Should the Gov. be able to ban you from meeting with political parties?
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
I suppose you can call it that. And Yes, I believe it's a very bad idea because you can't just have a little capitalism, it doesn't work that way.
I'm not an expert on China. My knowledge of their revolution to the present is limited. I am attending a study group next week on the Chinese revolution, followed by a number of books I will read in a period of two or three weeks. When I'm finished I shall make a detailed thread on the past and present state of china.
I'm not an expert on China. My knowledge of their revolution to the present is limited. I am attending a study group next week on the Chinese revolution, followed by a number of books I will read in a period of two or three weeks. When I'm finished I shall make a detailed thread on the past and present state of china.
I have health care and am going to college right now. And contrary to popular belief, I'm from a poor and broken family, and was below the poverty level only 10 years ago. But my mother bucked up and went to school (government paid 100%), and now we're living alright. Not SUV-and-a-house status, but comfortable.
Life isn't as horrible and the good life isn't as far out of reach as political figures try and paint it out to be. The main problem, 9 times out of 10, is people who are so busy trying to live the cool life--living in the city, trying to have the best car and clothes, et al--that they forget there is a whole other world out there, the suburbs and rural areas. LOW crime, LOW rent, and a HIGH emphasis on education.
As for communism....communism just doesn't work. Its sort of like the 3 laws in the I, Robot movie: it can ONLY lead to revolution.
Life isn't as horrible and the good life isn't as far out of reach as political figures try and paint it out to be. The main problem, 9 times out of 10, is people who are so busy trying to live the cool life--living in the city, trying to have the best car and clothes, et al--that they forget there is a whole other world out there, the suburbs and rural areas. LOW crime, LOW rent, and a HIGH emphasis on education.
As for communism....communism just doesn't work. Its sort of like the 3 laws in the I, Robot movie: it can ONLY lead to revolution.
I'm not talkin a little capitalism...I'm not talkin about a little socialism...it's like science; a type of govt. that is not realized yet with the tennents of socialism, and the earning power of capitalism...(I know, I know, opposing thoughts), but There should be some mid-ground where an understanding could be had. PM me on this, tell me about communism, and your ideal "picture."
No. China has for a large part and for a long time basically practiced a form of state capitalism. Just like the Soviet Union. China is however slowly and rather strongly making a transition towards market economy.
Technically speaking, no communist state has ever existed. However, when speaking of communism people generally conceive it to be the Stalinist system that was realized in the Soviet Union, instead of the political and economic system envisioned by Marx. Which is unfortunate.
Though I’m not a communist, I have to say that I highly respect Marx as a ”social scientist” for his observations regarding class division and its disadvantages. Recommended reading, absolutely.
In my opinion, neither capitalism nor communism work in practice, alone. That is why I find it incredible that so many people here seem to adhere so blindly to one or the other. I.e. ”Capitalism good, communism bad” vs. ”Communism good, capitalism bad” when both are gross oversimplifications.
I believe you are on the right track
Though they are opposing thoughts, a political system where both political inclinations are represented simultaneously can accomplish a LOT of good. The best example of the type of society I think you are trying to describe would be Scandinavian welfare states (nothing to do with how the word 'welfare' is understood in the USA) or the ”Scandinavian model”, of which Sweden would probably be the best example. The "welfare" concept is basically the intention of controlling unemployment and poverty by means of governmental action and regulations.
The Nordic model can be characterized as a democratic system with rather subtle class difference, and is in broad outline perhaps the most equitable and humane society that history has seen, though certainly NOT flawless (I'm not here to glorify it as such - just to give some perspective). I strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with the idea, if interested. Kinda like "social democracy", if you will, and operates on controlled market economy (or "mixed economy").
Note: For the sake of argument, Norway and Sweden got top positions (1. & 2.) in the UN human development index for 2004. ”A composite index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development—a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living”
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_12_1_1.html
I strongly disagree. I believe a market economy is the only plausible option (Although market economy doesn’t equal capitalism – capitalism simply functions in a market economy. I just understood that this is what you meant by ”a little capitalism”). It just has to be regulated and controlled. From the 19th century, for instance, we have a lot of examples that prove how fucked up things can be when capitalism is allowed to function without restriction (Factory workers, etc, etc.). The same can be seen on a global scale even today. The structure of world trade is based on exploiting third world countries.
For productional reasons, to ”abide by” the laws of demand and supply is almost a necessity. You just have to have something that holds back income disparities.
Large-scale command/planned economy has proved itself ineffective for a sufficient amount of times already. I can give plenty of examples from history, if needed.
I SEE YOUR POINT BUT THIS IS MINE.....YOUR MOTHER HAD A LOT TO DO WIT IT.....IF SHE WAS A CRACC ADICT OR SOME OTHER IRRESPONSIBLE PERSON YOUR CHANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR LESS GREAT IN GOIN TO SCHOOL.....YOU PROLLY WOULDNT OF EVEN THOUGH POSITIVELY IN THAT SITUATION AND PROBABLY WOULD OF BEEN SLANGIN N STEALIN OR WHATEVER TILL YOU ENDED UP IN JAIL INSTEAD OF COLLEGE....AND EVEN IF YOU DIDNT DO ALL THAT WHAT WOULD OF BEEN THE CHANCES YOUD THINK ABOUT GOIN TO SCHOOL....YOU MOST LIKELY WOULD OF JUS GOTTEN A JOB SO THAT YOU COULD SUPPORT YOURSELF.... IN CUBA A CHILD IS GAURENTEED SCHOOL SO THERE IS VERY LIL EXCUSE FOR THEM NOT TO ATTEND COLLEGE.....
AND YOUR RIGHT ABOUT PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE THE BEST CAR N HOUSE N SUCH....SEE IN CUBA YOU DONT HAVE THE PROBLEM OF JEALOUSY OR NEED TO COMPETE WITH YOUR PEERS CUZ YOUR ALL EQUAL.....THIS ELMINATES ALOT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES THAT WOULD NORMALLY TURN INTO SOCIAL PROBLEMS.......
^^ Or creates even more, because nobody wants to be 100% equal, and treated 100% the same as the next man. It is not logical. We all have our own strengths and weaknesses.
As for school....i have always loved school. I was having full-blown conversations at age 5, asking questions and such. Parents that were or weren't crack addicts had nothing to do with it. Someone else smoking crack doesn't mean i should smoke crack.
My point was that these people that some of these outspoken Liberals swear are desperate for money and opportunities--are not. If you are poor and have at the least a GED and no drug convictions, there is about a 99% chance you will be eligible for financial aid.
If you DONT want to go to college, you'll find every excuse in the world--"its not really for me", "i have kids to take care of", "i dont have enough money", et al. But that all is just a front. School is easier and cheaper to go to now than ever before, and I dont give a fuck if tuition raises 500 or 600%.
If you have any doubts....move to Washington state. Get the fuck out of California, get out of the areas that house the crack addicts and city officials that dont give a fuck, and come to a state that will take care of you.
As for school....i have always loved school. I was having full-blown conversations at age 5, asking questions and such. Parents that were or weren't crack addicts had nothing to do with it. Someone else smoking crack doesn't mean i should smoke crack.
My point was that these people that some of these outspoken Liberals swear are desperate for money and opportunities--are not. If you are poor and have at the least a GED and no drug convictions, there is about a 99% chance you will be eligible for financial aid.
If you DONT want to go to college, you'll find every excuse in the world--"its not really for me", "i have kids to take care of", "i dont have enough money", et al. But that all is just a front. School is easier and cheaper to go to now than ever before, and I dont give a fuck if tuition raises 500 or 600%.
If you have any doubts....move to Washington state. Get the fuck out of California, get out of the areas that house the crack addicts and city officials that dont give a fuck, and come to a state that will take care of you.
This thread reminds me what a professor once told me, "You can't have equality without liberty there would just be a society of otherwise equal slaves, on the other hand, you can't just have liberty without equality then you will have total anarchy...the key is to have a balance of both." But how can that be?
SOCIALIST PARTY USA;o)
SOCIALIST PARTY USA;o)
Sorry, but there has yet to be a true communist or socialist country,(china and russia are not 'true', they are fascist in practice) in theory communism/socialism makes absolute sense, but in practice there is always greed and the ego of man to deal with.....Americans will never let go of their cable television and SUV's in order to help out their fellow man. Make your own fate, but don't cry about it at the end.....
Firstly, by mentioning Fascism alongside Socialism, Communism & Marxism, are you suggesting that they are somehow ideologically similar? It may well be that you are basing your interpretation of socialism on the Stalinist totalitarianism that persisted in the Soviet Union and later in other countries, only under a different title (Maoism, etc.). Also, I’d be interested to see you give reasons as to why such a hybrid would fall apart.
Though I must agree that I don’t see communism as a working model, it is quite clear that capitalism doesn't work either – there are many flaws in capitalism, which should be neutralized or counterbalanced by a relatively ”socialist” approach, so to speak. The way of thinking that everyone should be responsible for his or her own income and livelihood may sound like a nice idea to some, but it in reality leads to oppression by money and far too great economic inequality. ESPECIALLY large-scale capitalism – I suggest you familiriaze yourself with third world country studies. Again, I am NOT against market economy – it’s just that it HAS to be controlled.
At risk of repetition, I again have to refer to the so-called Scandinavian model of a "welfare state". Even the highly respected economist John Maynard Keynes realized that state capitalism, when partially realized, is a good means to limit varying unemployment and economic insecurity. Too bad that the United States took a MUCH more shitty direction partly as a result of the fear of communism.
The world trade of today – capitalism, whatever you want to call it – CONTINUOUSLY impoverishes the third world countries and keeps most of the world in a state almost resembling slavery. And abject famine. This misery then causes civil wars, exile, corruption, brutal repressive regimes. The list is endless. These are so simple facts that they should be indisputable.
Also notice how there is not a single entirely capitalistic country in the world. Hell, even the good ole’ United States still has some level of social security for ordinary people. Though in practice only nominal.
Also, Tadou, I think you are really oversimplifying things by making upwards social mobility and rising out of poverty sound that easy. My point is, people are desperate for money and opportunities -- not everyone can do what you or your mother have done. Statistically speaking, you are an exception. Conservatives (or ”right-wing” people) usually tend to magnify the role of the individual (”Just work/study harder!”) and neglect social and environmental pressures.
Good point. And I believe such a balance is possible.
No – They certainly weren’t fascist, either, even though the Soviet Union and Communist China can be described as totalitarian due to how the power was/is centralized (Both single-party states). It is advisable to study your terminology to to avoid mischaracterizations and sounding like DaytonFamily (”Liberalism Is Fascism!”).
One of the fundamental flaws of Communism as theory is that it forgets the individual – If only people were as hard-working and self-sacrificing as, say, ants. Heh. Marx was greatly a product of his times, and it is hard to take his dialectics regarding Communism seriously in this day and age. Plus he succumbed to the number one sin of the materialistic worldview – oversimplification.
”Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.” - Frank Zappa
Though I must agree that I don’t see communism as a working model, it is quite clear that capitalism doesn't work either – there are many flaws in capitalism, which should be neutralized or counterbalanced by a relatively ”socialist” approach, so to speak. The way of thinking that everyone should be responsible for his or her own income and livelihood may sound like a nice idea to some, but it in reality leads to oppression by money and far too great economic inequality. ESPECIALLY large-scale capitalism – I suggest you familiriaze yourself with third world country studies. Again, I am NOT against market economy – it’s just that it HAS to be controlled.
At risk of repetition, I again have to refer to the so-called Scandinavian model of a "welfare state". Even the highly respected economist John Maynard Keynes realized that state capitalism, when partially realized, is a good means to limit varying unemployment and economic insecurity. Too bad that the United States took a MUCH more shitty direction partly as a result of the fear of communism.
The world trade of today – capitalism, whatever you want to call it – CONTINUOUSLY impoverishes the third world countries and keeps most of the world in a state almost resembling slavery. And abject famine. This misery then causes civil wars, exile, corruption, brutal repressive regimes. The list is endless. These are so simple facts that they should be indisputable.
Also notice how there is not a single entirely capitalistic country in the world. Hell, even the good ole’ United States still has some level of social security for ordinary people. Though in practice only nominal.
Also, Tadou, I think you are really oversimplifying things by making upwards social mobility and rising out of poverty sound that easy. My point is, people are desperate for money and opportunities -- not everyone can do what you or your mother have done. Statistically speaking, you are an exception. Conservatives (or ”right-wing” people) usually tend to magnify the role of the individual (”Just work/study harder!”) and neglect social and environmental pressures.
Good point. And I believe such a balance is possible.
No – They certainly weren’t fascist, either, even though the Soviet Union and Communist China can be described as totalitarian due to how the power was/is centralized (Both single-party states). It is advisable to study your terminology to to avoid mischaracterizations and sounding like DaytonFamily (”Liberalism Is Fascism!”).
One of the fundamental flaws of Communism as theory is that it forgets the individual – If only people were as hard-working and self-sacrificing as, say, ants. Heh. Marx was greatly a product of his times, and it is hard to take his dialectics regarding Communism seriously in this day and age. Plus he succumbed to the number one sin of the materialistic worldview – oversimplification.
”Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.” - Frank Zappa
And yet despite all the paragraphs you typed up with your little fingers, you agreed with me.
Don't blame the United States for not being in the periphery. We went from a slave-based feudal state, to a full-blown industrialized, capitalistic democracy, in the span of only a few hundred years. Other countries have had thousands of years and have not done the same.
And dont tell me what conservatives "tend" to do; tell me of why you Liberals are so adept to making excuses for people who will simply not put in the work. You act as though some 80 or 90% of people in poor areas smoke crack or shoot heroin on a daily basis, when such is not the case. All my life, i've grown up around POOR people, and every one of them had the chance to go to school and work hard; the super majority of them dropped out BY CHOICE.
Like i said before.....if you are living in the city, and not doing well, MOVE THE FUCK AWAY TO THE OUTSKIRTS. It is not a difficult concept to understand. Your rent will be cheaper, food will be cheaper, bills will be cheaper, and your opportunities will be greater. But once again, people would rather be "down" and "Rep the [Bay/NYC/H-Town/et al]", instead of live up to their full potential.
Socialism, Marxism, Communism...these things simply do not work, because they invite corruption with open arms. These movements have almost always taken root in weak and ignorant countries; it is no wonder why democracy is the form most likely to take shape in strong, intelligent countries.
Don't blame the United States for not being in the periphery. We went from a slave-based feudal state, to a full-blown industrialized, capitalistic democracy, in the span of only a few hundred years. Other countries have had thousands of years and have not done the same.
And dont tell me what conservatives "tend" to do; tell me of why you Liberals are so adept to making excuses for people who will simply not put in the work. You act as though some 80 or 90% of people in poor areas smoke crack or shoot heroin on a daily basis, when such is not the case. All my life, i've grown up around POOR people, and every one of them had the chance to go to school and work hard; the super majority of them dropped out BY CHOICE.
Like i said before.....if you are living in the city, and not doing well, MOVE THE FUCK AWAY TO THE OUTSKIRTS. It is not a difficult concept to understand. Your rent will be cheaper, food will be cheaper, bills will be cheaper, and your opportunities will be greater. But once again, people would rather be "down" and "Rep the [Bay/NYC/H-Town/et al]", instead of live up to their full potential.
Socialism, Marxism, Communism...these things simply do not work, because they invite corruption with open arms. These movements have almost always taken root in weak and ignorant countries; it is no wonder why democracy is the form most likely to take shape in strong, intelligent countries.