Red October/Comrade Antaeus - Socialism for the 21st Century
 |
||
Socialism 2007:Socialism for the 21st CenturyA weekend of debate, discussion, and entertainmentJune 14-17, 2007Crowne Plaza Chicago O'HareSocialism 2007 is a three-day event that will bring together socialists and other activists who are involved in struggles across the country -- from opposing the war to organizing against the death penalty -- and share a vision of rebuilding the left.Last summer, some 1,500 people turned out in New York City. This year¹s conference in Chicago will feature activists and socialists from Central and Latin America, renowned activist writers and journalists, soldiers and veterans who are resisting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, prisoners and their families who are fighting for justice in the prison system, immigrants rights activists who are organizing against deportations and many more.Included in the more than 100 events at Socialism 2007 are films, music and meetings on hidden history of international working-class struggle -- from the Flint sit-down strikes of 1937 to the Russian revolution of 1917. http://www.socialismconference... http://www.myspace.com/mcredoc... http://www.myspace.com/comrade...
Canal: Music
Añadido: November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am
Autor: antaeusthelynx
Duración: 03:59
Puntuación: 3.60
Reproducciones: 4629
Etiquetas: antaeus anti-war comrade immigrants internationalism intifada marxism october red revolution socialism workers
Comentarios
|
stylusr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
socialism can work look at china!
Ploppy17 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Who exactly said that in a socialist society great ideas wouldn#t be valued or rewarded? Or is that just an assumtption you made based on a false view of socialism? Perhaps in a socialist state you wouldn't only bother with your great idea if it made you a profit, as now, but because it might better society, and improve living stantards for yourself and others. People would still have ideas and make progress, but for the common good, not individual profit, which seems a much better way.
chengloki (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Haha, Socialism has one thing in common with communism. As long as humans are involved, neither one can work. You can argue all you wan't. The truth is the truth. Wan't an example? You get as much as I do. Why should I work harder?? I have a great idea. But, who cares? I won't get anything for it. Socialism and communism, what a joke!!Neither one does a damned thing for humanity. That's what you should be thinking of. Not ideals. =Stefan=
coolbreezed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
As you know socialism is an amorphous term used typically by leftists (and sometimes liberals and conservatives) to describe a system where the people are in charge of the means of production. Just because a type of socialism (National Socialism or Communism) didn't not work doesn't allow you to say that the people who practiced it were not "real" socialists. The FACT is, whenever large scaled big government collectivization has been attempted it has DIRECTLY resulted in millions of deaths.
coolbreezed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
That is incredibly untrue and their is no direct relationship between starvation and profit. The people that starve do so in regions either unfit for human life or prone to famine. You assume that it is the responsiblity of the haves to help the have nots and that is circular logic. Nobody put a gun to those people's head and made them live their, they were just born there and if so motivated could leave at any time. There choice to live in a dustbowl is not my responsibilty.
Ploppy17 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
'And I'm sure that you'll come back with some butterfly effect circular logic of how capitalism kills people' It's not 'some butterfly effect' it is fact. Capitalism prevents vast numbers of people from getting the necessities of life, because it isn't profitable to do so. If it's a crime to shoot someone, [unless you're the US army] why isn't it considered just as criminal to allow them to starve to death unnecessarily? You're just as responsible for their death either way.
Ploppy17 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hitler was not a socialist, fascism and socialism are ideologies based on entirely different principles, and they are opposed on a fundamental level. Two examples are that socialists support egalitarianism and internationalism; fascists support social Darwinism and ultra-nationalism. Just using the name doesn't make them socialist -- George Bush once called himself compassionate. Doesn't make it true.
Mockni (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hitler was not a socialist and you're a moron.
coolbreezed (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You are making a grave mistake by evaluating figures in history by modern day standards. At that time right wing was monarchy and left wing was a free capitalist democracy becuase (thankfully) Marxism hadn't been invented yet. So to answer you question, Napoleon was not a democrat by todays or any other standards. And by using the word democrat in that regard are you trying to say that democrats are socialists? And Hitler was a state socialist (the third category of socialism). Sorry.
soakchips (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i guess napoleon was a democrat too
|