Zastava-Arms
Banned
I admit, I cant remember the exact facts, but I think somebody did a Coupe D'etat and then made a military dictatorship in Rome.
Thats probably wrong, but I cant be bothered reading through the book again.
Democracy 'not needed' in Russia
I admit, I cant remember the exact facts, but I think somebody did a Coupe D'etat and then made a military dictatorship in Rome.
Thats probably wrong, but I cant be bothered reading through the book again.
captiva303
Active member
actually they appointed an emergency ruler who never gave up there powers and snowballed from there...
Zastava-Arms
Banned
Well then, thats fair enough.
Not really fair, actually, I just have nothing to say.
Not really fair, actually, I just have nothing to say.
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
Interesting- I do think Democracy is at the moment the best possible form of a state system for Germany. But that doesn't mean that it is for the rest of the world, for example in countries like Afghanistan I'm not so sure that's a good idea. And Russia... hmmm as long as smart minded people stay on the top it should work but as a German of course I can't help thinking about what happened in our history though that was born out of a democracy...
No smart mind says democracy is the best possible form of leading a country it's just a consens that satisfies the highest possible amount of people. Maybe other possible forms are emerging but until now it has been a black and white between communism and democracy that weakend the evolution of state systems for a long time. And why should politicians question a system which gives them money and power? It's hard to convince a big group on the top that there is a better way of doing their job. At the moment I see many politicians just profiting for themselves but not making long lasting decisions for the country. Luckily Germany has one of them heroes on top- Angela Merkel, one of the few I believe who makes politics for the country and not for herself.
I hope I made some kind of a point- it's hard to talk in a foreign language about this complex topic, so excuse me for any mistakes and confusions
But still you are invited to answer in German ^^
Add.: In theory communism is the best imagineable state form if you read the relevant books by Marx and Engels etc. But to make it happen is impossible in our society.
No smart mind says democracy is the best possible form of leading a country it's just a consens that satisfies the highest possible amount of people. Maybe other possible forms are emerging but until now it has been a black and white between communism and democracy that weakend the evolution of state systems for a long time. And why should politicians question a system which gives them money and power? It's hard to convince a big group on the top that there is a better way of doing their job. At the moment I see many politicians just profiting for themselves but not making long lasting decisions for the country. Luckily Germany has one of them heroes on top- Angela Merkel, one of the few I believe who makes politics for the country and not for herself.
I hope I made some kind of a point- it's hard to talk in a foreign language about this complex topic, so excuse me for any mistakes and confusions
But still you are invited to answer in German ^^Add.: In theory communism is the best imagineable state form if you read the relevant books by Marx and Engels etc. But to make it happen is impossible in our society.
Zastava-Arms
Banned
Interesting- I do think Democracy is at the moment the best possible form of a state system for Germany. But that doesn't mean that it is for the rest of the world, for example in countries like Afghanistan I'm not so sure that's a good idea. And Russia... hmmm as long as smart minded people stay on the top it should work but as a German of course I can't help thinking about what happened in our history though that was born out of a democracy...
No smart mind says democracy is the best possible form of leading a country it's just a consens that satisfies the highest possible amount of people. Maybe other possible forms are emerging but until now it has been a black and white between communism and democracy that weakend the evolution of state systems for a long time. And why should politicians question a system which gives them money and power? It's hard to convince a big group on the top that there is a better way of doing their job. At the moment I see many politicians just profiting for themselves but not making long lasting decisions for the country. Luckily Germany has one of them heroes on top- Angela Merkel, one of the few I believe who makes politics for the country and not for herself.
I hope I made some kind of a point- it's hard to talk in a foreign language about this complex topic, so excuse me for any mistakes and confusions
Yeah I was wondering about Germany, I was looking at their current account balance stats and wow..You guys are going pretty good.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Answers in bold
On Democracy: I think it's only meaningful once you've got enough wealth and education in your country. I don't think it is the golden bullet to solve everything.
On Capitalism: It's not some kind of artificial system. This is the natural way of things. But as with nature, it does have to be kept in control if we're not to drown en masse once a year.
On Democracy: I think it's only meaningful once you've got enough wealth and education in your country. I don't think it is the golden bullet to solve everything.
On Capitalism: It's not some kind of artificial system. This is the natural way of things. But as with nature, it does have to be kept in control if we're not to drown en masse once a year.
Last edited:
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
Well said- democracy shouldn't be forced on third world countries and underdeveloped states like Afghanistan.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yeah.. what should be done is a strong man should be hired with a very lucurative retirement plan set up if he achieves the goal of bringing wealth and education into his country.
Kill off the rivals, bring wealth and education into Afghanistan, then retire and be given a mansion somewhere in a rich, first world country. Sure beats getting hanged.
Kill off the rivals, bring wealth and education into Afghanistan, then retire and be given a mansion somewhere in a rich, first world country. Sure beats getting hanged.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
This isn't the way most Koreans think.
Maybe I'll tell you in private. Better if it's over a few beers.
Maybe I'll tell you in private. Better if it's over a few beers.
Zastava-Arms
Banned
Well they should work how long it suits them. I mean, if one of them has a health problem then his shifts can be changed around to suit his health. There shouldnt be any 12 hour straight working.
Thats why at the very beggining I said "All countries would have to have a SOCIALIST government to be able to reach Communism". Something along those lines at least.
I was thinking about the senate being filled up by representatives of each country, and they should follow the Titoist idea of having each country do whatever suits their economy best, and to not follow the examples of other countries if they wouldnt work in your own.
Like, if something worked really good in Germany it might not work so well in Chile or Cuba, so the latter two countries shouldnt have to do the same thing.
Im telling you how I think Communism should be done, not what some crazy North Korean thinks. Infact theres a job right there: Fashion designer
If it is avaialble in the region then they should be perfectly entitled to eat. What I mean was they would eat more of their own cultures food.
Like if you and your family went to a Asian country for a holiday, and went to a restaurant there, it would have more of that countries national foods, wouldnt it?
captiva303
Active member
this system of communism seems very complicated and conditional on a case by case basis...
what about reality?
do you really think it is feasible to create talior suited carreers for every single person on earth and it also kind of goes against the whole idea that everyone works together for the benefit of everyone at your own and everyone else's expense. where everyone puts in there fair share, so why should this one guy get off work and let everyone pick up the slack?
what about reality?
do you really think it is feasible to create talior suited carreers for every single person on earth and it also kind of goes against the whole idea that everyone works together for the benefit of everyone at your own and everyone else's expense. where everyone puts in there fair share, so why should this one guy get off work and let everyone pick up the slack?
perseus
Active member
Oh no you really don't want to get me started on this, not least because it will divert the subject
Not in all cases, if you are an energy producer why would you want people to insulate their houses, to sell them less gas or electricity? The price of insulation could be simply placed on your bill. Look at your bill incidentally, the price goes down per unit the more you use. Is this not like saying buy 2 get one free? Thinking of supermarkets don't they wan't you to waste food or eat to excess? If you are a car manufacturer do you want people to buy a big car with high profit margins or a small one?
What about the built in obsolescence in products.
None of these things I would say is efficient in terms of the energy required to live a reasonable lifestyle.
There is certainly a financial incentive to generate an eager want in capitalism, so as to sell more and acquire ever greater profits. This is the main driving force behind our environmental problems
captiva303
Active member
science failed them so they started a marketing campaign...
perseus
Active member
If I may copy this response from a reader about an eco-socialist article. It has some relevance to this discussion and is extremely well thought out and balanced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8312097.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8312097.stm
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Answers in bold.
Most of the things you cite here point to one thing: a lack of personal discipline. It is not captalism or the industries that are currently adding to all the problems, it is the lack of personal responsibility. If energy usage is going to be a problem in the winter, get insulation installed. Sure the energy company would want me to use more energy but I don't have to do that.
When the supermarket sells me a product in too big of a quantity, I can put a portion in the refrigerator. I can wrap the leftovers, put them in the fridge and heat them up for the next meal. Why should it be wasted? But of course some people don't like to do that and they just have it grinded down the sink. Again, it's a lack of personal responsibility.
Companies produce things efficiently so they can create the product at the least cost so they can sell it for a cheaper price. Waste is not very efficient.
The failure on efficiency you cite, I repeat, is a failure of personal responsibility.
I've seen some pretty bad sides of capitalism (if you've been reading the posts you'd know I have some scathing criticisms about it for certain cases) but what you cite is wildly off the mark.
Most of the things you cite here point to one thing: a lack of personal discipline. It is not captalism or the industries that are currently adding to all the problems, it is the lack of personal responsibility. If energy usage is going to be a problem in the winter, get insulation installed. Sure the energy company would want me to use more energy but I don't have to do that.
When the supermarket sells me a product in too big of a quantity, I can put a portion in the refrigerator. I can wrap the leftovers, put them in the fridge and heat them up for the next meal. Why should it be wasted? But of course some people don't like to do that and they just have it grinded down the sink. Again, it's a lack of personal responsibility.
Companies produce things efficiently so they can create the product at the least cost so they can sell it for a cheaper price. Waste is not very efficient.
The failure on efficiency you cite, I repeat, is a failure of personal responsibility.
I've seen some pretty bad sides of capitalism (if you've been reading the posts you'd know I have some scathing criticisms about it for certain cases) but what you cite is wildly off the mark.
perseus
Active member
The 13th..:
Yes it’s cheaper to buy half of something, but the sales pitch is ‘Buy this at $20 and save $10, ‘not you could save $20 just not buying this, do you really need it?’ They would be out of business quickly because capitalism isn’t based on need; it is based on greed. People don’t buy what they need; they buy up to what they earn and beyond, because of the constant media pressure to keep up with the rat race.
The problem is that is human nature won’t change unless it is forced to do via political and economic pressure. You can’t rely on the majority of individuals making rational decisions, or being resistant to advertising, they are like children surrounded by chocolate. However government legislation can force manufacturers to provide long-term guarantees, pay for disposal, force compatible and efficient standards, and tax advertisements and salespeople. All these things will avoid excess and extend component life. Wait for the consumer pressure and the market to decide, and our coastal cities will have to be rebuilt inland as well!
In monetary terms we will be poorer, but in terms of having things we need, it simply means we buy half as much and work half as long. So we gain and the environment gains. Surely it’s a no brainer?
Obsolescence
It’s always difficult to prove deliberate built in obsolescence, since technology advances and competitors products take over. In the latter case universal standards are essential. Where would we be if the English language changed as quickly as software?
These are some suggested examples. Just about anything falls into the latter desirability category, even antiques.
Obsolescence of function.
software out of date, not compatible, no longer supported (always pestered for updates)
computer hardware not up to new software (eg Vista requires more computing power)
cars used to be made to rust (admittedly the Eastern manufacturers forced durability on the West in this case)
expensive or lack of replacement components forces whole new purchase (electric shaver blades)
ink cartridges running out of one colour whole unit needs to be replaced, chips forcing reuse
drug dates, do they really deteriorate that quickly in a fridge?
furniture quality of build, modern DIY assemblies rarely survive much movement
many Apple Ipods failed within 18 months. No doubt this will soon belong in the category below
Obsolescence of desirability (this is heavily driven by advertising)
just about anything which is fashionable almost by definition,
toys,
clothes (eg. autumn fashions)
mobile phones
house décor…….
Food waste
the average UK household needlessly throws away 18% of all food purchased. Families with children throw away 27%. ….£1bn worth of food wasted in the UK was still "in date".
Nearly a quarter, in terms of cost, was disposed of because the "use by" or "best before" date had expired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389351.stm
the hunger of 1.5bn people could be alleviated by eradicating the food wasted by British consumers and American retailers, food services and householders
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/08/food-waste
Yes it’s cheaper to buy half of something, but the sales pitch is ‘Buy this at $20 and save $10, ‘not you could save $20 just not buying this, do you really need it?’ They would be out of business quickly because capitalism isn’t based on need; it is based on greed. People don’t buy what they need; they buy up to what they earn and beyond, because of the constant media pressure to keep up with the rat race.
The problem is that is human nature won’t change unless it is forced to do via political and economic pressure. You can’t rely on the majority of individuals making rational decisions, or being resistant to advertising, they are like children surrounded by chocolate. However government legislation can force manufacturers to provide long-term guarantees, pay for disposal, force compatible and efficient standards, and tax advertisements and salespeople. All these things will avoid excess and extend component life. Wait for the consumer pressure and the market to decide, and our coastal cities will have to be rebuilt inland as well!
In monetary terms we will be poorer, but in terms of having things we need, it simply means we buy half as much and work half as long. So we gain and the environment gains. Surely it’s a no brainer?
Obsolescence
It’s always difficult to prove deliberate built in obsolescence, since technology advances and competitors products take over. In the latter case universal standards are essential. Where would we be if the English language changed as quickly as software?
These are some suggested examples. Just about anything falls into the latter desirability category, even antiques.
Obsolescence of function.
software out of date, not compatible, no longer supported (always pestered for updates)
computer hardware not up to new software (eg Vista requires more computing power)
cars used to be made to rust (admittedly the Eastern manufacturers forced durability on the West in this case)
expensive or lack of replacement components forces whole new purchase (electric shaver blades)
ink cartridges running out of one colour whole unit needs to be replaced, chips forcing reuse
drug dates, do they really deteriorate that quickly in a fridge?
furniture quality of build, modern DIY assemblies rarely survive much movement
many Apple Ipods failed within 18 months. No doubt this will soon belong in the category below
Obsolescence of desirability (this is heavily driven by advertising)
just about anything which is fashionable almost by definition,
toys,
clothes (eg. autumn fashions)
mobile phones
house décor…….
Food waste
the average UK household needlessly throws away 18% of all food purchased. Families with children throw away 27%. ….£1bn worth of food wasted in the UK was still "in date".
Nearly a quarter, in terms of cost, was disposed of because the "use by" or "best before" date had expired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389351.stm
the hunger of 1.5bn people could be alleviated by eradicating the food wasted by British consumers and American retailers, food services and householders
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/08/food-waste
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Answer in bold...
You see how following your way would in fact lead to none other than totalitarianism.
Food: The government gives you what the state nutritionists feel is adequate... what and how much (read: little).
Work: You have no choice. You can work hard and be a farmer or be a lazy bastard and be a farmer.
Clothes: You are issued what you wear. Single designs... variety is unneccessary.
Information: Absolute control by the government so that any information regarding greed or the will of the individual is never broadcasted.
Perseus, in that sense Communism HAS taken its course many times. You just refuse to accept that what you see is indeed Communism.
Either way, I've pretty much made my case here and I don't know where else this will go. You are against freedom, individual rights, the freedom of speech and pretty much a lot of things we hold to be good.
Whereas you could just put more emphasis in education which include corriculum that teaches individual discipline and responsibility, you have chosen that totalitarianism is the way to go.
Awesome. And what if the Government comes knocking on your door one day and say that there is an excess number of laborers and they've picked your name and number from the death lottery? You think it won't go there? It will.
You see how following your way would in fact lead to none other than totalitarianism.
Food: The government gives you what the state nutritionists feel is adequate... what and how much (read: little).
Work: You have no choice. You can work hard and be a farmer or be a lazy bastard and be a farmer.
Clothes: You are issued what you wear. Single designs... variety is unneccessary.
Information: Absolute control by the government so that any information regarding greed or the will of the individual is never broadcasted.
Perseus, in that sense Communism HAS taken its course many times. You just refuse to accept that what you see is indeed Communism.
Either way, I've pretty much made my case here and I don't know where else this will go. You are against freedom, individual rights, the freedom of speech and pretty much a lot of things we hold to be good.
Whereas you could just put more emphasis in education which include corriculum that teaches individual discipline and responsibility, you have chosen that totalitarianism is the way to go.
Awesome. And what if the Government comes knocking on your door one day and say that there is an excess number of laborers and they've picked your name and number from the death lottery? You think it won't go there? It will.
perseus
Active member
There is quite a difference between forcing homeowners to install insulation and drawing their name for execution. Come off it, you frighten people with words like Communism and Totalitarianism in an attempt to excuse the government to take responsibility for imposing sensible legislation and make life easy for them with the electorate. Any government can get voted in by saying to the electorate, yeah right just do what you want, no need to worry about the future.
If you want to stop oppression, start with the workplace there is nothing democratic or fair there. If you want to stop political propaganda stop advertising (yes it is political, its a buy more crap feel better party).
I'm really looking things not as a socialist or capitalist, but as an engineer who knows things are not going to get done (fast enough) without a bit of the stick as well as the carrot. Automakers would never have reduced their poisonous emissions without a very heavy stick indeed.
Let me turn the issue round, what has capitalism done to reduce greenhouse gases in the last 20 years? (Allow for the embedded carbon in any energy saving product, and any money saved to spend on other things which have embedded carbon) It is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
If you want to stop oppression, start with the workplace there is nothing democratic or fair there. If you want to stop political propaganda stop advertising (yes it is political, its a buy more crap feel better party).
I'm really looking things not as a socialist or capitalist, but as an engineer who knows things are not going to get done (fast enough) without a bit of the stick as well as the carrot. Automakers would never have reduced their poisonous emissions without a very heavy stick indeed.
Let me turn the issue round, what has capitalism done to reduce greenhouse gases in the last 20 years? (Allow for the embedded carbon in any energy saving product, and any money saved to spend on other things which have embedded carbon) It is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I'm so glad that you've actually evaded all of my points as to how this would invite totalitarianism.
I'm not trying to scare you but the fact that you fail to see something so obvious is baffling.
You know what you want? You want a world where everything is run according to what YOU think. Which really makes you no better than just about any absolute dictator that has ever been. And spare me the engineer BS. I don't care what you think of yourself but really you are a Communist.
As for capitalism reducing greenhouse gasses, didn't I mention the renewable energy industry that's been the latest boom? Or do I have to copy and paste that at the end of every post so that you don't forget? Oh and don't forget about just how worse the USSR was to the environment than the West ever was. Oh, right, they weren't Communist because it didn't lead to some kind of utopia.
You can say crap about the Nazis, the Islamo Fascists etc., but you Communists really are no better. It starts with a heart warming appeal for equality and the eradication of poverty but it always leads to unspeakable human suffering.
I don't like Capitalism much... I've turned down many chances to earn a lot of money in exchange for pursing what I felt was either right or because there was something else I wanted to do and there a lot of my friends have gone into business and we've since grown apart, but I realize that it is the ONLY thing that is going to produce any wealth. And I've seen peoples lives get better because of it. We just have to learn to live with it and have to learn how not to succumb to our own greed. And of course realize that if we don't regulate it, the beast will run wild and screw up our money.
I'm not trying to scare you but the fact that you fail to see something so obvious is baffling.
You know what you want? You want a world where everything is run according to what YOU think. Which really makes you no better than just about any absolute dictator that has ever been. And spare me the engineer BS. I don't care what you think of yourself but really you are a Communist.
As for capitalism reducing greenhouse gasses, didn't I mention the renewable energy industry that's been the latest boom? Or do I have to copy and paste that at the end of every post so that you don't forget? Oh and don't forget about just how worse the USSR was to the environment than the West ever was. Oh, right, they weren't Communist because it didn't lead to some kind of utopia.
You can say crap about the Nazis, the Islamo Fascists etc., but you Communists really are no better. It starts with a heart warming appeal for equality and the eradication of poverty but it always leads to unspeakable human suffering.
I don't like Capitalism much... I've turned down many chances to earn a lot of money in exchange for pursing what I felt was either right or because there was something else I wanted to do and there a lot of my friends have gone into business and we've since grown apart, but I realize that it is the ONLY thing that is going to produce any wealth. And I've seen peoples lives get better because of it. We just have to learn to live with it and have to learn how not to succumb to our own greed. And of course realize that if we don't regulate it, the beast will run wild and screw up our money.