stringtapper wrote:
Care to elaborate?

stringtapper wrote:
Care to elaborate?
Fitting rejoinder.SuburbanThug wrote:stringtapper wrote:
Care to elaborate?
In the context of this thread I would ask: Does Neo-Riemannian theorie makes sense in a free kapitalistic system? What kind of profits we could make with this theory?myrnova wrote:Professor Sturmnihilistrupper aka "pearlsbeforeswine" only discusses "advanced Neo-Riemannian transformational voice-leading analysis of extended chromatic harmony". Otherwise: "salsa", "mario", "pornogore" and "strutting like a rooster in a lounge"
Bruno Bauer the one that pointed out Josef ben Matitjahu (aka Flavius Josephus, aka Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul of the Acts) to be the chief editor of the New Testament.Funk N. Furter wrote:Oh Cocky, Cocky Cocky. Bravo for digging up that. Of course you have not read the full piece, much less understood it. It is of course part of a polemic against Bruno Bauer. It is difficult to understand unless you know the whole context, not just in this article, but the whole argument with Bauer. This polemic is rammed chocca full of sarcasm.
Cristoforo Colombo being born in Genua, Italy, then the compass was invented in Amalfi, Italy, I would say no, there must have been another reason.LoopStationZebra wrote:The only reason Italy never really colonized was that they really sucked at building ships and a Navy. That really prevented them from realizing their dreams of World Domination.
Well, I mean, there was that Roman Empire thing but that doesn't count really. Best forgotten, that.
I never read the bible, but I did read the book by Francesco Carotta. That is, I'm still in the middle of it.Funk N. Furter wrote:Well Cocky's given up trying to prove that Marx, a Jew, was antisemitic, so we could do the New Testament while we're here.rote fahne wrote:Bruno Bauer the one that pointed out Josef ben Matitjahu (aka Flavius Josephus, aka Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul of the Acts) to be the chief editor of the New Testament.Funk N. Furter wrote:Oh Cocky, Cocky Cocky. Bravo for digging up that. Of course you have not read the full piece, much less understood it. It is of course part of a polemic against Bruno Bauer. It is difficult to understand unless you know the whole context, not just in this article, but the whole argument with Bauer. This polemic is rammed chocca full of sarcasm.
But thats a different discussion.
I've been busy doing non-handicapped shit.Funk N. Furter wrote:Well Cocky's given up trying to prove that Marx, a Jew, was antisemitic, so we could do the New Testament while we're here.
Years ago I read a book, its called "Moscow Petushki", by Venedikt Yerofeyev. Its a samizdat novel.Funk N. Furter wrote:But it was not a socialist planned economy. A planned economy run by a dictatorship would never work for long.rote fahne wrote:Of course central planned economies dont work. I was in Tsjecho-Slowakia in 1980 and I have seen with my own eyes.
In such a system you could quote a company to produce 1000 gallons of salsa, then 800 will be spoilt with rotten tomatoes, a 100 will go to the datsja, and the other 100 will arrive in the supermarket, but without the red pepper in it.
But Russia's economy did grow faster than America's for many years even with the handicap of the Stalinist dictatorship.
Trolling loses it's luster pretty quick, huh?Jack McOck wrote: I've been busy doing non-handicapped shit.
I've been at this longer than you know.SuburbanThug wrote:Trolling loses it's luster pretty quick, huh?Jack McOck wrote: I've been busy doing non-handicapped shit.
Nice Trotsky quote, but I'm still waiting for my tomatoes.Funk N. Furter wrote:Socialist planning needs far more democracy than has ever been seen, not less, as per Stalinist Russia. In that regime you had a bureaucracy in charge. It was never gonna work long term. It's a bit of a big subject to get into. Lenin warned against bureaucratism, so did Trotsky. The bureaucrats were inherited from the Tsar's regime. They took over the Bolshevik Party from within, ie by joining it en masse. Stalin was their ally. Lenin could not implement a socialist democracy overnight, because that would be impossible in a backward country in a civil war. Pure wishful thinking. To succeed he knew it would take the aid of advanced countries.
Trotsky: “One nation conquers another” continued Lenin at the same congress, the last in which he participated ... “this is simple and intelligible to all. But what happens to the culture of these nations? Here things are not so simple. If the conquering nation is more cultured than the vanquished nation, the former imposes its culture on the latter, but if the opposite is the case, the vanquished nation imposes its culture on the conqueror. Has not something like this happened in the capital of the RSFSR? Have the 4700 Communists (nearly a whole army division, and all of them the very best) come under the influence of an alien culture?”. This was said in 1922, and not for the first time. History is not made by a few people, even “the best”; and not only that: these “best” can degenerate in the spirit of an alien, that is, a bourgeois culture. Not only can the Soviet state abandon the way of socialism, but the Bolshevik party can, under unfavourable historic conditions, lose its Bolshevism."