What Political Persuasion Are You?

[VladimIr V Y]

Hmm. Voluntary entry into an Empire...

 

Not quite voluntary. Enemy still think what they conquered the country or nation. But they soon become "affected" by more powerful and deep culture of that nation. They slowly "mutate" to the point they cannot separate themselfs from that culture.

That happend to the Mongol forces, what was controlling parts of Russia and China. Today, many of their descendats live there as a large ethnic groups, fully accepted by the rest of comminity. Mongolia itself became a part of China. Separated in 1911, with help from Russia. Also, was defended by our army from invasion of Japan in WW2. We too fight for freedom and independance, you see. :) But I think they can fare better as a part of China.

 

Maybe I'm just being put off by a label, but Imperialsm still sounds like "You will do things the Empires way or you will do them not at all".

 

It is just a despotic rule. Every goverment can be despotic, even democraic\republican, as we all can see. Despotism in empires was widespred, but that, usually, was the choice of a monarch or a ruling party. But not the only way to go around.

 

To use a really poor example of how things could work would be the UN. Each country still has their own laws etc, but are bound up by international law and convention which are supposedly kept to by all. An example of how Imperialism might work in this day and age might be the EU. Everyone in the EU has to do things Brussel's way, lest they get a smack on the hand in diplomatic terms.

 

;D ;D Oh, sorry, but that's just hilarious. I'm pretty sure I've said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again just as an example of why that's funny. The UN has asked the US twelve times to remove its blockade of Cuba, and what have the Americans done? Diddly squat. China and the US and another other country can simply ignore the UN because they don't have the will or the capacity to stop them. They are just like the League of Nations that they tried to replace after WWII - that body was singularly useless in stopping Italian and German military excursions (I don't remember the specifics of these, but I seem to recall Italy invaded the Sudan or some part of Eastern Africa). The UN is a useless body as far as preventing a country from doing something that every other country on Earth does not want to happen.

 

Yes, the EU is a nice example. I think this is possible because there was a long relations inside the Europe. Relations was not always good, but they was. So, inside the Europe everyone knows each other very good, there is no "strangers". The union was made possible this way.

On the opposite side is US. It is a very young country, and everyone is a stranger to them. So they don't feel any remorse, then they do not listen to UN. No one will listen to the words of the stranger.

As for China - we a too strangers to them. Or maybe we, in our turn, too young to listen to our words. No one will listen to the words of kids too.

 

Interesting metaphor. I wonder when they'll start to tip over and descend.

 

I'd say they reached the escape velocity and will not descend any time soon.

 

Yes indeed :D But frankly it shouldn't take that - if people would only wake up to the mass of internal problems the peoples of the world has we would be so much better off. But in the UK (obviously can't speak for any other country) people are getting driven more and more into supporting the divisions of society and the degrading and degenerative aspects that they bring. Like I said, a whole lot worse before we even start to get better.

 

I know what you telling me about. And personaly think what political correctness, is not a solution to the problems. On the contrary - it only magnify the differences. The world for a thousands of years was full of racism, hate-speech and still it florished to today's state. That problems tend to solve without direct influence of the humans. And with influence, everything gone wrong, as we don't really now how to solve them. Soviet Union was greatly critisized for a censorship. And now there is even more in the world!

 

Remind me of old tale, chinise, I think, about a dragon. In essence: there was an evil, greedy dragon. Everyone who killed him - became a dragon himself, so dragon was virtually immortal. Not personally, but as manifestation of evil and greed.

[Nappa990]

QUOTE

QUOTE

Just look at real-world communist governments

 

...Such as?

 

China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, any of those sound familar? And don't say they aren't this mythical "true communist system", those countries are the inevitable result of communism in the real world. Even if your hypothetical communist system is created with the purest of intentions, it will quickly become just like those countries.

 

sorry if this has been said, but i haven't the time to read all of the pages.

Are you talking about governments that are still in power? It seems so, did you know that The Soviet Union fell on the 25th of December in the year of 1991.

[Peregrine]

sorry if this has been said, but i haven't the time to read all of the pages.

Are you talking about governments that are still in power? It seems so, did you know that The Soviet Union fell on the 25th of December in the year of 1991.

 

Yes, I have opened a history book since 1991, and I am well aware of this fact. Your point? The fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia has moved away from communism does not change the historical facts of how communism failed. If anything, the fall of the Soviet Union should be considered evidence that it doesn't work.

[loveme4whoiam]

I would say that the fall of the USSR (note the name, United Soviet Socialist Republic) would be evidence that a socialist system implemented before the country is ready for it economically will fail, nothing more. The reason the Eastern Bloc fell apart was because under Soviet orders they altered their economies to suit Russian orders, rather than to suit the countries. As an example, I think it was in Romania that the SOviets wanted to promote a large steel industry - so they had the iron ore and other raw materials transported into the country to have them refined, and then have the steel shipped out again! Imbecilic economic management was the downfall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, and nothing to do with a failure of the Communist system; there wasn't even a Communist system in place.

[Magdalene]

I would say that the fall of the USSR (note the name, United Soviet Socialist Republic) would be evidence that a socialist system implemented before the country is ready for it economically will fail, nothing more. The reason the Eastern Bloc fell apart was because under Soviet orders they altered their economies to suit Russian orders, rather than to suit the countries. As an example, I think it was in Romania that the SOviets wanted to promote a large steel industry - so they had the iron ore and other raw materials transported into the country to have them refined, and then have the steel shipped out again! Imbecilic economic management was the downfall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, and nothing to do with a failure of the Communist system; there wasn't even a Communist system in place.

Yeah, socialism cannot work in any form. It doesn't matter wheter it's far left communism or just left socialism, both of these choices are bad. The existence of the left-wing is mistake.

 

By the way I live in one of those post-communistic countries. The Czech Republic, it's the most western country from the eastern bloc, the most developed and the richest one. However our economy was ruined by USSR, we had no iron ore, but we had to build steel industry (stupidity). Your example of Romania is quite bad example. Romania and Yugoslavia had never accepted any order from Moscow, despite the fact these countries were communistic.

[Marxist ßastard]

I'm not really all that informed about traditions in the Czech Republic, but over here, it's customary to back up such claims with evidence -- especially when there's so much here already that runs directly contrary to your position.

[Magdalene]

I'm not really all that informed about traditions in the Czech Republic, but over here, it's customary to back up such claims with evidence -- especially when there's so much here already that runs directly contrary to your position.

Funny, I live in country that had orders to build steel industry (for example Vitkovice steel industry and many others). The only raw material that the Czech Republic has had is uranium and coal.

 

That's what is in wikipedia:

In the early 1960s, Romania's communist government began to assert some independence from the Soviet Union. Nicolae Ceauşescu became head of the Communist Party in 1965 and head of state in 1967.

Yes, Yugoslavia and Romania were like independent, they were not accepting orders from Moscow. Though Yugoslavia was more independent than Romania, they were independent from the very beggining.

 

So what I am supposed to do? Go and take photo of all the industry that was built during the communist regime?

[loveme4whoiam]

My apologies, I must have been thinking of Czech Republic when I thought of that example - I last studied the Eastern Bloc two years ago so my trivia is a bit lacking :blush:

 

Yeah, socialism cannot work in any form.

 

I didn't actually say that, by the way. I said that socialism enforced on a country that is not economically prepared for it will not work; a totally different concept. Socialism can and will work assuming some basic requisites have been met, which they clearly were not in Russia or the Eastern Bloc.

 

The existence of the left-wing is mistake.

 

Care to back that one up with some evidence? Or, at the very least, some justification for that rot? The political left is there to counter the political right. If anything, I would say that the right-wing is a mistake as it only exists to perpetuate the status quo or worse, encourage anti-social concepts which hold back progression. Can you say the same about the left?

[Magdalene]

The existence of the left-wing is mistake.

Care to back that one up with some evidence? Or, at the very least, some justification for that rot? The political left is there to counter the political right. If anything, I would say that the right-wing is a mistake as it only exists to perpetuate the status quo or worse, encourage anti-social concepts which hold back progression. Can you say the same about the left?

The left wing is here for the poor and for the unqualified/incompetent people. For the people who don't want to work, for people who envy others their property.

 

Equalitarianism of the left-wing is the mistake. Left-wing surpress the qualified and richer people and embrace the state property (that's the biggest mistake). State ought to own nothing.

 

With the right wing is the fastest progression, the state gets richer and richer. The competent people are happy, the private property is getting larger and larger. Like here in the Czech republic, from year 1990 to 1996 was ruling party the Civic party (right wing), the progression was very fast. For another 8 years was rulling the left wing (communist party with social democrat party). The economy was falling, state was getting poorer and poorer (they were giving too much money). So this years elections (they were a week ago) won the Civic Party once again.

 

If only could vote people who finished university, the civic party would won with 90% of all votes (Interesting isn't it? The smarter people the more right-wing oriented they are, at least in the Czech Republic). Too bad, there are so many people, who are not smart enough.

[Marxist ßastard]

The left wing is here for the poor and for the unqualified/incompetent people.

 

That's a rather outrageous claim. You'll have to do more to prove it than just say that a slump in your country's GDP occured during the eight-year term of a leftist party. That's not to mention that you haven't demonstrated even the slightest correlation between the two events -- in fact, wasn't this recession you're talking about caused by excessive foreign investment? Didn't it also occur very early within the term you're speaking of, suggesting that its roots lie in the economic policy of the previous administration?

 

As for how well your economy did during the period of 1990-1996, I would think that since that timeframe begins with the fall of the Soviet Union, there's no place for the GDP to go but up.