J
-
Categories
-
Platforms
-
Content
R
Roger Johansson
It is a fairly accepted historical fact that USA forced USSR to compete
in the defense systems field.
USA has even boasted about outcompeting and bankrupting the Soviet
Union through this process of military spending escalation.
Soviet Union had no reason to use violence to spread its ideology, it
could gain support in peaceful ways.
It was the capitalist side which needed to use violence to defend their
old system against democratic and socialistic reforms. The workers
unions and the workers movements were strong even after the nazi's had
cleansed Europe from democrats and workers union people for a decade.
Soviet Union enjoyed a lot of support from workers in the west and in
the third world. It took a lot of violence, clandestine operations,
money and capitalist propaganda to "save" the world from a global
socialist revolution.
Hitler saved capitalism in the 30ies and 40ies. After the war the
americans were the only ones who had an undamaged industry and a good
economy, so they could control the media outside the communist bloc.
They set out to dominate and control as many governments as possible,
and to terrorize the countries which would not follow orders from
Washington.
Just like Hitler they had started to see the world on a global scale,
and themselves as the superior players in that world.
J
John Larkin
I sure hope you don't use that sort of reasoning to design
electronics.
John
R
Rich The Philosophizer
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
R
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
You make "capitalism" sound like a bad thing. That's just silly. Without
capital, you can't build anything. The only difference between capitalism
in a republic and capitalism in a dictatorship is that in the dictatorship
the dictators control all of the capital.
The unions just want their piece of the action.
Thanks,
Rich
J
John Larkin
"Capitalism" never really existed in the sense that labor and
socialists have always defined it; "capitalism" is just a word they
have (rather successfully) used to denigrate economic freedom.
Great industries, the ones that increased productivity and changed the
world for the better, were never about capital; they were about ideas.
Money is just a necessary tool to implement revolutionary ideas, but
if used by itself is usually frittered away. Henry Ford had ideas and
no capital, so got rich; today's Ford Motor Company has capital and no
ideas, and is in trouble.
The "means of production" that the Communists have always wanted to
get control of is an illusion; Communism promptly destroys the means
of production, which is innovation combined with economic pluralism.
And worse, they want to destroy other peoples pieces.
John
J
John Miles
R
Roger Johansson
John said:
Britain is in a special situation. They played together with USA for a
long time, maybe for the whole 20th century.
Now it is time for the British to change foot and become a member of
Europe instead.
We can see a heritage from the british empire in the US politics after
WWII.
USA took over the role of world leader and administrator of the whole
world. But the british could share this position by backing up USA and
their foreign policy.
The 20th century was used to re-draw the maps of the world, to better
fit to the new economical and industrial power situation.
American and british investment bankers and big industrialists invested
heavily in the nazi movement, to de-stabilize Europe, to attack the
democratic and socialist movements, to attack Soviet, and to re-draw
the strategic map of the world.
The result of WWII was that USA took the supreme power in the world,
with the british as a secret ally.
The British sold out continental Europe for a hundred years, and now
they want to become europeans.
Tricky stuff.
R
Roger Johansson
Richard said:
There is no need for little green pieces of paper to build anything,
unless the specification says that it has to consist of glued-together
green pieces of paper.
J
Jim Thompson
What a pile of socialist BS! Frozen brained ?
...Jim Thompson
J
John Larkin
And before. It's no accident that the most successful countries share
the heritage of British Common Law.
Inherited, not took over. And certainly not the whole world.
Certainly; they've most always been sensible.
The scheme being universal democracy, wealth, and equality. What an
evil plot!
If there was any thought beyond making money, which is unlikely, it
was to *stabilize* Europe.
The supreme power is world economy and world culture. Some people
consider those to be American, but they aren't. Now that the classic
Socialist dream is in sight, the Socialists turn out to be terrified
of it; they never figured to be living under socialist equality with a
bunch of Chinese and Pakistanis and Africans.
The smart ones don't.
John
J
John Larkin
The US proposed a ban on nuclear weapons; the Soviets refused. The US
proposed "open skies"; the Soviets refused. The US let western Europe
form their own governments; the Soviets installed puppet states and
killed anybody who wanted otherwise. Read some history, for pete's
sake.
Yup, that finally worked.
Tell that to the Poles, the Czechs, the Ukranians, the Tibetans.
Repeat it over the graves of the tens of millions who died in the
frozen prison camps of the gulag, and the famines of the Great Leap,
in the Killing Fields of Cambodia. It will comfort the North Koreans
who are watching their children die.
John
R
Roger Johansson
You forgot something.. It's a rich man's world. The money rules.
The western democracies are in a twilight zone, in transition between
capitalism and democracy. We live in an era of a tug of war between the
power systems of old, like the rich, the priests, the nobility and the
royalty, and the power system of the future, democracy.
These old elites who have lost the power are still present,
trying to take any chance to regain some influence and power.
In the future the decisions will be made by the people and for the
people, not in secret in some corporation office for the sake of
profit. Capitalism and democracy are not compatible, both want to take
the decisions in the society and in production and transport systems.
If rich people and the state in one country supports extremist
movements in another country, what do you call that?
Look at the result if you want to know the real reasons why it
"happened". That is a good rule in general when studying history.
If you were smart, in a political sense, you would.
We need EU badly in Europe. One reason is that many corporations are
stronger today than many european countries. Only in bigger union can
we have political freedom which cannot be overthrown by big money.
"There's no doubt about it.
In fact, it's all doubt."
(P Floyd)
J
John Larkin
Ideas rule. Being rich gives no advantage in being able to spot, or
control, trends.
I think we agree that we both want more democracy, more personal
freedom, more well-being across the whole world. Where we seem to
disagree is the relationship between what you call "capitalism" (and I
call "free economy") and that goal of human progress.
I think that business makes progress and well-being possible, by
enhancing productivity, and that a strong free economy eventually
results in a demand for democracy. Multinational business has a
tremendous share-the-wealth effect on the world... much more
efficiently than Socialism. And the problems associated with "big
business" are best fixed by having more businesses, so that they can
compete and the people can choose.
It's no accident that the most "capitalist" countries are the most
democratic. In fact, it's fundamental.
Just be careful that the EU itself doesn't become the oppressor.
John
R
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
OK. I'm for that, albeit in a true Free society, there's no need for
rulers, so democracy is moot. "Cracy" means "rule", or something like
that, doesn't it? So <anything>cracy is moot.
Although, if some people decide they need a road, somebody has to
figure out where it should go, put together work crews, and all that
sort of crap.
Of course, once we manifest Heaven on Earth, we won't need roads,
because everybody will be able to levitate to wherever they want
to go. ;-)
Or, what the heck - you won't need to go very far to do what you
want, associate with whom you please, and all of the other benefits
concomitant with Free Will.
But first, we have to kill all of the lawyers, politicians, military
despots, and religious fanatics.
Cheers!
Rich
R
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Having big piles of money
affords a Hell of an advantage in "controlling" pretty much whatever
they want to.
Us downtrodden want our moment in the sun before we're worked to
death, thank you very much.
Thanks,
Rich
R
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
Well, I've got ideas coming out my ass - apparently things don't work the
same as they did in Henry's day.
Thanks,
Rich
J
John Larkin
And when do you know to stop?
John
J
Jim Thompson
When only Rich and Roger and those of their ilk are left... they are
the chosen people... sort of like Demoncrats ;-)
...Jim Thompson
J
John Larkin
I can see it... the final scene... only Rich and RSW are left, facing
each other on a hill, in the smoke of the ruins, armed to the teeth...
Heroes.
John
Similar threads
