So if democracy is bad, what should we use then.
Search
Search results: 412 found, showing up to 50
Not being greedy, or lazy, or ignorant etc. You know, being Good Guy Greg, if you know what I mean. And as we I mean humanity as a whole (or the proletariat muahaha /joke). But really, I don't even know what communism you speak of, the real one, or the utopian one.Jenspm wrote:
Capable of what exactly, and who are 'we'?BALTINS wrote:
And why, because if we we were capable, we may as well could continue living in capitalism.
Capitalism works perfectly well for some, but it exploits so many others. That is why many would prefer living in a communist society.
We aren't ready for it, that's why it doesn't work. Maybe if we would achieve a post-scarcity society, then, but other than that, doubtful. Neither our governments are capable, or trustworthy enough to handle communism, nor are we, the people, capable of achieving it. And why, because if we we were capable, we may as well could continue living in capitalism.Jenspm wrote:
The whole idea of "Communism doesn't work" is what I'm getting at - why are we so dogmatically refuting that communism will never work? You cannot just say that without a fucking seriously well-formed argument behind it. You say "People are lazy, greedy and cheap", but many will at the same time say that people from some cultures fill that description more than others. How can you then say that laziness and greed are intrinsically a part of human nature - how can you ignore and refute any idea that this may have come about as a product of our social structure?BALTINS wrote:
Communism. Does. Not. Work. It's not The Man who oppresses you, it's not corporate greed, it's every single one of us. We are the ones who created this situation. How do you think corporations get big? Do you think Wall-mart just happened overnight? People are lazy, greedy and cheap and only big corporations can supply us with all the luxury we so desperately crave. And about communism, first of all, don't confuse it with socialism, and don't confuse socialism with welfare (i.e. socialized medicine) that exists in mixed-market economies like Germany (hint to somebody above). Secondly, if you have problems with how the government handles corporations, you advocate a system that essentially gives all the power to the government. You want to see a fuck up, let the government run all the industries and watch as everybody else has computers and you proudly run around with your wood plated FM radio.Jenspm wrote:
Communism? The abolishment of class structure?
It's a utopia, sure, but there's no reason to be scared of utopias. It gives us something to look towards, work for. Else we're just stuck in the current situation where everyone thinks that "meh, life's unfair, rich/poor, exploitation, capitalism are destined upon us, let's just try to keep the boat afloat and do as best we can."
I realise I sound v. Marxian here (and there's nothing wrong with that, really, it's just a shame status-quo-hugging elites have attached so many negative connotations to it), but I'm not encouraging the implementation of communism right now, I'm only arguing that attitudes like that are, imo, extremely unhealthy.
What if we said the same about slavery? 'Name a system where people aren't exploited'
I'd argue that capitalism breeds a desire for fortune (greed), and greed breeds capitalism. That doesn't mean it is human destiny or nature.
And as for socialism being communism.... lol. What Macbeth said - it isn't even close.
And then you got countries that don't, but god save you if you try to explain to average joe that your country doesn't have the money to up their welfare.Jay wrote:
They also sit on natural resources that dwarf their population. Lucky.BALTINS wrote:
If you're talking about nations like Norway, they have democratic socialists and their main point is welfare, they don't really care about transforming capitalism into socialism.Jay wrote:
What's the difference between communism and socialism? Socialism leaves the carrot provided by capitalism for the Type A's. Socialists pick what they feel is really important from communism, usually welfare for the infirm, medical care, schooling, etc. Some states and societies dip further into the communist pot than others but that's usually a matter of what they can get away with without watching their rich flee. How good nations are at fleecing their rich depends on a number of things but it usually revolves around nationalistic pride, guilt, language and cultural barriers with the rest of the world etc. Why do you think socialism is only really effective among small homogenized societies and why it's so bitterly opposed in fragmented societies like the US? Do I feel any loyalty towards someone living in Iowa? Not really.
So I may have oversimplified a bit, but the difference between communism and socialism is simply a matter of degrees.
So are the ones in my country, but our ruling parties are centre-right. And isn't the welfare in Norway pretty much paid by for by oil, gas?Cybargs wrote:
Their "key" industries are all state owned and operated.BALTINS wrote:
If you're talking about nations like Norway, they have democratic socialists and their main point is welfare, they don't really care about transforming capitalism into socialism.Jay wrote:
What's the difference between communism and socialism? Socialism leaves the carrot provided by capitalism for the Type A's. Socialists pick what they feel is really important from communism, usually welfare for the infirm, medical care, schooling, etc. Some states and societies dip further into the communist pot than others but that's usually a matter of what they can get away with without watching their rich flee. How good nations are at fleecing their rich depends on a number of things but it usually revolves around nationalistic pride, guilt, language and cultural barriers with the rest of the world etc. Why do you think socialism is only really effective among small homogenized societies and why it's so bitterly opposed in fragmented societies like the US? Do I feel any loyalty towards someone living in Iowa? Not really.
So I may have oversimplified a bit, but the difference between communism and socialism is simply a matter of degrees.
If you're talking about nations like Norway, they have democratic socialists and their main point is welfare, they don't really care about transforming capitalism into socialism.Jay wrote:
What's the difference between communism and socialism? Socialism leaves the carrot provided by capitalism for the Type A's. Socialists pick what they feel is really important from communism, usually welfare for the infirm, medical care, schooling, etc. Some states and societies dip further into the communist pot than others but that's usually a matter of what they can get away with without watching their rich flee. How good nations are at fleecing their rich depends on a number of things but it usually revolves around nationalistic pride, guilt, language and cultural barriers with the rest of the world etc. Why do you think socialism is only really effective among small homogenized societies and why it's so bitterly opposed in fragmented societies like the US? Do I feel any loyalty towards someone living in Iowa? Not really.Macbeth wrote:
The same way capitalism is rational fascism.The whole 'socialism isn't communism' bullshit is just political cover for socialism's advocates who know people will become apoplectic if you advocate communism.
I am not a fan of socialism or communism but you can't oversimplify things like that.
So I may have oversimplified a bit, but the difference between communism and socialism is simply a matter of degrees.
For communism, socialism is a transitionary system. But I don't get what you're trying to say. What I meant is that socialized medicine doesn't equal to the whole country being socialist. And I'm not advocating socialism, since everyday I see the remains of a socialist nation.Jay wrote:
What? Socialism is simply the rationalized version of communism. Communism doesn't work because the producers are shackled and expected to do a disproportionate amount of work for and equal share of the proceeds. No one with any talent is willing to work under a system like that. All Socialism does is allow them a bigger share of the pie so they remain motivated. That's it. What do you think 'socialized' health care, education etc are? The ideal for those is a communistic sharing of goods regardless of individual income.BALTINS wrote:
Communism. Does. Not. Work. It's not The Man who oppresses you, it's not corporate greed, it's every single one of us. We are the ones who created this situation. How do you think corporations get big? Do you think Wall-mart just happened overnight? People are lazy, greedy and cheap and only big corporations can supply us with all the luxury we so desperately crave. And about communism, first of all, don't confuse it with socialism, and don't confuse socialism with welfare (i.e. socialized medicine) that exists in mixed-market economies like Germany (hint to somebody above). Secondly, if you have problems with how the government handles corporations, you advocate a system that essentially gives all the power to the government. You want to see a fuck up, let the government run all the industries and watch as everybody else has computers and you proudly run around with your wood plated FM radio.Jenspm wrote:
Communism? The abolishment of class structure?
It's a utopia, sure, but there's no reason to be scared of utopias. It gives us something to look towards, work for. Else we're just stuck in the current situation where everyone thinks that "meh, life's unfair, rich/poor, exploitation, capitalism are destined upon us, let's just try to keep the boat afloat and do as best we can."
I realise I sound v. Marxian here (and there's nothing wrong with that, really, it's just a shame status-quo-hugging elites have attached so many negative connotations to it), but I'm not encouraging the implementation of communism right now, I'm only arguing that attitudes like that are, imo, extremely unhealthy.
What if we said the same about slavery? 'Name a system where people aren't exploited'
The whole 'socialism isn't communism' bullshit is just political cover for socialism's advocates who know people will become apoplectic if you advocate communism.
Communism. Does. Not. Work. It's not The Man who oppresses you, it's not corporate greed, it's every single one of us. We are the ones who created this situation. How do you think corporations get big? Do you think Wall-mart just happened overnight? People are lazy, greedy and cheap and only big corporations can supply us with all the luxury we so desperately crave. And about communism, first of all, don't confuse it with socialism, and don't confuse socialism with welfare (i.e. socialized medicine) that exists in mixed-market economies like Germany (hint to somebody above). Secondly, if you have problems with how the government handles corporations, you advocate a system that essentially gives all the power to the government. You want to see a fuck up, let the government run all the industries and watch as everybody else has computers and you proudly run around with your wood plated FM radio.Jenspm wrote:
Communism? The abolishment of class structure?Chardee MacDennis wrote:
current system? name one system where there are not rich and poor?
It's a utopia, sure, but there's no reason to be scared of utopias. It gives us something to look towards, work for. Else we're just stuck in the current situation where everyone thinks that "meh, life's unfair, rich/poor, exploitation, capitalism are destined upon us, let's just try to keep the boat afloat and do as best we can."
I realise I sound v. Marxian here (and there's nothing wrong with that, really, it's just a shame status-quo-hugging elites have attached so many negative connotations to it), but I'm not encouraging the implementation of communism right now, I'm only arguing that attitudes like that are, imo, extremely unhealthy.
What if we said the same about slavery? 'Name a system where people aren't exploited'
Try GIMP, it's for free.
http://www.gimp.org/
http://www.gimp.org/
I asked because I wondered whether he meant it was exclusively Americas fault.Shahter wrote:
it takes at least two sides to fight a war.BALTINS wrote:
Why was the cold war Americas fault?
Why was the cold war Americas fault?Dilbert_X wrote:
Cold War - So? Pointless posturing which was never going to achieve anything except mutual obliteration, how was that useful?
Vietnam - Can't have been a big apology.
Iraq - No really, what was the need to invade Iraq? And not, say, Iran, Syria or Pakistan - a nuclear armed state still more in bed with AQ and the Taliban than any other? Oh yeah, they're too big for the US to take on - better to send SF units after goat herders in Afghanistan than try a land invasion of a country with 200million fanatics.
Afghanistan - You're thinking of Saudi Arabia.
just print out the patents and buy ice cream for the change.Jay wrote:
Transistors, ceramic capacitors, a microchip, a jump drive and a lithium ion battery.Trotskygrad wrote:
The sequel to this thread
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=140579&p=1
with 100% less H/J (good riddance)
If you could buy $100 in items TODAY and bring them back to 1920 to sell, what would you buy?
But Hitler lost the war. And I agree, with Jay, hitler = stalin.Macbeth wrote:
No, my initial post was taking offense to the whole "Stalin = Hitler" thing John was going on about. The fact that one half of the country became a industrial powerhouse doesn't refute my point that Hitler was more of disaster than Stalin. After Stalin The U.S.S.R. was better off economically and militarily. After Hitler Germany was split into two, one half getting orders from Moscow.BALTINS wrote:
Wasn't this about Stalin, not Hitler? West Germany became a real industrial powerhouse, while they had to build a wall in Berlin so that people stop fleeing the glorious East and it's awesome factories and bread lines.Macbeth wrote:
That's my point.
He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
"Stalin was as bad as Hitler because half of Germany did well after WW2, which would you rather live in? The half of Germany that wasn't occupied by the USSR or the country that swallowed half of Germany and most of eastern Europe? Yeah that's what I thought"
That's why his question was retarded.
Wasn't this about Stalin, not Hitler? West Germany became a real industrial powerhouse, while they had to build a wall in Berlin so that people stop fleeing the glorious East and it's awesome factories and bread lines.Macbeth wrote:
That's my point.BALTINS wrote:
You do know there were two?Macbeth wrote:
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.
He's asking which would be a better place to live in the U.S.S.R. or West Germany in an attempt to make Hitler's affect on Germany not look that bad. But it's stupid because thee aree 2 Germanies as this point east and west. It's split up. You're not going to refute what I said about Germany with an example that ignores the fact the country is split in two.
You do know there were two?Macbeth wrote:
lol This is really stupid. It's obvious that it's stupid because you had to say West Germany instead of Germany.Jay wrote:
Would you have rather lived in West Germany or the USSR after the end of WWII?Macbeth wrote:
I didn't say evil. I don't believe in evil. I'm saying their overal impact on their respective people makes Hitler much worse than Stalin and Mao. That's all.
Oh for the love of god, I'd love to mention molotov-ribbentrop, but you would say that was for defensive purposes or something. And that didn't just start in in 1939, as if all of sudden both sides decided to lay down their grievances and be friends, training each others secret police.Shahter wrote:
"convenience"? for whom? the enlightened west nurtured nazi germany hoping to have them crush the soviets. how horribly that backfired - that is a disgrace the west is still trying to lie their way out of.
The problem is that if a historic perspective contradicts one another, it doesn't mean that either one of them is wrong.FEOS wrote:
Except histories of WW2 have been written by historians from every country, from every perspective, and are available to everyone, in nearly every language. Your conspiracy theories simply do not hold...particularly WRT historians being thrown in the mix.Shahter wrote:
"now"? historians have always been one of the most important part of every nation's propaganda machine.FEOS wrote:
So suddenly, Russian books are like the Qu'ran? Only valid in the original language?
Historians are now part of your grand conspiracy, along with the media? Seriously?
As if Europe was an example of change, the Germans blowing the greens by shutting of the nuclear plants, the French getting all nationalistic, the Brits unable to handle a no-fly zone without calling help from overseas, Eastern Europe still playing a drunken game of chess with Russia, all while the EU amasses a debt of almost 14 trillion dollars.11 Bravo wrote:
it is something to say. you just dont like it.Varegg wrote:
So you got nothing to say that contributes, just the usual crap without substance as I though ... you are so shallow it's hilarious ...11 Bravo wrote:
yes. what you said was a giant pile of shit and typical euro obama knob slobbin.
must sting your boy has upheld every single bush policy that pissed you guys off.
I'd say the US isn't ready for a guy like Ron Paul, but well, not my part of the world.
Overdosing on LSD is like overdosing on water.Shocking wrote:
I mean to the point of it having an actual effect, you need to down quite a bit of booze until you're drunk. LSD for example is dosed in micrograms, world of difference.
I'll be in a church.. at my brothers wedding.. sipping jack daniels from a flask.
Half the people who doubt his death don't believe he existed in the first place, those conspiracy nuts are going crazy right now.Kmar wrote:
Well if we've learned anything over the years it's that if he isn't dead he'll have a video out.
We have the same speed limit (90kph) and I don't really notice it so much, my focus still eats at like 7 liter on 100km going 100 kph.ghettoperson wrote:
I find it hilarious that the US government thinks telling you how/what to drive via taxation is going too far, but instead they'll just make a law telling you you have to drive 15mph slower than everywhere else on Earth.
I do, I sacrifice many beers on hot summer days.11 Bravo wrote:
people still worship the sununnamednewbie13 wrote:
People thought the sun was something it wasn't, therefore they weren't worshiping something that was 'real.'11 Bravo wrote:
stupid statement
people worship the sun and thats real
getting money/popularity/whatever by creating controversy, what a novelty idea.
Nooo try us first, we've got 4, yes 4, russian T72's, 3 of which are currently unusable..eleven bravo wrote:
we should invade france, italy, spain, the netherlands and sweden. they wont be able to do shit against our armor.
48 48 <-> (9+3) 48*(9+3)DrunkFace wrote:
48BALTINS wrote:
48 48*(9+3) 576
-- * (9+3) = ----------- = --------- = 288
2 2 2
doing integral calculus for the past week, these basics define whether the answer is right or terrifyingly wrong.
---------- = 2
2(9+3)
On my calculator...
48/2*(9+3) = 288 (as you'd expect)
48/2(9+3) = 2 (as you'd expect)
-- * (9+3) = --- * ----- = -------------
2 2 <-> 1 2
that's how fractions work
48 48*(9+3) 576
-- * (9+3) = ----------- = --------- = 288
2 2 2
doing integral calculus for the past week, these basics define whether the answer is right or terrifyingly wrong.
-- * (9+3) = ----------- = --------- = 288
2 2 2
doing integral calculus for the past week, these basics define whether the answer is right or terrifyingly wrong.
Maybe that's the whole point of why the intervention happened, because they knew it was AQ, so they can get rid of gadaffi by supporting the rebels, then they can claim that terrorists have overthrown the rebel leaders and then invade the country.. for its oil..Dilbert_X wrote:
As I said already, it'll be funny if it turns out Gadaffi is right and the rebels are AQ.11 Bravo wrote:
Jay wrote:
I'm just sick of the whole 'they're rebels, so they must be right' mentality displayed by people in their teens and early twenties.
making up conspiracy theories is awesome.
Looking at those numbers one can't really wonder when China and Russia become so weird every time there's talk about missile shields and so on. As for the EU, with the formation of a unified military, it's not far from becoming a Federation.
at this point it's too late for proof anyways, sides have been taken. all thats left is whether the opposition leaders are worth a damn.
there are a bunch of videos on youtube about snipers,police so on shooting at protesters, it's just too vague as proof really. I guess the proof will come out afterwards depending on the outcome of the whole mess.11 Bravo wrote:
thats not proof at all. sorry but please verify that vid.BALTINS wrote:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=1434711 Bravo wrote:
do share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wot4bl0b5c
i guess being executed was the wrong wording.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=1434711 Bravo wrote:
do shareBALTINS wrote:
There are videos of Libyan soldiers being executed (for not following orders to kill protesters).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wot4bl0b5c
i guess being executed was the wrong wording.
There are videos of Libyan soldiers being executed (for not following orders to kill protesters).
The loyalty to the Soviets in Eastern Europe wasn't exactly high, it'd come down to NATO versus Russia.
Weird isn't it, for the first time in centuries is Europe war free for such a long time.Shocking wrote:
Doesn't happen around here, it would be a massive crisis but I doubt the European countries will ever again start fighting amongst themselves, think we've done that enough by now.
After reading up on the American civil war I actually wonder, compared to Libya where the rebels wanted a change of government and America where the south tried to secede from the Union, it actually sounds like the Union was more in the wrong than Gadaffi. I mean, the Unions existence wasn't threatened like Gadaffis government. Ignoring the whole tyrannical regime thing.Kmar wrote:
Yea.. or as Winston Churchhill said, "History is written by the victors".
It's not like everyone would get immortal once the technology becomes available, it would be mostly rich people. Lady gaga, guys like Trump, Politicians, all living beyond their expiration date. Though the business for artificial livers will be booming.
finally right about something, HEV jumped 53% today
As you wish!loubot wrote:
Who is Baltin and why is he / she hiding their portfolio? Full-disclosure heathen!
the 13th sign always existed, afaik they just ignored it because 12 are better or something, weird that they changed it all of sudden. But anyways, now you can call everyone who believed in their horoscopes dumbasses, or well, bigger dumbasses.
sold verizon and dell, no point in them, and yeah, nvidia is being a bitch today. bought HEV(Lithium-ion batteries) and STEC(solid state drives), think HEV has good chances on almost doubling soon.
Oh god what are you smoking no seriously, whats with the Poland reference, are they still blaming Russia for the plane crash?Shahter wrote:
oh, any time. next time there are dead bodies - always assume stalin is to blame. you can never go wrong with good ol' josef vissarionovich.11 Bravo wrote:
k thanks for the insightShahter wrote:
'twas prolly stalin and bloody kgb, just ask any polish - they know.
well sorry that i don't agree with the soviets being the heroes. Okay, yes, they were very important in the outcome of the war, but that doesnt justify all the shit that they did.Shahter wrote:
dude, you might as well stop it. i don't give a fuck about you barking there. you have yet to make a single point worth replying in this thread - everything you post simply makes you look... well... yes, butthurt.BALTINS wrote:
you're so funny.. Butthurt.. Oh the ironyShahter wrote:
sorry, nazied destroyed it. ask them to pay you back - i heard they are getting back on in those butthurt baltics and eastern europe countries.
you're so funny.. Butthurt.. Oh the ironyShahter wrote:
sorry, nazied destroyed it. ask them to pay you back - i heard they are getting back on in those butthurt baltics and eastern europe countries.Reciprocity wrote:
I'll take my payment in the form of one of the 1/2 ton Dodge Power Wagons we gave you.Shahter wrote:
we will pay you back eventually.
The Latvian government declared neutrality when the war broke out and the legion never fought nor had the intentions to fight the Western Allies. I guess better the Allied banner then the Axis one.presidentsheep wrote:
The Latvian legion of the SS was mainly conscripted and at the start of the war Latvia had fought the Germans and Russians, only thing reason I'd guess Latvia was under the "Allied banner".BALTINS wrote:
Weird table, we are shown as allies, our military deaths aren't shown though, because our men fought in the Latvian Waffen SS legion.presidentsheep wrote:
Well by that logic the Germans deserve respect for fighting Stalins dictatorship and killing so many of the other Allies that had bombed civilians.
Oh they dont deserve respect for the genocide and raping though.
On a side note: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lties2.svg
As you can see, the Russian losses were completely justified...
I just can't understand why people seem to think any government deserves respect for WWII, no war has come close to the loss of life in and after the war.
The governments don't, but the people who suffered and fought do deserve respect.
Weird table, we are shown as allies, our military deaths aren't shown though, because our men fought in the Latvian Waffen SS legion.presidentsheep wrote:
Well by that logic the Germans deserve respect for fighting Stalins dictatorship and killing so many of the other Allies that had bombed civilians.pace51 wrote:
Leave finland out of this. The winter war, yeah, Russia doesn't deserve respect for that. However, they deserve some respect for what they did in ww2 (Not the raping or pillaging, the part where they pushed germany back at great cost to themselves)
Oh they dont deserve respect for the genocide and raping though.
On a side note: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lties2.svg
As you can see, the Russian losses were completely justified...
I guess really only Stalin could answer that. I don't know what Shahter is going to say, but it's just too hypothetical. On one side they wanted to spread communism, by any means necessary, on the other, after loosing so many men, would they risk a war against the West.FatherTed wrote:
pretty much what you posted above. i'm not concerned about where those borders happened to be, i'm just curious if Russia would have kept going into Europe or just left it at that.BALTINS wrote:
Which borders are you talking about?FatherTed wrote:
Quick question to Shater (genuinely interested) would the soviets have gone further than Germany and Alsace? I'm in two minds whether they would have gone the whole course in liberating Europe, or just re-establishing their borders. I may have missed some history here, someone fill in the blanks if i have.
Russia lost Poland and the Baltics, which were part of the Russian Empire. The Soviets had no rights to the Baltics and Poland, they had become sovereign nations, the Baltics gained their independence in a god damn War of Independence againt German freikorps and the Bolshevik army. (1918-1920)pace51 wrote:
The former USSR countries that russia lost in the treaty of versailles., I think.
Which borders are you talking about?FatherTed wrote:
Quick question to Shater (genuinely interested) would the soviets have gone further than Germany and Alsace? I'm in two minds whether they would have gone the whole course in liberating Europe, or just re-establishing their borders. I may have missed some history here, someone fill in the blanks if i have.