Animal Farm

[fayefaye]

I know that a lot of your posts relate to Animal Farm, but I was just wondering what you generally thought about it?

[Rotty1021]

Excellent tale that not only re-told the Russian Revolution, but showed how persistent people can be to get into power, sacrificing everyone under them, in the case of the book all of the animals that were "below" the pigs.

[BMW-Guy]

I know that a lot of your posts relate to Animal Farm, but I was just wondering what you generally thought about it?

I read the book in one night (approx. 3 & one-half hours). I throughly enjoyed it. It combines the stark reality of Communism with the readibility of any good novel.

[fayefaye]

YOu know what' s ironic? i read it the first time, and i'm like, 'yeh, communism's bad' but then i started researching lenin, trotsky and karl marx, and now i'm thinkin of turnin commie! i'm gonna be a communist!

[Sindhu]

What I got was not "Communism is bad" but that quite simply power corrupts. In the end, nothing much to choose between communists and capitalists- the pigs end up indistinguishable from the men. The only thought that keeps me going isthat as each revolution of yesterday settles into the Conservatism of today, the seeds of tomorrow's revolution are sprouting somewhere.

[=Monkey_King=]

I have read this book long time ago so i dont remember that well...

Fayefaye, you can't just change sides like that, remember that life is not divided into the good and the bad. First of all, Lenin was REAL communist. Unlike Plekhanov (sorry for the spelling) he used popular literature (using "propagandist" lectues that were a lot more fiery than the interlectual and hardly comprehensible by the proletariat). In the end, after Lenin had power the anarchy that followed (and the possible incopentency of Lenin) killed (starved) around 12 million people (not sure about the numbers but it was a LOT) Infuriated by this outrage the Kronstadt sailors (those were the people who seized the legendary Potemkin rebelled, but were killed by Trotsky, Lenin's war minister. Both Lenin and Trotsky said that the former dreams of a immediate good future after russia became communist were just "party line" and then changed policy to allow little free marketing. Lenin, a brave and humble man, quite often striken by great urges of power would die in a little gleam of hope, as the policy brought stabilization, slowly but steadily. Trotsky would die in failure.

---

The Rise of Stalin came about like this:
Lenin said stalin was too rude and refused to nominate him heir.
Lenin's illness delayed his voice recording denouncing stalin, but before it could be published stalin got his hands on it and then with his cunning strategy he befrended and then got rid of all rivals (including Trotsky) and then took power. You probably know what happened after that...

By the way Lening got power through coup d'etat, not a democratic election. (the Bolsheviks were not the majority when Lenin got power. Ironically the name bolskevik means "majority")

Most of the info is from "LENIN" by David Shub, a former communist revolutionary who worked with lenin.

[fayefaye]

i like the communist ideals.. but i'd never vote for a communist party. though perhaps i'd be a communist politician. i make no sense!

[IWilKikU]

I dont think that the point of the book was "communists bad!" I think that it was more about absolute power. When the animals first siezed the farm, everything ran smoothly and it was all good. But when the pigs started abuseing instead of using the power that they siezed, things got all flubbered up.

[fayefaye]

i know it's not that communism is bad, it's that it probably doesn't or can't work as a result of corruption of power. did anyone see a satire they did on 3rd rock from the sun about communism? they took the words 'we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal' and extrapolated them to communism. 'we can commune together!' then they got harry to be communist leader, and modelled him after mao tse-tung. it was hilarious.

[=Monkey_King=]

All men are NOT created equal, whoever made this crazy assumption must be insanely naive :D If this is true everyone would be born with the same amount of money, work exactly the same hours, have exactly the same house... which leads to the loss of the human spirit and the beginning of industrialism.

Its really beautiful how humans are all so differnt.
Check this out
http://www.oklink.net/a/0007/0707/shenghuo/003.htm


Read the section "in the image of the monkey" its quite enjoyable and also profoundly philosophic :) You can change the number 003 to change the chapters.

[fayefaye]

naive.. but it's a nice idea.

[Isagel]

Originally posted by =Monkey_King=
All men are NOT created equal, whoever made this crazy assumption must be insanely naive :D If this is true everyone would be born with the same amount of money, work exactly the same hours, have exactly the same house... which leads to the loss of the human spirit and the beginning of industrialism.


That we are created equal does not mean that we are all the same. It means that we are of equal value. Nobody is worth more than anybody else, and nobody is worth less than anybody else. Regardless off our differences, we share the basic things in life. No individuals pain or joy can be rated and found more worthy than anybody elses. Nobodys wish is more or less worthy off expressing.

That does not mean that we are not individuals. To qoute Jung - one mans wine is another mans poison. There is no universal recepy (not sure off the spelling) for living.

[fayefaye]

maybe we were all born equal. then society changed it.

[AbdoRinbo]

Fayefaye, give reading Das Kapital a try. The works of Karl Marx are still considered the principle literature on communism as a science of economics, whereas Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, &c. were politicians with their own ends in mind.

[imthefoolonthehill]

about all men being created equal....

I don't think the quote is talking about people being the same height, intelligence, weight, personality... etc etc.

The quote was talking about how morally and ethically, all human life must be treated equal... unless that person has lowered his value by his deeds. Just a thought... probably not well thought out.

[fayefaye]

sounds well thought out, fool. as for das kapital, i remember hearing somewhere that karl marx writings on communism shouldn't have been used as the basis for communism because it didn't properly explore it's pitfalls. sounds interesting though. even though it contains the word 'economics.'

[=Monkey_King=]

I still find that very naive, it was a very rash quote that should have contained more detail. For almost every person puts the lives of his/her own countrypeople more dear than others.
(Remember the Rwandan Genocide? like a million people were killed one by one with swords and rifles in a period of a few weeks. And nobody did anything about it. :( :mad:

Its a nice quote but its as naive as creating a paradise with 6 million people...

Marx was a swine :eek: he never gave his maid ANY money although he actually had a child with her *SIGH*

[AbdoRinbo]

Yes, Monkey King, you're absolutely right, he was human too and prone to contradictions.

Fayefaye, the flaw concerning Communism they were probably referring to (the one everybody refers to, e.g. that according to Marx the standard of living will gradually decrease in a capitalist society) is actually one of the great misunderstandings of Marxism. It's odd that in Das Kapital he observed that the contrary would happen, the standard of living would rise as the value on human life decreased. And that's what has been happening for the past two-hundred and fifty years; we have become machinery, our only purpose in life is to ensure that the system does not collapse in on itself. We are tools.

[=Monkey_King=]

Nice one AbdoRinbo :D
It would be much better for a scamp to be an ideal, free, maybe lazy, but laziness in stupid things can be a virtue.

[AbdoRinbo]

What exactly are you saying in that last sentence?

[fayefaye]

i just have to say: economics isn't a science and it never will be.

communism seems to try to solve the economic problem by simply reducing people's wants. since that can never work, it doesn't really work as well in practise as in theory.

3rd rock:
'i need some toilet paper'
'today we are rationing po-tah-toes'
'but i REALLY need toilet paper'
'we have sand paper'
'fine. i'll take a potato'

i just like that quote; apparently that's what things were actually like in russia. communism doesn't give the ppl what they want; the governments inefficiency leads to civil unrest. that's one of the reasons it could never practically work.

[AbdoRinbo]

The Soviet Union was a dictatorship.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
i just have to say: economics isn't a science and it never will be.
Well, it basically depends on what's your definition of science (another controvertial issue), but I do agree that economic "laws" are much more flexible (and fragile) than the others.


Originally posted by fayefaye
communism doesn't give the ppl what they want; the governments inefficiency leads to civil unrest. that's one of the reasons it could never practically work.
No system really does that. Some are better than others, that's all. And it still depends on the person(s) who's running the show.

[nicholasburrus]

You can read it on this site

[nicholasburrus]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
The Soviet Union was a dictatorship.

_____________________
actually it was a communism

[=Monkey_King=]

Since when was communism not a dictatorship? ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

In the Soviet Union there wasn't an equal distribution of wealth, power, or any other means of status----communist you say? Certainly there have been societies which have purported to be 'communist', but claims like that are nothing more than tools used to gain or usurp power. Soviet Russia was a ruthless war machine; that in itself contradicts the most basic principle of Communism: that we are a part of this world and should strive to live in harmony with it instead of exploiting it in the name of Universal Truth (which is a very powerful tool to have).

[nicholasburrus]

Originally posted by BMW-Guy

I know that a lot of your posts relate to Animal Farm, but I was just wondering what you generally thought about it?

I read the book in one night (approx. 3 & one-half hours). I throughly enjoyed it. It combines the stark reality of Communism with the readibility of any good novel.

____________________
Sure

[fayefaye]

any political system is only as good as the ppl who run it. communist systems should give ppl the opportunity to vote-or all is lost because of the corruption of power. that's why communism all of a sudden goes hand in hand with dicatorships-even when the principles are supposed to be completely different.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
any political system is only as good as the ppl who run it. communist systems should give ppl the opportunity to vote-or all is lost because of the corruption of power. that's why communism all of a sudden goes hand in hand with dicatorships-even when the principles are supposed to be completely different.
Agreed. But elections aren't enough (although they're necessary). Think about the enormous amount of coertion and propaganda spread through the media. Practically all american countries (maybe Canada could be excluded, I honestly don't know) hardly vote as according to their real needs. Voting is really not that effective when a society is poor, ignorant, or brainwashed. On topic, communism is nowadays an undefined word, mainly because it has too many meanings. What does the word refer to in your mind? Marx's views? Lenin's regime? Stalin's? China? The worst system available? The best? Bad people who eat their children? These are all different things, but regrettably, they've been defined by the same word.

[fayefaye]

that's very true. elections aren't enough. freedom of thought is what's required for the people to keep their leaders in check. the ability to protest and criticize in a way that the animals of animal farm couldn't.

as for what communism is..i think of it as a system with good ideals that has so many inherent problems that it could never really work. i think if i was going to go for political ideology i would choose communism. i would get a little bumper sticker that says 'workers of the world! unite!' and talk about freedom and equality. the problem is that the system can't really work. human nature itself precludes it. even communists would acknowledge that they need some sort of leader-and that in itself will erode the idea of equality for all. either in the way the leaders will take the 'milk and windfall apples' as 'brain food' or in the way they'll control and possibly exploit everyone else... people are narrow-minded and run by self-interest. it's part of the basis of the market economy and also one of the reasons it wouldn't work.

[AbdoRinbo]

Yet somehow we managed to survive for thousands of years (pre-civilization) without the existence of a single governing body.

[imthefoolonthehill]

I would just like to point out that there is no such thing as "a communism" That would be like saying a democrasism....

(gets a wacky grin out of pointing that out)

[sam1]

Why do you say communism has good ideals if it can't work? A political system is not worth anything if it can't deliver. Communism might sound good, but it is a bad idea.

[AbdoRinbo]

You're an idiot.

[AbdoRinbo]

Aw shucks, I shouldn't have said that. What on earth was I thinking?

[BMW-Guy]

Mind you [though], China, Russia, etc. are very poor examples of what Marx intended Communism to be.:)

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by sam1
Why do you say communism has good ideals if it can't work? A political system is not worth anything if it can't deliver. Communism might sound good, but it is a bad idea.

ideology and the way things actually end up working can be competely different things. i like the ideals, that isn't to say i like the way it actually ends up working out.

as for us surviving for so long without a governing body-we always had governing systems in our society, abdo. it just depends what you mean by 'governing body'. my point was that the idea of equality is nice, but there will always and has always been a social hierarchy. even in pre-historic times it is generally accepted that humans were gregarious animals-living in society and therefore objected to the social hierarchies and requirements to conform that must follow. ie there was never equality. civilisation just formalised that. took the head of the tribe and made him/her a politician. (that's right. i put 'her.' there's been research to show that women may have been the dominating sex before technology stepped in) instead of head of a tribe, they're head of a country. not that big a difference when u really get down to it. i'm sure the head of a tribe would have received some sort of perks- in that way economic inequalities would probably have also followed the societal ones.

[AbdoRinbo]

There were plenty of systems without leaders in pre-history. Most hunter/gatherer tribes were made up of people whose only interaction with each other took place while hunting or gathering food. Civilization as we know it sprang from this kind of anarchy.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
the problem is that the system can't really work. human nature itself precludes it. even communists would acknowledge that they need some sort of leader-and that in itself will erode the idea of equality for all. either in the way the leaders will take the 'milk and windfall apples' as 'brain food' or in the way they'll control and possibly exploit everyone else... people are narrow-minded and run by self-interest. it's part of the basis of the market economy and also one of the reasons it wouldn't work.
True. There has to be some authority, or everything will collapse. That's probably the most ignored fact about communism. Its ultimate goal is to make the Estate disappear, not fortify it.


Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Aw shucks, I shouldn't have said that. What on earth was I thinking?
Don't worry. It happens to me also. Sometimes it can't be avoided. :D

[nicholasburrus]

GOOD OPINIONS Y'ALL

[AbdoRinbo]

Thank you, sir.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
There were plenty of systems without leaders in pre-history. Most hunter/gatherer tribes were made up of people whose only interaction with each other took place while hunting or gathering food. Civilization as we know it sprang from this kind of anarchy.

yes, but u see that's just it. we live in a society, u know. civilisation without leaders wouldn't really work. marx thought the dictatorship would naturally wither away and the perfect egalitarian society would be born. the problem is, the dictatorship would never leave.

[AbdoRinbo]

Civilization is the problem.

[Stanislaw]

The main problem is peoples burning desire to be incontrol of someone else.

Heres an analogy:

If you give a starving dog a steak, he will never give the steak back, when he dies, the next dog will steal the dead dogs steak.

Humans are the problem with communism. It is a wonderfull ideal, but can not be practically aplied to culture so used to being dictated by someone.

My solution is that everybody gets a lobotomy, that way there will be no war, and communism will then work, no body will have a distinct personality. They won't be very smart either!!:p

[fayefaye]

well then that's not such a great solution stan.

i used to think that civilisation is the problem, but -like what are you going to do about it?

[AbdoRinbo]

Stanislaw, you have no fùcking clue what you're talking about.

[fayefaye]

LOL. ... still, that's a little cruel, abs.

[Stanislaw]

Communism has never worked, and I don't think that it will happen Unless there is a value change in all of sociaty. The idea of peaceful coexsistance for the greater good of humanity is something that people won't try, they are to greedy and self sentered.

I ment no offense in my previouse post, I was just presenting my view, in a comical fashion if you will.

[AbdoRinbo]

Name one communist state.

[sam1]

Communism lends itself to dictatorships for a few reasons. The people who fight for it are fighting for an ecenomic system, so they do not pay enough attention to where the power is going.
Communism is supposed to take care of all human evils, and it does not need a powerful government, only a central administration. This leaves any truly dedicated govrnment mostly unprotected. Orwell shows this when Napolean kicks out Snowball. A third problem is that no matter how corrupt and abusive the government is, they claim that they are the people's government, which gives them some legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This problem is given a very prominant place in Animal Farm.

[AbdoRinbo]

Orwell was attacking Stalinism, not Marxism (Vladimir Lenin, not Karl Marx, is personified in Old Major----Snowball is Trotsky, Napolean is Stalin). I suggest you read Marx (something other than The Communist Manifesto) before you assault the theory, which you seem to know nothing about.

[Stanislaw]

The theory is good, but it people corrupt it. There is no example of communism in the world. There is Fidelism, Stalinism, Maoism, not any real example of communism.

The closest that anyone has ever come to real communism is some communal farms, Just outside of Jusard Alberta, swtarted by followers of the Hippie movement.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by sam1
Communism lends itself to dictatorships for a few reasons. The people who fight for it are fighting for an ecenomic system, so they do not pay enough attention to where the power is going.

As if democracy doesn't lend itself largely to capitalism. The people who say they're fighting for freedom are similarly fighting for money. I could name a prominent example right now, but that would be current politics. As such, I'll just sit here and allude to it. We don't pay enough attention to where the power is going either. That's one of the problems, don't you think? That is not just something with communism. That's just something you notice about communism and not about democracies.

[Stanislaw]

All government systems, if hiven time, become hypocritical.

[fayefaye]

Stupid governments. Then again, everyone's a hypocrite to some extent. Stupid narrow-mindedness.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Originally posted by Stanislaw
All government systems, if hiven time, become hypocritical.

Replace hypocritical with corrupt and you are more correct.

Jonus

[Stanislaw]

That is true, you stated it more clearly than I did:)

[fayefaye]

Can you imagine what it would be like without a government? good/bad? I was just thinking about what abdo wrote.. if you could get rid of the dictatorship, maybe communism could work.

[Stanislaw]

If people could work together, rather than against eachother perhaps communism would have a chance.

[ellus]

I've been reading your opinions about communism and I must say they are a bit ... hmmm... i can't find the word...
Do you even know what communism is? (and i'm not reffering to your knowledge, rather to your experience with communism). Some of you say that communism is a good idea exept it didn't work cause of coruption of power. Bull****.
Have you ever lived in a country controlled by communists?
Well, my family has... and it's no fun. The general idea of communism was for everyone to be equal and have an equal amount of everything. We, in poland even have this saying...
'czy sie stoi czy sie lezy tysiac zlotych sie nalezy'- it means that it doesn't matter if you work or not, a certain amount of money shoud be given to you ( an equal amount to everybody else's).
Also, communism deprives you of any personal feelings, thoughts. You can't do anything without everybody knowing about it and for some things you have to have permission (like to leave the country). After about 80 years of communism in poland i've had enough. And it makes me sick to hear that some of you think it is a good system. I would like to write more but.... I think you'll get the piont after reading this. Sorry for my english.

[Stanislaw]

My Babcia and Dziadzia lived in poland before the war. My Dziadzia fought against the communist and hated them. All I am saying is that Marx's original theory was good, but the russian perversians of the ideal is what murdered it.

[fayefaye]

I just said I liked the ideals. there are lots of reasons other than and including the corruption of power as to why it wouldn't work. This means that as an actual functioning system it ain't so great, and I admitted that.

You know, this threads been going around in circles for a while now. The general ethos seems to be that we think it's got good ideals, or maybe that it's a good idea in theory, but it really doesn't work. Reasons include the corruption of power, human nature, problems inherent in the system, and society's materialistic values. I could go on. But anyone can point at a government system and criticize, and this is particularly true of communism. It takes someone else to actually come up with a better idea. I mean, maybe Marx was a swine, but at least he was a swine with ideas. That's better, isn't it?

ok, so let's put our heads together and actually do something constructive: how would you change the government system if you could? What would be ideal, how would it work and why would it work?

I was thinking of creating my own little system. Let's call it Fayeism. What would it be? Basically a modified market economy-sad but true, I can't come up with a better idea. So what would I change? Well, I don't care if society is stratified according to the amount of money people have, but I do resent that people with more money have more opportunity than those without, and I would actually change that. For the first twenty years of every person's life they would receive the same opportunities regardless of monetary worth. (though I couldn't obliterate social classes, and would be fairly doomed to try. Since social class and money go hand in hand, I would strive to change whatever I could) I think I'd just generally interfere a bit more to meddle with producers who exploit workers and the environment, particularly in third world countries. It's not a new system at all. (I just want something to be called Fayeism). It's just the system the way it should be. An un-corrupt democratic government functioning within the modified market economy. Why not revamp it completely? Because I just can't think of anything else. :(

[fayefaye]

Oh you know what? f8** it. I don't have a clue. I got nothin. No idea as to how to change the world and make it work.

[Stanislaw]

People and gov. don't mix well. I am going to buy my own island and live there. That way I can make my own laws, and nobody will try to get me out of power. All the animals will be my followers. I'll get the birds to poop on the cruise ships that pass by. That is my ultimate solution.

My real one is a lot more facist. And many people end up hating me for it.

[fayefaye]

let's hear the real one.

[Stanislaw]

Okay...

I feel that all cultures should be split up into individual provinces, no interaction between different cultures would exist. In communities with differences, all like people would be contained within their own cities, where they are not allowed to interact with the others who share a province with them, but may hve different sexual preferences or the such.

Their would be no money. The gov. would regulate everything. If somebody didn't do their share they wouldn't get anyfood, or the like. That way in the end the only people with weapons would be the gov.. Each sector would have their own group leader who would anser to the main leader. If their was any violence the offenders would be destroyed and left as an example. I feel the only way to keep the world peacfull is by the suppresion of all people.

It may not seem fair, but neither is life.

That is my perfect system. ( I am not a nazi)

[fayefaye]

stan, that is so unbelievably stupid. I read the first sentence and cringed. That's not a solution at all. Are you sure you're not a nazi? Tell me why you think your system would work. [because I know it doesn't stand a chance]

[Stanislaw]

I feel that most conflict comes from differences. People try to express superiority over others due to differencces. That way if the differences are removed there will be no conflict.

I am pretty sure that I am not a nazi.

[fayefaye]

It's not differences at all. It's lack of understanding regarding differences. Do you have any idea the amount of trouble-war, murder, genocide that has been caused by that sort of thinking? I don't think you could be more wrong.

Conflict arises from people not understanding their differences, and huge sociocultural problems result from people thinking the solution lies in eradicating these differences. It does not. The solution lies in appreciating and understanding differences, definately NOT sweeping them under the rug.

Even people of the same culture will try to express superiority over one another. That's why I think your idea is incredibly, unbelievably stupid, and you really don't know what you're talking about. It's got nothing to do with differences in culture, etc at all.

[fayefaye]

p.s I could have really torn you a new one for writing that.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Stanislaw
Okay...

I feel that all cultures should be split up into individual provinces, no interaction between different cultures would exist. In communities with differences, all like people would be contained within their own cities, where they are not allowed to interact with the others who share a province with them, but may hve different sexual preferences or the such.

Their would be no money. The gov. would regulate everything. If somebody didn't do their share they wouldn't get anyfood, or the like. That way in the end the only people with weapons would be the gov.. Each sector would have their own group leader who would anser to the main leader. If their was any violence the offenders would be destroyed and left as an example. I feel the only way to keep the world peacfull is by the suppresion of all people.

It may not seem fair, but neither is life.

That is my perfect system. ( I am not a nazi)
I don't think you're a nazi, but I do agree that your "real" solution is pretty fascist. It would never work, and it'd create even more problems. Diversity of cultures is what keeps the world together, not the other way round.

[Stanislaw]

Well, I warned you.

I am fed up with all the hate crimes, and I don't see people changing anytime soon, so I'm treating the situation like a daycare teacher. seperate the bad kids.

[AbdoRinbo]

Separate the bad kids . . . all will end well I'm sure, subjectively.

[fayefaye]

that idea just doesn't work at all.

[IWilKikU]

Dude Stan, thats pretty f**ked up. Faye covered the cultural side, but having EVERYTHING regulated by the government? Look at the title of this thread. Good, now go read the book of said title. Good. Notice how the pigs who regulate EVERYTHING completely f**k over all the other animals on the farm? notice how none of the animals are happy unless they're either pigs themselves or working for the pigs to keep the other animals in check? You want to enstate the exact government that the animals in Animal Farm have. Did you read the book? Cause if you did, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

[Stanislaw]

I read the book, I also read '84. but I still feel that the people need to be controlled, if they are forced to behave they won't missbehave.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[AbdoRinbo]

So sorry. :D

[fayefaye]

Stan, you cannot solve the problem by forcing everyone to conform. They would rebel, and misbehave worse than you could possibly imagine. The last thing you want to do is remove people's sense of freedom [illusion though it may be]. What you might want to do is bombard them with subconsciously mind-altering advertisements that change their value systems in your favour. Not that I'm making any sort of statement about capitalism or anything. :rolleyes:

[IWilKikU]

.
Stan, you cannot solve the problem by forcing everyone to conform. They would rebel, and misbehave worse than you could possibly imagine.

for an example see: The American Revolution
See also: The French Revolution
See also: Ah hell pretty much any revolution in the history of the world was about people being pissed off that other people were in control of them and trying to make them behave themselves. Hopefully there'll be another revolution soon to overthrow Bush Jr.'s oppressive regime, but hopefully that will be in a voting booth rather than on a battlefield

[Azoic]

Thanks for the examples kik. I would like to add that in america, after the civil war, and before Martin Luther King Jr. The official party line was "seperate, but equal." Which is exactly what I thought of when I read Stan's bit. There was NOTHING equal about that policy. If it didn't work then, why should it work now?

[Stanislaw]

It's just my solution. I realise it might be overthrown, but it would cause the people to work together to destroy me, their fore unification would happen anyways.

[azmuse]

although, iwilkiku, a revolution by way of u.s. voting booths would become farcical as they are currently in an Unfortunate way - all states have yet to conform to new standards (glug)

[AbdoRinbo]

That's unintelligable.

[IWilKikU]

haha good point. If you are an American, and your reading this, please contact your senator or house representative and urge them to vote yes on the ballot protection act. Ok, sorry admin, I got political for a sec, but I'm done.

Abs, incase you still dont follow, I said the revolution will be in the Voting booths. Muse said, that would be a farce, cause the voting booths arn't conforming to the standard that theyre supposed to. Also, certain governers in certain presidential dynasties like rig certain states so that certain brothers will win certain elections. As there is no politics allowed on this site, read Chapt. 1 of Stupid White Men by Michael Moore for more info. And forget that you read that here.

[IWilKikU]

So, how 'bout that Orwell guy! What a nut! (see how easy it is to discuss Orwell without discussing polotics!!!)

[azmuse]

abdo, there's no way for this poor us of a to have a revolution at the voting booth. that's all folks or it'll get political again, but basically (here she goes) after florida, the voting debacle was supposed to be rectified. and wasn't.

good lord my mouthwash ran all over my keyboard and typed that slop up there it's a mess isn't it. must rewire the computer in the brain.

[fayefaye]

The rest of the world is very ashamed of you.

:cool:

[AbdoRinbo]

'You can't give up. Did Bush give up after losing the primary election?' -- Peter Griffin, 'The Family Guy'.

[fayefaye]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

Some of us do.

[fayefaye]

.

[AbdoRinbo]

Or we could just bomb the shìt out of them like we're doing now.

[fayefaye]

Yeah, that'll shut 'em up!

[fayefaye]

Oh, guess where I've been mailing all that weapons grade plutonium?

[IWilKikU]

Listen, Abs, if you want to understand why the Dems had to give up on trying to uncover the damn Florida thing, read the first chapter of Michael Moore's Stupid White Men. It will tell you all you need to know. Also there's a chapter in Dude, Where's my Country that explains alot more about how conservitive republicans control media and propoganda, and are much better at it than Dems. But if we want this thread to stay open, we need to get out of Florida and back into Orwellville.

So, hows about them crazy Animals? Huh? Thinking they can run a farm! Silly animals!

[azmuse]

oh fayefaye but i am very ashamed of the american half of my citizenship :)
on the bright side, i wrote the man a letter referering to him as "george" rather than mr. pr- oh i can't finish the word!

[azmuse]

where have you been mailing the plutonium? to mars where no doubt they'll need it to defend themselves in 300 years?

[IWilKikU]

You think its going to take the Bush dynasty 300 years to bomb Mars?!?! Hell thats probably where Osama and Saddam are holding hands right now. I say nuke it while its fresh! If there are poor people there, or even if there arn't, Bush has the right to send a pre-emptive attack their direction. DESTROY MARS BEFORE THE COMMUNIST/DICTATOR/DEMECRATS/ANY OTHER THING THAT IS EVIL HAS A CHANCE TO COLINIZE IT!!!!!

ok, Admin, I really think its time to close this thread down. I'm the one trying to get it back on subject and look what I just wrote!!!

[fayefaye]

This is important- EVERYONE STOP DISCUSSING CURRENT POLITICS. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE MY THREAD CLOSED. :( Please edit your posts or something? And Wilk, don't suggest that!!

NOW BACK ON SUBJECT- ok, we've all criticized stan's idea, but does anyone else have the courage to forward their ideas on solving society's woes? What would be your government system?

[crisaor]

Socialism, of course, in a scandinavian way.

[IWilKikU]

You don't see disgruntled Sweeds shooting up classrooms, do you? I'm with Crisaor

[Azoic]

I don't know much about scandinavian socialism, so I'm going to have to vote for pre-columbian communism.

[AbdoRinbo]

In a word, Denmark.

[Azoic]

In a word, America. Now to actually translate what that means: I have no idea what the socialist system of Denmark entails. I have enough trouble keeping up with 1 political/socio-economic system, let alone those of the entire world.

[azmuse]

ohhelp! no Azoic, no!

maybe Denmark's obscurity bodes well for its kindness (hopefully gazes up at ceiling)

[AbdoRinbo]

Maybe I see it more than most people, the smug sense of self-satisfaction that many Americans display. It's not something you can experience from a book, you have to see it to understand. A woman came up to me today where I work and casually pointed out how nice it was that we finally captured 'Sammad'. That's blue-collar Grand Rapids for you. But it's just as bad, if not worse, in white-collar Detroit, because the people there know of the atrocities that we have committed, yet they choose to do nothing in response.

[azmuse]

mmmph. i'm moving back to philly in two weeks (missitso), and here in n. calif., the morning of sept. 11, this woman was laughing to her honey about putting enough quarters in a perfectly deserted parking meter and no stores open to go to (me walking to bus) and my thousands of my neighbors had just died: Yerch.
Though, we did have mad protests in this part of the country earlier this year. would display huge smile if knew how to work the icon thingy.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Maybe I see it more than most people, the smug sense of self-satisfaction that many Americans display. It's not something you can experience from a book, you have to see it to understand. A woman came up to me today where I work and casually pointed out how nice it was that we finally captured 'Sammad'. That's blue-collar Grand Rapids for you. But it's just as bad, if not worse, in white-collar Detroit, because the people there know of the atrocities that we have committed, yet they choose to do nothing in response.
If that's true, then it's REALLY bad. I was under the impression that most US citizens (allow me the generalisation please) absolutely ignore what they have done to other countries, either because of the massive propaganda, or because they rather believe that than to hear the truth, but if you say that they're conscious of the situation...

[Azoic]

Look, I was just asking a question. If no one wants to give me an answer, as I'm not going to be living outside the US for quite some time, fine. Suit yourselves. But, if you don't want to help out, don't criticize those of us not fortunate enough to be able to travel whenever and where ever we want.

Oh, and yes, I'm quite aware that the U.S. has f***ed over many countries in many different ways, that doesn't mean that each individual American is responsible, or that none of us care.

[Stanislaw]

One can't blame the sins of a few on all members of the country.

Oh and since were discussing political systems, I herad of a really crazy concept... It is called people being nice and working together. Isn't that just cRaZy.:D

[AbdoRinbo]

That's a brilliant plan, Stan . . . like a ****ing Swiss watch.

As long as we're all getting along, let's drop a few bombs.

[IWilKikU]

Azoic, Denmark has THE highest taxes in the world. That kinda sucks for them, but on the other hand EVERYTHING IS FREE!, well, not EVERYTHING, but everything is cheaper. And services like, healthcare, public transportation, dental, insurance, all of that kinda stuff that we wish our gov would help more with is free for the Danes.

Uhh, was that the question you were asking, or did I get confused and go off on an irrelevent tangent? That happens sometimes.

[AbdoRinbo]

If you go to a university in Denmark and study architecture, when you graduate the government is obligated to find you a relevant job. If they can't, then they pay you an architect's salary anyway.

[Jay]

COOL, when you graduate from a uni here, you're so damn lucky to find a job in the area you actually studied, or ANY job for the matter... you'd be more succesful with looking for a job in Germany or other countries...

[AbdoRinbo]

Then I guess I won't be moving to the Czech Republic anytime soon.

[AbdoRinbo]

Anyway, the U.S. is a massive, spiralling black hole. How do you escape from something like that?

[Jay]

How do you escape a massive spiralling black hole? ehm, :o, close the iris... Stargate thingy... don't ask :o

Ab, could you please do something about the lack of space in your inbox? You have to be one busy guy with all those PMs in it...
Maybe delete some sent PMs?

[AbdoRinbo]

Wait for it to evaporate.

Try sending the message again, I cleared some space up for you.

[Jay]

Thanks, lol, sorry, gonna make your inbox full once again...

[Azoic]

Yes Kik, that is exactly the kind of thing I wanted. Not too painful, now was it?

I agree that here in the USA finding jobs in impossible. For instance, there is a car rental outlet (dollar?) that has taken to only hiring college graduates, because they like knowing that people with higher education are willing to move cars and do monkey work on a PC for $9/hr.

[azmuse]

a little north of you, Azoic, there are jobs available...few people here are interested in $9 ones however, and find themselves sad not to be able to afford their hundreds-of-thousands dollar lifestyles anymore, and their creative answer is to move away.

[AbdoRinbo]

Azoic, how old are you?

[Jay]

*:o Ab, same prob as before...*

[AbdoRinbo]

All this talk of topicality makes me miss THE BIG DICK CHENEY even more.

BONK!

ZLINCHK!

[Jay]

*sorry, how was I supposed to let you know I couldn't send you a PM?*

[crisaor]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
All this talk of topicality makes me miss THE BIG DICK CHENEY even more.
BONK!
ZLINCHK!
Having a bit of personality crisis, aren't we? ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Got it while it was hot.

[Azoic]

Ab, a lady never tells her age.

Since I'm not even female (let alone proper), I'll tell you that I'm 22.

Oh, and I just noticed that I'm no longer a mere mark, I've crossed the 100 post mark, and should now be considered a Worm! Yay, I think....

[azmuse]

congrats, Az ;)

[Jay]

OK, who wanna be Az1 and who Az2 ;)?

[azmuse]

can't we both be Az and confuse you all? ;)

[Azoic]

Ah yes, confusion amongst the masses, that we might take over. EXCELLENT!!

[fayefaye]

A take over? Isn't that my job?

[Azoic]

sure it is... wink wink, nudge nudge. Or maybe we've been watching and learning, and now it's time for the students to surpass the master. :D

[fayefaye]

You'll never surpass me. :)

[azmuse]

take it as a tribute, faye ;) and pass the Crown(s)

[fayefaye]

No! My crown! My tiara too!

A tribute? I'm touched. change your sig to 'faye is great' :)

[azmuse]

how sweet, faye! sure, your tiara would be great... A crown for Az, and it for me ;)
let's both change our sigs while we're at it...we can laud each other for a while ;)

[Azoic]

Yes, lets have everyone declare "Az is fantabulous!"

[fayefaye]

I don't think so!!

[azmuse]

But we does!
The alpha and the omega have spoken!

[fayefaye]

I'll change it to 'The Az's are my slaves'

[azmuse]

she wakes up briefly:
"Tsk! It is unkind to disillusion yourself so."

[AbdoRinbo]

I've always wanted to make a rap video in which the slaves are the white people and the black guys are up on their horses with whips, and the slaves would be rapping about Wyatt, the black plantation owner.

It would go something like, 'Wyatt got to be that way?'

[fayefaye]

lol. Gonna give them southern accents?

[AbdoRinbo]

Fo sho.

[crisaor]

Quick question, what does Fo sho mean?

[AbdoRinbo]

It's another way of saying 'for sure'.

[Stanislaw]

That would be a funny thing, ab, you should get sir mix alot involved. it would be huge... no great.

[IWilKikU]

other fun ways to say "for sure":

fo sho
fo shizzle
fo shizzle-dizzle my nizzle
fa sheezzy
fa sheezzy my neezzy
fa sheezzy deezzy my neezzy to the fleezzy weezzy fa reazzy!!

[fayefaye]

Or you could just spare yourself the hassle and say 'yes'

[IWilKikU]

good point :rolleyes:

[fayefaye]

Who on earth would say 'fa sheezzy deezzy my neezzy to the fleezzy weezzy fa reazzy!!' I get the feeling anyone who says that belongs in an institution :rolleyes:

[AbdoRinbo]

I've heard my sister say that before. What a tasteless play on words.

[fayefaye]

Indeed. how old is she? I don't think anyone over the age of eight has any real excuse.

[AbdoRinbo]

She's almost nineteen.

[AbdoRinbo]

Welcome to America.

[fayefaye]

lol. :)
'fa sheezzy deezzy my neezzy to the fleezzy weezzy fa reazzy!!'?

[AbdoRinbo]

Something like that.

[Dr Cynic]

Originally intended as a satire upon the Soviet Union, the story applies only too well to all third world countries with autocratic governments. Here in Iran, we had a very similar experience with the 1979 revolution, where the initial idealism was soon betrayed by power, corruption and lies.

[fayefaye]

How close do you think the media's portrayal of such governments is? I heard it IS like they portray it to be, but they do exaggerate it. I wonder whether (or more to the point, how much) the media alters our perceptions of other governments to achieve their own means? (Referring to Western media, which I narrow-mindedly am assuming you are familiar with. :rolleyes: sorry if you have no idea what I'm talking about)

[Dr Cynic]

Originally posted by fayefaye
How close do you think the media's portrayal of such governments is? I heard it IS like they portray it to be, but they do exaggerate it...
Well from what I've seen it's just the opposite: the true extent of the atrocities committed by these governments is very much underestimated by the Western media. It's likely the post-Saddam era in Iraq will shed more light on the plight of the Iraqi people under the Ba'athist regime and hopefully similar changes will eventually take place next door (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia). ;)

[IWilKikU]

Iran and Syria, probably, but the Saudi royal family has so much money invested in the American stock market that they can do what ever the hell they want, and we'll just turn the other way. As long as our economy is sooooo dependant on SA, we'll never go in and try to do anything drastic like we did in Iraq.

[fayefaye]

The thing is, it's far too filtered to be able to tell what's news and what's propaganda.

[IWilKikU]

good point.

[IWilKikU]

grr... now the first post of page 12 says, "good point". Everyone is going to have to go back a page to see what I was talking about. God, I wish I would using the quote button.

[fayefaye]

Ah well, who cares if everyone has to go back a page? :) Anyway, I kinda hate watching the news.... even if they don't go so far as to fabricate news, it undergoes so much selection, you're only gonna see half the story. Never really know what's going on.

[fayefaye]

Anybody ever read Thomas More's Utopia?

[AbdoRinbo]

When I was in high school, they only offered that book in special-ed.

[fayefaye]

Myabe i ed in special

[fayefaye]

*rolling eyes* Just wanted to know if anyone wanted to discuss it. sheesh. But ok, we won't discuss literature. I mean, it's not like this is a literature forum or anything. :rolleyes:

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
When I was in high school, they only offered that book in special-ed.

But then you must have read it, right? :p

[AbdoRinbo]

I dropped out of high school.

[fayefaye]

Seriously?

[AbdoRinbo]

Mmhm.

[AbdoRinbo]

Wrap your seventeen-year-old suburban mind around that.

[fayefaye]

You're kidding. And now you just spend your time surrounded by a bunch of students discussing literature? Surely you jest. You're one of the most well read people here. I thought you were a literature student... Anyway, have you read the book or not?

[AbdoRinbo]

I don't read.

[fayefaye]

Oh, and how would you know how old I am?

[AbdoRinbo]

It came to me in a vision.

[fayefaye]

You do read. you're lying. Or at least you read in the past. Anyway, why'd you drop out?

[AbdoRinbo]

I didn't. I was taking classes at Michigan State University and debating at Harvard when I was seventeen.

[AbdoRinbo]

Quiz bowl champ at eighteen.

[AbdoRinbo]

My name is Guy Whitey Corngood.

[fayefaye]

*wondering why she even bothers* You still haven't answered my question. Have you read it or not?

[AbdoRinbo]

One day I'll be president.

[AbdoRinbo]

Read what?

[fayefaye]

UTOPIA. President? Then the world really is screwed.

[fayefaye]

Hey-you're plan to irritate me is actually working. You must be proud.

[AbdoRinbo]

Wait and see.

[AbdoRinbo]

When I become president, America is going to be the first nation to blow up the Moon.

[fayefaye]

*slightly scared*

[fayefaye]

*in loud, slow speaking voice* I am trying to get a discussion going on Utopia.

[fayefaye]

Unless you plan to start a Utopian society on the moon? And then blow it up.....

[AbdoRinbo]

Man has walked on the moon, done a push-up, eaten an egg . . .

What else can you do with it?

[fayefaye]

Well, unless you want to believe that 'man never landed on the moon' conspiracy... . You know, you could just admit you've never read the book.

[AbdoRinbo]

Who says I never read it?

[fayefaye]

*yawn* well have you? *wondering if you're just going to keep skipping past the question*

[AbdoRinbo]

Lay off the asteriks and maybe I'll answer you.

[IWilKikU]

Kick his asteriks faye!

[AbdoRinbo]

If you're goinna act like a bïtch, I'm gonna **** you like one.

[fayefaye]

Get the hell out of my thread 'bo.

[fayefaye]

kik, you read Utopia?

[IWilKikU]

nope, sorry.

[fayefaye]

ah well. Maybe I'll just talk to myself. :D Or you know, we can talk about something else.....

[fayefaye]

ok, you have one million dollars, one day to live, what do you do? And none of the 'donate to charity' stuff. I'd probably fly all over the world, travel and visit as many places as possible. take advantage of time zones to stretch out the 'day' to two. ;)

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
ok, you have one million dollars, one day to live, what do you do?
-- All to the red.
-- The black wins.
-- D'oh!
:D

[fayefaye]

Lol. Classic. You'd risk it all like that?

[crisaor]

Nah. Not really.

[fayefaye]

Life on the edge. not bad though. nice idea. :D

[sam1]

You won't enjoy your trip around the world, if you only have one day.
I would find somewhere relaxing and read a good book and watch the sunset.

[crisaor]

And what about the money?

[fayefaye]

burn it? You know what? I'd like to stand on top of some huge building, and just throw millions of random bills off the top[wish they had one dollar bills here], watch them flutter to the ground. All the people, walking home, in a rain of money. Strangely poetic.

[sam1]

There's no reason to spend the money just because I have it. I would enjoy my time more without spending it. The government can get it for all I care.

[fayefaye]

WHAT?? THE GOVERNMENT?? Dude, no!! In that case, just give it to charity!

[subterranean]

Originally posted by sam1
There's no reason to spend the money just because I have it. I would enjoy my time more without spending it. The government can get it for all I care.

I don't think the government would approve that. People's spending is one of its main income.

Say, anyone read 1984 by Orwell?

[crisaor]

Practically all of us have.

[fayefaye]

Yeah, but it would get more income by just taking the money. unless you want to count the multiplier effect, which probably wouldn't occur here anyway, because the spending would be mostly encouraging inflation since I'm guessing you're not going to be investing in anything productive. oh no! economics!!

[subterranean]

Originally posted by crisaor
Practically all of us have.


The reason i asked was that which one do i need to read 1st, animal farm or that one !

Now how can a govt get more income by just taking it?

[fayefaye]

well, the money they get from you spending it will really just be tax, won't it? The rest is just going to go back into the economy. Maybe stimulate further growth, maybe encourage inflation, maybe both. The government'll still get money, but I don't think it'll be as much.

Actually, on the subject of economics and growth, do you ever wonder what'll happen to all the world's production? I mean, you know, all the world's economies just keep going for more growth, more consumption, more production, more satisfaction of material needs. What'll happen in the end? When all the resources have gone? When shovelling money down our throats isn't enough to satiate our hunger?

'Money. Money money. I love money. I'd shovel it down my throat if I could.'
'You're kidding'
'Of course. I'd chew slowly and stop when I felt full'

[crisaor]

Originally posted by subterranean
The reason i asked was that which one do i need to read 1st, animal farm or that one !
From my experience, it's preferrably to read Animal Farm first, you know, as a sort of introducion to Orwell; but 1984 is the one I really like. Other than that, there is no problem in reading one after the other. Go with the one that suits you best. :)

Originally posted by fayefaye
Actually, on the subject of economics and growth, do you ever wonder what'll happen to all the world's production? I mean, you know, all the world's economies just keep going for more growth, more consumption, more production, more satisfaction of material needs. What'll happen in the end? When all the resources have gone? When shovelling money down our throats isn't enough to satiate our hunger?
I don't think people will ever tire of money, at least not in the near future. There are plenty of resources yet, and there are ways to renew them or to keep their extinction to a minimum. What really worries me is what the potencies (specially the US) are going to do in the next years with third world countries.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by subterranean
The reason i asked was that which one do i need to read 1st, animal farm or that one !

I like Animal Farm first cause it was published first. Also its less in depth, and more of a fun read, while 1984 gets into hardcore politics and political philosophy. If you've read 1984, you know what Orwells views on politics are and your ready to take on a more realistic, less fairy tale, book.

Also, I always looked at Animal Farm as 'What would happen if the Commies took over' and 1984 as 'What would happen if the Capitalists took over'. Ive heard that 1984 is also about commies, but to me it says "cappies". If you read them one after the other, it gives you a perspective of "no matter who rules the world, if anyone RULES it, it going to suck balls. Wether its cappies or commies. Think for yourself!!!"

Read 'em both!

[serpico]

I don't see 1984 being categorized as a capitalist dystopia. It's definitely dealing with the consequences of Stalinism, which, incidentally, was neither capitalist nor communist, but rather, totalitarian.

[IWilKikU]

hmm... I always thought that the two books were comparing two TOTALLY different types of government. The two start out differently but by the end they both are totalitarian. The reason that I thought that "The Party" was capitalist was because they are located in presant-day North America and the UK which, at the time, were the two most powerful capitalist countries. I thought that the government of Eurasia was communist. Cause dont they say somthing about both Nations' governments starting differently but that they now control their people in the same way? I thought that 1984 was like a response to Animal Farm, saying "Yes, you have all learned how much Stalinism sucks, now see that corporate capitalism is turning into the same desiese." But I can deffinately see "The Party" having Stalinistic origins rather than capitalist.

[serpico]

The Party isn't even set up like a capitalist government. Food is rationed, attire is distributed, one's personal life is monitered closely . . . Winston might as well have been living in a glass house.

[subterranean]

Wow, I don't know that 1984 is that deep. I read the short description at the back cover and I didn't think it's a very serious book!!


orriginaly posted by crisaor
I don't think people will ever tire of money, at least not in the near future. There are plenty of resources yet, and there are ways to renew them or to keep their extinction to a minimum. What really worries me is what the potencies (specially the US) are going to do in the next years with third world countries.

I don't think so Cris. I mean indeed some resources are renewable but many of them aren't. And renewable resources are very expensive in terms of technology. If the massive productions still continue all over the world, I think in one point in the future, there'd be some resources that cant be produced anymore.

What do you mean by potencies and third world country ? Don't really get your point.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by subterranean
Wow, I don't know that 1I don't think so Cris. I mean indeed some resources are renewable but many of them aren't. And renewable resources are very expensive in terms of technology. If the massive productions still continue all over the world, I think in one point in the future, there'd be some resources that cant be produced anymore.
What do you mean by potencies and third world country ? Don't really get your point.
Yes, I'm aware that some resources aren't renowable, but it's the minority, and they can be replaced, even if this hasn't happened yet for a number of reasons. Ever since I was a child I pictured the 21st century as the future come true. Doesn't it shock you that the world still needs an oil tube for breathing?
Regarding the potencies and third world countries, well, I meant a lot of things really. War, colonisation, cultural wipeout, etc. Furthermore, you can connect this with the resources thing (as a friend of mine says, everything's related to everything) . I mean, third world countries are usually primary orientated, with a lot of natural landscapes and resources. And they're very weak, politically and military, perfect for the grasping, you know... :(

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by serpico
The Party isn't even set up like a capitalist government. Food is rationed, attire is distributed, one's personal life is monitered closely . . . Winston might as well have been living in a glass house.

Thats true, but if you remember the time that it was written in, Joe Macarthy was violating all kinds of privacy and civil liberty laws in his search to prove that everyone was communist. Having 2way tv screens installed in everyone's house is an exageration but our wonderful capitalist country was starting to look a bit authoritarian itself. Also take a look at the Patriot act (oops, that sounds a bit too much like current politics :eek: Sorry Admin!). Anyways, I thought that the two read together show that it doesn't matter what type of government you start out with, that if given enough power, they all end uplooking the same. Thats the same point with the pigs in Animal Farm. After a while the pigs (communists) look just like the humans (monarchy) they overthrew.

[star blue]

the pigs overthrew a capitalist regime, not a monarchy. in the end, I suppose orwell was attacking capitalism to some degree, but only to the extent that, in orwell's mind, communism would always recirculate back to capitalism.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by crisaor
Yes, I'm aware that some resources aren't renowable, but it's the minority, and they can be replaced, even if this hasn't happened yet for a number of reasons.

I consider that plants and animals as resources too, and many of them are already in the brink of extinction. Don't know for sure how to replace them.



Regarding the potencies and third world countries, well, I meant a lot of things really. War, colonisation, cultural wipeout, etc. Furthermore, you can connect this with the resources thing (as a friend of mine says, everything's related to everything) . I mean, third world countries are usually primary orientated, with a lot of natural landscapes and resources. And they're very weak, politically and military, perfect for the grasping, you know... :(

Their condition right now, still weak politically or economically, socially, etc, happened cause the 1st world countries want them to stay like that (IMO). I mean the dependency conditions give the 1st world many benefits

Oo..we're not suppose to talk about politics :p

[crisaor]

Originally posted by subterranean
I consider that plants and animals as resources too, and many of them are already in the brink of extinction. Don't know for sure how to replace them.
I agree 100% (unless of course clonation starts really going). Thing is, I consider them to be living beings, not resources, so that's why I didn't include them in my previous post.


Originally posted by subterranean
Their condition right now, still weak politically or economically, socially, etc, happened cause the 1st world countries want them to stay like that (IMO). I mean the dependency conditions give the 1st world many benefits
Oo..we're not suppose to talk about politics :p
That may be true to some extent. But even in that context, there's some small room to maneuver. Not all the 3rd world countries have equal characteristics.
Being in this particular forum topic, in this thread, gives some impunity to talk about politics. But not much, so I won't go further. :)

[fayefaye]

Problem is that people view living beings as resources, cris. To some, that's all they are. The environment is a resource, and some [all?] countries are willing to completely sacrifice their environment to further their economic development. Naturally things are supposed to go full circle, production is a straight line, and the garbage just keeps building up. I sound like such a greenie. :) Ironic thing is, I spend more on books that kill trees than I do on charities who save them.... And I do both, feels like fighting a losing battle.

[fayefaye]

:(

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
I sound like such a greenie. :) Ironic thing is, I spend more on books that kill trees than I do on charities who save them.... And I do both, feels like fighting a losing battle.
Me too. But don't worry. It' d be worse if you only did one of them. Besides, don't they have some synthetic method to make paper these days?

[fayefaye]

Probably pollutes even more....

[star blue]

I've got something that will solve all our problems:

hemp.

[crisaor]

You mean make books of it or for smoking?

[fayefaye]

...let's just ignore hiim, shall we?

You know what? I bet if I were brought up really stinking rich, part of me wouldn't even care about social injustices. Savage human hypocrisy.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by incka
Most paper if from trees that when cut down, two new ones are planted where the old one was.
Do you know how long it takes for a tree to grow?

[subterranean]

Indeed and many are cut down before they even proper enough to be cut. So far I only active as an online activist, I never mind sending petitions about earth and environment, and it made me somehow happy if they told me that some petitions reached their goals..

[fayefaye]

I'm getting bored....

[IWilKikU]

about time! This thread is ONLY 17 pages long.

[fayefaye]

Work with me here, kik. :) I wanna see how long this can last

[Stanislaw]

Does anyone remember the original topic, Weve talked about so much, we have almost covered life the universe and everything:D .

What do you guys want to do?

[IWilKikU]

wasn't there like, farm animals somewhere, who like, walked and talked and stuff...

[fayefaye]

who cares? what do I want to do? FLY. fly far, far away. to a magical land...... now I sound like I'm tripping or something. but really? I am in the mood to board a plane to Barbados.

[Sammi]

Hi,
I am a new reader of George Orwell
I read Animal Farm and I really liked the book.
The simplicity of the wording conveyed such strong messages.

I am wondering what other books by George Orwell should I read next.
Does anyone have any suggestions for me? I don't know where to start




My Homepage -- buy UNLOCKED GSM Tri-band / 3G cell phones online (http://www.cell123.com)

[kilted exile]

Ok, I've finally read through this entire thread and I thought I'd share my ideas on how the "perfect" government would work.

I am in favour of a technocratic approach, where the countries would be controlled by groups of experts on various issues. For example in my world every budget would have to get the ok from a commitee of 10 financial experts (who should be independent of political allegiances) before the measures could be carried out.

I believe that these groups would prevent laws being made which benefit the electorate in the short-term, but create nothing but problems 15 years down the line.

[IWilKikU]

Sammi, the next book has got to be 1984. It doesn't have the same simplistic languege that Animal Farm does, but they run parallel quite nicely. If you were charmed by the simple languege giving deep meaning, try Albert Camus' The Stranger or The Outsider, depending on translation.