Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#241 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 05:02 AM

I can agree with you entirely Mach-h.
It's a great summary you have provided, we differ in that I see two different level here, while you seem to me to be mixing them.
What you want to see to solve the fundamental problems is more
idealistic than mine.
I say this because I am addressing problems at a lower level than what you include.
The thread in my view is not absolute, but is aimed at the human
level as we find humanity. If I was adressing it from what you
include-humanity as a whole, I would be touching on what you
are including.
If we simpified the LION down to a con-man, he can be disarmed by public exposure to his tricks- thus people are getting the awareness and enlightenment you and I know society needs.
It is not idealistic to do this, but merely practical. There are identifiable systems, ideologies, policies, and identifiable persons and identifiable organisations and institutions etc that make up,
build/sustain the LION. They are in abundance being exposed on the net. We can't stop at the animals farm stage and expect the LION to go away. We have to move on and expose the who,how and what that makes up the LION.
There is nothing new about this. When the printing press was
new, like the internet now, scriptures were published and the result was false teachings and superstitions and corrupt practices of an imperialistic church lost huge power over nations. You have heard of Luther.
If that is idealism, lets have more of it.
Taking the next and higher level- in my perspective, to address
the fundamental problems in the species to get a semblance of utopia there are two choices it seems.
One is the Bible story of the corruption of the species and nature
and the remedy to come putting it right and dealing with origin
of the corruption and chaos. That is the Christian faith, not Jewish because theirs is racist- not inclusive of the nations as the
promise to Abraham was.
The only other option is the Asian religions who trust that man can evolve into a more enlightened and peaceful being.
Outside of that there is the purely materialistic approach which
thinks its scientific as the Soviet Union that as I have said before
boasted that it would leave the world behind because it was going to cleanse itself of the corrupting factor. By the eighties
they had to acknowledge that the human needed the faith/
spiritual aspect. Appart from the fact they couldn't destroy the
spiritual hearts and minds of people- they met secretly.
Thought policing and political correctness is still here and growing like mushrooms in the west.
Your expression of - almost deterministic chaotic process- if I got it correct, is my own view accept I would drop the word -almost- and it doesn't originate from the human species, but channels into society through the ancient secret societies still with us today. One of the most obvious evidence today is the huge amount of numerology surrounding defining events like Sept 11. Then (example only) there is the masonic symbolism on the U.S dollar (1933) the year Hitler came to power, annoncing a new world order to come- now openly here. Then there is (example only ) the ancient artifacts stolen from Bagdag,
thousands of years old, couple that with the same plundering
by the Knights Templars hidden in the Crusaders a few centuries back because Jerusalme was a centre of spiritual power (dark side as well ) and the Ancient Egyptian artifacts were plundered early last century. The stories of the search for the holy grail and the Ark are based on fact and fact is stranger than fiction.
There is no vacuum in humans, we have spiritual dimension, and it will be occupied, like our minds. Most people in the west
would not be keen on exposing their chidren to the Bible,
we are a post-Christian society. Yet like a pied piper Harry Potter
is captivating a whole generation of children. People who have been into witch-craft in depth and come out of it are exposing
the fact that the Potter stories are including hardcore witchcraft
beliefs hidden out in the open to them but the general public is totally ignorant. This is powrful stuff we are talking about.
See why I kept it to the lower level?
Haven't the faintest what Francis F-yama relates to. Type it backwards so the cencors computer doesn't pick it up.
  • 0

#242 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 05:04 AM

There is really not much to add to your analysis of our present circumstances. I am totally convinced that if there is time for sustained progress, capitalism will be seen as a very primitive, very brutal system. Its success so far has been that it more than its more theoretical competitors relies on the destructive structures of historical process - it is truer to our grim human nature and societies. It also permits and requires a degree of liberalism, especially in exchange of information and opinions which gives it flexibility and dynamism. In this light I much prefer it to feudalism and totalitarian alternatives. But to think of it as the apogee of societal evolution is just ludicrous: it needs irrational hierarchies to survive, it extols empty materialism and hedonism - it ties people to jobs instead of a plot of land, true but slight progress. As a pragmatic choice in current chaotic conditions I support the social democratic version of market economy as the most reasonable and enlightened alternative possible - but with a strong hope of further human betterment: maybe, hopefully we'll be some day able to achieve much more. Or, it could be phrased: maybe we'll be some day worthy of more. To paraphrase Frederic Manning, history is not only a crime, it's also a punishment of a crime. This might seem a too Dostoyevskian approach, but I don't see human nature as a constant but as capable of change. Their still should be some time left.
  • 0

#243 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 05:38 AM

Wow Machlud,

A lot to digest.

Capitalism as a brutal, primitive system.
Yes, it is. But, it is also one of the more successful brutal, primitive systems on the planet.
Its success is that it kicks the pants off of the competition (I'm paraphrasing you). You bet.Why is the US #1????

It requires a degree of liberalism.
Sorry, that is not true. The system we have adopted here in the US has required more than just a degree of socialism, not liberalisim, because the people, ultimately, are not as stupid as a pure capitalistic system would require.

it needs irrational hierarchies to survive
Again, not true. They are all perfectly rational. The Hierachy in a capitalistic system is one of the easiest questions to ask. "Who has the most money?" There's your answer.

it ties people to jobs instead of a plot of land
So??? there's no longer the ideal of one plot per person on this planet.

I support the social democratic version of market economy
I agree 100%. The social-democrats that I have heard speak, talk of thinking "outisde the political box." They are not just happy with the "left" vs "right", scenario. There are many areas where one is partially right, not enough to give in 100%, but enough to deviate one's opinion in another direction.
  • 0

#244 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 05:48 AM

<<Capitalism as a brutal, primitive system.>>

as opposed to socialism which leads to poverty and joblessness?

capitalism, quite frankly, Works-it will Provide Jobs which will get people money which will allow them to buy food and all sorts of fun things.
it may look brutal because it has a heirarchy; but everyone has a heirarchy. at least with capitolism there is some reasonable requirement that you deserve it (i know, you are going to claim inherited wealth, but even with that if you aren't able to keep it it goes away)

rewarding people for their efforts and requiring accountability is the only way to go as long as people are still people.

we have begun to adopt a degree of socialism, and have created a large class of social parasites and a series of businesses who have moved their hq's out of america because they don't want to be punished for making money.

at least we're not europe-but i sure hope we're not headed that way.
  • 0

#245 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 05:58 AM

Well, at least this is easier to digest:

as opposed to socialism which leads to poverty and joblessness?

CP - you haven't a clue about what you are saying. Joblessness not only was NOT KNOWN in the Soviet Union and other socialist nations, IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW.

Yes, you can be thrown in jail for not working for a period of your life. THAT WAS LIFE IN SOCIALISTIC NATIONS. Get real, read about it BEFORE you criticize. JOBLESSNESS DID NOT EXIST, PERIOD.

rewarding people for their efforts and requiring accountability is the only way to go as long as people are still people.

VERY GOOD. This is exactly right. Rewarding people is basically a capitalistic concept, requiring accountability is basically a socialistic concept. Those are not hard and fast rules, but by and large they are concurrent.

Lastly, There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to emulate a continent that has seen the highs and the lows of human endeavor. Bro, I lived in Europe for four years, and I can personally tell you that they live life a whole lot better than most Americans I know. FACT
  • 0

#246 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:10 AM

you are assuming i meant the USSR when i said that socialism would lead to joblessness.
what i had in mind was the US possibly following the lead of Europe, where moving towards socialism HAS led to joblessness.

i have a friend in germany. where she lives unemployment is 20%.
she makes a living by being a medical experiment. is her life better than mine, who is going to a fine private college for free?

no, joblessness was not a factor in the USSR (if we are going to discuss that)
however, was severe agricultural disaster after disaster along with stagnated growth and widespread poverty WAS a factor in the USSR, as was a few other fun things that go along with the centralist totalitarian government that socialism leads to.

and accountability is a capitolist virtue.
if you do a bad job in a place where you can't lose your job, big deal...
if you do a bad job in a capitolist society you lose your job.
Big Deal.
  • 0

#247 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:17 AM

CP,

You must define poverty. I don't think you know about the living conditions in the Soviet Union.

it's not capitolists, unless you have something to do with the capitol of a state government (like the one in Sacramento for us Californians). Otherwise, it's capitalists.

Unemployment in the world is invariably higher than the US, with some notable exceptions. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we get our ducks in a row before going before the world council.

FINALLY, If you lose your job that is HORRIBLE. I've lost mine while trying to help my foreign wife adapt and my 2 children survive.

TAIN'T EASY.
  • 0

#248 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:31 AM

agreed-losing your job is horrible: that is why people are motivated to not lose their jobs.

i think i know a little bit about living conditions during the USSR.
i think, for instance, that during the reagan administration when a fairly liberal media group decided to do a series on poverty in the US in order to embarrass him, that the gov. of the USSR got the tape to show to it's citizens in order to show how living conditions were better in the worker's paradise.
except, of course, that when they started looking at it they quickly stopped-it seemed that our poverty strucken individuals were living much better lives than all but the very upper crust of their population. there was zero social mobility, unless of course, you Knew Somebody. then, of course, the whole system went broke and they are still suffering from it.

i also think that alcoholism was so rampant that the last 3 chairmen of the Party all declared that it was a national crises and that their agricultural system saw failure after failure.
check out the virgin lands project-that's one of my favorites.


but i did misspell capitAlist-thank you for pointing that out.
guess it happens when you type faster than you think;)
especially if you don't type that fast in the first place;)

as for the capitAlism v. socialism-take a look at ireland; the gov was socialist and the economy tanked in the early 80's.
so they deregulated the government, privatized the industries, lowered welfare payments drastically, lowered taxes, built up infastructure that would help business grow, cut a massive amount of spending on social programs (btw, unemployment then decreased as those folks hit the streets and went looking for jobs) and lowered corporate taxes down to 10%.

by 1998 they had a 17% growth rate (at this time the US was averaging 4-5% and most of the rest of the world was less than that.) and are currently a major hub for international business, especially euro-us.

whattya know-capitolism works:D
  • 0

#249 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:38 AM

CP,

i think i know a little bit about living conditions during the USSR.
i think, for instance, that during the reagan administration when a fairly liberal media group decided to do a series on poverty in the US in order to embarrass him, that the gov. of the USSR got the tape to show to it's citizens in order to show how living conditions were better in the worker's paradise.
except, of course, that when they started looking at it they quickly stopped-it seemed that our poverty strucken individuals were living much better lives than all but the very upper crust of their population.


NO, NO. That bespeaks of a program made in the US and hearsay. That does not tell me that the people of Minsk were better off than the people of Volgrad because MInsk had a better climate than Volgrad and had a better infrastructure.

Don't give me demamgoguery, give me facts!!!

The Irish is a good example. Hey, what'd'ya know. There is an Irish lady friend of mine staying with me for a couple of days. Let's say I ask her what she thinks of her own country. She should know, she was born and bred there.
  • 0

#250 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:46 AM

call it what you will-the program exists.

as for conditions within the USSR, what do i care for the difference between Volgrad and Minsk or Leningrad and Vladivistok or the Ukraine and Siberia? it would not make one iota of difference to this debate because this debate is about SOCIALISM v CAPITALISM.
the usefull comparisons, then, are socialist countries v. capitolist countries.

i gave you ireland-which was socialist, failed, got rid of all that; and succeeded greatly.
show me a similar example of unprecedented incredible growth via following capitalism.
even socialist china grows when it leans more towards capitalism in it's policies. when it went the opposite way (Great Leap Backwards) it failed miserably.

sure-ask your friend; just remember one irish person is hardly a fair representation of the entire demographic: just as i am hardly a fair representation of the entirety of the US.
  • 0

#251 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:49 AM

Well, I kind of think that any hierarchy is quite irrational as its basis is bound to be an irrational, subjective and often almost random choice of criteria, whether heredity, theology/ideology, physical force, ability to gather fruits, money, weapons etc. etc., even I would say, intelligence. Capitalism would not survive without corporations and companies and the structures and roles they require: owners, managers and employees at various levels. This is a narrow criteria and leads to a great waste of human potential. As to liberalism and social democracy, I would say that the differences are mostly semantic or questions of degree, but the point is still good: without social security capitalism wouldn't survive long.
  • 0

#252 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:49 AM

Hey, I think one Irish opinion is worth one Pravda opinion.

CP, as far as I know, you are a CIA operative trying to intercept messages between sleeper cells.

How should I know.
  • 0

#253 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:50 AM

it would be more appropraite to sing the american song in another forum. though, your contribution has be ,sort of, insightful and a confirmation of middle or upper americans views. a nationalistic forum suits both very well. thanks.
  • 0

#254 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:53 AM

Marquis,

If you're gonna smoke, at least invite the rest of us, okay?
  • 0

#255 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 06:54 AM

mac haul: thats why i approve of capitolism-it is the closest to a merit-based heirarchy that i've managed to see so far.

beat: certainly her opinion is worth mine-more infact since she would no doubt have a more detailed knowledge of the facts.

and there is no cia; these are not the sleeper cells you're looking for (waves hand in a jedi motion)
  • 0

#256 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:08 AM

"They are not contradictory, but complementary. The more options the better. And Mondragon is perhaps the only successful *industrial* large coop in the world..."

hi don, i believe you have post a link of the same site where it has linked to 'problems of democracy in mondragon'. it just showed that coop has still a way to go.

like i said, and i emphasize, that curitiba approach and natural capitalism thinking would have covered the grounds in a coop.

curitiba approach: work for the people. in this instance, everyone from the lowest to the highest would have be taken care of.

natural capitalism thinking: rational, sensible, logical, for the best of mankind.

with both of them combine, do you, and everyone, still think a coop is still necessary?

i have not read animal farm yet. there is one book i highly recomend. it's called ' the republic of plato'. i believe it's a better description structurally of most societies.

cheers
  • 0

#257 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:10 AM

Originally posted by The Beat
Marquis,

If you're gonna smoke, at least invite the rest of us, okay?




hahahaha...im more than happy to invite you. it's getting more fun. ;)
  • 0

#258 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:12 AM

huh?
  • 0

#259 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:14 AM

Marquis,

I saw this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and then you said:

hahahaha...im more than happy to invite you. it's getting more fun.

Man, I ain't been that stoned in years.
  • 0

#260 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:38 AM

But I would say that for example the medieval Catholic Church or the Soviet Communism where equally merit based - only their definition of merit were different from present day capitalism. I would regard as a more interesting question whether there could be at all functional society or culture largely without any hierarchies and formal institutions. This may sound silly, but I think that the SF-writer Iain Banks has actually quite brilliantly described in detail one such example in his Culture books (which take place in a "society" that has abolished scarcity, something not totally impossible, I would think). It is hard for us to imagine, but I would think that we would be better without any power structures or at least only with very minimal power structures. (This would of course be more a concequence of progress than its cause.) Anyway, in today's brutal world these sort of speculations are slightly irrelevant: our actions happen in conditions that are utterly dominated by hierarchies and institutions, and so they must largely be in those ancient (and unfortunate) terms.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru