Why can't the world live in harmony

M

Multani

Guest
To address the original issue: I have a question.
Why do people fight. If you can answer that question in a sound sense, you'll know why people hate each other.

To address the "other" issue: Gizmo, I completely agree with you. Communisum is not bad. When Americans think of Communisum, they think Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Those are dicatators, and their "Communisum" is really just politics. And now, I have an opinion of my own. Capitalism is pure evil. Greed leads to evil, and capitalism is all about greed. It's about winning at all costs. Communisum may be idealistic, but certainly isn't anywhere near as Darwanistic as Capitalism.

Ristik: China isn't a dictatorship. You're just recieving western propaganda. You want to know the facts? Take a vacation to China. I've actually been there. Have you been to China. I don't think so.
 
C

Cateran Emperor

Guest
Dual Post...

[Edited by Cateran Emperor on 11-08-00 at 10:25 PM]
 
C

Cateran Emperor

Guest
Well, here's my opinion on the whole thing. I know quite well China isn't Communist. I know the USSR wasn't Communist. I already said as much. I still say it as a curse word, because the philosophy to me is evil. It's not even idealistic, it's absurd. Yes, Capitalism is Darwinistic, but I like it that way. Survival of the fittest (ironically my favorite green card in Magic) is the only way to live. I dispense my earnings as I see fit, not as I'm told to do by someone else.

By the way Multani, I haven't been to China, you're quite right. Yet I have no desire to ever go there, any more than I have to go to a large, overcrowded city in America.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
Actually, Multani, I'm a Socialist. I accept the capitalist society because I know that all superior systems rely on the goodness of humans, which I believe to not exist. I realize that is a very pessimistic view of the world; I prefer to be accurate rather than optimistic. And to answer the next question, no, I do not have many friends, but I have even fewer enemies.

Anyways, I was posting to state that when addressed with the idea of heads of state, I believe strongly in these words of Oscar Wilde (and I'm sure it's a misquote, but the point gets across): "Democracy consists of the people choosing their dictators after they are told what it is that they want to hear." If I think that about democracy, imagine what I think of the government in China, regardless of the existence of its quality as a totalitarian state.
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
No powerful socialist states? hmm, All the European states are Social Democracies, and the US has just fought it`s most European election of all time (ie. social welfare vs tax cuts). Socialism is a democratic system. But you are right, the USSR and China have proven unable to fight off the unrelenting hostility of the whole of the rest of the world and have been forced to turn to capitalism.

Marx envisaged a broadly democratic system that was the inevitable next step of societal evolution. He was pretty much spot on and we are currently living in the world which Marx, to a broad degree, predicted. This is Marxism - that history has a directin that brings greater and greater influence to the lower classes as they become more and more important to the running of the state.
Lenin was struggling to bring about Socialism in a backwards state that Marx had never planned for (socialism required industrialised society). Lenin therefore developed his government into a non-democratic one in which the upper elites directed the actions of those below by means of price fixing in order to guide the development of the state.
This is Leninism - benign dictatorship, which I believe is the best way to run a country, but faces the obvious problem of precisely how to ensure the dictator is benign...

And although you might think SotF is the only way to live, I think that it might simply be the easiest way to live. But by no means the best, internal societal problems - sexism, ageism, racism - are all the direct results of capitalist society. Next time some black kid shoots dead some white kid, or vice versa: chalk one up to capitalism.
 
C

Cateran Emperor

Guest
Why would I do that? I don't chalk off any other murders to capitalism, I don't do so when a black man murders another black man. Why should I do so here? Would you like for me to persecute the murderer based on his beliefs?

Socialism may be a democratic system, but it's not the strongest one. Europe may be full of Social democracies, but they're far more complacent than the United States. They don't have the massive diversity that we have over here that makes capitalism strong. We have so many ideas that there will be an market for almost anything. Socialism would never be accepted over here. America's last election has little to do with Socialism. Gore may be left-wing, but he's still no Socialist. We actually have two Socialist parties here in America (there was one, but it split in two over some differences. Note that competitive spirit that even Socialists have over here) They got combined less than a hundredth of one percent of the popular vote and no electoral votes. The reason why is that we've fought time and again to protect our freedoms, be it abroad or internally. We never have and never will surrender that freedom to Socialism. Socialism isn't the next step in "social evolution". Socialism is a step off ot the side. Anarchy and monarches are the past. True democracy, capitalism, is the present and the future.

Now since you're a Leninist, then you can simply ignore all the above if you want since it has nothing to do with you. Dictatorships have the problem that the people seem to revolt against them with relative frequency. Our species has said that we want our freedom and the government best leave us alone. Dictatorships fail to do so, and as such they inevitably fall eventually.

Anarchy is the easiest way to live, and influences capitalism in a positive way. It gives us the will to defend our freedoms if the government or a foreign threat ever tries to limit them. Over here in America, we don't persecute people for their beliefs unlike Socialism. We just live the way that always has and always will make perfect sense.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
Wow. Anarchy is the easiest way to live? I don't think I should even address that one, Cateran. I really hope that you don't actually understand the meaning of the word "anarchy". Anarchy consist of there being no government or system of laws. Anarchy may be the easiest governmental system, or lack thereof, to implement, but easiest way to live? I think not. Were it the easiest way to live, people WOULD live that way.

Secondly, the Communist Manifesto states that Socialism is in fact the next step in social evolution. So unless you want to claim that you know more about society than Marx (Karl, not Groucho), then you should probably back down on that.

Thirdly, I think you're falling to Western philosophy on Socialism when you state how repressive they are, unless you see ensuring that all are cared for in a negative connotation, i.e. that Socialists FORCE people to care for their fellow man.

Gizmo, I really hope you didn't mean to say that democracy leads to hate crimes. I'm not a democracy fan, but even I won't say that. And not just because I've heard of hate crimes in non-democratic states.

Also to Gizmo: Not all the European states are social democracies. If they were, places such as the UK and Spain would not still have monarchs. And I'm not sure about any of the Balkan states.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
Spiderman: still a constitutional monarchy, not a social democracy.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
Functionally, there is none in England, but the name of the government is different. I just was in a technical mood when I made that analysis. I think the monarchy in Spain has some form of say, but I do not know what it is.
 
M

Multani

Guest
Seeing as you are using the US as your argument's anger, do you want me to tell you why the U.S is powerful? The U.S. had a 200 year head start. That's the only reason it's powerful. At that time, there were few "Democratic" states. Democracy is not efficent, which is why there are no strong democratic powers besides the US. Look at the USSR. Gorbachev decided to try Democracy, and look what happened; although I'm sure the US was overjoyed to see the Soviet Union topple to American propaganda. :rolleyes:

Actually, if Democracy is the future, I see the world or at least the U.S. topple within the next hundred years. You don't believe me? Right now, money is more powerful than anything else. It's become a necessary narcotic. A narcotic will eventually become fatal to the user, in this case the U.S.

Personally, I think a Dictatorship is not good either.
What's ideal is a democratic socialism. Socialism is basically letting the government take care of your needs. It really has nothing to do with freedom. Look at Canada. It's a Democratic Socialist Country.
I think I've made my point.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
I'm afraid I must disagree with you, Multani. The democratic nations of the world will not topple because of the one thing you missed: the REASON the United States has lasted for over 200 years. While democracy is remarkably inefficient, as proven by the election fiasco, this same inefficiency applies to ALL qualities of the nation, including changing of government. The reason the US has stayed around is because the government is extremely stable. You saw people stabbing and shooting each other for power elsewhere, while people here yelled a lot. The inefficiency of the American system makes it virtually impossible for the government to be changed. Ironic that the one thing stopping this country from doing everything right is stopping it from enabling itself to do everything right.
 
M

Multani

Guest
Do you mean the drawbacks with OTHER Democratic countries, or other countries in general?
 
R

Ristik

Guest
I'm not sure what that question means.
Basically, my point was that you missed the fact that democracy is more stable than other forms of government (excepting Yugoslavia), so it will persevere. I was arguing with your point that the democratic nations of the world will topple within 100 years.
 
T

Thallid Ice Cream Man

Guest
The one reason that contributes to all this hate can be summed up in one word, the word that I hate more than anything else in the universe (and is the only thing I truly hate):

Ignorance.

Among myriad other horrible things, ignorance is:
: the reason "communism," as some of the totalarianist societies are called, didn't work;
: the reason actual socialist societies are thought to not work by people over here;
: the reason people disagree on important issues (as opposed to other things where personal preference doesn't indicate ignorance);
: the reason there is persecution and hate anywhere;
etc.

If everyone, everywhere, was enlightened, then none of these problems, or indeed almost any of the world's problems, would exist, and everyone would be happy and enjoy life based on the ideals that people considered "great" (some of them) throughout history were REALLY advocating.

Not to say that this moment is any more special than any other, but I haven't recorded this on paper, so here goes...

I am hereby dedicating my life (well, 98.5% of it, I have to do some other stuff) to ending ignorance, bit by bit, whenever possible.

I do not wish to say that I will achieve these ideals by myself, but it can't hurt to try.

I am perfectly willing to talk about this with anyone else.
 
R

Ristik

Guest
I agree that ignorance should be erased from everyone. This is why I'm trying to eliminate my own ignorance; I can't make other people less ignorant while being ignorant myself. It's really hard.
 
H

Hawaiian mage

Guest
Of course, Hitler wasn't ignorant. Neither was Neapolian. Or Atilla(not much any way.) Or Or Alexander. Or Walt Disney. Or ceaser. Ect... Ect...

All of the truely powerfull monarchs and evilist of evils were from unignorant people.


Intellegence is highly overrated. :)
 
R

Ristik

Guest
Um... many of the people you named very nearly took over the world. If I was smart enough to conquer the world, I wouldn't think it was that bad...
 
G

Gizmo

Guest
Re: the capitalism schtick

I think that crimes such as race crimes are borne at a fundamental level out of the inequalities of the standard of living that is the basis of capitalist society. If people did not feel that they were being undervalued whilst others were benefiting at their expense then I think it quite reasonable to expect that crimes of that nature would decline in number.

Re: Why did the US survive?

It nearly didn`t. Something about the 1860s I recall. But mainly - who was going to break it up? It has no competition - it didn`t need to defend itself from anybody until 1945. It also had resources that were almost limitless in comparison to it`s relatively spartan population. In this situation precisley what is going to go worng. You have a country that can expand exponentially into new territory, explout new resources, and accept new population movements. There is pressure on it neither internally nor externally.
The US system is designed to prevent change, it is virtually impossible to alter the way the government was set up. Which is why the US now has an archaic system that needs rewriting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top