Capitalism starved as many people as Mao and Stalin combined. NOT PN by SignyM

Geezer

What Frem said.

Also, Glad you didn't intend that. If you review the thread, you can see how from the context it looks like you are trying to rationalize the actions of the jackboots.

I know Orwell say avoid the term, but when people purposefully dehumanize themselves to become it, they have earned it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:14 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes Geezer, it was only two. Please go back and re-read your own posts.

I have. Seems like quite a bit more than two to me. Matter of opinion, I guess.

Quote:
Also, how is beating up and macing people peacefully sitting in a park an appropriate response* to looting?

For the manyth time, quote me anywhere I said beating up people in the park was an appropriate response to looting. My only point was that if you're gonna criticize violence, you should criticize all of it, not just one side's.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seems like quite a bit more than two to me

Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you review the thread, you can see how from the context it looks like you are trying to rationalize the actions of the jackboots.

Actually, I can't. Perhaps you attribute to me motives I didn't have, which makes you prone to see it that way.

Quote:
I know Orwell say avoid the term, but when people purposefully dehumanize themselves to become it, they have earned it.

I might also note that when you use terms like "the jackboots", you are dehumanizing a group of people as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 3:49 AM

Just saw this. It has to be more than Mao and Stalin, doesn't it? Some form of tradesmen-economy and mercantilism has existed since civilization stared, and I presume is also a reason for a large number of the historical wars if you consider the production of goods synonymous with available resources for the taking.

There's nothing wrong with a trade-based economy, really, peaceful traders have existed in the past (sometimes with enough political clout they didn't get plowed over, sometimes not). It's the easiest system to implement. An economy that emphasizes greed and power-consolidation above all else, however, is unstable and ultimately unsustainable. It's these kind of economies that go to war with others, because they have to constantly grow, or collapse, because they lack a proper sustainable foundation. Power consolidation problems exist with socialist or communist societies as much as it can with capitalist or any other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:38 AM

DMAANLILEILTT

but a large collective of individuals cant agree on the best course of action to take

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:59 AM

Geezer

nah, look again. You should be able to see it. I can see where this is not what you meant, but you should see where I got that impression. You were providing rationale for the jackboots.

Also, I said jackboots willingly become jackboots by dehumanizing themselves... intentionally... so I am not dehumanizing them.

Byte,

Not all societies have the same centralization risk. This one was best protected against it, which is why it took TPTB 200 years, and it only took them 5 years to convert Nazi Germany into a radical humanitarian disaster.

"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

Anyway, yes there was something new in trade policy, an international commodities exchange which created speculation that raised prices during that time. I am just not convinced that famine was the result of that, or that a statistically abnormal worldwide famine took place at all during the time period stated, let along that it would have killed more than stalin and mao, which means 130 million.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 5:24 AM

Quote:
"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

Hmm, maybe. I still hold that you really can get this happening with both versions. Especially if the competition is just something played by the peons for the benefit of the people with the power consolidation.

I'd argue that modern Japan is fairly competitive among their population, yet culturally they believe in the collective over an individual. Though you might disagree; just last year their social liberal (socialist) party took the majority in their parliament.

Our nation was protected against power consolidation, even though the Federalists were trying to push for it at every turn? I don't think it's taken 200 years. I think this has been here from the very beginning, why else was it only the male landowners able to vote in the beginning? It's gotten worse, yeah, but this has always been an aspect of our society.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 5:43 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

"A society based on cooperation rather than competition, the collective rather than the indivudal" is more prone.

A rather radical statement given that no society has ever been based solely on cooperation or competition.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
tradesmen-economy and mercantilism

Production and trade has existed since time immemorial, but that is not capitalism. You are making a classic mistake of attributing too many things to capitalism. Obviously a product of capitalist propaganda and lack of critical thinking.

Quote:
Our nation was protected against power consolidation, even though the Federalists were trying to push for it at every turn? I don't think it's taken 200 years. I think this has been here from the very beginning, why else was it only the male landowners able to vote in the beginning? It's gotten worse, yeah, but this has always been an aspect of our society.

It's been an aspect of EVERY society. Power concentrates. Money concentrates. It behaves like gravity: The more there is, the more there is.

And integration over more and more people ALSO seems to be a fundamental trend. Greater division of labor leads to more technology. That ALSO behaves like gravity: The more there is, the more there is.

It's not necessarily stable, but historically the only events which have taken down rapidly aggregating power are (1) natural disaster (2) invasion or rebellion (3) internal disaster (revolution) and (4) emigration. Would be nice if we could make THIS one take soft landing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seems like quite a bit more than two to me- Geezer

Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.-Signy

Just a reminder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 7:42 AM

KANEMAN

Let's not have capitalism at all....let us all grow our own food...oops what a second I live in New England. I need to buy from Florida, California, New Jersey, etc.... You fucking morons that don't like Capitalism are free to get out of the system and live in the fucking woods...leave the rest of us alone. Where would Africa or any other place on earth be without the goods and services of other countries that produce and sell or donate goods(America)? It can only be done through capitalism...Fuck you socialist. Grow me some lettuce and I'll trade you a fish....fuck you.

”Niki--condescending arrogant fat old bi-polar hag....You are an asshole...one does not need a sockpuppet to tell you to fuck off" ...sayeth Kane

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 7:53 AM

Ehm, I'm not sure that's all the possible causes of collapse. I mean, yeah, the Huns invaded the Roman Empire, but the cause of the collapse wasn't the invasion, it's because they'd expanded too large to manage and the labour and coin base holding it all up had eroded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 10:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Really? Then you will no doubt post them here.

A few more than two, just to prove that point. If folks want to see the whole thing, including cites, they can start about halfway down this thread. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42912

So, as noted before, there's Sukarno of Indonesia, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII, who put large numbers of his countrymen into forced labor for the Japanese, and wrote a constitution which pretty much insured he'd be able to rule by decree as long as he wanted.

Bosch in the Dominican Republic was overthrown by a revolution, staged his own revolution, has peace imposed by the U.S. and lost every succeding election.

Arosemana of Ecuador was such a drunk and skirt chaser that his own army turned him out, proclaiming that it was their duty to save the country from the "abyss of dissolution and anarchy" into which Arosemena was leading it.

Torres of Bolivia, was handed the presidency by the previous dictator, Alfredo Ovando, who gained the post in a coup.

Whitlam, PM of Australia, was booted for trying to force chenges the majority of the government didn't want, causing a constitutional crisis. He stated in his autobiography that there was no outside influence in his removal.

Bosch of the Dominican Republic again. After the election of 1965, Bosch foments a evolution against the winner of the election, Joaquin Balaguer.

The Sandanista's "Free and Fair" election of 1984, which occurred during a Sandinista-imposed "State of Emergency" which limited or banned freedom of speech and assembly, security in one's home, freedom of the press and freedom to strike.

Laos, where the Russian-backed Pathet Lao was in rebellion against the constitutional monarchy with NVA regulars acting as cadre and later supplying whole tank divisions.

Oh, and the Red Guard cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution in China.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 11:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

And SignyM, I'm still waiting for you to explain the disconnect between your posting of threads like the current one or this one http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43640 in light of the fact that you do the same stuff you rant about these folks doing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:12 PM

Byte,

The party running on the left is not always a left wing party. Japan is pretty right wing. If I recall, the Democrats won the election, not Socialists. Correct me if I'm wrong. Socialists are not ashamed of being socialist, they're proud of it, so they tend to put socialist in the name. I never label people socialist who have not called themselves socialists. Hence, I never call Obama a socialist. That, and it would be inaccurate. FDR and Hoover both said that they were socialists or socialists leaning, but neither of them were members of a Socialist party, so that's a grey area.

In Iran, for example, the left wing party is called Reform. They're kind of like our republicans, only probably less socialist ;)

Citizen,

It was a quote, hence the quotation marks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 4:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Government_and_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Quote:
Japan's legislative organ is the National Diet, a bicameral parliament. The Diet consists of a House of Representatives, containing 480 seats, elected by popular vote every four years or when dissolved and a House of Councillors of 242 seats, whose popularly elected members serve six-year terms. There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age,[10] with a secret ballot for all elective offices.[43] In 2009, the social liberal Democratic Party of Japan took power after 54 years of the liberal conservative Liberal Democratic Party's rule.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 6, 2010 8:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer: busy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 2:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: busy.

No rush. Got shopping to do today myself.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 3:32 AM