This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Journeyman H. [UK]
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
61
« on: March 22, 2012, 08:19:09 AM »
Under Lenin's rule, Russia had a far better economy than America did. It had mass production and allowed a lot of jobs for the Russian people. Lenin was the only closest thing to communism, however it was still socialist.
bro, russia lost in the cold war because their economy couldn't keep up with the USA and keep on producing military equipment, as well as taking care of the economic needs of their country.
Neither China or Russia collapsed, they're still socialists today, they did not attempt to promote communism, for if that they did, the people would take the power away from the leaders.
Russia is democratic today actually. You call it socialism but there's still aspects of capitalism in every democratic society eg the fact pay-grades all vary while some people can make vast fortunes and others do not; so calling it socialism isn't correct.
Socialism / Communism was designed to allow people to have power, rather than rich people being allowed to have power. However, the only problem with this system is that it can easily be exploited through abusive leaders.
It proved that everyone can have the same standard of living except for the government who becomes corrupt. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone had good quality things.
One of the debates in the Cold War between USA and Soviet Russia was the fact that the USA would brag about their lavish kitchens and highly advanced washers in comparison to Russia, who used the argument that at least every single person in their state at least owned a washer.
I'm not going to read through an extra four pages of this nonsense because hardly any of you seem to fully understand what you're talking about. Every government spectrum is flawed, you can argue it one way or another, that doesn't mean communism/socialism is evil nor does it mean it's the ideal structure for every government in today's society.
I believe you misread what I said. I said under Lenin's rule. Therefore 1917-1924. Also, you've failed to understand that Russia was aiming to focus on self-sustaining, by using alternative methods, that's why they looked like they had an economic downfall. However socialism did not want to profit from everything. Russia did not really lose the cold war, in fact, America lost just as much resources and land from participating in the cold war. You took the whole term of "Socialism" the completely wrong way, socialism + communism is designed to give power to the people. Socialism =/= no democracy. The only problem with countries that claimed they were socialists were not, hence why it had "-ism" at the end of each leaders, because it was strictly not socialist or communist. Stalinism Maoism Leninism (Closest to being communist, rather than socialist) Marxism (Did not lead a country) Seeing as you believed Russia was poor, it was quite amusing that Russia managed to achieve higher standards of living than America did, especially before WWII. Especially as Russia has public medical care! The effects of World War II was a dark age for Russia, as their country was continuously bombed, and the surrounding areas were in poverty (Both Nazi invasions and Stalin's corrupt management of the country).
62
« on: March 21, 2012, 02:02:38 PM »
As long as we hold value to scarce resources there will be some form of exchange for these resources whether it is currency or bartering.
Right, but why? Oil is a scarce resource, but they profit from it, and people use it which pollutes the environment. What about rare materials that could be used in tools, *HIGH* quality components, or even simple things used in medicine. But if you only watch the machinery for an hour, and the machinery breaks an hour after you leave, then you need somebody to fix the machinery and since there is no money, nobody wants to fix the machinery because they don't NEED too. Money = Motivation because if there was no money, people would just cook their own food and look after themselves, because why help other people if you don't need too. Then the people who can't look after themselves go into poverty and most likely die.
Also, where do we get the machinery from? The ingredients for the machine to make things? People won't sell them because they could just make the machine themselves, and use the product as a sort of bargaining chip for other things that they want, basically re-inventing currency.
The problem is that people underestimate the current abilities that we, as man, can accomplish and can do right now. First, we have materials that heal itself, thus increasing the lifespan of any product for a very long time. Second, our ability to build machines that are designed to last a long time is also possible, however due to it not being profitable (the machine manufacturer won't get repeated customers), and in return, the manufacturers would make it so that machines that are "designed to last" have a higher price tag. Third, we have systems that can monitor the machines efficiency and predict how long components can last before they stop functioning, therefore the people who are responsible of repairing it would arrive at solving the problem, rather than spending hours assigning a skilled worker to fix it. Fourth, machines can replicate themselves and can "Print" components out, and it is also possible for a machine to be self repairing. If technology can solve the majority of our problems and if we can make an abundant of resources very quickly, and if we can create alternative materials, then there'd be no need to have money. Also, don't say "Money = motivation" because it simply is not. When humans were hunter-gatherers, did they print out money so they can reward people for labour? No, they shared resources. Money is not a motivator, it in fact causes a reverse. If you look at open source programs, they don't demand that you pay them for the products, they give you a donation box so they can keep the server running and spend it on software tools to improve on it. In fact, open source creates contribution. Wikipedia is the best example, people didn't demand that they get paid for creating/editing an article, they contributed, money played no factor of motivation. Money is never a cure to laziness. Look at the benefits system, I found that people who relied on benefits for income were a lot more lazy than the working people. People who volunteer to help in a charity (which normally means that they SPEND their money) to help people who are suffering without making a single dime from it, some even go as far as you paying your own money to fly to a country just to assist in building homes for poverty stricken areas. I will also repeat again; People who do repetitive jobs (Oh don't forget jobs that require you sitting at a desk all day) are more likely to suffer lack of motivation, because they would be mentally exhausted to do anything outside of work. Also, using my experience, I complete all of my assignment work in college and I dedicate my time in lesson helping 2 people throughout the entire lesson (maybe a day at college) just to help them and in return I just get a "Thanks" from the tutor and students, I didn't need money to motivate myself, I felt much better and had a lot more respect for myself just by being helpful rather than making money just to help someone. That also leads me to a new conclusion; People can easily be taught about the true values of things in life, just by using simply observation and understanding. I would recommend that you do some observation and also looking things at a bigger picture, you'll find that you will learn a lot. EDIT (late one too): If this is what you call motivation, then I feel sorry for how you've been educated to just earn money rather than pursue what you want to achieve in life. This shows a clear side effect that schools teach you to just work in an industry, and nothing more, not to have a goal in life, or what you want to achieve, just to serve as a wage slave and nothing more.
63
« on: March 20, 2012, 08:52:02 AM »
Money is a promise of payment for services in precious metals. What you suggest is unrealistic for the world we live in.
This entire argument is null and basically only an imaginary way of living.
Would you like to tell those people who had their jobs taken from them that a robot will now be doing their work?
Let's face it; Most of the repetitive jobs people have they don't enjoy it. Before you ask, yes I talk to people in real life about it. Money is only backed by the precious resources that a country has. If it does not have it, money is worth nothing. Ontop of that, the amount of money that is printed is ridiculous. Oh for the record, money = interest + debt. I'd like to see you prove me wrong about the idea, or provide a realistic solution to the problem that we actually face. If you fail to prove anything that I will consider your argument invalid.
64
« on: March 20, 2012, 08:44:54 AM »
Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Command and Conquer, Super Mario.
All of them on the PS1 and N64 and on the PC using MS-DOS, awesome days.
I still play Quake and Doom time to time on the PC. I suppose the Nostalgia is what made it amazing.
65
« on: March 19, 2012, 12:57:42 PM »
You should also know that the ugandan military kills there own people right? Also, we only know little about him, just getting from this Kony 2012 source isn't telling much about him, search up a kony bit more before you flame me.
I have to say, you don't seem to research information either in terms of subjects against your interest. Moving swiftly on, however, Kony2012 is just a pointless, one sided propaganda video. Uganda indeed does have oil reserves. The charity group "Invisible Children" seem to be donating money to a Ugandan military that has reports of; Child soldiers, rape, murder, and looting. Joseph Kony has left Uganda. What is the U.S. Military or Uganda going to do? Send their armies in foreign lands? No, they would not be allowed. To me, after checking around for sources of information, it seems that the majority agree to the fact that Invisible Children are a fraudulent charity and should be ignored and not be fed with useless donations that simply give them a profit from using propaganda.
66
« on: March 18, 2012, 03:03:34 PM »
 This gun, is the best gun ever. Fitted with a stock to allow you to aim your gun accurately, fitted with a fine barrel, with a grip to maximise accuracy, allowing you to suffer little to no recoil.
67
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:06:52 AM »
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Communist countries have the poorest population IN THE WORLD. The government suppresses their rights, especially to freedom of speech. And the people have no say whatsoever about what the government does. You are incredibly stupid.
Under Lenin's rule, Russia had a far better economy than America did. It had mass production and allowed a lot of jobs for the Russian people. Lenin was the only closest thing to communism, however it was still socialist.
Also please note that country being poor is irrelevant compared to purchasing power.
Stalin and Mao took the lands from people, they too were socialists, and they abused their power, especially Stalin. Putin also suppresses the people too.
So in all honesty, they are not really socialists in the first place. The only thing that was socialist was that the people were meant to get free health care, more purchasing power from labour workers, and more jobs, but obviously people call anything communist these days.
In the first few years when lenin in power it was better in a way, but the people exploited the system and became lazy, lacking of products and the trade. With capitalism you have more economic freedom, you trade your labor for money, even though yes back in the day it was worse, but it was more of corporatism state than capitalist. However with capitalism with some regulations it's easier for money to flow. In soviet Russia which they were to promote communism (which was socialism of course) did not give economic freedom and society was bound to collapse. That's why china was so worried that if they had not give economic freedom the socialist government of China would collapse not so far as the soviet union did. Also journeymen most governments of the west are democratic-republic, where law protects the people while the congress and the federal government does certain things and blah blah... so democracy somewhat exists.
Would you like to prove that? The exploit of the system, yes. Only the future leaders exploited that (i.e. Stalin), no one else. Neither China or Russia collapsed, they're still socialists today, they did not attempt to promote communism, for if that they did, the people would take the power away from the leaders. I will also tell you, that you don't get any more economic freedom with capitalism, well, you do if you have a lot of money, which 75% of the population in America does not. Sure, you're given the illusion that you have freedom but in reality, you don't. Also, in a capitalist society, you'll follow the free market system, which means you can make products outside the U.S that are in poverty (i.e. Africa, Taiwan) and pay workers that work at an equivalent of 10 - 50 cents, to make products that you purchase in your country. Hence why your economy looks good. Therefore, capitalism only works through exploitation of workers who are in poverty and need money to live. The term is called "Wage slavery". So I guess regulations should not count on the poor people who can only survive from 0 - $1 a day? If you really think there are regulations in a free market system that actually benefits the people, then you're wrong. Oh wait, yeah, minimum wage, unfortunately that does not get regulated outside their own country as well. Socialism / Communism was designed to allow people to have power, rather than rich people being allowed to have power. However, the only problem with this system is that it can easily be exploited through abusive leaders. However Vladimir Lenin has definitely proven that Socialism works far better than capitalism does. You're wrong as well when it came to "Laziness", Russia. Russia only mass produced when it is required, otherwise it was a wasteful to create massive amounts of goods that are not going to be used. So they controlled the amount of goods required to be made. The U.S, in the great depression had plenty of resources, food, oil, goods, that can be given to everyone, they mass produced all day, everyday but since no one had jobs due to; 1) No free higher education system, even though military spending is ridiculously high. 2) Growing technological unemployment, meaning that technology is doing jobs that we can do, but at a much more efficient rate. 3) Due to the crash (oh, funny, money problem, it's funny how you can "Run out of money") It meant they had no money to buy those goods, which stops money from circulating. Yeah, capitalism sure did work. Soviet Russia also didn't trade a lot due to 2 things: 1) They were practising self-sufficiency, therefore they want to create alternative materials that were effective, it saves money rather than travelling the other side of the world just to get simple materials, which technically means that they are advancing in terms of science and technology. 2) They had plenty of resources to produce what they need. Just because there was low foreign trade does not mean "lolpoorcountrythissystemfails" I still don't get the laziness part of Russia. Also, just because you can vote =/= democracy. Just means that you voted for a leader that can do whatever he/she wants to do during his time being a president/prime minister/leader.
68
« on: March 12, 2012, 12:54:58 PM »
Having faith and being in a religion is fine.
But taking it to the point where religion rules your life and everyone around you, is detrimental.
69
« on: March 10, 2012, 10:20:47 AM »
wut? Russian's GNP rose drastically after communism was dismantled, not to mention how much better off the Russian people were. Look a China, their communist, would you like to live in China? Fat chance.
1) It was not communism. It was socialism. 2) When Vladimir Lenin got into power, the Russians achieved a higher lifespan than America, this means that the standards of living was higher, and they have free access to medical care. 3) China's socialism used Maoism. Different from Stalinism and Leninism. I can tell that you don't understand a lot about communism. Since you're blindly using that word on countries like China and Russia, your term should be Socialism. The country may seem to be poor, but in fact, it's spending the money that would benefit people. America may seem rich, but they're making money from the people and spending it on resources from the outside. However not allowing the people to benefit from it. Socialism in Russia definitely worked before WWII. However the only flaw was that when you have people in power, who abuse it, they can easily take advantage of it. Under Lenin's power, he was dismantling the Russian Empire. As you should know already, an empire uses the wealth of conquered lands to make the homeland richer. Obviously, Lenin was against any forms of exploitation of workers / countryman. Hence why Russia got poor, and it struggled even further because they made a Union with countries that are in poverty, so distributing the wealth amongst the union would prove itself to be difficult. However, even though Russia was seen as a poor country, it maintained higher standards of living than America would have potentially achieved.
70
« on: March 09, 2012, 03:35:43 PM »
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Communist countries have the poorest population IN THE WORLD. The government suppresses their rights, especially to freedom of speech. And the people have no say whatsoever about what the government does. You are incredibly stupid.
Under Lenin's rule, Russia had a far better economy than America did. It had mass production and allowed a lot of jobs for the Russian people. Lenin was the only closest thing to communism, however it was still socialist. Also please note that country being poor is irrelevant compared to purchasing power. Stalin and Mao took the lands from people, they too were socialists, and they abused their power, especially Stalin. Putin also suppresses the people too. So in all honesty, they are not really socialists in the first place. The only thing that was socialist was that the people were meant to get free health care, more purchasing power from labour workers, and more jobs, but obviously people call anything communist these days.
71
« on: March 08, 2012, 10:58:02 AM »
Unless democracy is considered capitalism then no capitalism isn't being forced upon me, even if it was in democracy at least there is some extent to actually vote for a party you think will bring good
What "Democracy"? Did you vote for any wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya? Because I sure didn't want us to go to war. Did you get a chance to vote about any new bills? I.e. SOPA. Did you get to have your say in what should be done to improve your country? I didn't. I see no more democracy in our system than socialist countries. What you're forgetting about the idea of capitalism, is that, money is the only form of democracy. So pretty much, privatising everything, allowing big corporations to (unfairly) compete with small businesses. Example: 1. You own a family business, and a big supermarket came along and built their store next to you, they cut their prices way below the amount you can sell. Would you consider that fair? 2. You are poor, you cannot afford medical care. You catch a disease. The hospital demands that you pay them to be healthier. Would you consider that fair? Under the rule of Vladimer Lenin; Everyone's lifespan increased a lot. There were a lot less people with diseases. Unemployment was very low, especially compared to America. It was a crime for corporations to take advantage of poor people (i.e. purposely making them paid minimum wage) Everyone's standard of living was increased. This was even after WWI, where a lot of countries went into debt as well. I think that communism has done a lot more than what capitalism has ever done. The key to capitalism is taking advantage of something and then making a profit from it. With the current system that we are in, is that, you vote for the leader of the country. That's it. I have never got a chance to vote for anything else, just the candidate. This then gives you the illusion of democracy. You think that you voted for a leader therefore it makes the country democratic.
72
« on: March 07, 2012, 08:06:15 PM »
The argument that communism is unreasonable because it acts upon cooperation and the good will of people wreaks of naïvete.
I thought it was forced? Im not trying to be stuck up but thats what I was taught, forcing people to be peaceful.
For the millionth time I agree that if we could be peaceful 'n shit, then it would work.
But forcing someone to do something normally results in the opposite.
To be honest, capitalism is forced on you, but why don't you complain? You can't, because the school educates you to take advantage of someone else. Or much rather, do business with other people, as they will put it lightly.
73
« on: March 06, 2012, 01:24:22 PM »
I'm not trying to say communism is wrong; i'm trying to say that I think it won't work, because forcing peace on people will naturally cause some to rebel
How do you know? Communism has not actually been implemented. Don't refer me to countries like Soviet Russia with leaders like Stalin. Government exists in the so called "Communist" Russia/China/Korea. 2 things that are required for it to be "Truly communist" Removing the money system, distributing resources to the people, which increases their standards of living. Remove a political system and not have a single person running it but keeping people united. I will mention, that I don't advocate communism, but I definitely find that a system using politics and money is outdated. We need to stop people just using opinions and use technology and scientific methods to solve our problems. Also read this, Krisrules. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/wuis-hnc090811.phpHumans are social primates. Not solitary. Therefore we would be peaceful and cooperative. This indicates that we've been educated into being aggressive, be it our culture, or to what we are exposed.
75
« on: March 06, 2012, 10:24:33 AM »
i was told communism = everyone is equal
everyone can't be equal, there is no order
which is why I believe communism fails
Not really.
There is to much elitism and corruption in humanity's heart to allow for communism to work so unless you change Humanity you cannot have a fully working Communist Economy.
Why should a barrister and a convicted criminal be equal?
Why should a student who's studied for 6 years and gotten x amount of qualifications, be equal with a junkie who's been mugging for his wages his whole life
Why do people like you resort to exaggeration? A far more intelligent question to ask before we should answer your question.
Whats wrong with exaggeration? By exaggerating I make my point more clearer, making it easier to get feedback, and try to understand others points. Which Juggernaut has done.
Placing 2 extremes does not make your point clearer. It just makes you look like that you are desperate to prove that communism fails. What you forgot though, there is equal opportunities. Communism advocates financial equality and equal opportunities. However the system of communism has not been done, it's always theoretical. Like Nikolai said, natives used ideals that are deemed communist by us. However what was important about how the natives dealt with 'Politics' was that they did not label ideologies. They understood if an idea worked. They will implement it.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
|
Garry's Mod
Show Posts