thing. But these things will probably depend very much on the concrete occasion, personally, I very much prefer approaches based on consensus decision-making over simple "elections", but I don't see elections dying out at any time soon because we like to argue too much (lol, that was a lesson for the bourgeoisie on how to properly pull off a "human nature" argument). Quote: Well, if you want to put it this way, yes. But I'd say that, like ckkomel, you're making a positivist mistake in doing so. Positivism (connected to the empiricist tradition of Locke and Hume) means to just look at the outer appearance of things. It is a cornerstone of bourgeois ideology; the entire body of bourgeois scientific knowledge is based on positivism. This is opposed to the Marxist method of dialectical analysis (rationalist tradition; important forerunners were Spinoza, Kant and Hegel) that attempts to find the essence of things by looking at the systems behind the appearances. When the USSR was still around, its philosophers and scientists had to wage a deadly fight against positivism because it tries to dissuade us from knowing things about the world, it makes it impossible to perceive the world as changeable, and it denies that society develops according to laws. In a world, it is profoundly reactionary. The reason I'm calling what you said a positivist mistake is because you're acting like a positivist: You're not looking at what libertarianism and communism are, you're just looking a superficial similarities. Libertarianism is, in its entirety, the ideology of that part of the bourgeoisie (and petty bourgeoisie) who want to be free from the state because they don't like its regulations. They want capitalism to be worse, not better. We, on the other hand, want to transcend capitalism. And even the superficial similarities aren't really there: Freedom to do all sorts of things may be a part of libertarian ideology, but communists don't really talk about that stuff much because it's commonly understood that communism will fulfill these desires (except those that relate to property, of course). Because we've understood that we have to change material conditions in order to change subjective needs, we give priority to material conditions (the essence of the matter) instead of focusing on details like freedom of religion (the appearance of a social ideal). Quote: Never assume bad intentions if stupidity is also a viable explanation. Quote: How can you fail to see this? The status of blacks has historically been intricately connected to the capitalist economy that first used them as slaves and later transformed them into proletarians, likewise, the status of women began to change with their proletarization in the 19th century. At the rate at which capitalist relations of production continue to unfold, everybody becomes equal as a proletarian or bourgeois. Now religious equality is a tricky issue; Islam and Catholicism are highly incompatible with bourgeois morality, which is why Protestantism is predominant in those bourgeois societies that are developed the farthest. Therefore, bourgeois society can never truly grant religious freedom to Muslims or Catholics - they are just too sexist (shut up, dag). In fact, I don't even know what religious equality is supposed to mean if you disconnect it from property. Are Islam, Christianity and Hinduism all equally stupid? Yes, but it has never been possible to take away the freedom of stupidity... Quote: I am a communist. I can't help being a communist, having gained what I think is a sufficient understanding of dialectical and historical materialism. Often, I (being a lazy frag) wish that I could just disconnect my way of thinking from my praxis, live a normal life and just continue wasting my time with Marxist theory without letting it materialize - but I can't. As a communist and as a social being, I naturally associate with other communists (in real life, that is, even though it's an interesting question: how do social dynamics work on the internet?) and my actions have a direct influence on the society I live in. Being therefore already entangled in a revolutionary social process, I have a simple choice: Participate constructively or act as an inhibitory, reactionary force. Play along with the social process that communists are naturally a part of, or leave it. I play along because I hate capitalism and because it would be incredibly satisfying to change the world. I am also equipped with empathy. I think it sucks that some people can't fulfill their needs, and it sucks even more that I'm one of them. This is quite an important addition to the above, and I insist that it has nothing to do with morality. Empathy is a neurological system that we can't help having, it is beyond cognition, beyond choice and therefore beyond morality. Quote: Is that a trap? There is no law after capitalist law. Law is the way in which the ruling class shapes society. Bourgeois law is a guideline for a society in which the bourgeoisie or proletariat can coexist. It is a form of blackmail: Stick to these rules or be punished. During the dictatorship of the proletariat (which is no real state, but a period of revolutionary turmoil) we're not going to attack the bourgeoisie with laws, I see no need to do that. After all we're not trying to come up with rules for a society in which they'll have to coexist with us according to certain rules, we're trying to liquidate them as a class. A law for that purpose would make no sense; in war, you don't attack your adversary because he broke your laws, you want to defeat him. Quote: I'll just pretend you wrote "post-capitalist rules for living together" instead of "socialist law" Consider this example: Two people stand before a house. Under the bourgeois definition of liberty, the house will belong to the person who gets there first and claims it, the other person will then not be able to find a place to live because he can't harm the other's property. Under communism, of course, they would just share the house. As Lenin said again and again, it's the way of approaching things that makes all the difference. The entire notion that "you can do whatever you want unless you don't harm anybody else" is based on the perception that people have naturally conflicting interests, which is only the case because of property. By the way, this is again why we must not differentiate between "personal" and "private" property. Quote: This is the view of people as monads: Everybody has their own property, everybody wants to increase their own property, and therefore, everybody has to compete with everybody else. If you take property out of the equation, none of this makes sense anymore, because people are not monads, they are social beings and it's only property that makes us think they are! In fact, all needs and interests that we have are fundamentally social, which is why the view of people as monads is the fundamentally wrong approach to satisfying them - which is why capitalism never does it. What do we need? Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As with everything we take from bourgeois science, we have to cleanse it from metaphysical and positivist garbage, of course, but if we do that, we get a neat categorization of everything a person needs: Physiological needs: Food, water, sex, medicine Emotional needs: Friendship, love, solidarity, self-esteem, respect of others, respect by others Needs of self-actualization: Creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, acceptance of facts None of these needs can be fulfilled by, or for, a monad; they all can only be fulfilled by means of social cooperation with fellow human beings. Under communism, agriculture and food processing provide food not for monads who compete for it, but for society. Under communism, friendship, love and mutual respect will be basic attributes of human existence. Creativity and sponaneity can only be realized in collaboration. In a word: We, as people, as a collective, want all these things, and we are going to provide for them. Collective production is incompatible with private property; it is also incompatible with the view of people as monads. Quote: Private property individualizes people. There were "no individuals" before bourgeois society. Collective systems have exploded, they have been ripped apart into individual monads. Alienation, estrangement. We want to overcome this. We want to negate this. So yeah, under communism, there are no individuals in this sense. Of course everybody can still do whatever the hell they want, with much more freedom than they've ever had before. I love dialectics. Quote: All these questions just demonstrate how paradoxical state socialism is. And all these questions are purely moral, idealist, and irrelevant. The state intervenes in its subjects' lives as far as necessary to protect the mode of production that it safeguards. The state has no rights on a person's life (the property logic in here makes me cringe; but okay - as long as you accept property, you have to start with the fundamental notion that everybody owns their own body). The state does whatever it wants to a person; this has never been different, it will never be, because this is what a state does - it treats people like shit. Quote: Again, the only "right" I accept is the right of everybody to satisfy their needs to the biggest extent possible with the current development of the productive forces. This way, I could say that property is wrong, because it prevents people from doing this. But that would be moral and stupid. (It's still how I act, though. I've noticed that it's impossible to live entirely without some kind of "moral values", so I had to choose at least one value I could base my actions on, and it was this. I still hate morality though.)
I just wanted to say that was a really great post Mabool.
Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job Mabool wrote: Well, besides the difference between abstract philosophcal thinking and materialist analysis, this particular quote seems quite abstrac to me, as well. I see as the the people living in a society obliged to follow some certain rules that this society demands, but is also a possibility that a certain individual or a whole group of them to disagree with these rules.. And either try to establish their way of social living or just go away from this society. So, yes, from this point of view, a society can be external to the individuals, and restrict their independence. But what independance can be? Quote: Ok, but you don't answer the question on wether the individuals can have certain rights to protect them from the state. Can a state force you to work 15h a day? Can it dictate to you what religion you have? Can it take you away and send you to whatever location and on whatever job it judges their is need on? Can it torture you (no matter waht you have done)? Can send you to jail because you are a communist? or because you are a bourgoise minded? An if you don;t like the word "state", say "majority" Quote: All declaretions of the first international, were starting with the exclamation "citizens", so was the commune. And after all what this "subjugated individuals" suppose to mean? Quote: And so.. In socialism the ruling class is the working class. There was no soviet law? what are you talking about? Quote: The same again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Soviet_Union Quote: No man they wouldn't! Duality comes after individuality now??? It's the central planning to decide who will take it.. After all, the one guy may have 7 children and 3 wives (may be muslim ) and the other one can be just a lonely student, that already has a suitable house. Will they share it?? This kind of "communism" is quite primitive. Quote: Yeah primitive, hippy and stuff like that, they can all use my bed as long they have boobs Quote: In the garden of eden maybe. Until then you have mechanisms, state, police, authorities, etc.. Either you have some rights in the society as a person or not. But here you are ready to abolish all legal system. So if I kill you to steal your belongings (is that property of yours or you will just "provide" them to me when I ask you to), will no one be there for you. After all you did't even have a right to personal property, at all. Quote: Ah, so "The state intervenes in its subjects' lives as far as necessary to protect the mode of production that it safeguards." but state socialism is a paradox... Quote: After all yes.. So because it generally happens we must take away all the protections that people have against authority. After all if they want they kill you... So Soviet Union, USA, and Pinochet, were the same thing, as long they had state.. Leftist and anarchist at the highest peak of development.. Cannot discuss on such basis, Mabool. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
runequester wrote: Thank you! ckkomel wrote: You know that materialism is a philosophical position, right? It's the justification of methodological naturalism (the basis of science). Quote: Well yes, people will always have to play along with the rules of their society. If somebody is a misogynist (for some obscure psychological reasons) under communism, he won't be accepted. But independence from society is no independence because we're still social beings. When Marx talks about the "species-being" of humanity, he uses the German word "Gattungswesen". Gattung means species, but this word also strongly implies collectivity. When he says that we're alienated from this Gattungswesen, he means that we're alienated from our collectivist roots. Apes live in herds, the first people lived in tribes - it is bourgeois society that turned us into monads. Every person is just a reflection of society, not vice versa. If you try to get away from society, you get even farther away from your species-being. In away, excluding yourself from society is almost like suicide. (I would consider everybody who lives a mainly solitary life to be profoundly disturbed). People need people. This is why social systems work at all. So under communism, people can't "go away". They will be forced to play along, and funnily, this will most probably mean something "do whatever you want as long as you're not mean to others" - which is still entirely different from "do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anybody's 'liberty'." Quote: Argh. Again. This is not something that Marxists talk about. We do not waste time discussing how things should be in paradise. These questions are insanely metaphysical, moralist, idealist, anti-Marxist and reactionary. The fact is: States do this. Why do you then ask whether they can? Of course they can. Should they do this? Stupid question, because you'll never change anything by saying that they shouldn't. All states in history have done these things to varying degrees. Quote: That was wrong then. The "citizen" is a profoundly bourgeois concept. Quote: Subjects? Kings also talk about their "subjects", but that's a really stupid word because they are obviously objects then. You're subjugated if there is an authority above you that gives you orders that you have to follow. All citizens are subjugated to their state. Quote: There was, but it was bourgeois law. Lenin knew this: In "The State and Revolution", Lenin wrote: In Lenin's attempt to reach communism, that was doubtlessly the case. But Lenin is making a great mistake here. Not only because he, again, makes the mistake of looking at distribution, but principally because he says that law depends on the state, instead of regarding both equally as results of the relations of production of society. Separating the state from the relations of production, he can of course proclaim that in the first phase of communism, we'll have a "bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie" - which is what the Soviet Union was - but, hm, that's just patently wrong. In "The Poverty of Philosophy", Marx wrote: Quote: See above. Quote: I'm not quite getting this...? Quote: It's a thought experiment. A metaphor. I was not talking about how houses will be distributed under communism, because I have no idea how that is going to happen. Quote: How is that primitive and not awesome? Surely you're not defending the bourgeois family? Quote: Sigh. "Karl, come again, I think this guy didn't hear what you just said...?" "After the fall of capitalism there won't be a new class domination culminating in a new political power." "Thank you. And what does political power consist of?" "The state, police, authorities..." "So after capitalism, there won't be a state, or cops, or authorities?" "Of course not." I don't think I can make it any clearer, sorry. Quote: Yes! Exactly! A perfect explanation for the abolition of property that I've once read (I think it was Engels, I wish I could remember and show you the quote in context because it's really awesome) is that the proletariat forces on society its own condition: No property. We're proletarians, man. We don't have anything. What could you steal from me? I don't have money, or even a car, or even decent food on my table. I'm piss poor. Of course you can sleep at my place if you want to, of course I'll share my food and things with you if you need them, but you wouldn't gain anything by killing me. We will both gain much more if we team up and kill a bourgeois and take what he has. What could you steal under communism? Would you kill people to get their books, musical instruments, underwear and dishes? Quote: Sure. The communist mode of production does not need to be safeguarded by a state, in fact, it is incompatible with a state. Leninists know this, otherwise they wouldn't accept that the state will wither away. Quote: No. What we "must" do (and I'm not telling anybody what to do, but hey) is abolish authority because there are no protections against it. Quote: One of them wasn't imperialist and actually tried to provide its citizens with a good life. That was nice. And the only difference. Quote: Thank you! At least you respect my development. Quote: "You think differently, therefore I'm not going to talk to you" - way to be a scientific socialist. Quote: Citizens are the opposite of subjects. Actually exactly because they have rights and are supposed to participate in the politics and social development, on their time. Quote: Communism is more than this, however. Quote: This is fundamentally wrong. Marx never argued that "after capitalism" there won't be state, cops, authorities. This notion only resides in the leftists' minds, nowhere else. Under communism(not socialism) there will be no state, in theory, but it is also that the state ceises to exist in its histrocal form, of class domination. It transforms to a mechanism of the people to plan the economy and the resources of the society. Technically is a state of all people, ( and not of a specific class, since there are no classes) This mechanism (the "community", as engels prefer to name this kind of state) has no laws? No rules?? this extract of Lenin discuss about the bourgois laws not laws in general.. So in your paradise (because you are discussing the paradise, not me) there will be no murdereres, no thieves, no rapists, no sociopaths, and -f course- no people that want to regain private property and have extra profit, from the means of production? and so there will be no need for "cops".. Where do you find all these? As for the "human rights" in general: What you really say, sounds like "when communism arrives all people will be free, no one will tell them what to do, no racism will exist, no discrimination about sex, gender, religion, or ethnicity will exist", but you lack the legislative basis of this society that will protect the citizens, the individuals, its members, pick a name, from such actions against them.. So called "human rights" provide this protection as well.. What is the big deal about it? PS: When you are arguing from the point of "abolition of all law" and "abolition of personal property" ( I assume you consider that all we'll be "collective" like in those primitive societies you talked above) how can I discuss? If communism is this to you then you eventually will find everything as "anticommunistic". This is childish anarchism, even more "infantile" than the "infantile disorder" lenin discussed about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
Just a quick question or two:
Mabool wrote:So empathy is neurological condition which we should heed, but territoriality isn't? Commies have gone to a great deal of trouble to reassure people that their personal property is not threatened, but we're just bullshiting? Mabool wrote:There's a distinction I'm trying to make between the abstract values of liberals and their practical application. Values such as freedom from racial, sexual, religious persecution and individual rights are the abstracts, while the market economy is the practical application of that. Why is it that when Communism is put to them, their criticisms don't dwell on the lack of a market economy, but upon the violent measures committed in the name of socialist societies? Many of them acknowledge that the market economy is flawed and regularly unjust, but they believe that it minimizes the violent excesses and violations of human rights which they see as inextricable from Communism. (I'm not arguing that they're correct or anything - just that this is the way that many of them reason) Mabool wrote:Again here you are making an equation which I don't think is entirely justified: i.e. "that liberalism and capitalism are synonyms". |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view


text:
If you aren't a nerd then you probably had no idea that a major gaming and electronic convention was going on during the beginning of this week. Then again, you probably aren't reading this post either because of that same reason… Hm… Well then, since no introductions are in order, let me just dive right in.
This year's main events at E3 can be more or less summed up by what the three big hitters (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) had to show off at their conferences. To sum up, everyone thinks they are the best in the biz, the one to do it first, the one to bring the best and newest technology to the masses… Blah blah blah. Tooting their horns aside, all three can be summed up as follows: motion controls, exercise, sports, 3D, and a new 250 gb XBOX 360 (I write that last bit glaring at the 360 I have now, which is the result of 3 separate red ring incidents). Now you know everything you need to! … Just kidding. Well, partially. If you want to get a full break down of the press conferences of the big three then be sure to check out Zac's write up here. As for me, well, I am all about the gaming aspect of the show. Which brings about this glorified Suggestion Box. Here is what I was excited by:


text:
One FM Online Malaysia
One FM is the most favorite radio station for the Malaysian People. It is the most popular radio station ranking in #3 in the whole malaysian radio stations. It has many dj's and rj's. Some of them are Jane, Jack, Max, Suki, Nicholas, Wayne, Kyan and Lucas. Having above +200,000 fans at Facebook.


text:
Latest from Chris Larson
Justin Taylor interviews Dr. Sproul about The Prince's Poison Cup
from Chris Larson Oct 24, 2008 Category: Articles
Read it here. Keep Reading -
More Ferguson, Lawson & Sproul Conference Messages Are Available
from Chris Larson Oct 22, 2008 Category: Ligonier Resources
As a reminder, you can view and listen to the messages and Q&A sessions by launching the pastors' conference webcast from this link. When you launch the player, click the "On Demand" link from the menu on the left. We'll add the balance of the messages by the end of the day tomorrow. Keep Reading -
When Pastors Get Discouraged
from Chris Larson Apr 17, 2008 Category: Events
Here are a few moments with the speakers and Dr. Sproul at yesterday's panel discussion. Keep Reading -
The Resurrection of Jesus
from Chris Larson Mar 22, 2008 Category: Articles
A week ago, C.J. Mahaney presented a message at the Ligonier national conference based on 1 Corinthians 15:17, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."
We thought it would be appropriate for this Easter weekend. Keep Reading -
An Interview with Sinclair Ferguson
from Chris Larson Mar 10, 2008 Category: Articles
We recently interviewed Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, author of In Christ Alone (Reformation Trust Publishing, 2007) and speaker at this week's 2008 National Conference: Keep Reading -
A Time for Everything (even blogs)
from Chris Larson Mar 06, 2008 Category: Articles
Since the Preacher tells us in Ecclesiastes 3 that there is a time for everything, we suppose that must include a time for a Ligonier Ministries Blog. The day has arrived and here we go. We'll use this forum to point our students to the helpful articles, broadcasts, events, and resources produced here at Ligonier Ministries. You will hear from other authors, pastors, theologians, friends of the ministry and more. On occasion, we will also provide links to edifying information on other websites. Keep Reading


text:
This cute and trendy Coffee Cup Cozy will keep your drink hot and your hands cool. It is knitted using high quality vegan-friendly yarn and fastens with a stylish button.
This Cup Cozy easily stretches to fit most standard cups and mugs, including travel mugs. Perfectly washable (hand wash is recommended).
3 buttons designs are available at the moment:
1 - coconut round, polished.
2 - coconut round, unpolished.
3 - wooden bean.
Please give me your preference in the Message to Seller. If button is not chosen, I will pick the one I think looks best on the cup cozy. Please note that I use only natural, hand carved buttons. Each of them has unique color, pattern and texture, so the button that you receive with your cup cozy may slightly differ from what is pictured.
If you don't see your favorite color, please contact me with a custom order.
Each and every item in my shop is 100% handmade by me. Please allow up to 7 days for this cup cozy to be made and prepared for shipment.
This cup cozy will be shipped by USPS First Class Mail with Delivery Confirmation (for US domestic shipping). As soon as the package is shipped, I'll send you the letter of confirmation along with the tracking number.
* This listing is for cup cozy only, mug is not included.
Many colors available. Please check them out:
PDF Pattern is available here:
**Like my Facebook page - Natalya's Studio - for sales, exclusive offers, giveaways and more!**
Have any questions?
Contact the shop owner.


text:
Pine Cone Hill White Interlaken Pillow Shams
A woven, textured cotton in an array of rich saturated hues. 100% woven cotton. Imported.
- Standard - 21" x 26" excluding flange
- Euro - 26" x 26" excluding flange
By buying this product you can collect up to 98 reward points. Your cart will total 98 points that can be converted into a voucher of $4.90.


text:
HURRICANE, W.Va. — Free throws play an important role in the game of basketball.
Unfortunately, the Hannan boys basketball team found out the hard way Tuesday night following a 50-47 setback to Calvary Baptist Academy in a non-conference matchup in Putnam County.
The visiting Wildcats (1-5) managed to keep pace with the Patriots throughout most of the four quarters of action, but CBA countered that effort with 20 extra free throw chances — which included 10 additional makes — in remaining unbeaten this winter.
The Patriots (8-0) sank 17-of-29 charity tosses in the triumph for 59 percent, while HHS made 7-of-9 free throw tries for 78 percent.
Both teams were tied at 14 after eight minutes of play, but the hosts made a pivotal 13-8 run in the second canto to establish a 27-22 edge at the break. The Wildcats countered with a small 12-10 spurt in the third to pull within 37-34 headed into the finale, but both teams scored 13 points down the stretch to pull off the one-possesion decision.
Kade McCoy, Paul Holley and Tyler Burns all led Hannan with 11 points apiece, followed by Ty Paige with seven markers. Daniel Black and Tyler Jenkins rounded out the respective scoring with four and three points.
Jace Heller paced Calvary Baptist with a game-high 20 points, followed by Trent Spears with 14 points and Alex Rhodes with seven markers.


text:
If there will be some sort of way to save different builds in order to quickly and easily switch between them in game? I would hope blizzard implements something like this, as there are many builds that are useful in different situations.
What's your thoughts on this? Should there be something like this implemented? Are you against it? Why?


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
Hundreds of pages of witness statements and interviews in the sexual battery case involving an Orlando police officer were released Wednesday.
Officer Roderick Johnson was arrested in December and has since retired from the department.
The alleged victim told police that Johnson pulled her over at a Citgo gas station for driving a stolen car in October. She said before she was booked in jail, the two stopped at a police substation where they engaged in oral sex and intercourse while she was handcuffed. She also said Johnson gave her $40.
She told police in an interview that she was afraid of the consequences if she didn't have sex with him, and that she only reported the incident to police because she thought she had a sexually transmitted disease and wanted treatment.
"I figured if I woulda said no, then he probably woulda tried to give me the charges that I should've had initially," the transcript of her interview says.
According to the documents released Wednesday, the alleged victim said Johnson was flirting with her and got her a cigar to smoke before driving her to the substation.
"He leaned back and kept looking at me with these eyes, like you know, what's up, what's up, that type of deal," she told police in an interview.
She said they were in the substation office for about 15 to 20 minutes, where they had sex, and she described the layout of the desk and chairs to police. The investigator verified her description of the room to be accurate.
The documents also contain a transcript of an interview with Johnson.
In the interview, Johnson told police he only went to the substation to get a vehicle disposition after he spilled his Big Gulp on the one he had.