What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 15 September 2003 - 01:54 AM
The patriotic support for the G.I. in Iraq is becoming sharply divided. There is a group growing that says- support our troops
by bringing them home.
As thousands more are brought out dead or suffering strange
sicknesses from the immunity cocktails injected into them and the
contamination from depleted uranium, a banned WMD, for a cause
that was based on lies, this movement is likely to remind the U.S. of the Viet Nam days, even if no other GI is shot from now on.
I think it will become pretty clear which "team" is honoring the
Serviceman and which is dishonoring them.
And one doesn't need to go anywhere but to U.S. websites to
get real meaty servings of dissidence, in fact it is hard to find a
site anywhere outside the U.S. that tells it like it is.
As for holding up civilization or what ever for half a century, it
was Wall St that was the key investor in the Bolshivist and Nazi
revolutions. It seems to becoming clear all the time that the U.S.
is being expended for the sake of the failing Dollar which is not
U.S. its privately owned by internationalists.
Franklin and others warned you about these people, Lincoln said
the bankers behind him were a greater enemy than the Southern
armies out in front of him.
No one can beat the real enemy chasing shadows in the desert
on the otherside of the world. Its not a military war the U.S. is in.
Posted 15 September 2003 - 02:53 AM
I'm thinking bader lives in northern California near the coast,
and if he don't he should.
G I Joe
Posted 15 September 2003 - 08:08 AM
There is some degree of accuracy in the first part of your last post GIJ, referring to the U.S. vision (will) v. everyone elses.
"...we can only hope and pray that it (the American way) will work in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
Now if you had said you hoped it would work FOR rather than IN,
the claim that the U.S. is doing social work for someone that can't help themselves might have some credence.
Nobody's perfect GIJ, but i have never been confused in my life,
by the way what is fast fading from the norm? Is it the breast, the wall or the far left? Can't be too dumb if I can handle three questions at a time.
I'm proud of Swedish nationalism rejecting the Euro.
So much for that line - nationalism needs the Lion. Nationalism just gave the lion the fingers.
Posted 15 September 2003 - 05:54 PM
Woj, who could convince the little animals--or me--that we need another lion? Stalin wanted to control the precious 'water well,' so the little animals either come to him to drink or die from starvation...:confused:
Posted 15 September 2003 - 06:45 PM
Let's face it: American is to democracy what the Soviet Union was to communism...:confused: Pretty names indeed!
Hey, *but what's the solution?* Here's a better voting system, which, of course, is very much opposed by the lion.
However, I propose an even better method--and we pretty much agreed with it: *vote with your feet*, from the coop to the maquiladora. In other words, political democracy--even if improved--may not make such a big difference in your life, but *economic democracy* does, even if you are a competitive of cooperative animal...
Condorcet: A Better Election Method
In every U.S. election, voters who are dissatisfied with both major parties face the classic dilemma of deciding whether to base their vote on principle or pragmatism. Rather than "wasting" their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, most end up voting defensively for the "Republicrat" they disagree with least just to oppose the one they disagree with even more. Most voters assume that this dilemma is an inherent fact of democracy, but it is not. It is completely attributable to the inadequacy of our current plurality election method, and a simple expansion of voting rights could end it.
The reason we have a two-party system in the United States is widely misunderstood. It is not because the Democrats and Republicans consistently have the best ideas, nor is it because the media or the debate commision shut out the other parties. We have a two-party system because our plurality voting system does not allow voters to fully specify their preferences. This fact is known as "Duverger's Law." To vote for minor parties, voters must effectively withdraw from the races between the two major parties, even though they may have a strong opinion on those races too. Voters who vote for minor parties essentially "waste" their votes and fail to oppose political movements they strongly disagree with. Protest votes may send a "signal," but the unfortunate reality is that they have virtually no direct effect on the actual outcome of elections -- and the indirect effect is usually contrary to the voter's intention.
The right to vote is the foundation of democracy, and a simple expansion of voting rights could improve the democratic process dramatically. Instead of allowing voters to select only a single candidate for each office, they should be allowed to rank the candidates according to preference. Such an expansion of voting rights would allow voters to fully specify their preferences. Although ranked voting may not at first seem important, it could end the two-party system as we know it. It will not make the voters wiser, nor will it guarantee that they will elect better candidates, but it can give them the kind of leaders they really want -- and that is the essence of democracy.
When voters cast their votes in our current plurality system, they are allowed to select only a single candidate for each office. That is far better than no choice at all, of course, but it is nowhere near as good as also being allowed to specify a second and third choice, or beyond. Current voting rights are therefore incomplete. Complete voting rights would allow voters to vote according to their convictions and principles without wasting their vote on a candidate with little or no chance of winning. The rules for determining the winner would be slightly more complicated than they are now, but they would be based on elementary mathematics and should be understandable by virtually anyone old enough to vote.
The proper method of counting ranked votes is called the Condorcet election method, named after the French mathematician who conceived it a couple of centuries ago. The main idea is that each race is conceptually broken down into separate pairwise races between each possible pairing of the candidates. Each ranked ballot is then interpreted as a vote in each of those one-on-one races. If candidate A is ranked above candidate B by a particular voter, that is interpreted as a vote for A over B. If one candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one races, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and a simple procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity. Condorcet voting is explained in more detail elsewhere at this web site.
Aside from irrational fear of change, the only reason to oppose complete voting rights is *to protect the current political duopoly from outside competition* [ah, the Lion doesn't want competition!]. Such protection obviously cannot be good for democracy. Unfortunately, it is those very "Republicrats" who currently have the power to change the voting system, so democracy will undoubtedly have some difficulty evolving. Rest assured that they will ridicule Condorcet voting as too complicated, but they will only be insulting the intelligence of the American public. They will also characterize it as radical, but so was the concept of voting itself when first introduced. With a proper understanding of what is at stake, however, rationality can ultimately prevail.
Posted 16 September 2003 - 01:47 AM
You should congratulate Stalin-s an idea of collectivization. Collectivization is form of cooperatives, isn-t it? >
Woj, no they are not. They were an instrument of the Party and production plans, in contradiction of the free, democratic cooperatives. The definition I prefer is that of, "the free man in the free group."
Notice at the end of the following excerpts how the cooperative serves as means to full employment, indeed not good news for the lion who certainly profits from the "dry season," the season of high unemployment...
Alternative economic structures and business enterprises
by Dieter Dambiec
'Communes or collectives in communist
countries were not cooperatives. They were simply production distribution
mechanisms under a regimented system of control.
Cooperative economic enterprises must also avoid becoming capitalist in
nature. A key feature of capitalism is the import of raw materials from
other countries or regions in order to manufacture finished products.
Cooperatives must not encourage this form of economic imbalance. An
economy based on cooperatives must develop its own raw materials through
research so that cooperatives are not dependent on foreign raw materials.
A properly conceived and structured cooperative should be capable of:
(i) determining how much to sell;
(ii) determining the most favourable time to sell in order to get the
(iii) fixing the price of its own produce within certain price limits.
In this way cooperatives will get the profit which is presently taken by
middlemen and profiteers in the capitalist system.
In a cooperative farmers sell their produce to the cooperative at a rate
fixed by the cooperative. When the market price is reasonable the
cooperative sells the aggregate. The farmers then receive their
percentage of the profit, which will be proportional to the amount of
their land shareholding in the cooperative. At least this can be an
Sarkar further states that in the cooperative system unemployment will be
solved. This is because as production increases the need for more human
resources and for the construction and operation of more facilities will
also increase. Educated people can be properly employed as skilled
workers. There will also be a need for tractor drivers, labourers,
cultivators, etc. who as cooperative members will naturally do this work.
In times of economic downturn everyone's labour will be proportionately
reduced so that no one suffers the stigma of being unemployed. In this
way economic downturns will always be short and temporary.'
Posted 16 September 2003 - 02:08 AM
The collective system is based on the common good provided all work as hard as one another, all have the same needs as one another, all take the same time off as one another. all share in the same belief system as one another.
This the remarkably flawed concepts of eggheads with scads of diploma's and astounding world knowledge, however they are all including you Donq missing one supremely important thing.
''COMMON SENSE'', You aint got it, and Marx never had it.
So get off it already and speak your own mind, not the in depth informational sites you point out we should all read,
Get real damn it!!!!!!!!!!. Your ideas are as old as moses's shoes
G I Joe
Posted 16 September 2003 - 02:20 AM
<"the truth is when people complain about something as evil or a sin, its usually because they aint getting the chance to commit the sin, for example people who insult the united states are like the overzealot religious pastor who condemns sex only because he isn't getting any sex" quoted by gary g pelow from arlene denise crockwell 1995>
That's right, as soon as America had the most mighty military it was all too tempting...
HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED
One day the Devil, tired of always playing the bad guy, told God: "Why don't we trade places for a while?" And then God, who didn't want to look bad, and trusting that nobody could tempt Him, accepted. And this way the Devil sent Him the most sexy girl in miniskirt, but God told the Devil that He was very happy without sex. And this way the Devil kept offering Him cigarettes, liquor, drugs and everything bad, but God never wavered. And then when the Devil was about to give up he thought of something he could offer God: a body of flesh and bone...
And that was the version of his life that junkie, who obviously had abused so much of sex and drugs, gave, insisting that he was "God"...
Posted 16 September 2003 - 02:51 AM
<The collective system is based on the common good provided all work as hard as one another, all have the same needs as one another, all take the same time off as one another. all share in the same belief system as one another.
This the remarkably flawed concepts of eggheads with scads of diploma's and astounding world knowledge, however they are all including you Donq missing one supremely important thing.
''COMMON SENSE'', You aint got it, and Marx never had it.>
I'm speaking for myself, but what I'm saying is common sense.
*Not all the people want to cooperate and not all people want to compete!*
You seem to assume--something very communist, go and figure--that everybody is the same but we are not. Your hardcore competition may work for some but not for all and certainly not for all the nations and cultures of the world. Russia, for example, ain't used to the Law of the Jungle. She ain't China. So you'll never see the Made in Russia at the Dollar Store, so I hope...
< So get off it already and speak your own mind, not the in depth informational sites you point out we should all read,
Get real damn it!!!!!!!!!!. Your ideas are as old as moses's shoes>
How about the Israeli kibbutz? At least you should know what you are dying for, right? But hey, if it's good for Israel, why not...?
"By the end of the 20th century, there were more than 200 kibbutzes in Israel, with more than 100,000 inhabitants. According to figures of 1993, kibbutzes contribute with around 40% of the agricultural output in Israel, and 8% of the industrial production."
Posted 16 September 2003 - 04:07 AM
DILEMMAS OF RUSSIAN PRIVATIZATION: EDITORIAL
WHAT KIND OF ECONOMIC SYSTEM FOR POST-SOVIET SOCIETIES?
By Alan Fogelquist, Ph. D.
Eurasia Research Center
It is time to take a close second look at privatization programs in Russia and other post-Soviet republics.
'There is one consideration which seems to be absent from much of the discussion of post-Communist privatization schemes. That is the transformation into viable and competitive employee owned enterprises of at least some of the "privatized" companies which have ended up in the hands of workers and socialist era managers. *The livelihood of these employees is more closely tied up to the enterprise and the local economy than that of many of the new robber barons and speculators who are using their windfall speculative profits to bribe government officials and acquire new properties which they then proceed to run down and destroy*. There are many examples of successful economically viable employee owned companies and non profit organizations in market economies from the Mondragon workers' cooperative in Spain to a host of employee owned companies in Canada and the United States.
*We should remember that real existing market economies are a far cry from the competitive world of Adam Smith or the ideal of Pareto optimality* [It seems Smith was a benign lion.] Many corporations in the capitalist world are not actually in the hands of core group of caring owners or shareholders who look after their long term welfare. Employee owned or non-profit firms can often function as well or better than many privately owned companies. *Because the majority of Russian enterprises are still in the hands of employees , it would make sense to look for ways to turn at least some of them into efficient producing units instead of rushing to sell them off to Mafia or nomenklatura pillagers*.
What has been written above is not a blanket ideological prescription for cooperativism. What happens to a particular enterprise should depend on the nature of the enterprise itself and its work force. In many cases employees and managers may lack the necessary skills or vision to transform their companies into competitive enterprises. Some companies may simply be un reformable and should be eliminated. Some employee owned enterprises, on the other hand may run much better than companies acquired by speculators or pillagers.
Some funding from economic development agencies or NGO's could and should be allocated to programs to enhance the competitiveness of these employee owned firms in the Russian Federation and other countries with similar privatization programs. The World Bank and private financial institutions should consider funding projects to improve the plant, equipment and/or upgrade accounting, marketing, and organizational skills of the managers and employee owners of these firms. [I doubt the lion will ever make the water well for the little animals.:confused:]
The improvement of existing employee owned enterprises and provisions for the needs of large numbers of employees who are likely to be dismissed because of inevitable enterprise restructuring are two matters which should receive much more attention than they have. If the transition to the market economy is based on patently unrealistic assumptions and leads not to the restructuring and improvement of existing companies but to their breakdown coupled with tremendous social dislocation and suffering - the very idea of the market economy will lose political support and there will be much propaganda fodder for the Zyuganovs, Zhrininovskys and other enemies of genuine economic and political reform.'
Posted 16 September 2003 - 04:43 AM
I have found out that although we may have different perspectives on given issues we can still be civil to one another here.
How do you feel about posters like FRUNZE AND BIZ AND SOVIET UNION? AND THEIR IDEAS OF THE PERFECT WORLD?
G I Joe
Posted 16 September 2003 - 08:02 AM
In the West the dialectic and evolution were not taught as in the
USSR but rather it was implanted by conditioning rather than direct formal education. (for global dialectic purposes)
The two party systems of the west are a dialectic experience
that people think is competition, a capitalist notion. Capitalists
don't like competition its hard work and too much risk. They like
monopoly and controlling prices and resourses and today as Chompsky pointed out socially insured by tax-payers.
A typical example of the unbeknown dialectic (law of excluded middle) thinking in the west is when one criticises the delusions
and false claims of the free-market and those who are on the right can only concieve of an opponent as being on the left, as I was denigrated a few posts back. Many people cannot
conceive of a third or other alternatives because this is Western
conditioning by education, politics and the media.
So economic democracy is such a concept outside the law of excluded middle- dialectic. Same regards the coop, it is mis-understood because it is ''other''. It is an option that prevents
exploitation of the people by capitalism and communism.
Notice Damiec made not mention of synergism, because the
western universities as I have no doubt in the communist Unis
kept it out as it is "other"- undialectic.
Party politics is actually anti-democracy because the elected rep
is supposed to rep the electorate. A party candidate reps the
party! Not the electorate. Major parties are funded by corps not
by members fundraising so it is financially corrupt.
Because of the waisted vote people tend to vote negatively ie
to keep a party out that they are sick of in gov. This is not voting for what you want which is what democracy supposed to be. But then in party politics the parties put up the issues and the policy not the public which shows what a sham it is.
Changing the electoral system doesn't address the major problems but it can make some improvements by proportional
representation but more so by binding referenda.
Also when a country changes its systems a huge amount of people are totally confused and vote accordingly. In NZ the
first past the post voting system was dropped for MMP the German option of proportional representation and after two elections (three year terms) there were still a lot of confused people.
Dambiec is right about the definition of a coop, its not state
owned like collectives (and kibbutzs)
A decision to ban imported raw materials should be up to the
coop not state interferrence.
If some use imports and some manufacture alternatives then it
induces natural competition through prices. The issue of imports should only relate to foreign currency issues which shouldn't be left exclusively to the gov but primarily the industrial sector who are the experts on idustry and the economy not some theorist
who never worked anything but pen.
Sarkar made some good points re employment which are real
positives in todays world, but these are from "other" conceptions
?nd perspectives which politicians and gov bureacrats have been
educated to not recognise.
Thus we have perpetual revolution/ordered chaos/ law of excluded middle dialectic divide and rule, by you know who.
Imagine what sort of world it would be if engineers were as
deluded as politicians and economists so that bridges, highrise buildings and ships and aircraft etc kept collapsing, disintergarting
etc because of flaws in their conceptions and understanding.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users