Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 If is the key. As far as 300 mln that is wishful thinking, presently the population rate is going in reverse as so many Chinese are leaving to "Capitalist" countries, please read my post above. yes, and are we also assuming that all human breeding has stopped in China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Dan I don’t mean to sound superior in my opinion, but how many non profit organizations have you worked for? How many programs do you know of that offer support for the homeless and low income families? From my experience and work, I can honestly say that the amount of aid and programs which exist to improve the conditions of living for the economically challenged if everyone took an initiative it would wipe out the poverty for eternity. You see you can help only those who help themselves. I refuse to criticize the lifestyle that each one chooses as long as it is their choice, but at least they have a choice. Besides, who are we to dictate what is “good for the entire society”? Everyone perceives such claims differently, why do we want to force mass gathering and and influence our standards on others? We hardly like being told what we do. Dan you out of all people, no offense, shouldn’t be arguing in favor of Communism, due to your sexual preference. People with those preferences are highly prosecuted and at times executed. Like I said there is no room for personal choice, stand in line and be a model citizen with an instruction booklet created by the communist party, on what should a model citizen be like. Why not just concentrate on the individual choices we like to make rather than play a dictatorial Mother Theresa? People can take care of themselves, everyone is selfish, it’s a matter of how much effort you are willing to invest. In terms of breeding, I'll tell you the population control is so severe that the Chinese resort to murdering female infants, since it's much more profitable to produce male children. And the restriction on how many children you are allowed to "produce" is highly inforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 (edited) US figures are impressive. No doubt. But at present US is not a pure capitalist economy. This is obvious. Once the govt starts paying social payments the economy is one step towards socialism (BTW we have to compare capitalism with socialism and not communism). If we consider the spectrum of economies from Capitalist to Socialist, US is not going to be anywhere near the Capitalism pole, but rather closer to the median. Edited December 14, 2003 by ArmenSarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 anileve, you are comparing apples with oranges. Hmmm... i will be bringing discussions I had with yalpa on another board down here, it may interest some, since I want to write about this, but I already have writen about it elswhere so copy pasting it will be easier. I hope it will start an interesting discussion. And yes! I know I made many grammer mistakes on those posts. ------------- Fadioglu Guest Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 501 Here is my answer. "1-Division of a society in determined classes not based or race or ethnicity but on the inherent value of a person measurable by their potential and abilities." We know thats impossible we know it could not work from history experience, one of the main reason is also the fact that many of values are based on ethnicity and races from our society being against that is proning assimilation, the ones that are the most populated and the most "powerfull" would be the ones that will assimilate the rest. "2-Integration of all economic and mediatic institutions to a powerful centralized regime that shall supervise everything, allowing liberty between clearly defined parameters." Thats one of the bases of fascism, for example Marxism ideologies theoritically could allow that there is no dictatorial system of control because people should control everything, but we know that Marxist ideology ideal is just that and its an impossibility in reality, but fascism clearly is for this kind of dictatorial and centralized system.(That remind me the Young-Turk, nationalisation plan) "3-New system of electoral administration that will employ people specifically prepared to govern, who will be passing through several stages of rule in succession before they arise to the platform of the National Senate." Thats unfair and unjust, is there a real democracy on that or the fascistic ideology of the preselected "heroism" theory. Everyone should have the right to present themselves, the mass may be clamed not enough intelligent sometimes to vote for the best, at least democracy and freedom is the best system we know.(Best dosen't mean perfect) "4-Immense nationalization of military, education, products, productions, publications in every dimension, starting from the very alphabet down to the very basic ideology of humanity..." You inspired yourself here from Ataturk Turkey, and where is Freedom in all this ? 5-Counter-Globalization in every sector starting from trade to political arena to military deterrance... "LOL... just I will mot comment on this, I will enflame the board" Ozan, Yalpa has made very good points, I studied fascism mouths ago, the selected book for you would be "The Italian Dictatorship: Problems and perspectives in the Interpretation of Mussolini and Fascism." by R.J.B. Bosworth. I very much liked that book to the point of having myself a copy in my personal library. Your ideology is similair to Mussolini prime ideologies of so-called socialism its like Gianfranco Fini "Movimento Sociale Italiano" a so-called socialism that in fact is a neo-fascist system having as bases many of what you are proposing... your New-Order in paper sound "good" but its an hidden Marxist-Leninist system that would lead to fascism. I would comment about this later. ---------------------- yalpa Senior Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 395 Domino Why is Marxist solution an impossibility? And, what kind of relationship do you see, if you do, between Marxism and Fascism? timucin --------------------- Fadioglu Guest Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 501 Yalpa, Marx ideology would be impossible without the control of a structural "body" I think his ideal would be very difficult if not impossible(I believe its impossible) becuse human are like they are, when one will become more prosperious his liberty will be reduced in order to equilise it with the liberty of the mass, and without the control of a body this equalisation could not be possible. As for fascism vs Marxism, I do not believe fascism is alone a political system, I don't know if I can explain my opinion in few lines, but Marxism in paper is different then fascism, but since I do not believe that Marxist ideal could be possible, the divertion of the Marxist socialism would easily end up with a fascist system... this is what I believe, I believe fascism is the conclusion of a system that could not be implamented, a system in paper sound an ideal but in practice will divert, then it ended up with dictators saver of the people, hero's(an ellement of fascism) etc... then finaly fascism. You are right Marxism or real communism has never been tried, but in order that this system work and do not divert, it should not be a closed system, and the only way in order that this system would be open, the World itself should implament it, communism could not exist in a World that possess other kind of systems, because it will end up of broking... I hardly imagine a World trying it, many in power and many countries would not accept it and it will end up... -------------------- yalpa Senior Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 395 Domino Very interesting points! Let me start from the last one. You have a point here. Communism bounds to fail exactly because of the reason you stated here. What is the key word here? Centralization – the centralized production and distribution structure. But, the idea of central centralization of the resources and their distribution is actually not what Marxism is about. Communism is about collective participation in the decision mechanism in resource management and distribution. The mechanism and solution of centralization was what was, wrongly in my opinion, thought would be the best option to achieve this goal. Communism is not, and need not to be, equated with centralization. The option of centralization will, as you mentioned, require a global participation. But, it is perfectly possible to have communism through decentralization by establishing local communal bodies. Equalization, which you mention in your first paragraph, can come in many forms. Taking one’s possessions and giving it to the others is a very simplified description of what communism will be about. Communism proposes counter measurements against processes and policies that foster and increase unjust forms of inequalities. It is not necessarily against any form of inequality. This is a subject that needs further discussion some other time. You treat fascism as something that results from Marxism or the inability to apply this system. First of all, I would like to point out that fascism so far emerged in capitalist countries. Secondly, fascism is a system all right. It is a system that emerges for capitalism and to save capitalism. One of its unique characteristics is that it is almost against financial capitalism, but not so much against capitalism that produces, that manufacture, if, of course, to use Ozan’s terminology, it stays within certain limits. Fascism is not a desperate act to save Marxism or a Marxism that goes wrong. If this were the case then it would have shared similarities with Marxism in basic principles. It does not. In fact, they oppose each other in basic principles. Whereas Marxism is against capitalism fascism is mainly against financial capitalism, and therefore it was against the Jews, since the Jews were thought to be the financial capitalists. On many aspects, Fascism and Marxism will be attacking the same enemy, but at the end they offer two different models, and since both of them offer models that are different form each other they are two different systems. timucin ----------------------- Fadioglu Guest Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 501 Yalpa, You are right communism does not mean centralisation, centralisation is against Marxist ideology... This is exaclly why I said that its an impossibility(the only possibility is to introduce it to the World), because in paper communism is against centralisation, but in practice human are like they are, and believing that a country could be non-centralised would be a wishfull thinking, here I am not talking about a little country of 1 million or at most 2 million etc... but talking about a country of 10 million or more.... Little countries that could live on their own production could survive with a non-centrilised structure, but not a more populated country, if we make a mathematical formula about this we found a kind of a "right bell" function , more populated the country the less possible to implamente it and more we are nearer of the World total population the more possible etc... so from the two extrems there is some hope, but which country of 1 million habitant or so find the need to implement this kind of system, similair to a cooperative ? It take a structure it takes democracy, if we talk about "real" communism then everyone should have his voice, it takes people that will make their voice clear people that will represent them, then we come again to politicians, it takes a structure, since this country is communist in the middle of another system it should be centralised automatically, because the ones that are more capable of producing could decide(humans are like they are) to just leave the country to make more money, so this centralised government will end up of forbiding him to leave the country(Cuba for example). Or the country should be very less populated and that this country is the product of people that have a common interest(easier when it is not very populated and take the less structure possible) to form some kind of cooperative country or on the other side implamenting the system to the World, in that case everyone would have the same right, the richers will lose many of their rights in order that the porest win many rights etc... Now about Fascism, I think you misunderstoud me, I don't say fascism come from Marxism, but rather is the product of a system that in paper could be an ideal(for the country or state in question) but in reality catastrophic. Yes capitalism was the system that build up Fascism, the NAZI party is an example, but I do not believe that fascism is the product of one system in particular, I more believe that every system could lead to fascism, in Italia it was a so-called socialism that created fascism(Ozan system is strangely near that system) and in the other side Hitlerit Germany That was at the Extrem Right. I believe fascism could appear more in Capitalist system but I dont believe it is proper to a capitalist system, because I do not believe it is proper of one system in particular, I think it is a kind of convergence of a bad planned and abusif system that lead to fascism. ---------------------- Fadioglu Guest Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 501 "Mussolini at first had little concept of what lay ahead; only in 1920 would he opt for the Right, after the Left had demonstrated that it kept no place for him." "... Fascism was rising because of many failures of local socialism." p. 112 The book explain us that Fascism has not really to do with real structures or a political plan it is in constant evolution and that it can find any justification to apear in any system. of course fascism as we knew at it worst in this century happened in capitalistic system, but it could happen in every system, but something is sute the Marxism ideology on paper is anti-fascist, because it is against one ellement that is fondamental, and it is tha action of a "hero" of a dictator, and real Marxism do not permit this, since consider everyone equal. But again since I do not believe on the possibility of implamenting a "real" Marxism, then I do not believe that there is a possible established system that could prevent us from fascism. The second quote that I posted is one example from many, of the way fascism evolve because of the failure of a system and it is on a continual progressor untill the system broke(since I believe fascism is the most instable "system") ----------------------- yalpa Senior Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 395 Domino, I am impressed Domino. You must have a lot of time to read. You have done your homework well. Initially, I was playing around with Ozan’s so-called meritocratic socialism model,since the whole model is rather funny. Your replies are forcing me to get more serious. When I said that socialism and/or communism does not have to be centralized I was thinking about reducing the scale. Eventually, there will need to be some planning in countries where there are more than a few thousand people, but there are two options. One may either go with a centralized planning or with the dencentralized option. Marxism does not really choose between these two systems, although Marx himself may have chosen one because of the conditions of his time. The paramount worry in Marxist thinking is the problem of equality and alienation. The centralization issue is not paramount and is like choosing between the options of having mega corporations or creating many baby companies that compete with each other. Both will work as long as the necessary equal outcome mechanisms and procedures are established. The political and civil functions of states can be organized either as being under the authority of a central structure or as resulting from the network of the local centers of authority. In the second option, the state will lose its political function and become an institution for managing the economy. For example, this problem was also there during the CUP time. The anti-CUP group, the ones for decentralization, eventually lost the debate and the struggle. It again came up during Ozal’s time. He is also dead now. Marxism does not require certain nationalistic boundaries. That is, it does not say that a country’s boundaries must be respected. On the contrary, it is for fragmentation in theory, although there are a lot of Marxists who would not agree with me. The problem you are talking about can easily be solved. In fact, the real equality is achieved through lowering the scales. Lower the scales until you get down to the level where the problems of inequality will not cause major problems. We are all nationalists, and therefore, we always think in terms of our nationalistic boundaries. As true nationalists, we are usually very possessive. For example, in Turkey I come from Bodrum, a town in Southwestern Turkey. My immediate relations are in my own and immediate area and perhaps Izmir and Istanbul. Lately, we have a new link – the link with Van and Agri because of the Kurds who come to Bodrum for work and to better their lives. With the rest of the country, I and the other people in Bodrum have nothing to do. We can live and die without knowing anything or having any direct relationship with, say, Sivas, Rize, Afyon or Kirklareli. We do not need this kind of scale in communism. We need this only if we are thinking in nationalistic terms. If the scale is kept to what is required by the actual conditions of interactions, the scale of the decision mechanisms that is, then dealing with the inequalities will be much easier and satisfactory. These local centers can still have links with other local centers. This way there will still be a regionally determined and conditioned pseudo-centrality, but it will not be the kind that is determined by considerations that do not come from the actual physical conditions and links. There is nothing in Marxism that says this cannot be implemented. There is actually nothing that can say this cannot be implemented, including the theories about human nature. It is already implemented. This is how things work in the economic sphere. It is the political sphere where we need improvements. And, this is how, in addition to the problem of inequality, the problem of alienation from the centers and paths of the production will also be solved. The idea here is to increase the quality and quantity of political and social participation by reducing the scale. Reduce the scale, add the technology we have, then you will have a lot of citizens participating in the decision mechanisms, because, first of all, they will be familiar with the issues. This is one side of the problem however. For, even if you set up this system, there will always be the possibility that there will be one bad apple in the barrel, and this bad apple may eventually prove to be strong enough to swallow the neighboring apples. But, this is again not a problem Marxist approach creates. It already exists in the capitalistic world. But, it is still helpful to have smaller political/economical entities in this respect as well. You may think that this is idealism, but it has been tried before. The idea of centralization emerged with the idea of nation-states, and it was devised against the politically dencentralist empires of the previous era. Most empires in history, the successful ones such as the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, allowed for local political decision mechanisms, and they worked for a long time. In fact, the best option for socialism is dencentralization of the political decision mechanisms in my opinion. timucin ------------------------- yalpa Senior Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 395 Domino, here I continue Let me rephrase what I said. Fascism is the result of the interaction between the capitalist class and whatever anti-capitalist class there may be that is getting hurt by this capitalist class. It emerges in the capitalist countries. If the subject is classical capitalism, it emerges from the crisis that is created by and through the struggle between the capitalist class and the proletariat. The chances are that it will not emerge anymore, because the nature of the struggle and struggles are different now in the highly developed capitalist societies. It is, however, strictly related to the nature of the economic policies. If the nature of the economic policies are such that there is, on the one hand, a good size middle class, and on the other hand, the economic polices of the society greatly jeopardizes the well being of this middle class. For example, this is the case in Turkey right now. The economic superstructure of the Turkish society is not capable of handling the globalization process it is getting ready to get into. Since our state is, on the one hand, very insistent on not developing the necessary economic policies to decrease the burden and suffering of our middle class in case of globalization, there is a good chance that we will go into fascism. Fascism does not necessarily develop from the failures of local socialism. It develops from the inability of the alternative responses to save the middle classes from proletarization or getting poor. What happened in the 20s was that the socialist groups carried the struggle from the economic sphere to the politic one in response to the changing conditions of the capitalist system, its imperialist stage. Here, the socialists failed. For what hey could have asserted in the economic sphere, the slogan of the unity of proletarian class, they could not in the political sphere. Such a discourse of unity of one class could not be sustained in the political sphere, because there were a lot of possible class and group positions during the imperialistic stage and there still are. There were differences among the workers; there were multiple identities such as being a worker and being a citizen of a nation-state at the same time. The orthodox socialist answer could not cope with these contradictions. This was also the time of the end of the first globalization in the world history. The socialists carried the struggle to the political sphere in the advanced capitalist countries, they failed, the initiative went to the fascists who, some of them were ex-socialists, bypassed the idea of the class struggle by claiming no classes. They were not interested in the structural changes, but restoring the order for the middle classes. (By the way Domino, don’t take me seriously. As Ozan kept mentioning, I am very ignorant in these subjects. I don’t know what I am saying). And, in most cases, the sources of the disorder were established as Marxism as in the striking workers, and the financial capitalism as in inflation. So, the Marxists and the Jews were sent to the camps. Now, let us pause for a minute, and apply this analysis to the time of the CUP, you will see a lot of similarities. Socialists, who were busy setting up a lot of strikes between 1908 and 1912, were persecuted, and guess who was the next group? Usually, the question is that why it was the Armenians but not the Greeks. The Greeks were not in the financial structure anymore, both physically and symbolically. The Armenians had taken their place in this area. Who failed here was not necessarily the Ottoman socialists, although this was partially so, but the Prince Sabahaddin and his group. A pseudo-fascist or a proto-fascist system was set up at the end. The Armenians in this process represented the money, the hegemony of what was dirty, what was, in the eyes of some, the responsible agent for the sufferings of the middle classes, though symbolically. Fascist rhetoric is also about a struggle against what is not natural, what is dirty. The fascists always make the claim that they are cleaning the society. Surprisingly enough, Ozan’s model makes the same claim. They are naturalistic; they believe in the natural order of the things. They usually claim that the way they see things is the natural way the things are. Well, Ozan’s model makes the same claim. What was natural in this case? It was that the Armenians were the trustworthiest obedient element. They were not, so they had to be cleansed. At the end, they were. Hence the violence and brutality in the killings. timucin PS: I think another post will be coming, since I did not say everything I wanted to say in this post. --------------------------- Fadioglu Guest Registered: Feb 2002 Posts: 501 Yalpa, here is a short answer, I know it dosent cover all the points in question, but I think you idealise Marx to much... I do not believe your idea of broking everything at its basic and simplified system was a proposition from Marx, maybe I am mistaken, but to say the truth, I perfectly agree with what you propose and was just comming to it, I believe this idea is even better then Marxism, kind of little cooperative systems etc... I think that this system would be near perfect, but still there should be another body that will equilise these little systems, but this is better then full control "Communist" systems that we have already seen... My idea was the broke every countries in pieces, forget about countries but these pieces, communities in every countries could unite and form their own cooperative administrations and the only control they would not have from their own is the equalisation, that will more be an adventage for poor regions such as central Africa etc... I would be ready to accept such system, no one in these circonstances will fight for a land etc... sinces these lands the world will be for everyone, and communities will be free to chose their cooperative systems... this kind of system, is totaly the opposite of fascism, not only opposite but an enemy of fascism, since I hardly see how fascism could be developpe on such system. Now about fascism, you do not really disprove or say the contrary of what have observed... I have been interested on fascism and have read about it, I guess you know for what. I was also surprised to remark how fascism is idely accepted in many places, for example from the 3 blocks that control Italia as we speak now, one is a fascist party hidden behind a so-called socialism, in Austria and other places... about Ottoman, I also place it as pseudo-fascism, because there is some ellements that lack in order that we can classify it as fascism descibed by Mussolini, fascism in Ottoman was lacking of "races" the tragedy happening to the Armenians lacked of racism, to the point that there was forced assimilation, like remarked by Dadrian in the conclusion of his work about the implication of the physicians... and at that period racism could not have evolved like in Europe, fascism was I think more present in Turkey from the Kemalist period rather then Ottoman, there was all the ellements, the "Hero" the father, the so-called Ataturk historical "compagny" and its theories, about the ultra-nessessity of the Army, as well as national necessity that could justify everything. Turkey is in a position that is very difficult, between Europe and Asia, there is also a mixture of two mentality, the opposite forces etc... and more importantly the influence of Turkey that is considerable, etc... so for this Turkey situation could lead to fascism, but not only Turkey, even if Turkey is not in a very good position etc... I'll continue later... maybe on your board. --------------------------- yalpa Senior Member Registered: Oct 2001 Posts: 395 Some very short comments, I am not so much interested in what marx thought would work, but more in the methodology he introduced. I did not say Ottomans, if I recall right, but the CUP. The word Ottomans must always be qualified since they covered a time span of 600 years. Perhaps fascistic would be a proper term for this period. The 'ummet'(the Muslim community) and 'devlet' (the State) made the Ottoman system kind of open to fascistic solutions. Then again,the development of these two concepts into a fascistci system becomes possible only with the introduction/emergence of modernism/westernism in the Ottoman Empire. I will come back to this topic later. The institution for the job of equalization of the local groups is the so-called bourgeoise state, but there is really no need if the stress is on the practice rather than structure. And, I am not so much crazy about equality either. Furthermore, the governing principle behind communism, what was that, according to what one needs, does not really require there needs to be strict equality. It is open to how one may interpret equality. Now, if we set up an organ above the local groups to make sure all these groups are equal, we will eventually be back to where we are now. How I interpret Marxism, or how I use his methodology and early ideas, is that the groups, the people, must be included in the decision making mechanism(s). Nothing above the civic polity. We will talk about this, since I really have to go now. Okay, we will do it in my forum/site. I have already trasferred the relevant posts. But, I might not write anything until Thursday, since I got two major exams, unless I get lucky tomorrow night. ------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 (edited) Some clarification, I hope dumb questions such as: Is Yalpa a Turk? Won't be asked... so I answer to this question before it is asked. YES! Corrected for ArmenSarg. Edited December 14, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 (edited) I hope dumb answers... Won't be asked This is confusing Thanks Domino It just feels good to "catch" a veteran Edited December 14, 2003 by ArmenSarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Dan I don’t mean to sound superior in my opinion, but how many non profit organizations have you worked for? How many programs do you know of that offer support for the homeless and low income families? From my experience and work, I can honestly say that the amount of aid and programs which exist to improve the conditions of living for the economically challenged if everyone took an initiative it would wipe out the poverty for eternity. You see you can help only those who help themselves. I refuse to criticize the lifestyle that each one chooses as long as it is their choice, but at least they have a choice. Besides, who are we to dictate what is “good for the entire society”? Everyone perceives such claims differently, why do we want to force mass gathering and and influence our standards on others? We hardly like being told what we do. Anileve, are we talking about the government refusing to provide more housing for the needy/homeless people, and instead spending the money on private jet flights (scandals scandals, oh, how i love them)... are we also talking about the various protests we have here in Toronto against poverty, in which all homeless people actively participate in demanding better conditions from the government? i don't care about charities. charities are not part of the government. charities are societal organizations, installed by working people, not by the government. we are talking purely about capitalist vs. communist societies and comparing poverty in both. therefore, i feel that the argument of charities or organizations that help poor people is irrelevant. what does the government do? what has Bush done? what will the Canadian government do? put money in the CEO's pockets, or provide the working people with enough bread to live on and go on producing the means and methods of production? and about china and the chinese immigrants - they are nothing but means of production and reporoduction to the U.S.A. if you think they are brought by the thousands from china for any other reason, then you need to get a short tour of the history of slavery. yeah, it's not in ships they're bringing them, and it's not forced slavery, but it's the modern form of it, blinding people by the perfect image of so-called capitalism in U.S.A, and luring them into the country. Dan you out of all people, no offense, shouldn’t be arguing in favor of Communism, due to your sexual preference. People with those preferences are highly prosecuted and at times executed. that is one of the biggest fallacies ever. people ask me how i criticise jews sometimes when queer people were massacred just like jews were, etc. same type of argument. i usually don't answer to that, because it's really irrelevant. we are talking about a form of government for the entire population, not self-interest. it's about values really.. i choose to sacrifice my own values and preferences for the sake of basic equality. my life does not revolve around my sexual orientation. it's only a secondary part of me. i have a higher conscience than the one simply based on equality between heteros and homos. moreover, i do not advocate any past methods of applying communism. i admit those were not the right ways to apply them - stalinism, etc. that was basically capitalistic communism.. communism as it was is not necessarily equal to communism in theory or communism in good practice. communism has not and does not advocate tyranny or dictatorship or sexual oppression. and yes, i've been involved with a lot of poverty groups, etc. - one of them is OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty), and we successfully forced the government to convert abandoned buildings into social housing for the poor. in a perfect or ideal society, people should not have to do squats in order to force the government to give them shelter from the cold.. in a successful system, there would be no need for that. communism might have been unsuccessful, but so is capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 But at present US is not a pure capitalist economy. This is obvious. US, practically, has never been a pure capitalistic country (at least in the last 60 years) in the textbook sense of the word. Its system is one of mixed capitalism with fairly high degree of state regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 US, practically, has never been a pure capitalistic country (at least in the last 60 years) in the textbook sense of the word. Its system is one of mixed capitalism with fairly high degree of state regulations. Agree. I don't know much of US history but I would also think the shift happened in 40s-50s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Agree. I don't know much of US history but I would also think the shift happened in 40s-50s. That's about 60 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Dan I am not picking on you but just noticed your new avatar. It is somehow puzzling to me that you being a gay Armenian would masquerade with a slogan which is an antitheses of gay movement towards greater rights etc. I am sorry for off topic comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Anileve I am impressed by your views and general knowlege of things.Kudos to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Dan I am not picking on you but just noticed your new avatar. It is somehow puzzling to me that you being a gay Armenian would masquerade with a slogan which is an antitheses of gay movement towards greater rights etc. I am sorry for off topic comments. Armat, have you heard of/about something called humour/satire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Armat jan thanks for the Kudos. Kudos to your for giving me Kudos. Edited by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 15, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 its a shame we have to use anecdotal evidence. For everyone of those so calleed "communist countries" i could name 20 capitalist ones who are doing much worse. See Africa and Asia. Also see who has better education and health, Cuba or USA, the answer is Cuba despite it being blockaded and isolated... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Slightly off the seriousness of the discussion about communism, but still on-topic, this joke just sums up what capitalism is all about (I'm sure most of you have heard/read this one): A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is politics?" Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I'm the breadwinner of the family, so let's call me capitalism. Your Mom, she's the administrator of the money, so we'll call her the Government. We're here to take care of your needs, so we'll call you the people. The nanny, we'll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we'll call him the Future. Now, think about that and see if that makes sense," So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what dad had said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds his mother sound asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed. The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now." The father says, "Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about." The little boy replies, "Well, while Capitalism is screwing the Working Class, the Government is sound asleep, the People are being ignored and the Future is in deep poo." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Dan, Have you ever lived in a noncapitalist society? And are you convinced that communism is superior to capitalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sorry people this thread is very boring.For those who understand they do and for others murchov glghin te tas ele chi haskana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Armat, You are extremely right. And the ones who fall in the second group that you mentioned in Armenian fit into two general categories: 1) They have never lived in a nonwestern society. There opinions are based on theories, books, philosophies, etc. And they fail to understand that the philosophical aspect of communism has nothing to do with the practical aspect. So they waste their time daydreaming instead of channeling that energy towards taking advantage of the opportunities they have in the West. 2) Immigrants who have experienced it, and are still nostalgic about the "good ol' days" that they so desperately fled. But they haven't accomplished much in their new countries, are frustrated, so they blame it on capitalism. They also confuse nostalgia for home country with the fact that the system was better. There might be a few others but almost all "comrades" fit in one of the above categories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 For those who understand they do and for others murchov glghin te tas ele chi haskana Very good points shiner I absolutely agree. I will no longer participate in this discussion, for I have no reason to convert anyone into my ways of thinking. I respect individual choice of believing in whatever they will. I personally believe in an Elf Goddess and no one can make me change my mind. Philosophizing is good because it makes your wheels turn, living in a practical atmosphere is something else. The only thing I can't understand is why do these people remain in the “Bourgeois” societies and preach their revolutionary ideas when they can take the first plane to Cuba and become Fidel’s disciples and further his cause or better yet move to Peru and help those savage Marxists in their bloodthirsty revolution? I for one would hate being somewhere where my ideas are in conflict with the standards of living. Instead of changing already established political systems why not move it's much more plausible and much more peaceful rather than a revolution, especially where the majority is in favor of the system. I tell ya, this is beyond my understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Dan, Have you ever lived in a noncapitalist society? And are you convinced that communism is superior to capitalism? no, but i sure have lived in a capitalist country, and i know what it's like - so don't tell me it is successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Sorry people this thread is very boring.For those who understand they do and for others murchov glghin te tas ele chi haskana Armat - and what makes you so sure YOU are right? Edited by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Dan, Do you think it is possible for communism to be even less successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Dan, Do you think it is possible for communism to be even less successful? do i think it's possible for communism to be less successful compared to what? do i think communism as we've seen so far was successful - yes and no. successful in many ways, unsuccessful in many others - like the capitalist system. however, there is a big difference between a successful capitalism and a successful communism - whereas the former would increase the gap between classes (or rather, create classes), the latter aims at closing that gap or removing it altogether. so do i think it's possible to have a successful communist system? yes and no - depends. depends on the aims of the people who try to get it to work - if it's someone like stalin, it will soon become a capitalistic communism, which is even worse than capitalism alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) And the cyclical discussion goes on... I personally much rather learn the art of lavash making, it’s much more practical. For example did you know that Flatbreads are the world's oldest breads. People have been making them for well more than six thousand years. And over that time, the tradition of making flatbreads has not been confined to one or two region sof the world, but has developed simultaneously almost everywhere there is a perennial supply of grain, from Mesopotamia and Persia to southern India and Armenia, from antique Rome and preconquest Mexico to modern-day China and Italy. Flatbreads can be made from every grain imaginable: wheat, rye, corn, oats, millet, sorghum, teff, rice, buckwheat. They can also be made from tubers, such as potatoes, and from legumes, such as chickpeas and lentils. They can be unleavened or leavened. They can be made so thin that they become transparent, like a very thin crepe, or they can be two inches thick and sliceable. Flatbreads are oven-baked, grilled, fried, skillet-baked, steamed, or even, as in southern Algeria and Tunisia, baked beneath the desert sand. Though it is almost impossible to trace the exact origins of different flatbreads, we know that certain ones, such as Armenian lavash and bedouin fatir are made today in much the same way they have been for several thousand years; they have, as Samual Johnson said of Shakespeare, "pleased many and pleased long". Flatbreads are simple and straightforwward to prepare and to eat, they are nourishing, and they make efficient use of locally available food resources. I'm sorry Please carry on, preaching Communism. Edited December 16, 2003 by anileve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.