Politics & Stuff

[SinineUltra 1,170]

There are exceptions but rule of the thumb is that rich people do live in a different world to others, there's no denying.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:19, SinineUltra said:

There are exceptions but rule of the thumb is that rich people do live in a different world to others, there's no denying.

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

[bushman 2,043]

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:22, Rmpr said:

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

Funny but now you´re posting here rich people in Europe might be dumb. How stupid is that ?

Meanwhile, you twisted everything I said.

There are those who do help. Some help because they need to reduce their taxes. Then, there are those who do not help poor folks at all. Take your pick.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:22, Rmpr said:

No, they live a much better life, but they do know what happens around them!

It is ridiculous to say rich people cant write about what it is best for the people because they are clueless little boys driving expensive cars. That is why this conversation started in the first place. Nobody is denying they live in a different life.

At least in Brazil, rich people in Europe might be dumb I dont know...

You get agitated very fast and need to spit out something venomous, does it really have to be this way? Maybe there's a reason you might take this the way you are?

[bushman 2,043]

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:38, SinineUltra said:

You get agitated very fast and need to spit out something venomous, does it really have to be this way? Maybe there's a reason you might take this the way you are?

Shall we say, the main man in Brazil where the most generous rich people live ?

[MetsajCFC 1,255]

Though I must say, Rmpr don't take it so personally

[Peppen 934]

Regarding "Socialism" in the USSR, it was never truly socialism. It was a dictatorship like so many other regimes, claiming to be socialist.

Think about it. It is SO easy to abuse the ideals of socialism, the mere beautiful thought of equality and prosper for everyone, of course poor people would contribute to a revolution to end their sufferings.

"Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917. It is partly that they do not want to understand (i.e. they want to believe that, somewhere, a really Socialist country does actually exist), and partly that, being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life, totalitarianism is completely incomprehensible to them."

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."

- George Orwell. Although being a self proclaimed socialist/communist he had some very interesting views regarding ideology. Granted, I'm a huge fan of his works, but I still find my self agreeing to most of his observations and specially the notion of social class structures.

[bushman 2,043]

In Soviet Union at that time.

The most cruel era this world had ever known.

Killings, Gulags, all under the pretense of socialism. The biggest dog of all Stalin was getting rid of opposition at will.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

  On 08/03/2013 at 17:41, bushman said:

In Soviet Union at that time.

The most cruel era this world had ever known.

Killings, Gulags, all under the pretense of socialism. The biggest dog of all Stalin was getting rid of opposition at will.

That's right. Although most of the world only remembers Nazi Germany and their holocaust as the only pure evil. Truth is, when Estonia was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, the people here weren't afraid of the Germans, though we ran to forests when the Red Army came. That's the difference between the two regimes.

[bushman 2,043]

  On 08/03/2013 at 18:21, SinineUltra said:

That's right. Although most of the world only remembers Nazi Germany and their holocaust as the only pure evil. Truth is, when Estonia was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, the people here weren't afraid of the Germans, though we ran to forests when the Red Army came. That's the difference between the two regimes.

Exactly. Many folks in Central Europe remember Nazis as gentlemen in comparison to Soviet dogs.

Any attempt to socialism or whatever one calls it does not work & never had.

We all know, capitalism might not be the ideal one but nobody came up with anything better, so far.

Therefore, you won´t see me shedding tears for Chavez. Corruptions, briberies were rampant in Venezuela.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

  On 08/03/2013 at 17:22, Peppen said:

Regarding "Socialism" in the USSR, it was never truly socialism. It was a dictatorship like so many other regimes, claiming to be socialist.

Think about it. It is SO easy to abuse the ideals of socialism, the mere beautiful thought of equality and prosper for everyone, of course poor people would contribute to a revolution to end their sufferings.

"Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class. Moreover, the workers and intelligentsia in a country like England cannot understand that the USSR of today is altogether different from what it was in 1917. It is partly that they do not want to understand (i.e. they want to believe that, somewhere, a really Socialist country does actually exist), and partly that, being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life, totalitarianism is completely incomprehensible to them."

"In my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of socialism as the belief that Russia is a socialist country and that every act of its rulers must be excused, if not imitated."

- George Orwell. Although being a self proclaimed socialist/communist he had some very interesting views regarding ideology. Granted, I'm a huge fan of his works, but I still find my self agreeing to most of his observations and specially the notion of social class structures.

But that's what any sort of extreme ideology will turn into. Countries that claim to be socialist almost always turn out to be repressive just like right wing countries. There is no perfect political system, but to me a social democracy with a free market and high taxes for the wealthy/lots of protection for the unfortunate is easily the best system available. The things is, people want their ideologies to be pure but it doesn't work. Chavez to me , like to a lot of people, is a controversial figure. He did a lot of good, raising a lot of poor into better living conditions, and he also stood up to the US interference which in Latin America is something to be proud of. However, he also tried to silence his critics by force and let the country's economy slip into shambles and the country become one of the most violent in the world. South American countries have often veered from Fascist military strongman to Socialist strongman..What can I say, they like their charismatic, strong leaders.

About Stalin versus Hitler. I hate this sort of thing. It's not a competition. Both were absolutely evil. Stalin had people killed indiscriminately. He was paranoid and mad. Hitler wanted to cleanse the world of all undesirables (Basically anyone who wasn't an able-bodied heterosexual Aryan)..

[Peppen 934]

  On 08/03/2013 at 18:43, TorontoChelsea said:

But that's what any sort of extreme ideology will turn into. Countries that claim to be socialist almost always turn out to be repressive just like right wing countries. There is no perfect political system, but to me a social democracy with a free market and high taxes for the wealthy/lots of protection for the unfortunate is easily the best system available. The things is, people want their ideologies to be pure but it doesn't work. Chavez to me , like to a lot of people, is a controversial figure. He did a lot of good, raising a lot of poor into better living conditions, and he also stood up to the US interference which in Latin America is something to be proud of. However, he also tried to silence his critics by force and let the country's economy slip into shambles and the country become one of the most violent in the world. South American countries have often veered from Fascist military strongman to Socialist strongman..What can I say, they like their charismatic, strong leaders.

About Stalin versus Hitler. I hate this sort of thing. It's not a competition. Both were absolutely evil. Stalin had people killed indiscriminately. He was paranoid and mad. Hitler wanted to cleanse the world of all undesirables (Basically anyone who wasn't an able-bodied heterosexual Aryan)..

Yes, you're absolutely right. When the lower and middle classes get fed up with the ruling body, and revolts, only to turn their state into yet another totalitarian regime, it is quite obvious that SOMETHING is wrong. To claim that the Soviet Union was indeed socialist though, is horribly wrong. It was a simple dictatorship, covered up with vague Stalinist elements.

To me, or at least in Denmark, ideologies seem to have played their role. Of course it is not the same around the globe, but these ideologies were invented in a whole different generation. Poverty was a much bigger issue (still is, but less), a much smaller - or non existent middle class and no social safety nets. In Denmark the citizens pay taxes according to their income. Granted, it still needs optimizing, but it's somewhat fair. Exploits of the systems still takes place, but to endorse ideals and thoughts which dates back to +100 years ago, would not do any good in my humble opinion.

The parties in Denmark have all gone towards the middle practicing a sort of consensus policy where either party, even divided by wing, color, ideals, can work out an agreement.

[Peppen 934]

  On 08/03/2013 at 18:32, bushman said:

Exactly. Many folks in Central Europe remember Nazis as gentlemen in comparison to Soviet dogs.

Any attempt to socialism or whatever one calls it does not work & never had.

We all know, capitalism might not be the ideal one but nobody came up with anything better, so far.

Therefore, you won´t see me shedding tears for Chavez. Corruptions, briberies were rampant in Venezuela.

One flaw with your arguments..

If you claim that rich people are deluded in terms of understanding the situation of the poor, how are you able to know whether or not Chavez did any good and your conclusions are the sole truth?

I'm not saying Chavez was a saint, but he did do better than so many others.

[bushman 2,043]

  On 08/03/2013 at 18:57, Peppen said:

One flaw with your arguments..

If you claim that rich people are deluded in terms of understanding the situation of the poor, how are you able to know whether or not Chavez did any good and your conclusions are the sole truth?

I'm not saying Chavez was a saint, but he did do better than so many others.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/four-hotbeds-corruption-venezuela

Read on.

[Peppen 934]

  On 08/03/2013 at 19:04, bushman said:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/four-hotbeds-corruption-venezuela

Read on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

Read on.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:38, bushman said:

Funny but now you´re posting here rich people in Europe might be dumb. How stupid is that ?

Meanwhile, you twisted everything I said.

There are those who do help. Some help because they need to reduce their taxes. Then, there are those who do not help poor folks at all. Take your pick.

  On 08/03/2013 at 16:38, SinineUltra said:

You get agitated very fast and need to spit out something venomous, does it really have to be this way? Maybe there's a reason you might take this the way you are?

You two are so sensitive, gosh! Sarcasm is pretty comon in a debate, must learn how to grasp it. It is not the first time it has happened SineUltra...

Also, bushman just contradicted himself. If there are the ones who do help, how can you automaticaly disqualify Marx for being rich? There are all sorts of people and they can all be found in all classes. Mark was a fucking stupid intelligent dude that happened to be rich. From what I know, this why the whole argument started...

This cant be used as an argument in a smart debate, it has no value. I am not defending rich people in a broader sense, I am only defending their right to give their opinion about what they think is best for the workforce!

It is absolutely stupid to categorize people by their money. Specially to try to do it with Marx and Engels (who contributed in a lot of fields), if they were poor they would be more correct?

[SinineUltra 1,170]

  On 08/03/2013 at 19:15, Rmpr said:

You two are so sensitive, gosh! Sarcasm is pretty comon in a debate, must learn how to grasp it. It is not the first time it has happened SineUltra...

Also, bushman just contradict yourself. If there are the ones who do help, how can you automaticaly disqualify Marx for being rich? From what I know, this why the whole argument started.

It is absolutely stupid to categorize people by their money. Specially to try to do it with Marx and Engels (who contributed in a lot of fields), if they were poor they would be more correct?

Can't say I have been sensitive any way but it is rather funny for me to listen to a teenager talking about different regimes when my country was occupied by an occupant practicing communism - a form of socialism. Or take a lecture from a person about poverty, who types through his iPhone/iPad and travels continents to see a football match. Said everything I've got to say, take care.

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 08/03/2013 at 17:19, MetsajCFC said:

Though I must say, Rmpr don't take it so personally

LOOOL

It has indeed derailed, but I didnt take anything personally mate. I just cant stand someone trying to disqualify the ideas of two sociologists because they came from wealthy families or not. Rich people are not retarded assholes who know shit about life. Bushman talks exactly like he doesnt respect them because where they come from. Why not look solely into his work without biased opinion and decide for yourself with logical arguments why it is right or wrong?

Yes, their (the millionares) lives are fucking easy and they have zero worries, but how can you want to prove that the ideas of two important people in modern history are wrong by only saying they had money? How can you say that if they were poor they would have valid points? I seriously cant see how you dont get furious by it.

I am not talking about general wealthy people or whatevever. I am only arguying that something so simple as judging anyone for what their family were and not for what they did or wrote is complete bullshit. Many revolutions came from rich young students and they complete changed the world for the better, should we discredit them as well? This is all I am saying...