[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