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

#41 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 28 May 2003 - 06:24 PM

<O'k I'm an outsider being an American. But I do want to see a strong Russia. Maybe it is because I all but proposed to a friend of mine from Moscow once (she said no she already had a boyfriend). >

That was an excuse. She didn't like your ideas...

Your country ain't no model to anyone. And not even Canada followed it.

True, socialism often backfires as a bloated bureaucracy is often the result, but the system to follow is the Swiss and not yours.

<1 Secure Russia's freedom. Do this by first arming your populace. Create and pass your own version of our second Ammendment and spell out that it is an individual right. Your crime rate will drop. Over here the States with the fewest controls on guns have the lowest crimes rates. In addition this will help prevent another Stalin from rising to power. Part of Freedom is the willingness to defend it from those who would trade it for security or simply take it to increase their own power. chairman Mao himself said" Politcal Power grows out the barrell of a gun". Now I would ask you: Would you trust a government with guns who won't trust you with a gun.>

Again, America got the worst crime stats of any civilized nation. 30,000 people die by guns every year. Switzerland does have rifles in every home, but an educated population reserve their use for defense.

<Secondly get the media completely out of the governments control. With that then they can report freely.>

How about big money control of the media? The government and the media are both bought be big bucks.

<2 Good economics-Trash the Soviet economic system completely. Captilaism can be hard quiet often but in the long run will create the most gains for Russia. This first means private ownership of most everything. This means private property and no socialized medicine. This also though means breaking up monopolies and regulating the natural ones (such as the power company).>

No socialized medicine right? Like China, it is a "sucess" where medicine was privatized and now occupies around the 140th plus place in the world...

<I would not recomend social welfare programs. They haven't worked here unless you count another useless generation of couch potatoes as a success. If you msut do it don't give much and make them work for it. But I digress I could write a paper on that alone. Just avoid it it was a mistake over here.>

Yeah right, why don't you educate --instead of brainwash with stupid TV shows-- the ghetto dwellers, so they can have a better future? Why you just hand them a check to get them out of the way?

<This will take discipline and patience but will help a great deal with getting Russia back on it's econmic feet in time.>

In time, a long time... A hundred years?

<3-Social issues- I probably agree with Jerry Falwell about 8 or 9 times out of 10. I don't think the government getting into people's bedrooms is neccessary. However sexual promiscuity is a definate problem. I do remember my friend in Moscow saying she didn't think there were very many people out there in Russia with HIV and that attitude scares me to death. I don't know if and how often she has gone to bed with somebody but that attitude alone is dangeruos.>

Sex is bad, pornography is good, ah? It's one of the best businesses in America...

<4 foreign affairs- bag those who claim to be friends but aren't (France and most of the rest of Western Europe, Iran, China) and work with those who are (Britain, Austrailia, the USA). The econmoics systems in Europe are becoming more like China and the social system is collapsing. I would not be supprised if in 20 or 30 years Western Europe is mostly Muslim and radical Muslim at that. Why would a nation like Russia want to ally with a country like France anyway? We are talking about a country that never fired a shot to defend it's own capital from the Nazis. Decisions are made in Washington and London and if Russia wants to be part of them Moscow. But Russia must work with the west not against it.>

America good, France bad. Did you quit using perfume already? American junk food is good for the world though, particularly children who die young from fat related diseases, thus avoiding to impose on welfare...

Hallelujah!!!

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#42 lieven

lieven

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 28 May 2003 - 09:39 PM

---Bader wrote---
<No nation or economy can function without money. Its like oil to machinery. Unless you reform the money system the same old
problems will arrise no matter what system you try.>

I will not spell out my agreement with democratic socialism but I do, I just want to commment and test a new idea here.

Economy is sustained by people who get payed for their work. That is the system we know now and I think that is the system Bader is talking about. But what if the reward for work was not only money. What if this was education, health care and if required unempleyement benefits.
I would even dare to argue to make this more extreme then we in Europe (non UK) know it.
One comment I will make before anyone else does, the gap between rich and poor should not be encouraged even though the system I propose may look like it is inbuilt.

:-)I am trying to go from left to moderate left, can you tell?
  • 0

#43 Guest_kyosapat_*

Guest_kyosapat_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2003 - 07:08 AM

1 I know for a fact she has (or had at the time) a boyfriend. She basically told me that if that had not been the situation it she might have liked the idea (I will not post the e-mail). I told her most of the same stuff I heard in the last post after we exchanged those e-mails besides. I wouldn't talk about personal relationship you know nothing about if I were you.

2 Canada is a second rate country. We have a better economy that anyone. I said capitalism is harsh sometimes. We have the largest economy in the world. And it is for a reason. The capitalist system creates wealth better than anyone. Instead of begruding others their success isn't it better to try and emulate it and even improve upon it?

3) Show me the numbers? I know we have 30,000 killed by guns every year but half of those are suicides and we have a lower suicide rate than Europe. Besides that those numbers get pushed up by those states and localities that have severly restricted guns (are you listening New York and California?).And yes I do beleive in fire arms education. About 2000 deaths a year are due to firearms accidents. More people are beaten and stabbed to death each year than shot. Would you like to ban hands and kitchen knives?

4 It is a success when we don't have rationed healthacre and a bloated bureacracy to go with it. If I need to see a doctor here about a relatively minor thing it merely means making a phone call (or going to the walk in clinic) and seeing them. True sometimes expensive. But I won't say that our system is perfect. We could curtail malpractiec lawsuits and make better use of alternative medicine but we don't have shortages.

5 true on the big bucks part . But the alternative with socialism is politicians who don't listen. Over here there are lobbyimg groups such as the National Rife Association, The Seirra Club, National Right to Life Association... all who do the talking for us little guysbecause the member pool there money. The NRA has about 3 million members. imagine the chunk of cash they have when the work as a group with each contributing 10 dollars. So long as the government doesn't restrict what these groups can do in the media then there isn't a problem. In a way it's unfortunate but money talks and Bull**** walks. Alsides play equally in that system.

6 on this score you have some place. I don't like the welfare system as it s now. If I were running it they wouldn't get ANY checks. But for that matter the government wouldn't be in the "business" of charity work. true I don't everything our country does. That is why I said to avoid such systems. For the record the way I would run the welfare system is: here is floor to make your own bread, Here is your beans (meat is too expensive for my dollar on a deal like this), here is your cheese, here are your clothes ( which would be distinctive and everybody would know they are on welfare), and here is where you will live. I've seen a russian aparment that housed 6 people at the time of the soviet unions collapse and the housing would be marginally better. And no there would be no television and there would be some educational opportunities.

7 No like 10 to 20 years Russia could have an excellent economy f you don't backslide. Reading on ravda I cought a headline about something to do with a 6% growth rate predicted in a couple of years.

8 No sex is good between married persons. I would hope it is happening often between married persons (although it is often not an image I really want running through my mind considering what us non super model/ actor types look like). But yes porn does sell big. Not that I neccessarily like that fact but it is the truth. I wouldn't really be sad to see it go out of business for lack of demand but unfortunately I doubt it will.

9 pretty much somethat up. You said it better and shorter than I did. I'd add Communist China to my list on the bad side though. And yes there are problems with too much fat. I'm pretty bad myself on the junk food list. But we do it to ourselves. For the record what Russian food I did sample I did like (with the exception of the bread I prefer American bread). I wouldn't be surprised if somebody could figure out a "fast food" menu of Russian foods it would probably succeed over here once people had the chance to sample it. HHMMmmm maybe there is a business oppurtunity there if anyone is into cooking and business both.

I didn't say our country is perfect, In fact I said that there are problems here that I'd like to see fixed but there is no point in Russia repeating our mistakes. Communism is a horrible and Evil system don't go back to it. I used to only think it was seriuosly flawed system. But once I'd visited Russia and seen what it didnt do it in 70+ years I was convince of what it was. I saw what 7 square meters per person looked like. Nobody should be force to live like that by government edict. I've listen to the "good old days taljk from people about many subject and over here. Ussually it's wishfull thinking. Fix a country after communism is like curing cancer. According to standard medicine with cancer you have to nearly kill the patient to cure the disease. This is what chemo and radiation do. With communism you have to nearly destroy the governemnt and economic system to fix it.

Pat Macken
  • 0

#44 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 29 May 2003 - 08:34 AM

social democracy is a better label than democratic socialism.
Firstly its not an "ism" which tend to be more trouble than they
are worth if not a social disaster.
Socialism is state control, anything centralised becomes anti-social
whether its corporate or state based or both as we have developing across the west- fascism. There's that "ism" again.
Describing democracy as social emphasises that it is people based
not some outdated system like current economics based on a three hundred year old banking system.
That's two factors to watch for (1) avoid centralisation or the
gravity towards control and (2) systems must serve people,
not the reverse.
Do a quality check on any system in force today and you will
probably find Switzerland is the only one not condemned on both counts.
These two breed each other, you choose. The alternative is
decentralising towards individual freedom and not being a
slave to any system including interest and taxes. Naturally you
will then oppose a heirachy-elite which would have no dynamic forces to develop a controlling stronghold.
Rewards outside money is good lateral thinking. If people stay inside the square of the thinking that sustains our systems that don't work how do you find a better way. That merely re-arranges the deckchairs on the Titanic.
  • 0

#45 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 29 May 2003 - 09:23 AM

You condemned China to the bad side Kyosapat,
but on point six of your system I doubt if you got past China
in the nineteen fifties.
Here is your beans, here is your kennel and here is your yellow star so everyone knows what your are. Really, are you serious.
It would be cheaper to make it all up into componds like the Nazi
if saving money is what its all about. Where are you different?
The U.S. has the highest rate per head of population incarserated.
Do you know what it costs to impound souls as opposed to giving them the means of retained dignity before they go down that track.
Talk about re-education. Are you aware that poor families
children are incapable of the mental energy and concentration
of those who are properly fed, when they are attending school?
You can look around any town, city, county etc right up the
states and countries. There is work everywhere that needs doing. The reason its not being done is not because people
can't get out of bed its because the chief bureaucrats preside over their budgets saving money, shedding staff to maintain
their high salaries and build the white elephants and expand the
headquarters staff around them and drop off the field staff.
Businesses have to take over rivals to capture percentages of the market to secure the profit margins, and they always shed staff in the restructure. Businesses go off shore, new
technology makes people redundant. The biggest industries in some countries are taken over by foreign investors. Once the profitability drops below a certain point they close down whole sections of the industry, usually just before Xmas.
We have musical chairs playing here with up to several thousand workers at a time who suddenly find they are left out in the cold.
Its no joy to hear the self-righteous sitting on a chair castigating
the less fortunate.
Don't bother to tell me about some bum you have seen or the ones who work and make false claims, what they total has nothing on white collar crime.
The abundance of nature condemns the best "educated" efforts
that we see on the planet. It's the top half that needs to be re-educated.
  • 0

#46 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 29 May 2003 - 06:56 PM

<Describing democracy as social emphasises that it is people based
not some outdated system like current economics based on a three hundred year old banking system.
That's two factors to watch for (1) avoid centralisation or the
gravity towards control and (2) systems must serve people,
not the reverse.
Do a quality check on any system in force today and you will
probably find Switzerland is the only one not condemned on both counts.
These two breed each other, you choose. The alternative is
decentralising towards individual freedom and not being a
slave to any system including interest and taxes. Naturally you
will then oppose a heirachy-elite which would have no dynamic forces to develop a controlling stronghold.
Rewards outside money is good lateral thinking. If people stay inside the square of the thinking that sustains our systems that don't work how do you find a better way. That merely re-arranges the deckchairs on the Titanic. >

Just to say I'll go along with that. And very importantly, promote coops as a means to promote freedom from both the capitalist and the government...

http://webspawne.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#47 Guest_kyosapat_*

Guest_kyosapat_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 May 2003 - 12:18 AM

The China I'm refferring to is the current one. The same people who ran over unarmed protesters with tanks and imprison christians who are not members of the state controled church are still in charge and the people who are the next generation of military leaders (the Majors,Captains and Colonels) are trying to become the generals and want the russian far east (as well as Tiawan, the northern philipnies, Korea and japan) either as chinese territory or in the "shere of nfluence.

As for the either comparisions to the nazis no. If I had my way we would not have a welfare fare system run by the government. We have school lunch and breakfast programs over here and short f abuse by parents or eating disorders rarely if ever does anyone over here starve o daeth. People are fed. What I am referring to is the welfare receipiants who get food clothing, and transportaion allowances and eat better than I do. Giving somebody a check does nothing except addict them to the government hand outs. If somebody is to live on the public dole they should not live as well as the rest of us. Otherwise you get the current situation of young girls going out and getting oregnant and then collecting welfare and not doing anything. Poor families do get the food they need. They are capable of the mental energy to get throiugh school but to down grade them and expect less of someone a head of the game? That s just as wrong.

As for the top have unfortunately freedom means they can be weasels and D*** heads.. How ever in the end they'll have to answer for it even if it is to their deity of choice. The governments jobs is NOT and should NOT be redistribution of the wealth. Those who apply themelves will rise those who do not likely won't.


The way I look at it is this. Being from the coutry that is on top at the momment I can see what we could do better. I can also see why we got to where we are. Theyway to get there get to were Russia to can "beat " theamericans is to immitate at first then improve on the good stuff and fix the bad. No system is perfect. Japan has about the same population as Russia and fewer resources but they have one of the largest economies. There are things there that maybe even the United States could learn from.

Just my thoughts.

Pat Macken
  • 0

#48 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 30 May 2003 - 03:32 AM

Hi donquijote, sorry im backtracking here.

with regards of your proposal of "cooperatism", which i personally admired and, somehow, find it quite unbelievable it actually existed. it is defintely the best system around.

jaime lerner is clearly a just and capable leader. no doubt about it. im just wondering how many of jaime lerner have in the world?he is of such qualities that not everyone in this world possess. without him, there wouldn't have a system like curitiba.
  • 0

#49 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 30 May 2003 - 10:38 AM

Hmm, a value free point of view would of course mean not describing wishes as facts. Kemal Ataturk offers an example of a fairly succesful unemotional modernizer, though times were different. Different indeed: up to a point Pinochet's reforms worked even to the degree of partly dismantling his system. Not completely nice examples. If we are talking the old Machiavellian game of power politics (always so enthusiastically practiced by Russian rulers), then the simple fact is that effective and dynamic economy is the central foundation of a great power. Nowadays this means a capitalistic high tech society with an efficient educational system and a high degree of economic liberty. Of course the statist objection (again well rehearsed in Russian history) would be that there are many local centres of power with undue influence on the central authority. Still, I would not say that the state has exactly withered away in the USA, for example. So, the unpleasant choice is between a certain impotence and economic liberalization which might not even work in Russian circumstances. How many competitors have underestimated the USA up to now? It might be that the collapse is round the corner, but wishes are not facts. At this moment the USA is unchallenged, and this because of its dynamism and energy. Free competition produces an amazingly flexible and efficient system.

With a high human cost - I myself prefer welfare states (in American terms, this would be best translated as social security states, dole is not meant by welfare in non-Anglosaxon West). Scandinavia has combined high competiveness with a very high safeguards ensuring a basic equality with a high and growing standard of living - but the core European states are stagnating in contrast to the USA. China is mounting a challenge, but its starting level is so low that the challenges have been still relatively simple. Problems will undoubtedly begin when it starts seriously approaching developed standards in all sectors of the society. So, at the moment, if you want power, you must "free" the economy to foreign and domestic profit seeking investment. Hopefully, this will change, but it hasn't yet. Maybe Russia would finally be able to offer some (this time genuinely) more "spiritual" alternative, but the communist destruction most probably was too universal for anything especially ethical to be built on the ruins. In any case, objectively viewed, in a truly Machiavellian fashion, without capital and large scale private investment there is no great power status.

Edit: Atat?rk>Ataturk, typos
  • 0

#50 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 01 June 2003 - 08:40 PM

<That's two factors to watch for (1) avoid centralisation or the
gravity towards control and (2) systems must serve people,
not the reverse.
Do a quality check on any system in force today and you will
probably find Switzerland is the only one not condemned on both counts.
These two breed each other, you choose. The alternative is
decentralising towards individual freedom and not being a
slave to any system including interest and taxes. Naturally you
will then oppose a heirachy-elite which would have no dynamic forces to develop a controlling stronghold.>

It may very well be that we enjoy two different systems, each country choosing her own: the decentralized Swiss system, and the socialist Scandinavian system, say a country like Russia choosing the former, and the US choosing the latter.

Here's some wonderful info on the Scandinavian model:

Nordic Socialism and welfare

The Nordic societies can be characterized as countries with rather subtile class differences. To define which class people belong to has become harder in the last 50 years, when the democracy has led to compulsory education and social insurances for everyone. Equality has been the slogan best remembered from the French revolution, and strong labor unions have achieved many of their goals, with for instance manual workers often earning well as much as lower officials and teachers.




2.8.1 Wouldn't the Nordic economies gain from abolishing Socialism?
Let's make a few things straight!

The words "Socialism" - "Liberalism" - "Conservatism" are used in a very different way in the USA compared to the usage in the continental Europe and in Norden. In soc.culture.nordic we use these words as they are understood in Europe:

Liberalism and Socialism are in Europe basically defined as ideas with a great deal of heritage from early Liberal and Socialistic writers. Liberalism could be said to revolve around freedom from the power of the mighty, and Socialism around freedom from the power of the rich.

Democratic freedom is per definition a Liberal virtue.
Some Social democrats might be classified as much of a Liberal, but most are definitely not. The program of the Social Democratic parties are not understood as Liberal, but when it comes to practical pragmatic politics and policies the outcome might be a mixture between the own program and other ideas.

Conservatism is likewise defined as ideas succeeding the writings of Burke, Disraeli and other classical political writers. There are two major branches among the Conservatives: the Social-Conservatives and the Value-Conservatives. The Value-Conservatives? Oh, that's people who speak a lot of the importance of the church, the army, the family and maybe the crown (king/ government) and are very happy to spend all the tax money on those institutions instead of extravagances on children, disabled and unemployed.

Socialism is the people's control over the means of production.

High spending government is something different.
This phenomenon comes in different wrappings: Feudal, Authoritarian Conservative, Fascist, Social Liberal, Social Democrat, Christian Democrat and so on.

As an ideology, Socialism deals more with the political basis than with the implementation. Nobody can justify taxation as a goal, that politicians and civil servants are always right, that it is a goal to confiscate any kind of private property. There are some Socialist ideologies that want society to build upon omnipotence. All but tiny extremist groups have survived. Most were slaughtered in Eastern Europe.

The Socialist ideology was more a visionary romantic one than a practical political theory. There is a little bit of the rhetoric left (for internal use) in the Social Democratic parties, so maybe one could call them Socialist. Then there are the proper Socialists on the left of the Social Democrats. Some of the Nordic still worship Karl Marx.



<< - Norden - >>




2.8.2 Don't the Nordic states have huge welfare expenditures?
"Welfare" in this context has nothing to do with welfare as the word is understood in the USA. It stands for a word ("v?lf?rd" as spelled in Swedish) approximately translated by the intention to control un-employment and poverty by governmental regulation and actions. This is not a particular phenomenon for Scandinavia, or for recent times, but have to greater or lesser extent been on the program for nearly all parties ruling in the industrialized Europe (i.e. for over a hundred years).

Subsidies to industries have been popular among nearly all parties, for instance. The health care system, the tax financed school system (including student loans) and the mandatory participation in schemes for loss of income at retirement, disability, sickness or unemployment has got a solid support by something like 90% of the politicians and 95% of the Nordic voters. The differences regard adjustments, not the idea as such.



<< - Norden - >>




2.8.3 But you do pay terrible taxes, don't you?
Also people who are Conservative, by Nordic standards, support the basic concept of sharing a public responsibility for education and health care. We can discuss the efficiency of the government in running these programs, but you're not going to convince many Nordeners that the solution to inefficiencies is to move the responsibility to the individual.

Since the education of the youths is paid for through taxes instead of parent's earnings, the most intelligent kids get educated regardless of wealth. This is an advantage for the country as a whole. You can also say: The educated pay back for their education through taxes.

The same applies to the health care, which additionally seems to be remarkably cost efficient in the Nordic countries (compared to the US at least).

We all will need support around our birth, during the time when we grow up, when we get ill and when we get old. We all need education. Those needs are as common as our general need for streets and law and order and protection by an army. All will probably become seniors. In any case, all have reason to prepare for that. If the preparation is made by individual savings or by mandatory contribution to a general system is the difference. The cost for living and health care during your last years won't change if you live in a libertarian state or in the nanny-states of Europe. The only difference is the method of paying. Here you pay in advance via the tax system.

The same goes for primary and secondary education. All who earn money have once upon a time used the pre-schools and schools, and in our society you pay for it through the tax some years later. In other systems you "borrow" it from your parents when you use the service, and then "pay back" to your kids when they grow up.

Neoclassical economists use to argue that the high taxations in the Nordic countries must lead to high unemployment, low productivity, low rates of investments and too little incentives to work and innovate. Now and then these arguments are presented in s.c.n., and regularly the following will be presented:

The Nordic experience shows that 50% taxation is not too high to keep most people from working. In the 80s there was full employment despite high taxes and an extensive social security system. People still prefer work to unemployment. Sweden could maintain full employment until 1990s, but now the open unemployment is higher than in the US, although the criteria of the statistics differ.

The Nordic model worked well till the 90'ies economic depression, but it may have gotten into trouble in some of the countries now. On the other hand, one could argue that thanks to this model the recession in the beginning of the 90'ies became moderated in a very favorable way, compared for instance to the development in the United Kingdom.

It's often noted that the level of investments in Finland only some 5-10 years ago was very high, maybe too high, and that Sweden has a trade surplus (i.e. producing to a higher value than they consume) whereas USA has a trade deficit.

Productivity is relatively high in Norden. Social security does not lower productivity. In fact U.S. style low pay employment does not have as great incentives to high productivity as the Nordic union negotiated pay model.

Among the positive sides of this high-taxation system, one can note:

almost no poverty or starvation, as is the case in American ghettos
virtually no homelessness problem
very little crime
equal opportunity to education & health care, regardless of the wallets

more...

http://www.lysator.l.../scn/faq28.html
  • 0

#51 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 01 June 2003 - 08:53 PM

<I believe Alexis de Toqueville predicted about 1830 that the U.S. and Russia would be the two great nations of the future. A little flirting with communism may have slowed the timetable a bit. >

They may have been smart but nobody could have predicted that things would go so wrong for the two countries with the most potential...

The Dark Night of the American Soul
by Joseph R. Stromberg

"I see what you are not making, oh, what you are so vividly not!"

~ William James, 1905

"It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it."

~ Mark Twain, Pudd
  • 0

#52 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 02 June 2003 - 08:53 AM

I don't know, I don't think last century would have been a happier one without American influence - even more catastrophic if the cut off date would have been 1939 as opposed to 1916, up to which point the USA was basically supporting Pax Britannica in a very indirect and limited way. An isolationist America in the second world war would have left the world to brown or red terror. Not nice, eh? It is true that both liberal and social democracies are messy and unheroic systems with even sometimes morally corrupt practices and structures. They are truly mundane as opposed for example to the more "heroic" bolshevism, fascism or various religious fundamentalisms which always are so ideal on paper. In the actual society you then have to impose this ideal image by force to protect it from the harsh and brutal reality of power politics. In liberal and social democracies there at least is not much shelter: criticism, debate, even hatred are daily projected towards the undeniable failures of our high ideals. Not to mention that any threat of physical violence against this multitude of critics is quite absent indeed. I suspect that this ensures the flexibility and dynamism of the system: the Soviet Union was a good example of a society which could not tolerate free debate and criticism. It was either agreed (however hypocratically and involuntarily) to be perfect or it could not, was not able to, exist. This is not a problem of liberal or social democracy. Of course the USA seems to be going over the edge with the political class diminishing and the corporate (and often corrupt) power increasing. If not unchecked this trend should lead to some sort of correction, but this does not look like a universal problem of democracy, rather an American hyperpower aversion (which might not even be that serious - there are plenty of people who see no signs of danger here). But yes, I would say that the highest form of society is not the most powerful, but the most civilized. In today's world there are not many competitors to Nordic societies as imperfect as even they are, but that route has not been rationally chosen - it is the result of culture and history and so not easily exported.
  • 0

#53 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 02 June 2003 - 10:09 AM

I agree with you Machlud Haul that the U.S. seems to be going over the edge but I disagree that it is a U.S. problem and not for
universal democracy.
The U.S. National Defence Strategy is all about stamping an Image
on the world, a heroic policy, through the IMF and WTO and if you read between the lines where there are blockages the U.S. armed forces will clear the blockages.
Their biggest blockage is Islam at present. That's why they intend to restructure Islamic countries.
So that confirms they are the most powerful, imposing their new world order, and not the most civilised.
Perhaps the discussion should be about roll-models for Russia.
Who are the more civilised countries and why?
  • 0

#54 machlud haul

machlud haul

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 02 June 2003 - 11:59 AM

Well, I suppose the US world view (or some aspects of it) is indeed more "heroic" than its (Western) European counterpart and thus leading to dangerous conflicts with the messy realities on the ground. Still, I would think that this quite a typical problem of any hegemonic power whatever its social structures. If you are a hegemon, you deal with power politics and if you deal with power politics, your hands won't stay clean or your ideals uncorrupted. Actually, in my opinion I would say that in a liberal hegemon they stay considerable cleaner than with any non- or anti-liberal alternative. With all due respect, if Russia or China (or, actually, even France) would have a similar monopoly of power than the US does at the moment, they would behave even more aggressively and with even less regard to the international community. This I would say is a simple fact. The problem is then not the current domination of capitalist liberal democracy, but the fact that it is only the latest competitor in this very destructive and dangerous age old quest for power. Without the West, the world would be an even more brutal place - a grim situation indeed. I don't think anyone actually knows how the humankind could break out of this viscious circle. And so far we haven't.
  • 0

#55 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 02 June 2003 - 06:59 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MarquisDeSade
[B]Hi donquijote, sorry im backtracking here.

with regards of your proposal of "cooperatism", which i personally admired and, somehow, find it quite unbelievable it actually existed. it is defintely the best system around.

Hi MarquisDeSade

(What a historic moment: Don Quijote meets the MarquisDeSade. :)

thank you for your comments...

<jaime lerner is clearly a just and capable leader. no doubt about it. im just wondering how many of jaime lerner have in the world?he is of such qualities that not everyone in this world possess. without him, there wouldn't have a system like curitiba. >

It would take two things actually: one is other Jaime Lerners, another is to defeat the merchants of chaos (or however you call 'em).

Following are examples of media commentary on Gov. Lerner and Curitiba:

"In Curitiba, its results show how to combine a healthy ecosphere, a vibrant and just economy, and a society that nurtures humanity. Whatever exists is possible; Curitiba exists; therefore it is possible. The existence of Curitiba holds out the promise that it will be the first of a string of cities that redefine the nature of urban life." Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins, Natural Capitalism (Little Brown and Company, 2000).

"Curitiba is today regarded as the world ecological capital ... it is one of the most remarkable cities anywhere .... Nothing would distinguish Curitiba from another town if it were not for the action of its mayor, Jaime Lerner." The Architectural Review (May 1999).

"Working from an office in a log cabin surrounded by woods, Mayor Jaime Lerner is trying to invent the city of the future .... The ideas springing from his desk are turning Curitiba into something of a Mecca for urban planners and environmentalists, who come to see Curitiba's approaches to such universal urban woes as waste disposal and traffic congestion .... But even more remarkable is how Curitiba is solving seemingly unsolvable First World problems with modest resources, showing how creativity can replace money and high technology." The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1992.

"
  • 0

#56 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 03 June 2003 - 09:45 AM

I agree Machlud Haul with the point you are in effect making- power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don't accept the argument that goes like - Jack the Ripper was
bad yes but he only murdered prostitutes, now if it was Frenchy Fred the Ripper he might have slain any female and that is much worse.
The other part of your argument only recognises nationalist
character. You might elevate your eyes a little and realise there are more powerful players at the international level that despise
nationalism and are playing a bigger game.
I thought it was readily apparent that the U.S. view ( foreign policy and practice) was no longer American but a copy of Zionist Israel. Zionists, and they are not limited to one ethicity, are internationalists.
My expectation is that in time people like Sharon and Bush will
realise they have been just as usable as Arafat. In the meantime donquijote keep us treated to some more of that positive stuff about cooperativity.
According to Noam Chompsky (spelling?) it was a hundred years ago that law in the U.S. was made allowing companies to be become a legal entity equal to a human being with the same rights, which in practice usually means more than equal, for the purpose of overtaking cooperative industry to syphon its
the wealth which was going to each partner and instead would be sucked out of that socially just enterpise to an elite who rule through a corporate structure.
I have been more pointed than Chompsky was but he obviously saw it as an regressive step. My understanding is that the world
at the change over of centuries a hundred years ago was on the
threashold of a major breakthrough for the prosperity and its freedom for mankind. It was all ambushed and torpedoed ina big way by a series of historic blackspots, including the Bolshivist
revolution.
I came across an article recently and I think it might have been the fourteenth ammendment that subverted the cooperative
enterprise.
  • 0

#57 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 03 June 2003 - 02:26 PM

Hi bader, i must agree with you that power corrupts. when one have power, one would tend to use it to it's advantage and greed seeks to increase it.

therefore, with a character of jaime lerner who create such a wonderful system to SERVE the PEOPLE. and yes, his main goal is to serve the masses in a cooperative manner using pratical perceptions of solving problems in a logical way. freedom might not be so important here. the approach is fair and just.

which one for you, loneliness or togetherness?
  • 0

#58 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 06:44 AM

Freedom MarquisDeSade is the only ingrediant for sustaining
freedom, give it up for a good system and it no longer exists.
Freedom doesn't reguire any good person to decide for others what their problem is or how to solve it.
Freedom means individuals can associate voluntarily in a
cooperative enterprise and freedom means they can opt out if
it no longer serves their interest.
The only good system is one freely authorised by the people and is subject to/ answers to the people.
Loneliness or togetherness?
The better words are individualism or collectivism.
I choose free enterprise which capitalists have distorted to their
advantage and not collectivism like socialism, fascism and communism.
Systems that centralise become collectives if they aren't from the
start. Decentralised systems are the least powerful at eroding
the freedom of the individual.
Currently the most powerful forces in the world are centralising
globally.
The individual is sovereign. When captured in a collective
(political not free association-cooperative) the collective head
becomes the sovereign over the subjects.
A state formed by people cannot grant to its creater the people sovereignty. They already had it individually.
Would you go with that MarquisDeSade?
  • 0

#59 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 04:53 PM

it all depends.

you opted for free entreprises where dog eat dog. this justify your claim for your freedom.

i would agree that freedom is very much individualistic as of loneliness. it all comes from selfishness,to be in control of your own world ,to a extent irregardless of others to the indivdual advantage.

in this case, would it better to choose for a better system, and i mean a better system not of those old theories which have proved us contrary, with a group of people working towards it? and, of course, you do not lose your freedom in such instance. the door is always open for you unless you are imprison, like i have suffered while i existed.

for centuries, mankind has never really been in a peaceful state. why? because of power, greed, and selfishness. is peace really been given a chance?

it all depends.
  • 0

#60 borisbt

borisbt

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 06:56 PM

Here is what said one of the great russian writers ( sorry
do not remember who ):

"In Russia we respect the Czar and a whip and without
Czar and whip we getting nowhere!"

"V rosii ctut caria i knut, a bez knuta i bez caria me nikuda!"
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru