Politics & Stuff

[Beirut_Blues 306]

It's naturally exaggerated by the media, but I won't lie, there's some scary shit man. People on the street with machines guns closing some streets down and kidnapping some Syrians....usual stuff

hahaha....im comin tomorrow bro cant wait

hopefully it will be resolved soon.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

hahaha....im comin tomorrow bro cant wait

hopefully it will be resolved soon.

Bound to be resolved in the next few days, they can't just keep kidnapping people. Bas ntibih yfakrook Saudi yokhtfook man.

[Fulham Broadway 16,386]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

I liked how Bhagat Singh tried to clear up what anarchism was. The authorities in every country are shit scared of this phenomenum and continue to portray it as lawless violence and looting.

It is in fact the opposite -just meaning absence of ruler and state, (you can see why all rulers are terrified of the concept) and is in fact true grass roots democracy.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

They keep making the same mistake over and over again. Look at Syria now, the US are back to funding Qaeda-like groups to fight Al Asad. They're going to turn Syria into another Afghanistan.

The problem is...what should they do? If they do nothing, they will get criticized for allowing massacres. If they interfere, they will get criticized for interfering. It's not an easy situation by any means.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

To say Chile made the decision to 'move on' somehow makes it sound as though there is a collective will there. Washingtons 'model democracy' and other Central and South American countries are not run by right wing CIA appointed despots anymore (they did the dirty work torturing and murdering trade unionists and millions of others) -they are though ironically as you mentioned them, run by the World Bank, the WTO and Corporations. The World Bank talks of a ''globalised world economy'' in which capital and investment can freely move around, and developing countries can compete in a ''free'' international market.

Any fool can see the reality of this is all that is being globalised is poverty and the power of the huge corporations based in the advanced capitalist countries and international institutions, such as the World Bank, to exploit cheap labour. Another thing about Chile on R4 last week, mentioned the hundreds of thousands of people on the brink of having no power or water because of subsistence wages, or no jobs at all, and the private companies incessant putting their prices up for shareholders dividends

I hear this stuff all the time. It's the standard anti-Globalization line, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's all the fault of the big corporations and some secret cabal of bankers and the US. Corporations are not inherently evil. Capitalism is not evil. The reality is that every single country that has a decent quality of living is a capitalist country that has corporations. Every single strong democracy is a capitalist country with corporations. Capitalism creates wealth and growth. Where it runs into problems is where it has too little regulation and when it comes up against protectionism (And in the case of the US, the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.). Chile does have problems, but where your argument fails is pretending that these problems are somehow caused by the US and corporations or something. Pretty much every country in South America has these exact same problems.except usually worse.

Capitalism does create cheap labour but cheap labour helps build societies up and creates an enormous amount of wealth. China is exploding because of the cheap labour as India is for the same reason. This is what happened in the past to a number of Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan , and Japan. They moved from a low-wage economies to high-wage economies. The IMF makes some big mistakes but there are two important things to remember 1) You don't have to take loans from them. Don't get into insane debt and you won't need loans.2) They have also done good. Look at India which liberalised its economy about 20 years ago as a condition of the IMF's loan. You know what happened? International investment in India went from $132 million in 1991-1992 to $5.3 Billion in only 3 years. India's economy was stagnant under its previous Socialist monetary policy and is now growing at a fantastic rate. The percentage of people in India in poverty has dropped about 20% in the past decade. It's very appealing to view capitalism and corporations as the bad guys and sometimes they are, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Liberalized, capitalistic countries create wealth. As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery".

[capriccioso 2,545]

In terms of the Indian independence movement.. Bhagat Singh > Gandhi. (no disrespect to Gandhi of course!)

Can you tell me why exactly you think Bhagat singh > Gandhi

Because LDN Blue is probably Punjabi

I think Mohammed Ali Jinnah is very underrated by Indians, probably because he founded Pakistan . He was a British style gentleman like Nehru, served as a great foil to Gandhi's anti-modernist rhetoric.

One thing worth noting is that nearly all Indian Independence leaders were educated in England, most as lawyers.

[warnie_666 1,081]

Because LDN Blue is probably Punjabi

I think Mohammed Ali Jinnah is very underrated by Indians, probably because he founded Pakistan . He was a British style gentleman like Nehru, served as a great foil to Gandhi's anti-modernist rhetoric.

One thing worth noting is that nearly all Indian Independence leaders were educated in England, most as lawyers.

I agree about Jinnah. He initially wanted Pakistan as a federated state of India but Nehru wanted a centralized govt with him as the PM. Vallabhai Patel was the first choice and a unanimous choice as the PM but Nehru and his selfishness was one of the reasons why Gandhi was forced to make the tough decision of letting Jinnah have his own country.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

The problem is...what should they do? If they do nothing, they will get criticized for allowing massacres. If they interfere, they will get criticized for interfering. It's not an easy situation by any means.

I actually really hate the Syrian regime for the crimes they committed here in Lebanon, but I won't get into it's importance in the region. However it's not the interference that I was criticizing (not that I think they should interfere) but the ideology of the people they are using to interfere. They are practically starting a new Qaeda in Syria. This rise of Muslim extremists in the middle east is no one's best interest, not least the US.

[capriccioso 2,545]

Someone should depose the Syrian regime.

Not the American's or any other Western country. A regional force. Turkey, perhaps.

[warnie_666 1,081]

Syria is heavily backed by China and Russia with arms and have good diplomatic relations with the two countries. No one can get directly involved with Syria like they did against Iraq, Afghanistan or even Lybia. This will result in a full scale war as Iran which is the most powerful Arab nation backs Syria too.

[Fulham Broadway 16,386]

I hear this stuff all the time. It's the standard anti-Globalization line, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's all the fault of the big corporations and some secret cabal of bankers and the US. Corporations are not inherently evil. Capitalism is not evil. The reality is that every single country that has a decent quality of living is a capitalist country that has corporations. Every single strong democracy is a capitalist country with corporations. Capitalism creates wealth and growth. Where it runs into problems is where it has too little regulation and when it comes up against protectionism (And in the case of the US, the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.). Chile does have problems, but where your argument fails is pretending that these problems are somehow caused by the US and corporations or something. Pretty much every country in South America has these exact same problems.except usually worse.

Capitalism does create cheap labour but cheap labour helps build societies up and creates an enormous amount of wealth. China is exploding because of the cheap labour as India is for the same reason. This is what happened in the past to a number of Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan , and Japan. They moved from a low-wage economies to high-wage economies. The IMF makes some big mistakes but there are two important things to remember 1) You don't have to take loans from them. Don't get into insane debt and you won't need loans.2) They have also done good. Look at India which liberalised its economy about 20 years ago as a condition of the IMF's loan. You know what happened? International investment in India went from $132 million in 1991-1992 to $5.3 Billion in only 3 years. India's economy was stagnant under its previous Socialist monetary policy and is now growing at a fantastic rate. The percentage of people in India in poverty has dropped about 20% in the past decade. It's very appealing to view capitalism and corporations as the bad guys and sometimes they are, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Liberalized, capitalistic countries create wealth. As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery".

Evil is an empty.emotive term and corporations are not evil. However they exist solely for profit, and shareholders dividends. Capitalism is all about money. Human life is more than just the money. If we have to submit to that system, it needs regulation, and we must let decent people manage capitalism, not unbridled expolitation. That’s where Adam Smith comes in. And Marx as well.

[capriccioso 2,545]

I hear this stuff all the time. It's the standard anti-Globalization line, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's all the fault of the big corporations and some secret cabal of bankers and the US. Corporations are not inherently evil. Capitalism is not evil. The reality is that every single country that has a decent quality of living is a capitalist country that has corporations. Every single strong democracy is a capitalist country with corporations. Capitalism creates wealth and growth. Where it runs into problems is where it has too little regulation and when it comes up against protectionism (And in the case of the US, the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.). Chile does have problems, but where your argument fails is pretending that these problems are somehow caused by the US and corporations or something. Pretty much every country in South America has these exact same problems.except usually worse.

Capitalism does create cheap labour but cheap labour helps build societies up and creates an enormous amount of wealth. China is exploding because of the cheap labour as India is for the same reason. This is what happened in the past to a number of Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan , and Japan. They moved from a low-wage economies to high-wage economies. The IMF makes some big mistakes but there are two important things to remember 1) You don't have to take loans from them. Don't get into insane debt and you won't need loans.2) They have also done good. Look at India which liberalised its economy about 20 years ago as a condition of the IMF's loan. You know what happened? International investment in India went from $132 million in 1991-1992 to $5.3 Billion in only 3 years. India's economy was stagnant under its previous Socialist monetary policy and is now growing at a fantastic rate. The percentage of people in India in poverty has dropped about 20% in the past decade. It's very appealing to view capitalism and corporations as the bad guys and sometimes they are, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Liberalized, capitalistic countries create wealth. As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal distribution of misery".

It may have us better off than our ancestors, but at what cost? We're still as much slaves as serfs in medieaval Europe. Only the controllers of capital have true freedom. All thats changed is that we've gone from having a 0% chance to.a 0.001% chance of ever rising to that position where we control capital.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

It may have us better off than our ancestors, but at what cost? We're still as much slaves as serfs in medieaval Europe. Only the controllers of capital have true freedom. All thats changed is that we've gone from having a 0% chance to.a 0.001% chance of ever rising to that position where we control capital.

We are vastly better off than out ancestors in almost every way. We live longer, we fight fewer wars, we have more control over our lives, we are vastly more educated, etc... The cost has mostly been environmental. While people are unlikely to rise to the point where they control capital, A) some people do. Many billionaires are completely self made and many politicians come from middle and lower classes. One of the things about most democracies and in capitalistic societies is that you don't have to rise to that level to have a voice. Governments get voted out. Companies that aren't popular enough go out of business. We are not serfs or anything close to that. The last Prime Ministers of Australia-Gillard's parents were nurses. Rudd grew up in poverty. John Howard's parents ran petrol stations, Paul Keating was working class, etc..Christine Legarde's father was a professor, her mother a teacher. The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim comes from a similar background. Wealth bestows great privilege on people, but it is no longer impossible to overcome (In most modern societies .)

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

Amen ^ @TorontoChelsea. A-fuckin-men.

[capriccioso 2,545]

@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.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

@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.

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.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

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.

[capriccioso 2,545]

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.