oh boobies boobies, oh boobies boobies, oh boobies boobies, my chest flatness was killing me I must admit, I paid for these I look 32, i'm just a child I am a child! Make my boobies one more size! oh boobies boobies my breasts are completely false and now my sweaters tight oh. make my boobies one more size!
SOmebody posted about PRIVATIZATION and I responded. That is not off topic you fucking idiot moderators. MODERATORS are FUCKING MORONS. Losers. Thank You, Troll King
nyt on hetki taas panostaa ydinvoiman vastustamiseen, kun lisärakentamista esitetään varsin monilta tahoilta. Posiva on saanut Eurajoen kunnan hyväksymisen käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen hautaamiselle Olkiluodon kallioperään. Periaatepäätöstä haetaan eduskunnalta tämän kevään aikana. Suunnitelmat sisältävät niin ison maanalaisen tilan, että sinne mahtuu kahden uudenkin reaktorinkorkeaaktiiviset jätteet. Kiire saada loppusijoitus hyväksytyksi liittyy vahvasti ydinvoimateollisuuden haluun rakentaa lisää ydinvoimaa. Sehän auttaisi viidennen ydinvoimalan lupahakemuksen läpimenoa eduskunnassa. Investoiminen ydinvoimaan vie mahdollisuuksia moninkertaisesti työllistäviltä uusiutuvilta energiamuodoilta ja energiansäästötekno- logioilta. Ehdotamme tapahtumapäivää lauantaina 15.4. eri puolilla maata . Toivon mukaan ryhmä aktiivisia ihmisiä eri järjestöistä alkaa suunnitella tapahtumia paikkakunnillaan, esimerkiksi toritapahtuman: puheita, eri järjestöjen esitteitä ja lennäkkejä, korttikampanja ja mahdollisesti katuteatteria tai musiikkiesityksiä. Olemme valmiit toimittamaan kortteja ja mahdollista muuta materiaalia. Yhteisessä lehdistötiedotteessa kertoisimme, että niillä ja niillä paikkakunnilla kampanjoidaan k.o. päivänä ydinvoimaa vastaan ja uusiutuvien energiamuotojen puolesta. Liittäisimme tapahtumat Earth Day Networkin Clean Energy Now!-kampanjaan. Earth Day 2000 on 22.4., pääsiäislauantaina. Ei haitanne, että olemme viikon etuajassa.
Toivomme palautetta, innostutteko kampanjaan ja mitä ehdotuksia teillä olisi, mitä tarvittaisiin liikkeellelähtöön.
I say, my dear ladies and gentlemen, that there are better things that scientists could spend their time on. We could be looking for ways to save the Earth and make the world a better place. Instead we are searching for aliens and far off asteroids. Does this make any sense???? The survival of our species does not depend on noise from outer space!!
wait a minute, I'm not for the survival of our species. you may continue being useless.
Whoever moderated that down is a fucking idiot. Just because It doesn't say "Damn FreeBSD kix linux ass, that sux" it gets moderated down. Moderators are stupid. How the fuck is showing your opinion about an operating system that is on topic being flamebait? You are an idiot, moderator.
[1] The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat.
>From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.
Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune [4]: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? One the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.
Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. Thank You, Troll King
Slashdot Mirror
"make my boobies one more size"...
oh boobies boobies,
oh boobies boobies,
oh boobies boobies,
my chest flatness was killing me
I must admit, I paid for these
I look 32, i'm just a child
I am a child!
Make my boobies one more size!
oh boobies boobies
my breasts are completely false
and now my sweaters tight oh.
make my boobies one more size!
do the words "restrict access" mean anything to you?
what are web services really for?
eh?
who the fuck cares?
the 2nd amendment doesn't allow you to take a shotgun into your kindergarten class.
looks like anonymous coward beat you to the punch, moron. look at the post before yours.& output=x ml
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blah
should be who's copying WHOM. Learn some grammar.
Thank You,
Troll King
linux is stupid
get over it already.
Thank You,
Troll King
SOmebody posted about PRIVATIZATION and I responded. That is not off topic you fucking idiot moderators. MODERATORS are FUCKING MORONS.
Losers.
Thank You,
Troll King
HOt DOgs == Frankfurters
Thank You,
Troll King
I just realised that even though it will still be expensive, at least all those people won't be using AOL Germany!!
Thank You,
Troll King
Since they charge by the minute in Germany even for local calls, it will still be pretty expensive if you use the net alot.
Thank You,
Troll King
nyt on hetki taas panostaa ydinvoiman vastustamiseen, kun lisärakentamista
esitetään varsin monilta tahoilta. Posiva on saanut Eurajoen kunnan
hyväksymisen käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen hautaamiselle Olkiluodon
kallioperään. Periaatepäätöstä haetaan eduskunnalta tämän kevään aikana.
Suunnitelmat sisältävät niin ison maanalaisen tilan, että sinne mahtuu
kahden uudenkin reaktorinkorkeaaktiiviset jätteet. Kiire saada
loppusijoitus hyväksytyksi liittyy vahvasti ydinvoimateollisuuden haluun
rakentaa lisää ydinvoimaa.
Sehän auttaisi viidennen ydinvoimalan lupahakemuksen läpimenoa eduskunnassa.
Investoiminen ydinvoimaan vie mahdollisuuksia moninkertaisesti
työllistäviltä uusiutuvilta energiamuodoilta ja energiansäästötekno-
logioilta.
Ehdotamme tapahtumapäivää lauantaina 15.4. eri puolilla maata . Toivon
mukaan ryhmä aktiivisia ihmisiä eri järjestöistä alkaa suunnitella
tapahtumia paikkakunnillaan, esimerkiksi toritapahtuman: puheita, eri
järjestöjen esitteitä ja lennäkkejä, korttikampanja ja mahdollisesti
katuteatteria tai musiikkiesityksiä. Olemme valmiit toimittamaan kortteja
ja mahdollista muuta materiaalia. Yhteisessä lehdistötiedotteessa
kertoisimme, että niillä ja niillä paikkakunnilla kampanjoidaan k.o.
päivänä ydinvoimaa vastaan ja uusiutuvien energiamuotojen puolesta.
Liittäisimme tapahtumat Earth Day Networkin Clean Energy Now!-kampanjaan.
Earth Day 2000 on 22.4., pääsiäislauantaina. Ei haitanne, että olemme
viikon etuajassa.
Toivomme palautetta, innostutteko kampanjaan ja mitä ehdotuksia teillä
olisi, mitä tarvittaisiin liikkeellelähtöön.
Thank You,
Troll King
and what could be a more useful contribution to society than the Atomic Bomb.
Thank You,
Troll King
JoeSchmoe writes "The United Coalition of Trolls for the Abolition of Moderation has announced that they are porting Natalie Portman to reality. This comes just weeks after UCTAM changed leadership." Troll Dreams can come true after all! ;)
Thank You,
Troll King
I say, my dear ladies and gentlemen, that there are better things that scientists could spend their time on. We could be looking for ways to save the Earth and make the world a better place. Instead we are searching for aliens and far off asteroids. Does this make any sense???? The survival of our species does not depend on noise from outer space!!
wait a minute, I'm not for the survival of our species. you may continue being useless.
Thank You,
Troll King
YuPpErZ
Thank You,
Troll King
Was not this already posted here? I heard about this on CNN a week ago.
Thank You,
Troll King
whoever made that law is obviously a big moron
Thank You,
Troll King
result 4
Thank You,
Troll King
Go to google,
search for evil
result #2
Thank You,
Troll King
Whoever moderated that down is a fucking idiot. Just because It doesn't say "Damn FreeBSD kix linux ass, that sux" it gets moderated down. Moderators are stupid. How the fuck is showing your opinion about an
operating system that is on topic being flamebait? You are an idiot, moderator.
Thank You,
Troll King
I would just like to voice my support for FreeBSD. It is the best OS ever, in my humle opinion.
Thank You,
Troll King
[1] The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one
another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time
ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of
the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of
society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have
patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals,
guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again,
subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not
done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of
oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has
simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two
great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and
proletariat.
>From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns.
From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the
rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America,
trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities
generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known,
and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid
development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed
guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The
manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the
manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds
vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.
Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers
no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production.
The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN INDUSTRY; the place of
the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial
armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America
paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to
navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the
extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways
extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and
pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of
development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding
political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility,
an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune [4]: here independent
urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as
in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the
semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact,
cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has at last, since the
establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the
modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state
is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal,
patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound
man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than
naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly
ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the
icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value,
and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious
and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up
to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the
man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the
family relation into a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the
Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the
most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about.
It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and
Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of
production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form,
was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the
bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices
and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into
air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his
relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It
must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and
consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the
national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being
destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized
nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones;
industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants,
satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands
and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction,
universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of
individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more
impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of
communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the
heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all
nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls
civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased
the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the
idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian
countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production,
and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a
few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected
provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation,
with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive
forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of
chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for
cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a
presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were
generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the
conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing
industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed
productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the
economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of
exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the
sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many
a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against
modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois
and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the entire
bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products,
but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an
epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society
suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of
devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And
why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.
The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois
property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon
as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of
bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And
how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? One the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive
forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to
say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are
prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men
who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working
class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their
labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of
commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual
character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the
most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of
a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the
propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In
proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the
use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by
prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of
machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial
capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army,
they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the
bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and,
above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end
and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes
developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any
distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to
their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than
he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the
handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does
not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large
capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the
proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first,
the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of one
trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the
bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares
that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the
vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual
competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active
union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the
whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do
not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the
non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the
bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater
masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of
the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly
everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting
commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever
more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen
and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers
begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of
wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and
there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result,
but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that
are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just
this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national
struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of
the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in
a few years.
This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again
by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels
legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie
itself. Thus, the Ten-Hours Bill in England was carried.
Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the
proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those
portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with
the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for
help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own
elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the
bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the
proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements
of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling
class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the
ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore,
at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over
to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of
comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary
class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and
essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the
bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary,
but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by chance, they are
revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present,
but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society,
may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it
far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without
property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations;
modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has
stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices,
behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at
large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society,
except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of
appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities
for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian
movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.
The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole
superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The
proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war,
raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent
overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and
oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least,
continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as
the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer,
on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence
of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it
becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of
existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave
within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by
him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of
capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The
advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to
competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts
from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the
bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally
inevitable.
Thank You,
Troll King
patents should be given only to individuals and not corporations.
Thank You,
Troll King
better update this story, they just released 1.3.01 beta!!!!
Thank You,
Troll King