Corran Horn wrote:AEgidius wrote:the way a market-centric individualits mind thinks of succes is economical succes and succes against the person next to. So if a country has to suck resources from an other country making their ppl more poor u still call it succes.
Examples plz?
the obvious examples are the colonial system that worked in the centuries 16-17-18 and even 19-20 (remember the Malvinas islands issue?)
Spain, Portugal in South Central America, England in the Entire World, France in Africa, etc. They not only sucked resources from the countries but they also killed, slaved and destroyed their culture. Look at Africa, a Continent full of resources and their ppl die like flies. And don't tell me is their fault because they were controled by foce during 400 years.
Now the Multinationals of the central world don't make colonies like in the old days. They are smarter. They buy the mines, put guns in the hands of 2 rival clans, let em kill each other while they are free to take the resources (diamonds for example) and fill their pokets at a very low cost. Well, in there is a country going back to the direct intervention aproach, the USA. They are proud of how they liberated themselfs from England but they are now the same thing they fought in the past.
AEgidius wrote: I consider myself a succesful person since I have a family that loves me and I study what I like (physics) but I don't expect to [make tons of money from it and I will never use a person next to me to fill my pokets. From your point of view I'm a looser but there are other ways to see the world my friends.
don't mix personal success with the success of a country. if you're happy that means your.e successful. i'd say the country is successful when ppl in it are successful. now, if ppl can't be successful somewhere, they're trying to move somewhere else. the fact is they move to countries offering more freedom. those are capitalist countries mostly. of course, sbdy can move to cuba (unless he's american and no journalist)
the freedom they can offer is the freedom they took from others. The economical "estability" of the world deppends on how good the central world can suck resources from this side of the world. Is not a coincidence that some countries are ppor and other rich. Is how the capitalism works.
btw: is there a country in the central world that take ppl as brothers and sisters? Do u get into the USA and they give the papers so u can work there as an america citizen? And what about Europe? do they take u as a brother and show u the city when u cross the see from from Africa?
The only example I know (and my info was updated in the 80s) is Australia.
I picture you, going down from a caravel in the coast of Brazil with a machingun in your hands and Ratzinger next to you yelling: evangelise them all!
that's me here:
lol
Sure, chavez is a monster. He is puting the money from the oil in South America instead of giving it away to the central world. Now most of the ppl in Venezuela that didn't have identity
no identity??? i'm sure you wanted to say something else here
Maybe is not the right word in english but I mean they didn't have a card with their name and date of birth on it. No record to vote, etc. Thats is right of every human being according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Did the previous governments in Venezuela even care about it? Of course not. They were too worried filling their own pokets as a compensation for giving away the oil to the big companies.
can vote and they can even read! ahhhh
He is an enemy of the free world! Let burn him alive and put an other puppet of the USA like the one in Colombia.
don't know the guy in colombia. also i don't like american puppets as they are now. they resemble soviet puppets too much (maybe not in their ideas but in the way they operate)
True. (wow we had a sentence in common). That being said....
You are a "pure" capitalit but this puppets feed the central world providing cheap resources for the machine of central world industry, etc. So your economy deppend on them.
A strong state doesn't mean a centralized state.
true. even more than that: the more centralized a state is, the weaker it is.
here we finally agree 100%
The USSR totally failed in that field and they let Stalin destroy all what was socialist in there. Thats is a lesson for the future socialist proyects. Put the government the closer to the ppl as posible as fast as u can.
leave the ppl alone!!!!! they know what's good for them!!!! any government "close to ppl" is a totalitarian monster.
very wrong. And South America will show the world other way
actually, socialism IS A RELIGION. it's based on faith in principles that have always everywhere failed, that not only cannot be proved, but can be easily disproved.
as a physicist you should understand this:
society and the economy works like water in a jar at a temperature of 0°C. it's always changing that way or the other (water: liquid to solid and solid to liquid) and nobody can anticipate the changes.
the only way to make it either ice or liquid water is to change the conditions (temperature, pressure). this is an external intervention. there's nothing water inside the jar can do 'bout it.
we are sitting inside this jar.
capitalism promoting individual freedom is the natural way of things in accordance with the way the whole system works. rich go bankrupt, poor achieve wealth, markets go up and down, unemployment is sometimes higher sometimes lower. we may like it or not, but that's just the way it is.
socialism is when some part of the water decides that it's good to be ice (or liquid, but let's say it's ice for the sake of the argument) and it's evil to be liquid. this is ok. they have right to do this and become ice.
but because they BELIEVE in this and because they're a good water molecules, wishing everybody the best, they want everyone else to be ice and, as they are skillful politicians, gain more and more power and start FORCING everyone to turn into ice.
as a physicist you know this attempt has to fail.
as a result that part that for some reasons woul'd like to be liquid becomes enslaved, as ther's no way outta the jar.
(there's more ideologies working like that, socialism is just one of them)
that's why the worst thing we have in this world is visas. you want to move somewhere, but either your country won't let you emigrate or the country you want to go to won't let you in. (think of a country as of a jar with water)
very good example of your ideas but economy laws are not nature laws.
You can find models for economy based in nature but it doesn't mean they will never change. Even our models of nature laws are changing all the time. Anyway, every complex human activity is related to our capacity to produce culture. We are not just following our instinct but giving a step ahead of it. Is true that we can not make a society totally opposed to our natural instincts but the world we have today is based ONLY in our natural individualism and that is not the only instinct we have. In nature you will find several models of social structure and they all work so the entire species previles (simple natural selection I think). We have the power to chose our model and Socialists work for a world where the entire comunity is responsable for the good of its members and not a world governed by the law of the strongest.
But of course the problem is that the strongest doesn't want the world to change because he gets the benefit from the current structure. Here some Socialist movements has chosen Revolutions by force like Russia, and Cuba is still there to tell the story. But others didn't chose the militar way. The best example is Allende in Chile and we all know how that story ended. He nationalized the mines and the industry and in Set 11 of 1973 we had an assasin (Pinochet) supported by the USA government taking over the democratically elected goverment and starting the darkest periods in chile history that soon extended to several other countries (like my country, Uruguay). But hey, that is how the world works so, it is ok, right Corran Horn?
They were, of course, mostly members of left-wing parties.
