[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
J.A. Henshaw
jeff at jhenshaw.com
Thu Mar 28 20:55:06 UTC 2002
Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> I'm not going to pick these all apart just for the sake of time and
> tedium, but I wanted to mention a couple of big points...
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote:
>
>>Your money is replaced with debt instruments.
>>
>
> Money _is_ a debt instrument.
>
Jeme, which kind of money are you talking about? Is 25.8
grains of gold, 900 fineness, a debt or a debt instrument?
>
>>Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership (
>>real estate is everything from the ground up )
>>
>
> Clearly you don't know the difference between realty and personalty.
> Property law has been based on a distinction between the two for
> centuries.
>
Please explain the significance here, between the two, as
you see it.
I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the
home today, when you "buy" a home.
What does your injection of "personalty" into the argument
achieve, or prove, or illustrate, or contribute?
Is it to say that I am incorrect? You make a one sentence retort claiming I don't know the difference
between a word I used and a word I have not used.
I have a hard time understanding your point, if any.
>
>>Basically, all ten planks of the communist manifesto are in place,
>>
>
> Just for grins, run '"ten planks" "communist manifesto"' through
> google. Last time I did, I got nothing but right-wing sites claiming the
> above... mostly all copies of the same document scattered about the
> web.
The word often used today during election years is "platform".
Platforms, are made of planks.
>
> In fact, I can't find one reference to "the ten planks" from a source that
> isn't far right-wing. (And exactly one that isn't a specific reference to
> how "America" has implemented each one.)
>
> Weird, huh?
Your point?
>
> And as for what these planks are and what they DO, well, I assure you it
> has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or even, more generally,
> marxism.
Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you.
>
> _IF_ they really were part of the original document by Marx and Engels,
> then we must note that the document was a manifesto for a new political
> party and the "planks" would be the planks of a platform. A political
> party's platform is a statement of purpose for the upcoming political
> season designed to show what specific policies are generally supported by
> the candidates carrying party support. These particular planks appear to
> be all about consolidating power. The consolidation of power is, of
> course, contrary to the philosophy inherent in the rest of the Communist
> Manifesto and certainly contrary to any cause of good or right in the rest
> of Marx's work. BUT I can imagine a particular political group deciding,
> at some point, that such a consolidation of power in the hands of a public
> agency is a necessary first step in wresting power from the hands of the
> private few who held it previously. And if the organization involved in
> reigning in that power and bringing it under one umbrella were truly of a
> marxist bent, the next step would be redistribution of that power to the
> people.
>
> Now, that's a rationalization full of speculation. It's quite possible
> that those planks, as stated by the various right-wing organizations that
> hold them up, were part of a particular communist party's platform when
> that party was merely a front for a megalomaniac or greedy few seeking
> power. We all know full well and can point to examples in history showing
> that evil and greedy people use the language of common good and populist
> sentiment to mislead the people and dupe the gullible.
>
> But one thing can be stated with certainty: The "ten planks" as laid out
> on the sites listed from the above google search are not communist in
> nature and an implementation of the systems suggested within those planks
> is certainly not necessarily communist. (I'd be hard pressed, as a matter
> of fact, to contrive a communist society that sustained such institutions
> as described in those planks with even the most idealized and carefully
> chosen denizens.)
Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees
that Marx was a communist.
>
>
>>And you deny a conspiracy.
>>Do you attribute the current state of affairs to the chaos theory?
>>Or is it possible perhaps there was a plot somewhere and this was not
>>the result of random chance?
>>
>
> You're talking about a basic destruction of civil rights and a loss of
> popular control of the world's wealth.
>
> I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power. We
> set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to
> self-propogate. Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power.
> Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators. The powerful
> (wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by
> definition. Those people, acting in their own selfish interests,
> continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small
> ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in
> power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to
> turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew). This
> degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy
> elite (e.g. you and me) suffer.
>
> J.
>
Again, every word from you is a sales pitch for communism
with a new face.
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they
will have for lunch.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list