|
|
|
Who do YOU want as your Delegate?
Comrade Martin, Chairman of the Council of Marturia, is a longtime supporter of worker's rights and the people in general. We at Marturia view compassion and understanding as crucial in the governing of the masses.
If elected, Marturia promises to uphold:
Liberty
Equality
Justice
Freedom
Peace
Democracy
Socialism
The rights of all shall be upheld with a totally permissive and Liberal hand. We will advocate the expropriation of the means of production in to the hands of the working class, the socialization of all property on all levels of society, and the equalization of all wealth thereby insuring that all people are truly equals as well as truly free.
Isn't that the kind of future you deserve? Vote Marturia and the people's voice will most definently be heard. Workers of the world unite! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
, |
 |
|
|
|
A series of questions from 'Scoop' Ragnarsson of the Starblaydi newspaper, The Jhanna Chronicle:
Chairman Martin, do you feel you can accurately represent a region of twenty-one nations that contains only 3 (three) Socialist-leaning nations, other than yourself? Two of these three, as classified by the UN, are 'Democratic Socialists' while the other is a 'Liberal Democratic Socialist'.
Secondly, how would you intend to apply the theories of Socialism to the resolutions of the United Nations?
Finally, Mister Chairman, you appear to want to put the 'masses into power, yet also wish to 'govern them'. How do you suggest this is put into practice if you become the Atlantian Oceania Regional UN Delegate?
Thankyou for your valuable time, Chairman Martin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Why I am not voting for Marturia...
Marturia - I resent that. It's Ultra-Liberal. The usage of the term 'insanely' offends me and I please request that you do not use it again. I don't call Right-Wingers insane, although I personally think they are insensitive, unable to understand compassion, and are devoid of empathy. However, that is just my opinion and I'd never say that in public unless provoked.
Xile - Now we are getting hostile. Sorry for the use of insanely...but I believe most liberals are TOO empathatic for their own, or our own good. I believe that people should have to work for whatever they gain in life and happiness is the reward for hard work. A system where we are all equal is idealistic of course, but would never work in society.
Marturia - Don't get me started, friend. If you followed world happenings, you'd know my name by now. I've beaten back every challenger in debate yet. Except for that one time my computer froze when I tried to reply, but that was niether a win nor a loss. Well, I guess I will get started, since we're already in it.
People should work according to their abilities and get compensated based on their needs. Happiness is a reward for those who work more than they are asked, because they will have happiness and fullfillment in the knowledge that all of society is benefiting from their hard labor. It can work in real society. It has and does. The Soviet collapse was due to their overemphasis on military might, because of their fear of war with America. With over half of their GDP focused on military, their economy couldn't stand the strain and collapsed. In addition to the new generation demanding Democracy, which they had a right to do. Gorbachev was right in assuming that the Soviet Union needed Democracy. As Trotsky said, "Socialism needs Democracy as humans need Oxygen". I view Undemocratic Socialism as an oximoron. It violates Marx. Anyway, what Gorbachev was wrong in assuming was the the Soviet Union needed Capitalism. With the coming of Capitalism, the growth rate went from a higher number than the U.S.A. to a negative percentile. Old diseases, once eliminated by the Soviet Union's Socialized Medicine have now returned. Easily preventable diseases, even Polio. Capitalism has turned a growing prosperous world superpower in to a 2nd world country. Socialism can work, but it must be handled correctly, as Marx intended.
Xile - Debate why socialism does not work...
Hell, I'll give it a shot.
Socialism doesn't work because of those who have the ability to work but have an infection I like to call 'laziness'. This disease plagues even the most hearty of us at times.
One way to combat this laziness and increase efficiency, which is - and you should agree - a necessity to maintaining a nation. There are ways to do this of course, but not without having to compromise the ideals of the system. You could hire managers, but their only power would be to encourage workers. Since capitalism is a sin apparently in your eyes, there will be no raises or demotions or even firings for these people. Encouragement is nice of course, but it will not combat laziness. Threats work better, but in the hands of a truly socialistic society they would be idle and powerless.
Propaganda and tolitarianism is essiential to the survival of such a society. The people would need a common goal dangled just out of their reach that they would work for. Of course the government would know that this was nothing but a mirage for the people to try to attain. This would of course leak out to the populace through some means, and the people would most likely be angry about their disillusionment, unless some type of doublethink could be achieved to the levels it was in Orwell's 1984 (and I know that was a pen name, so don't attack me from that point). This could cause A) revolt, or B) the people would no longer trust their government. Either way the socialist system would be discarded.
Socialism is easily defeated by human nature. That's basically it. I could go on about how a hunger for power and whatnot could also defeat it, but that requires me delving deeper into the human thought process and human nature yet again, so I will refrain from doing so.
AND THERE WE HAVE IT!
|
 |
 |
|
Xile |
|
Punch-Drunk Psychosis |
 |
|
|
|
Posts: 358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Marturia:
(Replying to Xile)
The way you explained how Socialism won't work, because of laziness and whatnot, makes no sense. If you do not work, you do not get compensated. There is a system called Quota-Based Taxation which provides incentive for hard work while maintaining the value of working together but I will not go in to that at the moment because it is unesseciary. Anyway, if the reasons you gave for Socialism's failure are true, then why didn't the Soviet Union, all Soviet bloc nations, Vietnam, Cuba, China, North Korea, Angola, Congo, Libya, et cetera end the way you said they would?
Now, about human nature. Communism is not against any kind of "human nature", assuming such a thing even exists. We do not expect selfish people to stop being selfish. Communism is a system of communal ownership in which the vast majority of people (including the vast majority of selfish people) enjoy better living standards than they would under capitalism. It is in their own self-interest to put their possessions in common.
Think of a traffic light with no policemen around. You could ignore the red light and drive straight through. But if more people started doing it, you would all be stuck in a traffic jam and none of you would get anywhere. So, in fact, it is in your own self-interest to stop at the red light and let others pass. It might cause you to be late once or twice, but overall it will help you get home faster. Communism works like that.
But let's also talk about the concept of "human nature" a little. If there is one thing history teaches us, it's that there is no such thing as "human nature". Human beings have lived under a huge variety of social structures. In the course of 5000 years of civilization, we have built and sustained societies of almost every imaginable kind. Humans are the most adaptable creatures on Earth. We have been able to survive in all situations and all environments precisely because we don't have a fixed genetic programming. If there were such a thing as "human nature", then civilization would not exist. If we were slaves to our instincts, none of the things you see around you would be possible.
In all ages, the ruling class tried to appeal to some sort of "natural order" to defend the established system. Feudalism proclaimed the Divine Right of Kings - the notion that the established system was God's will, and that God had made the human race so that it would always need kings and aristocrats to rule over the commoners. Nowadays, capitalism proclaims Human Nature - the notion that the established system is Nature's will, and that the human race has been shaped by some higher power (either God or Evolution, depending on which capitalists you ask) to always be inherently selfish, and to always have the rich rule over the poor; same old lies, different packaging.
So, in conclusion, the capitalist "human nature" argument is actually wrong on four different levels:
1. The most distinctive feature of Mankind is adaptability. Looking at history, you will not see evidence of any rigid "human nature" - quite the contrary. Human beings have shown that they can live in just about every imaginable kind of society, including a communist one. Communes have existed for over 2000 years, starting with the earliest recorded Christian and Buddhist communities, continuing with various independent medieval villages, and then with workers' communes in the 19th and 20th century. Even today, such communes are flourishing in Argentina, and the tradition of the Jewish kibbutz continues.
2. Even assuming that "human nature" exists, the evidence points to the fact that it is not inherently selfish. There is no gene for selfishness in the human genome. Also, you have to look at the way our ancestors lived. We are social animals, not solitary hunters. In the natural, tribal state of Mankind, excessive selfishness on the part of individuals would have caused their tribe to lose cohesion and die, while more altruistic tribes prospered. Therefore, natural selection eliminated excessive selfishness and encouraged altruism and co-operation between individuals.
3. There remains the indisputable fact that thousands of acts of altruism happen each day. If human nature is inherently selfish, then how do you explain the fact that millions of people risk their lives for others? This "human nature" must be very weak and easily overridden, if it exists at all.
4. This whole argument about "human nature" is completely irrelevant in the end, since (as I already explained above) communism does not require people to be altruistic. Communism is not built on the premise of altruism - on the contrary, it is built on the premise that most people act according to their own interests most of the time. Of course, altruism helps a lot and we strongly encourage it, but communism does not require it. The only thing that communism requires is for people to be intelligent enough to realize that a communal system is in their own interest.
Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
In reply to Scoop, let me answer these questions.
"Chairman Martin, do you feel you can accurately represent a region of twenty-one nations that contains only 3 (three) Socialist-leaning nations, other than yourself? Two of these three, as classified by the UN, are 'Democratic Socialists' while the other is a 'Liberal Democratic Socialist'."
I have, in the past, represented regions larger than this one and I have no worries that I can accurately represent them. If I am elected, then it will be a reflection of the fact that the people do indeed want me to make decisions for them for the region and in the U.N.. Therefore, as long as I stick to what I said while campaigning, which I undoubtedly will, my decisions will ultimately be in the people's best interest and thereby be an accurate representation.
"Secondly, how would you intend to apply the theories of Socialism to the resolutions of the United Nations?"
Well, I will, of course, take the Liberal view on any and all resolutions being voted upon and I will most definently create proposals reflecting the ideals of Socialism, Liberalism in general.
"Finally, Mister Chairman, you appear to want to put the 'masses into power, yet also wish to 'govern them'. How do you suggest this is put into practice if you become the Atlantian Oceania Regional UN Delegate?"
Well, I believe there is a certain line between how the masses rule themselves and how they are ruled. The only 'ruling' I intend to do is in the enforcement of laws, and I support the direct choosing of laws by the masses themselves via voting. The government, under my direction, will be as openly democratic as possible. The government will merely control the economy, police, and military. Since the government is made up of the people and government officials are chosen by the people, then the people essentially control all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Alrighty, I was saying that things were much easier to be done in earlier times my friend. I will agree that you are probably one of the more intelligent members of the region, if that will win you any endorsements.
However, I still cannot agree that "communism" as well as socialism could work. A person will never be happy with their life as long as they have information of people living "so much better" somewhere else.
The only way to inhibit the access of such information would be to basically shut your nation off from the rest of the world, such as Japan did until the late 18th and 19th centuries. But would that not, in fact, create a need for an organization to make sure such information would not leak? Which would lead to a somewhat heirarchy where the only information would come from select few.
You can argue that this would not happen, and perhaps it would not. But with communism there are too many what ifs.
I do agree that communism would be the best way for a nation to be run, but the reason it has not completely succeeded is because there has been no real plan to make it full-proof. I also agree that if you could explain to me how you would manage to do so, you would change my perspective of thinking forever, and become a very rich man. Power to ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
I'm sure your social life is one to be admired. Your communist banter probably reels in all the ladies for you.
Back to human nature. Even as you torment me saying that there is no 'human nature' using examples that we can adapt to all social structures and environments and what not, I was not referring to our adaptability. I was going more into the inner workings of our mind.
You find a stray dog on the street. It has undoubtable had a rough life, scrounging for food, hunting in packs...as dogs do. Then a compassionate human being decides to adopt the dog. It has a few bad traits, but that is to be expected. The human starts leaving food for the dog daily. After a while the dog decides to stop hunting and scrounging for food, as it has found a stable source of food that requires little work.
Now imagine this is a person. Would communism/socialism deny a person food and shelter and let them starve on the streets? I doubt it. This denies them the priviledge of life and creates another social hierarchy, which socialism is against.
You believe that human beings would be perfect in a communistic setting as well. Like you said, some types of communism have been around for thousands of years. The question is, in any of them, does that seem like a desireable place to live? Would you give up the things you can attain in a capitalistic society for perfect harmony with those around you? This is where an innate selfishness comes in.
Now take a look back into history yet again. Human beings have been able to adapt to all kinds of social structures. Notice a reoccouring theme? Dictators, warlords, presidents, kings, emporers, saviors, saints. Taking this into perspective, it would seem as if man were a heirarchial beast. Generally those who come up with radical reformations and theories are those at the bottom who do not see themselves garnering power over any other members of society.
Governments generally cling to the system they have because it keeps them on top. The poor resent them for this fact and try to change the system. Of course, not all of these thinkers are impoverished. There are philosophers and leaders who make changes for the 'better' of mankind. These are generally people who realize that they only survive by making a place in the memory of their descendants and create a legacy that lives with the human race. Others are sympathetic liberals who think life would be easier and less painful if we were all equal. Equality is a myth. It can not be attained. NATURE makes this evident by gifting some people with intellecutal prowess, some with physical strength, and some with neither.
I have rambled to the point that I've scrambled my thoughts to incoherency, but I hope I did make some valid points. I generally find that those who agree with socialism/communism also believe in welfare. Welfare sucks. Its supposed to 'get you on your feet again' but manages to get fat lazy people sit on their ass and get my tax dollars. This is an example of laziness setting in.
BTW, isn't your nation's title an oxymoron? |
|
|
|
|
|
Xile |
|
Punch-Drunk Psychosis |
|
|
|
|
|
Posts: 358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Marturia to Xile
Thank you for putting that in the thread. I guess since you could just do that, we'll have to argue here...
"I'm sure your social life is one to be admired. Your communist banter probably reels in all the ladies for you."
What was that supposed to mean? That was a very cruel thing to say and it just goes to show how you Capitalists think. You completely disregard other people's feelings and needs.
"You find a stray dog on the street. It has undoubtable had a rough life, scrounging for food, hunting in packs...as dogs do. Then a compassionate human being decides to adopt the dog. It has a few bad traits, but that is to be expected. The human starts leaving food for the dog daily. After a while the dog decides to stop hunting and scrounging for food, as it has found a stable source of food that requires little work. Now imagine this is a person. Would communism/socialism deny a person food and shelter and let them starve on the streets? I doubt it. This denies them the priviledge of life and creates another social hierarchy, which socialism is against."
The government is run by the people, so the human that would be helped is being helped by a system funded by the people and therefore, there is no hierarchy but there is a communal aid to the person in need, whether Joe, who pays his taxes, intends to help others or not. Helping this person to get a home and stable life is called welfare and it has worked for years. Once he is back on his feet, he works for the government at a state-owned enterprise and has a life again.
"You believe that human beings would be perfect in a communistic setting as well. Like you said, some types of communism have been around for thousands of years. The question is, in any of them, does that seem like a desireable place to live?"
Back then, people had hardly anything and what little they did have they cherished. Now, in the modern world, we have much so I wouldn't want to go live in a Communal setting of the 1600s because they don't have the technology available to them as we do. I would love to live in one of those amazing Communes in Argentina, though.
"Would you give up the things you can attain in a capitalistic society for perfect harmony with those around you? This is where an innate selfishness comes in."
If I could give my things for perfect harmony, of course I would. No one in their right mind wouldn't. Doing so is selfish in a communal fashion. It is in my best interests to pool my possesions with others for harmony.
"Now take a look back into history yet again. Human beings have been able to adapt to all kinds of social structures. Notice a reoccouring theme? Dictators, warlords, presidents, kings, emporers, saviors, saints. Taking this into perspective, it would seem as if man were a heirarchial beast."
You don't understand heirarchy. Presidents are no more masters as they are directors. The Soviet Government had a huge 300 person council which made decisions. It isn't a hierarchy unless the leaders can exert more power over citizens than another citizen could. However, presidents are not above the law and are simply there to make decisions.
"Generally those who come up with radical reformations and theories are those at the bottom who do not see themselves garnering power over any other members of society."
Acually, Marx was not at the bottom of society. He was quite an intellectual who went to college and did much with his life. He and Engels took a dialectical look at society and mapped out the history of humankind. Uitilizing dialectics, they formed a logical conclusion based on the combination of diametrically opposed ideas and opinions. Dialectics has helped us to do many things since its development. It was instrumental in many many things and was the only truly unbiased form of outlook available to humankind. Who made the idea of dialectics? None other than Karl Marx himself. His ideas were not 'Liberal' at the time because Communism was the first official political idea of Liberalism and all other forms of Liberalism are simply forms of Communism with certain parts taken away or new parts added. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is just a Socialist Party without advocating the Planned Economy.
"Governments generally cling to the system they have because it keeps them on top. The poor resent them for this fact and try to change the system. Of course, not all of these thinkers are impoverished. There are philosophers and leaders who make changes for the 'better' of mankind. These are generally people who realize that they only survive by making a place in the memory of their descendants and create a legacy that lives with the human race."
The poor don't resent Capitalism because the government advocates it. They resent it because it is oppression. Capitalism is merely slavery. The exploitation of one man's labor by another. Capitalism was created by people who wanted less oppression than in the Monarchy.
"Others are sympathetic liberals who think life would be easier and less painful if we were all equal. Equality is a myth. It can not be attained. NATURE makes this evident by gifting some people with intellecutal prowess, some with physical strength, and some with neither."
We don't seek to make people equal in every way shape or form. That is, of course, inconceivable. However, we do what is possible and we equalize wealth and income as well as make all property owned jointly by the citizens by having the government, which is run by the people, manage it.
"I have rambled to the point that I've scrambled my thoughts to incoherency, but I hope I did make some valid points. I generally find that those who agree with socialism/communism also believe in welfare. Welfare sucks. Its supposed to 'get you on your feet again' but manages to get fat lazy people sit on their ass and get my tax dollars. This is an example of laziness setting in."
You certainly did ramble. In Socialism, as in Capitalism, welfare recipients are carefully watched to make sure they aren't just slacking off. You have a problem with laziness on welfare in Capitalism than in Socialism. In Socialism, the state can and will create jobs for those who are unemployed and so they'll make a job for you. As soon s a job is available, your welfare is cut and you are told what jobs are open. Your choice comes in deciding where to go work.
"BTW, isn't your nation's title an oxymoron?"
Actually, Christianity is much closer to Communism than Capitalism. Let me follow up with evidence: Book of Acts: The Apostles asked all of the people in a town to give their possesions to them. Once they did, the Apostles redistributed it equally. Once family kept a small fortune greedily and were killed by God. Another good example: "All men are equals in the Kingdom of God." Yet another: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Jesus told a rich man that if he wanted to attain the Kingdom of Heaven, he had to sell all of his possesions and give the proceedings to the poor. I rest my case.
Marturia to Abbattior
"However, I still cannot agree that "communism" as well as socialism could work. A person will never be happy with their life as long as they have information of people living "so much better" somewhere else."
The point of Socialism is to better the lives of everyone together instead of a few individuals. The media is biased to report only people leaving Socialist countries when in reality, many people likewise go to Socialist countries. Cuba's living conditions are better than the U.S.. I have statistics on my side for that one.
"The only way to inhibit the access of such information would be to basically shut your nation off from the rest of the world, such as Japan did until the late 18th and 19th centuries. But would that not, in fact, create a need for an organization to make sure such information would not leak? Which would lead to a somewhat heirarchy where the only information would come from select few."
I am not going to bother arguing this because it is irrelevant considering what I said above. Marxism promotes the freeflow of information. It is, however, in the best interests of the masses to support Socialism because it represents the best interests of the people as a whole.
"I do agree that communism would be the best way for a nation to be run, but the reason it has not completely succeeded is because there has been no real plan to make it full-proof. I also agree that if you could explain to me how you would manage to do so, you would change my perspective of thinking forever, and become a very rich man. Power to ya."
You see, you are right. Marx died before he could complete Das Kapital (Capital), his biggest work, so we were left with an unfinished blueprint for Socialism. There has been no solid plan to see how Socialism is to be implemented so many ideas have come to be. The mainstream ones are Trotskyism (Free Democracy and Guild Socialist Economy), Leninism (One-Party Representative Democracy and Planned Centralized Economy), Stalinism (One-Party Oligarchy and Planned Centralized Economy), and combinations here and there. I myself follow Trotsky's Democratic ideals, as well as Chrsitian ones and a Planned Economy, which I think should not be completely Centralized.
Socialism would be fool-proof if the masses were edcuated properly in all forms of politics and could make their own deduction based on what they were told by taking a Dialectical look at it. This can't happen in America because the whole country is the heartland of Capitalist principles and thus are biased towards Capitalism. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are admired by many Communists actually because of their writings, America has gotten WAY off track. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
People of Atlantian Oceania,
It has become apparent that very few of you know much about me or my platform. As I was telling Vilita, I jumped in on this election at practically the last minute, so I am not very well known. My esteemed opponents, however, are longtime members of the region and it only makes sense that they are in good standing with many of you.
As Regional Delegate, I will do all that is in my power to insure the principles of equality and freedom. The only way to truly advocate those principles is through Socialism, my friends. As I have said innumerable times, the expropriation of the means of production in to the hands of the working class via the nationalization of all enterprise and the socialization of all property. What that means is making all things owned and run by the government and having the government controlled by the people. The history of all hitherto existing society points to the fact that this system, that is, Socialism, is the inevitable outcome of years of human societal evolution.
I will make decisions on proposals which further my Liberal Democratic Socialist views. On resolutions, I will ask of the people what their will is and I am sure that I will be in accordance with that view for it is the choice of the masses.
Also as Delegate, I will make sure that tolerance is a virtue. If Nazis, Fascists, Racists, Sexists, Homophobes, or other various repugnant intolerant swine darkens our region's metaphorical doorstep and espouses their wholly offensive rhetorical blather, then I guaruntee, beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will be ejected!
Comrades, stand behind me, a strong opinionated and decisive leader who can make choices quickly and has the power to enforce them. NationStates operates in a way that we have these silly one-man leadership positions, rather than the preferred system of councils where people are more accurately represented. We must make due with every situation and this is one such situation. I am not saying the other candidates are bad choices, but I feel that I am the best of the three and I will do all I can to strengthen the region of Atlantian Oceania as well as strengthen our International Solidarity amongst other world nations.
Workers of the world unite! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Excerpt from Starbladyi Combined Broadcasting's Soundbytes, the prime-time politics show
Representative Mackey is speaking to the show's anchor about the Regional Delegacy Campaigns.
"...the real issue here is that I am best qualified to represent Atlantian Oceania in the U.N. I believe that Chairman Martin, for instance, is overplaying the role of Delegate, seeing it as some kind of Regional President, with the power to eject people from AO who don't meet his socially-politically correct criteria. That quite simply isn't the case.
"He's also saying that he wants "to make decisions for them" the people of Atlanitan Oceania, that is, "for the region and in the U.N." This man is quite blatantly trying to put himself at the top of a pyramid of power!"
"But how will you avoid falling into a slanging match?"
"That's not something I will lower myself to, Andrew, I will debate the issues at hand, of which the primary question is 'How do we run the Delegate's position?'. I believe I have the right policy on this."
"Thankyou, mister Mackey."
This post has been edited by Starblaydia on Jul 29 2004, 05:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Speaking on MPR (Marturian Public Radio), Comrade Martin discussed current politics with reknowned outspoken self-proclaimed "Centrist Independant" radio talk show host, William O'Daily
William: "Comrade, some of your critics are saying that you want to make yourself a 'leader' over the people of AO. Some of these critics are even your opponents, who you have never made any defamatory remarks against. What is your response to this?"
"Will, answer me this, how do you run a campaign for leader of a region, which the delegate position clearly is, without telling the people in a direct and straightforward way that you will indeed be leader?"
William: "Well, I suppose you'd have to just omit the fact that you'll be leader..."
"Exactly. Apparently, my opponent is not above ommission of simple facts and arguing semantics."
*A laugh track plays while William, Martin, and even the sound effects operator chuckle along with it.* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
|
I would vote for you Marturia, but I don't agree with you trying to impose equality, in a single nation maybe, but not in a region of many nations. Change ur platform around a little bit and maybe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
|
|
|
Abattior, I am not trying to force equality. In my country, it has been the will of the majority of the people to abolish the system of Capitalism. The only objectors have been the wealthy, those who have oppressed.
I am not going to force Socialism on the people of AO. I never indicated that I intended to and I hope we can put that misunderstanding behind us and I can be glad to have your vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
, |
|
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
[ Script Execution time: 0.0208 ] [ 14 queries used ] [ GZIP Enabled ]
|
Close Topic Options
