|
Captain Filth posted:This seems to be starting to show up on facebook. It seems to have a lot of the hallmarks of a foward. When I google it all I can find is people reposting the exact same thing. quote:In the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/rocket-attacks-israel-yossi-shushan My post was summarily ignored for a weird slapfight about Israel's manufacturing capabilities and whether we should care about Israel because they produce microchips, or if they are just more foreign outsource textile manufacturers 
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
They produce a small amount of Intel's chips. Do they have other silicon fabs that I'm not aware of? Intel's American silicon manufacturing is far larger than what is in Israel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:But that was a known unknown... Sarion posted:They produce a small amount of Intel's chips. Do they have other silicon fabs that I'm not aware of? Intel's American silicon manufacturing is far larger than what is in Israel. As far as I know most of what's done in Israel's Intel subsidiary/branch is R&D. They do have a couple of manufacturing plants, but I doubt they're as big as in the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 02:48
|
|
that phrase is terrible
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:As far as I know most of what's done in Israel's Intel subsidiary/branch is R&D. They do have a couple of manufacturing plants, but I doubt they're as big as in the US. Exactly, that's why the "they make microchips" thing makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Exactly, that's why the "they make microchips" thing makes no sense to me. If you design something, but don't personally manufacture it, have you not made something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 03:49
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:If you design something, but don't personally manufacture it, have you not made something? technically, you've designed it. I guess that you could say that you made a couple of files on your computer and that you've made some pieces of paper with scribbling on them. But as a whole that paper and those files are a design. You designed something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
miasmata posted:technically, you've designed it. But it's pretty silly to say that R&D isn't a significant part of making microchips. Saying "they don't make microchips because all they do there is mostly research and design" sounds like a stretch to downplay the importance of what they do. Sorry, I was doing engineering once, so I'm probably more riled up by that statement than I should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:If you design something, but don't personally manufacture it, have you not made something? But they're only part of Intel's R&D, they work with other groups around the world, most of whom are in the US. Plus the original comment according to Defenestration was about Israel's manufacturing capabilities. And even still my bigger point was that it was a small part of what Israel's economy produces (unless I am mistaken on this point, hence my original question). It just seemed like a very strange comment for them to make. "Oh, but they manufacture microchips!" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
Sarion posted:But they're only part of Intel's R&D, they work with other groups around the world, most of whom are in the US. Plus the original comment according to Defenestration was about Israel's manufacturing capabilities. Wait a sec, so the argument being made was that we should support Israel financially, because Intel has R&D labs there? Now that is a silly argument. Let Intel provide security for their own drat labs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Wait a sec, so the argument being made was that we should support Israel financially, because Intel has R&D labs there? Now that is a silly argument. Let Intel provide security for their own drat labs. They also got a lot of tax breaks from the Israeli government to set up a fab in a low-income area. So if they want security they could invest the saved money in that. Problem solved! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Wait a sec, so the argument being made was that we should support Israel financially, because Intel has R&D labs there? Now that is a silly argument. Let Intel provide security for their own drat labs. I guess so. Here is what was originally said... quote:My post was summarily ignored for a weird slapfight about Israel's manufacturing capabilities and whether we should care about Israel because they produce microchips, or if they are just more foreign outsource textile manufacturers So I guess the argument went: "we should protect them because they make microchips", "no they take our textile manufacturing jobs!"  It just seemed to be a strange argument to be making is all. There's R&D there, but we do have some Fabs there as well, so the statement about manufacturing chips is accurate. I just don't understand why that would be a reason for dumping tons of money into the country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Sarion posted:I guess so. Here is what was originally said... Bored Guy posted:Thanks for wasting my time with arguments I didn't ask for and have already heard repeatedly. This is the exact same reasons why we "the people" do not care. Super Jew posted:Is it hard to understand that we don't want poo poo from anyone? All we want is to be left alone. DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO US!!!! Now do you get it? Focus on your own problems, live your own life, let us take care of our own. We are not interested in attention. We don't even need those 3 billion dollars we get every year from the U.S. Just stay the gently caress out! Super Jew posted:Also, I said we don't need attention, not that we don't want to trade with you. Enjoying your Pentium processor, by the way? Invented here. Ever use this thing called a cellular phone? How about Google, you like them, right? Major development center here. That blue light thingy that took care of the pimples on your face? Yea, that's us. The only company with a viable ability to create a world-wide infrastructure to support electric car use? That's right here. Bored Guy posted:Everything you are speaking of was OUTSOURCED. There are tons of other lovely countries willing to produce those objects. Bored Guy posted:This is the beginning of your wish. An independent Israel. First, we are ignoring you in our media circuits. We have zero expectations of peace from either the israelis and palestinians. And soon enough, if the US taxpayers are lucky enough, we can stop giving our money to you and save a few dimes. Then we can outsource our businesses to cheaper countries with similar education levels, like bangledesh or india. Super Jew posted:This is where the conversation crosses from banter into you being just plain ignorant. When you build a textile factory in China, your outsourcing because there's cheap labor. When you build your primary R&D center in Israel, it isn't because you can pay the engineers less. It's because we have a higher concentration of brains than other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Way to live up to your name there, Super Jew.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Hastings posted:What's really sad is these are the same people who scream at the top of their lungs in protest of "Muslims and atheists are indoctrinating our children" and fail to see the indoctrination of their own. When they do it, it's "raising up our children in the faith". Anything outside of direct, explicit instructions from them is anathema. It's all about "our nations' freedoms" until you start actually wanting to raise your own kids the way you want. It's like a loving journey into bizarro world. I actually had a family member stare straight into my eyes and was discussing how God cares about life and saving the babies, and in the same minute told me God wants us to torture terrorism suspects. Not for political reasons, but that God actually wants us to torture people so the state of Israel is protected, because we have a biblical duty to them. Obviously that is insane, because 1)U.S. wasn't a nation then and 2)the U.S. would have been a Gentile nation then, making it directly in opposition of the Law if it was. The idea of America being a Christian nation really is a hosed up notion because these people genuinely take it seriously and integrate it into their daily faith. My favorite thing is when christians say that the US has to protect Israel based on religious grounds. I was having a conversation with a neighbor a few years ago that went something like this. Him: We HAVE to protect Israel. Its our duty! Me: Why? Him: Because they're God's chosen people! Me: Wait, if they're God's chosen people, why haven't you converted to Judaism? Him: Because I'm Christian. (he thinks a moment) Well, I mean WE'RE the chosen people, but God loves them too because they follow the Old Testament too. Me: But don't all non-Christians go to hell? Him: Yeah, but.. Me: More importantly Islam follows the Abrahamic teachings too. They have as much in common with us as Judaism. Him: What? You get the point. Its amazing to how closely people associate their identity with Christianity without ever really knowing anything specific about it, not studying it, nor understanding its history. But its more an identity thing than practicing a real religion. Amarkov posted:"Ironically, the last sentence is a demonstrated tendency. Ignoring what Jesus said to go focus on Paul's epistles is a storied tradition in American fundamentalism." Never though of it like that. Can you explain it more?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Never though of it like that. Can you explain it more? What you have to understand is that nobody actually bases their doctrine on the Gospels. Most Christians will tell you about how important and awesome they are, but they just don't say much other than "Jesus was a cool guy and by the way don't be a dick". So you need some other source for the majority of your religious teachings. The Catholics, claiming as we do to descend from the original churches, can mostly work from tradition for core doctrines. But obviously the Protestants couldn't do that, so they ended up settling on what's known as sola scriptura; the Bible as the only valid source of theological information. Since like I said, the gospels really don't give you that, Paul's letters end up being more important in Protestant faiths. The problem with sola scriptura is that the Bible actually is not self-consistent. The mainline Protestant way of dealing with this is effectively the same as the Catholic way. Namely, that the Bible is meant to be read as the collection of literature that it is, so not everything stated has to be actually true. But there are some people, most notably the entire American fundamentalist movement, who don't like this very much. They don't like the idea that you should have to interpret the Bible, so they claim that it's all literally true. How do you make that work? Well in practice, you just gloss over the inconvenient contradictory passages. For instance, Ephesians 2:10 will never ever be read in a fundamentalist church, even after the pastor reads verses 8 and 9 and laughs at the idiots who believe in works salvation. (Verses 8 and 9 say "You can't force your way into heaven by doing good works", while verse 10 says "But you are alive for the purpose of doing good works".) But I'd be giving some people entirely too much credit if I claimed this was the only thing going on. The literalists who do bother to actually read the inconvenient verses generally subscribe to what's known as Dispensationalism. The basic idea here is that the Bible isn't one huge instruction book for all Christians ever, but is actually divided up into dispensations for different times. Which makes sense on the surface; it's explicitly laid out, after all, that a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament only applied before Jesus. The insanity comes in the way that it's applied. Everything about doing good works, along with basically everything else in the Gospels, is held not to apply to our dispensation. So when Jesus says "love your neighbor" and "blessed are the meek" and all that stuff, he isn't talking to you. He's talking to people in the time of the millineal kingdom, once he's already raptured the Christians and come back and stuff. You're only supposed to pay attention to the parts of the Bible that tell you to refrain from immorality and prosletyze. And of course, all of this is obvious if you read the Bible literally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Does your mom actually know any illegals? I mean really know them, as in she knows for a fact that they're here illegally? Or is she simply assuming they're illegal? Also free clinics pretty much only provide the basic service that your primary care physician would. If there's actually something seriously wrong, you're still totally hosed. And illegal aliens actually do pay taxes. Depending on who they work for they may pay FICA taxes; they absolutely pay sales taxes; and many of them pay income taxes (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm). Not all of them do, but then again not all citizens do either. Actually, she's worked with horses and barns her whole life, and some of the farm hands she's met are illegal; she even worked with her boss to try and get a green card for one of them. That said, I like all of what you've said here. The sales' tax thing in particular is something I kind of figured to be the case, along with the obvious "risk of being deported" thing they have to worry about. the posted:Also, ask her that, if it's such a great deal, if she would renounce her citizenship. I thought about this, too. Anyway, I mentioned that my mom is usually sensible and that the above was unusual for her, right? Well, her sister is like the above ALL THE TIME (which is ironic because she was the most outwardly-nice person I knew as a kid). She loves to send crazy political emails to my mom on a daily basis, and they're usually forgettable or outdated. Earlier, though, my mom told me about a new one and I asked her to forward it to me. Lo and behold, "FW: PSALM 2011 - added to the NEW, NEW, TESTAMENT!!!" showed up in my inbox: quote:Obama Is the shepherd I did not want. It also had an image of Obama in shepherd's attire and a flock of sheep with each animal having the word "liberal" written across its forehead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
quote:Stop giving welfare and unemployment money to people that don't need it (15% of my customers use EPPI cards to pay for my expensive [compared to the grocery store] pizza. There is rampant abuse everywhere. There is a convenience store RIGHT across the street that trades cash for food stamps for a fee). You know what? All a government agency has to do is come in and ask me if I have any complaints of welfare abuse. This is why I suggest forming an oversight committee that walks door to door or provides an anonymous tip hotline. By forming an oversight committee, the committee will pay for itself by saving the country tons of money. I don't even know what to say to this guy...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
100% tax rate in the world where examples with apples are found peppered about in academic dissertations
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
the posted:I don't even know what to say to this guy... ...what? Does he own a pizza parlor? That... takes food stamps? Is there any state at all that allows welfare recipients to use food stamps anywhere but a grocery store or other kind of food market? Anyway, here's my vote for what to say to him: What really gets me is how you maintain that you might be charitable if it weren't for the gub'mint giving out all that welfare. No you wouldn't, dickhead. You and your mouth-breathing fundie teabagger friends wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone and you know it. Taxpayer-funded social welfare is the government's way of forcing you to be a decent goddamned human being, even if you have to be dragged kicking and screaming. Fuckwad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:...what? Does he own a pizza parlor? That... takes food stamps? Is there any state at all that allows welfare recipients to use food stamps anywhere but a grocery store or other kind of food market? My question to him is how exactly he'd be better off if these people didn't get the $20 to give to him, but rather went to Warren Buffett's savings account where it never gets spent. If he owns the store, he should just stop taking EBT and stop sucking the government teat. If he doesn't, he shouldn't question his betters in management. Maybe if he worked harder and pulled himself up by his bootstraps he wouldn't be a cashier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
the posted:I don't even know what to say to this guy... The last part of that is pretty drat cold. Is he actually saying that he'd (she'd?) wants the disabled or unemployed die in the streets so his taxes go down? What a psychopath. Other than people with severe disabilities, who are these people that stay on welfare indefinitely anyway? You don't get a lot of money on welfare, and most people who use it only do so temporarily. Why do these people who bitch about a portion of their taxes being used to prevent other Americans from starving never whine about the amount of money spent on defense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
nm posted:You can buy uncooked pizza with EBT. I didn't even know you could buy uncooked pizza at all at pizza parlors, let alone with EBT. The more you know!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Leospeare posted:I didn't even know you could buy uncooked pizza at all at pizza parlors, let alone with EBT. The more you know! Take and bake pizza chains are primarily what it is directed at, I'm pretty sure my local Papa Murphys takes EBT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 07:14
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:The literalists who do bother to actually read the inconvenient verses generally subscribe to what's known as Dispensationalism. The basic idea here is that the Bible isn't one huge instruction book for all Christians ever, but is actually divided up into dispensations for different times. Which makes sense on the surface; it's explicitly laid out, after all, that a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament only applied before Jesus. The insanity comes in the way that it's applied. Everything about doing good works, along with basically everything else in the Gospels, is held not to apply to our dispensation. So when Jesus says "love your neighbor" and "blessed are the meek" and all that stuff, he isn't talking to you. He's talking to people in the time of the millineal kingdom, once he's already raptured the Christians and come back and stuff. You're only supposed to pay attention to the parts of the Bible that tell you to refrain from immorality and prosletyze. That's very interesting regarding Dispensationalism. I've never heard of that before, but it makes sense as a flimsy excuse for why American Fundamentalists seem to ignore all of Jesus' (and a good chunk of Paul's as well that talk about things like love and the everybody being equal in God's eyes) teachings so they can use Christianity as an excuse to be horrible regressive assholes. I think it also explains the complete mess that is "biblical proof" regarding the Rapture. If you already think like that, its not a stretch that you'd be willing to force various unrelated passages into proof for your completely nonsensical beliefs regarding the end times. closeted republican fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Aug 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
I do like that it apparently supports taxing the wealthy, which is better than most of these. However, still a massively retarded email.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
quote:The guy will continuously pay me $20 for another pizza, 1000 times. I did a shitload of work, I brought in $20,000, but wtf... I'm broke. It looks like I'm getting richer because I have more work and am selling more pizzas, but instead I'm just putting myself in the hole! 1) Most of them DO work. They just get paid poo poo or their work is sporadic at best. 2) It's not the same as giving them back their money at the time of purchase because only a small fraction of the money they gave you gets taxed. What's more, only a fraction of that fraction actually goes to Food Stamps. If I recall correctly, SNAP has a budget of about $35B, which is 1% of the Federal Budget. So of the $20 he gave for pizza, maybe 20% goes to taxes ($4) and 1% of that (or 4 cents) goes to SNAP. What's more, you couldn't even argue that it's the same as giving the guy back 4 cents, because in reality that 4 cents gets divided among everyone on food stamps. The example is completely insane, it would apply if the tax rate was 100% of all of the store's revenue (not just profit), and 100% of all taxes went to SNAP. quote:If one person is on an Island, and the other person is disabled, the first person does all the work. The first person has to share everything with the disabled person in order for both of them to survive. What's in it for the person that works? Companionship? Perhaps. What if the guy who works becomes old or disabled? Now they both die. 1) Disabled people aren't just a drain, many times they worked for years or decades before becoming disabled. My neighbor was a nurse for a decade, making ~$70k a year, but is not unable to work due to chronic medical conditions so she get Disability and Medicaid. She spent a long time paying taxes, and she still works part time as much as she can and pays taxes on that. 2) They're basically saying we should just let the disabled die. That's fine I suppose, I mean at least they're up front about it. But most people think it's wrong, which is why I think most people in this hypothetical would work to keep them both alive rather than just themselves. 3) If the working person becomes to old or disabled to work, they'd still have ended up dead in either scenario, what's the point exactly here? 4) Back in the real world, there is more than a 1 to 1 ratio of workers to disabled workers. So it's more like if 7 people were stranded, after 3 months of all working 1 became disabled, and the other six did most of the work and shared the burden of keeping the disabled person alive. Or they could just let him die. quote:I don't think that it's a problem that a guy shares the fruits of his labor with someone less fortunate. But I know there has to be a fine balance. If a guy could produce a lifetime of apples and had enough to last him his entire life and then some, he has no excuse to share the excess apples. Rich people have more apples than they can spend in a lifetime. No need for them to have more apples than they need. Taking the excess is not going to have an affect on the rich, but it'll have a big affect on the people that need it. Disability and other forms of welfare, all combined, even SS and Medicare, do not take up 60% of ANYONE's income. In general it's "1-4 apples" to pay for everything, not just welfare, but roads, schools, defense, law enforcement, etc. Sarion fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Aug 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
So apparently this fellow pays 100% in taxes and somehow, despite presumably living in a society, derives no benefit from tax revenue himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
Sarion posted:1) Most of them DO work. They just get paid poo poo or their work is sporadic at best. You should just reply to point 2 with "Good thing we don't live on an island!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Cacatua posted:The last part of that is pretty drat cold. Is he actually saying that he'd (she'd?) wants the disabled or unemployed die in the streets so his taxes go down? What a psychopath. The same kind of people that told my friend he should've died of cancer when he was 10 instead of
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
az posted:The same kind of people that told my friend he should've died of cancer when he was 10 instead of Also the kind of people who scream "Heil, Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew because he praises Israel's healthcare system at a US townhall in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Also the kind of people who scream "Heil, Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew because he praises Israel's healthcare system at a US townhall in 2008. What about throwing dollar bills at a man with Parkinson's Disease?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Also the kind of people who scream "Heil, Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew because he praises Israel's healthcare system at a US townhall in 2008. People should definitely listen to her interview beforehand: http://youtu.be/PcRr5xA-K80 "I believe in Biblical values"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Also the kind of people who scream "Heil, Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew because he praises Israel's healthcare system at a US townhall in 2008. People like this is what's wrong with America today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
JerkyBunion posted:Also the kind of people who scream "Heil, Hitler!" at an Israeli Jew because he praises Israel's healthcare system at a US townhall in 2008. If it's the video I'm thinking of, the person who yelled "Heil Hitler" is wearing an IDF t-shirt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
I got some crazy ravings from my uncle the other day:Uncle Crazy Man posted:http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxism-america Just try and imagine the formatting. Think 20 point font or whatever. Anyway, in the following discussion I learned something that made me facepalm harder than I think anything that ever came out of one of these discussions. My uncle always says I should read 1984 in the same breath as "Oh no, socialism!" I never read 1984, but I was curious because I didn't ever recall it being a cornerstone of conservative thought. Now I wasn't going to read a whole book just so I could rebut my crazy uncle, but I decided that it was worth a fifteen minutes on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with 1984 must see where this is going by now. tl;dr: My uncle literally thinks that Ingsoc* is socialism. The sudden understanding of the subject matter combined with the level of wrongness was just more than I could deal with. *Ingsoc is a hypothetical ideology resulting from totalitarian establishment perverting socialist revolution into pretty much the total opposite of socialism. Disclaimer: It's totally possible that I got this all wrong on account of not actually having ever read 1984, but it seemed pretty clear from the bit that I've read on Ingsoc, the book, and Orwell himself. Feel free to correct me if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
From what I remember, Orwell was worried about a socialist revolution being corrupted by totalitarian influences (quite reasonable, after what happend in Russia). But yeah, it's not really defensible to argue that openly socialist George Orwell wrote a book against socialism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:From what I remember, Orwell was worried about a socialist revolution being corrupted by totalitarian influences (quite reasonable, after what happend in Russia). But yeah, it's not really defensible to argue that openly socialist George Orwell wrote a book against socialism. 'Why I Write' summed up his political beliefs pretty well. George Orwell posted:Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. Z-Magic fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
It's been years since I read it; plus I read it and Brave New World back to back, so I've probably got parts from the two mixed up in my head. But I don't really remember it as being about Socialism vs. Capitalism so much as it was about Totalitarianism. And since Socialism != Totalitarianism, I would say there's a logical fallacy going on here. But like I said, it has been a long time. However, I did find this quote from one of Orwell's essays: "The Spanish War and other events in 1936–37, turned the scale. Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it." Also the wikipedia entry (I know, I know) makes an interesting point about how during the 1950's, copies of Orwell's Animal Farm included that quote, but quote mined it to "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism...", leaving out the reference to Democratic Socialism. Which ironically enough, is the very type of censorship the main character in Nineteen Eighty-Four was involved with before rebelling against the party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Yeah, that was pretty much what I got out of all of it. The realization though. Man, I don't know that I've ever experienced such a  moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
No, it was entirely about totalitarianism. To the extent that socialist ideas were even brought up, it was to show how Ingsoc had rejected and corrupted them. The preface to the first version of 1984 I read stated it best. The book isn't about how a failed socialist revolution caused totalitarianism; it's about how totalitarianism caused a socialist revolution to fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2011 21:51
|
|