test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Spike

Politics & Stuff

Started by Spike,

8,623 posts in this topic

You can theoretically improve peoples' lives best with dictatorship. The dictator has no red tape, no political interference. Saddam Hussein gave Iraq one of the best health care and education systems in the Middle East. But well, you know, he was a violent dictator who massacred his own people. The problem is that it's all theoretical. In theory, an enlightened dictator is the single best political system. In practice, dictatorship like Communism, doesn't work. In fact, they end up basically being the same thing with one dictator ,or at best, one party, dictating everything with no tolerance of dissent. Yes, China and The USSR had improvements under communism, but the prices they paid were enormous. 10s of millions of people dying from Famine in the USSR (which nobody knew about for 60 years because of Communist control over media), 10s of millions of dead in "the Great Leap Forward" under Mao. In fact, China's economy has taken off, because of their opening up to capitalist reforms. The first reforms towards Capitalism happened in 1978. Since then, absolute poverty has shrunk from 41% to 5%, China's growth has been 9.5% per year. What has made China much better is actually the liberalization of their economy.

I will agree with you that I vastly prefer left-leaning governments because I am a liberal, but there is a massive difference between Social democracy (which always are capitalist societies with a strong sense of communal responsibility/equality) and Communism. Communism simply doesn't work. It never has and it never will.

you sound word for word like my World Cultures teacher are you "Mr.Rosso"? haha.

Communism doesnt work as a whole, ever. and i agree word for word with what u said. Why did China spiral two second biggest economy because of Deng Xiaopeng's motto "it doesnt matter if the Cat is white or black, aslong as it catches mice, its a good cat". that idea was what he used to convince people of his move to capitalist ECONOMY, while maintaining a communist government. and what China are gona have to face relatively soon is, when they do business with these other countries they see the greatness of political freedoms, they bring that and talk about it at home and slowly by and by word leaks out and people finally stand up for their rights. so i dont agree that you can grow without Capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you sound word for word like my World Cultures teacher are you "Mr.Rosso"? haha.

Communism doesnt work as a whole, ever. and i agree word for word with what u said. Why did China spiral two second biggest economy because of Deng Xiaopeng's motto "it doesnt matter if the Cat is white or black, aslong as it catches mice, its a good cat". that idea was what he used to convince people of his move to capitalist ECONOMY, while maintaining a communist government. and what China are gona have to face relatively soon is, when they do business with these other countries they see the greatness of political freedoms, they bring that and talk about it at home and slowly by and by word leaks out and people finally stand up for their rights. so i dont agree that you can grow without Capitalism.

The reason communism has not worked is because the only thing anywhere near communism we have seen was Russia between 1917 and 1924- even then, recovering from a crippling World War I, and having to fight a civil war shot the economy to shit; they had to turn to a crude form of capitalism to get it back on its feet. Then Lenin died and the wonderful Stalin won the power-struggle eliminating half a dozen proper communist theorists who would have been brilliant at the helm of the USSR (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin, even Kollontai) and proceeded to set up a totalitarian state with absolutely nothing in common with communism (aside from a state planned economy). Stalin's brand of 'communism' influenced every single communist state and still controls the majority of the policy making.

Furthermore, the need for capitalism to build up the economy in a communist state can be easily explained. Communist revolutions have all followed Lenin's path- not Marx's. Lenin's path involved skipping the bourgeois revolution to get rid of the aristocracy and establish a liberal democracy and getting straight down to the proletariat and mounting a working class revolution. Marx's vision was that the bourgeois revolution had to come first, but no one has allowed for that to happen. Under Marx's theory, your economy and society should already be in an acceptable state before you decide to start a revolution, thus eliminating the need for capitalism.

On another note, Ecuador took a massive gamble on Assange- they must be glad it paid off. He could easily have fucked them off for another South American banana republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capitalism apologists in this thread should consider that capitalism is unsustainable in the future. It's only survived this long because of the huge expansion of Western monetary investment has given pretty much every capitalist country (aside from the unfortunate few nations in Africa with no resources to offer, thus no incentive for Western entrepreneurs to invest) a huge, one-off spike in living standards, thus eliminating social discontent and making the majority of people believe that capitalism is infallible. As the rest of the developing world catches up, Western living standards will fall as the life we lead now is simply unsustainable once you get 3 or 4 billion other humans having the money to be able to live like us. They will push the earth as far as it can go, by 2100 or so we will be left with next to no new sources of the resources we currently use to exploit. Then the economic debate will turn to how to make the most of an ever-shrinking resources pie, which is why if we permit capitalism to grow unchecked this century as we did the previous two, we'll effectively be writing our own death warrant as a species.

The only way we can permit capitalism to maintain its vice-like grip over the planet to proceed is if we start using renewable resources on a broad basis, as soon as possible, while conserving what's left of traditional resources (e.g. oil, coal) until we can find an alternative to them.

CHOULO19 and EBH like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capitalism apologists in this thread should consider that capitalism is unsustainable in the future. It's only survived this long because of the huge expansion of Western monetary investment has given pretty much every capitalist country (aside from the unfortunate few nations in Africa with no resources to offer, thus no incentive for Western entrepreneurs to invest) a huge, one-off spike in living standards, thus eliminating social discontent and making the majority of people believe that capitalism is infallible. As the rest of the developing world catches up, Western living standards will fall as the life we lead now is simply unsustainable once you get 3 or 4 billion other humans having the money to be able to live like us. They will push the earth as far as it can go, by 2100 or so we will be left with next to no new sources of the resources we currently use to exploit. Then the economic debate will turn to how to make the most of an ever-shrinking resources pie, which is why if we permit capitalism to grow unchecked this century as we did the previous two, we'll effectively be writing our own death warrant as a species.

The only way we can permit capitalism to maintain its vice-like grip over the planet to proceed is if we start using renewable resources on a broad basis, as soon as possible, while conserving what's left of traditional resources (e.g. oil, coal) until we can find an alternative to them.

1- It is useless to discuss capitalism with americans, their entire lives they have only been taught one point of view (even in university). It is not this generation's fault, its just default.

2- Did you know that if Indians or Chineses produced the ammount of junk and polution USA produces, the Earth would only have 30 more years?

In the end, it isnt about the major changes (capitalism, anarquism, etc). It is on the basic stuff in lifestyle and on industry way of production. Would making eletronic technology for 10b people harmful to the planet if they were made the right way?

EBH and CHOULO19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of complaining about how Capitalism fails, create a philosophy that doesn't. Until that day comes, the status quo will remain.

Peace. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The world isn't run by laws written on paper. It's run by people -

some according to laws, others not. It depends on each individual how his world will be; how he makes it."

I know some of you will want to dispute that due to being more 'serious' about life I guess, but I honestly agree with that quote.

Laws won't change people. You cannot force change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of complaining about how Capitalism fails, create a philosophy that doesn't. Until that day comes, the status quo will remain.

There are many brands of eco-friendly economics.

Capitalism will crush anything eco-friendly if it's not profitable short term. Capitalists aren't interested in waiting 50, 100 years for their investment to pay off. They want it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as it stands today, British politicians are still cunts who are buying and redoing houses with tax payers money.... only if I was a British politician, would re do my house quite nice. :D Also our government are still idiots, moving on. :Goober:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Barack Obama is a war criminal and he should be executed (or whatever the maximum punishment is) for crimes against humanity. His policy with regards to predator drones is sickening, it's basically 'Every man within a 30 mile radius is a terrorist'. Estimates of civilian deaths in Pakistan and Afghanistan range between 900 and 7000, all from predator drones, which have only been used in the last 3 years or so.

Anyone disagree?

i think whoever said it is an idiot and i'll counter with

270728_10151080179838440_1463632825_n.jpg

daBlackMamba7 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that is,what you think about my religion?We are brutal people?

Sikhs historically pride themselves on being warriors, perhaps in a modern society this would/may be considered brutal.

I have worked with enough Singh's to get a reasonable idea of where they r at! :fainthv9:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TorontoChelsea,

Such improvements are possible without capitalism. The USSR is a great example. Stalin, for all his insanity and inability for independent thought, oversaw and controlled an incredible transition from being a backward country, virtually on the same level as many colonies that belonged to European countries; into a force capable of crushing the most powerful army of its time, and being able to conceivably compete with the greatest power in the history of the world for decades. Living standards certainly improved as well, unless you were a dissident/saboteur/accused of any of the two untruthfully. China too, has flourished with an economy still mostly under the control of the government. Of course there are outerliers like Korea DPR or Angola, but for the most part I remain convinced that you can achieve progress with a left leaning government in charge. The big tell though will be what happens to France 30 years down the track due to Hollande's actions.

I think Lenin had it spot on with his brand of Marxism. Small level capitalism for the individual is permitted, but the commanding heights of the economy remain under government control. The best of both worlds, you're insulated from the forces of the free market but an individual still has a fair chance of carving out a reasonable fortune for themselves. Trotsky, much as I love him, was a bit too extremist; and the less said about wankers like Mao and Deng, the better.

What makes you think that China is left leaning? China is a state capitalist society hiding under the banner of socialism. A simplistic way of looking at this is that a capitalist society is geared towards the protection of money where as a state capitalist society is geared towards the protection of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think whoever said it is an idiot and i'll counter with

270728_10151080179838440_1463632825_n.jpg

I don't think anyone is disputing that Bush should be put on trial as well, and would be had he been Iraqi or Bosnian instead of American. Bush, for all his faults, didn't use predator drones, although that would primarily because he didn't have widespread access to them. I'm certain he would have had no qualms using them if he had them at his disposal in 2001. The main concerns I have with him are torture in Guantamo Bay and their unconstitutional nature, as well as the fact that they circumvent Geneva Convention regulation on the treatment of POWs.

What makes you think that China is left leaning? China is a state capitalist society hiding under the banner of socialism. A simplistic way of looking at this is that a capitalist society is geared towards the protection of money where as a state capitalist society is geared towards the protection of the state.

What makes me think that? Briefly put, its because China is largely Maoist outside the Special Economic Zones. The rural areas still operate under Stalin style collectivist farms.

Of course China is not a true leftist nation but then there's never been any state anywhere near Marx's definition of communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is disputing that Bush should be put on trial as well, and would be had he been Iraqi or Bosnian instead of American. Bush, for all his faults, didn't use predator drones, although that would primarily because he didn't have widespread access to them. I'm certain he would have had no qualms using them if he had them at his disposal in 2001. The main concerns I have with him are torture in Guantamo Bay and their unconstitutional nature, as well as the fact that they circumvent Geneva Convention regulation on the treatment of POWs.

What makes me think that? Briefly put, its because China is largely Maoist outside the Special Economic Zones. The rural areas still operate under Stalin style collectivist farms.

Of course China is not a true leftist nation but then there's never been any state anywhere near Marx's definition of communism.

Try Russia 1818-21 under Lenin.

So we go from the working classes to the agrarian peasants in revolutionary terms but neither China nor Russia in all its modern guises is anywhere near Communism/Marxism because both systems worked opposite to what Marx was suggesting: according to Marx the state should be controlled from the bottom up instead of the state controlling from the top down. What we learn from both China and Russia despite similar theoretical identities is that the quest for and the holding onto power corrupts and becomes the main driving force behind subsequent propaganda! And the friggin man of steel (is what Stalin means his real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili) was an asshole/murderer second to none including dear old Adolf! Can you imagine being at a venue listening to him speak and you were disappeared if you were the first one to stop clapping ?

The only real difference between Leninism and Stalinism on the surface was Marxism should have been a worldwide revolution (Lenin) rather than it being acceptable restricted to one country (Stalin)

Uncle specialized in Soviet politics and Marxism in a different lifetime lol why? it seemed like a good idea at the time!

capriccioso likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try Russia 1818-21 under Lenin.

So we go from the working classes to the agrarian peasants in revolutionary terms but neither China nor Russia in all its modern guises is anywhere near Communism/Marxism because both systems worked opposite to what Marx was suggesting: according to Marx the state should be controlled from the bottom up instead of the state controlling from the top down. What we learn from both China and Russia despite similar theoretical identities is that the quest for and the holding onto power corrupts and becomes the main driving force behind subsequent propaganda! And the friggin man of steel (is what Stalin means his real name was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili) was an asshole/murderer second to none including dear old Adolf! Can you imagine being at a venue listening to him speak and you were disappeared if you were the first one to stop clapping ?

The only real difference between Leninism and Stalinism on the surface was Marxism should have been a worldwide revolution (Lenin) rather than it being acceptable restricted to one country (Stalin)

Uncle specialized in Soviet politics and Marxism in a different lifetime lol why? it seemed like a good idea at the time!

No fucking way, I want to major in Soviet Studies as well :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No fucking way, I want to major in Soviet Studies as well :D

Where are you hoping to study it?

interestingly Karl Marx never had a job and was even turned down by the railways in England because they found his handwriting illegible.

Engles paid for him in England and Marx refused to let his mistress in the house he paid for lol, Karl Marx is buried in Highgate cemetery in Spud or Gooner country.

a good read is Engles "Condition of the working class in England" takes a very descriptive look at Manchester in the 19th century, (average life expectancy was 25).

if you can find a chinese or communist bookshop you will be able to get very cheap books by Marx, vladimir illich illyanof (lenin), Lev Bronstein (trotsky), stalin et al/

please ignore my bad spelling of Russian names!

Uncle used to get his vodka and caviar free or extremely cheap from the Russian Trade delegation in the 70's and even saw the new year in in a Russian diplomatic property stuck up a hairy bird from Moscow lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you hoping to study it?

interestingly Karl Marx never had a job and was even turned down by the railways in England because they found his handwriting illegible.

Engles paid for him in England and Marx refused to let his mistress in the house he paid for lol, Karl Marx is buried in Highgate cemetery in Spud or Gooner country.

a good read is Engles "Condition of the working class in England" takes a very descriptive look at Manchester in the 19th century, (average life expectancy was 25).

if you can find a chinese or communist bookshop you will be able to get very cheap books by Marx, vladimir illich illyanof (lenin), Lev Bronstein (trotsky), stalin et al/

please ignore my bad spelling of Russian names!

Uncle used to get his vodka and caviar free or extremely cheap from the Russian Trade delegation in the 70's and even saw the new year in in a Russian diplomatic property stuck up a hairy bird from Moscow lol

There's an online archive that has close to all Trotsky's major works and quite a few fron Lenin. I think its called Trotsky.org or .net.

I'm studying Arts at uni atm, I should be eligiBle to start specialising in Russia next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:3, I've been pretty interested in Stuff like the soviet union, Lenin,Stalin,Cold war, Policies, What life was like in the soviet union, I heard good of the soviet union under stalins regime for good equality but i hear a lot of impression it was bad, but i want to get hard...well views and such stuff information >8D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:3, I've been pretty interested in Stuff like the soviet union, Lenin,Stalin,Cold war, Policies, What life was like in the soviet union, I heard good of the soviet union under stalins regime for good equality but i hear a lot of impression it was bad, but i want to get hard...well views and such stuff information >8D

Stalin was a mass murder on a scale greater than Hitler! Not bad for a priest!

lots of website around for soviet history but really you need to start from about 1880-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.