Every time someone has attempted to create a functional Marxist state it has failed. In the world of actual science that would be definitive enough to disprove a hypothesis. Why is political science exempt?

"If people were perfect, Marxism would work", you say? If the universe were perfect you could go faster than the speed of light....

I have to say, that was a very good post darth evad. also, you put yoshi in his place, something that is very hard to do.

also, didn't Marx himself give up on marxism?

Have you ever even read Hayek, one of the most brilliant econ minds not to mention an author of one of the most important economic documents which explains why Marxism will never work?

I can so tell you were taught by a Marxist econ teacher, which 99% of them are. Go take a real econ class. If you seriously beiieve centralized and scientific information are what make a country go, seriously, read "The Use of Knowledge in Society" by Hayek.

And what Jon'C said above.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]go ahead and take the 3 minutes to google it yourself. look at how much america and it's corporations profit and compare it to how much is actually donated.
a drop in the ocean.[/QUOTE]Yes, but that's still ignoring the issue here: Using the aid money to help the people.
Take a look at aftermath of the tsunami. They raised more money than they could possibly spend - because money isn't the important thing here. There weren't enough people to help. There weren't any supplies to buy with that cash.
It's not like the Red Cross can take a wad of cash to the local Ugrathlaithustanian Safeway and grill up some chicken for the poor kids or something. Where is this food going to come from?

You claim that we can help people by teaching them how to produce their own food? Except that's not the problem. If they could produce food they would. What, you think they're such ignorant savages that they can't grow rice without our help? How can they grow rice without sources of fresh water? What if they have no arable soil?

And I'm not Googling to prove your arguments for you. You google it. You post the links to it. I'm not stupid enough to go on a wild goose chase to disprove some comment that you clearly don't care enough to prove by yourself.

With respect to the Universe, what is 'perfect' supposed to mean? What 'imperfection' is it that causes the speed of light to be the highest speed attainable? 'Perfect' simply isn't a scientific word, it doesn't mean anything.
The speed of light as the only objective frame of reference comes out of theoretical physics.

Theoretical and experimental physics are two very different things and are two very different realms of thought, much like theoretical and experimental economics.

Marxism is theoretical economics. If you want to 'disprove' Marxist philosophy, you must do so theoretically as well, pointing out internal fallacies and contradictions. Marxism is a big theory. It isn't simple, it isn't easy, and all of you that think you can 'define' Marxism in one sentence and 'disprove' it with a second are at best misguided and at worst thoroughly arrogant. Yes, there are genuine critiques of Marxist philosophy, but they are just as complex (probably moreso) than Marxist philosophy itself.

The failures to put Marxist theory into practice are just that; they are failures to put Marxist theory into practice. That alone is not evidence of the failure of Marxist theory, merely the failure to implement Marxism.

holy schniekies man!

teach them how to irrigate more effiiciently with what little fresh water is available.
provide them with more robust crops or crop seeds that are resistant to drought, disease, pests etc...
sometimes things like these aren't as obvious to others as they seem us. that's why the red cross is setting up $10US irrigation pumps and providing very smart and inteligent people with the seeds to grow sustained crops year after year.

And if you want some of the best critiques of Hayek, read ' Revoking the Moral Order - The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle' by David J Peterson.

He shows how Hayek's mix of conservatism and liberalism would only produce the same power elite or financial oligarchy as we've seen before.

Hayek isn't 'brilliant', he is only well known for clinging to conservatism when the rest of the academic community were debating socialism. Hayek was used as a propaganda piece by Thatcher, and also the US as it adopted conservatism in the 80s and 90s (though Thatcher certainly moreso).

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]ok. i'm calm. this is only the second time in 5 years that i've been pissed off due to a forum thread.
dj yoshi tells me jon c' is canadian. hilarious. that he may be but once again you have failed to see what i am saying and read what i am literally typing. jon c' and i have discussed the problems with canadian politics for about 5 minutes here and 5 minutes later the thread fell off the page. no one here gives a crap about canada and it's politics. oh wait... i better state that literally so you won't come back with a 5 year old's reply. there are only about 10 canadians here and their involvement in canadian political threads doesn't match that of the involvment of the american ians involvment in american political threads.
so i thought it might be safe to say that 'no one' cares about canadian political threads the same way someone might say no one cares about JK anymore even though we know that there are still 14 poeple editing it which is about 5.6E-9% of the population. i guess that makes the statement 'no one' cares 100% bull****. give me a ****ing break.[/quote]
Actually, it does make you wrong, seeing as how no one means NO one. But I still think you're wrong--Canada is a very big trading partner with the US. I think many many people do care about it in passing--they just don't care about the little things. The same way that foreigners don't care about what happens to the US as a result of the Patriot Act, Americans don't care about what happens to foreigners as a result of some little-known (to them) centralized issue.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]there are ways of getting food into the mouths of the hungry world wide. but to do it efficiently and thouroughly it requires people to teach the hungry how to do it themselves with techniques and products that wouldn't make american companies very much money. therefor america, in general, doesn't care. that's a blatant fact! i don't have to post a link or back that up. there's 250 years of history to prove it.
people with big hearts are doing it now and what could take 15 years will take 30 'cause there's no money to be made.
just watch pbs, discovery or national geographic or google it yourself (try red cross for starters).[/quote]
1) There is next to NO usable water or land in most of these regions. What little there is tends not to be enough to sustain the area. You can use it as efficiently you want (which would require industrialization of the entire nation just to support the agriculture industry which would end up sending them back to times befor industrialization without upkeep because they don't have the economy to keep their industrialized nation kept up, just cycling back to the beginning where they only have a short period where they are able to sustain themselves), it doesn't matter--there's still not enought o support them for the most part in the long run.

2) America does care. They just realize they need to take care of themselves first or what little help they're giving won't be there in the future. I'm not going to sacrifice my life as a firefighter to save one man when I know for sure I'm going to die if I save him and he might not make it out alive if there's an ENTIRE building full of people to be saved. I would take the risk if there was even a decent chance of survival, but one man's life is not worth more than many men's lives. It's just common sense.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]am i the only person here that thinks there's something wrong with a bank making a billion dollars in three months and they still feel the need to raise my fees to offset costs? and that's a puny little canadian bank. take a look at the profits for BofA in three months. maybe it's just me. or maybe i should let the americans here know that here in canada our choices are very limited as to how we do our banking.[/quote]
Sorry, don't like how it is? Go to America. Seriously, there's a reason capitalism works (for the most part). This is the very BASIS of capitalism--having lots of companies to choose from which keeps prices and fees competetive.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]am i the only person here that knows when they find a cure for cancer or aids or als that there will be no one cured in america unless they have lots of money, have updated their insurance because the insurance companies will be very quick to let you know your insurance doesn't cover 'cures' for those diseases, it only covers treatment. does anyone here actually think the money that america and americans so generously pour into medical research will benefit americans? we should all know by now that it will only benefit rich americans and all canadians.
all those volunteer hours and runs for the cure and donations made every time someone comes to the door with an envelope will get you nothing when you get sick with the disease.
look at that cuban doctor that thought he had the cure for diabetes. the world flocked to his lab to see what he was working on... oh wait... i mean the world minus america 'cause if there was a cure for diabetes found in cuba not one person in america would be allowed to be cured unless they were criminals and found there way there illegally with lots of money.[/quote]
Yeah, because he ended up having the cure, didn't he? Oh wait. Besides that, it has nothing to do with greed as far as the cure for cancer and AIDS--how many years have they spent working on it? It's probably going to be very expensive just to make/manufacture, so they have to pay for that and yes, there will be profits and maybe in the extreme part in the beginning. As far as AIDS go, I have a very short list of the kinds of people I'd feel sorry for as AIDS is one of those things that is easy to stay away from as long as you're not raped or born with it. As far as the cuban part goes, that's unfortunate, true, but like I said, he didn't have the cure anyways (if I remember right), and it's just the nature of our political stance with Cuba. You learn to live with it, for better or for worse.

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]so i repeat,

go ahead and take the 3 minutes to google it yourself. look at how much america and it's corporations profit and compare it to how much is actually donated.
a drop in the ocean.

it's probably my fault. next time i'll spell it all out so you know what i'm saying.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you google it for us and list us numbers, links, sources to back up your claim. You say "A DROP IN THE OCEAN" when you've not listed any numbers as to how much we give each year (through private benefactors, charities, and the government spending I think would be the fairest way) and no sources for the numbers you posted on profits.

Yes, it is your fault. You come into this thread with some ridiculous claims with no backup and no support and go "IT'S MY OPINION DUDES" and expect us to leave you be? No. Back up your claims and show us the proof.

This is the dumbest thread I ever saw.

Bad grammar intended.

When pathetic 40 year old Canadian men (I use the term loosely) and 17 year old boys from South Nowhere, Kansas, start arguing with each other about "corportations" on the internet, it is a sign that both parties need to either:

a) Get off the f***ing computer
b) Grow up
c) Die

I would prefer if they did all three, actually, in that order.

<3

I like how Yoshi <3's a burn on himself. True tact.

It's ]-[elle. Seriously, the man burned me in the effing Christmas Card he sent, you gotta take everything he says with a grain of salt :p

So true. haha.

i'll do b and c. as for a, i'm still here.

and don't call me 40 yet!

[QUOTE=Darth Evad]

and don't call me 40 yet![/QUOTE]

What a wuss..