I never said it's bad for business. I said it's a terrible way to get cheaper gas. I was disproving his accusation, and the major accusation of most people.

Historical events are not unconnected, of course not.
What I'm saying is that there is no way to accurately look into the future or predict certain developments like Marx tried to do.

I suppose, but that's generally how political science goes - you take a string of events and study them systematically to find relationships between things and develop theories from them. It's funny because that was exactly what I was doing today in school.

Well Legault clearly said that he did want any referendum...

Yes, but beyond his language laws I don't like his policies very much

Anyway I think its gonna be Legault that will win...

He's not that much better, either. Lets not forget that I'm an anglophone.

Well Legault clearly said that he did want any referendum...

Yes, but beyond his language laws I don't like his policies very much

Sorry to be disrespectful, but what you have written here is no explanation but advertisement and personal judgement.

And let me tell you, I do not know about Kropotkin, but the supposedly "scientific" approach of Marx is not scientific but a fallacy.
In short, he was wrong. History is a string of coincidences; there is nothing to be divined out of it.

Alrighty, believe what you want to. I'm not going to try and change what you think because that's not really my way. All I'm going to say is that the 'scientific' approach to history was the use of a scientific process, that's all. One thing leads to another. That's how history. To think that history is just a series of unconnected events is just silly, isn't it? One thing leads to another, or influences something else.

Historical events are not unconnected, of course not.
What I'm saying is that there is no way to accurately look into the future or predict certain developments like Marx tried to do.

I suppose, but that's generally how political science goes - you take a string of events and study them systematically to find relationships between things and develop theories from them. It's funny because that was exactly what I was doing today in school.

francophone here. Dont worry, noting can be worse than Charest...

PQ is a thousand times worse than Cherest, and I went to the strikes and hated him with a burning passion.

Charest may be bad, but this Pauline Marois is a french Hitler.

Anyway I think its gonna be Legault that will win...

He's not that much better, either. Lets not forget that I'm an anglophone.

Well Legault clearly said that he did want any referendum...

Yes, but beyond his language laws I don't like his policies very much

Could you please explain in short what these texts should tell us and what these supposed similarities are?

The conquest of bread was the foundations for Anarcho Communism. The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in 1848 as a party guide to their special blend of communism. Both of them advocated many similar things, such as the abolition of the state and common ownership of the means of production. One could develop these similarities further, as Marx's communism was based on a 'scientific evaluation of history,' hence the term 'scientific socialism.' he was very critical of utopian socialism. Peter Kropotkin was a zoologist, and he used nature in defense of a lot of his ideas. Both works take a scientific approach to the subject.

My main point is that Marx was much more libertarian than people think (because they themselves haven't read anything besides the communist manifesto and didn't really think about it much.) The feud the Marx had with Bakunin was not over anarchy itself, but Bakunin's specific take on Anarchism (which is very shitty) and led people to believe that Marx hated freedom or something stupid like that.

His works are very complicated and I can't explain it in this small amount of text, but I hope this will do.

Sorry to be disrespectful, but what you have written here is no explanation but advertisement and personal judgement.

And let me tell you, I do not know about Kropotkin, but the supposedly "scientific" approach of Marx is not scientific but a fallacy.
In short, he was wrong. History is a string of coincidences; there is nothing to be divined out of it.

Alrighty, believe what you want to. I'm not going to try and change what you think because that's not really my way. All I'm going to say is that the 'scientific' approach to history was the use of a scientific process, that's all. One thing leads to another. That's how history. To think that history is just a series of unconnected events is just silly, isn't it? One thing leads to another, or influences something else.

Historical events are not unconnected, of course not.
What I'm saying is that there is no way to accurately look into the future or predict certain developments like Marx tried to do.

I suppose, but that's generally how political science goes - you take a string of events and study them systematically to find relationships between things and develop theories from them. It's funny because that was exactly what I was doing today in school.

Would like to give mine a try some time, but its not easy to find BULLETS for the bloody thing. Not many companies make the 7.7mm Arisaka round, most only carry the .303 Brittish. And those that do, seem to always be out of stock.

Couldn't you have your rifle re-chambered to something more common? I heard that's what a lot of G.I's did after they brought the captured rifles back home.

No, I meant that it would be awesome if I had that kind of money. Sorry it seemed otherwise.

Half of it's my fault if anything, I'm so damned cynical and stuff.

And that is why I said "If I made 50,000" and not "Anyone can live off of 50,000".

It just felt like you were one of those 'IF I CAN DO IT THEN SO CAN EVERYONE ELSE' people. Carry on :D

No, I meant that it would be awesome if I had that kind of money. Sorry it seemed otherwise.

Half of it's my fault if anything, I'm so damned cynical and stuff.