Lon;1033567 wrote: This is a bit off what you gentlemen are discussing, but does I believe contribute to the fear of socialism that many in this country have.
I'm thinking of the Mcarthy Hearings of the 50's and the wild accusations of this or that person being a communist. I can well remember that there was not much differing between communist and socialist although the emphasis was on communist. The "John Birch Society" was in full swing and recruiting
like crazy (do a Google on the John Birch Society). There was absolute paranoia which fortunately subsided as cooler heads prevailed. I was in my 20's and though never a Bircher, was one that was caught up in the "we gotta get those commie bastards". Age and knowledge has a way of sorting things out.
Communism is a form of socialism except it's extremely more prone to abuse and corruption from my own understanding...
Socialism when done morally is grounds for a perfect society.
End of.
The Fear of Socialism
The Fear of Socialism
Accountable;1033340 wrote: It's patronising to ask people to take care of themselves, yet not patronising to give someone a house - ...[...]
It's not patronizing when giving someone worth the equivalent to society a house they couldn't otherwise afford in an above average unjustifiable market. Monumental difference.
One is worth; one is greed at the expense of others not below the hypothetical average. From which that hypothetical average would ultimately turn into the top by virtue of default rendering everyone wealthy on average as opposed to some insanely rich and some insanely poor all the while the average John doe is having heart attacks at the age of 58 because he has two mortgage payments.
It's not patronizing when giving someone worth the equivalent to society a house they couldn't otherwise afford in an above average unjustifiable market. Monumental difference.
One is worth; one is greed at the expense of others not below the hypothetical average. From which that hypothetical average would ultimately turn into the top by virtue of default rendering everyone wealthy on average as opposed to some insanely rich and some insanely poor all the while the average John doe is having heart attacks at the age of 58 because he has two mortgage payments.
The Fear of Socialism
Lon;1033567 wrote: I was in my 20's and though never a Bircher, was one that was caught up in the "we gotta get those commie bastards". Age and knowledge has a way of sorting things out.That's an impressive thing to see written. In my uninformed and ignorant way I thought it was still the ingrained attitude of every red-blooded American. I hadn't expected to see one say that "better dead than red" had faded as an emotion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1033817 wrote: That's an impressive thing to see written. In my uninformed and ignorant way I thought it was still the ingrained attitude of every red-blooded American. I hadn't expected to see one say that "better dead than red" had faded as an emotion.
It's not so much "communism" that Americans despise as much as it is Russian communism they despise.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?...
It's not so much "communism" that Americans despise as much as it is Russian communism they despise.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?...
The Fear of Socialism
K.Snyder;1035262 wrote: It's not so much "communism" that Americans despise as much as it is Russian communism they despise.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?...
You're kidding me. I admire the place and the people. They've been in transition since they stepped back from their centralized economy, they had an economic crisis which they've weathered, I'm delighted that they're getting back on their feet. I'm sure that in twenty years we'll recognize the synthesis they're in the process of constructing between the old Soviet collectivism and the new Russian socialism. The USSR may be gone now but it was the saviour of the 20th Century, absolutely nothing else would have seen off German expansionism across Europe.
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?...
You're kidding me. I admire the place and the people. They've been in transition since they stepped back from their centralized economy, they had an economic crisis which they've weathered, I'm delighted that they're getting back on their feet. I'm sure that in twenty years we'll recognize the synthesis they're in the process of constructing between the old Soviet collectivism and the new Russian socialism. The USSR may be gone now but it was the saviour of the 20th Century, absolutely nothing else would have seen off German expansionism across Europe.
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
Lon;1033567 wrote: This is a bit off what you gentlemen are discussing, but does I believe contribute to the fear of socialism that many in this country have.
I'm thinking of the Mcarthy Hearings of the 50's and the wild accusations of this or that person being a communist. I can well remember that there was not much differing between communist and socialist although the emphasis was on communist. The "John Birch Society" was in full swing and recruiting
like crazy (do a Google on the John Birch Society). There was absolute paranoia which fortunately subsided as cooler heads prevailed. I was in my 20's and though never a Bircher, was one that was caught up in the "we gotta get those commie bastards". Age and knowledge has a way of sorting things out.
Actually no it's not. American fear of socialism seems to stem from that immediate post war period. What happened to the american nazis? Hitler had a lot of support in the states (and in congress where many tried to stop any aid going to the british). Your nazis were not soundly defeated like they were in europe but morphed in to something else. The targets of the MaCarthy era were often the same ones Hitler went after. the liberals, jews (surprising number of them in hollywood a favourite target if I remember my history correctly). The term fascist and nazi seem to have almost disappeared from the public ken while communist and socialist have become bogey men. As a non American your politicians come across as overwhelmingly right wing and in the case of Mccain and Bush militaristic. (if I can say that without being jumped on from a great height by the anti american conspiracy theorists.
As I am sure you can appreciate I cannot claim to be an expert on american history. You viewpoint would be rather intriguing.
posted by K snyder
I feel that the government should step in and be the mediator upon certain issues more so pertaining to taxes and the systems people use publicly...Roads, banks, schools, etc... etc...One could even argue health care seeing as health care in my own mind would probably be the hardest business to congeal...And it is a business people don't kid yourself..
Actually in a capitalist society you would expect government to take responsibility for some things -such as the infrastructure, arguably he welfare of the populace by imposing laws to regulate the activities of individuals and companies where necessary-to stop exploitation for example. A free market economy does not mean free licence to do as you wish.
also posted by K snyder
It's not so much "communism" that Americans despise as much as it is Russian communism they despise.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?..
If it works for the russians that's all that matters surely. Apart from anything else your own social structure is not the envy of the world that you seem to imagine.
posted by accountable
The only difference between you & me here is how you think I look at things.:yh_laugh
That's because I can't quite make sense of it.
I'm thinking of the Mcarthy Hearings of the 50's and the wild accusations of this or that person being a communist. I can well remember that there was not much differing between communist and socialist although the emphasis was on communist. The "John Birch Society" was in full swing and recruiting
like crazy (do a Google on the John Birch Society). There was absolute paranoia which fortunately subsided as cooler heads prevailed. I was in my 20's and though never a Bircher, was one that was caught up in the "we gotta get those commie bastards". Age and knowledge has a way of sorting things out.
Actually no it's not. American fear of socialism seems to stem from that immediate post war period. What happened to the american nazis? Hitler had a lot of support in the states (and in congress where many tried to stop any aid going to the british). Your nazis were not soundly defeated like they were in europe but morphed in to something else. The targets of the MaCarthy era were often the same ones Hitler went after. the liberals, jews (surprising number of them in hollywood a favourite target if I remember my history correctly). The term fascist and nazi seem to have almost disappeared from the public ken while communist and socialist have become bogey men. As a non American your politicians come across as overwhelmingly right wing and in the case of Mccain and Bush militaristic. (if I can say that without being jumped on from a great height by the anti american conspiracy theorists.
As I am sure you can appreciate I cannot claim to be an expert on american history. You viewpoint would be rather intriguing.
posted by K snyder
I feel that the government should step in and be the mediator upon certain issues more so pertaining to taxes and the systems people use publicly...Roads, banks, schools, etc... etc...One could even argue health care seeing as health care in my own mind would probably be the hardest business to congeal...And it is a business people don't kid yourself..
Actually in a capitalist society you would expect government to take responsibility for some things -such as the infrastructure, arguably he welfare of the populace by imposing laws to regulate the activities of individuals and companies where necessary-to stop exploitation for example. A free market economy does not mean free licence to do as you wish.
also posted by K snyder
It's not so much "communism" that Americans despise as much as it is Russian communism they despise.
I don't know anyone that thinks Russia's social structure is acceptable. Do you?..
If it works for the russians that's all that matters surely. Apart from anything else your own social structure is not the envy of the world that you seem to imagine.
posted by accountable
The only difference between you & me here is how you think I look at things.:yh_laugh
That's because I can't quite make sense of it.
-
hoxtonchris
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:41 pm
The Fear of Socialism
socialism in england seems to me a bit more basic than elsewhere,or praps i should say our fear of it.the true blues here hate socialism simply because they see anyone on benefits as bleeding them dry!conservatism is the way if you are fortunate enough to be one of lifes "haves"when you are unable to support yourself then socialism is a savour,of course you get the freeloaders,and i as a staunch socialist hate them also,but i wouldnt deny the unfortunates just to spite the ponces,true blues and thatcherites in particular would!
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1035434 wrote: You're kidding me. I admire the place and the people. They've been in transition since they stepped back from their centralized economy, they had an economic crisis which they've weathered, I'm delighted that they're getting back on their feet. I'm sure that in twenty years we'll recognize the synthesis they're in the process of constructing between the old Soviet collectivism and the new Russian socialism. The USSR may be gone now but it was the saviour of the 20th Century, absolutely nothing else would have seen off German expansionism across Europe.
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
I presume you were tripping when you wrote this? What about Soviet Expansion into Europe against the wishes of the peoples of Europe in 1945. They created a communist prison for 200 million people who weren't Russians and never asked for their "help" to become communists. I do have admiration for Russia's achievements in some areas, but Russian nationalism and autocracy has been a constant force for evil in European politics since Peter the Great.
Russia saved the 20th century? What? Sure they prevented the destruction of Mother Russia (as the communists opportunistically started calling it again in 1942) but then proceeded to steal a lot of other people's countries from them, I am thinking poles, czechs, hungarians, romanians, yugoslavians, etc etc.
The only thing that stopped them taking Paris, London and Rome was the US Army, for which you should be ever grateful. Russia achieved its objectives by mass murder, annexation, and the politically inspired destruction of nascent Eastern European nations and the civilization of central Europe. I cant believe a Brit would countenance such a viewpoint, I really can't. I like Russia and the Russians, but they already have a nation that is about one eigth of the land surface of planet earth, that will do them.
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
I presume you were tripping when you wrote this? What about Soviet Expansion into Europe against the wishes of the peoples of Europe in 1945. They created a communist prison for 200 million people who weren't Russians and never asked for their "help" to become communists. I do have admiration for Russia's achievements in some areas, but Russian nationalism and autocracy has been a constant force for evil in European politics since Peter the Great.
Russia saved the 20th century? What? Sure they prevented the destruction of Mother Russia (as the communists opportunistically started calling it again in 1942) but then proceeded to steal a lot of other people's countries from them, I am thinking poles, czechs, hungarians, romanians, yugoslavians, etc etc.
The only thing that stopped them taking Paris, London and Rome was the US Army, for which you should be ever grateful. Russia achieved its objectives by mass murder, annexation, and the politically inspired destruction of nascent Eastern European nations and the civilization of central Europe. I cant believe a Brit would countenance such a viewpoint, I really can't. I like Russia and the Russians, but they already have a nation that is about one eigth of the land surface of planet earth, that will do them.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Fear of Socialism
I think one of the biggest differences between Europe and America on the basis of socialism or capitalism or what ever economic policy you espouse is this.
European Capitalism is pragmatic, it works as a necessary evil. European socialism is also pragmatic, it also works in many ways, we have plenty of argument and debate about it all the time, universal healthcare, the private versus the public sector, the role of government, but its just not as ideological as CAPITALISM! is in the states, which to me seems almost as ideological as COMMUNISM was in the old USSR.
Its interesting that many right-wing commentators in the US just can't seem to get their heads around the basic fact that their beloved totally free market economy has just failed massively and it wasn't the socialists fault, it was the markets themselves and the large businesses in them. They remind me of the unreconstituted communists in Russia in 1991 who just couldn't understand that the USSR and the system it was based on were dead. Of course other more pragmatic Russians knew that Russia wasn't dead, and neither necessarily was the older more idealist agenda of the Russian Revolution, they were drowned out somewhat in the rush to embrace US style capitalism of course.
However, ordinary Americans seem a lot more pragmatic about it that their failed leaders and realize that if the system is not working, then maybe changing the system is not such a bad idea after all. I am not suggesting that the US is about to adopt Swedish style socialist philosophies whole-scale, but I think ordinary people have had enough of the current philosophy and want something new, it will definetly swing more to the left if Obama becomes president, and I think thats a good thing, as its obvious that the religion of the neo-liberals and the foreign policy nonsense of the neo-cons has wrecked the American economy, and have very, very seriously damaged American interests and the nation's standing in the wider world. Thats already happened, and there is no point in blaming "Obama" or some nebulous "socialists" or elite "liberals" for that, thats was Cheney, Bush, Rove etc etc.
European Capitalism is pragmatic, it works as a necessary evil. European socialism is also pragmatic, it also works in many ways, we have plenty of argument and debate about it all the time, universal healthcare, the private versus the public sector, the role of government, but its just not as ideological as CAPITALISM! is in the states, which to me seems almost as ideological as COMMUNISM was in the old USSR.
Its interesting that many right-wing commentators in the US just can't seem to get their heads around the basic fact that their beloved totally free market economy has just failed massively and it wasn't the socialists fault, it was the markets themselves and the large businesses in them. They remind me of the unreconstituted communists in Russia in 1991 who just couldn't understand that the USSR and the system it was based on were dead. Of course other more pragmatic Russians knew that Russia wasn't dead, and neither necessarily was the older more idealist agenda of the Russian Revolution, they were drowned out somewhat in the rush to embrace US style capitalism of course.
However, ordinary Americans seem a lot more pragmatic about it that their failed leaders and realize that if the system is not working, then maybe changing the system is not such a bad idea after all. I am not suggesting that the US is about to adopt Swedish style socialist philosophies whole-scale, but I think ordinary people have had enough of the current philosophy and want something new, it will definetly swing more to the left if Obama becomes president, and I think thats a good thing, as its obvious that the religion of the neo-liberals and the foreign policy nonsense of the neo-cons has wrecked the American economy, and have very, very seriously damaged American interests and the nation's standing in the wider world. Thats already happened, and there is no point in blaming "Obama" or some nebulous "socialists" or elite "liberals" for that, thats was Cheney, Bush, Rove etc etc.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Fear of Socialism
Paris and Rome, yes. Not London though.
Granted the presence of the US, the Eastern Bloc buffer was an agreed consequence of the Yalta conference, it wasn't a unilateral fait accompli by the Soviets. After what Western and Central Europe had just done to them I find it quite impossible to blame the USSR for insisting on direct control of that wide buffer along its Western border. Not even slightly. It's only in the last ten years that any serious attempt has been made between Russia and the EU toward co-existing on the continent.
Granted the presence of the US, the Eastern Bloc buffer was an agreed consequence of the Yalta conference, it wasn't a unilateral fait accompli by the Soviets. After what Western and Central Europe had just done to them I find it quite impossible to blame the USSR for insisting on direct control of that wide buffer along its Western border. Not even slightly. It's only in the last ten years that any serious attempt has been made between Russia and the EU toward co-existing on the continent.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1035805 wrote: Paris and Rome, yes. Not London though.
Granted the presence of the US, the Eastern Bloc buffer was an agreed consequence of the Yalta conference, it wasn't a unilateral fait accompli by the Soviets. After what Western and Central Europe had just done to them I find it quite impossible to blame the USSR for insisting on direct control of that wide buffer along its Western border. Not even slightly. It's only in the last ten years that any serious attempt has been made between Russia and the EU toward co-existing on the continent.
Spot, this continent we are priviliged to live in is called "Europe" and not "greater Russia" for a reason.
Sure I can understand why the Russians wanted a buffer zone, however, that this buffer zone should have included half of the European continent is not so understandable.
I presume that Stalin's meglomania and the imperialistic ambitions of 'war communism" (which was actually good old fashioned Russian chavaunism in another guise) may have had something to do with it.
Also, do you really think that without the US Army, Navy, and Airforce holding the line, that the British would have been able to prevent some of Stalin's 250-odd divisions popping over the channel and wiping Britain as an independent country (and the centre of the worlds greatest Capitalism Imperialist Empire, do detested by communists everywhere) off the map? I think not sir.
Granted the presence of the US, the Eastern Bloc buffer was an agreed consequence of the Yalta conference, it wasn't a unilateral fait accompli by the Soviets. After what Western and Central Europe had just done to them I find it quite impossible to blame the USSR for insisting on direct control of that wide buffer along its Western border. Not even slightly. It's only in the last ten years that any serious attempt has been made between Russia and the EU toward co-existing on the continent.
Spot, this continent we are priviliged to live in is called "Europe" and not "greater Russia" for a reason.
Sure I can understand why the Russians wanted a buffer zone, however, that this buffer zone should have included half of the European continent is not so understandable.
I presume that Stalin's meglomania and the imperialistic ambitions of 'war communism" (which was actually good old fashioned Russian chavaunism in another guise) may have had something to do with it.
Also, do you really think that without the US Army, Navy, and Airforce holding the line, that the British would have been able to prevent some of Stalin's 250-odd divisions popping over the channel and wiping Britain as an independent country (and the centre of the worlds greatest Capitalism Imperialist Empire, do detested by communists everywhere) off the map? I think not sir.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Fear of Socialism
Galbally;1035804 wrote: Its interesting that many right-wing commentators in the US just can't seem to get their heads around the basic fact that their beloved totally free market economy has just failed massively and it wasn't the socialists fault, it was the markets themselves and the large businesses in them. It's almost as interesting, in a psychological way, that no matter how many times I point out that the "totally free market economy" was not totally free, but manipulated by politicians - most bought by corporations. A totally free market economy, monitored by laws to keep honest people honest, would not have gone this way.
You are so convinced that freedom is such a bane that it's closed your typically wide-open mind.
You are so convinced that freedom is such a bane that it's closed your typically wide-open mind.
The Fear of Socialism
Galbally;1035816 wrote: Spot, this continent we are priviliged to live in is called "Europe" and not "greater Russia" for a reason.
Sure I can understand why the Russians wanted a buffer zone, however, that this buffer zone should have included half of the European continent is not so understandable.Well, thinking about it, the way I see the thing is that it had to include the old Austro-Hungary from the Axis, and whatever of Germany they could take of the Axis, and the likes of Bulgaria and those fascist Croats. The rest's sort of inevitable filler. Turkey and Italy and Greece were left in the West, for example.
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
Sure I can understand why the Russians wanted a buffer zone, however, that this buffer zone should have included half of the European continent is not so understandable.Well, thinking about it, the way I see the thing is that it had to include the old Austro-Hungary from the Axis, and whatever of Germany they could take of the Axis, and the likes of Bulgaria and those fascist Croats. The rest's sort of inevitable filler. Turkey and Italy and Greece were left in the West, for example.
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
The Fear of Socialism
Accountable;1033346 wrote: If (collective) you don't think you can improve it, you're less likely to try. However, if someone you know, and know the background of, shows that it is possible by doing it himself, you're more likely to give it a go.
Someone once said "Don't take directions to Disneyland from someone who's never been there." Trying to get support from people who are in the same desparate situation as you are not likely to be much help, but someone who has already shown to be successful will give better support.
This is true. You have to believe to acheive. Meaning you have to believe in yourself. When you say or think that you can't do something....you won't. "Can't" is the cousin of "won't". When you believe that you can't do something you don't seek out ways to do it....you miss opportunities to achieve that goal.
Someone once said "Don't take directions to Disneyland from someone who's never been there." Trying to get support from people who are in the same desparate situation as you are not likely to be much help, but someone who has already shown to be successful will give better support.
This is true. You have to believe to acheive. Meaning you have to believe in yourself. When you say or think that you can't do something....you won't. "Can't" is the cousin of "won't". When you believe that you can't do something you don't seek out ways to do it....you miss opportunities to achieve that goal.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1035434 wrote: You're kidding me. I admire the place and the people. They've been in transition since they stepped back from their centralized economy, they had an economic crisis which they've weathered, I'm delighted that they're getting back on their feet. I'm sure that in twenty years we'll recognize the synthesis they're in the process of constructing between the old Soviet collectivism and the new Russian socialism. The USSR may be gone now but it was the saviour of the 20th Century, absolutely nothing else would have seen off German expansionism across Europe.
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory uses the long-term equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize their purchasing power. Developed by Gustav Cassel in 1920, it is based on the law of one price: the theory states that, in an ideally efficient market, identical goods should have only one price.
This purchasing power exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison. The best-known and most-used purchasing power parity exchange rate is the Geary-Khamis dollar (the "international dollar").
Any country with the Purchasing Power Parity ranked 7th in the world(Russia)(6th by World Bank) yet "The average salary in Russia was $640 per month in early 2008, up from $80 in 2000." $640 in today's market is considered "an economic crisis which they've weathered"? doesn't get "any" respect from me let alone "much".
I'm not going to sit here and try and bash the Russian people. I like people. I have no need to talk down about people that I do not know. I do however know that the Russian government does not do enough to provide for the health and well being of it's citizens. A socialism with the GDP to effectively refrain from a national 17.60 percent poverty rate from which is only relevant in comparison to "The average salary in Russia was $640 per month in early 2008, up from $80 in 2000.".
Your average 15 year old in America makes more than that...
I admire Soviet communism and even from this distance I gratefully acknowledge my thanks to it.
The purchasing power parity (PPP) theory uses the long-term equilibrium exchange rate of two currencies to equalize their purchasing power. Developed by Gustav Cassel in 1920, it is based on the law of one price: the theory states that, in an ideally efficient market, identical goods should have only one price.
This purchasing power exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison. The best-known and most-used purchasing power parity exchange rate is the Geary-Khamis dollar (the "international dollar").
Any country with the Purchasing Power Parity ranked 7th in the world(Russia)(6th by World Bank) yet "The average salary in Russia was $640 per month in early 2008, up from $80 in 2000." $640 in today's market is considered "an economic crisis which they've weathered"? doesn't get "any" respect from me let alone "much".
I'm not going to sit here and try and bash the Russian people. I like people. I have no need to talk down about people that I do not know. I do however know that the Russian government does not do enough to provide for the health and well being of it's citizens. A socialism with the GDP to effectively refrain from a national 17.60 percent poverty rate from which is only relevant in comparison to "The average salary in Russia was $640 per month in early 2008, up from $80 in 2000.".
Your average 15 year old in America makes more than that...
The Fear of Socialism
gmc;1035670 wrote: posted by K snyder
Actually in a capitalist society you would expect government to take responsibility for some things -such as the infrastructure, arguably he welfare of the populace by imposing laws to regulate the activities of individuals and companies where necessary-to stop exploitation for example. A free market economy does not mean free licence to do as you wish. Sure but I feel that in a capitalist society "laws" are more prone to bribery and not like many other countries I most assuredly do not think that bribery is just another form of policy. Far too unmotivated as far as I'm concerned and doesn't deal with the problems in society at it's roots which is bad morals and bad ethics altogether, and bad "means" never justifies the "ends" regardless because what's left is that in which is made prevalent remains unworthy of sacrifice throughout any foresighted reasoning.
gmc;1035670 wrote:
If it works for the russians that's all that matters surely. Apart from anything else your own social structure is not the envy of the world that you seem to imagine.
Sure it's not,..if you're not white. From which I couldn't be more against. Hence K.Snyder;1031678 wrote: What can the American citizens do to move the current capitalist ideology of the power bias in America to something say like a "more so economically motivated social structure influenced greatly by the philosophies of Libertarian socialism and Mutualism..."?..."For further reference you might want to read about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon..."......
Actually in a capitalist society you would expect government to take responsibility for some things -such as the infrastructure, arguably he welfare of the populace by imposing laws to regulate the activities of individuals and companies where necessary-to stop exploitation for example. A free market economy does not mean free licence to do as you wish. Sure but I feel that in a capitalist society "laws" are more prone to bribery and not like many other countries I most assuredly do not think that bribery is just another form of policy. Far too unmotivated as far as I'm concerned and doesn't deal with the problems in society at it's roots which is bad morals and bad ethics altogether, and bad "means" never justifies the "ends" regardless because what's left is that in which is made prevalent remains unworthy of sacrifice throughout any foresighted reasoning.
gmc;1035670 wrote:
If it works for the russians that's all that matters surely. Apart from anything else your own social structure is not the envy of the world that you seem to imagine.
Sure it's not,..if you're not white. From which I couldn't be more against. Hence K.Snyder;1031678 wrote: What can the American citizens do to move the current capitalist ideology of the power bias in America to something say like a "more so economically motivated social structure influenced greatly by the philosophies of Libertarian socialism and Mutualism..."?..."For further reference you might want to read about Pierre-Joseph Proudhon..."......
The Fear of Socialism
hoxtonchris;1035687 wrote: socialism in england seems to me a bit more basic than elsewhere,or praps i should say our fear of it.the true blues here hate socialism simply because they see anyone on benefits as bleeding them dry!conservatism is the way if you are fortunate enough to be one of lifes "haves"when you are unable to support yourself then socialism is a savour,of course you get the freeloaders,and i as a staunch socialist hate them also,but i wouldnt deny the unfortunates just to spite the ponces,true blues and thatcherites in particular would!
The problem being the diversification of society's social structure based entirely off of the fact that capitalism molds a nations habits around spending much too carelessly only for the shock to be so great that socialism sounds like "commie clap trap"...
Let's get people to understand the greatness socialism asserts so that people will never, in the blink of an eye's amount of time, have to see people "unable to support" themselves and to not "deny the unfortunates just to spite the ponces"...
Just because communism is a form of socialism(I'd say socialism is a form of communism but I do not agree with the majority of policies associated with the countries that can be attributed to the example being set of how communism is being perceived today) doesn't mean socialism is identical to the social crimes that have been committed in the name of past communist countries.
Socialism argues for just that,..social equality. Who can be against that?
The problem being the diversification of society's social structure based entirely off of the fact that capitalism molds a nations habits around spending much too carelessly only for the shock to be so great that socialism sounds like "commie clap trap"...
Let's get people to understand the greatness socialism asserts so that people will never, in the blink of an eye's amount of time, have to see people "unable to support" themselves and to not "deny the unfortunates just to spite the ponces"...
Just because communism is a form of socialism(I'd say socialism is a form of communism but I do not agree with the majority of policies associated with the countries that can be attributed to the example being set of how communism is being perceived today) doesn't mean socialism is identical to the social crimes that have been committed in the name of past communist countries.
Socialism argues for just that,..social equality. Who can be against that?
The Fear of Socialism
Accountable;1035828 wrote: It's almost as interesting, in a psychological way, that no matter how many times I point out that the "totally free market economy" was not totally free, but manipulated by politicians - most bought by corporations. A totally free market economy, monitored by laws to keep honest people honest, would not have gone this way.
You are so convinced that freedom is such a bane that it's closed your typically wide-open mind.
Accountable I am quite aware of your point. However, I would point out this, are you suggesting that (which would be something not countenanced even in the most febrile ramblings of an ardent neo-liberal) that you can have markets with absolutely no rules whatsoever, or no legal or financial relationship with the government of the country where that market is based? Thats an lunatic beyond-anarchist idea, and its patently absurd as the actual super-structure of a market is created and maintained by the state.
What would be the quid pro quo for such an arrangement? You give us are market, maintain the currency, prop up the banking system, but don't expect us to follow any rules??? Yeah, nice deal. You seem to be saying that if we relinquished every single control and rule that governs finance and the economy it would all work fine? Its a nonsense acc.
I take the point that the US Government has been manipulating its interest rates and its fiscal policies in order to maintain a huge property bubble and expansion of credit, I would suggest the reason it has done this is that your government ultimately works for the benefit of it paymasters in Wall Street and not the citizens who are about to pay for that madness while Wall Street will get a slap on the wrist.
However that doesn't explain the fact that every major US financial institution either went crazy or ignored the obvious as there was so much short term money being made, thats the root of the problem, there was no self-control in the deregulated institutions of the market, no fear of consequences, because they knew that the government are toothless and would never stop them doing whatever they wanted.
Its the subservience of your nation to its business oligarchy thats the problem, not that they don't have enough latitude, they already have too much, and they are using it to undermine your Republic.
I accept of course that I may be wrong or misguided, or as you say my mind may be closed, but I think Acc that the world has changed over the last 6 months though its not quite so apparent yet I don't think most people appreciate how profound that change really is or how deep it goes. The postwar world we all have known is over, it was slowly ending anyway, but now we have just been thrown headfirst into some sort of new era without any rules or precedent. Relying on the old dogmas is pointless now, a new set of ideas and rules will be required by the countries that are to prosper in the coming times.
You are so convinced that freedom is such a bane that it's closed your typically wide-open mind.
Accountable I am quite aware of your point. However, I would point out this, are you suggesting that (which would be something not countenanced even in the most febrile ramblings of an ardent neo-liberal) that you can have markets with absolutely no rules whatsoever, or no legal or financial relationship with the government of the country where that market is based? Thats an lunatic beyond-anarchist idea, and its patently absurd as the actual super-structure of a market is created and maintained by the state.
What would be the quid pro quo for such an arrangement? You give us are market, maintain the currency, prop up the banking system, but don't expect us to follow any rules??? Yeah, nice deal. You seem to be saying that if we relinquished every single control and rule that governs finance and the economy it would all work fine? Its a nonsense acc.
I take the point that the US Government has been manipulating its interest rates and its fiscal policies in order to maintain a huge property bubble and expansion of credit, I would suggest the reason it has done this is that your government ultimately works for the benefit of it paymasters in Wall Street and not the citizens who are about to pay for that madness while Wall Street will get a slap on the wrist.
However that doesn't explain the fact that every major US financial institution either went crazy or ignored the obvious as there was so much short term money being made, thats the root of the problem, there was no self-control in the deregulated institutions of the market, no fear of consequences, because they knew that the government are toothless and would never stop them doing whatever they wanted.
Its the subservience of your nation to its business oligarchy thats the problem, not that they don't have enough latitude, they already have too much, and they are using it to undermine your Republic.
I accept of course that I may be wrong or misguided, or as you say my mind may be closed, but I think Acc that the world has changed over the last 6 months though its not quite so apparent yet I don't think most people appreciate how profound that change really is or how deep it goes. The postwar world we all have known is over, it was slowly ending anyway, but now we have just been thrown headfirst into some sort of new era without any rules or precedent. Relying on the old dogmas is pointless now, a new set of ideas and rules will be required by the countries that are to prosper in the coming times.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Fear of Socialism
Galbally;1036133 wrote: Accountable I am quite aware of your point. However, I would point out this, are you suggesting that (which would be something not countenanced even in the most febrile ramblings of an ardent neo-liberal) that you can have markets with absolutely no rules whatsoever, or no legal or financial relationship with the government of the country where that market is based? Thats an lunatic beyond-anarchist idea, and its patently absurd as the actual super-structure of a market is created and maintained by the state. I stipulated in my post that the free market needs laws to keep honest people honest. I agree with you about the true root problem:
Galbally wrote: Its the subservience of your nation to its business oligarchy thats the problem, not that they don't have enough latitude, they already have too much, and they are using it to undermine your Republic.The oligarchy, as you call it, has come about because corporations and business people have purchased controlling shares in government respresentatives - who are not supposed to be for sale and should be investigated & charged, but by whom?? - and have repealed the very laws that are supposed to keep honest people honest, and replaced them with government protected theft. That's what permitted the recent chaos, not the free market.
Our one controlling political party with two names have held their monopoly for so long they've installed a fortress of rules too daunting for any new party (or new idea) to overcome, so far. It may very well take a revolution to overthrow the current government and replace it with one that honors the ideals and documents that only receive lip service today.
Galbally wrote: Its the subservience of your nation to its business oligarchy thats the problem, not that they don't have enough latitude, they already have too much, and they are using it to undermine your Republic.The oligarchy, as you call it, has come about because corporations and business people have purchased controlling shares in government respresentatives - who are not supposed to be for sale and should be investigated & charged, but by whom?? - and have repealed the very laws that are supposed to keep honest people honest, and replaced them with government protected theft. That's what permitted the recent chaos, not the free market.
Our one controlling political party with two names have held their monopoly for so long they've installed a fortress of rules too daunting for any new party (or new idea) to overcome, so far. It may very well take a revolution to overthrow the current government and replace it with one that honors the ideals and documents that only receive lip service today.
The Fear of Socialism
Accountable;1036169 wrote: I stipulated in my post that the free market needs laws to keep honest people honest. I agree with you about the true root problem:
The oligarchy, as you call it, has come about because corporations and business people have purchased controlling shares in government respresentatives - who are not supposed to be for sale and should be investigated & charged, but by whom?? - and have repealed the very laws that are supposed to keep honest people honest, and replaced them with government protected theft. That's what permitted the recent chaos, not the free market.
Our one controlling political party with two names have held their monopoly for so long they've installed a fortress of rules too daunting for any new party (or new idea) to overcome, so far. It may very well take a revolution to overthrow the current government and replace it with one that honors the ideals and documents that only receive lip service today.
On all of these points we are in close agreement. I still think that you have a Republic to be proud of in many ways, however, the body politic has been been seriously undermined by corruption through the pernicious influence of big buisness. Thats not a new story in history, and certainly things can change very quickly as events dictate.
I would say that the tide is swinging away from the consent of the people to allow business to have so much say and influence in the running of the state, and when people remove their consent to be governed in a certain way, then the people who govern have to take account of that.
I would also say that we have our own set of problems on this side of the atlantic and you are not alone in having major issues to deal with. So its not a case of European schaudenfredue going on here. We are essentially all in a very very big economic mess, the first thing is to come up with a new departure that can refound some form of confidence in the basic running of the capitalist system (as despite what people may think, capitalism is still the best system on offer), it just needs to have an injection of probity, reality, and commonsense.
It also needs a realization that the system is now global and that national institutions have more or less lost their ability to control the system. So its either a choice of creating economic "regions" that regulate themselves, and have bilateral trade and currency arrangements, this would involve regions such as North America, Europe, SE Asia, Latin America, India, Central Asia etc. Either that, or put global institutions in place that can actually regulate global capital markets, and accept the loss of some national economic soveriegnty, I think I can guess which one you would be in favour of. In my opinion it will be a mix of the two.
The oligarchy, as you call it, has come about because corporations and business people have purchased controlling shares in government respresentatives - who are not supposed to be for sale and should be investigated & charged, but by whom?? - and have repealed the very laws that are supposed to keep honest people honest, and replaced them with government protected theft. That's what permitted the recent chaos, not the free market.
Our one controlling political party with two names have held their monopoly for so long they've installed a fortress of rules too daunting for any new party (or new idea) to overcome, so far. It may very well take a revolution to overthrow the current government and replace it with one that honors the ideals and documents that only receive lip service today.
On all of these points we are in close agreement. I still think that you have a Republic to be proud of in many ways, however, the body politic has been been seriously undermined by corruption through the pernicious influence of big buisness. Thats not a new story in history, and certainly things can change very quickly as events dictate.
I would say that the tide is swinging away from the consent of the people to allow business to have so much say and influence in the running of the state, and when people remove their consent to be governed in a certain way, then the people who govern have to take account of that.
I would also say that we have our own set of problems on this side of the atlantic and you are not alone in having major issues to deal with. So its not a case of European schaudenfredue going on here. We are essentially all in a very very big economic mess, the first thing is to come up with a new departure that can refound some form of confidence in the basic running of the capitalist system (as despite what people may think, capitalism is still the best system on offer), it just needs to have an injection of probity, reality, and commonsense.
It also needs a realization that the system is now global and that national institutions have more or less lost their ability to control the system. So its either a choice of creating economic "regions" that regulate themselves, and have bilateral trade and currency arrangements, this would involve regions such as North America, Europe, SE Asia, Latin America, India, Central Asia etc. Either that, or put global institutions in place that can actually regulate global capital markets, and accept the loss of some national economic soveriegnty, I think I can guess which one you would be in favour of. In my opinion it will be a mix of the two.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1035961 wrote: Well, thinking about it, the way I see the thing is that it had to include the old Austro-Hungary from the Axis, and whatever of Germany they could take of the Axis, and the likes of Bulgaria and those fascist Croats. The rest's sort of inevitable filler. Turkey and Italy and Greece were left in the West, for example.
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
I totally dispute the right of the Russians to destroy the political freedom of hundreds of millions my fellow Europeans for 3 generations, its as simple as that. Whatever their own perspective was. However, of course I respect your opinion or at least your right to have it.
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
I totally dispute the right of the Russians to destroy the political freedom of hundreds of millions my fellow Europeans for 3 generations, its as simple as that. Whatever their own perspective was. However, of course I respect your opinion or at least your right to have it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Fear of Socialism
posted by K.snyder
Socialism argues for just that,..social equality. Who can be against that?
It feels like most of your countrymen. there was even one thread somewhere advocating that the rich i.e. those who pay the most taxes-should have a greater say in government. Not exactly an argument in favour of one man one vote.
posted by spot
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
You're also assuming that russia manages top stop the germans. Who knows? without the distraction of the war in africa, italy and later France post D-Day they might have had enough resources and support to take out russia. Ballistic missiles, jets, he came pretty close to having a nuclear weapon. Thanks to stalin and his destruction of the red army officer corps and the paralysis fear of the political commissars caused they came pretty close even with those distractions.
Stalin took over independent nations and held on to them by force. Dress it up any way you like. perhaps stalin was the man russia needed but he was a ruthless dictator no matter how you look at it.
Socialism argues for just that,..social equality. Who can be against that?
It feels like most of your countrymen. there was even one thread somewhere advocating that the rich i.e. those who pay the most taxes-should have a greater say in government. Not exactly an argument in favour of one man one vote.
posted by spot
You're pushing what-if too far to ask what Stalin would have done had the US remained isolationist beyond 1941 and he'd reached Calais by.... what? shall we guess at 1948? It's an entirely different world. Japan would have presumably had to have avoided Roosevelt's baited trap of Pearl Harbor and settled for the Pacific seaboard as far as Indonesia and Burma and would have consolidated Manchuria, Mao would be a nothing footnote of history and Stalin would have been, by 1948, entirely focused on his Asian theatre once the last Nazis had retreated into Spain and sealed the mountains. There's no cross-channel invasion there.
You're also assuming that russia manages top stop the germans. Who knows? without the distraction of the war in africa, italy and later France post D-Day they might have had enough resources and support to take out russia. Ballistic missiles, jets, he came pretty close to having a nuclear weapon. Thanks to stalin and his destruction of the red army officer corps and the paralysis fear of the political commissars caused they came pretty close even with those distractions.
Stalin took over independent nations and held on to them by force. Dress it up any way you like. perhaps stalin was the man russia needed but he was a ruthless dictator no matter how you look at it.
The Fear of Socialism
K.Snyder;1036008 wrote: I'm not going to sit here and try and bash the Russian people. I like people. I have no need to talk down about people that I do not know. I do however know that the Russian government does not do enough to provide for the health and well being of it's citizens. A socialism with the GDP to effectively refrain from a national 17.60 percent poverty rate from which is only relevant in comparison to "The average salary in Russia was $640 per month in early 2008, up from $80 in 2000.".
Your average 15 year old in America makes more than that...
That just about says it all really. Every priority and ambition summed up into a single number and not the least hint as regards quality of life.
Your average 15 year old in America makes more than that...
That just about says it all really. Every priority and ambition summed up into a single number and not the least hint as regards quality of life.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
Galbally;1036207 wrote: I totally dispute the right of the Russians to destroy the political freedom of hundreds of millions my fellow Europeans for 3 generations, its as simple as that. Whatever their own perspective was. However, of course I respect your opinion or at least your right to have it.
Do you not see what's happened since the COMECON buffer was stripped away?
US Missile sites in Poland?
You'd have preferred Stalin and his successors to expose Russia's borders to that sort of Western aggressive posturing through the Cold War? What they actually got was bad enough, Lord knows what it would have reached without the buffer states.
I'm delighted that the post-WW2 map of Europe was drawn with the Iron Curtain as far from Moscow as it ended up. The consequence was that Europe survived into another century.
gmc wrote: Dress it up any way you like. perhaps stalin was the man russia needed but he was a ruthless dictator no matter how you look at it.One can be the Saviour of Europe and a ruthless dictator at the same time, you know. Nobody with less authority could have commanded the same response.
Do you not see what's happened since the COMECON buffer was stripped away?
US Missile sites in Poland?
You'd have preferred Stalin and his successors to expose Russia's borders to that sort of Western aggressive posturing through the Cold War? What they actually got was bad enough, Lord knows what it would have reached without the buffer states.
I'm delighted that the post-WW2 map of Europe was drawn with the Iron Curtain as far from Moscow as it ended up. The consequence was that Europe survived into another century.
gmc wrote: Dress it up any way you like. perhaps stalin was the man russia needed but he was a ruthless dictator no matter how you look at it.One can be the Saviour of Europe and a ruthless dictator at the same time, you know. Nobody with less authority could have commanded the same response.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1036594 wrote: Do you not see what's happened since the COMECON buffer was stripped away?
US Missile sites in Poland?
You'd have preferred Stalin and his successors to expose Russia's borders to that sort of Western aggressive posturing through the Cold War? What they actually got was bad enough, Lord knows what it would have reached without the buffer states.
I'm delighted that the post-WW2 map of Europe was drawn with the Iron Curtain as far from Moscow as it ended up. The consequence was that Europe survived into another century.
One can be the Saviour of Europe and a ruthless dictator at the same time, you know. Nobody with less authority could have commanded the same response.
That's because you have idiots in the white house that want to keep the cold war going and administrations in poland that are torn between being anti german and anti russian.
It was stalin's choice to draw the iron curtain no one else's. What about when he attacked Finland and then carved up poland with Hitler? You can hardly justify that as being in response to concerns they might invade russia.
US Missile sites in Poland?
You'd have preferred Stalin and his successors to expose Russia's borders to that sort of Western aggressive posturing through the Cold War? What they actually got was bad enough, Lord knows what it would have reached without the buffer states.
I'm delighted that the post-WW2 map of Europe was drawn with the Iron Curtain as far from Moscow as it ended up. The consequence was that Europe survived into another century.
One can be the Saviour of Europe and a ruthless dictator at the same time, you know. Nobody with less authority could have commanded the same response.
That's because you have idiots in the white house that want to keep the cold war going and administrations in poland that are torn between being anti german and anti russian.
It was stalin's choice to draw the iron curtain no one else's. What about when he attacked Finland and then carved up poland with Hitler? You can hardly justify that as being in response to concerns they might invade russia.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1036576 wrote: That just about says it all really. Every priority and ambition summed up into a single number and not the least hint as regards quality of life.
Well seeing as those people need to buy their products from a market "priority" and "ambition" becomes relative in coercion to not just the products that the country's government in question prohibits but by understanding the difference between "priority" and "ambition" in regards to realism.
Well seeing as those people need to buy their products from a market "priority" and "ambition" becomes relative in coercion to not just the products that the country's government in question prohibits but by understanding the difference between "priority" and "ambition" in regards to realism.
The Fear of Socialism
gmc;1036977 wrote: It was stalin's choice to draw the iron curtain no one else's. What about when he attacked Finland and then carved up poland with Hitler? You can hardly justify that as being in response to concerns they might invade russia.On the contrary, the non-aggression pact was the sole reason Russia survived at all. Allowing an additional two years industrialization in those huge armaments facilities near the Urals was the reason Marshal Zhukov and others like him contained and reversed the inevitable attack. The thing with the Finns was just plain odd.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The Fear of Socialism
gmc;1036452 wrote: It feels like most of your countrymen. there was even one thread somewhere advocating that the rich i.e. those who pay the most taxes-should have a greater say in government. Not exactly an argument in favour of one man one vote.
I can't wholeheartedly agree with "It feels like most of your countrymen."...What's equally as hard is trying to change the contentment of a majority when anything that remotely resembles "change" is automatically looked at as being a bad thing...Even when change doesn't necessarily mean for the worse rather just implemented in different aspects of not just the current political structure but the social structure as well.
Quite frankly people that live in the US have far greater opportunities than anyone else in the world(Obviously speaking in terms of financial stability - And yes even now).
Sooner rather than later the money that's keeping the majority of the US population in a state of contentment is going to run out and we're going to see the US go from a country completely reliant on capital to a society wishing they'd been more tolerant to the idea of social reform 25 years ago when they could actually afford a boat and a cabin by the lake...
If McCain wins office the latter will come sooner rather than later as well...
I don't see the US market being what it once was, but then again I may be wrong...
I can't wholeheartedly agree with "It feels like most of your countrymen."...What's equally as hard is trying to change the contentment of a majority when anything that remotely resembles "change" is automatically looked at as being a bad thing...Even when change doesn't necessarily mean for the worse rather just implemented in different aspects of not just the current political structure but the social structure as well.
Quite frankly people that live in the US have far greater opportunities than anyone else in the world(Obviously speaking in terms of financial stability - And yes even now).
Sooner rather than later the money that's keeping the majority of the US population in a state of contentment is going to run out and we're going to see the US go from a country completely reliant on capital to a society wishing they'd been more tolerant to the idea of social reform 25 years ago when they could actually afford a boat and a cabin by the lake...
If McCain wins office the latter will come sooner rather than later as well...
I don't see the US market being what it once was, but then again I may be wrong...
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1037195 wrote: On the contrary, the non-aggression pact was the sole reason Russia survived at all. Allowing an additional two years industrialization in those huge armaments facilities near the Urals was the reason Marshal Zhukov and others like him contained and reversed the inevitable attack. The thing with the Finns was just plain odd.
What nonsense. You can't pretend it was a crafty ploy to ensure russia's survival. He was setting things up so he could carve up out a bigger empire for russia. It was their defeats at the hand of the finns that in large part persuaded Hitler russia was a far weaker nation than they thought. The thing with Finland wasn't just odd he was picking what he thought would be an easy target first. That the finns stood off both russia and later germany to remaon independent is one of the most a remarkable feats of ww2. Nor was the taking of half of poland done in a spirit of friendly neighbourliness.
Next you'll be claiming the massacres in the katyn forest were an exuberant expression of the desire to remove class oppressors from polish society on the part of the red army.
Dress it up any way you like, you could even argue stalin wasn't a good communist because he stopped the natural progression to a workers democracy.
But the dictatorship of the proletariat is always going to stay just that-a dictatorship, with who runs it up for grabs. Naturally the communists themselves are the best qualified to run the workers democracy0or as talin would have it-he was. It's a fundamental flaw in communism that anyone with half a brain can see through.
Socialism has an important place in modern society, communism was a facet of it-a creature of it's time that was never going to work any more than anarchism was. A kind of bastard child born out of a desire for social reform and the need to explain society. It's like a religious sect. Ever read the debates of the early communist party or lenin's writings? half the time it's about who is right and why everybody else is wrong.
What nonsense. You can't pretend it was a crafty ploy to ensure russia's survival. He was setting things up so he could carve up out a bigger empire for russia. It was their defeats at the hand of the finns that in large part persuaded Hitler russia was a far weaker nation than they thought. The thing with Finland wasn't just odd he was picking what he thought would be an easy target first. That the finns stood off both russia and later germany to remaon independent is one of the most a remarkable feats of ww2. Nor was the taking of half of poland done in a spirit of friendly neighbourliness.
Next you'll be claiming the massacres in the katyn forest were an exuberant expression of the desire to remove class oppressors from polish society on the part of the red army.
Dress it up any way you like, you could even argue stalin wasn't a good communist because he stopped the natural progression to a workers democracy.
But the dictatorship of the proletariat is always going to stay just that-a dictatorship, with who runs it up for grabs. Naturally the communists themselves are the best qualified to run the workers democracy0or as talin would have it-he was. It's a fundamental flaw in communism that anyone with half a brain can see through.
Socialism has an important place in modern society, communism was a facet of it-a creature of it's time that was never going to work any more than anarchism was. A kind of bastard child born out of a desire for social reform and the need to explain society. It's like a religious sect. Ever read the debates of the early communist party or lenin's writings? half the time it's about who is right and why everybody else is wrong.
The Fear of Socialism
spot;1008906 wrote: The quality of life in New Zealand is amazingly high. I'd love to have spent some time living there.
I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.
Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.
A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.
In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.
Socialism has two legs.
One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.
The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.
Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.
Is that helpful?
Very-------------you write well---sorry for the delayed response
I'll have a try at swinging the thread back to Socialism but I doubt whether anyone's going to want to play, Lon. It's all about vocabulary before people can even start to engage in discussing what they'd prefer and why they'd prefer it. I'll try to put some words here that, if we all used them the same way in the thread, would allow a discussion.
Socialism has nothing to do with what type of government a country has, it's to do with the distribution of resources. Nothing else, just that. Not the type of government, or the degree of government, or whether government can itself hold and manipulate society's resources or not. Those are all entirely independent issues.
A given society at a given moment has a level of resource. That has nothing to do with the political system, that's a part definition of resource and society which indicates the association between the two. For the average person a resource is either wealth or income, the one he holds, the other he acquires.
In some political systems there's no government at all to distribute any resource. In other political systems only the government is allowed to distribute resources. Neither of those is socialism.
Socialism has two legs.
One is that no person within society is left so unresourced that those with an average share of the resources consider themselves to be significantly better resourced. I'm not talking degree here, I'm talking kind. If the average isn't starving then neither can the least resourced person be. The same goes for shelter, schooling, access to whatever the average consider fundamental elements of existence. In western society today that undoubtedly includes, for example, Internet access.
The other leg is that socialism regards lower wealth differentials to be healthier for society. For any state of financial distribution, a socialist would prefer that the wealth differential between the richest band and poorest band were narrower.
Now, anyone numerate can design a perfectly good system for distributing income and wealth in such a way as to progressively bring about greater degrees of socialism. Anyone numerate can create an achievable starting condition and set rules in place for the starting condition to progress in the right direction.
Is that helpful?
Very-------------you write well---sorry for the delayed response
The Fear of Socialism
Hey, we're all socialists now baby, vive le France, thats what I say. :yh_rotfl
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The Fear of Socialism
Bruv;1008620 wrote: To get away from where they are ?
Most Americans dont travel.......because they are happy to stay at home
If I were to visit Italy it would be to gape in awe.
If I found myself in The Holy Land it would be to weep and be humbled.
If I ever get to Greece Ill be there because I would like to witness a glimpse of ancient history. Id imagine what that world must have been like.
If I were graced with the opportunity to visit Turkey or China it wouldnt be because I wanted to get away from home.
The US is a geological wonderland but we dont have history yet.
Not really.
Most Americans dont travel.......because they are happy to stay at home
If I were to visit Italy it would be to gape in awe.
If I found myself in The Holy Land it would be to weep and be humbled.
If I ever get to Greece Ill be there because I would like to witness a glimpse of ancient history. Id imagine what that world must have been like.
If I were graced with the opportunity to visit Turkey or China it wouldnt be because I wanted to get away from home.
The US is a geological wonderland but we dont have history yet.
Not really.
I AM AWESOME MAN