DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on July 09, 2008, 12:09:03 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpyOSLZw8qo
-
Great ad.
It should get at least 70% of the over-75s and maybe 15 to 20% of everyone else.
If I ever wanted to portray a hapless schmuck who was totally out of touch with the American people in his youth and is now driving entirely by his rear-view mirror, that's the ad I would have made myself. But I would have added some Keating Five stuff just to flesh it out, give some real indication of his character.
-
Yea, nearly 20year old stuff is so much more relevent to determining character & judgement, than current stuff ::)
-
Yea, nearly 20year old stuff is so much more relevent to determining character & judgement, than current stuff ::)
That never prevented you from using older stuff than that on John Kerry. Nor will it prevent you from using older stuff than that on Barrack Obama.
That is the precise problem. The candidates and parties are not all that dissimilar on issues. So they need people to throw the feces.
-
Yea, nearly 20year old stuff is so much more relevent to determining character & judgement, than current stuff ::)
That never prevented you from using older stuff than that on John Kerry. Nor will it prevent you from using older stuff than that on Barrack Obama.
A) What "older stuff" did I use on Kerry, and B) what "older stuff" have I used on Obama? Please elaborate. Point being how Tee gets off on trying to bring up the 20year old Keating 5 with anything McCain, while the current liberal dem candidate gets an absolute pass in his current associations and piss poor judgement
That is the precise problem. The candidates and parties are not all that dissimilar on issues. So they need people to throw the feces.
I'll wait patiently for you to define "feces" and who's throwing it. Currently Tee's the fella, if your paramenters above are to be applied
-
<<Yea, nearly 20year old stuff is so much more relevent to determining character & judgement, than current stuff >>
As if character changes over time!! Once a crook, always a crook, and most people understand that.
-
You mean like once a racist, always a racist.......and still you support said racists. Go figure. And if we apply Tee's logic, support of racists pretty much makes one a racist.
-
A) What "older stuff" did I use on Kerry, and B) what "older stuff" have I used on Obama? Please elaborate. Point being how Tee gets off on trying to bring up the 20year old Keating 5 with anything McCain, while the current liberal dem candidate gets an absolute pass in his current associations and piss poor judgement
That's easy. You were all about smearing Kerry's war record and as I recall the Vietnam War took place a good 30 to 35 years before the 2004 elections. If you go back and read my post I said, "Nor will it prevent you from using older stuff than that on Barrack Obama."
Note the tense. I'm suggesting that you'll use something from his past when it becomes convenient for you to do so. Smearing the guy is all that you care about. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
I'll wait patiently for you to define "feces" and who's throwing it. Currently Tee's the fella, if your paramenters above are to be applied
My point is that you are jumping on Tee for doing nothing more than you have already done and will do in the future. Hell, you and the rest of the Bushies smeared McCain in 2000. But now he's all you've got. But if you're going to play the same game, don't bash Tee for using your playbook.
-
A) What "older stuff" did I use on Kerry, and B) what "older stuff" have I used on Obama? Please elaborate. Point being how Tee gets off on trying to bring up the 20year old Keating 5 with anything McCain, while the current liberal dem candidate gets an absolute pass in his current associations and piss poor judgement
That's easy. You were all about smearing Kerry's war record and as I recall the Vietnam War took place a good 30 to 35 years before the 2004 elections.
Actually not so easy, as you've obviously recalled wrong. I never "smeared" his record, and have been consistent since the beginning of being grateful for his service to our country, and that he likely earned his medals. I think you're getting confused with my criticisms of HIS criticisms of a war that took place 30-35yrs before the 2004 elections. A distinct difference
If you go back and read my post I said, "Nor will it prevent you from using older stuff than that on Barrack Obama."
That tends to obligate you to show examples of where I've done it in the past, in order to logically extend that proclaimation. Still waiting for those
Smearing the guy is all that you care about. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
Boy, you're on a good rant rage. I think your comments however are more accurately directed at the likes of Tee & Democrat Senators now trying to disparage McCain's military history. But should I expect to see some of that deductive ranting applied to Democrats? I doubt it
I'll wait patiently for you to define "feces" and who's throwing it. Currently Tee's the fella, if your paramenters above are to be applied
My point is that you are jumping on Tee for doing nothing more than you have already done....
Which of course, minus such examples of what I've supposedly done, has now been demonstrated to be flawed. So....is Tee throwing feces, or is this feces flinging only to be applied to the right, while the left gets a pass at it?
-
Has anyone ever smeared Kerrys war record more than John F Kerry himself ?
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp)
-
No rage at all Sirs, perhaps my memory isn't as good as I thought. Yet, I seemed to recall you laying down a heavy line for the Swift Boat folks.
As for the smear tactics of the left versus those of the right. Will calling either of them out prevent the tactic from being used?
People need to see your electoralism for what it is. Once the working classes decide to abandon it, they'll be that much closer to class consciousness and ridding this country of the depredations of bourgeoisie trappings such as destroying a person to get ahead in a career.
-
Isn't class consciousness a terrible curse?
Why should a citisen of the land thet claims to be "uninted " and brags "e pluribus unim" want to have class consciousness ?
Wouldn't haveing less class division be more desired?
-
<<Isn't class consciousness a terrible curse?>>
Not at all, since the upper classes are very much aware of where their class interest lies and support only such candidates as will protect advance their class interests. AT the same time, when politicians arise who have working-class interests at heart, they are mercilessly attacked as waging class warfare.
Class consciousness is the very first step that the people can take in reclaiming majority control of your so-called "democracy."
<<Why should a citisen of the land thet claims to be "uninted " and brags "e pluribus unim" want to have class consciousness ?>>
"E pluribus unum" was not a slogan referring to unity of the classes but unity of states in a confederation. Similarly "United" in the context that you are using it refers to a union of states, not of classes.
<<Wouldn't haveing less class division be more desired?>>
Sure. Let the rich throw all their belongings into the common pot to share with all the rest of us. Then all will belong to one single class, which you seem to be claiming is the desired state.
The fact is, not only is the nation already divided into classes, but class war is and always has been underway. The problem is that while the rich recognize this very clearly and promote their own candidates very consistently, they have already won the class war on the propaganda front many times over, by promoting the view that "class war" and its promoters are very bad and divisive people. They have been so successful in fact that the working class is not even able to mount a counter-attack because they are conditioned to accept this negative view not only of class warfare (that it does not exist) but of class consciousness as well (that classes do not exist.) It is for this reason that class consciousness has to be seen as a necessary and as yet largely unrealized first step in the class war.
-
No rage at all Sirs, perhaps my memory isn't as good as I thought. Yet, I seemed to recall you laying down a heavy line for the Swift Boat folks.
I supported the Swift boat folks right to criticize Kerry, and that they had an intimate grasp of both the situation and his conduct in the war. That said, he did serve, and is to be commended for it. He took on enemy fire, and he likely earned his medals. His follow-up criticism of the war and its soldiers are what I took exception to. And I think that's where the Swift boat folks were coming from as well. I realize to the left, criticising a veteren's criticism of war, is tantamount to smearing and implying they're being unpatriotic, but in reality, it's still simply someone excercising their 1st amendment right to criticise another's 1st amendment right
As for the smear tactics of the left versus those of the right. Will calling either of them out prevent the tactic from being used?
Not at all....but you somehow managed to incorrectly assume some position I took, and rant all over me, claiming some mass smearing, while messers Tee & some Democrat Senators are currently and publically diparaging McCain...........and not a peep of criticism from the likes of yourself. References to feces flinging & smearing, with the misconstrued attempt to lay such flinging at my doorstep, and there's Tee smiling over there, and not 1 shred of criticising of his current crop of crap. I can't help but wonder why.......so then I simply fill in the blanks
-
"...since the upper classes are very much aware of where their class interest lies and support only such candidates as will protect advance their class interests..."
What class is Jane Fonda heir to?
I do not think this is true at all , American Rich people are frequently ex-poor themselves and the boundrys are hazy. There is a Republican reputation for being the favoriate party of the wealthy , but there isn't a shortage of Democratic Millionaires either.
-
<<What class is Jane Fonda heir to?>>
Why not cut to the chase and ask what class Karl Marx belonged to? Since the working class are terribly disadvantaged, it's only natural that some of their biggest champions come from the ranks of the middle class. That there are middle class supporters of the working class does not in any way invalidate the fact of class divisions and class warfare. The fact that Marlene Dietrich supported the Allied war effort did not mean that there was no national conflict between the Allies and the Axis powers. Artists will frequently pick and choose sides based on their perceptions of right and wrong without reference to national boundaries because art itself is international.
<<I do not think this is true at all , American Rich people are frequently ex-poor themselves . . . >>
Most of America's wealthy are inheritors.
<< . . . and the boundrys are hazy. >>
There's nothing at all hazy about the boundaries between the lives of poverty-stricken single mothers and Madonna.
<<There is a Republican reputation for being the favoriate party of the wealthy , but there isn't a shortage of Democratic Millionaires either.>>
Just look at the conventions of both parties and figure out which one represents the money. Of course there are millionaire Democrats. They're the good guys - - they vote against class interests to benefit people of less means than themselves. That somehow doesn't translate into a denial of Republican bad guys, rich people who vote their own class interests and don't give a shit about anyone else at all.
-
People need to see your electoralism for what it is. Once the working classes decide to abandon it, they'll be that much closer to class consciousness and ridding this country of the depredations of bourgeoisie trappings such as destroying a person to get ahead in a career.
No offense JS , but aren't we treading deeply into cliche land with this polemic?
I doubt many people look at their bass boat as bourgeoisie trappings .
-
That there are middle class supporters of the working class does not in any way invalidate the fact of class divisions and class warfare.
Yes it does , if there are enough such.
And there are.
Many of the poor inherit poverty , about half of our rich inherit wealth, most of us are neither and not offended by the rich any more than we are offended by the poor.
-
<<Yes it does , if there are enough such.>>
How? What's the logic there? If one middle class guy or a million middle class guys support the working class, how can the number of middle-class supporters affect the question of (a) are there classes in America? and (b) are there real conflicts of interest between the classes?
If there are two million slaves and ten million free citizens in a country, would you say the need for an anti-slavery campaign exists only if a few free citizens are opposed to slavery but does not exist if a substantial minority of free citizens are anti-slavery? In either case, regardless of how much support the slaves enjoy from free citizens, there is a sharp line between free and slave, and a fight to free them.
And there are.
<<Many of the poor inherit poverty , about half of our rich inherit wealth, most of us are neither and not offended by the rich any more than we are offended by the poor.>>
Well, if more poor WERE offended by the rich, they'd respond a lot more actively to appeals to fight the class war and they'd be a lot better off in the end.
-
<<Yes it does , if there are enough such.>>
How? What's the logic there? If one middle class guy or a million middle class guys support the working class, how can the number of middle-class supporters affect the question of (a) are there classes in America? and (b) are there real conflicts of interest between the classes?
If there are two million slaves and ten million free citizens in a country, would you say the need for an anti-slavery campaign exists only if a few free citizens are opposed to slavery but does not exist if a substantial minority of free citizens are anti-slavery? In either case, regardless of how much support the slaves enjoy from free citizens, there is a sharp line between free and slave, and a fight to free them.
And there are.
<<Many of the poor inherit poverty , about half of our rich inherit wealth, most of us are neither and not offended by the rich any more than we are offended by the poor.>>
Well, if more poor WERE offended by the rich, they'd respond a lot more actively to appeals to fight the class war and they'd be a lot better off in the end.
Talk about an unnessacery war!
The USA has no class that anyone is obliged to stay in. Every now and then someone will jump all the way from the bottom to the top or vice versa , but that is uncommon, what is very common is for people to rise or fall quite a bit and move within and across the boundrys they are near , so there is no real ceiling or floor at any level.
In the US the poor would have a hard time outnumbering the wealthy , depending on where you were drawing the line, but who needs to draw that line?
This is a good place to lift oneself much more than a bad place to drag anyone elese down.
There are virtuous poor and dastardly rich but their money doesn't cause them to be either way.
-
<<The USA has no class that anyone is obliged to stay in. Every now and then someone will jump all the way from the bottom to the top or vice versa , but that is uncommon, what is very common is for people to rise or fall quite a bit and move within and across the boundrys they are near , so there is no real ceiling or floor at any level.>>
I think you're just living in a fantasy world. There are always exceptions to every rule, but in general the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor from one generation to the next. You have obviously mistaken the exception for the rule.
Immigrants are a special case - - what they might lack in formal education is matched by whatever separates them from the bulk of their countrymen left behind: drive, risk-taking and whatever cunning or ingenuity it takes to get them over the border. They or their children are gonna make it.
I will agree with you only to this extent: the U.S.A. is probably the country with the lowest barriers separating the classes anywhere in the world. It really is the land of opportunity when compared with anyplace else. People who in almost any other country would stand no chance of rising above their circumstances have their best chance to do so in the U.S. , and the U.S. therefore attracts a lot of the brightest and smartest, hardest working people from all over the world. You can see this particularly in New York city. Credit where credit is due. This does NOT mean that the U.S. is a classless society, nor that the upper classes are not highly conscious of this and do not wage a constant form of class warfare, all the time denying (for purely tactical reasons) that the class war even exists. These are two separate issues, is the U.S. a land of opportunity? (yesss!) and does class war exist in the U.S.? (yessss!)
-
What is the point?
Vote for McCain, or the hippies will take over and move the capital to Haight-Ashbury?
McCain has not controlled spending. It has gone up each and every year that he has been in office.
We elected a couple of oilmen and look what that caused us.
Now we need to elect a military hack?
Please.
-
People need to see your electoralism for what it is. Once the working classes decide to abandon it, they'll be that much closer to class consciousness and ridding this country of the depredations of bourgeoisie trappings such as destroying a person to get ahead in a career.
No offense JS , but aren't we treading deeply into cliche land with this polemic?
I doubt many people look at their bass boat as bourgeoisie trappings .
I'm missing the part where a bass boat has to do with anything. You have to help me out, I'm just a dumb Southerner.
-
Talk about an unnessacery war!
The USA has no class that anyone is obliged to stay in. Every now and then someone will jump all the way from the bottom to the top or vice versa , but that is uncommon, what is very common is for people to rise or fall quite a bit and move within and across the boundrys they are near , so there is no real ceiling or floor at any level.
In the US the poor would have a hard time outnumbering the wealthy , depending on where you were drawing the line, but who needs to draw that line?
This is a good place to lift oneself much more than a bad place to drag anyone elese down.
There are virtuous poor and dastardly rich but their money doesn't cause them to be either way.
The problem with your analysis Plane is that you look at the class conflict as being limited to this country. It is not. Moreover, from reading your post, you completely misunderstand the meaning of class. It is not defined by what one's income level is. One's class is determined by his or her relationship with the means of production.
The United States has done well to insulate itself from class issues due to the historical focus in this nation on racial struggles, as well as other less important issues. Think about it, we talk about the American Civil War as "The Civil War." But truth be told, other than military history, the American Civil War was a backwater war. Most other nations had already settled the slavery issue. The Russians, not known for their enlightenment, had freed the serfs! We were amongst the last nations to allow women to vote.
Division is nothing new in the United States. It is just that the focus of this division has yet to be on behalf of the worker.
-
<<The USA has no class that anyone is obliged to stay in. Every now and then someone will jump all the way from the bottom to the top or vice versa , but that is uncommon, what is very common is for people to rise or fall quite a bit and move within and across the boundrys they are near , so there is no real ceiling or floor at any level.>>
I think you're just living in a fantasy world. There are always exceptions to every rule, but in general the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor from one generation to the next. You have obviously mistaken the exception for the rule.
Immigrants are a special case - - what they might lack in formal education is matched by whatever separates them from the bulk of their countrymen left behind: drive, risk-taking and whatever cunning or ingenuity it takes to get them over the border. They or their children are gonna make it.
I will agree with you only to this extent: the U.S.A. is probably the country with the lowest barriers separating the classes anywhere in the world. It really is the land of opportunity when compared with anyplace else. People who in almost any other country would stand no chance of rising above their circumstances have their best chance to do so in the U.S. , and the U.S. therefore attracts a lot of the brightest and smartest, hardest working people from all over the world. You can see this particularly in New York city. Credit where credit is due. This does NOT mean that the U.S. is a classless society, nor that the upper classes are not highly conscious of this and do not wage a constant form of class warfare, all the time denying (for purely tactical reasons) that the class war even exists. These are two separate issues, is the U.S. a land of opportunity? (yesss!) and does class war exist in the U.S.? (yessss!)
"I will agree with you only to this extent: the U.S.A. is probably the country with the lowest barriers separating the classes anywhere in the world."
And what would a class consciousness and war between the classes do to improve on that?
Class consciousness is gauche for the rich to display , and foolish for the poor to display and irrelivant for the most of us who are neither.
Class consciousness is a very bad idea for anyone, the rich would be better off being constructive , and many are , the poor are better off lifting themselves as often they do.
Immagrants arrive with no real advantages that Americans of every "class" can't have but someone that learned to leap with a pack on will leap high indeed when the pack is lightened. Would an American be wise to pretend that the government wouldn't feed him?
By the way , how many classes are there?Where is the convention for mine , my invitation got lost.
-
The class structure has been divided deliberately into two class struggles.
There is the economic and political class struggle, between the haves (ie the business oligarchy) and the have-nots, with the have-nots allied with the intellectual and artistic elements (educators, writers, filmmakers, etc.)
Then there is a phony struggle between the cultural classes: the anti-abortionists, gun nuts, antihomosexuals and religious fundies, who have been hornswoggled into seeing anyone who has a rational perspective as being an "elitist".
There are three basic issues in US politics: Rich vs. Poor, War vs. Peace, and Black vs White.
Actually it is not really Black vs White anymore (now that Jesse Helms has bit the dust) it is people who are capable of seeing Black and White people as being potentially equal and deserving, and those who cannot.
The elite vs non-elite and the culture wars are a diversion, created at great expense by the oligarchy and their propagandists in order to mask the above three divisions.
The "summer of love' has not one goddamn thing to do with the 2008 election. Neither does Jane Fonda
-
"Class consciousness is a very bad idea for anyone"
It doesn't quite work that way, my friend.
Might I suggest a thorough reading of Lukacs.
-
"... the meaning of class. It is not defined by what one's income level is. One's class is determined by his or her relationship with the means of production."
Which of course is not related at all to income level.
What purportion of Americans have no investment in stock or Mutual funds?
A battle with the Capitol owning class would be mostly with the pentions and funds that buy millions of shares on behalf of millions of participants.
So what makes Class consciousness a good idea? Divideing us into smaller scisms doesnt seem like a winner for anyone.
Edwards shot himself down with his "two Americas" ,pitting the rich aganst the poor works better in lands where these actually do hate each other. Lots of politicians have ridden this horse into power , but do we need a Robspierre, a Napolion or a Hitler?
BTW Edwards tried to split the rich and poor without makeing it clear which team he was actually on , this hurt too.
-
People need to see your electoralism for what it is. Once the working classes decide to abandon it, they'll be that much closer to class consciousness and ridding this country of the depredations of bourgeoisie trappings such as destroying a person to get ahead in a career.
No offense JS , but aren't we treading deeply into cliche land with this polemic?
I doubt many people look at their bass boat as bourgeoisie trappings .
I'm missing the part where a bass boat has to do with anything. You have to help me out, I'm just a dumb Southerner.
Pronounce it like this.... boose -wah- zee
Something that makes the poor furious , unless they are Americans.
-
"... the meaning of class. It is not defined by what one's income level is. One's class is determined by his or her relationship with the means of production."
Which of course is not related at all to income level.
What purportion of Americans have no investment in stock or Mutual funds?
A battle with the Capitol owning class would be mostly with the pentions and funds that buy millions of shares on behalf of millions of participants.
So what makes Class consciousness a good idea? Divideing us into smaller scisms doesnt seem like a winner for anyone.
Edwards shot himself down with his "two Americas" ,pitting the rich aganst the poor works better in lands where these actually do hate each other. Lots of politicians have ridden this horse into power , but do we need a Robspierre, a Napolion or a Hitler?
BTW Edwards tried to split the rich and poor without makeing it clear which team he was actually on , this hurt too.
On the contrary, Hitler would have loved your view. Fascism taught that class division was a very harmful thing for the state. It could be healed by nationalism. Put up enough symbolism, wave the flag, and especially infuse the nation with a racial scapegoat (be they Jews, Roma, Blacks, or Mexicans) and you'd often see class divisions melt away.
If you read Lukacs you'd realize that class consciousness has to come before any consolidation of power and redistribution of capital. I don't see that taking place through a limp democracy already bought and paid for.
It is not a case of "smaller and smaller divisions" as you keep protesting. There are really only two: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The fight is inevitable, though you keep harping as though there is a choice. The question will be whether the revolution is bloody, or whether the bourgeoisie understands the ramifications and simply hands over the capital to the rightful owners.
-
<<And what would a class consciousness and war between the classes do to improve on that?>>
It would mean the election of legislators who put a higher priority on raising the minimum wage than they do on bringing "democracy" to Iraq. Who are more concerned with early child development in working class families than they are with spending billions on Israeli security. Who are more concerned with issues like debt relief than with issues of protecting lenders' rights. Etc.
<<Class consciousness is gauche for the rich to display . . . >>
Of course, which is why they work so hard to dispel the ideas that class and the class war exist in America.
<< . . . and foolish for the poor to display >>
Really? Foolish for the poor to look for legislators more concerned with the minimum wage than with "democracy" for the Iraqis?
and irrelivant for the most of us who are neither.
<<Class consciousness is a very bad idea for anyone, the rich would be better off being constructive , and many are . . . >>
Well, the fact is, the rich are anything but foolish, they know immediately who is on their side and who is not, and they dispense their campaign funding accordingly. There is nothing at all foolish about it.
<< the poor are better off lifting themselves as often they do.>>
And the first step for many of them in lifting themselves is to get affordable day care, raise the minimum wage and get some health insurance. Things "their" government has consistently ignored, while pursuing such worthwhile and multi-billion dollar efforts as bringing "democracy" to Iraq, ensuring the security of Israel and trying to drum up support for a new war against Iran. A class-conscious working class will elect representatives with THEIR interests at heart, much to their immediate benefit. Which of course is the very reason that the rich and the special interests expend so much energy in denying the very existence of the class war.
<<Immagrants arrive with no real advantages that Americans of every "class" can't have but someone that learned to leap with a pack on will leap high indeed when the pack is lightened. >>
You're missing the point that the immigrant already made his leap when he crossed the border. Proving that he's got the right stuff and probably proving it again once he settles in.
<<Would an American be wise to pretend that the government wouldn't feed him?>>
No, I think he'd be wise to vote for somebody who says - - AND MEANS IT - - that he or she will fight for the right to universal health care, will fight for higher minimum wage NOW, will fight for early child development NOW (when your kids are one and two, not when they're twelve or fifteen) and will provide decent housing now. That is what I'D vote for if I were poor and class-conscious.
<<By the way , how many classes are there? >>
I can divide it up into the upper class (that doesn't need to work for a living, can live quite well off their investments, what would have been called the rentier class in France,) the bourgeoisie or middle class, which earns a decent living through business or the liberal professions like law or medicine, architecture or engineering, academia etc., can take regular vacations, educate their children, have adequate or superior medical and dental care and good housing and transportation. Then there is the proletariat, the agricultural, industrial or commercial working class ("workers and peasants") who can range from the lowest of the low, "stoop labour," up to highly-paid blue-collar workers, technicians, teachers, etc. who are blending into the lower ranges of the bourgeoisie. There is also the lumpenproletariat, which would consist of the chronically unemployed and the criminal and petty-criminal underworld, the so-called "useless eaters."
That's my own personal map of the class war. I'm sure there are other versions, typically the middle class being subdivided into "upper" and "lower" bourgeoisie, or the so-called "working class" taking in all of the workers, the lumpenproles and the criminal underworld.
A more simplistic division is into borrowers and lenders. Borrowers want low interest rates, easy debt relief and whether they realize it or not will benefit more from inflation than the lenders will. Lenders want tight money (high interest rates,) no debt relief ever and zero inflation - - if they lend 2008 dollars, they want to be repaid in 2008 dollars, not in the lower-value, inflated, newly-printed-on-demand 2010 dollars, if the 2010 dollars have less purchasing power than the 2008 dollars did.
<<Where is the convention for mine , my invitation got lost.>>
I'd figure you for working class. Skilled worker. Just a guess of course.
-
The bourgeoisie is the middle class.
The petite bourgeoisie is the lower middle class, shopkeepers artisans and the like.
A bass boat is a status symbol in the southland. The poor can't afford them.
The lower and middle class can if they pay their bills on time.
These folks don't have time for your revolution. They are too busy working or enjoying the fruits of their labor, thank you very much.
-
The bourgeoisie is the middle class.
The petite bourgeoisie is the lower middle class, shopkeepers artisans and the like.
A bass boat is a status symbol in the southland. The poor can't afford them.
The lower and middle class can if they pay their bills on time.
These folks don't have time for your revolution. They are too busy working or enjoying the fruits of their labor, thank you very much.
Absolutely. They have no concept of class consciousness. I would not expect them to. Nor is it my revolution. It is theirs. It is a matter of the perfect storm of time, events, people, and action.
-
I do not think bass boats are a determinant of social class, not even in the South. It is true that dirt-poor people rarely have these, but there are many thousands of people who could afford a bass boat who would consider such a thing a total waste of time.
It might be a symbol of nouveau-riche redneckery in a few places, but not most places.
-
I do not think bass boats are a determinant of social class, not even in the South. It is true that dirt-poor people rarely have these, but there are many thousands of people who could afford a bass boat who would consider such a thing a total waste of time.
It might be a symbol of nouveau-riche redneckery in a few places, but not most places.
Clearly you haven't spent much time in Northern Georgia or Alabama ;)
-
Thousands of people consider cheeseburgers to be the perfect food. Thousands consider bottled water essential to their survival.
This does not mean that cheeseburgers are a wise dietary choice, nor does it mean that tap water is not eminently drinkable.
The class struggle is like the above. The wealthy are pillaging the middle classes and the poor more aggressively than ever, with credit card late fees, telephone texting addons, designer food and clothing cravings via mass advertising and a hundred other ways. The poor fools are unaware that they are warred upon, but that does not mean that there is no class war and they are losing horribly. Pickpocketry and embezzlement are a lot easier to perpetrate than muggings, but that does not mean they are less successful.
Maybe someday, the sheeple will catch on, but bazilions of dollars are spent by the oligarchy to assure that this will not happen.
-
<<These folks don't have time for your revolution. They are too busy working or enjoying the fruits of their labor, thank you very much.>>
I never said anything about a Revolution. I agree that at present they are content with the crumbs that the ruling class lets them have. It's a bread and circuses thing. A bass boat (whatever the fuck that is,) a TV and whatever else satisfies their pea-sized brains, don't throw them out in the street if they miss the odd payment and keep the price of beer down. So what if 47 meeyun of 'em don't have and can't afford health insurance, that's only for sick folks and they ain't sick none. God will provide.
A little class consciousness would go a long way for them. Affordable health insurance, higher wages (inevitably following a hike in the minimum wage,) green-earth policies that'll keep the bass stocked and the toxicity down in the polluted waterways that they race their bass boats up and down on, more tightly regulated pension funds so they don't get regularly ripped off by the likes of Bush's buddy Kenny-Boy Lay, or John Insane's buddy Charles Keating. Yeah, they could definitely benefit from a little class consciousness, but if they are too fucking dumb to do so, that is definitely their problem.
-
Yeah, they could definitely benefit from a little class consciousness, but if they are too fucking dumb to do so, that is definitely their problem.
==============
See? Now that's an elitist attitude.
How dare you presume to be smarter than some good ol'boy who spends $40 grand to catch fish he could eat every day of his life for a tenth as much.
If'n you ain't got money for that bass boat, yew can still get season NASCAR tickets.
-
"... the meaning of class. It is not defined by what one's income level is. One's class is determined by his or her relationship with the means of production."
Which of course is not related at all to income level.
What purportion of Americans have no investment in stock or Mutual funds?
A battle with the Capitol owning class would be mostly with the pentions and funds that buy millions of shares on behalf of millions of participants.
So what makes Class consciousness a good idea? Divideing us into smaller scisms doesnt seem like a winner for anyone.
Edwards shot himself down with his "two Americas" ,pitting the rich aganst the poor works better in lands where these actually do hate each other. Lots of politicians have ridden this horse into power , but do we need a Robspierre, a Napolion or a Hitler?
BTW Edwards tried to split the rich and poor without makeing it clear which team he was actually on , this hurt too.
On the contrary, Hitler would have loved your view. Fascism taught that class division was a very harmful thing for the state. It could be healed by nationalism. Put up enough symbolism, wave the flag, and especially infuse the nation with a racial scapegoat (be they Jews, Roma, Blacks, or Mexicans) and you'd often see class divisions melt away.
If you read Lukacs you'd realize that class consciousness has to come before any consolidation of power and redistribution of capital. I don't see that taking place through a limp democracy already bought and paid for.
It is not a case of "smaller and smaller divisions" as you keep protesting. There are really only two: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The fight is inevitable, though you keep harping as though there is a choice. The question will be whether the revolution is bloody, or whether the bourgeoisie understands the ramifications and simply hands over the capital to the rightful owners.
Ok ,Hitler divided by nationality and Robspierre divided by class ,six of one ,half a dozen of another.Robspierre was not nicer than Hitler even in minute examination of how very diffrent he was .
The rightfull owner of an item of capitol is the person who brought it into being and hasn't sold it yet , or the guy that bought it.
Takeing capitol from the people who produce capitol without payment cripples the production of more capitol , some might see the pie being more equtibly divided , but it is necessacerily a smaller pie.
-
Clearly you haven't spent much time in Northern Georgia or Alabama Wink
Exactly. No sense having a bass boat unless you have a lake house to dock it at.
Gerald Moore is one such fellow.
High school graduate. Started working construction. Learned framing. Learned it well. Hooked up with a big builder in a booming county. Formed his own crew. Got married. Sent his wife to school. She handles the books, payroll, banking, purchases and tax issues. Started a second crew. Best friend from high school runs that crew. Took his profits and built spec homes. Did well with that too. His son runs his original crew now. Gerald is semi retired, fishing and BBQ'ing on Lake Sinclair. He's 53 now. Salt of the earth kinda guy. Deals done with a handshake.
-
Yeah, they could definitely benefit from a little class consciousness, but if they are too fucking dumb to do so, that is definitely their problem.
==============
See? Now that's an elitist attitude.
How dare you presume to be smarter than some good ol'boy who spends $40 grand to catch fish he could eat every day of his life for a tenth as much.
If'n you ain't got money for that bass boat, yew can still get season NASCAR tickets.
Yep, I do detect a bit of elitist attitude.
-
There is a difference between capital and capitol. CapitOl, capitAl
Des Moines is the capitol of Iowa. The Capitol building of California is in Sacramento.
Capital is money.
===================================
Takeing capitol from the people who produce capitol without payment cripples the production of more capitol , some might see the pie being more equtibly divided , but it is necessacerily a smaller pie.
The wealthy receive more benefits from the system, which does not reward people fairly at all.
Why should a rapster or a guy who plays with balls earn a hundred times more than an excellent teacher?
The way to reallocate these benefits is through taxation.
In Denmark, everyone gets as much free education as they wish.
Everyone has a decent place to live.
Everyone has good health care.
The average American has to pay a lot for these, and probably cannot afford all three at all.
So what if the Dane pays half his income in taxes? He has everything he needs, and need not worry about his old age or even how to his six weeks of annual vacation.
The American pays much MORE for health care, housing and education, and most of what he gets are inferior to what the Dane gets.
Danes are a lot happier too. Happier than anyone else on the planet.
The beer is better, and so is the bread.
-
Plane, I think the fact that you and Hitler agree on class division is rather significant, even if you do not. You brought Herr Adolf into this conversation, not me. Robespierre did not divide by class at all. Robespierre was an extremely intelligent orator who helped form the Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution. He was an avid anti-Monarchist and republican. He believed in finding all forms of pro-monarchy views and destroying them. It had nothing to do with class. It was bloody and destructive, but it was not class driven at all. Your view is ahistorical.
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers. They simply need the class consciousness to realize the power that they have. If they do not work, all of the power that the bourgeoisie possess is gone in an instant. They simply need to remove the cultural and societal burdens that keep them blinded and pushed down. The workers are far from powerless.
-
Clearly you haven't spent much time in Northern Georgia or Alabama Wink
Exactly. No sense having a bass boat unless you have a lake house to dock it at.
Gerald Moore is one such fellow.
High school graduate. Started working construction. Learned framing. Learned it well. Hooked up with a big builder in a booming county. Formed his own crew. Got married. Sent his wife to school. She handles the books, payroll, banking, purchases and tax issues. Started a second crew. Best friend from high school runs that crew. Took his profits and built spec homes. Did well with that too. His son runs his original crew now. Gerald is semi retired, fishing and BBQ'ing on Lake Sinclair. He's 53 now. Salt of the earth kinda guy. Deals done with a handshake.
One of the millionaires I know started out as a Bulldozer operator, same story , good job plus frugality equals prosperity.
I also know a guy that owns a gitaur more expensive than his house , I even know a guy that paid more for his bass boat than he did for his house. Should shuch choices be against the rules? These guys are all pleased with their choices.
-
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers.
And do they not lease their labor for an agreed upon wage?
-
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers.
Absolutely not, this view cannot be defended by anything like logic.
Nor is there any benefit from the attempt to enact such law.
-
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers.
And do they not lease their labor for an agreed upon wage?
Yes. That's how capitalism works I am told.
-
Plane, I think the fact that you and Hitler agree on class division is rather significant, even if you do not. You brought Herr Adolf into this conversation, not me. Robespierre did not divide by class at all. Robespierre was an extremely intelligent orator who helped form the Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution. He was an avid anti-Monarchist and republican. He believed in finding all forms of pro-monarchy views and destroying them. It had nothing to do with class. It was bloody and destructive, but it was not class driven at all. Your view is ahistorical.
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers. They simply need the class consciousness to realize the power that they have. If they do not work, all of the power that the bourgeoisie possess is gone in an instant. They simply need to remove the cultural and societal burdens that keep them blinded and pushed down. The workers are far from powerless.
Robespierre did not divide by class at all.
I don't understand that, how did he devoid the French into those he would kill and those he would not?
-
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers.
Absolutely not, this view cannot be defended by anything like logic.
Nor is there any benefit from the attempt to enact such law.
I'll quote from Nelson Rockefeller after he toured his factories in Latin America in the 1930's he gave an address to his fellow corporate leaders:
"We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations and the corporation must use its ownership of assets to reflect the best interests of the people. If we do not, they will take away our ownership."
They did not. And they did.
They will not. And they will.
-
Plane, I think the fact that you and Hitler agree on class division is rather significant, even if you do not. You brought Herr Adolf into this conversation, not me. Robespierre did not divide by class at all. Robespierre was an extremely intelligent orator who helped form the Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution. He was an avid anti-Monarchist and republican. He believed in finding all forms of pro-monarchy views and destroying them. It had nothing to do with class. It was bloody and destructive, but it was not class driven at all. Your view is ahistorical.
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers. They simply need the class consciousness to realize the power that they have. If they do not work, all of the power that the bourgeoisie possess is gone in an instant. They simply need to remove the cultural and societal burdens that keep them blinded and pushed down. The workers are far from powerless.
Robespierre did not divide by class at all.
I don't understand that, how did he devoid the French into those he would kill and those he would not?
Not meaning to sound harsh Plane, but did I not just explain that?
He did not care what your economic background was. If he thought you were anti-republic - you would lose your head. If you voiced support for the monarchy, you could be a worker, a street beggar, or an aristocrat and still lose your head.
-
I don't understand that, how did he devoid the French into those he would kill and those he would not?
==============================================
I don't think he devoided anyone. Perhaps you mean divided them.
Mostly, criticizing Robespierre would get you on his sh*t list, as would being a member of the nobility.
Eventually, he confused so many people by executing others at random that they banded together and sent him to the guillotine to prevent him from sending them first, which was almost certainly a wise idea from their standpoint.
-
Yes. That's how capitalism works I am told.
And in your world, what would be different?
Would labor not be traded for something?
-
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers.
Absolutely not, this view cannot be defended by anything like logic.
Nor is there any benefit from the attempt to enact such law.
I'll quote from Nelson Rockefeller after he toured his factories in Latin America in the 1930's he gave an address to his fellow corporate leaders:
"We must recognize the social responsibilities of corporations and the corporation must use its ownership of assets to reflect the best interests of the people. If we do not, they will take away our ownership."
They did not. And they did.
They will not. And they will.
Ok Rockfeller saw it comeing, who benefited from the nationalisation?
-
Yes. That's how capitalism works I am told.
And in your world, what would be different?
Would labor not be traded for something?
Of course. The people who perform the labor would also own the company.
-
Of course. The people who perform the labor would also own the company.
They can do that in a capitalist society. They have this thing called stock.
-
Absolutely not, this view cannot be defended by anything like logic.
Nor is there any benefit from the attempt to enact such law.
===================================================
Why of COURSE there is.
A large pile of iron ore and another of coal is of little use to you or anyone.
It is labor that turns it into a car.
A barrel of oil is of little use to you as it comes from the ground. If you turn it into fuel and plastics, this is done with labor. Labor adds value to raw materials. Labor is the base of industrial society.
The labor of the men who invent the machinery, who build the machinery and who run the machinery are absolutely indispensable to the conversion of raw materials to useful products.
Does the salary of a beer executive add to the taste or refreshment that a beer produces? Would it taste differently without a fancy label on the can or a bazillion dollars spent on ads?
It is the labor of the farmer, the trucker, the brewers that turn the ingredients into beer.
If you fail to see the logic, you are not functioning within reasonable parameters.
-
Plane, I think the fact that you and Hitler agree on class division is rather significant, even if you do not. You brought Herr Adolf into this conversation, not me. Robespierre did not divide by class at all. Robespierre was an extremely intelligent orator who helped form the Committee on Public Safety during the French Revolution. He was an avid anti-Monarchist and republican. He believed in finding all forms of pro-monarchy views and destroying them. It had nothing to do with class. It was bloody and destructive, but it was not class driven at all. Your view is ahistorical.
The rightful owners of the means of production are the workers. They simply need the class consciousness to realize the power that they have. If they do not work, all of the power that the bourgeoisie possess is gone in an instant. They simply need to remove the cultural and societal burdens that keep them blinded and pushed down. The workers are far from powerless.
Robespierre did not divide by class at all.
I don't understand that, how did he devoid the French into those he would kill and those he would not?
Not meaning to sound harsh Plane, but did I not just explain that?
He did not care what your economic background was. If he thought you were anti-republic - you would lose your head. If you voiced support for the monarchy, you could be a worker, a street beggar, or an aristocrat and still lose your head.
That is classes.
Divideing into German and French , rich and poor , monarchist and republican is all division, it is not diffrent than the division that you like .It is ice cream if it is ice cream even if you have chockolate instead of vanilla.
Robspierre was divideing his people into classes that warred against each other .
Hitler did not do diffrently even tho he was more grasping across his borders.
If you choose rich and poor as the division that should be fighting , how do you feel better than a Klansman who choses white and otherwise as the classes that should be fighting?
Unity isn't really that bad.
-
They can do that in a capitalist society. They have this thing called stock.
=========================
Stock does not turn raw materials into anything useful. It is an arbitrary financial concept.
There are many companies that are private and have issued no stock.
-
That is classes.
Divideing into German and French , rich and poor , monarchist and republican is all division, it is not diffrent than the division that you like .It is ice cream if it is ice cream even if you have chockolate instead of vanilla.
Robspierre was divideing his people into classes that warred against each other .
Hitler did not do diffrently even tho he was more grasping across his borders.
If you choose rich and poor as the division that should be fighting , how do you feel better than a Klansman who choses white and otherwise as the classes that should be fighting?
Unity isn't really that bad.
Funny, that's what Herr Adolf said.
-
Thousands of people consider cheeseburgers to be the perfect food.
"But times have changed for sailors these days.
When I'm in port I get what I need;
Not just Havanas or bananas or daiquiris,
But that American creation on which I feed!
"Cheeseburger in paradise,
medium rare with mustard be nice
Heaven on earth with an onion slice.
I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise.
"I like mine with lettuce and tomato
Heinz 57 and french fried potatoes
Big kosher pickle and a cold draft beer
Well, good god Almighty which way do I steer
"For my cheeseburger in paradise
Makin' the best of every virtue and vice.
Worth every damn bit of sacrifice
To get a cheeseburger in paradise"
-
Stock does not turn raw materials into anything useful. It is an arbitrary financial concept.
So is ownership.
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
-
Xavier_Onassis
Absolutely not, this view cannot be defended by anything like logic.
Nor is there any benefit from the attempt to enact such law.
===================================================
Why of COURSE there is.
[][][][][]
Heh heh heh...
[][][][][]
A large pile of iron ore and another of coal is of little use to you or anyone.
It is labor that turns it into a car.
[][][][][][][][][][][]
What does the labor make out of nothing?
Labor is one vital component, not the vital component.
The real value of labor depends on its quality and availibility.
Nigeria has plenty of labor availible , can you buy a car built in Nigeria?
[][][][][][][][][][][]
A barrel of oil is of little use to you as it comes from the ground. If you turn it into fuel and plastics, this is done with labor. Labor adds value to raw materials. Labor is the base of industrial society.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Only a littlebit- gasoline is not labor intensive, a few guys run the well , a few guys run the pipeline , a few run the refinery , and they produce in large volume.
This labor would be worth nothing no matter how much they produced , if gasoline were not a popular product, the price of oil is determined by auction and the price of gasoline by the willingness of buyers to pay.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The labor of the men who invent the machinery, who build the machinery and who run the machinery are absolutely indispensable to the conversion of raw materials to useful products.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Yes , but no less absolutely indispensable is the contribution of the guy that pays for it.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Does the salary of a beer executive add to the taste or refreshment that a beer produces? Would it taste differently without a fancy label on the can or a bazillion dollars spent on ads?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I do have a favorite brand , do you drink generic beer?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
It is the labor of the farmer, the trucker, the brewers that turn the ingredients into beer.
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
No argument, but someone must be responsible for the process .
Truckers farmers and brewers are free to get together and make co-op beer , so why do they not?
Fact is micro brewers do make some fine beers , and it is a nice hobby , Is there any potential for microbreweries to satisfy the millions of gallons of demand the US market represents?
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
If you fail to see the logic, you are not functioning within reasonable parameters.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I think you see logic where there isn't any really because you have a prejudice.
In this country it is not at all forbidden to operate a co-op and pool talents, resources and labor.
It is even allowed to build financial institutions like credit unions , Freddie mac or Fannie may.
I do drink amateur beer now and then , I did join a credit union, but I wouldn't if the beer were sub standard or the credit union fees wern't lower.
There is no reason in all this to take from anyone a gift for another one and call it fairness.
-
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What is forbidden about this?
Why are such arangements so unpopular?
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What does democracy have to do with business?
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What does democracy have to do with business?
Nothing...yet.
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What does democracy have to do with business?
Nothing...yet.
Why not?
Why don't people do this?
Is it because it is the hard way? Or because when it is done it usually gets run poorly and fails?
I attend union meetings now and then, not often .
My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.
If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.
-
Nothing...yet.
Perhaps because it isn't necessary.
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What does democracy have to do with business?
Nothing...yet.
Why not?
Why don't people do this?
Is it because it is the hard way? Or because when it is done it usually gets run poorly and fails?
I attend union meetings now and then, not often .
My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.
If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.
Wal-Mart spends many millions of dollars to prevent their employees from unionizing. Just a rumor of organizing will have a corporate team take over a store from a store manager and install expensive equipment to spy on employees and single out possible union sympathisers. From there a number of possibilities occur ranging from outright bullying to anti-union propaganda campaigns and freezing wages.
So there are many reasons why "this" doesn't happen. Primarily because the proletariat is not class conscious. They do not understand the power that they actually have. If you wish to discuss org theory, we certainly can. Lord help me, I actually took a graduate course on that very topic. But, the means of production are in the hands of the bourgeoisie and therefore they have no vested interest in allowing the workers to run the company.
If you're actually interested (and no, I don't think you are) there are successful businesses owned by the employees.
-
Nothing...yet.
Perhaps because it isn't necessary.
Perhaps because enough people are wrapped up in their cheap trinkets from China.
Keeping the peasants from revolting is an old art form.
-
Perhaps because enough people are wrapped up in their cheap trinkets from China.
Keeping the peasants from revolting is an old art form.
Have you revolted yet?
If not, why not?
-
Perhaps because enough people are wrapped up in their cheap trinkets from China.
Keeping the peasants from revolting is an old art form.
Have you revolted yet?
If not, why not?
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
-
Stock can be an utterly meaningless attribute. Just think of Worldcom.
Besides, by ownership I mean an actual say in how the company works and runs. That is real democracy. Not the used car salesman act and hundreds of millions of dollars that we have every two years.
This would be workers councils and democratically run companies with the workers' control. Despite your next musings, stock does not do this.
What does democracy have to do with business?
Nothing...yet.
Why not?
Why don't people do this?
Is it because it is the hard way? Or because when it is done it usually gets run poorly and fails?
I attend union meetings now and then, not often .
My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.
If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.
Wal-Mart spends many millions of dollars to prevent their employees from unionizing. Just a rumor of organizing will have a corporate team take over a store from a store manager and install expensive equipment to spy on employees and single out possible union sympathisers. From there a number of possibilities occur ranging from outright bullying to anti-union propaganda campaigns and freezing wages.
So there are many reasons why "this" doesn't happen. Primarily because the proletariat is not class conscious. They do not understand the power that they actually have. If you wish to discuss org theory, we certainly can. Lord help me, I actually took a graduate course on that very topic. But, the means of production are in the hands of the bourgeoisie and therefore they have no vested interest in allowing the workers to run the company.
If you're actually interested (and no, I don't think you are) there are successful businesses owned by the employees.
I am in the Union already and I would not want the workplace run the way the union is run ,no one could work .
I have heard of sucessfull Employee owned businesses , but I don't see many , what is the advantage they offer?
-
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?
-
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?
No.
-
Perhaps because enough people are wrapped up in their cheap trinkets from China.
Keeping the peasants from revolting is an old art form.
Have you revolted yet?
If not, why not?
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
The good it has done is to make the bourgeoisie a strong majority .
Or is that ill?
-
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?
No.
Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?
-
<<My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.
<<If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.>>
That is exactly what my dad used to say. When I was 14 or 15, and began to learn about communism, I used to tell him the workers would take over his factory when the Revolution came. My dad used to laugh at this. He'd say it wouldn't take his workers two weeks to run the whole thing into the ground. And he really liked his workers.
I worked in the factory too when I was older, and I don't think he was too far off the mark. They were kind-hearted, good-natured people, with some real-life problems that the bourgeoisie would rarely if ever encounter, sons and husbands in jail, killed in the war, permanently injured on the job, etc. None of them seemed to have much aptitude for business and management, but it who knows - - throw them into the pool and some might have become swimmers. What it proved to me was the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Taking over the factory was one thing, running it was something else.
This was the reason for vanguard theory. Left to its own devices, the working class, even if it won the Revolution, would inevitably go FUBAR. Things they owned (the means of production, in effect the entire country) would have to be run for them by a dictatorship run by the vanguard of the proletariat, i.e., by the Communist Party. The Party, as vanguard of the proletariat, would run the factory, but not on capitalist principles (greed, selfishness, private advantage) but on socialist ones (solidarity of the working class, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, mutual aid and assistance.)
-
Why? I'm as bourgeoisie as you. Plus, there is no revolution before class consciousness is achieved. Capitalism has to do both its good and its ill beforehand.
Hmmm. Those trinkets made in China are made by folks who own the means of production, no?
No.
Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?
I'm sure you are not asking because you wish to discuss Chinese history.
They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.
-
They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.
So the revolution failed?
-
<<My union has terribly disorganised meetings , important decisions made in meetings are usually ignored by the national organisation , if it wern't so I think the Union would have been defunct long ago.
<<If a gang like that ran a workplace it wouldn't be a work place.>>
That is exactly what my dad used to say. When I was 14 or 15, and began to learn about communism, I used to tell him the workers would take over his factory when the Revolution came. My dad used to laugh at this. He'd say it wouldn't take his workers two weeks to run the whole thing into the ground. And he really liked his workers.
I worked in the factory too when I was older, and I don't think he was too far off the mark. They were kind-hearted, good-natured people, with some real-life problems that the bourgeoisie would rarely if ever encounter, sons and husbands in jail, killed in the war, permanently injured on the job, etc. None of them seemed to have much aptitude for business and management, but it who knows - - throw them into the pool and some might have become swimmers. What it proved to me was the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Taking over the factory was one thing, running it was something else.
This was the reason for vanguard theory. Left to its own devices, the working class, even if it won the Revolution, would inevitably go FUBAR. Things they owned (the means of production, in effect the entire country) would have to be run for them by a dictatorship run by the vanguard of the proletariat, i.e., by the Communist Party. The Party, as vanguard of the proletariat, would run the factory, but not on capitalist principles (greed, selfishness, private advantage) but on socialist ones (solidarity of the working class, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, mutual aid and assistance.)
With the whole group thrown in the pool , there would certainly be some who could swim and these could lead and become the vanguard leadership just as you say , the funny part is expecting this group to be an improvement on the group that ran the place as capitolists,
Capitolists can be idealists and understand kindness too , but some aren't and don't. Communists are no less human and are no less prone to greed and cruelty. So it becomes an improbability that the change would represent an improvement.
What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.
-
What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.
==================================================
The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.
You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.
-
The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.
You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.
According to JS, they're not communists:
Are they not the children of Marx and Mao?
I'm sure you are not asking because you wish to discuss Chinese history.
They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.
-
They may not be Communists in terms of developing the economy, but they are Communists in many other aspects, such as urban development planning, education, and many other areas.
They do claim to be Communists, after all.
China is not a typical country. It has far too many people for that, and population control has to be a major concern of any government in China. It will not take too much time for everyone to see, in the next several decades, why China needed to restrict population growth, because India, which has a similar problem is not doing nearly so much, and will soon surpass China in population and starvation as well.
The PRC is also a geographically huge and diverse country. Communism has been more successful in the PREC than it ever was in the USSR, but then, the leaders of the PRC have the Soviet experience to build on. Also, Chinese society is far more collectivist by nature than anything in any part of the USSR.
I am not certain that JS is the ultimate authority in determining who is and who is not a Communist.
-
I am not certain that JS is the ultimate authority in determining who is and who is not a Communist.
Ted Koppell?
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/koppel/highlights/highlights.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/koppel/highlights/highlights.html)
What tips the balance is the Communist refusal to acnoledge the reality of economics, being Communist is by definition being poorly breifed on economic matters.
==================================================
The highest rate of constant growth in any economy in the world so far , everyone agrees, is the result of the government of the People's Republic of China. I would suggest that these particular Communists acknowledge and utilize a superior ability to brief themselves on economic matters.
You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.
This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .
-
This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .
======================================
So a knowledge of economics makes one a "capitolist"?
I suppose your theory is that a lack of knowledge of economics makes one a Communist.
You have many interesting theories.
-
This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists .
======================================
So a knowledge of economics makes one a "capitolist"?
I suppose your theory is that a lack of knowledge of economics makes one a Communist.
You have many interesting theories.
Well and succinctly put .
Thank you.
-
XO sez: <<You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.>>
plane replies: <<This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists.>>
===============================================================================
Well, doesn't that just beg the question, what IS a capitalist? XO was merely referring to communists who understood and manipulated capitalist economies. They didn't become capitalists, they merely manipulated the capitalist economies and adopted some of the techniques of capitalism, the better to serve communism in the long run.
Is a capitalist someone who has capital, who invests his capital for personal, private benefit and who personally reaps the profits thereof? Or is a capitalist also a "communist" who believes basically in the people's ownership of the means of production, and in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," but analyzes developments in the capitalist world in order to sell to them, enrich the people, re-invest the profits wisely and continue to bring material improvements to the entire society?
-
XO sez: <<You could say that the growth of the PRC was done by applying a large measure of capitalism, but this only indicates that the Communist leadership of the PRC understands and manipulates capitalism better than the government of any capitalist state.>>
plane replies: <<This makes my point well that the more they are well breifed on Economics the more they are Capitolists.>>
===============================================================================
Well, doesn't that just beg the question, what IS a capitalist? XO was merely referring to communists who understood and manipulated capitalist economies. They didn't become capitalists, they merely manipulated the capitalist economies and adopted some of the techniques of capitalism, the better to serve communism in the long run.
Is a capitalist someone who has capital, who invests his capital for personal, private benefit and who personally reaps the profits thereof? Or is a capitalist also a "communist" who believes basically in the people's ownership of the means of production, and in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," but analyzes developments in the capitalist world in order to sell to them, enrich the people, re-invest the profits wisely and continue to bring material improvements to the entire society?
Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?
-
<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>
Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.
-
n China, to Get Rich is Glorious
By Dexter Roberts and Frederik Balfour
BusinessWeek Online
More Chinese are becoming millionaires -- and driving a fast-growing market for luxury goods
Wang Zhongjun is loaded and happy to flaunt it. He wears Prada shoes, Versace jackets, and a Piaget watch. He smokes Cohiba cigars from Cuba. He drives a white Mercedes-Benz SL600, a silver BMW Z8, and a red Ferrari 360. His art collection includes hundreds of sculptures and paintings. Value: $30 million or so. Home sweet home is a 22,000 square-foot mansion north of Beijing with antique British and French furniture, a billiard room with bar, and an indoor pool. When he tires of swimming, Wang can head to his stable (annual upkeep: $500,000) of 60 horses from Ireland, France, and Kentucky. "Entrepreneurs in China today feel much safer than before," says Wang, a 45-year-old movie producer who served in the Chinese army, studied in the U.S., and learned painting before backing internationally acclaimed films such as Kung Fu Hustle. "We are more accepted by the media, government, and society today."
That's for sure. Even though Deng Xiaoping declared that getting rich is glorious nearly three decades ago, just a few years back China's millionaires were running scared. When a Forbes Magazine survey of China's richest appeared in 1999, wags called it the "death list" after a tax crackdown targeted many who made the cut and landed some in jail.
Now China is embracing them. More than 300,000 Chinese have a net worth over $1 million, excluding property, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. And mainland millionaires control some $530 billion in assets, Boston Consulting Group estimates. "There has been a revolution in attitudes toward wealth," says Rupert Hoogewerf, who authored the 1999 list. He now runs Hurun Report, a Shanghai-based company specializing in information about China's rich, which just released a survey on millionaires' buying habits. "People don't appreciate how much cash there is running around in China today," he says.
http://biz.yahoo.com/special/chinarich06_article1.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/special/chinarich06_article1.html)
-
I don't like to see guys like Wang in a communist system, although I have no objection to them over here. They have a good chance to corrupt the whole Communist system, even though the system may think it is just using them. I sure hope the Chinese leadership knows what it's doing.
-
<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>
Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.
=====================================
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese history knows that they are riding a tiger, and their first concern is to stay on and keep it headed forward, which the current rulers seem to be doing rather well. They managed to both end and learn from the Tien Amin Square student rebellion, and they handled the recent earthquakes in a way that Juniorbush, and his pal Brownie could only dream of.
Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool.
I don't see a classic Marxist-Leninist state as likely. I don't even think that this would be best for most of the people.
Marx was an excellent economist, but was not at all good at dealing with farmers or psychology. Happy farmers have been pretty much rare and corrupt officials have not been rare enough.
Cuba is now importing sugar from Brazil. 30% of the cropland is covered with weeds. The campesinos have correctly deduced that nearly all the benefits of the Revolution are a lot easier to find in the cities. This is not a fault of the American embargo. In fact, Cuba imports more food from the US than any other place.
Canada could get more of the action if it actually grew rice.
-
<<Would you say that the Chinese have applied more ,or less, the principal "from each according to his ability to each according to his means," in recent times compared to previous times?>>
Of course not, I'd say they've obviously made a retreat from that principle, which I hope is merely a tactical retreat, temporary in nature and judiciously administered.
=====================================
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese history knows that they are riding a tiger, and their first concern is to stay on and keep it headed forward, which the current rulers seem to be doing rather well. They managed to both end and learn from the Tien Amin Square student rebellion, and they handled the recent earthquakes in a way that Juniorbush, and his pal Brownie could only dream of.
Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool.
I don't see a classic Marxist-Leninist state as likely. I don't even think that this would be best for most of the people.
Marx was an excellent economist, but was not at all good at dealing with farmers or psychology. Happy farmers have been pretty much rare and corrupt officials have not been rare enough.
Cuba is now importing sugar from Brazil. 30% of the cropland is covered with weeds. The campesinos have correctly deduced that nearly all the benefits of the Revolution are a lot easier to find in the cities. This is not a fault of the American embargo. In fact, Cuba imports more food from the US than any other place.
Canada could get more of the action if it actually grew rice.
So Capitolism works better , and it is tolerable as a stop gap measure untill enough wealth is built up to make socialism affordable?
"Their best tactic would be to permit the economy to grow until it benefits almost everyone, and then they will need to raise taxes and benefits to those on the lower rungs, including the peasants, and clean up the environment before it becomes an unlivable cesspool."
Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?
-
Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?
-----------------------------------
China is far more Socialistic than the US.
The US is far from being an unliveable cesspool. I would say that China has a much larger potential for environmental disaster than the US. First off, there are four times more Chinese than Americans, and they therefore take four times as many dumps a day as we do. They also eat lots of pigs, and swine are not noted for being good for the environment, either.
I would not presume to predict the future of pollution in the US, let alone China.
-
Sounds like what happened to us , do you suppose that China can become as socialistic and enviornmentally conchious as we are before their land is too poisoned?
-----------------------------------
China is far more Socialistic than the US.
The US is far from being an unliveable cesspool. I would say that China has a much larger potential for environmental disaster than the US. First off, there are four times more Chinese than Americans, and they therefore take four times as many dumps a day as we do. They also eat lots of pigs, and swine are not noted for being good for the environment, either.
I would not presume to predict the future of pollution in the US, let alone China.
Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?
It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .
-
Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?
That would be because it is.
It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .
No, we don't, except possibly in your mind.
-
Why would you say that China is more socialistic than the US?
That would be because it is.
It seems we have more of a nanny state here ,and more income redistribution .
No, we don't, except possibly in your mind.
The USA taxes its wealthy so hard that the top one percent carrys fourty percent of the tax burden the lower fifty percent carrys only three percent of the income tax burden. The lower erners pay only the Social Security tax and might pay no income tax at all. A Chineese Millionaire is taxed less and his company is taxed less.
In the USA we have a breau we call OSHA which insures that we wear helmen5s and safety glasses while we work , scafdfolding must meet a standard and shoes must have steel toes. Chineese employers don't need to worry so much about worker safety there isn't so much Osha there welders in sandals are not strange in China.
We have many departments and regulators that prevent us from hurting ourselves in many ways , and a welfare state that makes it hard to srarve and most socialistic of all, we have a minimum wage.
China used to be so socialistic that they nearly couldn't move , Nowadays we are morw Socilaistic than they are .
While creeping socialism has slowly crept a long way on us , explodeing Capitolism has grown like Kudzu over China. regulation od the Capitolistic effort is haveing a hard time keeping up , China has almost as many illeagL coal mines as leagal ones. Even where the State still has socialistic rules they are loth to enforce them.
-
there welders in sandals are not strange in China.
As a welder by trade, that is just stupid (not your comment, the fact that such people exist). We had a guy a while back who thought he only needed to wear one glove to stick weld pipe. The next day, he had to go to the doctor for second degree burns on his hands.
He is no longer with our company.
OSHA, though heavy handed at times, serves an important duty, to enforce workplace safety regulations.
-
Communism doesn't always advance in a straight line. At the end of the Russian Civil War, Lenin proposed the New Economic Policy (NEP) with some capitalistic features such as limited private ownership of the means of production. This was a practical necessity at the time. Towards the end of the 1920s, the NEP was terminated and the first of many Five Year Plans was instituted, which were more in keeping with traditional Communist theory and values. My guess would be that in the midst of the NEP time period, there would have been plenty of Western commentators gleefully jumping on the apparent "abandonment" of Communism by the U.S.S.R., not realizing that Communism is (or should be) practical and flexible in the realization of its goals, the classless society and the final end of the exploitation of man by man.
While I agree that even a temporary relapse into capitalist practices carries the risk of back-sliding and subversion, , nevertheless there are times when a nation or a corporation or even an ideology must take risks and demonstrate flexibility if it is to survive at all. A good example of this are the social benefits of the New Deal, which at the time were seen as a huge departure from the principles of dog-eat-dog or laissez-faire capitalism, but ultimately made America safe for capitalism.
I hope that the current Communist leadership of China will be able to manage the current moves towards capitalism in the name of the Revolution and avoid being swallowed up by them, which I admit is a danger, the extent of which remains to be seen.
-
The USA taxes its wealthy so hard that the top one percent carrys fourty percent of the tax burden the lower fifty percent carrys only three percent of the income tax burden. The lower erners pay only the Social Security tax and might pay no income tax at all. A Chineese Millionaire is taxed less and his company is taxed less.
==============
This isn't true, but if the rich pay a lot in taxes it is because they HAVE so much more. I gfail to see why this makes you bitch so much. There is no chance you will ever join the ranks of the tiny fraction that has to pay over 40% for income tax, being a government employee (that for some wacko reason hates the government.)
=============
In the USA we have a breau we call OSHA which insures that we wear helmen5s and safety glasses while we work , scafdfolding must meet a standard and shoes must have steel toes. Chineese employers don't need to worry so much about worker safety there isn't so much Osha there welders in sandals are not strange in China.
I suppose you oppose this, and would prefer to be injured on the job: why can't you be happy that someone actually gives a sh*t about your health? You can run around town, pulling up stop signs if you like, and put that danger back in your life, I suppose.
==============
We have many departments and regulators that prevent us from hurting ourselves in many ways , and a welfare state that makes it hard to srarve and most socialistic of all, we have a minimum wage.
China used to be so socialistic that they nearly couldn't move , Nowadays we are morw Socilaistic than they are .
China moved a lot, mostly around in circles, as in the Great Leap Forward period. That was not so much socialism as very misdirected and incompetent industrialism.
Jesus, every industrialized country has a minimum wage, and so do most other countries. That is not Socialism.
Socialism is when the means of production belong to the state.
There are many, many MANY more government-owned companies in China than in the US.
You are just wrong. China is far more socialistic than the US. Who do you think is putting up the Three Gorges Projest in China? Halliburton? No. It is the government of the PRC. No one else could have the capital, procure the materials or move all the people that project will need to move. It is the largest single project in the history of the human race.
And Socialism in some areas would be better in the US than what we have: socialized tidal, geothermal and hydroelectric power, for example. Observe how no one has come up with an energy plan for the US. Now even McSame wants to throw government around as a prize for battery technology. Why? Because private enterprise can't and won't do it.
-
Are oure big dams priviately owned?
I am right.
-
They are capitalists, but you knew that when you asked the question. The system of wages, class division, and destructive policies against the working classes can all be found in China.
So the revolution failed?
That depends upon how one measures success of a Maoist Revolution I suppose.
China could never be communist because the conditions for such a revolution never existed in that nation. The same is true for Russia in 1917. Does that mean that either revolution was not historically significant? Of course not. They should be measured on their own terms.
Lenin and Mao required their own adaptations to create a revolution in their respective countries (just as "The Sons of Liberty" did in America). Often times such a move requires contradiction with the ideals for which one is fighting. Neither Lenin, nor Mao carried out Marxian revolutions. They may have adapted some of Marx's ideas. They may have used Marx's notions in their own philosophies. Yet, that does not make their revolutions socialist.
China's leaders met with Milton Friedman and carried out his advice. I'd hardly consider that socialism, nor was The Cultural Revolution. Leninism used a great many of Lenin's own devices, none of which are necessary socialist in origin.
The only certain failure is capitalism and the reasons are evident. There are 800,000,000 people going to bed hungry tonight. 1.6 million children or more will die from diarrhea this year. Millions upon millions of people will contract malaria, many of those will die for lack of a $3 to $6 bed net. The slums of Lahore and other African cities fill up due to policies, wars, and other encroachments made to expand markets and constrict costs for the businesses here in the west.
Families in a number of African nations were torn apart, people murdered, children used as slaves so that western women can wear diamonds and western arms traders can sell weapons to brutal and violent factions.
We've fucked a number of nations, Chile, El Salvador, Argentina, Uruguay, Indonesia, and the list can go on and on with brutal regimes that committed genocides, torture, summary executions, purposeful starvation, mass murder (in which our people participated) - all to provide favorable environments for our views and our corporations. Some of our companies have even been complicit in aiding these regimes. Ford Motor Company (to use only one of many examples) provided the Argentine security forces with a fleet of vehicles and helped construct a detainment and torture facility - right next to a Ford manufacturing plant!
Capitalism fails on every level. It is inhumane. It is corrupt. It does not prevent war and bring people together - but instead promotes war to build mercantilism and tears people apart with alienation and class warfare. It promotes the elite and a Randian-style justification of egocentric, self-destructive psychoses. At the end of the day, we can take heart that capitalism is its own worst enemy. In this case the piranhas eat one another.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the callous attitudes towards human life on display in this very forum. America is fully justified to enter any country to further her goals. And America's goals always mesh with capitalist goals.
-
Capitalism fails on every level. It is inhumane. It is corrupt. It does not prevent war and bring people together - but instead promotes war to build mercantilism and tears people apart with alienation and class warfare. It promotes the elite and a Randian-style justification of egocentric, self-destructive psychoses. At the end of the day, we can take heart that capitalism is its own worst enemy. In this case the piranhas eat one another.
From what sort of nation does most foreign aid and charitable contribution come?
Do you suppose that North Korea has sent even one moskito net to Africa?
I think your post would be perfectly correct if it were absolutely reversed.
-
I'm goint to try and hold my emotions in check, but I get so sick to death of the complete lack of respect and acknowledgement of the good that this country does on a daily basis for other countries and peoples, all acrosss the globe. And we can do that precisely because of what Capitalism has brought to this country, with the forefront in so many advances with technology, medicines, innovations, that no other country could even possibly have achieved.
Yes, capitalism has its flaws, yes this country has had its flaws, yes, this country still does bone headed things, yes, it will do more of them in the future. BUT we are the most giving, most charitable country on this globe currently. We do more to help others in need than any other country. We send more money and resources than any other country, to those in need. Capitalism and the Constitution have made this country great. And as a result, we give back.....in spades. But all the leftests in the world simply want to focus on any and everything negative, as if this were the 3rd Reich reincarnated, complete with gas chambers and mass exterminations. It really sickens me to see the utter contempt they have for the greatest country this globe has currently seen.
Good thing I'm going on vacation, or I might really get worked up
-
With all due respect, a country built on the genocide of the American Indians and the enslavement and exploitation of black men, women and children is not and never will be "the greatest country on earth." Nobody denies that America has done some good in the world (over-exaggerated beyond all rational boundaries by their own non-stop bragging and complete ignorance of the accomplishments of the rest of the world) but the amount of good they have done is totally overbalanced by the amount of evil, not only in the past, but in the immediate present. My own advice to Americans is, stop tooting your own horn because nobody believes in your self-serving bullshit any more, and wake up to all the pain and suffering your policies are causing not only all over the world, but also to your own people. And have a nice vacation.
-
Apparently Tee missed the part where I've conceded that we're not a perfect country, nor ever claimed it to be. Not surprising though. Neither is his validating my point about trying to pick only the worse blips in our country's history and make them out as standard life currently still practiced. I do admire the grotesque anti-American consistency
-
I get sick to death of hearing the same trite cliches over and over again.
"We're the most charitable country on earth."
I don't care. Nor I do care about your emotions Sirs. I fully acknowledge that there are pros and cons to any economic system. There were positive economic aspects to feudalism.
As for charity...Al Capone built soup kitchens. Iran is building many hospitals and schools in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm guessing that you aren't acknowledging their contributions to either of those rebuilding efforts.
What I'm talking about is beyond the scope of just the United States. I'm talking about the entire world and a system that will ensure that the failures of capitalism do not continue ad infinitum. Regardless of whether Americans or Europeans can afford nice vacations or not. ;)
-
Capitalism fails on every level. It is inhumane. It is corrupt. It does not prevent war and bring people together - but instead promotes war to build mercantilism and tears people apart with alienation and class warfare. It promotes the elite and a Randian-style justification of egocentric, self-destructive psychoses. At the end of the day, we can take heart that capitalism is its own worst enemy. In this case the piranhas eat one another.
From what sort of nation does most foreign aid and charitable contribution come?
Who cares?
Why validate a system where mosquito nets aren't given to every family in that region automatically? Why should any human being go hungry in a world where food is in such abundance, so much so that in many western countries farmers are paid to NOT farm or limit their farming.
I think not. Your objections are narrowly framed in a myopic context. Capitalism is very limited.
-
What I'm talking about is beyond the scope of just the United States. I'm talking about the entire world and a system that will ensure that the failures of capitalism do not continue ad infinitum. Regardless of whether Americans or Europeans can afford nice vacations or not.
So am I Js, so am I. Only my focus is to embrace freedom, individual responsibility, and that which made us great, and refining it as needed, regardless of whether all Americans or Europeans are saddled with mediocre healthcare
-
What I'm talking about is beyond the scope of just the United States. I'm talking about the entire world and a system that will ensure that the failures of capitalism do not continue ad infinitum. Regardless of whether Americans or Europeans can afford nice vacations or not.
So am I Js, so am I. Only my focus is to embrace freedom, individual responsibility, and that which made us great, and refining it as needed, regardless of whether all Americans or Europeans are saddled with mediocre healthcare
Irrelevant, meaningless drivel.
-
Ironic, isn't it
-
I don't see any irony.
I often find myself wondering how one exists in such a myopic little world.
Does it get cramped in there?
-
Of course you wouldn't. All that sophistry and platitudes on the evils of capitalism.....hey, that's all true. Anything to the contrary....well, that's just irrelevant, meaningless drivel.
My world of Capitalism and the greatness of freedom is a mighty fine, BTW. So glad you could be a part of it, and have the freedom to disparage it at will. It's also what makes this country great
-
Of course you wouldn't. All that sophistry and platitudes on the evils of capitalism.....hey, that's all true. Anything to the contrary....well, that's just irrelevant, meaningless drivel.
My world of Capitalism and the greatness of freedom is a mighty fine, BTW. So glad you could be a part of it, and have the freedom to disparage it at will. It's also what makes this country great
What was meaningless drivel was your post:
So am I Js, so am I[talking about the entire world]. Only my focus is to embrace freedom, individual responsibility, and that which made us great, and refining it as needed, regardless of whether all Americans or Europeans are saddled with mediocre healthcare
Notice you're talking about the "entire world" but you mention only Americans and Europeans. Otherwise you mention typical catch phrases - "freedom," "individual responsibility," for which you provide no context and have no frame of reference in this entire conversation.
No one has disparaged freedom or individual responsibility. Far from it. If anything, I'm very much supporting both concepts. Yet, no one took responsibility for the people of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, etc. who were tortured, beaten, murdered. Least of all, no one responsible in this nation. Ford Motor Company sure as hell never took responsibility for their role.
For you, these things are "just mistakes." Oops. Oh well, massacres just happen. Genocides occur. Hell, better them than us, right? After all, "we're the most charitable people on Earth!" After we've approved of the Indonesian genocide we'll be sure and send some care packages.
Yep. I'm well versed on your "capitalism and freedom" speeches.
-
Of course you wouldn't. All that sophistry and platitudes on the evils of capitalism.....hey, that's all true. Anything to the contrary....well, that's just irrelevant, meaningless drivel.
My world of Capitalism and the greatness of freedom is a mighty fine, BTW. So glad you could be a part of it, and have the freedom to disparage it at will. It's also what makes this country great
What was meaningless drivel was your post
And just as much drivel has been your soapbox on how evil Capitalism is supposed to be
-
With all due respect, a country built on the genocide of the American Indians and the enslavement and exploitation of black men, women and children is not and never will be "the greatest country on earth." Nobody denies that America has done some good in the world (over-exaggerated beyond all rational boundaries by their own non-stop bragging and complete ignorance of the accomplishments of the rest of the world) but the amount of good they have done is totally overbalanced by the amount of evil, not only in the past, but in the immediate present. My own advice to Americans is, stop tooting your own horn because nobody believes in your self-serving bullshit any more, and wake up to all the pain and suffering your policies are causing not only all over the world, but also to your own people. And have a nice vacation.
List the countrys that you consider better and I will seek the listing of their crimes streaching back ten generations.There is not a blameless nation nor one that has done so much improvement without outside help. Japan improved pretty fast , but the US was helping while they were improveing.
The USA is the greatest in several diffrent measures includeing being the most good for other countrys.
For instance combine all of the altruism of the past two hundred years from all of the world outside the US and compare it to the altruism of the US over the same period. The US altruism is 248% greater than the altruism of the rest of the world for the past two hundred years.
-
I get sick to death of hearing the same trite cliches over and over again.
"We're the most charitable country on earth."
I don't care. Nor I do care about your emotions Sirs. I fully acknowledge that there are pros and cons to any economic system. There were positive economic aspects to feudalism.
As for charity...Al Capone built soup kitchens. Iran is building many hospitals and schools in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm guessing that you aren't acknowledging their contributions to either of those rebuilding efforts.
What I'm talking about is beyond the scope of just the United States. I'm talking about the entire world and a system that will ensure that the failures of capitalism do not continue ad infinitum. Regardless of whether Americans or Europeans can afford nice vacations or not. ;)
Capitolism is not failing in any respect , except in respects that every alternitive is also failing.
-
<<List the countrys that you consider better . . . >>
That's about the most juvenile challenge I could think of. Nobody's perfect. What really rankles my ass is sirs' talking out of two sides of his mouth at the same time, "the U.S. is the greatest country on earth" and "we're not perfect." The "we're not perfect" is the real bullshit item - - of course NOBODY is perfect, so he gives away nothing by admitting it, but thinks that saying it gives him immunity from all criticisms of the U.S.A.
I don't see this as a math exam, where the number of points A scores can be compared to B and so on.
Which country is presently causing more damage, pain and suffering to human beings all over the planet? None. This negates whatever "foreign aid" is given out by the U.S. and often even the foreign aid is tainted by ridiculous self-defeating provisions put into the package by religious and political ideologues.
Which country has happier people? Lots, every time some poll attempts to measure happiness.
Which country has better medical care? Lots.
Which country won WWII? The U.S.S.R. in Europe, the U.S.A. in the Pacific
Which country promoted WWII by various acts and omissions including support of Hitler by wealthy and influential Americans such as Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford, by refusing France's plea for help in the spring of 1940, by freezing Spanish Loyalist gold reserves during the Spanish Civil War
Every one of the above statements can spawn counter-arguments that will or could take up 100 newsgroups like this one. What's the point of designating one country "better" or worse than any other?
It's a pure distraction. Childish and juvenile in the extreme - - raising a question that can never be answered as an alternative to discussing some very real and pressing instances of gross misconduct occurring as we speak and continuing indefinitely into the future unless citizens demand that it stop immediately and find an effective way of making their demands felt in a one-party state that runs fake "elections" between candidates who argue whether the American military should be more engaged in Afghanistan than Iraq or vice versa and at the same time make it all too clear that neither one of them will ever completely disengage from either country.
-
<<List the countrys that you consider better . . . >>
That's about the most juvenile challenge I could think of. Nobody's perfect. What really rankles my ass is sirs' talking out of two sides of his mouth at the same time, "the U.S. is the greatest country on earth" and "we're not perfect." The "we're not perfect" is the real bullshit item - - of course NOBODY is perfect, so he gives away nothing by admitting it, but thinks that saying it gives him immunity from all criticisms of the U.S.A.
What a complete piece AMBE. A) I don't expect immunity from anything B) I don't expect immunity from criticism of the U.S. in the those areas it has fallen off the wagon, and C) You validate my original point consistently by hyperbolically highlighting only the most egregious points in U.S. history, with the transparent implication that's current SOP, and poo poo any and everything good that this country has brought about for the globe
Thank you very much, I might add
-
Of course you wouldn't. All that sophistry and platitudes on the evils of capitalism.....hey, that's all true. Anything to the contrary....well, that's just irrelevant, meaningless drivel.
My world of Capitalism and the greatness of freedom is a mighty fine, BTW. So glad you could be a part of it, and have the freedom to disparage it at will. It's also what makes this country great
What was meaningless drivel was your post
And just as much drivel has been your soapbox on how evil Capitalism is supposed to be
Not at all, as can be seen by your inability to refute any of it. Note that I never said that capitalism is "evil." You're simply creating a strawman. I merely pointed out several of the flaws and why it will be doomed to the dustbin of history. I passed no value judgment, that is your own doing.
-
Capitolism is not failing in any respect , except in respects that every alternitive is also failing.
Of course it is and I could easily point out many more.
You and Sirs fall into the trap that you believe your own period of history is the zenith of mankind. You limit your own thinking and therefore force yourselves to defend anything in the here and now (with the added caveats of "it isn't perfect"). Much like the Cobfederate Vice President Alexander Stephens defending the view that blacks are an inferior race as a cornerstone of modern society, you see the here & now as the greatest possible outcome and therefore defended by the Almighty.
But it is a fallacy. Feudalism had the very same reactionary defenders. As did every failed system since. Capitalism is no supreme advancement over any of these, it is merely an extension of mercantilism. Saying, "it is the best we have" is no different from passive acceptance of the status quo. You might as well help Ford build the detention centers and then claim that you had no idea what was going on.
-
What was meaningless drivel was your post
And just as much drivel has been your soapbox on how evil Capitalism is supposed to be
Not at all, as can be seen by your inability to refute any of it.
Nor mine, as you have been unable to refute any of the goodness & greatness I've referenced, nor refute the massive amounts of aide and $$$$'s we send to other countries and peoples in need. Nor refute the masssive amounts of charitable contributions, in foods, medicines, equipment, logistics, and again, $$$$ we send to other struggling areas of the globe. All of which could not have occured with out the Capitalistic economy we run, that put us in such a position to be a giver and not a givee. No, like Tee, you simply minimize it, if not ignore it. So, which is it? We both have valid points, or are we both producing insidious drivel??
Note that I never said that capitalism is "evil." You're simply creating a strawman. I merely pointed out several of the flaws and why it will be doomed to the dustbin of history. I passed no value judgment, that is your own doing.
It sure looks that way (in regards to how evil capitalism is supposed to be), and I've already conceded that capitalism isn't perfect either, nor a perfect system. Simply the best system under the circumstances of providing the freedom to be the best you can be
-
Nor mine, as you have been unable to refute any of the goodness & greatness I've referenced, nor refute the massive amounts of aide and $$$$'s we send to other countries and peoples in need. Nor refute the masssive amounts of charitable contributions, in foods, medicines, equipment, logistics, and again, $$$$ we send to other struggling areas of the globe. All of which could not have occured with out the Capitalistic economy we run, that put us in such a position to be a giver and not a givee. No, like Tee, you simply minimize it, if not ignore it. So, which is it? We both have valid points, or are we both producing insidious drivel??
I have no reason to, it is not meaningful. Capitalism causes harm and then sends care packages. I don't doubt that at all. We all live under the economic system and I do believe that people are basically good no matter their nation of origin. So yes, Americans do care. But the Capitalist system gives a shit less about the workers, the families, the people. You are comparing apples and oranges. The beloved Ayn Rand, a capitalist prophetess to many, would have told you that altruism doesn't exist and the people you're sending your aid to are just parasites.
It sure looks that way (in regards to how evil capitalism is supposed to be), and I've already conceded that capitalism isn't perfect either, nor a perfect system. Simply the best system under the circumstances of providing the freedom to be the best you can be
Right. See my post to Plane. No sense being redundant.
[/quote]
-
Nor mine, as you have been unable to refute any of the goodness & greatness I've referenced, nor refute the massive amounts of aide and $$$$'s we send to other countries and peoples in need. Nor refute the masssive amounts of charitable contributions, in foods, medicines, equipment, logistics, and again, $$$$ we send to other struggling areas of the globe. All of which could not have occured with out the Capitalistic economy we run, that put us in such a position to be a giver and not a givee. No, like Tee, you simply minimize it, if not ignore it. So, which is it? We both have valid points, or are we both producing insidious drivel??
I have no reason to, it is not meaningful.
How convenient
Capitalism causes harm and then sends care packages.
And strangely, despite its flaws, is better than any other system out there, both tried and located in some utopian fantasy world
-
Capitolism is not failing in any respect , except in respects that every alternitive is also failing.
Of course it is and I could easily point out many more.
You and Sirs fall into the trap that you believe your own period of history is the zenith of mankind.
No I don't.
I don't know how you could possibly get such an impression, I look forward to developments in every feild such that Future shock will become supersonic future shock wave, why not ? We are in the cusp of change all of the time it behooves us to lobby for positive changes when that is possible and to cope with negative changes when they are necessacery.
The worlds imagind by Arther C Clark are acheveable , with a lot of work , a little luck and God willing.
We are in a process , but your calling Capitalism a failure flys in the face of all evidence, and I do mean all of it.
Progress happens best in Capitolist a environment , conservation of nature happens best in a democratic and capitolist environment , good treatment of the common man happens best in a democratic , modified capitolist system , where the little guy has enough clout to look after himself a bit , but the moovers and shakers , visionarys and highly productive people are not shackled unneedfully.
Communism has seen its apex , it was a disaster in environmental damage , bad treatment of the common man and corruption of the very powerfull not least was the supression of the creative.
Nostalgia for the ultimate socialist state is reactionary and practicly Ludditeism.
-
There are no purely capitalist countries, just as there are no entirely Communist ones. Every nation on this planet is a combination of the two, and several have mercantilistic features that do not correspond to either.
-
Catching up on this thread, it seems the sirs-plane position is that despite "blips" that mar what would otherwise be a perfect record of exemplary conduct, the "good" done by the U.S., primarily in the form of aid packages outshines the little "blips" in the record, leaving the U.S. the greatest country not only on earth today but in all of recorded history.
I guess where it all starts to fall apart is when one takes a good look at the "blips," the big "blips" being the genocide of the American Indians and slavery, either one of which by itself would permanently disqualify the U.S. from being the greatest anything anywhere. There are plenty of good countries doing good in the world which were not built on either genocide or slavery. However, slavery and genocide are but the tip of the iceberg - - we also have to consider the slave trade itself, 100 years of lynch law and Jim Crow, the KKK, the millions killed in the Vietnam War, the half-million massacred in Indonesia with the direct complicity of the CIA, the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Central and South America and the institution of death squads and torture states from Guatemala to Chile, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran and the installation of another torture-state there, the Shah and his SAVAK secret police, the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the murder of Che Guevara, the decades-long support of the Duvalier torture-state in Haiti and its counterpart, the Trujillo regime in the DR, and the Batista regime in Cuba and the on-going rape of the Third World (as detailed in the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man.") "Balanced out" by it "generous" foreign aid contributions the way a mattress "balances" on a bottle of wine, using Dylan's analogy.
I often feel like I was entering some kind of Bizarro World when I encounter the arguments of plane and sirs on the moral superiority of the U.S.A. over the rest of us poor dumb schmucks. Someplace where you can inflict the most horrific atrocities on your fellow man, torturing and killing millions, burning children alive in the arms of their mothers not once but thousands and hundreds of thousands of times and then "balance" it all out by writing a cheque that basically solves nothing for anybody and claiming moral superiority over the world on the basis of it.
I guess what I really would like to know is do they really think they are fooling ANYBODY with this bizarre BS? Do they believe it themselves? (I really think they do.) Why doesn't the rest of the world believe it then? Is everyone else really, really stupid? My own theory is that they are psychologically unready to come to grips with the simple but harsh reality of America's crimes and misdemeanours. It helps to erect a fictitious "good America" whose grossly exaggerated and otherwise almost mythical "good deeds" overbalance any "blips" like genocide or slavery that are unavoidably and eternally stuck there in the historical record.
-
There are plenty of good countries doing good in the world which were not built on either genocide or slavery.
Like who?
-
Like Canada, for one. France. China.
-
France had slaves. (http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/58.1/geggus.html) Canada had slaves. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada) China has slaves. (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/local%20news/other/2008/04/30/154226/Chinese-kids.htm)
-
Not convenient at all Sirs. I explained my point well, yet again you do nothing to refute it except to make a one line comment.
And strangely, despite its flaws, is better than any other system out there, both tried and located in some utopian fantasy world
Ah yes, the fallback position of anyone who defends anything in the status quo. Of course the 1840's Southern slaveholder made the same argument. The feudal lords made the same argument. It doesn't stick. It is better because it exists is more crap thrown on the pile.
As for "Utopian fantasy world", I'll wear the label proudly. That's what they call those people who follow that criminal Jew. You know the one who preached loving your neighbor, loving your enemies, feeding the poor, visiting the prisoners. I mean, you can't really do those things in the real world - so it must be a Utopian fantasy, right?
-
Capitolism is not failing in any respect , except in respects that every alternitive is also failing.
Of course it is and I could easily point out many more.
You and Sirs fall into the trap that you believe your own period of history is the zenith of mankind.
No I don't.
I don't know how you could possibly get such an impression, I look forward to developments in every feild such that Future shock will become supersonic future shock wave, why not ? We are in the cusp of change all of the time it behooves us to lobby for positive changes when that is possible and to cope with negative changes when they are necessacery.
The worlds imagind by Arther C Clark are acheveable , with a lot of work , a little luck and God willing.
We are in a process , but your calling Capitalism a failure flys in the face of all evidence, and I do mean all of it.
Progress happens best in Capitolist a environment , conservation of nature happens best in a democratic and capitolist environment , good treatment of the common man happens best in a democratic , modified capitolist system , where the little guy has enough clout to look after himself a bit , but the moovers and shakers , visionarys and highly productive people are not shackled unneedfully.
Communism has seen its apex , it was a disaster in environmental damage , bad treatment of the common man and corruption of the very powerfull not least was the supression of the creative.
Nostalgia for the ultimate socialist state is reactionary and practicly Ludditeism.
Of course, if what you said was really true then you could refute at least some of it I'd imagine. But you simply toss on insults at the end. This is typical, really.
Good treatment of the "common man?" This coming from someone who claims that class consciousness would be "dangerous" and "very bad." I'll take that with a grain of salt for certain.
-
I often feel like I was entering some kind of Bizarro World when I encounter the arguments of plane and sirs on the moral superiority of the U.S.A. over the rest of us poor dumb schmucks. Someplace where you can inflict the most horrific atrocities on your fellow man, torturing and killing millions, burning children alive in the arms of their mothers not once but thousands and hundreds of thousands of times and then "balance" it all out by writing a cheque that basically solves nothing for anybody and claiming moral superiority over the world on the basis of it.
I've struggled to understand this as well. Note that discussing the seedier parts of American history is considered "anti-American" right off the bat. If I speak about the Holocaust, am I anti-German? I think not. As a German (I am both German and American) I realize that there is no such thing as a flawless history. I could use all of the polish in Pleasantville and German history is what it is. I would only do a disservice to Germany and her people by ignoring what took place during the Fascist government. It would only further the disservice to ignore what the Germans did in her African colonies in the 19th and very early 20th centuries.
So why is it such a horrid thing to point out the historical realities of American policies in places like Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia? What is this need for a false sense of perfection in a country whose history is replete with examples of gross injustice and contradiction? What purpose does moral superiority serve if it is built on a house of cards?
I think that Bt asks the wrong question. History should teach us about the past to prepare for the future. It should be more than theories on the past, it should be praxis. Who has learned from their mistakes and who has not?
That is the essence of why capitalism will fail. Look at your democracy right now. You are arguing over "saving marriages" from homosexuals. Yet your very own economic system has created businesses whose sole purpose is to find single women for married men, one of those dot-coms is specifically designed for affluent married men. You want to save marriages? But who is destroying them? Surely not a legal business, legally fulfilling a market demand...
No, it must be the gays.
You fight wars for market expansion, manipulate governments, produce debtor nations...and the best I've heard are "we're not perfect, but we're the best possible."
No, I don't think so.
I think people will see through it eventually, Mike. I think the truth will hit them like a bucket of cold water.
-
My democracy?
It is your democracy too.
Some people say we shouldn't torture because we are better than that.
What crap. We are a violent nation. Always have been. Always will be.
And so what. I don't go around torturing people, no do i go around killing people. So that hair shirt doesn't fit. And I'm definitely not into collective guilt. You want to feel guilty, that's on you.
-
Catching up on this thread, it seems the sirs-plane position is that despite "blips" that mar what would otherwise be a perfect record of exemplary conduct, the "good" done by the U.S., primarily in the form of aid packages outshines the little "blips" in the record, leaving the U.S. the greatest country not only on earth today but in all of recorded history.
Blips?
I don't think I have minimised the atrocity of Slavery or the extremity of the unfairness of the Indian wars.I don't agree with your caricaturisation of my opinion.
But yes the USA is the greatest country in several respects , the most innocent may not be one of the awards that the USA deserves , but there are plenty of other considerations.
Costa Rica might be considered an especially nice country but it is too small to be called the "greatest" coping with our own sheer size causes problems we are proud to have . Is it fair to contrast the innocence of one country with another and proclaim the more innocent the greater?
The empires of Egypt , Babbilon, Rome ,Byzantium, China and England were great and I don't expect much argument on that. The USA is comprable in scale to the greatest empires and against them the comparison is more fair , of all the nations tht have ever been the dominant culture of the planet the USA is the most beneficient and the most enlightened.
-
<<of all the nations tht have ever been the dominant culture of the planet the USA is the most beneficient and the most enlightened.>>
That's outrageous. In the simplest terms possible, even by the standards you set, you're not even fit to shine the shoes of the British.
-
Costa Rica might be considered an especially nice country but it is too small to be called the "greatest" coping with our own sheer size causes problems we are proud to have . Is it fair to contrast the innocence of one country with another and proclaim the more innocent the greater?
=================================================
This is like saying that Budweiser is the greatest beer in the world because they sell so much of it. (I mean the American Budweiser, not the little-known German one that the US brand took its name from).
Why does size have anything whatever to do with greatness?
I suppose the next criteria for you would be wealth. But then, Luxembourg, Qatar and the UAE have the US beat in per capita income.
And, yes it IS fair to discuss innocence. Costa Rica abolished its army when the army kept taking over the government. Costa Rica has never invaded anyone. Neither has Bhutan.
New Zealand seems pretty cool and well-run and prosperous as well. Canada is a cool country, but a tad too cool-downright frigid-for many.
I don't really think that comparing countries to the degree that there is a firm ranking. The US is perhaps th4e greatest country for someone who likes working on American military aircraft, living off checks from the government, and then voting for the party that thinks that the very government that pays him all those checks is the basis of most of the problems. So I will not dispute that the US is the greatest country for Plane.
I live in the US because I am an American, I own my own home, and I rather like where I live. My family and friends are here. Still, I have found Spain, Mexico,Argentina and Costa Rica to be much friendlier places.
The anti-intellectual aspect of US culture sucks quite deeply. It is really annoying to have some dolt who knows little more than sports data accuse anyone who actually reads and thinks of being an "elitist". This is, to my mind, as dumb as accusing rich people of having more disposable income, or mechanics of understanding engines better.
Costa Rica has very few military aircraft. I am not sure that Bhutan has any. I suppose that New Zealand's military is more like a coast guard.
-
This is like saying that Budweiser is the greatest beer in the world because they sell so much of it. (I mean the American Budweiser, not the little-known German one that the US brand took its name from).
My favorite part of the whole dispute was when a British judge tasted both beers in court and promptly dismissed the infringement case by Anheuser-Busch, saying that no one would ever confuse the two beers.
And a BTW - the US brand didn't "take it's name from the German brand" - like "pilsner", "budweiser" is a style of beer in Germany. The name of the German beer is "Budvar", but it prominently says "budweiser" on the label, because that's the style of beer.
-
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1588022,00.html (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1588022,00.html)
Actually, the original Budweiser is a Czech beer.
Our local Mercedes Club took part in the city of Oakland Park's annual Oktoberfest last October, and the city manager, who is German, had genuine Oktoberfest beer flown in from Deutschland.
It could only be described as both delicious and potent. The best beer I have ever tasted, anywhere. Some Belgian-American microbrewed beers in a restaurant with its own brewery N or Tampa came close, though. I am planning a trip to Paraguay in a month or so, and perhaps I will find something more authentically German there.
-
Actually, the original Budweiser is a Czech beer.
Yes, "budweiser" is a Czech-style beer from "Budweis", as is "pilsner" (from "Pilsen"). The suffix "-er" in German means "from". So, "budweiser" is "from Budweis", "pilsner" is "from Pilsen", "weiner" is "from Wein (Vienna)", etc.
Don't know what brand you tried, though Spaten (http://www.spatenusa.com/)has an "Oktoberfest" beer (my father likes this beer, one of his favorites). I prefer their "Dunkel" beer, I have always had a preference for darker beers.
Bitburger (http://www.bitburger.com/) is also a real good German beer, available at most Aldi's markets in the US (http://www.aldifoods.com/index_ENU_HTML.htm). My absolute favorites are Belgian "lambic" style beers, which are made with fruits. I had a good Framboise Lambic (http://www.merchantduvin.com/pages/5_breweries/lindemans_framboise.html)the other day with my Rouladen (http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/German-Rouladen/Detail.aspx)and Leberknoedelsuppe (http://www.recipezaar.com/44281)at a real good German restaurant in Milwaukee (http://www.madersrestaurant.com/). I have recently discovered a more "traditional" beer that I truly like as well, made at a Dutch Trappist brewery called "Koningshoeven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwerij_De_Koningshoeven)".
-
Beer on tap always seems tastier to me than beer in bottles or cans. The Oktoberfest Beer had a brand, but I don't think it was Spaten or Dunkel. I think the name began with the letter M. It was in kegs and drawn on tap.
The Czechoslovakian-American Club here in Miami has Urquel Pilsener on tap. They have not divided themselves into Czech Republicans and Slovakians. It is mostly an eating club, and they agree on food.
-
<<of all the nations tht have ever been the dominant culture of the planet the USA is the most beneficient and the most enlightened.>>
That's outrageous. In the simplest terms possible, even by the standards you set, you're not even fit to shine the shoes of the British.
Go back to your post which includes the enumeration of American Crimes thru history, is it no9t the case that the British Empire is also guilty of each one of those?
Costa Rica might be considered an especially nice country but it is too small to be called the "greatest" coping with our own sheer size causes problems we are proud to have . Is it fair to contrast the innocence of one country with another and proclaim the more innocent the greater?
=================================================
This is like saying that Budweiser is the greatest beer in the world because they sell so much of it. (I mean the American Budweiser, not the little-known German one that the US brand took its name from).
Why does size have anything whatever to do with greatness?
I suppose the next criteria for you would be wealth. But then, Luxembourg, Qatar and the UAE have the US beat in per capita income.
And, yes it IS fair to discuss innocence. Costa Rica abolished its army when the army kept taking over the government. Costa Rica has never invaded anyone. Neither has Bhutan.
New Zealand seems pretty cool and well-run and prosperous as well. Canada is a cool country, but a tad too cool-downright frigid-for many.
I don't really think that comparing countries to the degree that there is a firm ranking. The US is perhaps th4e greatest country for someone who likes working on American military aircraft, living off checks from the government, and then voting for the party that thinks that the very government that pays him all those checks is the basis of most of the problems. So I will not dispute that the US is the greatest country for Plane.
I live in the US because I am an American, I own my own home, and I rather like where I live. My family and friends are here. Still, I have found Spain, Mexico,Argentina and Costa Rica to be much friendlier places.
The anti-intellectual aspect of US culture sucks quite deeply. It is really annoying to have some dolt who knows little more than sports data accuse anyone who actually reads and thinks of being an "elitist". This is, to my mind, as dumb as accusing rich people of having more disposable income, or mechanics of understanding engines better.
Costa Rica has very few military aircraft. I am not sure that Bhutan has any. I suppose that New Zealand's military is more like a coast guard.
I have been to several Countries and I really liked Spain,Canada, Kenya and Italy , it was easy to get around and easy to find friendly people I would visit again if I could I have heard that Costa Rica is wonderfull , but great does have something to do with size and influence , power and prestige.
Lets agree that severalnations are wonderfull and some are comfortable even more than the US , but "great" does not describe Costa Rica which has almost no military ,and needs none, because it is a friend of the USA.
-
Lets agree that severalnations are wonderfull and some are comfortable even more than the US , but "great" does not describe Costa Rica which has almost no military ,and needs none, because it is a friend of the USA.
====================================
Costa Rica has no army because Costa Ricans got tired of having their own country's government overthrown by its own army. Their lack of an army pissed the hell out of William Casey and the rest of the Reaganuts, who tried to turn the National Police into a military, unsuccessfully. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras have all at one time or another been ruled by savage military governments whose militaries have been financed and supported by the US. Te Costa Rican people like Americans, who bring money to their country, but fear US foreign policy, and a visit by particular ex-CIA henchmen have caused elections to be lost by governments that will talk with them.
I am going to say that the entire Earth would be a much greater and safer place to live if there were NO nations bigger than Costa Rica. The huge size of the US has caused our corporations, our military and many or our people to become disgusting imperialists.
Physical size is as related to greatness of a country as weight is to the greatness of a person. The Fat Bastard is a less great human being than Mahatma Gandhi.
-
My mom used to make wonderful Rouladen. The best Leberknodelsuppe I've had was in a Gasthaus in Northern Bavaria. It can be really amazing soup, where even folks who dislike the taste of liver won't mind it.
Favorite beer is a tough one. Surprisingly, in recent years I tend to go for the stouts and porters, which leads me to the Irish and English breweries. But, there is no better weissbier than that of the Germans. You can typically find Paulaner around here, which is a decent brew. I like a nice wheat beer after being out in the yard or with light food.
-
I have been to several Countries and I really liked Spain,Canada, Kenya and Italy , it was easy to get around and easy to find friendly people I would visit again if I could I have heard that Costa Rica is wonderfull , but great does have something to do with size and influence , power and prestige.
Lets agree that severalnations are wonderfull and some are comfortable even more than the US , but "great" does not describe Costa Rica which has almost no military ,and needs none, because it is a friend of the USA.
Why doesn't "great" describe Denmark?
In that country you'll find very few people starving, much fewer in percentage than here. You'll find no one without quality healthcare. You'll find a low crime rate, but a very high education level among the population. You'll note that their economic growth has been very good (exceeded the US for a few years). You'll note that the unemployment rate is lower than it is in the United States or the United Kingdom. As an added bonus you'll find that the state-owned energy company often produces more energy than Denmark uses through the wind-turbines, so it sells the excess to her neighbors.
Denmark hasn't made war on anyone in quite some time. It is rare to read stories of Danish secret agents toppling regimes, employing torture, using domestic spying, or supporting brutal dictatorships in the past thirty years. In Denmark, when someone is murdered, the entire country is horrified. In the U.S., it makes the local news - maybe.
What you describe is sad really. It is a replay of the British in the mid 20th century. It is like watching the Monday Club make grand speeches on how Britannia still rules the seas!
-
The best Leberknodelsuppe I've had was in a Gasthaus in Northern Bavaria. It can be really amazing soup, where even folks who dislike the taste of liver won't mind it.
The best I've had is in my mother's kitchen. But the one I had last week was really good, as well.
-
The best Leberknodelsuppe I've had was in a Gasthaus in Northern Bavaria. It can be really amazing soup, where even folks who dislike the taste of liver won't mind it.
The best I've had is in my mother's kitchen. But the one I had last week was really good, as well.
My mom would make excellent Semmelklosse and Kartoffelknudel with a nice gravy for them both. Man...I'd love to have some now!
I've not checked out the German restaurant's around this area. Talking about it is really making me want to find one.
-
I have been to several Countries and I really liked Spain,Canada, Kenya and Italy , it was easy to get around and easy to find friendly people I would visit again if I could I have heard that Costa Rica is wonderfull , but great does have something to do with size and influence , power and prestige.
Lets agree that severalnations are wonderfull and some are comfortable even more than the US , but "great" does not describe Costa Rica which has almost no military ,and needs none, because it is a friend of the USA.
Why doesn't "great" describe Denmark?
In that country you'll find very few people starving, much fewer in percentage than here. You'll find no one without quality healthcare. You'll find a low crime rate, but a very high education level among the population. You'll note that their economic growth has been very good (exceeded the US for a few years). You'll note that the unemployment rate is lower than it is in the United States or the United Kingdom. As an added bonus you'll find that the state-owned energy company often produces more energy than Denmark uses through the wind-turbines, so it sells the excess to her neighbors.
Denmark hasn't made war on anyone in quite some time. It is rare to read stories of Danish secret agents toppling regimes, employing torture, using domestic spying, or supporting brutal dictatorships in the past thirty years. In Denmark, when someone is murdered, the entire country is horrified. In the U.S., it makes the local news - maybe.
What you describe is sad really. It is a replay of the British in the mid 20th century. It is like watching the Monday Club make grand speeches on how Britannia still rules the seas!
Danes are members of NATO , pledged to help us if we are attacked.
We also are pledged to assist them if they are attacked , so in which direction is this pledge more meaningfull?
-
Danes are members of NATO , pledged to help us if we are attacked.
We also are pledged to assist them if they are attacked , so in which direction is this pledge more meaningfull?
*sigh*
Irrelevant to the discussion. NATO was never used for defense and only fought one war in which it was the aggressor (whether that was justified or not is again irrelevant to the discussion). Denmark would have been just as safe had it been in a pact with the Swedes.
Now, care to try for a more relevant approach?
-
Danes are members of NATO , pledged to help us if we are attacked.
We also are pledged to assist them if they are attacked , so in which direction is this pledge more meaningfull?
*sigh*
Irrelevant to the discussion. NATO was never used for defense and only fought one war in which it was the aggressor (whether that was justified or not is again irrelevant to the discussion). Denmark would have been just as safe had it been in a pact with the Swedes.
Now, care to try for a more relevant approach?
You don't see the point?
Europe has grown under the US umbrella for sixty years, our protection has allowed them to spend less on defense than they would have without us , and for the first time in all recorded history Western Europeans have not invaded each other for a space of sixty years.
We don't need them so we don't object when all of Europe spends less than half as much on defense than do we , and we offer our protection in a realistic manner , what would Europe really do for us if we were hard pressed?
Europe may indeed be great , but a lot of that is our fault.
-
I'm all for calling Denmark great.
The Danes have just one colony, Greenland, which costs them a bundle, and refuse to cut it loose because neither the Danes nor the Greenlanders consider themselves to be ready for independence.
-
The Danes have just one colony, Greenland, which costs them a bundle, and refuse to cut it loose because neither the Danes nor the Greenlanders consider themselves to be ready for independence.
They also have the Faroe Islands.
-
You don't see the point?
Europe has grown under the US umbrella for sixty years, our protection has allowed them to spend less on defense than they would have without us , and for the first time in all recorded history Western Europeans have not invaded each other for a space of sixty years.
We don't need them so we don't object when all of Europe spends less than half as much on defense than do we , and we offer our protection in a realistic manner , what would Europe really do for us if we were hard pressed?
Europe may indeed be great , but a lot of that is our fault.
Ah yes, the "Europeans should thank us everyday" response.
But it doesn't hold water. There are a great deal of arrogant assumptions you make in that statement that are baseless beyond the surface. Did the nations of Western Europe have armies, air forces, navies? Of course. Did the US care what sort of governments she dealt with? No, look at Fascist Spain.
It is a false argument, notably you have nothing to back it up. Sweden was no member of NATO, they bordered a Soviet-friendly state and they were never invaded. Nor did they have to build a massive military. Your "umbrella theory" is dubiously arrogant
-
<<Go back to your post which includes the enumeration of American Crimes thru history, is it no9t the case that the British Empire is also guilty of each one of those?>>
Why not go ALL the way back, to when everyone was guilty of cannibalism? I didn't say the British Empire committed no crimes. I said the U.S. government isn't fit to shine its shoes, meaning that England committed far less crimes than the Americans. It gave up slavery in the 1830s and outlawed the slave trade long before then. It wasn't BUILT on genocide and slavery. They took in 100,000 refugees from Nazi Germany at a time when the U.S. and Canada virtually slammed the door in their faces. Everywhere they went, they left behind a legacy of law courts, public service administrations, railways, post offices, police services, etc. Contrast that with the absolutely pathetic and even criminal record of the U.S.A. and it becomes painfully obvious which is the greater country.
Also, if you pay a little more attention to the present, to our own lifetimes, instead of the distant past, the criminal activities of America dwarf those of any other nation, the pain and suffering, the human devastation caused by American crimes and atrocities are in a class all by themselves. What is the point of digging up the ancient past? That was then, this is now. Plain and simple: America is run by criminals and monsters and they gotta be stopped. Either by the American people themselves or by others if the American people won't step up to the plate. Either way, they aren't gonna get away with that shit forever.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands)
It seems to me as though the Faroe Islanders are pretty happy with the current arrangement. In independent nation of under 50K people is a difficult thing to handle in today's world.
Greenland has only 56K people, but the people of Greenland do not have as great a European heritage.
I suppose when global warming really gets going, Greenland could become a net exporter of agricultural products. Perhaps not coconuts, but maybe wool, dairy and winter wheat. Then the population will become large enough to become economically viable.
It will be a while before Nuuk becomes a tourist destination. Perhaps they could import some penguins, or breed hardier puffins.
-
It will be a while before Nuuk becomes a tourist destination. Perhaps they could import some penguins, or breed hardier puffins.
They can always sell bottled water.
-
You don't see the point?
Europe has grown under the US umbrella for sixty years, our protection has allowed them to spend less on defense than they would have without us , and for the first time in all recorded history Western Europeans have not invaded each other for a space of sixty years.
We don't need them so we don't object when all of Europe spends less than half as much on defense than do we , and we offer our protection in a realistic manner , what would Europe really do for us if we were hard pressed?
Europe may indeed be great , but a lot of that is our fault.
Ah yes, the "Europeans should thank us everyday" response.
But it doesn't hold water. There are a great deal of arrogant assumptions you make in that statement that are baseless beyond the surface. Did the nations of Western Europe have armies, air forces, navies? Of course. Did the US care what sort of governments she dealt with? No, look at Fascist Spain.
It is a false argument, notably you have nothing to back it up. Sweden was no member of NATO, they bordered a Soviet-friendly state and they were never invaded. Nor did they have to build a massive military. Your "umbrella theory" is dubiously arrogant
Fascist Spanin didn't join NATO.
Sweden stayed Nutral through WWII and sold Iron to the Germans , I don't know why they stayed Nutral in the cold war , or the Finns , but our umbrella over Norway probly helped keep them dry.
-
And the argument continues...
So Denmark isn't great because the U.S. has a massive military? Because they need us?
Bullshit.
Your argument, at its most basic level, is that the military makes the US "great". How pathetic is that?
-
Your argument, at its most basic level, is that the military makes the US "great". How pathetic is that?
==============================
We should remember that Plane maintains military aircraft. It is the reason for his professional existence.
Old T'aoist saying: "To a man with a hammer, everything resembles a nail".
-
<<Go back to your post which includes the enumeration of American Crimes thru history, is it no9t the case that the British Empire is also guilty of each one of those?>>
Why not go ALL the way back, to when everyone was guilty of cannibalism? I didn't say the British Empire committed no crimes. I said the U.S. government isn't fit to shine its shoes, meaning that England committed far less crimes than the Americans. It gave up slavery in the 1830s and outlawed the slave trade long before then. It wasn't BUILT on genocide and slavery. They took in 100,000 refugees from Nazi Germany at a time when the U.S. and Canada virtually slammed the door in their faces. Everywhere they went, they left behind a legacy of law courts, public service administrations, railways, post offices, police services, etc. Contrast that with the absolutely pathetic and even criminal record of the U.S.A. and it becomes painfully obvious which is the greater country.
Also, if you pay a little more attention to the present, to our own lifetimes, instead of the distant past, the criminal activities of America dwarf those of any other nation, the pain and suffering, the human devastation caused by American crimes and atrocities are in a class all by themselves. What is the point of digging up the ancient past? That was then, this is now. Plain and simple: America is run by criminals and monsters and they gotta be stopped. Either by the American people themselves or by others if the American people won't step up to the plate. Either way, they aren't gonna get away with that shit forever.
Thirty years ahead of us eh? That is good and I don't discount the English influence on our Christian community and Abolilition movement , but you are bringing up the crimes of the distant past as reason that we will never do well and then saying that I am dwelling on the past?
"I guess where it all starts to fall apart is when one takes a good look at the "blips," the big "blips" being the genocide of the American Indians and slavery, either one of which by itself would permanently disqualify the U.S. from being the greatest anything anywhere. "
Keeps you from being taken seriously when you say"Also, if you pay a little more attention to the present, to our own lifetimes, instead of the distant past, the criminal activities of America dwarf those of any other nation, the pain and suffering, the human devastation caused by American crimes and atrocities are in a class all by themselves.
"
You set the terms that you are objecting to.
You havent found a crime that is unique to Americans yet?
May I take it as resolved that the British Empire at one time or another committed each of the crimes you enumerated as being crimes of the USA?
So instead we will consider diffrences in scale , did more Indians suffer in India or the American Indian wars?
Was China wrong to resist the British sales of Opium , or were the Chineese hurt worse by immagration restriction in California?
-
And the argument continues...
So Denmark isn't great because the U.S. has a massive military? Because they need us?
Bullshit.
Your argument, at its most basic level, is that the military makes the US "great". How pathetic is that?
When did I say that Denmark isn't wonderfull?
How do you say that Denmark is holding off invasion ?
-
How do you say that Denmark is holding off invasion ?
=================================================
If there were an attempt to invade Denmark by anyone outside the EC, the EC would intervene. No member of the EC would invade Denmark.
No one has invaded Denmark (or Finland, or Sweden) since WWII. I hard;ly think the US is the major preventative factor.
The fact that Denmark could not prevent by itself alone an armed invasion from a much larger country does not mean that Denmark is not great.
Is Hulk Hogan greater than Nelson Mandela? Is "The Rock" greater than Woody Allen?
-
Your argument, at its most basic level, is that the military makes the US "great". How pathetic is that?
==============================
We should remember that Plane maintains military aircraft. It is the reason for his professional existence.
Old Taoist saying: "To a man with a hammer, everything resembles a nail".
Do you see all the worlds problems as solvable with your speciality?
I think that more bilingual people would be a good thing , for business as well as for interpersonal understanding across national boundaries .
Military Power has a proper role , I will let you disccuss what this role should be even though you have an abysmal ignorance on the subject.
-
And the argument continues...
So Denmark isn't great because the U.S. has a massive military? Because they need us?
Bullshit.
Your argument, at its most basic level, is that the military makes the US "great". How pathetic is that?
When did I say that Denmark isn't wonderfull?
How do you say that Denmark is holding off invasion ?
Denmark need not bother to hold off an invasion because no one is going to invade it. This is not a video game. I don't think that Otto von Bismarck is going to challenge the Danes for some of their land. Nor are the Swedes going to conquer the Danes and execute the royal family. The Nazis are not likely to march into Denmark again. And even if they were, Denmark could have spent 99.99% of her GDP on military and the German Army would have still crushed the country like a tin can, though it may have taken an extra couple of days mind you.
If holding off invasion is the best you have then surely the Romans are still the greatest nation ever known. If that is the true test of "greatness" then China and India have it in the bag because no country can conquer and occupy those countries.
But, to be honest, I'd cede you "greatness" if you'd cede morality. It is the bewildering obfuscation of the two that amazes me most.
-
How do you say that Denmark is holding off invasion ?
=================================================
If there were an attempt to invade Denmark by anyone outside the EC, the EC would intervene. No member of the EC would invade Denmark.
No one has invaded Denmark (or Finland, or Sweden) since WWII. I hard;ly think the US is the major preventative factor.
The fact that Denmark could not prevent by itself alone an armed invasion from a much larger country does not mean that Denmark is not great.
Is Hulk Hogan greater than Nelson Mandela? Is "The Rock" greater than Woody Allen?
Woody Allen? Is that Denmark?If I were Denmark I would not stand for that.
Europe spends so much less on defense than the US that it doesn't amount to half , this is a longstanding discrepancy that we really should never have allowed. All that spending that we spend so that they don't have to is a direct subsidy on everything that Europe does spend its own money on.
Denmark was invaded every now and then like all the rest of Europe , Western Europe stopped invading each other coincident with the formation of NATO. In NATO -free Eastern Europe on the other hand ,Prague failed to spring. Their Soviets ruled with a heavy hand and were practically in a permanent state of invading.
If the West had seemed to be weak I think Stalin would have taken more territory , so might Kruchev or Brezhnev , we can only guess based on what they did where they could get away with it.
-
Military Power has a proper role , I will let you disccuss what this role should be even though you have an abysmal ignorance on the subject.
If you think that military power equates to greatness, then it is you whose ignorance is abysmal.
The use for military power is defense. The Iraq was was offense. No American in the US was threatened by any Iraqi. Not even close.
If the US did not have the power to invade Iraq, that would have been a good thing, because the war has resulted in the buggering of the dollar, the displacement of over a million Iraqis, and the death of over 3000 Americans. It has made the Persian Gulf a dangerous place, and that has resulted in the rise in the price for oil, and because of this, the rise in the price for everything else.
Inflation due to the incompetence, stubbornness and warmongering of Juniorbush is stealing money from everyone's pockets. Only the few American companies that have figured out how to steal money in Iraq have benefitted.
A gun can be a useful tool, but not when one uses it to blow his own toes off, just because a few thieves that are selling bullets are making a profit from it.
No matter how hard one tries, no one can be harmed by learning a language. Not even an utterly useless one, like Klingon.
-
But, to be honest, I'd cede you "greatness" if you'd cede morality. It is the bewildering obfuscation of the two that amazes me most.
I think we are discussing Greatness.
I take your surrender without offering any surrender in return.
Morality is indeed a seaprate issue and deserves a seaprate discussion , I suggest you start a 'nother thread and I can try to out argue you on that too.
-
But, to be honest, I'd cede you "greatness" if you'd cede morality. It is the bewildering obfuscation of the two that amazes me most.
I think we are discussing Greatness.
I take your surrender without offering any surrender in return.
Morality is indeed a seaprate issue and deserves a seaprate discussion , I suggest you start a 'nother thread and I can try to out argue you on that too.
You've "out-argued" no one, except perhaps in your mind.
Seriously, your view of greatness is military spending full stop. That isn't an argument...it is a bullet point (no pun intended). After nuclear armament, what was the point of Western European nations creating massive armies?
Besides, don't be too arrogant. That armor on the M1 is British. That 120mm cannon is German. That M16 machine gun is a piece of garbage, soldiers still curse Robert McNamara for that one.
And yes, American hegemony protected a number of nations in Europe and Asia...but it isn't as if the United States did so out of kindness. It was to serve American imperial interests. You can't have it both ways. You bitch and moan about underspending on defense by other countries, but proclaim the greatness of American military projection. Janus would be proud at the two-face view you present.
-
The US forced Japan to write the lack of a serious army into their constitution, and then they bitched because Japan does not have an adequate army.
The US did not want Germany to have a serious army, and they sent troops to Germany for its defense. The Germans even pay for the cost of the US troops being in Germany.
Once the Germans and Japanese had demonstrated that they could build an effective military, they were prevented for having one, and then guys like you want to kick them for it.
-
Military Power has a proper role , I will let you disccuss what this role should be even though you have an abysmal ignorance on the subject.
If you think that military power equates to greatness, then it is you whose ignorance is abysmal.
The use for military power is defense. The Iraq was was offense. No American in the US was threatened by any Iraqi. Not even close.
If the US did not have the power to invade Iraq, that would have been a good thing, because the war has resulted in the buggering of the dollar, the displacement of over a million Iraqis, and the death of over 3000 Americans. It has made the Persian Gulf a dangerous place, and that has resulted in the rise in the price for oil, and because of this, the rise in the price for everything else.
Inflation due to the incompetence, stubbornness and warmongering of Juniorbush is stealing money from everyone's pockets. Only the few American companies that have figured out how to steal money in Iraq have benefitted.
A gun can be a useful tool, but not when one uses it to blow his own toes off, just because a few thieves that are selling bullets are making a profit from it.
No matter how hard one tries, no one can be harmed by learning a language. Not even an utterly useless one, like Klingon.
You can point out to me if you will the "great" but Weak if you please , but _JS has just made an interesting point, that "great" and "Moral" should not be confused , I accept this point as true , I think the USA is "great" and in some respects "moral" tho I have some complaints on the Morality of some of the stuff that has been happening .
To compare Apples to apples lets compare the great to the great in terms of Morality.
During our lifetimes there have been three superpowers the US the USSR and China.
Even though China still has a smaller economy than Japan , we are discussing greatness and even if military power is all they have it is not inconsiderable on that account alone.
Lets compare the Marshal plan to the scouring of Eastern Europe with all the spoils being shipped to the USSR includeing whole factorys . Without getting into whether the USSR had a right to those spoils , were they MORE moral to be takeing than giveing?
China might be helpfull to other nations in the future when they can afford it , time will tell.
If the USA did not have the power to invade Iraq Saddam Hussein would possess Kuait , Iraq and probly a chunk of Iran , why not think this? That is exactlyu what he was trying to acheive.
By now Saddam Hussein would be bombarding Tel Aviv quite often , or were Dr. Bulls cannons going to be turned around?
Without our interference the swamps at the Euphraties would have all been drained and the Kurds would have all been killed.
When well prepared Saddam would have chosen to either invade Saudi Arabia or Iran , whichever looked weaker at the time , without the freindship of the US how strong would Saudi Arabia really look?
-
Lets compare the Marshal plan to the scouring of Eastern Europe with all the spoils being shipped to the USSR includeing whole factorys . Without getting into whether the USSR had a right to those spoils , were they MORE moral to be takeing than giveing?
The USSR put FAR more resources into the DDR than it ever received. The United States also took many things from Germany, especially scientific knowledge.
This is a road you may not wish to go down. The Marshall Plan was a great idea, but the United States has done a hell of a lot of taking. The USSR wasn't the only one to loot other nations during the Cold War. You might want to be careful before you pull that trigger, I doubt that you're prepared for that discussion.
-
But, to be honest, I'd cede you "greatness" if you'd cede morality. It is the bewildering obfuscation of the two that amazes me most.
I think we are discussing Greatness.
I take your surrender without offering any surrender in return.
Morality is indeed a seaprate issue and deserves a seaprate discussion , I suggest you start a 'nother thread and I can try to out argue you on that too.
You've "out-argued" no one, except perhaps in your mind.
That is where it counts.Seriously, your view of greatness is military spending full stop. That isn't an argument...it is a bullet point (no pun intended). After nuclear armament, what was the point of Western European nations creating massive armies?
That was a choice they made , if they had built massive armies they would not have needed the USA. Observe France .
Besides, don't be too arrogant. That armor on the M1 is British. That 120mm cannon is German. That M16 machine gun is a piece of garbage, soldiers still curse Robert McNamara for that one.
Yes we have some very good friends , and we learned something from occasions when we shared and developed RADAR in cooperation with the British and produced the worlds best Radar , but refused to share on Torpedoes and had to struggle with one of the worlds poorest torpedoes for a couple of years. In more Modern times we still struggle with provincialism unless the weapon is really much better than what we can produce , note the Harrier is originally British .
And yes, American hegemony protected a number of nations in Europe and Asia...
Thank you that was my point.but it isn't as if the United States did so out of kindness. It was to serve American imperial interests. You can't have it both ways.
Oh ? What is the feature that makes some of these things mutually exclusive?
You bitch and moan about underspending on defense by other countries, but proclaim the greatness of American military projection. Janus would be proud at the two-face view you present.
I think you are trying to point out a dichotomy but I don't see it . If Europe had spent more no Defense all of these years they might have built a bit less infrastructure and maintained a bit less social services , but where would have this have hurt us? WE were willing to spend a lot on Europe when Europe was crippled in the aftermath of WWII , we tapered this off as they recovered but we kept a large garrison there as a security blanket for them . I think they would have been even more secure if they had been preparing their own defense and allowing us to keep less there(see again France) but they seemed to enjoy the support , the security and the spending.
Yes, I think Europe has recovered splendidly and we can be proud of the part we played.
Europe is on its way to becomeing the greatest Economy of the planet . That is a measure of greatness we have been accustomed to holding without arguement for decades . But I don't think I should greive when my neighbors prosper , nor should the USA be harmed by the progress of its nation freinds.
-
Lets compare the Marshal plan to the scouring of Eastern Europe with all the spoils being shipped to the USSR includeing whole factorys . Without getting into whether the USSR had a right to those spoils , were they MORE moral to be takeing than giveing?
The USSR put FAR more resources into the DDR than it ever received. The United States also took many things from Germany, especially scientific knowledge.
This is a road you may not wish to go down. The Marshall Plan was a great idea, but the United States has done a hell of a lot of taking. The USSR wasn't the only one to loot other nations during the Cold War. You might want to be careful before you pull that trigger, I doubt that you're prepared for that discussion.
Go on ahead , don't bother to warn me .
Do you know where we can find some reliable figures on the subject?
-
The US forced Japan to write the lack of a serious army into their constitution, and then they bitched because Japan does not have an adequate army.
The US did not want Germany to have a serious army, and they sent troops to Germany for its defense. The Germans even pay for the cost of the US troops being in Germany.
Once the Germans and Japanese had demonstrated that they could build an effective military, they were prevented for having one, and then guys like you want to kick them for it.
That is funny isn't it?
Of course two generations seaprate the two attitudes , we have grown accustomed to a very capitolist and harmless Japan , its empire now is commercial and not imperial.
Japan has been free for some time to make corrections to its Constitution , but should it?
Should they accept the provision that only 1% of their nation al budget should be spent on defense as McArther decreed or , should they upgrade in prepration for the comeing disputes ?
What are the disputes that Japan is soon prone to? Will they be able to depend on the US to assist ?
If they can depend on us and consider that enough , they can build some neat airports and bridges with the money , instead of battleships.
-
That M16 machine gun is a piece of garbage, soldiers still curse Robert McNamara for that one.
If you have some AR-15s or M-16s (the leagal veriety please) that you want to sell , we should talk some turkey.
The M16 is really a great weapon system , so easy to train on and use that we can make soldiers of petit women.
If we had stuck with the M-14 there would be no question of the tiny soldier.
Lately we have sometimes been fighting troops on open country who are armed with AK-47s in this circumstance the much greater effective range of the M-16 (M-4) has been a good advantage. In the urban setting the cheapness and availibliity of the AK-47 overcomes all disadvantages by being plentyfull and reliable.
A few of our soldiers have taken up the M-14 for the sheer penatrating power , the range and the stopping power. Most still rather have the M-16 which alows them to carry m,any more rounds of Ammo.
-
Capitolism is not failing in any respect , except in respects that every alternitive is also failing.
Of course it is and I could easily point out many more.
You and Sirs fall into the trap that you believe your own period of history is the zenith of mankind.
No I don't.
I don't know how you could possibly get such an impression, I look forward to developments in every feild such that Future shock will become supersonic future shock wave, why not ? We are in the cusp of change all of the time it behooves us to lobby for positive changes when that is possible and to cope with negative changes when they are necessacery.
The worlds imagind by Arther C Clark are acheveable , with a lot of work , a little luck and God willing.
We are in a process , but your calling Capitalism a failure flys in the face of all evidence, and I do mean all of it.
Progress happens best in Capitolist a environment , conservation of nature happens best in a democratic and capitolist environment , good treatment of the common man happens best in a democratic , modified capitolist system , where the little guy has enough clout to look after himself a bit , but the moovers and shakers , visionarys and highly productive people are not shackled unneedfully.
Communism has seen its apex , it was a disaster in environmental damage , bad treatment of the common man and corruption of the very powerfull not least was the supression of the creative.
Nostalgia for the ultimate socialist state is reactionary and practicly Ludditeism.
Of course, if what you said was really true then you could refute at least some of it I'd imagine. But you simply toss on insults at the end. This is typical, really.
Good treatment of the "common man?" This coming from someone who claims that class consciousness would be "dangerous" and "very bad." I'll take that with a grain of salt for certain.
What do you get from class consciousness more than starting fights?
Class consciousness looks like a curse to me, which class would Jesus persicute?
"if what you said was really true then you could refute at least some of it I'd imagine.
What? I don't need to refute my own assertions, I assert that the common man is better of in the USA than elesewhere and the common man seems to agree with me by comeing here to live many times more often than he leaves here to live elesewhere.
-
Seriously, your view of greatness is military spending full stop. That isn't an argument...it is a bullet point (no pun intended). After nuclear armament, what was the point of Western European nations creating massive armies?
We are also great in arts and science and freedom , but being militarily powerfull allows us to make our choices for ourselves and so facilitates our freedom to become great in any respect we care to.
In Europe a portion of their greatness is borrowed , we have been supporting them and allowing them to spend much less on arms than we do , much much less.
Yes our Umbrella has been a very grand influence on the development of Europe as it is , should we be proud or apoloogetic?
-
If they can depend on us and consider that enough , they can build some neat airports and bridges with the money , instead of battleships.
==========================
I suggest that anyone who builds a battleship these days, is a moron. Battleships are useful only as targets for missiles and bombs, after which they excel as fun breeding grounds for fish.
-
Class consciousness looks like a curse to me, which class would Jesus persicute?
What? I don't need to refute my own assertions, I assert that the common man is better of in the USA than elesewhere and the common man seems to agree with me by comeing here to live many times more often than he leaves here to live elesewhere.
These are some of my favorites.
Jesus would not persecute any class, which is why Class Consciousness is important. It leads to a classless society. Unlike Capitalism, which most definitely does not lead to a classless society.
No one asked you to refute yourself. I asked you to refute what I had said, but you have no bothered to try.
The immigration point is an oldie, but a goodie. It is also a steaming pile of horse shit.
The countries with the largest foreign population inflow per capita: (from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop_inf_percap-foreign-population-inflow-per-capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_for_pop_inf_percap-foreign-population-inflow-per-capita))
#1 Luxembourg: 23.0488 thousand per 1 million p
#2 Switzerland: 11.6705 thousand per 1 million p
#3 New Zealand: 9.61586 thousand per 1 million p
#4 Austria: 8.06353 thousand per 1 million p
#5 Germany: 7.87083 thousand per 1 million p
#6 Belgium: 6.61907 thousand per 1 million p
#7 Norway: 6.05269 thousand per 1 million p
#8 Ireland: 6.001 thousand per 1 million p
#9 Netherlands: 5.57079 thousand per 1 million p
#10 United Kingdom: 4.77821 thousand per 1 million p
#11 Italy: 4.67274 thousand per 1 million p
#12 Sweden: 3.75472 thousand per 1 million p
#13 Japan: 2.71392 thousand per 1 million p
#14 France: 1.96683 thousand per 1 million p
#15 Finland: 1.74229 thousand per 1 million p
#16 Portugal: 1.50483 thousand per 1 million p
#17 Czech Republic: 0.410116 thousand per 1 million p
Here is another list that you may like better. Immigrants as a percentage of State Population (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_imm_pop_imm_as_per_of_sta_pop-immigrant-population-immigrants-percentage-state). We rank #40, just behind Moldova.
I suppose by your definition, Qatar is the greatest nation on Earth for the common man. ::)
-
We are also great in arts and science and freedom , but being militarily powerfull allows us to make our choices for ourselves and so facilitates our freedom to become great in any respect we care to.
==================================================
If we were really all that great in science, we would not have to import over half our scientists and engineers.
In the Arts, we obviously excel at film, especially in the technical aspect. In terms of content, we make some pretty dumb crap.
We used to be better at freedom. Now everything we write on the internet, everything we say on the telephone can be monitored without our knowledge and with impunity. Try to fight for your right to take a bottle of shampoo on a plane and see just how free you are. Apparently, we are not free to board a plane if we wear a t-shirt with a cartoon picture of a gun on it. We are free to protest our president's stupidity and incompetence from a cage that is not within his hearing distance.
Our military costs far too much, and deprives us of money that could be used for things we really need, like medicine, housing and even food. Or do you really think we need the Osprey for defense? It seems better suited to killing our own Marines.
-
<<In NATO -free Eastern Europe on the other hand ,Prague failed to spring. Their Soviets ruled with a heavy hand and were practically in a permanent state of invading.>>
Who did the Soviets actually invade after WWII? Hungary. Czechoslovakia. Chechnya. Afghanistan.
Who did the U.S.A. actually invade after WWII? Dominican Republic. Grenada. Panama. Viet Nam. Afghanistan. Iraq. Should we count Cuba (Bay of Pigs?) Lebanon.
Of the two superpowers, which one REALLY was "practically in a permanent state of invading?"
<<If the West had seemed to be weak I think Stalin would have taken more territory , so might Kruchev or Brezhnev , we can only guess based on what they did where they could get away with it.>>
Really? Can you also guess on what additional countries the U.S. would have invaded, had the Soviets seemed to be weak? Based, of course, on what the U.S.A. did where they could get away with it.
-
<<In NATO -free Eastern Europe on the other hand ,Prague failed to spring. Their Soviets ruled with a heavy hand and were practically in a permanent state of invading.>>
Who did the Soviets actually invade after WWII? Hungary. Czechoslovakia. Chechnya. Afghanistan.
Who did the U.S.A. actually invade after WWII? Dominican Republic. Grenada. Panama. Viet Nam. Afghanistan. Iraq. Should we count Cuba (Bay of Pigs?) Lebanon.
Of the two superpowers, which one REALLY was "practically in a permanent state of invading?"
<<If the West had seemed to be weak I think Stalin would have taken more territory , so might Kruchev or Brezhnev , we can only guess based on what they did where they could get away with it.>>
Really? Can you also guess on what additional countries the U.S. would have invaded, had the Soviets seemed to be weak? Based, of course, on what the U.S.A. did where they could get away with it.
The Soviet Union is indeed weak , and our military has shrunk since their fall.
-
Of the two superpowers, which one REALLY was "practically in a permanent state of invading?"
The US did not invade militarily. The US invades by promoting Marlboros among schoolchildren, selling one cigarette at a time, during lunch hour in the middle school playground, from a small three-wheeled truck thing. I have seen this many times in Santo Domingo.
The US invades by selling name brand clothing in countries that have no name brands. The clothes are madee in China, but the brand is Tommy Hilfiger, Jordache, Lee Jeans, whatever.
The US invades with Protestant fundie preachers.
The Soviets had nothing to sell other than ideology.
Still, the US sent troops to the Dominican Republic in force, and then took Latin American troops from nearly anywhere in for training at the War College of the Americas.
-
<<Still, the US sent troops to the Dominican Republic in force, and then took Latin American troops from nearly anywhere in for training at the War College of the Americas.>>
The U.S. invades when it has to, but mostly gets local muscle to do its dirty work - - the Batistas, Trujillos, Somozas, Duvaliers, Pinochets, Suhartos, etc. That way they get to suck the lifeblood out of their victims and don't have to take any responsibility at all for the atrocities, tortures and murders needed to keep the profits streaming in to the heartland. That's also why the worst of the British are ten thousand times better than the best of the Americans.
-
I don't think the Brits are so pure, either, nor are the French, particularly in Africa.
All businessmen love monopolies. Most governments love businessmen.
The Chinese may be Communists, but they like pushing their wares abroad, too, and reaping natural resources, like oil in Sudan.