>Of the 3 great revolutions in modern history: the
>French, the Chinese
>and the Russian,
I've seen this written before. Why is the Am Revolution not considered 'great' on the same order by some folks? This doesn't seem to be true for all, since I've seen some include the Am Revolution?
>(To K: if you are
>reading this, you now know why I think being deleted
>is serious.)
Did you think I didn't think it was important? I only thought it silly that you would think it would mean something on a List and two, that you felt the pressing need to declare that you were deleting me publically without stating good reasons. It was especially troubling because I took your complaint seriously and tried to find out why you were concerned and what motivated your complaints.
Afterall, to ignore or delete someone without exactly explaining why does very little good. But, more importantly and, again, my reply to you was well considered, thoughtful, and quite profound if I do say so myself. You deleted me in response to those queries, not my jokes or snide comments. So I'd really like an explanation as to why those questions couldn't possibly be taken seriously and were, instead, ignored as if they weren't dignified enough for a response.
But some more thoughts about your posts, just picky weenie things, but anyway.
First, you wrote:
>Both socialism and fascism, in the quest for
guaranteed material welfare
>for the people, would strip them of their individual
will, and in the
>process rob them of their creativity and initiative.
Unfortunately,
>material welfare, even if absolutely guaranteed, is
always a poor
>compensation for loss of individuality.
Only under those particular historical circumstances. I'm not sure that there is, necessarily, a tradeoff between creativity/individuality and guaranteed material welfare.
>Fascism, because of its contempt for equality as an
ideal, would not
>hesitate to enslave the masses to create an efficient
state that would
>deliver glory to the nation and an improved living
standard to the
>dutiful masses. Socialism, on the other hand,
obsessed by its belief in
>the myth of equality, would willingly suffer
inefficiency in
>wealth-creating processes, even if it should result
in less income
>either for use by the state or for fair distribution
among the people.
Of course, that might be why the goal should be *equity* and not *equality* Which is to say, *fair* as opposed to *equality* w/ regard to distributive justice
In all that, too, I was unclear as to what exactly you were concluding w/ regard to the reputed tradeoff between individuality and what I would think might be better conceived of as equitable or fair (not equal) distributive justice.
>In the silk banner, demons of
Mara the Temptress,evil goddess,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The fact that these weapons are shown to be used only
>by
>evil demons
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Specifically, evil *female* demons guilty, as per usual in these stories, of distracting boys away from the good life. This section reminded me of the old days when I was reading up on world religions and the death of the goddess.
>Even if capitalism should succeed in eliminating
material
>poverty, it would do so only at the price of a
poverty of the spirit.
>It is when questions of responsibility to one's
fellow
men and the
^^^^^^^^^^
>The Chinese concept of civilization is centered on
ideas, and the most
>important ideas are those concerning the affairs of
man, namely politics.
^^^^^^^
Yes, well of course, the affairs of MAN are always the most important.
SnitgrrRl, who otherwise found this post very Enlightening