Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
The depletion of resources will occur before such an mass advancement is made world-wide.
Communism failed when some of the leaders introduced liberal policies to the economy- that is how it failed. Also, when a new invention is made, like a plane for instance, the people that invented it did not just give up on it after the first flight. It took modification and dedication and it finally worked. I propose that we take this plane, modify it and try it again.
Also, I don't need or want your "help" in making my own conclusions. Stop trying to conform me.
and if we run out of metal we can just start a recycling factories by all our dumps. if we need more we can figure out how to make a metal like substance out of rocks or something.
we have plenty if resources to use while we make those new discoveries.
1) Data is required to formulate a conclusion. We are providing the half of the data that you are missing. But, like I said, if you don't want that date, you don't need to accept it. I look at the world scientifically, however, and from that perspective I can say it's probably best to take in everything so that you can formulate a different conclusion, or at least question things. That's all I want. I just want people to question things. If they don't, well, that's their choice. If they do, good for them, whatever they do with that is their own business.
2) You don't have to listen if you don't want to; I've already said that, numerous times.
You realize we do already get metals from rocks, right?
Technically, anyways.
I see what you are saying. However, I wouldn't be where I am if I haven't questioned anything ever. I would be a conservative if I never made intellectual observation. I challenge you to look at what scientific socialism is before you go off and say that you view the world with scientific observation.
Post self-deleted by Pevvania.
He knows i was joking, i have known him for most of my ns experience.
I validate this claim. We are very old friends.
I knew he was joking but took the effort to address it anyway for the others.
Ah, okay. Gotcha.
Most American steel is actualy recycled for reuse. Somewhere from 92-95% recycled.
I disagree. It was liberal policies that actually saved many of these Communist nations from total collapse. Planned economies inevitably decay, due to their inherent inefficiencies and inability to respond to market price signals, as they did in the USSR and other countries after the 1950s. China stopped the collapse of both its government and its economy by adopting pro-market economic policies. The only reason this failed in the Soviet Union was because perestroika was very poorly implemented. Subsidies, price controls and currency inconvertibility remained, bailouts persisted and widespread privatisation, like in China in the 1980s, failed to occur. Elsewhere, adopting capitalism has turned many post-Soviet countries into major regional and international economic powers. Meanwhile, neighbours that have taken on more statist policies have stagnated. The prime examples of this are Poland and Ukraine.
chinas going to end up collapsing as well. the Chinese have a housing bubble larger then the USs bubble before 2008.
Mwahaha
Allow me to simplify: you dont listen! And the difinition of insane is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. Fact DONT CHANGE!
really though. :Preally?You're telling me. It's incredible how much real estate they've built since the 2008 financial crisis. Entire cities are unpopulated because there's just no demand for them. They've taken the Keynesian hole-diggers' fallacy to the extreme.
The bust will be bloody.
Yup and the United states has to prepare for the coming of all those companies that will move out of china in hope that we get those companies to move here.
Post self-deleted by Ankha.
You say these communist countries have fallen because of the ideology itself, but actually it only saw its demise towards the end when prominent members started enacting economic policies the economy was never used to. They basically copied and pasted the western economic model and threw it at the U.S.S.R. Stopped collectivization of farms, allowed private enterprise. Then it fell into debt and died.
Debt caused by flawed ideological patterns.
They obviously had a reason to adopt capitalism. Maybe the old system wasn't working.
Hmm... I don't know. As long as China continues to make everything for America and with the amount of money we do own Chna, I'm not sure if they will fall just yet. Your points are vaild and China will have to see to them, but I don't know if they will fall now.
I dont foresee that for quite a while.
There isn't a single true communist nation in this world. Why? Because capitalism is the driving force for progression.
And because communism blatantly halts human development on a national scale!
Communal, that's just it. The ideology itself is the problem. On paper, it's a great idea. Whenever you put it into reality, it does not work. Countries such as China and North Korea, had to allow private sector and capatalism to a small majority of elite citizens to because fo awhile they were faltering.
The Liberal movement started with Krushchev when he increased party membership, and it came to an end when gorbachev enacted liberalistic policies no one was ready for.
You are exactly right. Forget the other 3 billion people in the world. #firstworldprogress
This is false in and of itself. Communism Has shown to improve living standards. And it only deteriorates when capitalist intervention (embargoes) or capitalist revisionism is introduced.
then why did eastern europe fall behind the West? look at Germany. West Germans have to pay an extra tax to make the eastern part of Germany just as efficient as the west.
If that is the case, explain why there was a food shortage, explain why people were on the streets, and explain why people were murdered in the countries that actually tried communism. You know why America is in severe trouble, because we are shying away from capatalism. With a Universal health-care that trying to be implemented, 50 percent of this country doesn't pay taxes because less and less people are working for things because they feel that it should be handed to them. Don't you see, when everything is given to you, when everything is "equal", the country fails. For Godsake, look at Greece. Socialism has left the people rioting because they can't get bread.
The commies should just stap trying to force communism on everyone. :|
^ there we go.
I fail to see how healthcare reform has to do with economics. Also, do not call The affordable care act "universal health care". Obamacare is a government subsidized healthcare service, it isn't a single payer, universal service. I don't get where you got the magic number of 50% not paying taxes.
Greece is not socialist at all. It is capitalist like the rest of europe.
First of all, 50 percent is not a number made up, that is statics from the census, Second of all, Obamacare has caused many of americans to lose their original healthcare service, Obama even acknowledges that many americans have lost their plan. Those two characteristics are symbolism, everyone will have the same plan, everyone will be equal. The PASOK Party, which is a party that supports socialism took over and gained control of Greece
Obamacare is awful terrible no good very bad.
Obama wants everyone on it, to make sure everyone has healthcare. If you don't have it, you pay a fine. That's sound like a threat to get on board and have the same plan as everyone else.
That may be true, but it has made up for it for the people that couldn't ever get healthcare to begin with. Its pros outweigh its cons.
PASOK is a social democratic party, they aren't Socialist.
Have you seen the HHS mandate?! That made me so mad! My families catholic, so we see this as awful. As an athiest here, I still see it as outrageous.
They are socialists
Yeah. Youre interpretation may be different, but to all of us, its the same.
The Panhellenic Socialist Movement is a social-democratic party
-Wikipedia
Western capitalists aren't 'exploiting' Third World countries - they're taking opportunities that domestic totalitarianism prevents. There's a popular myth floating around that African markets are somehow too free. Africa is a beautiful yet tragic continent, devastated by perpetual wars, poverty, disease, terrorism and dictatorship. All that regressives see is foreign corporations of American and Chinese origin expanding their operations into African markets, mining African minerals and resources, which has made it seem like Africa is the heart of laissez-faire economic policies.
This could not be further from the truth. While many African countries trade semi-freely with greater economic powers, internal markets are rife with corruption and state ownership. Taxation levels are notoriously high, over-regulation plagues the majority of markets and most 'major' industries are nationalised. Most economies are planned. There are zero property rights protections in most African nations. Africa is a rich in natural resources, something which governments like Zimbabwe's have been trying to take advantage of. But due to the natural inefficiencies of state-owned enterprise, they've had very little success, so instead have contracted foreign corporations to do this in exchange for taxing the profits.
In a free Africa, you'd see a lot more domestic energy companies spring up to compete with foreign entities. Socialism broke the back of Africa, just when it was finding its feet in the mid-20th Century, and the damage caused will not fully heal for a very long time. But in the nations untouched by socialism, there is prosperity. Botswana, a liberal republic, is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world with some of the highest living standards in Africa and a low poverty rate due to free market economic reforms that began in the 1960s.
They claim to be moderates, but they believe in government control of businesses and industries are controlled by the government rather than private markets. That is socialism
After the european devastation of the African continent, people in africa wanted to make a system that solved the problems they faced but sadly it didn't work. If they followed Marxist theory, they would make the countries capitalist and advance economically that way. Then they would begin making the capitalist system benefit the people, and get rid of the whole system all together and make it Marxian Socialist.
Capitalist growth has to be set into place before society can progress to the next stage of development.
But the Prime Minister,Speaker and Hellenic Parliament are ran by New Democracy. the only PASOK power figure is the Greek President.
Capaitalist growth is needed for a society to progress, but the society needs to stay capatalist. Well, at least you are acknowledging that economic growth is needed, although it needs to be permanent. It does nt need to evolve into anything else.
What you and Pev can agree on is that capitalist growth never took place - socialism killed their development before they had a chance.
The New Democracy did not take control of parliament until 2012 when PASOK agreed to form a Coilation Government of June 2012, they are still recovering.
It's a positive sign.
Sure, I agree. I am a marxist and I can safely say that capitalism needs to happen first to progress in technology and economic development. But here is where I cross the line: Capitalism isn't this forever and perpetual thing, it will change when socioeconomic advancements necessitate a new social structure to fit them. Socialism is next and we are nearing pretty close to the end of capitalism in the first world right now. No, not because governments are becoming more socially aware, it is because a new economic mode will soon emerge as automation becomes more prominent in industry, and smarter ways are available to utilize resources and energy. New conditions, permanent economic conditions will render the capitalist system obsolete, as workers will not be required to fit strict quotas, and resources will become plentiful. Then it would be necessary to make a social order to logically fit that stage of development.
Then society would be ready to make a socialist system. The means of production would be in the hands of the workers and a state of workers would replace the state of the bourgeoises. Resources could then easily be distributed equally so that all members benefit.
The first world is nowhere near the end of capitalism - this lull in our markets must be remedied with further technological and economic development before we can even consider implementing a theoretical economic model; now is not the right time for socialism, if there even is a right time, as the transition would consume too many resources.
This is where the disagreement is, Socialism isn't the answer. Can you imagine our Federal Government controlling all 50 states and every city within that state? In terms of economic activities, what may work for one state may not work for another state. Something else to think about, does Federal Government know about smaller cities in states than its citizens? I think not, so Federal government deciding for every city and every state on how to function is just not physically possible. I truely think that Capatlism will stay.
Well marxism has never been so easy to applicate. Just create cooperative society, or convince all the employees to buy the shares of their own company.
The great and unique power of liberal-capitalism is that it allows any kind of economic organization to exist inside itself.
For example you can leave your capitalist country and live in one of these kibboutz in Israel, but don't force people to become marxists against their will.
We must reduce our reliance on these resources before you argue that the transition would consume too many. Technological development will only stall the demise of capitalism.
Also, to separate me from the others that call themselves socialist, I believe socioeconomic conditions necessitate a new social structure, not a new structure that necessitates a new socioeconomic plan.
The next stage of economic development will be intergalactic marketism, in my opinion, and then eventually post-scarcity voluntary trade.
Nice.
Communal, if you recognise that it'll take a while to transition to socialism, then how can we move towards it and what would your practical views on current economic policy be?
When did I ever suggest that? Like I said, a decreased reliance on resource consumption for profit, the inevitable decentralization of multinational corporations, the advancements of technological innovations will bring further decentralization in economic power, not more. A central government would only act as a distributer of the more plentiful resources with automation and advanced machinery in effect. Advancements made to improve the lives of all would be distributed.
Also, if you acknowledge that capatalism is needed for growth, and it is proven to be successful, why take away competition among people that allows them to be free?
You said the next stage would be Socialism, and I am telling you that Socialism is not pratical for the United States.
Lol, Glenn Beck has become a noninterventionist.
What you are suggesting is not pratical for the United States
We were made to be people, not sheep. That is effectively what communism or socialism does to its people. They turn into sheep, sheep that have a Shepard who says he will protect them, IF they are loyal to the government and do what they say, it sounds like a bad kids movie.
What?
I consider myself Marxist through and through. I believe Capitalism is seeing its demise and has been seeing it even in the 1970's. It officially collapsed in 2008 and is only being held by life support and bailouts.
The time for change is already needed. We can support a socialist system now.
Yep, and Obama boarded this nation onto Socialist Express.
Precisely
Tell me about it, an 18 trillion dollar debt is over our heads
His Universal Health Care Plan, 50 percent of this country doesn't pay taxes, liberal media hides the truth from us, it's eye opening and it's scary.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/17/enough-is-enough-bring-them-home-period/
There isn't really much that's particularly radical about Obama's economic policies. He's fundamentally a corporatist, just like many other Presidents, and there are few differences between the economic policies of him and his predecessor. Obamacare benefits the health insurance industry in the same way that Johnson and Nixon's healthcare regulations benefited them.
Federalism and a command economy are mutually exclusive. In order to transition into socialism, we would need to abandon our federal system and totally centralize all aspects of the country. The basis of America does not permit this to happen, and therefore it is impossible to introduce socialism and communism to the United States. The Constitution and an educated populace will ensure that this remains impossible.
That doesn't imply you're uneducated, by the way. Probably could have worded it better.
Pev, he deliberately lied to us about Benghazi and the IRS scandal. He whispers in Putin's ear give me time and after the election I will have more flexibility. He is giving people fines for not having health care, he has made it to where you can live off of welfare, he even threw in a free cell phone. I don't care for him, I would personally take Nixon over Obama.
My point that I made earlier.
Heck, I would take Carter over him.
Quite.
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. He's a terrible leader that deserves to be impeached a thousand times over. But my point is that he's just a cut-and-dry corporatist rather than a radical progressive. To call him a socialist would be giving him credit he doesn't deserve. He promised change in 2008 and instead continued nearly all of the Bush Administration's policies.
And 'socialised medicine', in recent times, didn't start with Obama. The Republican Party massively expanded the welfare state with Medicare Part D and Rx under Bush.
Nixon over Obama? I'm not so sure about that. He was a price-fixer, killed the gold standard, believed in a complete ban on guns, actively pushed Congress to nationalise healthcare, established the regulatory state and spawned a decade of foreign policy weakness. Nixon was what conservatives think Obama is.
Bush is no angel, he too played a hand in the expansion of welfare, no child left behind, and when he had the house and the senate he did not drill. Oh he brought us change in our defecit, it started with Bush and I believe Obama has doubled it.
Sad truths..
Obama is trying to nationalise healthcare, has stated more than once his belief on gun control and has made a fool of us in foreign policy. Although I do see your point, if Nixon was in this era, he would be far worse. I guess I was thinking back to where the media didn't cover everything thing that we saw.
I agree, Bush was a horrible President who wasted a Republican Congress on two wars that never needed to happen and generally huge expansions of government. But there is one thing I like about him - his style. He seems to genuinely care about veterans, the sick and the poor.
That last bit, though, isn't true. Even though the national debt has exploded under Obama, the deficit has been cut in half under him. But this is probably more to do with the sequester than anything else.
Well, it took Carter for Reagan. Maybe it takes Obama to get the next man or woman of change(hopefully not Hillary, she is not fit to rule. Also Michielle Obama other than that I can give any other woman a try.)
I really do hope that Rand Paul becomes the next President. I actually think he's got a better shot than Hillary for multiple reasons.
Agreed, Bush did care about the vets and the needy. I was about to say, if we don't attack this debt now, the future generation will be in severe trouble.
I hope Rand Paul runs a well, but my first choice would have to be Jessie Ventura and Howard Stern(not really i'm joking, I do hope for Rand Paul.)
I vore Steven Colbert! Lol no, i would take Rand Paul. Ill see him at political summit in september.
http://tinypic.com/r/rwigx2/8
Anarcho-communism in a nutshell
Basically...
Muh Roads for president of the US. ;)
Yes!
Yes we c... do whatever you want
Ok.
Guys, do you prefer Anarcho Communism or State Capitalism.
No.
State capitalism though.
Niether. But If I had a choice state cap.
l would prefer Anarcho Communism. Anarchy is unstable and it would be less of a challenge to group up with others and form a Capitalist Minarchist Republic with that group then to tear down state Capitalism.
I wonder what of lack thereof hates most, the state or Communism.
No, You are wrong. I'm talking oh the world cup... ok i think you knew it.
For the record, CE is from Texas.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.