Its always interesting to watch people make assumptions about China. Vaguely funny. Think the other way around now. Lots of activity from many nations so China needs to be stronger. China is a logical country so it does not like war, unlike many others that do like warmongering. China's goals are for its long prosperity. Opposite to the phoenix-like US intent on its own demise. China will fill the cultural void.
Iran has a lot of uranium as well. They export it in unprocessed form to many countries. Enriching it vastly increase the price they can charge for it, so this actually brings out another reason they wish to enrich, its their uranium anyway so what they export may as well be sold for even more.
Why should Iran use its oil when it can sell it for very high prices to other nations? There is no "clean" way to burn oil. Its dirty and excessively expensive to even reduce the pollution from its use.
No US does not mean the citizens should all be dead, simply that the concentration of power and the decrepit regulations on use of that power are inappropriate for the modern world. It in fact poses a danger to everyone. China is close yes, but it has more efficient control of its resources and strict regulation on all exercises of power. Why had China not been in war after war after all? Its an actual rational state.
Processing uranium is an integral part of the procedure to utilize nuclear energy. Stated aims are for nuclear power generation. What is the problem with that? There is no evidence that this is being used to produce weapons of any kind or that it will ever be used for that purpose.
Undervalued in comparison to what currency? The US dollar? The US dollar is excessively inflated, prices and wages overly high simply for the sake of being high. The Purchasing Power Parity of the Yuan to the Dollar is more than a factor of three. That is, a third of an amount in Yuan will buy the same types and quality of goods in China as it takes using US dollars to buy those goods in the US. For example, spend 400 Yuan and get the equivalent of more than 1200 USD in items in China. Worker rights must be balanced with worker productivity and value produced-otherwise China will take the same path into temporary dominance followed by vast decline that the US had.
You so greatly misinterpret the meaning of my comments as to seem intentionally modifying them to suit your motivations. I am commenting on institutions-an institution does not change due to whim, it changes due to demonstrated or at least high probability of gaining an advantage in what it does. I am not giving support to such ideologies as those you imply, it describes the reality of the situation for those who, unlike yourself who have evidently studied it and at best misinterpreted accidentally or at worst misinterpreted intentionally my comments, would read this without that knowledge; the point further is that such advantage must be demonstrated so that it acts as prompt and motivation for a change bringing advantage otherwise the institutions will ignore it as change costs, and unless repaid by some means that acts as deterrent over all else. On typing-the comment did not intend to answer that question, only to describe the realities of the situation to contribute to following discussions on explanatory ideas.
Aptitude due to efficiency of the function of the thoughts required for performance of particular work as derived from the biology of the male causes a greater advantage to be had than that of the female whose individual biology must provide for the same advantage or account for and allow equal or superior capacity. The male, due to the preponderance of the gender in that type of work, has an advantage-and as this advantage has continued through the period of equalisation between the genders, it is either biological or at the most extended institutional-but those institutions have been successful and definitive advantage is, due to those recorded successes, required to prompt efforts to change it-change for its own sake is not adequate or it would have already been accomplished.
Such then is the situation. The individuals who gather in many areas in the institutions training for these matters happen to be males, but the primary characteristic is that they for the majority do not care what others think, and wish to work for a collective or at least community benefit. These individuals then, act as they choose to. They are dominant in the area, and there are other areas of occupations and of hobbies-so, for those who do not wish to adapt to those behaviors-do not enter those hobbies. That is the situation, and the reality.
It is as well, you dispute only my opinion on the status of China. Does this imply that you agree with me that the primary cause of the failure of the Russian attempt was the inapplicability of the approach taken? The remainder of your post recites the common faults cited against any nation approaching the Communist state of society. From an agrarian nation subject to the petty disputes of the former Imperial nations, China now stands one that no nation can attack without so great a loss that attack is impractical after less than 60 years of efforts to achieve social equality under the revolutionary government. I believe that it is nearly ready for the socialist phase to begin as it has reached a new apex of manufacturing and technological research that will allow it to advance further after the completion of the manufacturing of the Tsinghua University designed portable and modular pebble-bed reactor that it is absolutely safe as long as atoms expand when energized.
Each of your remaining points have been addressed in reverse order for coherence of analysis and description. On the individual level discrepancies remain as distribution of resources is limited by its nature, no nation and no government has ever "solved" that problem, but the individual is less important than the society and its development. The occasional counter-revolutionary movement develops and is suppressed in the same manner the US and every other nation has put down rebellions with a greater or lesser degree of success (reference the extended civil war of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the US civil war, the English war of the roses, etc,). Communism has not existed yet, you yourself admit that few have reached beyond the first revolutionary and provisional government-the exception that functions, China, followed the same path as every other nation for securing its power: the destruction of a class, but rather than labour it destroyed its intellectuals during a short period with the forced labour of the bourgeoisies alongside the willing labour of the proletariat (the situation for the latter could not have changed under the previous or any other system at the time, and the former would have mounted insurgencies against the provisional government of the dictatorship of the proletariat if not for that measure)-this was the Chinese socio-political situation that was adjusted at the rates required for progress rather than descent into disorder and even more massive starvation.
As for technology, I must request a greater explanation: the Soviets were the equals of the Americans in extra-orbital endeavors, and even perhaps superior in orbital endeavors. It was a engineering then though, for technology I can only assume you mean manufacturing-the majority of which that formerly was done in the US is now done in China (and low wages only account for a percentage-different depending on sources-of that. Military technology is as implied previously: China is a sufficiently capable nuclear power that foreign aggression is a side consideration in planning, and China has the largest army of any nation and, perhaps questionably superior, at least equal effective firepower with the nation that is considered by many to have the most military capacity presently-the US. If another meaning was implied, describe it in greater detail in your response and I will answer with agreement or counter-point based on analysis.
The first two points, on supposed human nature and that work for the betterment of society is not adequate motivation, I will respond to as follows: the individual may survive a few decades and some even a century and a few years, and the nation may or may not survive longer, but the legacy of a nation is much greater than the legacy of an individual. You are correct when you comment that a goal of Marx and Engles' Communism was international revolution (the anthem of the Soviet republics was the Internationale until its replacement in the 1960's). All forms of government are consistently out to expand the prevalence of the form of government t
Correction, of to - too seems necessary, revised: The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was too swift for the system that was implemented.
It is reassuring to find another user with an understanding of Russian history, I had begun to think the site was becoming no more than the playground of adolescents. I was not adequately clear, it seems, in describing what I was writing for-I meant to provide a description of the idea of the peoples' will with reference to Russian history for example, and with explanations of the faults it was subject to so that they would not be used as objections to the existence and possibility of the peoples' will. Yes, if it would be provided and does not cause an inordinate amount of difficulty, I would be interested in reading your essay-it is always beneficial to gain another perspective on Russia's history; if the email address is required: Jzanu#rtu#_#njl#Syr@mail.com with the obvious sections between # removed for title_title@mail.com.
My apologies for the omissions, the time available for the writing of the post was short. The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was to swift for the system that was implemented. Cuba is generally a second example. China, though, by Mao Tse Tung's skilled manipulations and skillful relations with and later stark separation from the Russian system accomplished the transition of an economy of Imperial feudalism as subject of the established nations into one of joint agrarian and technological accomplishment. Generally, the ideas for German Communism attempted in Russia did come close but the ideas never succeeded because at their foundations they were modeled after the German industrial economy, not the Russian agrarian economy of the period. Additionally, and as a discrete counter-point, China has succeeded thus far with its modified system that meets the Chinese economic situation and improves it. I believe that China has entered the second stage transition phase under the leadership of Hu Jintao, that it will take the transition from provisional revolutionary government into a socialist nation that, eventually, will become Communist fully and have the beneficent characteristics of the intellectual Communism from the models of Marx and Engles adapted to the Chinese socio-political situation..
Apologies, written very quickly and from memory-research Russian history if questions arise on any of the topics I present. Your assumption is tacitly incorrect, and I will explain-but I must make a few explanatory comments first. Communism was designed, of course, for Germany and not Russia by Marx and Engles; widespread knowledge of industrial slavery was assumed as a given, but that was not extant in Russia. Further, the proletariat revolution was even designated intellectually as consisted of three phases: revolutionary government, socialist government, and then exclusively communist government. The Russian attempt failed early on and the Russian system (the only appropriate name) posed under the mantle of Communism until its fall. The will of the people is a short way of describing the social norms as exist without the bourgeoisie oppression and work-slave mentality (ie. is the will of the non-bourgeoisie) and must be enforced onto the bourgeoisie by the proletariat to secure the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces (the likes of which had delayed the formation of the French Republic by roughly 50 years). This is the revolutionary government and lasted an inadequately short period in the Russian attempt. At this first stage Alexander Kerensky was head of the declared provisional government of the "Menshevik" (minority in Russian, composed of minority of party leader but majority of party members) from the February Revolution and abdication of the Tsar until his defeat by V. I. Lenin and his "Bolshevik" (majority in Russian, composed of majority of party leaders and minority of party members) in the October Revolution. Kerensky's government was overthrown before it could establish a legitimized government that was the equal of the other modern nations of the time by the election of a Russian assembly by the proletariat. Had this gone forward instead of Lenin's government, the Russian attempt would have very likely reached the second stage and become a socialist nation; it did not though and the Russian attempt was perverted into the founding basis of the Russian system. Lenin, by necessity, was brutal to an extent so as to destroy the bourgeoisie and preserve the revolution; every revolution in every nation has required the destruction of some class, but it has always been more commonly the labourer. Stalin, he recommended after his first stroke be removed from post as general secretary of the party and at his death specifically noted should not be made party president (the former of course not being widely known at the time as Stalin's influence had increased and become dominant). Of course, as is widely recognized, Stalin gained power and acted as a dictator. This represented the greatest departure point for the Russian system from the Russian attempt at a socially just government after the Tsar. Again, there was a chance for its return to the path of Communism with Leon Trotsky who wrote on the requirements of the expansion of the revolution internationally rather than its idling into totalitarianism in a single nation-state-but Stalin banished and later assassinated him in Mexico. Had Trotsky lived, his role as party leader might have allowed the clarification of socialist ideology that, provided Kerensky's government had set the second stage, might have allowed the creation of a genuine Russian Communism. Stalin's perversion continued until Andropov, who set out the requisite changes for changing the system and promoted Gorbachev so that he could succeed him in the position during the short time he lived after wresting the General Secretary from Chernenko. Gorbachev's policies dismantled the Union, and the rest is likely widely known.
Now, the comment made here is that Russia's errors after the fall of Kerensky's provisional government with the majority of the party support were not communist failures, but the extension of the Russian political environment that had developed under the centuries of the rule of the Tsars. Granted this, it is in fact an honour that Gates relates the groups opposing the
No, you illuminate the sections of the water vapour or pollutants in the atmosphere in the area forming a line leading to the star you are attempting to designate. A green laser point is particularly suited to this application.
Reference the single anonymous post attached to this sub-thread, it explains the simplistic foolishness represented by your post. Primarily, a laser light is subject to the same diffusing effect as any other light within an atmosphere, it was impossible for the man to have produced a green dot at the distance he was from the airplane.
Your comment "open your mind" means you wish for a reprieve from logical thought to the exclusion of illusory constructs made before even electricity was known formally? Your point is reminiscent of the very force holding back social progress in the US. There is a level at which it is permitted for a rational person to say: "That is irrational, inapplicable, and overtly detrimental so I should do all that I can to reduce its influence and power" (where it is an institution, nation, or other power). The elimination of regressive or detrimental ideology is integral to the advancement of the human species, after all the civilised world no longer drills holes into the skulls of epileptics to let out the "evil spirits," why should the modern world tolerate any remnants of regressive ideology?
Historical trends and citizen armies were responsible for the changes away from child labor in the coal and textile industries. Two primary changes ended the cited child labor in both for excessive length days, mechanization and education. The increasing use of machinery vastly improved profit margins in the coal industry ended the demand for vast uneducated and unskilled labor force supplied most cheaply by the youth of the time. The rise of citizen armies, labor unions waging war against the greedy capitalist bourgeois, used the strike and withstood violent attempts at resumed subjugation to destroy the capacity for the police forces of the plutocracy to contain. The changes which created the more moderate modern requirements of work were accomplished with blood and death as much as mechanization, though seemingly the realities of the past are not to be considered given the supposed counterexample provided in actuality is evidence of the grandparent post's statement.
As to the length of life, for the poor who are subjugated still by the pharmacology industry - life still ends roughly at the same time, when sickness or infirmity prevent continuous work for an extended length of time whether the work derived from them is 40 years or 80 years worth. The bourgeois benefit and the proletariat continue to be subjugated, so extended life expectancies are not a factor to consider in this respect.
Perhaps, dear comrade, you consider only direct violence to be the intent of the grandparent post, consider also that the situation is effectively the same when the subjugation of the proletariat is enforced with that scale of violence.
Apologies for the previous post without accurate user, instead as anonymous coward, this is not a cowardly comment. This issue brings up in the Americans those concerns and fervent defenses of individual "liberties" that are inapplicable with respect to the probable motivations for this effort. Rather than an attack on the certified right of supposed free speech (limited in each local division that was a state actually by varied and imprecise social considerations) the EU seeks for the welfare of its member nations. Nazi or misinterpreting person may disagree, in general though the rise of power of Nazi parties and the response to them by opponent caused immense destruction. Specific campaigns of one party or another, when found in history to have had destructive effect and are not dominant in the current power structures, the current power structures will destroy the detrimental to society party. This is the probable goal. Do not forget that not every person is fanatic individualist pseudo-libertarian and many recognize instead that the greatest lifetime benefit to individuals is a healthy and stable collective. EU is similar collective representing true states (nation states) in general agreement acting in this to seemingly both eliminate known destructive and destabilizing elements without majority support and further ensure collective security in social aspects (as yet, that is) for its per proxy granted citizens.
An error is present in many posts of response in this thread; that categories either exist or do not. Rather than propose a solution to an idealized and projected environment (seemingly what are used are the social-science equivalent of "physics-experiment land" in physics), a set of guidelines with emphasis on analysis and response based on the results of these analysis is appropriate; this is more in accord with diplomacy than attempt to impose personal philosophies on other humans as many other replies have been. As to the two vies on the existence of categories, neither is the case. Analysis of the situation is necessary. A strategy for optimum achievement for the individual must be formulated and include the following guidelines: 1) Facilitation of the development of the ability to objectively analyze a situation to determines any and all enemies, the weaknesses of those enemies, the means to manipulate the weaknesses of those enemies, and the ability to analyze the effect of manipulating the weaknesses of those enemies must all be included. 2) Firm and definite pronouncement to the individual of his/her capability to excel at what they have been observed to excel at, and recommendation of related subjects for study while allowing for variance must all be provided. 3) Emphasis that Society/"Others" must be harmed as little as possible, yet not to shy away from causing harm - to also explain that when it is necessary to harm others, that there should be no inordinate hesitation or grief. And finally 4) To obey what can be obeyed given reasonable self interests and to always have an awareness of the full effects of any course of action, whether it is by necessity for the self or by necessity for society. Response of suggestions for refinement or revision of segments are welcome, the intent is to provide a practical strategy for the questioner to implement.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not reply instead of marking the "opinion not liked" over moderated to a post that was never moderated at all to begin with?
Its always interesting to watch people make assumptions about China. Vaguely funny. Think the other way around now. Lots of activity from many nations so China needs to be stronger. China is a logical country so it does not like war, unlike many others that do like warmongering. China's goals are for its long prosperity. Opposite to the phoenix-like US intent on its own demise. China will fill the cultural void.
Iran has a lot of uranium as well. They export it in unprocessed form to many countries. Enriching it vastly increase the price they can charge for it, so this actually brings out another reason they wish to enrich, its their uranium anyway so what they export may as well be sold for even more.
Those girls are actually very cute. Not the bleach blonde surgically enhanced beach balls that some people like but genuinely cute girls.
Security?
Why should Iran use its oil when it can sell it for very high prices to other nations? There is no "clean" way to burn oil. Its dirty and excessively expensive to even reduce the pollution from its use.
That they would have had to wait for the Soviets to defeat Nazi Germany?
No US does not mean the citizens should all be dead, simply that the concentration of power and the decrepit regulations on use of that power are inappropriate for the modern world. It in fact poses a danger to everyone. China is close yes, but it has more efficient control of its resources and strict regulation on all exercises of power. Why had China not been in war after war after all? Its an actual rational state.
What is your evidence for implying that their purpose is anything other than power generation?
Processing uranium is an integral part of the procedure to utilize nuclear energy. Stated aims are for nuclear power generation. What is the problem with that? There is no evidence that this is being used to produce weapons of any kind or that it will ever be used for that purpose.
Undervalued in comparison to what currency? The US dollar? The US dollar is excessively inflated, prices and wages overly high simply for the sake of being high. The Purchasing Power Parity of the Yuan to the Dollar is more than a factor of three. That is, a third of an amount in Yuan will buy the same types and quality of goods in China as it takes using US dollars to buy those goods in the US. For example, spend 400 Yuan and get the equivalent of more than 1200 USD in items in China. Worker rights must be balanced with worker productivity and value produced-otherwise China will take the same path into temporary dominance followed by vast decline that the US had.
You so greatly misinterpret the meaning of my comments as to seem intentionally modifying them to suit your motivations. I am commenting on institutions-an institution does not change due to whim, it changes due to demonstrated or at least high probability of gaining an advantage in what it does. I am not giving support to such ideologies as those you imply, it describes the reality of the situation for those who, unlike yourself who have evidently studied it and at best misinterpreted accidentally or at worst misinterpreted intentionally my comments, would read this without that knowledge; the point further is that such advantage must be demonstrated so that it acts as prompt and motivation for a change bringing advantage otherwise the institutions will ignore it as change costs, and unless repaid by some means that acts as deterrent over all else. On typing-the comment did not intend to answer that question, only to describe the realities of the situation to contribute to following discussions on explanatory ideas.
Aptitude due to efficiency of the function of the thoughts required for performance of particular work as derived from the biology of the male causes a greater advantage to be had than that of the female whose individual biology must provide for the same advantage or account for and allow equal or superior capacity. The male, due to the preponderance of the gender in that type of work, has an advantage-and as this advantage has continued through the period of equalisation between the genders, it is either biological or at the most extended institutional-but those institutions have been successful and definitive advantage is, due to those recorded successes, required to prompt efforts to change it-change for its own sake is not adequate or it would have already been accomplished.
Such then is the situation. The individuals who gather in many areas in the institutions training for these matters happen to be males, but the primary characteristic is that they for the majority do not care what others think, and wish to work for a collective or at least community benefit. These individuals then, act as they choose to. They are dominant in the area, and there are other areas of occupations and of hobbies-so, for those who do not wish to adapt to those behaviors-do not enter those hobbies. That is the situation, and the reality.
Each of your remaining points have been addressed in reverse order for coherence of analysis and description. On the individual level discrepancies remain as distribution of resources is limited by its nature, no nation and no government has ever "solved" that problem, but the individual is less important than the society and its development. The occasional counter-revolutionary movement develops and is suppressed in the same manner the US and every other nation has put down rebellions with a greater or lesser degree of success (reference the extended civil war of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the US civil war, the English war of the roses, etc,). Communism has not existed yet, you yourself admit that few have reached beyond the first revolutionary and provisional government-the exception that functions, China, followed the same path as every other nation for securing its power: the destruction of a class, but rather than labour it destroyed its intellectuals during a short period with the forced labour of the bourgeoisies alongside the willing labour of the proletariat (the situation for the latter could not have changed under the previous or any other system at the time, and the former would have mounted insurgencies against the provisional government of the dictatorship of the proletariat if not for that measure)-this was the Chinese socio-political situation that was adjusted at the rates required for progress rather than descent into disorder and even more massive starvation.
As for technology, I must request a greater explanation: the Soviets were the equals of the Americans in extra-orbital endeavors, and even perhaps superior in orbital endeavors. It was a engineering then though, for technology I can only assume you mean manufacturing-the majority of which that formerly was done in the US is now done in China (and low wages only account for a percentage-different depending on sources-of that. Military technology is as implied previously: China is a sufficiently capable nuclear power that foreign aggression is a side consideration in planning, and China has the largest army of any nation and, perhaps questionably superior, at least equal effective firepower with the nation that is considered by many to have the most military capacity presently-the US. If another meaning was implied, describe it in greater detail in your response and I will answer with agreement or counter-point based on analysis.
The first two points, on supposed human nature and that work for the betterment of society is not adequate motivation, I will respond to as follows: the individual may survive a few decades and some even a century and a few years, and the nation may or may not survive longer, but the legacy of a nation is much greater than the legacy of an individual. You are correct when you comment that a goal of Marx and Engles' Communism was international revolution (the anthem of the Soviet republics was the Internationale until its replacement in the 1960's). All forms of government are consistently out to expand the prevalence of the form of government t
Correction, of to - too seems necessary, revised: The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was too swift for the system that was implemented.
It is reassuring to find another user with an understanding of Russian history, I had begun to think the site was becoming no more than the playground of adolescents. I was not adequately clear, it seems, in describing what I was writing for-I meant to provide a description of the idea of the peoples' will with reference to Russian history for example, and with explanations of the faults it was subject to so that they would not be used as objections to the existence and possibility of the peoples' will. Yes, if it would be provided and does not cause an inordinate amount of difficulty, I would be interested in reading your essay-it is always beneficial to gain another perspective on Russia's history; if the email address is required: Jzanu#rtu#_#njl#Syr@mail.com with the obvious sections between # removed for title_title@mail.com.
My apologies for the omissions, the time available for the writing of the post was short. The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was to swift for the system that was implemented. Cuba is generally a second example. China, though, by Mao Tse Tung's skilled manipulations and skillful relations with and later stark separation from the Russian system accomplished the transition of an economy of Imperial feudalism as subject of the established nations into one of joint agrarian and technological accomplishment. Generally, the ideas for German Communism attempted in Russia did come close but the ideas never succeeded because at their foundations they were modeled after the German industrial economy, not the Russian agrarian economy of the period. Additionally, and as a discrete counter-point, China has succeeded thus far with its modified system that meets the Chinese economic situation and improves it. I believe that China has entered the second stage transition phase under the leadership of Hu Jintao, that it will take the transition from provisional revolutionary government into a socialist nation that, eventually, will become Communist fully and have the beneficent characteristics of the intellectual Communism from the models of Marx and Engles adapted to the Chinese socio-political situation..
Now, the comment made here is that Russia's errors after the fall of Kerensky's provisional government with the majority of the party support were not communist failures, but the extension of the Russian political environment that had developed under the centuries of the rule of the Tsars. Granted this, it is in fact an honour that Gates relates the groups opposing the
No, you illuminate the sections of the water vapour or pollutants in the atmosphere in the area forming a line leading to the star you are attempting to designate. A green laser point is particularly suited to this application.
Reference the single anonymous post attached to this sub-thread, it explains the simplistic foolishness represented by your post. Primarily, a laser light is subject to the same diffusing effect as any other light within an atmosphere, it was impossible for the man to have produced a green dot at the distance he was from the airplane.
Your comment "open your mind" means you wish for a reprieve from logical thought to the exclusion of illusory constructs made before even electricity was known formally? Your point is reminiscent of the very force holding back social progress in the US. There is a level at which it is permitted for a rational person to say: "That is irrational, inapplicable, and overtly detrimental so I should do all that I can to reduce its influence and power" (where it is an institution, nation, or other power). The elimination of regressive or detrimental ideology is integral to the advancement of the human species, after all the civilised world no longer drills holes into the skulls of epileptics to let out the "evil spirits," why should the modern world tolerate any remnants of regressive ideology?
As to the length of life, for the poor who are subjugated still by the pharmacology industry - life still ends roughly at the same time, when sickness or infirmity prevent continuous work for an extended length of time whether the work derived from them is 40 years or 80 years worth. The bourgeois benefit and the proletariat continue to be subjugated, so extended life expectancies are not a factor to consider in this respect.
Perhaps, dear comrade, you consider only direct violence to be the intent of the grandparent post, consider also that the situation is effectively the same when the subjugation of the proletariat is enforced with that scale of violence.
Apologies for the previous post without accurate user, instead as anonymous coward, this is not a cowardly comment. This issue brings up in the Americans those concerns and fervent defenses of individual "liberties" that are inapplicable with respect to the probable motivations for this effort. Rather than an attack on the certified right of supposed free speech (limited in each local division that was a state actually by varied and imprecise social considerations) the EU seeks for the welfare of its member nations. Nazi or misinterpreting person may disagree, in general though the rise of power of Nazi parties and the response to them by opponent caused immense destruction. Specific campaigns of one party or another, when found in history to have had destructive effect and are not dominant in the current power structures, the current power structures will destroy the detrimental to society party. This is the probable goal. Do not forget that not every person is fanatic individualist pseudo-libertarian and many recognize instead that the greatest lifetime benefit to individuals is a healthy and stable collective. EU is similar collective representing true states (nation states) in general agreement acting in this to seemingly both eliminate known destructive and destabilizing elements without majority support and further ensure collective security in social aspects (as yet, that is) for its per proxy granted citizens.
An error is present in many posts of response in this thread; that categories either exist or do not. Rather than propose a solution to an idealized and projected environment (seemingly what are used are the social-science equivalent of "physics-experiment land" in physics), a set of guidelines with emphasis on analysis and response based on the results of these analysis is appropriate; this is more in accord with diplomacy than attempt to impose personal philosophies on other humans as many other replies have been. As to the two vies on the existence of categories, neither is the case. Analysis of the situation is necessary. A strategy for optimum achievement for the individual must be formulated and include the following guidelines: 1) Facilitation of the development of the ability to objectively analyze a situation to determines any and all enemies, the weaknesses of those enemies, the means to manipulate the weaknesses of those enemies, and the ability to analyze the effect of manipulating the weaknesses of those enemies must all be included. 2) Firm and definite pronouncement to the individual of his/her capability to excel at what they have been observed to excel at, and recommendation of related subjects for study while allowing for variance must all be provided. 3) Emphasis that Society/"Others" must be harmed as little as possible, yet not to shy away from causing harm - to also explain that when it is necessary to harm others, that there should be no inordinate hesitation or grief. And finally 4) To obey what can be obeyed given reasonable self interests and to always have an awareness of the full effects of any course of action, whether it is by necessity for the self or by necessity for society. Response of suggestions for refinement or revision of segments are welcome, the intent is to provide a practical strategy for the questioner to implement.