<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ryanamur:

I'm glad that we can agree . However, I don't think that the Muslims (living in the Middle East) need to grow up and make their way into the XXIst Century. I believe that every civilization will evolve at its own pace and that if we try to force others to evolve, we will only face a brick wall that might just fall appart on us... and that would be very bad for us! Ironically, that's what we are doing (trying to force them to evolve!) and it blew up in our faces

I don't believe that our system or our way of life would be good for all civilizations. Yet, I certainly don't think that the Middle East way of live is for me. If they are happy, let them be!

I also don't believe that a democracy is appropriate for all culture or civilization. I'm really reluctant to force my set of cultural beliefs and values on others!
<hr></blockquote>

While I agree that democracy may not be for everyone, those who chose to live in a non-democratic setting had damned well better get used to the fact that we like living in one and we prefer countries that do as well. Hence, if they (the Arabs) want to continue living in non-democratic setting, then they'd better get used to the FACT that we will ALWAYS favor a democratic Israel over Arab tyranies. Maybe we shouldn't be forcing our beliefs on them, but the reverse is ALSO true.

I also agree with you that civilizations evolve, not change overnight. (Sometimes, I think liberals conveniently forget that statement when it comes to change within the USA.)

But the reason that I said that I think the Arab world needs to grow up was not strictly to say that they need to become liberal democratic societies. Rather, the world is rapidly become a very small place and if the Arab world want to interact with the Western world, they need to be more accepting, a little more open-minded.

If they hate Western culture so very much, then perhaps the should do a post WW2 communist China and cut all ties to the rest of the world. Oooops. No oil revenue. Whether they like it or not, a vast portion of the Arab world's economy is based on oil production and sales to the West. We are their customer. I tend to think that they cannot economically survive without us. (And the reverse is probably also true.)

I'm not really certain where I'm going with this reply, other than to say. I think that I was correct in the first place, The Arab world does need to grow up. I'm not saying that they need to be like us. But they need to be more tolerant of us. We are completely tolerant of their monarchies and dictatorships, so long as they don't impact our vital interests. We haven't tried to boot out the Saudi monarchy, even if we might think that a democracy would be better. We only attacked Iraq after they threatened a vital Western interest. We haven't attacked Iran, regardless of how much they seem to hate us. They haven't attacked any vital Western interests.

I suppose the most simple way to say this is "Don't bug us and we won't bug you."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
But I would ask if the Taliban needed removing this badly, why didn’t we do it earlier? I might almost go so far as to say that we shouldn’t have put them in power. <hr></blockquote>


Barry this has been pointed out here numerous times, and has been widely discussed in the media:

"We" didn't put them in power. You are confusing them perhaps with the Mujahedin that fought against the Soviets - including Bin Laden.

The Taliban were a group of religious students from the hills who rose to power during the incessant civil warring long after the Soviets left.

Didn't mean to be a stick in the mud.

Good on you for writing the article.

I suppose you know that once you join and use the media you're as subject to criticisms of bias and agenda as the next writer. Much harsher than anything I'll ever dish out. I didn't mean to be overly critical, but once stuff is published, it's very hard (and expensive) to take it back, so making sure facts are correct is imperative.

Have a good day Barry.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:



But the reason that I said that I think the Arab world needs to grow up was not strictly to say that they need to become liberal democratic societies. Rather, the world is rapidly become a very small place and if the Arab world want to interact with the Western world, they need to be more accepting, a little more open-minded.

If they hate Western culture so very much, then perhaps the should do a post WW2 communist China and cut all ties to the rest of the world. Oooops. No oil revenue. Whether they like it or not, a vast portion of the Arab world's economy is based on oil production and sales to the West. We are their customer. I tend to think that they cannot economically survive without us. (And the reverse is probably also true.)

I'm not really certain where I'm going with this reply, other than to say. I think that I was correct in the first place, The Arab world does need to grow up. I'm not saying that they need to be like us. But they need to be more tolerant of us. We are completely tolerant of their monarchies and dictatorships, so long as they don't impact our vital interests. We haven't tried to boot out the Saudi monarchy, even if we might think that a democracy would be better. We only attacked Iraq after they threatened a vital Western interest. We haven't attacked Iran, regardless of how much they seem to hate us. They haven't attacked any vital Western interests.

I suppose the most simple way to say this is "Don't bug us and we won't bug you."<hr></blockquote>


Very good points, now, lets reverse the situation and apply it to us! They don't want us to become totalitarian, they don't want to force their beliefs upon us, they are attacked when they act in a way that is detrimental to our interest... so tell me, who's forcing who?

Now, what do you think would happen if they decided to cut ties with the West? The West would go in, just like we did in Iraq, to "fix" the problem from our perspective. The reality of it is that the vast majority of Arabs living in the Middle East don't get anything from the oil revenues, they go straight into the hands of the princes and rulers. Take the oil revenues out and it won't affect the majority of the population.

The Arab world doesn't need to grow up, it's the World (including us) who needs to grow up and learn to interact!

QUOTE from Magness. -- Just to "prove" (for whatever its worth to you) that I did listen in class, I remember that it was believed that the first communist revolution would occur in a European industialized country or the USA first, rather than the agrarian Imperial Russia. I also remember that Lenin, while hardly an angel, seemed to be a relatively decent enough sort, as revolutionary leaders go (also seen thru the lens of looking back many decades into the past). Having said that, I still believe that the philosophy that he was supporting was still evil.
Cuba is an evil repressive communist dictatorship and, once Castro is pushing up daisies, Cuba will be the better for it. --


This is what I fail to understand from the reasoning of some north americans (another thing that I dont understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent).

Mixing politics with religion only complicates matters, and thats EXACTLY what makes bush as dangerous (or maybe even more) as bin laden. Saying a regime is evil is just oversimplifying and putting things in black and white. Especially in the case of cuba. Most of the cuban problems are due to the US embargo promoted by the corrupt cuban-americans that live in miami (bush's little brother jeb, by the way, made his personal fortune doing shady bussines with them).

That is why president bush scares me so. A not very bright, ultra-religious and wrightwing fanatic in the presidency of the one superpower that can throw an atomic bomb and walk free is a REALLY scary thought.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
This is what I fail to understand from the reasoning of some north americans (another thing that I dont understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent).<hr></blockquote>

We don't insist on calling ourselves Americans anymore than you might insist on calling yourself European. Either is accurate, but doesn't mean any one nation is the sole inhabitant of a continent.

That's not the thinking at all, it's just shorter than saying a United States American. America is part of the name of our country. I guess we could call ourselves USers [img]smile.gif[/img] I'd also point out that it isn't just US citizens who refer to ourselves as Americans, but the world refers to US as Americans as a generalization.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
Mixing politics with religion only complicates matters, and thats EXACTLY what makes bush as dangerous (or maybe even more) as bin laden. Saying a regime is evil is just oversimplifying and putting things in black and white. <hr></blockquote>


Bush hasn't claimed the religious "high ground" on this issue. Everything possible has been done to keep religion out of the conflict. Terming something "evil" doesn't invoke religion.

Sometimes things are black and white, and sometimes people want too much grey.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
...president bush scares me so. A not very bright, ultra-religious and wrightwing fanatic in the presidency of the one superpower that can throw an atomic bomb and walk free is a REALLY scary thought.<hr></blockquote>

This is certainly an oversimplification.

All black and white, here ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


This is certainly an oversimplification.

All black and white, here ;) <hr></blockquote>

yep, you got me. it seems oversimplification is like a virus these days. I usually pick up lots of them anyways. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
QUOTE from Magness.
This is what I fail to understand from the reasoning of some north americans (another thing that I dont understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent).
<hr></blockquote>

What the ??!?!?. I don't call myself an American, I call myself Canadian! :D As far as I know, only Americans (people who live in the US or have dual US citizenship) call themselves American! People who live in Mexico (the only other country in North American) call themselves Mexicans [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

another thing that I don't understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent.<hr></blockquote>

"America" is the name of the nation. The "United States" is a situation. A way the nation is organised.

The Commonwealth of Australia consists of Australians.

The Dominion of Canada consists of Canadians.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of British and North Irish.

The United States of Europe will consist of Europeans.

I mentioned this in another thread a while ago. It's not the fault of Americans, as it's the name of the nation. It's the fault of whoever named the place.

It seems that the European government are going to make the same mistake.

Will Swiss, Norwegians and Russians still be able to call themselves Europeans while not being in the Union? ;)

Still, there are two continents named America. North and south. Combined they are the Americas. Americans are not calling themselves North Americans (thus taking the name of the continent) nor Americasians. [img]smile.gif[/img]

ok, I got it now. You always learn something new, as they say.

Moito Obrigado Yorick (thanks a lot)! [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



It's actually much more accurate than "Indian". I guess we could call them Indigenous Americans. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

A fair few sociologists/historians refer to them as "Amerindian".

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Communism is dead? I think Fukuyama is fundamentally wrong on that one to be honest. One nation socialism as tried in Russia has failed. I think everyone knew it would and I would never argue differently. Read the Communist Manifesto, it is completely different from how you imagined it I would bet. The whole idea of Communism is that it has to happen globally and it has to happen when people are ready for it. That was blatantly not the case in Russia, or China. This is why I think one of the only countries as a socialist I can learn from is Cuba. They have done remarkably well considering what they ahd to start off with. But that is another argument.<hr></blockquote>

Failed in Russia (twice. Under Stalin, Russia had a pseudo-capitalist economy for a while)
Failed in:
Khazakstan,
Uzbekistan,
Ukraine,
Byelorussia,
Estonia,
Latvia,
Lithuania,
Moravia,
Kirgiztan,
Tajikstan,
Georgia,
Armenia
Turkmenistan;

as well as:
Mongolia,
Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia,
Hungary,
East Germany,
Poland,
Romania,
Bulgaria,
Albania.

A few more than "one country" wouldn't you say?

China is now partialy capitalist, and includes a totally capitalist Hong Kong.

Cuba is way more capitalist than it was during the hight of the cold war. Even so, if it wasn't repressive, why do people flee it when they can? They are still seeking asylum in America.

Also, elected government? Well sure. Russia had an elected government too. You could elect different individuals, but not different parties. Kind of lame if you ask me. "Once you pick us, there's no going back" Very cowardly not disallowing dissention.

Finally, Communism was meant to be transitory until true Socialism was introduced. No government and true equality under socialism.
It failed. Socialism was not introduced, as the governments stayed in power. Socialism relys on humans not being greedy or power hungry. Two traits humankind has exhibited with much fervor since the dawn of time.

A nice theory. Will it ever work?

Will any governmental system work?

Not in my opinion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

This is what I fail to understand from the reasoning of some north americans (another thing that I dont understand is why they insist on calling themselves americans, as if there are no more countries in the entire continent).

Mixing politics with religion only complicates matters, and thats EXACTLY what makes bush as dangerous (or maybe even more) as bin laden. Saying a regime is evil is just oversimplifying and putting things in black and white. Especially in the case of cuba. Most of the cuban problems are due to the US embargo promoted by the corrupt cuban-americans that live in miami (bush's little brother jeb, by the way, made his personal fortune doing shady bussines with them).

That is why president bush scares me so. A not very bright, ultra-religious and wrightwing fanatic in the presidency of the one superpower that can throw an atomic bomb and walk free is a REALLY scary thought.
<hr></blockquote>

1. My utter contempt/disgust/hatred for communism has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with religon. IMHO, communism always has been evil from the first day that it was concieved and will always be evil. It is every bit on a par with fascism.

2. Just because Bush is not (at least pre 9/11) the most eloguent public speaker, does in no way mean that he is lacking in intelligence. Public speaking talent simply does not equate to intelligence (political or otherwise). GW Bush is not an ultra-religous, right-wing fanatic!!!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


I know my statement above wasnt directed at the Afghan situation so much as replying to the statement that America never backs down. Its not always a bad thing to back down.<hr></blockquote>


well, if we were to back down, then all of the other little terrorist groups would say, "hey, look what Moron bin hiden did, i bet we can do that too, get away with it, and get a name for ourselves." bin laden allready said that he will not rest until America is destroyed. he calls us an enemy of islam, and all enemies of islam will be destroyed. well, im an enemy of islam, if he is the figure head of the islam people, and i DARE him to come to my home and try to end my life. i have a .308 sniper rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun,a .40 calibre pistol, and a .223 AR15, all with his name on them. so let him come, and hope he makes it through my yard. i am a patriotic American, and i hope we kill him, and put his head on a spike.

if im not mistaken, England tried to take lands all throughout the middle ages. and you people sure as hell didnt complain when we helped you out with hitler! but now that we are helping out a country who is in dire need of it, we are "bad guys". that is such crap. if nobody interveined in anything, then there would be all sorts of violence all over the place. the only reason nobody brings a war to our land it our technological superiority, our better trained military, and the fact that people like myself, are allowed to carry weapons. just for the record, im trained by the government, so i know what our capabilities are, that is why i make those statements.

Ditto, Morgan_Corbesant.

Also remember that before the real shooting started in WW2, it was the UK and Neville Chamberlain that backed down before Hitler. See what that got ALL of us? All you UK members don't take this as a hit on the UK. When the UK got a leader with some sense (i.e. Churchill), the UK did the right thing. It's just too bad that Churchill wasn't around earlier.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:
well, if we were to back down, then all of the other little terrorist groups would say, "hey, look what Moron bin hiden did, i bet we can do that too, get away with it, and get a name for ourselves." bin laden allready said that he will not rest until America is destroyed. he calls us an enemy of islam, and all enemies of islam will be destroyed. well, im an enemy of islam, if he is the figure head of the islam people, and i DARE him to come to my home and try to end my life. i have a .308 sniper rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun,a .40 calibre pistol, and a .223 AR15, all with his name on them. so let him come, and hope he makes it through my yard. i am a patriotic American, and i hope we kill him, and put his head on a spike.

if im not mistaken, England tried to take lands all throughout the middle ages. and you people sure as hell didnt complain when we helped you out with hitler! but now that we are helping out a country who is in dire need of it, we are "bad guys". that is such crap. if nobody interveined in anything, then there would be all sorts of violence all over the place. the only reason nobody brings a war to our land it our technological superiority, our better trained military, and the fact that people like myself, are allowed to carry weapons. just for the record, im trained by the government, so i know what our capabilities are, that is why i make those statements.<hr></blockquote>

Mental note: Never walk near Morgans house wearing a robe or having a really long beard.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:


1. My utter contempt/disgust/hatred for communism has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with religon. IMHO, communism always has been evil from the first day that it was concieved and will always be evil. It is every bit on a par with fascism.<hr></blockquote>

You have said this Magness, we are all pretty clear where you come from on this issue. Could you please explain why it is evil in your mind rather than just referring to me as evil continually. I do not mind in the slightest as long as you give me your reasons.

Yorick, I looked through the list of apparently communist countries and I entirely agreed with you. None of them had worked properly. But if you read what I said earlier you will find I have already mentioned this. I will repeat briefly:

I think socialism/communism in one country is very, very, very, unlikely to work.

If you read the communist manifesto or Capital or anything like that you will find that it is supposed to be a global force. By necessity those countries had to maintain a capitalist economy to trade with the outside world. As a result they were beset by capitalists on the outside and corruption on the inside. You cannot operate a communist system with a capitalist mindframe (I agree with you again it would seem on this point but hear me out...) or a capitalist economy. Communism really needs to operate in an autarchy (like the Isreali kibbutz's). This is the reason Cuba has done so well IMO - they were forced by a ridiculously restrictive blockade to become almost entirely self sufficient. This means that unlike a lot of countries they did not have to adopt extremely repressive measures to ensure the survival of communism. They have recently had to adapt their economy to make way for the tourist industry, so I would agree they have become a lot more capitalist.

This is the root of a lot of the problems in Cuba today - particularly the prostitution and corruption ones. These never used to exist in any kind of significant form before the cuban economy changed character.

I would say that communism has to be a global force, like capitalism, in order to succeed. This is why I find it weird that people point to lists of countries where it has failed. Frankly I am amazed that it even works in as many as it does. It needs to be global and that will not happen for a while, to say the least.

To the point that it ignores greed, therefore meaning that it can't work. I will keep this short as it is a little boring. What is human nature? Where do you get the proof that human nature is based on greed? There isn't any - people think that it is self evident in our society. The key words here are IN OUR SOCIETY. We have built up a mind frame of greed, it wasn't there already. Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy. And then when we try and change this suprisingly people's minds don't change overnight. Communism is a long process but it is also inevitable and it will hopefully overcome the problems in our society of greed and inequality.

BTW Yorick, wrong way round. Socialism first, then Communism. Not vice versa. Or at least - that is the theory.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
W Bush is not an ultra-religous, right-wing fanatic!!!<hr></blockquote>

But he employs them as ministers [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Yorick, I looked through the list of apparently communist countries and I entirely agreed with you. None of them had worked properly. But if you read what I said earlier you will find I have already mentioned this. I will repeat briefly:

I think socialism/communism in one country is very, very, very, unlikely to work.

If you read the communist manifesto or Capital or anything like that you will find that it is supposed to be a global force. By necessity those countries had to maintain a capitalist economy to trade with the outside world. As a result they were beset by capitalists on the outside and corruption on the inside. You cannot operate a communist system with a capitalist mindframe (I agree with you again it would seem on this point but hear me out...) or a capitalist economy. Communism really needs to operate in an autarchy (like the Isreali kibbutz's). This is the reason Cuba has done so well IMO - they were forced by a ridiculously restrictive blockade to become almost entirely self sufficient. This means that unlike a lot of countries they did not have to adopt extremely repressive measures to ensure the survival of communism. They have recently had to adapt their economy to make way for the tourist industry, so I would agree they have become a lot more capitalist.

This is the root of a lot of the problems in Cuba today - particularly the prostitution and corruption ones. These never used to exist in any kind of significant form before the cuban economy changed character.

I would say that communism has to be a global force, like capitalism, in order to succeed. This is why I find it weird that people point to lists of countries where it has failed. Frankly I am amazed that it even works in as many as it does. It needs to be global and that will not happen for a while, to say the least.

To the point that it ignores greed, therefore meaning that it can't work. I will keep this short as it is a little boring. What is human nature? Where do you get the proof that human nature is based on greed? There isn't any - people think that it is self evident in our society. The key words here are IN OUR SOCIETY. We have built up a mind frame of greed, it wasn't there already. Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy. And then when we try and change this suprisingly people's minds don't change overnight. Communism is a long process but it is also inevitable and it will hopefully overcome the problems in our society of greed and inequality.

BTW Yorick, wrong way round. Socialism first, then Communism. Not vice versa. Or at least - that is the theory.<hr></blockquote>


No no. Communism then Socialism. Communism was always meant to be temporary. One way to attaining true Socialism, but not the only way.

Regarding the global movement issue. If that truly is the case you may as well give up now. How is anyone going to persuade the entire world to pursue a single ideology without repressing free thought or forcing the ideology?

People don't want Communism. Those that lived under it got rid of it as soon as they were able. If they couldn't they left. Artistic expression is nullified totally. Name one brilliant recognised composer, visual artist, writer or poet from the communist era.

It's an anathaema to expressive life and freedom.

Secondly, we were talking one half of the globe at one point. It very much was "the world" to those in it.

I spent time with a former East Berliner, previously a commited communist who's ideological world came crashing down when the sytem collapsed. It created a void, but since then, in his words, "my own life has become much better". Travel, music, radio djing for a multi-cultural station. Freedom of choice.

Socialism has many admirable aspects. Communism however tosses in too many negative weights on my scales.

Anyhow, my point being that for all intents and purposes the communist nations were a "world". There are many worlds on this planet. The Mandarin sphere has at Taipei as an artistic hub, Beijing a political centre. It's another world, with artists and fashion independent from say the English or Spanish worlds.

The communist world was an entity, and in totality it fell down. It didn't work. Services were a joke for a start. Competition usually leads to better quality and efficiency.

The same went for it's government. No accountability. No chance for the people to "fire them" if they screwed up.

Basically it's been proven. It's futile to say "oh but it only works if the whole globe is" because that's an unrealistic unattainable fantasy, reliant on controlling too many variables. You can bring up Cuba as an example of Communism working in a small entity, and I will bring up Singapore, Switzerland, and say Hong Kong as example of capitalism working in small nations.

Basically people should be free to be capitalist or communist if they desire. Capitalism doesn't need to be global for it to work, but you're saying communism does?

Which then is better on that point alone?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
To the point that it ignores greed, therefore meaning that it can't work. I will keep this short as it is a little boring. What is human nature? Where do you get the proof that human nature is based on greed? There isn't any - people think that it is self evident in our society. The key words here are IN OUR SOCIETY. We have built up a mind frame of greed, it wasn't there already. Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy. And then when we try and change this suprisingly people's minds don't change overnight. Communism is a long process but it is also inevitable and it will hopefully overcome the problems in our society of greed and inequality.<hr></blockquote>

Barry, pretty much every major religious thinking agrees with the sentiment of greed underlying human nature and seeks to change it. Even a cursory glance at history shows that no matter what the society or ideology, human nature and greed go hand in hand, taking a merry dance towards self destruction.

Secondly speak for yourself Barry. How can you know what every waking moment of my life is geared towards? If every moment of YOUR life is geared towards yourself then change you. Don't make the assumption that others are not already on a different path, and seek to change them.

I think this is the root problem with your efforts and subsequent frustrations voiced in the other thread "what's the point". You are seeking to change others, ignoring their free will and right to choice. The very gifts you have and are excercising in seeking a Communist situation. Why seek to deny others the same?

Spread information by all means. Information is empowering and allows individuals to make informed choices. But actively seeking to achieve changed mindsets in third parties is doomed to misery in either you, the third party or both. On an individual level - ie marriages and one to one relationships where one wants and demands the other to change - and en masse, respecting human volition is vital to harmonious existence.

I'm a committed Christian, but I've never been one to actively attempt to convert anyone. No-one ever "converts anyone" anyway. An individual makes the choice to change their mindset. At best all I can ever do is present information when asked about my beliefs, but that is all. Anything further leads to resentment and animosity in the third party as evident in hatred of "bible bashers", Morman and Jehovas Witness doorknockers, and say Communist activists (see post above).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

You have said this Magness, we are all pretty clear where you come from on this issue. Could you please explain why it is evil in your mind rather than just referring to me as evil continually. I do not mind in the slightest as long as you give me your reasons.
<hr></blockquote>

The sky is blue, fishes swin in the sea, fascism and communism are evil.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by BtS:

If you read the communist manifesto or Capital or anything like that you will find that it is supposed to be a global force. By necessity those countries had to maintain a capitalist economy to trade with the outside world. As a result they were beset by capitalists on the outside and corruption on the inside. You cannot operate a communist system with a capitalist mindframe (I agree with you again it would seem on this point but hear me out...) or a capitalist economy. Communism really needs to operate in an autarchy (like the Isreali kibbutz's). This is the reason Cuba has done so well IMO - they were forced by a ridiculously restrictive blockade to become almost entirely self sufficient. This means that unlike a lot of countries they did not have to adopt extremely repressive measures to ensure the survival of communism. They have recently had to adapt their economy to make way for the tourist industry, so I would agree they have become a lot more capitalist.
<hr></blockquote>

This sounds to me more like an excuse. "We cannot succeed on the small or the medium scale. We will only be able to succeed on a global scale, after the competion has been eliminated." What will happen then. Communism would do what is always has done and always would do. The only difference is that there'd be nobody to say that it failed. The dictatorship of the proletariate would simply proclaim "success" and slaughter any and all who disagreed.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by BtS:

To the point that it ignores greed, therefore meaning that it can't work. I will keep this short as it is a little boring. What is human nature? Where do you get the proof that human nature is based on greed? There isn't any - people think that it is self evident in our society. The key words here are IN OUR SOCIETY. We have built up a mind frame of greed, it wasn't there already. Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy. And then when we try and change this suprisingly people's minds don't change overnight. Communism is a long process but it is also inevitable and it will hopefully overcome the problems in our society of greed and inequality.
<hr></blockquote>

Barry (and Yorick), another phrase for "greed" is self-interest. People are not always "greedy", but they will always act in their own "self-interest". I am not a bleeping damned ant, waiting to be told where to work, when to sleep, what and when to eat, where I can work, what to think!!! And no bleeping thrice-damned communist government will EVER dictate these to me, a free, honest, honorable, rugged-individualist, freedom-loving American!!!


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Partial quote from above by BtS:

Every waking moment of your life under capitalism is dedicated to yourself and your family so is it any wonder that people are greedy.
<hr></blockquote>

That is so grossly and completely untrue!!!

How does this explain the self sacrifice of the firefighters and police officers in NYC who died attempting to save thousands of people they didn't know!!! I don't know a single one of them, but I honor their sacrifice and devotion to duty!!!

How does this explain the brave citizens on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania who fought to retake control of the jet rather than let the terrorist cowards crash it into another building and kill hundreds or thousands more people? Those brave people knew that they were most likely dead, but they sacrificed themselves for their fellow citizens without big brother government telling them to do so or forcing them. They did it for love of family and love of country and love of FREEDOM!!!

How does this explain the hundreds of Red Cross volunteers that dropped everything they were doing to rush to the disaster zones to help???

How does it explain the thousands of NYC residents who rushed to the hospitals to donate blood when it was thought that there'd be a need?

It seems that every one of these people I've referenced above has (or had) a few waking moments that were not dedicated to capitalist greed!!!

Good article and outstanding replies...nice to see everyone being civil (almost [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) to eachother. I've made it clear how I feel in other posts about the Administration and the current 'conflict' we are involved in. The only thing I can say here is it HURTS to see innocent civilians (bothsides) dead or mangled with no future but pain and families without fathers/mothers/sons/daughters. I HURTS to see caskets slowly being unloaded off of a C-130, the American flag drapped over them and taps being played. I lost a good friend while serving in Korea in the U.S. Army and I can still feel it 4 years later. It's amazing the price the average person pays for being a citizen in his or her country...don't know what I'm talking about, ask your grandfathers or father about WW2, Korea, Vietnam...etc.
Sorry bout that but I had to say it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:

How does this explain the self sacrifice of the firefighters and police officers in NYC who died attempting to save thousands of people they didn't know!!! I don't know a single one of them, but I honor their sacrifice and devotion to duty!!!

How does this explain the brave citizens on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania who fought to retake control of the jet rather than let the terrorist cowards crash it into another building and kill hundreds or thousands more people? Those brave people knew that they were most likely dead, but they sacrificed themselves for their fellow citizens without big brother government telling them to do so or forcing them. They did it for love of family and love of country and love of FREEDOM!!!

How does this explain the hundreds of Red Cross volunteers that dropped everything they were doing to rush to the disaster zones to help???

How does it explain the thousands of NYC residents who rushed to the hospitals to donate blood when it was thought that there'd be a need?

It seems that every one of these people I've referenced above has (or had) a few waking moments that were not dedicated to capitalist greed!!!<hr></blockquote>


Well said. Very true and all that.

People assume that communism needs to be a dictatorship to work, it does not. All previous "communist" countries have simply been brutal dictatorships using communism as a tool for total social control and suppression of dissent. If you have ever read any of Marx’s works you will see how different what his vision was to those who applied it. It IS possible to apply communism as a democracy and in a peaceful and humane manner.

For example from p108 of the German ideology:
"Anyone in whom there is a potential Raphael should be allowed to develop without hindrance"

If we look at society today, we in the west have far more than we will ever need. Enough food is grown to feed everyone, enough clothes are made to cover everyone, and yet there is still inequality. This inequality is artificially sustained by capitalism and the mindset created by it, only through communism and socialism shall humanity ever have a chance at changing the base inequity of life. The American government is simply the tool of the current ruling class (the rich) and therefore has no interest in redressing the global imbalance of wealth, the composition and polices of Bush of Bush’s government are enough to tell this at a glance.

Under capitalism you have no freedom. Everything you do is dictated by Money.

Communism is the only way.
In time people will see this and perhaps one day start the long journey to freedom.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

It IS possible to apply communism as a democracy and in a peaceful and humane manner.
<hr></blockquote>

Yeah ... right.... sure. Peaceful and humane manner??? Yeah, sure.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

If we look at society today, we in the west have far more than we will ever need. Enough food is grown to feed everyone, enough clothes are made to cover everyone, and yet there is still inequality. This inequality is artificially sustained by capitalism and the mindset created by it, only through communism and socialism shall humanity ever have a chance at changing the base inequity of life. The American government is simply the tool of the current ruling class (the rich) and therefore has no interest in redressing the global imbalance of wealth, the composition and polices of Bush of Bush's government are enough to tell this at a glance.
<hr></blockquote>

What a load of complete, unadulterated BS!!! If you don't have enough food, then go buy some. If you don't have the money to buy food, get a damned job!!! If you still don't have enough money, get a 2nd job!!! If you don't have the skills to get a good paying job, go look in the mirror. The only person to blame is yourself!!!

The inequality that you describe is largely accounted for by the fact that there are successful and unsuccessful people in any society. The succcessful people are well-off. The very successful people are rich. The unsuccessful people are neither.

I am not a rich person. I am currently an umemployed computer programmer. "The American government ... has no interest in redressing the global imbalance of wealth..." And neither do I!!! The United States grew to its current position in the world in only 225 years due to hard work and perserverence!!! Furthermore, the US did not seek out its current status. We have WW1 and WW2 to thank for that. Without those two wars, the American people may have been content to stay on our side of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and ignore the rest of the world. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... Germany (and Italy and Japan and Austria-Hungary) had to get all rowdy in the first half of the 20th century and the US was forced to come to the rescue, twice.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by comrade Dramnek_Ulk:

Under capitalism you have no freedom. Everything you do is dictated by Money.
<hr></blockquote>

What kind of dope are you smoking??? I suppose that the people bought food (what little where was available) with good will?

Hey here's another clue!!! The US farm economy is so productive because of simple capitalistic supply and demand, not because some bleeping damned government commissar told them what to grow. Heck, here in the US, the government has to pay farmers NOT to grow too much!!! That sure as hell would not be the case under Herr Marx's view of paradise.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Communism is the only way.
In time people will see this and perhaps one day start the long journey to freedom.
<hr></blockquote>

As I said before...
The sky is blue, fishes swin in the sea, fascism and communism are evil.

Why is communism evil? Both China and the USSR spend the 2nd half of the 20th century trying to prove that they could committ genocide as well as Nazi Germany!!! I can think of 20 million or more reasons to hate communism!!!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:

What a load of complete, unadulterated BS!!! If you don't have enough food, then go buy some. If you don't have the money to buy food, get a damned job!!! If you still don't have enough money, get a 2nd job!!! If you don't have the skills to get a good paying job, go look in the mirror. The only person to blame is yourself!!!

The inequality that you describe is largely accounted for by the fact that there are successful and unsuccessful people in any society. The succcessful people are well-off. The very successful people are rich. The unsuccessful people are neither.
<hr></blockquote>

Yep, I just told this crazy Somalian guy to stop bugging me. He had the nerve to ask for some food when he could just go and pick some up from the rotten dead carcass of a cow barely 15 yards away from him. The vultures? Well, even more food for him I say.

Furthermore, he had just resigned from his job as a diamond finder. In a weeks work he would have been able to buy a full bucket of water. If thats not enough for him, well, he can always get a second job! I just hope he doesnt try to blame us for being unsuccessful.

The. World. Is. Unfair.

Pure and simple and that is a fact. Of course, the US is not to blame nor any other single country. It is everybodys fault, but the bulk of it has to go to the Group of 8, the IMF, the World Bank and all of our rulers around the world in almost every country. They just dont care. They dont care for the environment, dont care for the poor, and dont care for almost anything that doesnt involve a financial benefit to them.

We've done it again! We have entered a discussion about America - it is not about America exclusively.

And guys, it was you who said that human nature was greedy. I agreed with you under capitalism, and then you started arguing with me! I can't win here! What I would say is that the examples given show how human nature is not truly greedy. This supports my argument not yours IMO. Human nature is to care for other people in all ways - but capitalism twists it into this strange kind of contortion we have now. Humans are not intended to be greedy, that is where my beleif in Christianity comes into my argument I am afraid. We have made ourselves into this greedy bastard society, but every now and then something happens that causes us to show our true nature. This was what I meant earlier when I said that communism would work. Sorry if I didn't explain it properly.

Also Yorick, Marxism is one of the few things I know inside out. I am sorry to tell you that (in your own words [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) you don't know what you are talking about j/k. The practical definition of socialism under classical marxist terms is the transitionary stage before communism is reached. Sorry but that is true, not just my opinion. Dramnek, you know marxism... help me out here!

Also Magness thank you for finally giving your reasons. They are good reasons I will admit. But can I just say that is Stalin or Mao are considered good communists then I don't want the word associated with me. A state that works for the good of the whole does not need to kill people, so they are wrong. I am just as opposed to stalinism and Maoism as you I am afraid.

Thanks Khan BTW! Sentiment appreciated.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
We've done it again! We have entered a discussion about America - it is not about America exclusively.

And guys, it was you who said that human nature was greedy. I agreed with you under capitalism, and then you started arguing with me! I can't win here! What I would say is that the examples given show how human nature is not truly greedy. This supports my argument not yours IMO. Human nature is to care for other people in all ways - but capitalism twists it into this strange kind of contortion we have now. Humans are not intended to be greedy, that is where my beleif in Christianity comes into my argument I am afraid. We have made ourselves into this greedy bastard society, but every now and then something happens that causes us to show our true nature. This was what I meant earlier when I said that communism would work. Sorry if I didn't explain it properly.

Also Yorick, Marxism is one of the few things I know inside out. I am sorry to tell you that (in your own words [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) you don't know what you are talking about j/k. The practical definition of socialism under classical marxist terms is the transitionary stage before communism is reached. Sorry but that is true, not just my opinion. Dramnek, you know marxism... help me out here!

Also Magness thank you for finally giving your reasons. They are good reasons I will admit. But can I just say that is Stalin or Mao are considered good communists then I don't want the word associated with me. A state that works for the good of the whole does not need to kill people, so they are wrong. I am just as opposed to stalinism and Maoism as you I am afraid.

Thanks Khan BTW! Sentiment appreciated.<hr></blockquote>

Marxism is not the only brand of Communism. Leninism and Stalinism were the Russian interpretations for a start.

I stand by what I say, but will perhaps quantify. Communism, as existed in Russia, was meant to be a transition to bring about true Socialism, yet failed, largely due to the inability of the government to let go of power.

This isn't my opinion either, but information I've recieved from third parties. If it's a case of reversing definitions then so be it. However, you would hardly call Russia a Socialist state. Inequality was everywhere. There's not meant to be classes under Socialism right?
Well, Russia failed on that point. The ruling class is a class.

To date only one Russian leader in the entire history of the nation, has let go of power of his/her own volition, and not by death or coup d'etat.

Yeltsin.

Perhaps you could explain how Socialism brings about Communism rather than the other way round. Perhaps we need to clarify our definitions.

Finally, on the Christian matter, do you mean to say we were not created flawed? The potential for sin was necessary to show extreme love, forgiveness and self-sacrifice, and to spur discovery and relationship with God.

Every moment we have the option to choose the light or the dark action, yet without God there is no reason to do so, and nor is it possible to avoid dark actions. Humans are imperfect. Your Christian ideology would recognise this, as that's the whole reason for Jesus. He doesn't make us perfect but atones and enables relationship.

Besides, like all our failings, what we call "greed" depending on the context can be a positive action. Survival instict, self preservation. Shoreing up provisions for a rainy day.

Our failings are also our strengths given different circumstances. Think Stubbornness and flexability. Both can be very valuable and yet very problematic given different situations.

Adaptation (a fundamental human abitity) and discernment become a necessity.

Communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively


Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


---------
It would seem that Socialism defenition #3: proves your point according to Marxist theory. However Communism defentions #2b and 2c are seemingly contradictory and could explain the confusion. The state had not withered away. So how could Russia have been the final stage in Marxist theory? History and the contempory Communists/Socialists worldwide themselves labeled the government "Communist". Hence the confusion. It's no good now turning around and saying "oh that wasn't communist". The definition changed. Language is ever evolving.

As you said Marx said the west is where it would suceed, but this is, as I said, a pretty lame excuse for an economic system failing. Rather than turning back the clock, I would hope people find a solution better than any system thus far.

I'm fairly anti-capitalist, but I'm also anti-communist. I'm not an economist so I can't invent a great economic theory. But I do know that every example of Communism failed/is failing, whereas Capitalism succeeds incredibly.

Where western capitalism falls down is the humane department, but this is not the fault of the economic theory, but of those at the top of the financial ladder. A blend of the two. Free market with support for the sick, the elderly and the destitute is whats needed. Caring for those who cannot fend for themselves is what defines a society.

A family.

A city.

A nation.

Supporting an extreme view merely pushes people away from achieving that balance rather than towards it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yorick:
[b]Free market with support for the sick, the elderly and the destitute is whats needed. Caring for those who cannot fend for themselves is what defines a society. <hr></blockquote>


I’m afraid that is a contradiction in terms (like compassionate conservatism). The free market is all about having no support for anyone, no taxes just the state to provide armed forces and law enforcement. Also due to the mindset created under ANY form of capitalism there will always be greedy people who want more and ensure inequality, this is unavoidable, therefore capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
Communism has not failed; Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism have failed, but Marxism has not as it has never been applied in its true form due to its first application though dictatorship. Governments were labelled as communist at the time but then people thought that Russia/China would become truly communist, they never did. There is no point in looking at Russia and saying communism doesn’t work, shall we look at Nazi Germany and say, “this is what the free market leads to?
It is a good idea to read what Marx actually wrote and intended before you start reeling off the old “capitalism good, communism bad” cliché.

Dramnek,

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is an economic system not an ethical one. You can have a capitalist dictatorship, a capitalist monarchy or a capitalist democracy. The onus is on those at the top to provide for those at the bottom.

Look at church groups who, it has been statisticaly proven, handle mental/emotional care better than government bodies. Thus many western governments are increasingly outsourcing say, marital counselling services to these groups.

It is up to the society to blend capitalism with care.

Similarly Communism does not have to be a repressive dictatorship.

Look at historical Monarchies. In theory they could have been great. A person trained for the job since birth. No fear of losing the job, so no repressive or populist reactionism.

There were fantastic monarchs and many many hideous ones.

Feudalism too, out of the insecurities plaguing the dark ages was also a beneficial measure of security in theory, yet was hideously abused by those at the top.

It all comes down to the moral fibre of the individuals in power. The systems themselves are not to blame.

As such, you have to break down communism and capitalism into purely amoral economic theories. Emotions and humane considerations aside which works? Which has worked?

Capitalism has been proven time and again to enrich and sustain millions of individuals throughout history. Communism is, by your defenitions so unworkable that it has never been able to be properly implemented.

How fragile is the system if conditions have to be perfect for it to be properly implemented?


Rather than changing the system, would not a better use of energy and time be to create moral awareness in people? Hence religions (well mine anyway ;) :D ) come into play. Able to exist inside all economic systems, and capable of changing even the most evilhearted individual.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Yorick:

Capitalism has been proven time and again to enrich and sustain millions of individuals throughout history. Communism is, by your defenitions so unworkable that it has never been able to be properly implemented.

How fragile is the system if conditions have to be perfect for it to be properly implemented?
<hr></blockquote>

Great point, Yorick. Or to paraphrase your final sentence, how good is an economic system if all of its competition has to be eliminated before it can succeed?

From what Dramnek_Ulk and Barry the Sprout have been saying, it sounds to me that in the competition of economic sytems, communism is the loser because it cannot stand on its own two feet Capitalism works on all scales, small to global. If Barry's protestations are to be taken at face value, communism can only work when there is no competing economic system.

That sounds to me like saying that Beta VCR's could only succeed if VHS VCR's were banned, like Burger King could only make a profit if McDonalds were banned. Communism will only succeed if its competition is banned. Anything, and I mean absolutely, posititvely ANYTHING that depends on the elimination of its competition to be able to succeed, is ALREADY a failure!!!

Furthermore, I suspect that if communism were tried again and it was pure straight-from-the-manifesto Marxist Communism, that as soon as it failed in practice, the communist true believers would still be saying that it wasn't done correctly and that we should try yet again. The same is certainly true here in the USA with a number of failing liberal programs. "It wasn't implemented right." "Enough money wasn't spent." (even after trillions have been wasted.) Liberals and communists are simply incapable of admitting that they are wrong and that their policies won't work. To do so would be tantemount to philosophical and emotional suicide.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:

Communists are simply incapable of admitting that they are wrong and that their policies won't work. To do so would be tantemount to philosophical and emotional suicide.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, there are ex-communists in East Germany who do admit the policy failed. This is why I don't quite understand how one could be a commited communist in the face of such admissions. The East German was quite candid, and somewhat deflated about it. An ideological void had filled his life. (A contradiction in terms I know ;) )

He replaced it with extensive travel (to areas previously forbidden - outside the communist world), music and becoming a DJ for radio multiculti. Great guy. One of the most interesting men I've come across.

Hi Yorick.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Yorick:

Actually, there are ex-communists in East Germany who do admit the policy failed. This is why I don't quite understand how one could be a commited communist in the face of such admissions. The East German was quite candid, and somewhat deflated about it. An ideological void had filled his life.
<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I was probably a little too general. But in a sense what I said was still true. While this communist was able admit he was wrong, the admission did have a major impact on him, as you stated. I tend to think that more people than not would not be able to accept making such an admission. Admitting that your world view is wrong, seems to be too emotionally crippling an admission to be made by most. It's probably easier to stand your ground and refuse to accept "defeat", even when all the evidence is screaming at you. I would imagine that this is a problem for many in russia, eastern germany, and other old warsaw pact countries and soviet republics since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Fair enough. Point taken.

I'm off to bed in a tic. Read you on the morrow eh?

Absolutely.

Capitalism is extremely fragile and does not work nor will ever from an ethical point of view, it barely work in an economic sense. Companies are always expecting to be bailed out by the government, or be given subsidies and preferential treatment and it is so easy for it all to come crashing down. And the whole system has to have lots of safeguards in place to stop it all falling apart. The whole system has to be supported on a never-ending cycle of debt and subsidy adn there must alwasy be someone at the bottem of the chain. And while capitalism has enriched millions, it has trampled millions more beneath its feet. The onus of capitalism is for you to get as much as possible, which is what we trained to do from birth in capitalist society, and that is why you will never create a caring capitalist society. Also under capitalism some people will always have better living standards than others, how can this be justified?
And religion is not there to create moral awareness. Perhaps some of it is now, but if we look at history it has always been used as a tool by the ruling class to enforce their interests and maintain their power, just look at the Catholic Church in Europe in the Middle Ages
Capitalism will always create a class of people who have less than everybody else; this is unavoidable due to the greedy mindset created by it and its fundamental flaws in division of labour.
You can look at any communist country you like and say, “it doesn’t work” but if you had read and looked at and discussed what Marx intended and how it could be applied democratically and humanely, you would see how far from what communism should be, was how it was applied by the CCCP and china
In a violent revolution (which nearly all communist transitions have been based around) a group of people will come to hold power, generally they will be unwilling to give it up and will therefore corrupt communism to their own ends, not applying it in a democratic and accountable manner, because the people involved have grown up under a violent and repressive capitalist regime they have again from birth been trained to grab as much as possible, including power over others.
Capitalism is extremely fragile and does not work nor will ever from an ethical point of view, it barely work in an economic sense. Companies are always expecting to be bailed out by the government, or be given subsidies and preferential treatment and it is so easy for it all to come crashing down. And the whole system has to have lots of safeguards in place to stop it all falling apart. The whole system has to be supported on a never-ending cycle of debt and subsidy. And while capitalism has enriched millions, it has trampled millions more beneath its feet. The onus of capitalism is for you to get as much as possible, which is what we trained to do from birth in capitalist society, and that is why you will never create a caring capitalist society.
And religion is not there to create moral awareness. Perhaps some of it is now, but if we look at history it has always been used as a tool by the ruling class to enforce their interests and maintain their power, just look at the Catholic Church in Europe in the Middle Ages
Capitalism will always create a class of people who have less than everybody else; this is unavoidable due to the greedy mindset created by it and its fundamental flaws in division of labour.
You can look at any communist country you like and say, “it doesn’t work” but if you had read and looked at and discussed what Marx intended and how it could be applied democratically and humanely, you would see how far from what communism should be, was how it was applied by the CCCP and china
In a violent revolution (which nearly all communist transitions have been based around) a group of people will come to hold power, generally they will be unwilling to give it up and will therefore corrupt communism to their own ends, not applying it in a democratic and accountable manner, because the people involved have grown up under a violent and repressive capitalist regime they have again from birth been trained to grab as much as possible, including power over others.
This rant could go on forever, but I have run out of marmalade for my toast.

Sorry Dramnek, but the argument just isn't convincing even if you posted it twice [img]smile.gif[/img]

Comparing something that is currently working and has been working with something that, by your own admission, has never happened, because those that tried it didn't do it right, and is, in fact only a theory, is not a good argument for your point of view.

Comparing something real with something imaginary (I use the term loosely) is like comparing apples and oranges.

Star Trek's world seems ideal, but.......it isn't real. ;)