hot enough for ya?

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

Donk, what you need is a massage from my friend's daughter. Seriously. Here is her bio...she's a grad student and budding massage therapist.

XXX is a PhD student of Women’s Studies, and a student of massage therapy...research focuses on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and wellness, especially among social justice activists...interested in intergenerational trauma; the compounding effects of microaggressions and of navigating oppressive structures on the body, mind, and spirit; the health impacts of chronic stress associated with inhabiting a marginalized body; ...in the potential role of massage, bodywork, or therapeutic touch in increasing wellness among marginalized people.

Unmarginalize yourself!

My body has been feeling increasingly marginalized and laden with oppressive structures lately.

But you really need to focus on getting the pathways open. It's all about open pathways.

[dead man walking]

Donk, what you need is a massage from my friend's daughter. Seriously. Here is her bio...she's a grad student and budding massage therapist.

XXX is a PhD student of Women’s Studies, and a student of massage therapy...research focuses on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and wellness, especially among social justice activists...interested in intergenerational trauma; the compounding effects of microaggressions and of navigating oppressive structures on the body, mind, and spirit; the health impacts of chronic stress associated with inhabiting a marginalized body; ...in the potential role of massage, bodywork, or therapeutic touch in increasing wellness among marginalized people.

science says she's correct about trauma resulting in a marginalized body:

molecular biologist Daniel Notterman latest study looks at one of the most devastating traumas to befall a child: the loss of a parent. . . . Notterman’s lab examined DNA samples from 2,420 9-year-old children in 20 American cities. He found a clear biological difference in those who had lost a father: a shortening of the length of vital sequences of DNA at the end of their chromosomes, called telomeres.

. . . Once telomeres become too short, cells stop dividing, weakening the immune system and other important inner functions, hastening the aging process.

not sure how a massage helps, although happy endings are always a good thing.

[Turdacious]

Donk, what you need is a massage from my friend's daughter. Seriously. Here is her bio...she's a grad student and budding massage therapist.

XXX is a PhD student of Women’s Studies, and a student of massage therapy...research focuses on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and wellness, especially among social justice activists...interested in intergenerational trauma; the compounding effects of microaggressions and of navigating oppressive structures on the body, mind, and spirit; the health impacts of chronic stress associated with inhabiting a marginalized body; ...in the potential role of massage, bodywork, or therapeutic touch in increasing wellness among marginalized people.

science says she's correct about trauma resulting in a marginalized body:

molecular biologist Daniel Notterman latest study looks at one of the most devastating traumas to befall a child: the loss of a parent. . . . Notterman’s lab examined DNA samples from 2,420 9-year-old children in 20 American cities. He found a clear biological difference in those who had lost a father: a shortening of the length of vital sequences of DNA at the end of their chromosomes, called telomeres.

. . . Once telomeres become too short, cells stop dividing, weakening the immune system and other important inner functions, hastening the aging process.

not sure how a massage helps, although happy endings are always a good thing.

Not sure the possibility of a happy ending exists here.

[Sangoma]

Climate ‘Science’ is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

[Turdacious]

For being overly pedantic, I sentence Smet to two hours of watching Ted Cruz watch pron.

[Turdacious]

Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

It is unclear when the new warrant started. The FBI interest deepened last fall because of intercepted communications between Manafort and suspected Russian operatives, and among the Russians themselves, that reignited their interest in Manafort, the sources told CNN. As part of the FISA warrant, CNN has learned that earlier this year, the FBI conducted a search of a storage facility belonging to Manafort. It's not known what they found.

The conversations between Manafort and Trump continued after the President took office, long after the FBI investigation into Manafort was publicly known, the sources told CNN. They went on until lawyers for the President and Manafort insisted that they stop, according to the sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/ ... olitics=Tw
The deep state ain't nothin' to fuck with.
The deep state ain't nothin' to fuck with.
The deep state ain't nothin' to fuck with.
Yo there's no place to hide as I step inside the room
Dr. Doom, prepare for the boom...

[dead man walking]

The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

no need for you kids and grandkids to worry about burning in hell, because they're gonna burn here on earth.

one reason; mammon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opin ... ght-region

[Turdacious]

Darwin's theory = horseshit

population of finches on the Galapagos has been discovered in the process of becoming a new species.

This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.

Researchers followed the entire population of finches on a tiny Galapagos island called Daphne Major, for many years, and so they were able to watch the speciation in progress.

The research was published in the journal Science.

The group of finch species to which the Big Bird population belongs are collectively known as Darwin's finches and helped Charles Darwin to uncover the process of evolution by natural selection.

In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.

Professors Rosemary and Peter Grant noticed that this male proceeded to mate with a female of one of the local species, a medium ground finch, producing fertile young.

Almost 40 years later, the progeny of that original mating are still being observed, and number around 30 individuals.

"It's an extreme case of something we're coming to realise more generally over the years. Evolution in general can happen very quickly," said Prof Roger Butlin, a speciation expert who wasn't involved in the study.
What makes a species?

This new finch population is sufficiently different in form and habits to the native birds, as to be marked out as a new species, and individuals from the different populations don't interbreed.

Prof Butlin told the BBC that people working on speciation credit the Grant professors with altering our understanding of rapid evolutionary change in the field.

In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.

"We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin. What he says is more interesting is understanding the role that hybridisation can have in the process of creating new species, which is why this observation of Galapagos finches is so important.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058

[Sangoma]

The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

no need for you kids and grandkids to worry about burning in hell, because they're gonna burn here on earth.

one reason; mammon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opin ... ght-region

I have been saying this since the beginning of this thread: the whole thing is a detraction from real issues. The root of most environmental problems is ever increasing consumption. Given the never ending barrage of marketing in virtually every facet of life this is not likely to end. So yeah, it's capitalism. To chase the debt and to keep the entire thing from collapsing the economy has to grow, and the only way to do it is to get people buy more shit. Or to let in more immigrants - who will buy more shit. More shit sold, more shit produced with corresponding use of energy and pollution.

[dead man walking]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

people who object to governmental interference are missing the point, which that is without stronger rules, the market is the problem.

by the way, did you see that antarctic ice sheets may start crumbling, which would allow glaciers to flow more rapidly into the ocean? as a result, new york might be uninhabitable in 2100 for a baby born today.

that's not certain, but odds of more rapid change may have gone up.

[Sangoma]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

With this I traditionally disagree. As mentioned numerous times before, temperature of the planet went up and down many times without the interference of humans. And, once again, this is not relevant: even if I believed that current warming is caused by humans, do you think it is practically possible to reverse it or even slow it down? Population grew from 1.6 to over 6 billion since 1900. GDP per capita in most countries increased five to ten times. The number of car per household, floor space per household, calorie intake per capita and pretty much every other per capita indicator significantly increased since 1900. And you reckon you can return the economy to the production levels of 1900? Do you possibly believe it is possible to make the economy clean enough to to return its environmental impact to 1900 levels? Good luck. But any measures short of extreme will only create jobs for bureaucrats and new taxes.

On the other hand, we could concentrate on other things. First, amplify the potentially positive effects of climate change. For example, shift agriculture profiles according to new climatic zones. Two, mitigate the effects of climate as they happen. Predictions are useless, and we have seen so many of them go wrong it's not even funny anymore. As far as NY and newborn kids are concerned, I say both will be fine. Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

[Turdacious]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

With this I traditionally disagree. As mentioned numerous times before, temperature of the planet went up and down many times without the interference of humans. And, once again, this is not relevant: even if I believed that current warming is caused by humans, do you think it is practically possible to reverse it or even slow it down? Population grew from 1.6 to over 6 billion since 1900. GDP per capita in most countries increased five to ten times. The number of car per household, floor space per household, calorie intake per capita and pretty much every other per capita indicator significantly increased since 1900. And you reckon you can return the economy to the production levels of 1900? Do you possibly believe it is possible to make the economy clean enough to to return its environmental impact to 1900 levels? Good luck. But any measures short of extreme will only create jobs for bureaucrats and new taxes.

On the other hand, we could concentrate on other things. First, amplify the potentially positive effects of climate change. For example, shift agriculture profiles according to new climatic zones. Two, mitigate the effects of climate as they happen. Predictions are useless, and we have seen so many of them go wrong it's not even funny anymore. As far as NY and newborn kids are concerned, I say both will be fine. Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

Using central planning based on Marxian principles? Based on 20th century success models of coarse...

[nafod]

Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

I think the opposite. We (meaning people a lot younger than me) will experience the loss of major world cities, and many haves will become have-nots, and move to take away from the new haves. Massive migrations of people from now unlivable coasts will result in tremendous unrest.

[dead man walking]

Using central planning based on Marxian principles? Based on 20th century success models of coarse...

that's a fair point, which explains why we're fucked.

capitalism has no effective way to deal with the problem, which in part is capitalism itself. and we don't have a model of central control that is promising.

scandanavia, perhaps?

but as sangoma says, there are a fuckton of people on the planet, and diverse democracies are ungovernable, and nationalist states won't cooperate.

nafod is correct. there will massive and violent disruption. you want mel gibson on your team.

[DrDonkeyLove]

The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

no need for you kids and grandkids to worry about burning in hell, because they're gonna burn here on earth.

one reason; mammon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opin ... ght-region

I have been saying this since the beginning of this thread: the whole thing is a detraction from real issues. The root of most environmental problems is ever increasing consumption. Given the never ending barrage of marketing in virtually every facet of life this is not likely to end. So yeah, it's capitalism. To chase the debt and to keep the entire thing from collapsing the economy has to grow, and the only way to do it is to get people buy more shit. Or to let in more immigrants - who will buy more shit. More shit sold, more shit produced with corresponding use of energy and pollution.

While we wring our hands lamenting over how horrible things are, let's also consider that this is the absolute best time in the history of our planet to be alive.

Rampant consumption is a problem on lots of levels. The keystone answer is to have fewer consumers. What is a wonderfully humane answer to excess consumers? Prosperity!

Look at the direction of native born birth rates in the US, Europe, and Japan. Birthrates in the 1st world are down down down. Want to clean the air in Delhi and Lagos, and Mexico city, make everyone there more prosperous so there will soon be fewer of them. At the same time let capitalism make Elon Musk's technology available to the people who live there.

Socialism isn't the cure, prosperity is.

This message has been brought to you by imperfect but amazing capitalism

[dead man walking]

that's a pretty picture, the 21st century as the garden of progress.

it's november, though, and civilization is about to die back after the flowering.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

With this I traditionally disagree. As mentioned numerous times before, temperature of the planet went up and down many times without the interference of humans. And, once again, this is not relevant: even if I believed that current warming is caused by humans, do you think it is practically possible to reverse it or even slow it down? Population grew from 1.6 to over 6 billion since 1900. GDP per capita in most countries increased five to ten times. The number of car per household, floor space per household, calorie intake per capita and pretty much every other per capita indicator significantly increased since 1900. And you reckon you can return the economy to the production levels of 1900? Do you possibly believe it is possible to make the economy clean enough to to return its environmental impact to 1900 levels? Good luck. But any measures short of extreme will only create jobs for bureaucrats and new taxes.

On the other hand, we could concentrate on other things. First, amplify the potentially positive effects of climate change. For example, shift agriculture profiles according to new climatic zones. Two, mitigate the effects of climate as they happen. Predictions are useless, and we have seen so many of them go wrong it's not even funny anymore. As far as NY and newborn kids are concerned, I say both will be fine. Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

I agree with most of what you say here. But I think where most activists, politicians, and scientists get it wrong is that they try to solve the MMGW problem from the confines of simply manipulating current capitalism in a way that will hurt some economies through taxes/fines and not others. All the same political wranglings we see in Washington over healthcare and taxes. Who gets screwed to pay for what?

What we need is a fundamental overhaul of our economic system that looks to provide abundance at the least possible waste and the least possible environmental impact. We have the technologies right now to do this. And the end result of that push would be lowering to nearly eliminating greenhouse gas emissions while providing all the food, energy, goods, and services we need (or desire).

Capitalism as it currently functions is creating a growing wealth gap that's leading to social and political problems that are only going to get worse as we run up against resource limits. A few ultra wealthy individuals/corporations control such a large portion of total wealth that they've been able to purchase the political systems to ensure their continued pillaging. The average citizen is nothing but an input in to the system that exists to funnel the productivity of that individual up to the ownership class in the form of fiat currency. Competitive capitalism by it's nature is not an "economy", because it encourages the depletion of resources as quickly as possible. A true "economy" would seek to maximize the efficiency of our resource use.

I'd start with putting our capital into a few moon-shot overhauls of our energy, food, transportation, and production philosophies, in that order. This would put us well on our way to abundance in a much more equitable fashion than pure market driven competitive capitalism.

Energy - The goal is to make energy so abundant as to be basically an afterthought, and as GHG neutral as possible. From everything I've learned, thorium reactors as base load generation along with much heavier implementation of local solar and wind would be the way to go. Thorium reactors a known technology, are safe, and the waste is an isotope that treats cancers. Have as much on-site solar as possible and wind where it's feasible. Subsidize the shit out of it.

Find the money in the military budget. It's a fucking travesty that we have over 600 bases strewn around over 125 countries when there are people in need in our own country. Take at least half that money and manpower and put it to work rebuilding our infrastructure.

Food - Remove the subsidies for animal agriculture. Period. If you want a steak, you need to pay the real environmental cost, which is something like $35/pound for even the most horrifically factory farmed piece of shit. Not to mention the water use for factory animal farming. And I'm not even touching on the health costs of our animal consumption or the ethics of factory animal farming.
US taxpayers subsidize animal agriculture to the tune of $38billion/year here. Grain feed crops for animal agriculture eat up another chunk of money and a ton of land. Fruits and vegetables receive basically zero. Take the animal subsidies and feed them directly into actual nutrition generating crops. Invest heavily in vertical farms nearer the cities. These vertical farms have the benefits of a year round growing season using LED lighting and controlled climate, 80% reduction in water use, 100% reduction of pesticide use, and the ability to be nearly 100% automated.
The goal is to make nutritious food as abundant as possible, as efficiently as possible. And as cheaply as possible. $38 billion/year would make that happen in short order.

Transportation - Stop investing in new automobile infrastructure. It's built out.
In the cities, invest in modern urban transportation such as Mikael Colville-Andersen and Gabe Klein talk about here:


Embrace autonomy and electrification of our automobiles and trucks so we can better utilize the infrastructure we have, especially for transportation outside the urban centers.
Re-invest in our rail system for moving goods long distance.
Moving money from highway building to other priorities will more than pay for these changes, and have the benefit of actually addressing traffic congestion and safety rather than just inducing more demand by building more lanes.

Production - First step is to implement a cradle-to-grave system so that a company is responsible for the entire life cycle of a product. They have to account for the impact of the raw materials to make it, and have a plan to reuse or recycle everything in the product and packaging after it's useful life is over.
No more shipping the waste we generate to India for them to burn for precious metals or dump it into the water if they can't use it. Enough of this shit.
Begin to move to a demand based production system rather than a supply based system. In other words, instead of Ikea stocking 500 of a certain chair in each store, they'd only make the chair and ship it to you once it's been ordered. Slightly more lead time on a product, but several orders of magnitude less waste. Localizing production with open source design and 3D printing will speed this along. Now resources are going where demand asks for it instead of supply creating demand.

No need to get UN approval or negotiate carbon reduction deals to get any of this done. Just reorganize our priorities. There's more than enough capital available to us to make this happen in a decade. Especially if we reign in the military industrial complex to a rational level. We set the example, and the world will follow.
Pipe dreams to be sure, but I think it's either we move in a direction similar to the above or we end up in a total Oligarchy.

[DrDonkeyLove]

that's a pretty picture, the 21st century as the garden of progress.

it's november, though, and civilization is about to die back after the flowering.

I didn't fully read this very important article from a paper of world renown but it seems to support my point, so I'm posting it as supporting evidence.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

that's a pretty picture, the 21st century as the garden of progress.

it's november, though, and civilization is about to die back after the flowering.

I didn't fully read this very important article from a paper of world renown but it seems to support my point, so I'm posting it as supporting evidence.

There's a documentary on Amazon called something like "Don't Worry, The Truth About Population" that goes into this in good detail. We'll peak in the next decades and then fall back over the next few generations.

[Sangoma]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

With this I traditionally disagree. As mentioned numerous times before, temperature of the planet went up and down many times without the interference of humans. And, once again, this is not relevant: even if I believed that current warming is caused by humans, do you think it is practically possible to reverse it or even slow it down? Population grew from 1.6 to over 6 billion since 1900. GDP per capita in most countries increased five to ten times. The number of car per household, floor space per household, calorie intake per capita and pretty much every other per capita indicator significantly increased since 1900. And you reckon you can return the economy to the production levels of 1900? Do you possibly believe it is possible to make the economy clean enough to to return its environmental impact to 1900 levels? Good luck. But any measures short of extreme will only create jobs for bureaucrats and new taxes.

On the other hand, we could concentrate on other things. First, amplify the potentially positive effects of climate change. For example, shift agriculture profiles according to new climatic zones. Two, mitigate the effects of climate as they happen. Predictions are useless, and we have seen so many of them go wrong it's not even funny anymore. As far as NY and newborn kids are concerned, I say both will be fine. Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

Using central planning based on Marxian principles? Based on 20th century success models of coarse...

There are no 20th century success - or failure - models. It would change things dramatically if those who quote Marxism took some time to actually read about it. Mind you, Das Kapital is about 1500 pages long. Marx was an outstanding economist and the Book covers a lot, I mean, a lot of ground. Carlos was wrong about one thing: if Proletariat takes power it will not lead to the destruction for the basis of the existence of classes, abolition of classes and creation of classless society. Instead, former Proletariat morphs into Bourgeois and the story repeats itself. That's what happened in USSR, not the realization of Marxist principles. It was also highly centralized with the government regulating everything, but this - again - has nothing to do with Marx. Australia, New Zealand, large part of Europe, Canada, to name the obvious, are not far off where USSR was in this respect. Just try build a house in Sydney, then come and talk to me about freedom of choices.

Anyways... Coming back to mitigacion and all. One of the most efficient levers a government has is the tax. You want your population move away from the coast? Decrease taxes for those living inland. You want farmers to grow different stuff in a given climactic zone? Make it profitable for them by reducing the tax. There are many more ways to do so. Every year I get a cheque from the government because several times a month I fly to work in the regional Australia, that's on top of what I get from my patients. That's how the shortage of doctors in that area is addressed. In any case, a ten-grader can come up with lots of ideas. Surely people in the government - supposedly the experts of how to run things - can come up with real solutions.

[Turdacious]

i would rephrase your "distraction" wording to say that climate change is a consequence of capitalism.

With this I traditionally disagree. As mentioned numerous times before, temperature of the planet went up and down many times without the interference of humans. And, once again, this is not relevant: even if I believed that current warming is caused by humans, do you think it is practically possible to reverse it or even slow it down? Population grew from 1.6 to over 6 billion since 1900. GDP per capita in most countries increased five to ten times. The number of car per household, floor space per household, calorie intake per capita and pretty much every other per capita indicator significantly increased since 1900. And you reckon you can return the economy to the production levels of 1900? Do you possibly believe it is possible to make the economy clean enough to to return its environmental impact to 1900 levels? Good luck. But any measures short of extreme will only create jobs for bureaucrats and new taxes.

On the other hand, we could concentrate on other things. First, amplify the potentially positive effects of climate change. For example, shift agriculture profiles according to new climatic zones. Two, mitigate the effects of climate as they happen. Predictions are useless, and we have seen so many of them go wrong it's not even funny anymore. As far as NY and newborn kids are concerned, I say both will be fine. Most effects of climate change will be much less dramatic than we are led to believe.

Using central planning based on Marxian principles? Based on 20th century success models of coarse...

There are no 20th century success - or failure - models. It would change things dramatically if those who quote Marxism took some time to actually read about it. Mind you, Das Kapital is about 1500 pages long. Marx was an outstanding economist and the Book covers a lot, I mean, a lot of ground. Carlos was wrong about one thing: if Proletariat takes power it will not lead to the destruction for the basis of the existence of classes, abolition of classes and creation of classless society. Instead, former Proletariat morphs into Bourgeois and the story repeats itself. That's what happened in USSR, not the realization of Marxist principles. It was also highly centralized with the government regulating everything, but this - again - has nothing to do with Marx. Australia, New Zealand, large part of Europe, Canada, to name the obvious, are not far off where USSR was in this respect. Just try build a house in Sydney, then come and talk to me about freedom of choices.

Anyways... Coming back to mitigacion and all. One of the most efficient levers a government has is the tax. You want your population move away from the coast? Decrease taxes for those living inland. You want farmers to grow different stuff in a given climactic zone? Make it profitable for them by reducing the tax. There are many more ways to do so. Every year I get a cheque from the government because several times a month I fly to work in the regional Australia, that's on top of what I get from my patients. That's how the shortage of doctors in that area is addressed. In any case, a ten-grader can come up with lots of ideas. Surely people in the government - supposedly the experts of how to run things - can come up with real solutions.

You're confusing socialism with Marxism. The core principle of Marxism is that human nature will permanently change through the process of revolutionary action.

[Sangoma]

You're confusing socialism with Marxism. The core principle of Marxism is that human nature will permanently change through the process of revolutionary action.

I am not confusing anything. You hinted that Marxist principles have been used somewhere to influence the economy, and I pointed out that Marxism has not been implemented anywhere. For some reason lately it has become fashionable to call any government regulation aimed at equalism Marxist.

And no, there is no "core principle" of Marxism, this philosophical and economic theory it is too complex to state there is one thing that describes it. What is the core principle of surgery? As always with theories like these, he got some things right and some wrong. But quoting Marxism in reference to the legislation of gender pronouns (courtesy Prof.Jordan Peterson) or examples of bad regulation by various governments is misplaced. Just like equating Nazism with Nietzsche or Wagner.

[DrDonkeyLove]

Marxism, socialism, it's now all moot to this subject.
Scientists, whom I choose to believe because they say what I want to hear (and isn't that the purpose of modern politicized science), did a long term study and found that the rate of global warming hasn't increased for 23 years.

The scientists are from Alabama so I assume the study is Roy Moore approved. Everything's gonna be alright

[Turdacious]

You're confusing socialism with Marxism. The core principle of Marxism is that human nature will permanently change through the process of revolutionary action.

I am not confusing anything. You hinted that Marxist principles have been used somewhere to influence the economy, and I pointed out that Marxism has not been implemented anywhere. For some reason lately it has become fashionable to call any government regulation aimed at equalism Marxist.

And no, there is no "core principle" of Marxism, this philosophical and economic theory it is too complex to state there is one thing that describes it. What is the core principle of surgery? As always with theories like these, he got some things right and some wrong. But quoting Marxism in reference to the legislation of gender pronouns (courtesy Prof.Jordan Peterson) or examples of bad regulation by various governments is misplaced. Just like equating Nazism with Nietzsche or Wagner.

The point of surgery is not to fundamentally change human nature via revolutionary struggle. Massive difference. This fundamental transformation of human nature is the point of Marxism.

[Sangoma]

Turd, at least read some Internet summary of Marxism before you commit to statements. As I said, there is a lot on 1500 pages of Das Kapital. If you want to mark the "key points", that would be class struggle, the ownership of the means of production, exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie and the eventual conflict that leads to socialist revolution. Also, according to Marx, communism - which was very vaguely defined in his work and was just an idea built on the critique of the existing socio-economic reality - was envisioned as much the result of technological advancement as much as the evolution of human views.