So, you think the failure of the communist system in the late Soviet Union is nothing more than a feeble anecdote? I will tell you this: any country that does away with most or all free markets will quickly degenerate into dictatorship. I present these examples: Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Ethiopia, Burma, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechsolovakia, Poland. If you think this list of 16 examples is anecdotal, can you present at least one example of a country that abolished markets without becoming a dictatorship?
1. Mere correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship. Therefore, your anecdotal 'evidence' of correlation doesn't prove anything. It might be suggestive, but that is all it is. Try giving stronger evidence, and EXPLANATION.
2. If you read Marxist philosophy you will find that Marx did not expect communist states to emerge until those states had underwent full blown industrialist capitalism. Instead, all of the countries on your list were nations with backward feudalistic economies prior to their Communist revolutions. For Communism to have worked, they needed to have been fully capitalist/industrial states in the first place- and you'll note that individuals like Stalin tried their damnedest to industrialize their nations
3.Furthermore, these nations had communist revolutions because the people responded to the promises of revolutionaries, and/or because they were afraid of violent reprecussions for opposing them. All of these revolutions were led by power hungry (if idealistic) individuals, who after winning their revolution, set up dictatorships. None of your list of nations peacefully set up democratic communist states which fell into despotism.
4. You will notice that all of these nations have been at one time or another opposed by the Western capitalist powers. If we are going to credit Reagan with having helped along the downfall of communism, then you can't deny this point. All of these nations had to divert significant amounts of their budget to their military efforts
5. Several of these nations (Poland, Czechsolovakia, etc) were all in the Soviet sphere, and therefore we cannot expect them to have ever had a reasonable chance of having a democratic government.
Despotic governments and corporations share at least one thing in common: they are not for or by the people- they make no attempt to represent the interests of the citizenry. There is another thing which they both share: power. In the absence of government controls on corporations (and that means business), then corporate power has no checks, and abuses of that power cannot be addressed adequately (at least until after they occur). A democratic state has one advantage: it is controlled by the body politic, and therefore is the citizens main recourse to defending their rights.
The libertarian position is self-contradictory, tremendously naive.
One last note: most of Europe is socialist in many ways and democratic- in fact more democratic than the US (need we remind you that the Lib candidate hasn't a chance in hell?). The theory behind their states is that one of the state's responsibilities is not simply to protect citizen's rights, but their welfare as well. If the government is for and by the people, then it seems contradictory to say that the people should not use that government to secure the interests and welfare of the people- an individual should look after them, a corp. does too, an association does, and so on.
Money is not the only incentive people work for- or innovate for- also for social prestige, which is not just your wallet. Furthermore, he wasn't saying an income cap for corporations, but for individuals. Corporations do most of the innovation anyway.
Since when is consciousness important in this regard? Individuals suffering various kinds of brain damage are no longer conscious, but justification for terminating their lives seem less compelling.
To tell you the truth, I'm not certain that its terribly important what the founding father's thought. It is basically irrelevant, except that one might respect their opinions. It certainly wasn't right that the founding father's counted blacks as 3/5 of a person in the constitution.
I've a question for me: I have a whole bunch of data on an old laptop hard-drive and I don't know how to transfer it over to my PC's hard-drive. The laptop is totally inoperable, so I'd have to work with just the laptop's hard-drive itself. Any suggestions?
Not all communities get their streets or sidewalks adequately cleared of ice (snow's one thing, but remelted ice is damn scary) to bicycle safely---unless it was a trike.
Actually, I really doubt that too many congressmen are going to try to over-regulate. Its a budding industry, will create jobs, improve the prestige of america- for free. It will legitimize downsizing the budget of NASA which liberals would love to do (I'm a liberal, but I disagree strongly with the liberal preoccupation with being anti-space and anti-nuclear).
However, you know, these private ventures have yet to build a vehicle that can go up to the MIR...or even achieve a stable orbit. There's a long way to go before real space (not technical space).
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to write his name in...if I don't vote Green.
I had never heard of ResearchChannel. Thank you!
I nominate Angel Lips from The Adventures of Ruby
Space.com has an article on this, and has an interesting view. The article can be found here.
yeah, and populations go through declines with extinctions all the time. populations often fluctuate
So, you think the failure of the communist system in the late Soviet Union is nothing more than a feeble anecdote? I will tell you this: any country that does away with most or all free markets will quickly degenerate into dictatorship. I present these examples: Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Ethiopia, Burma, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechsolovakia, Poland. If you think this list of 16 examples is anecdotal, can you present at least one example of a country that abolished markets without becoming a dictatorship?
1. Mere correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship. Therefore, your anecdotal 'evidence' of correlation doesn't prove anything. It might be suggestive, but that is all it is. Try giving stronger evidence, and EXPLANATION.
2. If you read Marxist philosophy you will find that Marx did not expect communist states to emerge until those states had underwent full blown industrialist capitalism. Instead, all of the countries on your list were nations with backward feudalistic economies prior to their Communist revolutions. For Communism to have worked, they needed to have been fully capitalist/industrial states in the first place- and you'll note that individuals like Stalin tried their damnedest to industrialize their nations
3.Furthermore, these nations had communist revolutions because the people responded to the promises of revolutionaries, and/or because they were afraid of violent reprecussions for opposing them. All of these revolutions were led by power hungry (if idealistic) individuals, who after winning their revolution, set up dictatorships. None of your list of nations peacefully set up democratic communist states which fell into despotism.
4. You will notice that all of these nations have been at one time or another opposed by the Western capitalist powers. If we are going to credit Reagan with having helped along the downfall of communism, then you can't deny this point. All of these nations had to divert significant amounts of their budget to their military efforts
5. Several of these nations (Poland, Czechsolovakia, etc) were all in the Soviet sphere, and therefore we cannot expect them to have ever had a reasonable chance of having a democratic government.
Despotic governments and corporations share at least one thing in common: they are not for or by the people- they make no attempt to represent the interests of the citizenry. There is another thing which they both share: power. In the absence of government controls on corporations (and that means business), then corporate power has no checks, and abuses of that power cannot be addressed adequately (at least until after they occur). A democratic state has one advantage: it is controlled by the body politic, and therefore is the citizens main recourse to defending their rights.
The libertarian position is self-contradictory, tremendously naive.
One last note: most of Europe is socialist in many ways and democratic- in fact more democratic than the US (need we remind you that the Lib candidate hasn't a chance in hell?). The theory behind their states is that one of the state's responsibilities is not simply to protect citizen's rights, but their welfare as well. If the government is for and by the people, then it seems contradictory to say that the people should not use that government to secure the interests and welfare of the people- an individual should look after them, a corp. does too, an association does, and so on.
/. sinks to a new low!
*Crash!*
Note from Microsoft: Please download and install our new Windows 2010 Update.
a message from your friendly Microsoft Impersonator
I wonder how many politicians participate in /. and how many are lurkers?
I recall that China plans to go massively nuclear- I bet that this will help immensely...though maybe not for auto pollution. China goes Nuclear
In your opinion, why have your books increased in length?
Thanks. I had forgot to mention that my old computer was running Win 98, and I'm on XP Pro now.
Yes, and i think we should be required to have passports to get on Indian land- if the tribal government required it.
Money is not the only incentive people work for- or innovate for- also for social prestige, which is not just your wallet. Furthermore, he wasn't saying an income cap for corporations, but for individuals. Corporations do most of the innovation anyway.
Yeah, the Democrats waste it on Democrats, and the Republicans waste it on Republicans...and Iraq.
Since when is consciousness important in this regard? Individuals suffering various kinds of brain damage are no longer conscious, but justification for terminating their lives seem less compelling.
To tell you the truth, I'm not certain that its terribly important what the founding father's thought. It is basically irrelevant, except that one might respect their opinions. It certainly wasn't right that the founding father's counted blacks as 3/5 of a person in the constitution.
I've a question for me: I have a whole bunch of data on an old laptop hard-drive and I don't know how to transfer it over to my PC's hard-drive. The laptop is totally inoperable, so I'd have to work with just the laptop's hard-drive itself. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Not all communities get their streets or sidewalks adequately cleared of ice (snow's one thing, but remelted ice is damn scary) to bicycle safely---unless it was a trike.
Very interesting. Where did you get your information though?
However, you know, these private ventures have yet to build a vehicle that can go up to the MIR...or even achieve a stable orbit. There's a long way to go before real space (not technical space).
Not true. Because then you have to bribe the anti-bribery officials.
If You Wanna Be Happy
Jimmy Soul If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
Well, I for one, welcome our new ugly gene overlords.