a_propagandist
The Light Brigadier
Buy Leninade for the Communists, er, wait in line for it. I'll contribute to the discussion later.
Present to Communists
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
You're completely wrong.
The US wants to protect freedom and democracy abroad! There's just one tiny caveat: you have to promise not to elect anybody who's left of the center. Clearly then the Communists rigged the vote and didn't allow the right-wingers to secure their proper victory!
It's true freedom: freedom for the market!
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
I know, right? When Japan bombed our military installations, we decided to retaliate by destroying two cities, where civilians just happened to live!
Duty to our allies? What? That was a European affair. We didn't have to stick our heads into the whole business. There was no aggressor nation, really.
Uh huh. Allende wasn't democratic? He was popularly elected, unless of course he cheated or something. But I'm pretty sure he didn't. The people wanted a socialist government and Kissinger and the CIA had to stop it, of course! Pinochet and his disappeared people, yep, totally the right thing to do.
If the early wars were mistakes, what keeps the latter ones from being mistakes too?
I know, but I couldn't let your absolute declaration slide.
Oh, and the government can seize your stuff too. See: eminent domain.
1t - The war had to end.
2nd. - We had a duty to England and France, our allies. Plus, they are democratic states,and we have a duty to help any democratic state in need.
3rd. I don't like Pinochet's dictatorship, and we did approach it the wrong way, and I shouldn't have defended the descisinon. Sorry.
3d. The first ones were exparamints in Imperialism, which is the Reason for Africa, SE Asia, etc. etc. But now, our wars are mostly concerned with spreading freedom. Then, it was spreading power.
4th. Sorry about the absolute declaration then.
5th. I know the gov't can sieze property, and I don't like it. The only time it should do that is when the situation rolls around to 1930 again and we NEED socialism to help us up.
What exactly are you?
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
No, it's not. Property rights do not derive from DIVINE right, they derive from SOVERIGN right.
Yes, perhaps not. However, for the most part, we see that everywhere the worst acts (in the US, in the Soviet Union, in NS germany, in commie china etc) were all done by concentrated elite power, where as good actions were done collectively by popular movements or by state authority sensetive to popular demands.
It is a pattern that takes some effort to ignore.
No, the state can strip you of your property if the soverign democratic power of the state so wishes.
Yes, and the government was a PRIVATE tyranny, therefore the soviet planners and elites were a PRIVATE elite.
No, socialism requires democracy. Otherwise it's not socialism.
Uh huh. You can also argue that this allowed the Japanese emperor to surrender gracefully. But civilian targets? My word. Atrocious.
If we had such a duty to our "allies", with whom we don't even make an alliance with, then why did we not join until 1917? Remember that Wilson was determined to keep us out of the war. He ran for reelection as the man who kept the US out of the war. It's kind of ironic that he ends up dragging us into it. But still, the US did not declare war on Germany to help our nonextant allies out. No, it was because of German violation of American neutrality.
'Kay. I was going to harp on you on this point on #2.
No! Back then, it was to help the people. Woodrow Wilson on the eve of the first world war said this: "We must civilize our little brown brothers." Rudyard Kipling's poem with all that white man's burden stuff had a clear goal: we must civilize the uncultured. Even if they don't like it, we know that it's good for them. Those with more money are in the right, as per the doctrine of social Darwinism.
Your apology is accepted.
1. I don't like it either.
2. I don't think the situation will ever roll around to Great Depression conditions. I think that now the Fed's been around for a much longer time, they'll know what to do better.
What, did you expect me to be your ally in defending the free market, and when I suddenly shifted positions, you were thrown out of whack?
I refuse to be pigeonholed into any particular ideology.
greenpeace
Peacelord
Hey, I was just following his (or her?) logic, I didn't make any conclusions either.
How does that require hierarchial structure?
Direct democracy (decentralized).
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
God gave the earth to Adam and Eve.
The collective has made mistakes as well (France). And besides, those collected elite were the products of government, not society. Government stems from our evils, society from our goods (usually). And these wer ultra concentrated power forms. You need some power, but that is WAY too much.
It ca, but then it is violating its purpose. A government is established for a few reasons, one of the top being to protect private property. If it siezes private property, is ceases being a good government, and must be altered.
I see what you mean.
It doesn't take democracy to steal the means of production. Hitler did it, and he wasn't democratic (maybe at first, but later - no)
Sometimes, we have to sacrafice some for the greater good. Usually I don't agree with this, but there are instances where some have to die so that others might live. It's a tradgedy, and I feel for those that lost there, but you have got to make sacrafices if you want to stop a war. I'm sorry, but they weren't going to listne any other way.
We said it was to help the people; in reality, we wanted POWER.
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
How were you following my logic?
2 - Order requires some measure of power to be used to defend. Those with power are higher up, and those with little power are farther below. This makes it so that those with more power can defend those with little. This is one of the few core purposes of a true government - protection of life. As long as all humans continue to be born equal and allowed to move up and down in the hierarchy as they wish, then it's fine. If not - well, I'd rather live in an anarchy then a rigid class system like that.
Direct democracy is a bad idea -it leds to slavery and the mastery of the strong over the weak (different from my post above - the strong protected the weak, not mastered them).
Amen.
Oh, no, he definitely was. The Nazi Party in the Reichstag pushed through the Enabling Act which allowed him to assume dictatorial powers, but it was definitely democratic.
We could have blown up a MILITARY INSTALLATION instead of a CITY WITH CIVILIANS IN IT. Or even just demonstrated the bomb on an empty island.
"You say that the USA's actions are to spread freedom; in reality, the USA wants POWER."
greenpeace
Peacelord
I'm sorry but that logic is just horrible. Even if that were true, how does that justify anything?
The collective has made mistakes as well (France). And besides, those collected elite were the products of government, not society. Government stems from our evils, society from our goods (usually). And these wer ultra concentrated power forms. You need some power, but that is WAY too much.
Why do you need power?
How is he saying anything about stealing production for use of a small elite?
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
First of all, it is true. You not believeing that doesn't change it.
2nd - It proves we, as individuals, have divinly given right over the earth.
To preserve order, keep peace, and protect.
That's what socialism is; the stealing of the m.o.p. from the owners and turning it over to the gov't.
Unless the factors of production are of course democratically voted to be given to state control.
greenpeace
Peacelord
You were saying that completely different societies have some barely real similarities, so I compared the Us with the USSR.
First of all- like what, I never suggested class systems
Also, why must a small groups of people to exert their authority on the rest, when you can have the people decide for themselves when others are causing harm and stop/prevent that harm (thus creating order)?
Direct democracy is a bad idea -it leds to slavery and the mastery of the strong over the weak (different from my post above - the strong protected the weak, not mastered them).[/QUOTE]
Can you proove this statement, or at least state why you think that?
greenpeace
Peacelord
Well, I'm not going to argue since its rather pointless (BTW I don't believe in the existence of anything and I only believe in the lgoical process).
But how does that justify property in the context of Capitalism?
Why can't the people themselves preserve order, keep peace, and protect?
That's what socialism is; the stealing of the m.o.p. from the owners and turning it over to the gov't.[/QUOTE]
It does change production methods, but it doesn't require that it be put in the hands of a small group in society
edit: oops, sorry I double-posted (I thought someone as going to respond by the time I posted).
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Yes, when you can't argue logically, resort to systemtic incomprehensibility: or Religion. Also, in the bible, God wipes out the earth of all life, does that justify genocide?Also God gave Eve to Adam. But I'm sure the feminists wouldn't like if you'd use that clause to justify women's disenfranchisement.
Actually, many of the failures of French revolution, can indeed be traced back to power concentration. Just like the Russian revolution.
Actually, this is true to certain extent. We need government and patternal institutions because we are not always perfect beings. And just like fathers, people will defend these patternal institutions because they love them, but if they become abusive, people will hate them.
Conservatism argues that we need ultraconentrated power structures: completely unregulated totalitarian corporations and corporatist government to rule our economy, military to crush our induviduality, church to shackle our mind and the patriarchal family to take care of the women and children.
No, justified authoritarian measures are established for whatever reason the majority think is justified and necessary. The government is a violent institution, a justified government and justified government actions are taken with the mandate of the majority: that includes deprivation of private property.
Nazi Germany's industries were 90% privately owned. The governmetn was also a private tyranny.
In socialism, the means of production should be COLLECTIVELY owned, and democratically managed.
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
AT FIRST, yes, but when the enabling act came through, democracy flew out the window. He was still supported, yes, but it wasn't democratic.
It took them MONTHS to respond to that city. How long do you think it would have taken to get them to surrender because we blew it up on an island? r even a military instituation?
No longer, now it wants to spread freedom. Where (apart from small incedents like Haiti, which I will oncede) do you think we just want our power?
first of all - that's not what I meant. What I meant was, that if class structure got to where you can't progress or degress, I'd rather live in anarchy.
Seocnd - these small groups of peopel represent the large groups of people. This is having people decide when others are causing hant them to the it - by electing people to represent them. It's just a little more concentrated, to subdue the anarchy that 32 million people tryihng to agree on all over the country would create. This is a good balance. And the last thing you were saying, it sounded like anarchism - having direct people decide what is harming them and stopping it -in anarchism or a modern direct democracy, people would start arguing immediatley and turn in on itself. We would be even MORE susceptible to outside harm.
Ancinet Greece.
But it was still de facto democratic.
August 6, 1945: Hiroshima is bombed by Little Boy.
August 9, 1945: Nagasaki is bombed by Fat Man.
September 14, 1945: The Japanese surrender.
September 15, 1945: V-J Day.
Rather than months, how about, like, one month?
Everywhere? All nations want to expand. German historian Fisher believes so. No nation wants to be weak. Duh!
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
Religion, weather you believe in it or not, is true. And as such, if the Bible says it, it's true.
Also God gave Eve to Adam. But I'm sure the feminists wouldn't like if you'd use that clause to justify women's disenfranchisement.
Also, the Bible was written by man; small anti-women statements were probably edited for the sake of maintiainging power.
I meant france today.
That's fascism. Conservatism argues that we need american-style power to keep the systme (comparativley) clean. We argue that corporations will rise and fall with the tide, there is little need for gov't intervention. They will soon fall. We aregye that we need the military to protect us, not to crush us. We argeue for individuality, not against it. The churhc provides morality. THe patriarchal family is the way kids are raised; as long as mothers are provided authority as well. And either way, conservatives argue against butting in on the family like this. There is natural law to consider. Power stems from three sources: God, People, and Natural Law.
greenpeace
Peacelord
In chaotic Anarchy without any formal structure, then there still is hierarchy (with the strong at the top). But wouldn't you rather not have people ruling over others, and just have people rule over themselves?Emperor2 said:
Why can't we have decentralization (which would allow direct democracy on the communal level)?
A little more specific, please (for those of us who haven't studied Ancient Greek History well enough).
edit:
What I'm about to say goes against one of my personal golden rules (never start religious debate), but how do you know religion is true, and why the Bible (as opposed to say, the Torah)?
Emperor2
Capitalist Missionary
People can't just rule over themselves. It would be great if they could, yes, but there are those out there that just want to rule over other peopel, and will do that, because there is a wide open hole. And then this will dissolve into fights, and rebellionsn and revolutions, and horrible systems of death and destruction with no force to intervene (police).
I support decentralization. Make it so that the government has less power over your personal life and over society (There are just a few exceptions). But decentarliztiong the government so much that you have thousands and thousands of little city states, in a day like today, would result in so much war, it'd be bloodier then Europe.
Athens. Brilliant ecnter of culture and learning, where slaves are worked 24/7 and only let off on religious holidays, where they are paid nothing to work at a factory, farm, or house, and then live ina kind of human kennel.
Blind Faith.
