|
|
Post by maina on May 18, 2006 12:08:09 GMT 3
Hordes of authoritative bleeding hearts (the Onyango Oloos, et al) who are of of course athirst for worldviews like Marxism, Socialism, et al, in Kenya................yes, the dreamers/utopists, will not like what I will reveal here below! Trust me, Maina Gichohi really does care for your tastes though! But anyhow, angalia this manenos: www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htmwww.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Forbes_magazine_ups_Fidel_Castro_net_worth.html?siteSect=143&sid=6687280&cKey=1146807591000............................but wait a minute.....................these emblematic Jukwaa (as well as Kenyan) collectivists (aka Marxists) might blame "imperialist forces" for the defamation of their main "overlord" - Fidel, lakini , check this link out: www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000014/001499.htm. That's got nothing to do with "imperialists"!!!! My point; Marxists are utopists/dreamers who believe in anything, everything, and nothing, all at the same time! Karl Marx preached it, and as history has explicated, his philosophy is nothing but hooey. Yes, I said hooey! Has anyone ever wondered why Marx did not live to practice his worldview? Wacha tu! Like I said, Marxists, are excellent stargazeres, and since they themselves do not understand their own worldview (Marx NEVER did anyways), they seek to associate themseleves with the New Age "progressives while euphuitiscally hiddin behind "big" words like "democracy", "rights", "trend", et cetera! Now to hammer my point home, here is the ideal commentary: www.forbes.com/business/global/2006/0522/057.html. Now, if you're going to dispute Forbes Magazine, you better have proof, cause I checked out the facts personally, and their story is FACTUAL! That's all! Maina P.S. I am just musing who's philosophy Marxist worshippers will begin to hail next! Maina -unedited- |
|
|
|
Post by aeichener on May 18, 2006 12:38:52 GMT 3
Marxism gives us excellent tools for analysis and sharpens the view. Its dialectics are also fruitful. We should therefore learn from it and respect it. Anything ideology beyond that... *laugh*. And please also keep in mind that not every left-wing blabbermouth is entitled to call hirself a marxist.
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by ndauosa on May 18, 2006 13:39:21 GMT 3
I also post this link www.monbiot.com and read on what he has written on "A WELL OF HYPOCRACY" may 16th 2006 in foreign affairs, oil and what we kenyans should be aware of , and as we debate on issues to do with Tiomin, be warry of the entire system, not forgetting the powerfull influence of the Media. Mbona tunaji cheat na tuna ona mifano. Lini tuta think beyond mapua zetu. Tusha kuwa matoy zao. The co-operate. afandhali makondoo. |
|
|
|
Post by maina on May 19, 2006 2:51:33 GMT 3
Marxism gives us excellent tools for analysis and sharpens the view. Its dialectics are also fruitful. We should therefore learn from it and respect it. Anything ideology beyond that... *laugh*. And please also keep in mind that not every left-wing blabbermouth is entitled to call hirself a marxist. Alexander Alexander, Exactly who's view does marxism sharpen? And since you've taken a philosophical deportment, have dialectical arguments ever been logical to reality? C'mon! Marxism is about the future, period! There is nothing about the future you can predict! In philosophy we call it romanticism! That plainly and simply means that you SHOULD NOT believe or adhere to a worldview that cannot be tested and applied to REALITY as we know it and can test it TODAY! If you can, please let me know..........I'd be more than willing to examine it! Lastly, I started this thread because I mean to authenticate to fanciers such as Oloo, et al, (and Oloo, please do not take this personally), that Marxism is not and never is a worldview on its own! It's about pluralism which is inferred to mean relativism of ethics. Karl Marx actually awfully explicated and proved it in his Das Capital . In any case, and if you do not believe me (or even if you disagree with Marx), would you please (and compassionately I mean) just simply and plainly point at something that is incipiently Marxist? That is when you will score in this argument! Maina. P.S. Ndaousa, excellent article. I speclialize in money market pricing and rating, and in every meeting I attend with regards to energy assayance, these isues always come up! I'm waiting to see the Comprehensive role China will play in Kenya! |
|
|
|
Post by kipsang on May 20, 2006 11:57:46 GMT 3
Maina ..on your point
Marxists are utopists/dreamers who believe in anything, everything, and nothing, all at the same time! Karl Marx preached it, and as history has explicated, his philosophy is nothing but hooey. Yes, I said hooey! Has anyone ever wondered why Marx did not live to practice his worldview?
a very good conclusion but there is no thesis or body to your augument!
|
|
|
|
Post by maina on May 21, 2006 0:17:30 GMT 3
Maina ..on your point Marxists are utopists/dreamers who believe in anything, everything, and nothing, all at the same time! Karl Marx preached it, and as history has explicated, his philosophy is nothing but hooey. Yes, I said hooey! Has anyone ever wondered why Marx did not live to practice his worldview? a very good conclusion but there is no thesis or body to your augument! Neither is there in yours! I mean what is say and I say what I mean! -unedited- |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on May 21, 2006 18:42:12 GMT 3
"Now to hammer my point home, here is the ideal commentary: www.forbes.com/business/global/2006/0522/057.html. Now, if you're going to dispute Forbes Magazine, you better have proof, cause I checked out the facts personally, and their story is FACTUAL! That's all!"Maina, Asante for your 'mild provokation'! Its been a while. At least with your effort you have prompted me to respond to your observations. Sometimes mambo ni mengi! I am keen to counter your challenge above! But I am a little abit alarmed with your confident declaration as quoted above, particularly with your assertion that you have "checked out the facts personally and their story is FACTUAL!"To be honest, I was surprised to note that you seem to believe the Forbes' article to be "factual", and that you even were able to check on it "personally"! How, I ask? Just read the relevant excerpt from the article you seem to rely upon and declare as "factual" and then tell me something: "For another controversial dictator, Fidel Castro, we assume he has economic control over a web of state-owned companies, including El Palacio de Convenciones, a convention center near Havana; Cimex, retail conglomerate; and Medicuba, which sells vaccines and other pharmaceuticals produced in Cuba. Former Cuban officials insist Castro, who travels exclusively in a fleet of black Mercedes, has skimmed profits from these outfits for years. To come up with a net worth figure, we use a discounted cash flow method to value these companies and then assume a portion of that profit stream goes to Castro. To be conservative, we don’t try to estimate any past profits he may have pocketed, though we have heard rumors of large stashes in Swiss bank accounts. Castro, for the record disagrees, insisting his personal net worth is zero.
Firstly and foremost, Forbes have at least had the courtesy of openly declaring that theirs was just an "assumption"!. But I do not wish to dwell on the meaning of the word "assumption" for now at all. Assumption is assumption and that is where it starts and ends; simply an assumption!
But when you go on to declare that Forbes' is "factual"? I just wonder, did you mean to just state that it is "factual" that it is an "assumption" or what? Otherwise if not, your statement becomes inconsistent with Forbes', the originators of the article you appear to heavily depend on, in that your declaration has gone beyond the case of "assuming" and it is now "factual"!.
Another point is that Forbes state that they did not take into account any past profits Castro may have pocketed!. Which means they have only taken into account the profits Castro may have pocketed currently onwards, or impliedely, from the time of their investigation and the assumption-making onwards. Now this is a particularly significant and critical point which needs further examination!
Forbes declared that Castro has some "economic control" over a list of Cuba's state firms, and that he goes on to "skim the profits for years"! Fact is, it appears that Forbes had a firm "value" of what Castro is worth. Please just remind me, how many millions of dollars was it? Fact is, for anyone to be valued as worth a certain figure, the valuer would have to base hir estimate at least on the bearer's economic asssets one owns at the time,, you know, something the valuer can quantify and give value and to be existing at the time of that valuation. Besides, Forbes made it plainly clear that they did NOT take into consideration any past "skimming" Castro may have undertook!
But what is particularly disturbing as it turns out to be, is the fact that Forbes had only made their assumption on the profits streaming from Cuba's assets impliedly as they perform! Please note Forbes' words to the effect that "a portion of that profit stream GOES to Castro"! Note the word "Goes". Simply put, Forbes was stating that their "assumption" in made of a continuing process, a process which is certainly not fixed yet or completed for that matter, tobe able to be quantified in abstract!
And if it appears that the estimate was indeed based on the asumptions of an on-going and continiuing process as per the "streaming", was the value given to reflect the value of the "streaming" as it was taking place and at any given time, or was it the value of the "streaming" for a given period of time? Which is which? Please tell me it can only be one of them and not any of them! "Assumptions", huh!
OK, wacha nipoe for now, before going to Marxism and what have you, and continue making moer assumptions!
Have a nice day...
abdulmote.
|
|
|
|
Post by maina on May 21, 2006 20:17:12 GMT 3
"Now to hammer my point home, here is the ideal commentary: www.forbes.com/business/global/2006/0522/057.html. Now, if you're going to dispute Forbes Magazine, you better have proof, cause I checked out the facts personally, and their story is FACTUAL! That's all!"Maina, Asante for your 'mild provokation'! Its been a while. At least with your effort you have prompted me to respond to your observations. Sometimes mambo ni mengi! I am keen to counter your challenge above! But I am a little abit alarmed with your confident declaration as quoted above, particularly with your assertion that you have "checked out the facts personally and their story is FACTUAL!"To be honest, I was surprised to note that you seem to believe the Forbes' article to be "factual", and that you even were able to check on it "personally"! How, I ask? Just read the relevant excerpt from the article you seem to rely upon and declare as "factual" and then tell me something: "For another controversial dictator, Fidel Castro, we assume he has economic control over a web of state-owned companies, including El Palacio de Convenciones, a convention center near Havana; Cimex, retail conglomerate; and Medicuba, which sells vaccines and other pharmaceuticals produced in Cuba. Former Cuban officials insist Castro, who travels exclusively in a fleet of black Mercedes, has skimmed profits from these outfits for years. To come up with a net worth figure, we use a discounted cash flow method to value these companies and then assume a portion of that profit stream goes to Castro. To be conservative, we don’t try to estimate any past profits he may have pocketed, though we have heard rumors of large stashes in Swiss bank accounts. Castro, for the record disagrees, insisting his personal net worth is zero.
Firstly and foremost, Forbes have at least had the courtesy of openly declaring that theirs was just an "assumption"!. But I do not wish to dwell on the meaning of the word "assumption" for now at all. Assumption is assumption and that is where it starts and ends; simply an assumption!
But when you go on to declare that Forbes' is "factual"? I just wonder, did you mean to just state that it is "factual" that it is an "assumption" or what? Otherwise if not, your statement becomes inconsistent with Forbes', the originators of the article you appear to heavily depend on, in that your declaration has gone beyond the case of "assuming" and it is now "factual"!.
Another point is that Forbes state that they did not take into account any past profits Castro may have pocketed!. Which means they have only taken into account the profits Castro may have pocketed currently onwards, or impliedely, from the time of their investigation and the assumption-making onwards. Now this is a particularly significant and critical point which needs further examination!
Forbes declared that Castro has some "economic control" over a list of Cuba's state firms, and that he goes on to "skim the profits for years"! Fact is, it appears that Forbes had a firm "value" of what Castro is worth. Please just remind me, how many millions of dollars was it? Fact is, for anyone to be valued as worth a certain figure, the valuer would have to base hir estimate at least on the bearer's economic asssets one owns at the time,, you know, something the valuer can quantify and give value and to be existing at the time of that valuation. Besides, Forbes made it plainly clear that they did NOT take into consideration any past "skimming" Castro may have undertook!
But what is particularly disturbing as it turns out to be, is the fact that Forbes had only made their assumption on the profits streaming from Cuba's assets impliedly as they perform! Please note Forbes' words to the effect that "a portion of that profit stream GOES to Castro"! Note the word "Goes". Simply put, Forbes was stating that their "assumption" in made of a continuing process, a process which is certainly not fixed yet or completed for that matter, tobe able to be quantified in abstract!
And if it appears that the estimate was indeed based on the asumptions of an on-going and continiuing process as per the "streaming", was the value given to reflect the value of the "streaming" as it was taking place and at any given time, or was it the value of the "streaming" for a given period of time? Which is which? Please tell me it can only be one of them and not any of them! "Assumptions", huh!
OK, wacha nipoe for now, before going to Marxism and what have you, and continue making moer assumptions!
Have a nice day...
abdulmote.
Abdulmote, Yeah, it's been a long time. I was in Washington last week (that is before the Forbes article was publicly unleashed) and I can guarantee you that Fidel de Castro is a mighty larcenist! That is not a legal issue like you are recklessly trying to argue. No! It is a fact! And if you think (just like other Marxists) that the CIA could have "doctored documents" to validate this fact, that is also wrong. I saw the facts, and that is why I believe them! Actually, there was a lecture about it at Brookings and some noisome African leaders were mentioned. And by the way, Forbes has these facts too! Fidel is an intrinsic autocrat! That is conclusively factual. Maina -unedited- |
|
|
|
Post by roughrider on May 22, 2006 8:38:58 GMT 3
Maina,
Whatever the truth about Castro and his millions, and whatever our own persuasions we must not allow a fallacy to persist. The fallacy being refered to in this case is that of suggesting that marxism or socialism or communism are any lesser because of the contradictory behaviour of an adherent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 22, 2006 17:25:59 GMT 3
www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/mayo/mar16/21fidel1.htmlFIDEL REFUTES FORBES "I call on them to prove that I have one single dollar!"BY MARIA JULIA MAYORAL, PEDRO DE LA HOZ AND JOSE DE LA OSA—
Granma daily staff writers—PRESIDENT Fidel Castro has challenged and called on Bush, the CIA, the 33 U.S. intelligence agencies, the thousands of banks in the world and the "servants" of Forbes magazine, which claims that Fidel has a fortune of $900 million, to prove that he has even one dollar in an overseas account. In exchange for just one shred of evidence, he said that he would offer them everything that they have tried and failed to do over almost half a century, during which time they have tried to destroy the Revolution and assassinate him via hundreds of conspiracies. "I’m giving you everything you’ve tried," he said, " and don’t come with your foolishness and wayside stories. Show me an account, of just one dollar," he emphasized. "If they can prove that I have one single dollar, I will resign from all my responsibilities and the duties I am carrying out; they won’t need any more plans or transitions, if they can prove that I have one single dollar," the revolutionary leader said emphatically. "They’ve gotten themselves in a real fix with those lies, and that Gordian knot must be broken, and we’re going to break it, without the slightest doubt," he affirmed, referring to the U.S. publication attributing him with all the returns of the country’s public enterprises. "Why would I want money, if I’m soon to be 80 and I didn’t want it before?" Fidel asked, adding that during his life he had entrenched himself in principles and had never abandoned them. He said that he had been calculating the number of suitcases it would take to carry around that amount of money, and commented that it would be about 1,000. "Who took them? On what airplane? Who carried them, who escorted them? How could I be taking out money for so many years? They are stupid, aside from the moral arguments that could be brandished.""It’s simply an insult," he added. He accused them of wanting to make him look like one of the thieves that they nursed. "Where is Mobutu's money? Where is the Somoza family’s money?" Fidel said that in the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars stolen via U.S. banks. "There they are: bring out the lists, publish them," he said. Fidel said what was much more horrible than "painting" him as a thief was making him seem to be betraying the dead, those who died in the Moncada attack, aboard the Granma, in the Sierra Maestra, in the Escambray, in the Bay of Pigs, on internationalist missions or defending the country from terrorist attacks. It would be like betraying entire generations who have fought, he emphasized. The president added that what the Forbes "bandits" should publish is his Olympic record, throughout history, of being the person whom the most powerful empire on Earth has tried to assassinate the most times. He noted the contrast that while those infamies against Cuba and its leaders are being churned out, the country is working on a program that will enable millions of Latin Americans to receive restorative eye surgery. Referring to the thousands of patients who have benefited from Operation Miracle, Fidel asked what those people would think when they read the newspapers talking about his personal wealth. "It is a campaign to make me look like a thief," he said, adding that it had a goal: to destroy Cuba, to make Castro look like a crook so that nobody will acknowledge anything that is done to benefit others, even though we are a country that has some 25,000 health professionals working free of charge in a large number of countries. "And that is because we have human capital, and we certainly can rely on $100 billion in human capital," he commented. He read what had been published by several media agencies echoing the libel published by Forbes, and noted that while deliberate lies were being published, nothing has been said about the almost 20,000 Latin American medical students studying in Cuba, or the fact that this country will be educating almost 100,000 doctors over the coming years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 22, 2006 17:39:41 GMT 3
Maina:
For quite some time I have noticed you very anxious to pick unprovoked fights with one Onyango Oloo. It is not once that I have noticed an infantile attention seeking outburst calling out my name and denouncing the "collectivists" and "Marxists" of JUKWAA.
I would have been more interested if you had injected a modicum of mild intelligence into your silly swipes at me.
What is beyond stupid is to recycle far-fetched propaganda about Fidel Castro from Forbes to push (using the most unconsciously comical, pompous and ridiculous language) kindergarten level inanities about socialism and Marxists.
Can you do me a favour and GROW UP from your obsessions with Onyango Oloo?
In addition when you do try to "combat Communism" in JUKWAA can you perhaps take the precaution of doing some elementary research on your favourite topic.
From what you spout and vomit at the beginning of this thread, it is quite apparent that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about the philosophical, economic, social and ideological underpinnings and fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism.
Onyango Oloo
Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on May 22, 2006 18:06:20 GMT 3
May Tuesday 16th 2006 (22h59) : Please, Not Fidel Castro’s Fortune Again! 1 comment(s). From AxisofLogic.com Please, Not Fidel Castro’s Fortune Again! By Pascual Serrano. Translated from Spanish for Axis of Logic by Barbara Maseda and revised by Nancy Almendras, Tlaxcala* May 15, 2006, 14:46 bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=11973Forbes magazine says that he has a 900 million dollar fortune. Let’s see how they calculated it. Once again Forbes magazine has included the Cuban president in the list of what they call the richest “kings, queens and dictators." Of course, all the media enthusiastically echoed this information, released every year. If we search in Google News, we’ll see that more than a hundred websites report, not on the list of millionaire rulers, but on Fidel Castro’s presence in the list, despite his position is not the first one, but the seventh. One can presume that if the Cuban president would not be in this inventory, the wealth of these people wouldn’t be breaking news. The magazine reports that Castro’s fortune reached 900 million dollars this year, almost double the 550 millions in 2005. But the most important is to see how Forbes calculated Castro’s money. In the website they explained: "For another controversial dictator, Fidel Castro, we assume he has economic control over a web of state-owned companies, including El Palacio de Convenciones, a convention center near Havana; Cimex, retail conglomerate; and Medicuba, which sells vaccines and other pharmaceuticals produced in Cuba.".[1] Of course the president of Cuba has the control of the governmental companies, just like in every other country. But this time Forbes has varied its last year thesis, when they claimed that the companies were owned by Castro. It continues: "Former Cuban officials insist Castro, who travels exclusively in a fleet of black Mercedes, has skimmed profits from these outfits for years." All the Cubans know that Castro rides in a twenty-year-old black Mercedes, accompanied by cars of his guard, like the rest of the presidents, especially those that the US has attempted to assassinate. In most of the countries all the ministers and many managers have a Mercedes, and quite less old than Castro’s. The reasoning about former officials saying that he "has skimmed profits from these outfits" as evidence of his wealth, is a worthless empty argument. His “fortune” certainly doesn’t come from the profits of the Palacio de Convenciones, a centre where public acts are held, and where the single money circulating is the Cuban peso, in case one wants to buy a one peso [2] coffee in the bar. As for Medicuba and Cimex -as I pointed out last year replying the same Forbes’ argument-, both are public companies that market national products. There is not any registration or document establishing that these companies belong to the president, all the countries have public companies. And here comes Forbes’ real challenge, How much has the president kept for himself? This is the way they calculated it: "To come up with a net worth figure, we use a discounted cash flow method to value these companies and then assume a portion of that profit stream goes to Castro." That way, instead of 900 millions they could have found twice as much; after all, it was just about imagining the "portion of that profit stream" which they believe “goes to Castro." If they will do the same next year, they’ll probably be able to report that his fortune has doubled. The report goes on: "To be conservative, we don’t try to estimate any past profits he may have pocketed, though we have heard rumors of large stashes in Swiss bank accounts. Castro, for the record disagrees, insisting his personal net worth is zero." In fact, to prove the existence of his fortune they should have detected money in a bank account in his name, or title deeds accrediting him as owner or usufructuary. Strange millionaire this one, whose jewels, yachts, mansions and holidays skiing or in the beach are invisible. After analyzing Forbes’ calculation method, it is obvious that they don’t have evidence of money in any bank account, nor properties in his name. Nonetheless, they continue to say that he has 900 million dollars. In 2003, the magazine established Fidel Castro’s wealth was about 110 million dollars. They have said before that it was very complicated to estimate these fortunes, so they calculated the Cuban president’s personal treasure assuming that a percentage of Cuba’s gross domestic product (GDP) was going to his pocket. So simple like that. The news coverage on the issue was contradictory. Reuters began its report saying that “the Cuban President Fidel Castro got furious when Forbes magazine estimated his fortune at 550 million dollars last year". Several paragraphs later on, the same note said that "Castro had stated that he was considering to suit Forbes after the publication of the list in 2005, and he laughed at the fact that his fortune was very similar to that of the queen of England.” He got furious and laughed at the same time? He made those comments at the Palacio de Convenciones -the same one making him rich- before thousands of Cubans. Indeed, -I was there- he amusedly highlighted that the fortune attributed to him was similar to that of the British Queen, and he added that to take or not any actions against the magazine was up to him. It looked like Castro was going to overcome Queen Elizabeth this year. But according to the media, neither the Buckingham Palace, nor the crown jewels were considered part of her fortune. On the other hand, Fidel Castro gets 900 millions with the yields of Palacio de Convenciones where only official events are held and the entrance is free of charge. If instead of being a socialist president determined to share his Palacio de Convenciones with the Cubans, Fidel Castro would be a fifty thousand million dollar capitalist like Bill Gates, he would certainly be awarded the Prince of Asturias Prize for International Cooperation in Spain. Notes [1] Forbes’ report [2] Less than $ 0.10 (dollars). Visit the author’s website at: www.pascualserrano.netThis article was originally published in Rebelión. Translated from Spanish by Barbara Maseda, and revised by Nancy Almendras, both members of Tlaxcala (www.tlaxcala.es), the network of translators for linguistic diversity.
By : pascual serrano
May Tuesday 16th 2006 Comments > Please, Not Fidel Castro’s Fortune Again! 17th May 2006 - 05h38 - Posted by 4.***.57.** The keyword here is that Forbes "assumed". Thus, everything that follows is an assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by maina on May 25, 2006 13:54:32 GMT 3
Oloo, Ati you "have noticed [my] very anxious to pick unprovoked fights with one Onyango Oloo"  ? Please don't be delusional. Who is attacking your person? Do you really think my remonstrations are about "one Onyango Oloo"? C'mon! Besides, weren't you the same character who in one of your temerarious days intiated a thread (right here in this blog) with the so called "36 questions for Kiraitu", that were of course based on the evidence elicited by one John Githongo who you had previously (and prudently by the way), and in yet an antithetcal affectation, reckoned to be backed by "imperialist forces"? Contradictory? Go figure!!!! Now you've arrogated yourself the collectivist (aka Marxist) deportment and decided to denigrate one Maina Gichohi, while hiding behind your fanatical worldview? Hmmm! Know what though? I'm doing an original article that I will post right here on Jukwaa about your hallowed "tenets" of "marxism-leninism"! After that I expect you to of course deal with me on the very "philosophical", "economical" and "social" (your very words) standings you are boldly talking about! Otherwise, you need to believe that I will of course attact your spectacular and visionary worldview; with forceful recklessness - an exclusivistic fact! Actually, Oloo, it is disturbing that a Kenyan can stand true to a utopist philosophy when it has not and cannot be tested to reality as we know it! Quite frankly, that is shameful. Lastly, (and in a lil' more of my "attention seeking outbursts"), I recall having stated right here in Jukwaa that Forbes is right! Actually, the word is factual. Besides, they are the only review that does these kinds of assessments and they have always been considered factual! You are of course free to assume that they (Forbes) assumed! That also implicitly implies that you are also (of course), free to continue your embellished and unrefined carryings-out of Fidel's faithfulness! Maina -unedited- |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on May 25, 2006 16:49:27 GMT 3
Maina, come on! The "assumption" quoted above is not anybody's word. Rather it is the Forbes' word as openly declared in their subject article! Yes, they did attribute their own opinion as made out of "assumptions"! And besides, no one in their right sense should believe anything said by anyone, simply because the sayer appears to possess credible characteristics which are historically known. On the contrary, every piece of information coming out of anybody's mouth ought to be assessed stricly on its own merit all the time that happens. Now that is commonsense.
And in doing that, it does not mean one is simply and mischeiviously questioning the sayer's integrity or holds one in contempt. But instead, it is a way of establishing the truthfulness of any significant observations made, especially when such opinions may appear to be rather accentric and controvertial in their contents. Now then, the Forbes article raises a good number of crakes which certainly cannot and should not be ignored. But citing everything coming out of Forbes as to be "factual"...I find that rather disturbing especially coming from a person of your calibre! Otherwise how can that be?
As to your observations on Marxism as an idealogy...OK, one must accept the fact that 'Marxism' per se may inherently provide an impracticle proposition when considered as whole, hence its apparent 'failure'. But we must also accept the fact that Marxism as an ideology presents mankind (and please no gender issues here) with irrefutable truths on significant factors affecting our human social, economical and political environment and those we ought to know.
That is good information and knowledge gained irrespective of the theory's impracticalities. Karl's insights undeniably provides us with the 'necessary' alternative perspectives which we would have otherwise missed perhaps even entirely considering the current trends! What needs to be learned from his ideas need not be only by those who loudly proclaim their 'loyalties' to, and repeatedly declare their ideological affiliation to Marxism. The gains to be made are for everyone who has the capacity and sufficient enthusiam to learn about one's 'sorroundings'.
Tell us, what would you accept and agree with Marxism and what won't you? We just want to learn from others that we may know better!
|
|
|
|
Post by job on May 25, 2006 19:19:47 GMT 3
Abdulmote,
Habari za UK?
Thanks for your final remarks. I agree, there's obviously two sides to any debate and it's best to examine both sides comprehensively. It is easier to learn (or rather hear from both sides) if the arguments emanate from academically tolerant, inquisitive, confident and YET calm minds,..... rather than temperemental, judgemental and "fixed-in-box" minds of those who always naively think their stand-point is ABSOLUTE,....nothing else should be tolerated.
You will calmly discern the differences through the course of this debate.
I'm no expert here, but think there's always merit and demerits to any ideological, social, or economic systems or theories.
The Forbes report raises interesting issues, but isn't Forbes not a leading Capitalist magazine. Who expects a Capitalist magazine to offer accolades to Castro or anything tied to him.
Of course, what Forbes says cannot be the absolute and exclusive truth, especially when writing about Castro. In fact part of the Forbes report goes on to say: "To be conservative, we don’t try to estimate any past profits he (Castro) may have pocketed, though we have heard rumors of large stashes in Swiss bank accounts. Castro, for the record disagrees, insisting his personal net worth is zero."
Sounds like an all too familiar and recycled hearsay from one side. Another example of "he-says-she-says" kind of argument.
Good to hear from both sides though.
un-edited
Job
|
|
? Please don't be delusional. Who is attacking your person? Do you really think my remonstrations are about "one Onyango Oloo"? C'mon!