logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline forkboy  
#21 Posted : 28 October 2010 03:30:22(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
Yes, but the standard of living is higher in China. And more than that, the cost of living is considerably lower than China than in America for example.

And furthermore, China is a fucking disaster state that is about as communist today as America.
Offline Mt. Epic  
#22 Posted : 28 October 2010 12:20:39(UTC)
Mt. Epic
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,749
Man
Location: Somewhere in the universe

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
Well China is the closest you could get to a "true" communist nation. North Korea is just a shit hole is bound to die off and become democratic in a matter of years once their new leader makes enough mistakes. And Cuba, just wait for the Castro brother to die.

But, have you noticed that the western world full of freedoms and independence from anything devotion of a certain lifestyle, despite having some financial problems right now, are the ones who prosperred to be world leaders, while the more totalitarian nations either all died off and turned democratic, or are barely thriving if at all thriving? Well, China is thriving, but it's still pretty bad over there.

I don't think that a strict, disciplinary regime with an endless list of rules and laws will succeed because people just won't go for it eventually, even if they never were able to comprehend an image of freedom, they will still despise their rulers anyway.
UserPostedImage

Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu!
Offline forkboy  
#23 Posted : 28 October 2010 21:35:18(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
China is not at all close to a "true" communist nation because it as entirely abandoned Marxist economics and did so in the early 80s.

Cuba is probably the closest to a communist state at the mo, and it's finally started the economic diversification that Che Guevara advocated in the 1960s since the wall of the Soviet Union, as Russia used to buy shitloads of sugar from them at an inflated price, and also in exchange for oil and so forth. I'd suggest Cuba today is a better place in general than at any time since the 60s actually. And as for Cuba, I'm not even convinced that much will neccessarily change with Fidel dies. Or even Raul. They learnt from the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and made sure that the youth got promotion opportunities, which did not happen in post-Kruschev USSR, and so the next generation of Cuban leaders are on the whole invested in the regime. It may change, but it will most likely still be socialist on the whole after the Castro brothers are dead, I mean most of Latin America has socialist leaders in some shape outwith Mexico and Colombia, Kirchner in Argentina, Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezula, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. You also cannot ignore the patriotic and nationalist strength of the Cuban government. The revolution was the first moment that Cuba was truely independent, for a while at least, and the regime is firmly attached to nationalist icons like Marti. Originally under Spanish dominance, and then controlled by America like Puerto Rico after the 1898 war with Spain, and then dominated by US industrial interests, Cuba today has a fair (and justified) anger towards the USA and it's not really likely to stop wanting to put two fingers up at you. Alot of the Cuban exiles in America favour Cuba becoming effectively annexed by America, and there is no way that would be tolerated by the majority of people still on the island.

And son, history tells us that ultimately people have been quite tolerant of dictatorships, I mean human civilisation is accepted as having risen about 5-6000 years ago, and democracy, aside from a brief spell in Athens which was certainly not democracy in a form you would recognise today, didn't come into the scene until about 250 years ago. And even then not in every country. The idea that democracy is the natural state of governance is just blinkered by circumstance, the idea that what we have today is right because we have it today.
Offline TheCDs  
#24 Posted : 28 October 2010 23:18:56(UTC)
TheCDs
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 02/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 729

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Mt. Epic wrote:
But, have you noticed that the western world full of freedoms and independence from anything devotion of a certain lifestyle, despite having some financial problems right now, are the ones who prosperred to be world leaders, while the more totalitarian nations either all died off and turned democratic, or are barely thriving if at all thriving? Well, China is thriving, but it's still pretty bad over there.

I don't think that a strict, disciplinary regime with an endless list of rules and laws will succeed because people just won't go for it eventually, even if they never were able to comprehend an image of freedom, they will still despise their rulers anyway.


You could make the case that part of the reason for Western democracy's reign is because the US (and by extension our allies) have always been on a quest to rid the world of communism/socialism. Russia emerged from WWII as a world leader and superpower and ultimately failed. Part of that can be blamed on poor governing by the government but it was also heavily influenced by the US decision to oppose the USSR and communism.
UserPostedImage
Axiom is
Mike Peck- Production/Guitars/Piano/Keyboards/Hammond Organ/Vocals
Tim Dunn- Production/Guitars/Bass/Drums/Saxophone/Vocals
Offline Gildermershina  
#25 Posted : 29 October 2010 01:59:01(UTC)
Gildermershina
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Moderators, Registered
Joined: 13/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,094
Man
United Kingdom
Location: Probably not here

Was thanked: 113 time(s) in 76 post(s)
TheCDs wrote:
Mt. Epic wrote:
But, have you noticed that the western world full of freedoms and independence from anything devotion of a certain lifestyle, despite having some financial problems right now, are the ones who prosperred to be world leaders, while the more totalitarian nations either all died off and turned democratic, or are barely thriving if at all thriving? Well, China is thriving, but it's still pretty bad over there.

I don't think that a strict, disciplinary regime with an endless list of rules and laws will succeed because people just won't go for it eventually, even if they never were able to comprehend an image of freedom, they will still despise their rulers anyway.


You could make the case that part of the reason for Western democracy's reign is because the US (and by extension our allies) have always been on a quest to rid the world of communism/socialism. Russia emerged from WWII as a world leader and superpower and ultimately failed. Part of that can be blamed on poor governing by the government but it was also heavily influenced by the US decision to oppose the USSR and communism.


And today's US political situation still carries the burden of this irrational fear of all things socialist - the throwing around of completely misappropriated -isms and evocations of Soviet society and other communist tropes. And somehow it is being wielded as a defence against "progress". Because apparently everything in America at the time of the constitution, was some Promised Land that has only been perverted by ideas such as abolishing slavery, and trying to put even basic regulation around ownership of firearms...

It's half the people looking forward, the other half looking back like Janus, and they're pulling in different directions, and so nothing goes anywhere. I'm a big proponent of change. Why not try something new? Ultimately, nobody really knows what's going to happen, rather there be some movement forward in pursuit of improvement, than shrinking back to minimise the risk of failure. And if it fails, you keep moving until you get it right.

I think this applies culturally as well. People always think of classical music, your Beethovens and your Mozarts, as being some immutable pure creation, so perfectly realised as to border on the divine. People always think of classical Greek and Roman architecture as being so much more real, more perfectly conceived. People think of the renaissance painters, and so on, as if they were magical perfect beings with a perfect insight into form, composition and expression. So people think of the Founding Fathers of the USA as being tasked by God directly, to create this perfect nation that was only perfect in its conception, and that ever since it has been poisoned and twisted and defiled. Given the number of amendments made, over half of them having been enacted by the 20th Century, it seems clear to any rational mind that improvements can be made, and in fact should be made, continuously, as an ongoing progressive process. Yet to hear the far right talk about it, the constitution and its second amendment may as well be the stone tablets Moses carried down the mountain.

And to hear them tell it, it might as well just say "No taxes. Keep your guns."

Edited by user 29 October 2010 02:00:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImageUserPostedImageUserPostedImage
Offline forkboy  
#26 Posted : 29 October 2010 03:52:16(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
TheCDs wrote:
Mt. Epic wrote:
But, have you noticed that the western world full of freedoms and independence from anything devotion of a certain lifestyle, despite having some financial problems right now, are the ones who prosperred to be world leaders, while the more totalitarian nations either all died off and turned democratic, or are barely thriving if at all thriving? Well, China is thriving, but it's still pretty bad over there.

I don't think that a strict, disciplinary regime with an endless list of rules and laws will succeed because people just won't go for it eventually, even if they never were able to comprehend an image of freedom, they will still despise their rulers anyway.


You could make the case that part of the reason for Western democracy's reign is because the US (and by extension our allies) have always been on a quest to rid the world of communism/socialism. Russia emerged from WWII as a world leader and superpower and ultimately failed. Part of that can be blamed on poor governing by the government but it was also heavily influenced by the US decision to oppose the USSR and communism.

Yeah, the reasons the USSR failed make for an interesting subject. Well, to me anyway. I don't think that it neccessarily disproves socialist economic theory. Among the many problems the USSR faced was spending shit loads per capita on the military to try and keep up with the US (and overtake them) and that was a total drag. The space race was costly as hell too. The USSR did trade deals with other communist nations, usually with favourable terms to places like Poland, Cuba, Ethipoia, Angola, etc that cost them a shitload of money and resources. They waged a really crappy war in Afghanistan that was unwinnable (ooooh, fancy that) There was also a problem that crept in after Nikita Kruschev was deposed. When Brezhnev died he was 76, he succeeded Yuri Andropov who was 68 when he was appointed General Secretary of the party, and died just 2 years later. Then you had Konstantin Chernenko, appointed at 74 and died less than a year later, only old party members were being allowed to takeover the party, this turned more and more of the youth against the party to a certain degree and ultimately pays a big part in the USSRs downfall.

Frankly, Reagan is given FAR too much credit, the Soviet Union would have fallen apart in the 90s regardless of what he did.
Offline Mt. Epic  
#27 Posted : 29 October 2010 13:22:03(UTC)
Mt. Epic
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,749
Man
Location: Somewhere in the universe

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
I still don't believe in any possible way of thriving under a totalitarian regime, but w/e. I'm just happy to express my opinions and see the opposing views on mine to put a better perspective on my own as well as enjoying a conversation about it.

But, I'd rather prefer to get back onto my original topic.

I know that a balance between liberalism and conservatism makes a thriving democratic nation, but lately, i've just been wanting to line up all of the republican in one line and shoot them all straight through.

It's so funny watching them mock the ruling party that rightfully won that honor because of the republicans' stupidity to have had Bush. And fuck all the republicans who say they didn't support Bush, because almost all of them said so, so they could've done something about their presidential nominee in 2004. Even Glenn Beck (fuck, i know, he's awful but I was at a friend's house and his dad is like a shi-ot red) hates Bush. He was talking about which party we should elect these next coming days. He had a clip of Obama for the democratic party choice, and FUCKIN REAGAN FOR THE REPUBLICAN CHOICE!!!!! Why not Palin? Why not Bush? Why not Cheney? Why not Rumsfeld? Why not McCain? Why not Rice? WHY NOT SOMEBODY WHO IS FUCKIN RELEVANT!!!! Of course, the answer is because everybody, even the most conservative asshole on fox news hated the bush administration, and now, just because two years, not even, passed by since Bush left office, they can all of the sudden act so mighty and righteous towards the democrats?
UserPostedImage

Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu!
Offline forkboy  
#28 Posted : 29 October 2010 21:34:55(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
Mt. Epic wrote:
I still don't believe in any possible way of thriving under a totalitarian regime

Well that's funny, because 5000+ years of evidence disagrees with you. Ancient Rome. Ancient Egypt. Sparta. Persia. Colonial Spain.

Economic freedom often leads to a decrease of happiness in a nation because suddenly you have risks of unemployment, your pension going down the shitter, and so forth. Plenty of folk in Russia still long for the Soviet Union so the quality of life couldn't have been that bad. I mean clearly it was for those stuck in the Gulags, but for the majority?
Offline Mt. Epic  
#29 Posted : 30 October 2010 10:16:25(UTC)
Mt. Epic
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,749
Man
Location: Somewhere in the universe

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
forkboy wrote:
Mt. Epic wrote:
I still don't believe in any possible way of thriving under a totalitarian regime

Well that's funny, because 5000+ years of evidence disagrees with you. Ancient Rome. Ancient Egypt. Sparta. Persia. Colonial Spain.

Economic freedom often leads to a decrease of happiness in a nation because suddenly you have risks of unemployment, your pension going down the shitter, and so forth. Plenty of folk in Russia still long for the Soviet Union so the quality of life couldn't have been that bad. I mean clearly it was for those stuck in the Gulags, but for the majority?


hmm, that's weird, cuz i don't see Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, Sparta, Persia, or Colonial Spain still in existance......
UserPostedImage

Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu!
Offline forkboy  
#30 Posted : 30 October 2010 20:18:58(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
No, but if one considers how long the Roman Empire lasted it might perhaps give you some perspective. The Roman Empire was confirmed in law by the first Emperor, Augustus (grandnephew of Julius Caesar) after a long series of civil wars, which saw the end of the Roman Republic, in 27BC. The Eastern Roman Empire finally fell in 1453 when the Turks finally took Constantinople. There is absolutely no evidence so far that any democracy is going to last half as long as that. The longest lasting democracy without interruption would probably be America, and that's just 250 years.
Offline Mt. Epic  
#31 Posted : 31 October 2010 15:01:26(UTC)
Mt. Epic
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 28/09/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,749
Man
Location: Somewhere in the universe

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 28 post(s)
forkboy wrote:
No, but if one considers how long the Roman Empire lasted it might perhaps give you some perspective. The Roman Empire was confirmed in law by the first Emperor, Augustus (grandnephew of Julius Caesar) after a long series of civil wars, which saw the end of the Roman Republic, in 27BC. The Eastern Roman Empire finally fell in 1453 when the Turks finally took Constantinople. There is absolutely no evidence so far that any democracy is going to last half as long as that. The longest lasting democracy without interruption would probably be America, and that's just 250 years.


well, the democratic system I believe will succeed beyond the failed empires because its citizens don't base lives around a certain religion and fight other nearby empires simply because they argue over perhaps the smallest principle of life. Democratic systems are free from the social classes based on cultural backgrounds, which is the entire reason for their existance, and the citizens are more motivated to thrive if the conditions of their life are fair, rather than forced.
UserPostedImage

Fuck yo punk ass! Da BBC Kingz gon' getchu!
Offline forkboy  
#32 Posted : 31 October 2010 23:17:23(UTC)
forkboy
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 05/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 3,255
Location: Glasgow

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 107 time(s) in 82 post(s)
Democratic systems are not free from social classes based on cultural backgrounds, and in fact free markets reinforce the gap between rich, comfortable, and poor, as is shown so well in China since economic liberalisation took place, or as shown by that freest of the free, America (to quote an interview with Edward Woolf, Economics Professor at New York University, "In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth." "The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth. In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.")

Also, fairness is not a static term, fairness is relative. Being tortured for advocating freedom of speech in a dictatorship is unfair. Being forced to work three jobs just to feed your family is also grossly unfair.

Another quotation, one which I'm quite keen on, by Alexander Berkman, a Russian Jew who moved to America in 1888 where he became a convinced anarchist:"When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' alright, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun. Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman’s gun."

No relevance, it's just a quote I like.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.214 seconds.