Civil Unrest in France, What Gives?



stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
ptlwp said:
If America didn't come to the aid Europe and Asia, I can assure you that you'd (anyone who would have survived), would be eating a lot of bratwurst or sushi!!!!

How can you tell who is in the French Army? They are the ones who are standing with hands up!!!

eh, rather like that one....
Napoleon's Grande Armee?The Foreign Legion?WWl?Paras in vietnam?Korea?
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
Colorado Ryder said:
In the 30's the US was concerned with Japanese expansion in Asia. Which is why the US put an embargo on oil and scrap iron exports to Japan. The embargo is what led Japan to believe that they had to defeat the US in order to secure adequate resources. Stevebaby's argument that the Pacific war was over East Indian oil is pure rubbish. The US produced all of its own oil supply in the 1940's.
Stevebaby must be reading a different history book. The one that leaves out Nanking, the enslavement of Korea, the invasion of Manchuria.
You should read what I actually said before you post.I believe that I actually said the war was over "the china market and the oil from the dutch indies."I never implied that the us was after the oil from the east indies.They just didn't want the japanese to buy it from the dutch.As japan has no oil of its own,this would have crippled them economically.
You are correct in stating that the us (and britain,france,germany etc.) were concerned about japanese expansion in asia.The main prize in asia was and is china.The us and other european powers maintained a military presence in china at this time,against the wishes of the chinese government.It was their own presence,as invaders,that they wished to protect.As every country in asia was "owned "by one of the western powers or another,they also did not want the example of an independant asian country able to take on the west either economically or militarily.The japanese themselves were quite perplexed at western condemnation of their actions,as they believed that they were only following the western example.
I'm certainly not defending japanese militarism.What I am doing is pointing out that noone involved in the pacific oil war had clean hands.It should also be remembered that the winners write the history and that history does not include the war crimes committed by allied troops or the role of the us in exonerating hirohito of the crimes committed with his knowledge.
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
4
0
davidmc said:
Invading country's for countless UN Sec. Concil Violations is justified. Was it ever determined how many Iraqi youth perished due to the 13 yr embargo all the while SH dining on scampi :confused: Granted it was only costing the american/european tax-payers $2 billion u.s./yr.; a small price compared to the current $2 billion u.s./month. At 1st I thought it was the best course until it was determined that the price tag would be in the 100's 0f billions. If democracy is achieved, parlimentary or otherwise could it be said to be a "net gain" for the region in light of further military expenditures in the future due to inaction :confused: Ideally, it might have been a better idea to partition Iraq into three seperate entities from its inception. Nigeria suffers from this arbitrary national boundary drawn out w/o consideration of tibal/religious differences. Iraq may very well devolve as the former Yugoslavia did.
It would make sense to divide iraq into 3 regions based on their common religions and cultures.Unfortunately,the part with the oil is also the part with the shiite muslims.The us would never allow it,regardless of what the locals want.
What the us wants is exactly what they had before saddam got too big for his boots.A puppet government favourable to the us.I saw rummy asked about the possibility of a shiite government,not impossible considering they form a majority.He laughed and said the us wouldn't allow that to happen.So the iraquis can have "democracy",but only the kind that the us allows them to have.


mercantilsm is a dynamic process forever needing new markets to, how shall i say, exploit. Trade is not all bad. England, Spain,Portugal, & the Dutch benfitted immensely.
:rolleyes:
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
James Bruce Gil said:
Limerick,

I think you may have misinterpreted what Huskey was saying.

Like you, I believe that it is all of our responsibility to care for the less fortunate families, by support through a social security system. I am sure Huskey believes the same. It is just to the extent to which he should have to contribute to that support.

Every western society has a system where the individual contributes to their capacity and is taxed on their income. A couple of years back, I had a substantial portion of income being taxed at 63 cents in the dollar. It was too much, so I simply reduced my working time so that I did not exceed that threshold for 48% tax.

The communist countries have nearly all discovered that eventually taxation can get to the stage where all incentive is lost by those with the greater capacity to contribute. When this occurs it is just a matter of time before the economic downward spiral starts for obvious reasons.

Like Huskey, I don't believe I should bust my gut so that I can give more than half of it to a government to squander on weapons for some far away war.

Kind regards

OK - I see the point that you (and JH) are making.

I have to say that I am happy to pay my taxes because I know that a percentage of it does got to people without (some of our tax is also absorbed by a wasteful goverment - but this is a different issue).

I can empathise with the point about taxation being too high.
But when tax is high - it is normally a situation where goverment are squandering money and not spending it where it is needed.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
One of the problems communism has to solve is motivation, as you point out. Actually, Stalin solved that problem in an unethical way which is why, for a certain period, the USSR economy was overtaking the U.S.A. during the Stalin period.
The communist elite of the USSR (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Lenin e.t.c.) fully understood this problem of worker motivation. Stalin resorted to terror to motivate the workers. Therefore, a factory that didn't produce sufficient military components could run the risk of accusations of being involved in sabotage e.t.c.
Under Stalin the system worked but, as we know, at a huge cost of human rights abuses and state terror.
Myself, I see no reason why workers can't be motivated by some kind of profit under a communist system. Maybe this would be some kind of level, shared profit amongst all the workers. One thing I do know, however, is that the kind of greed and corruption you see in the U.S. hasn't led to any realisation of the American dream. And having been in the USSR, I was struck by the fact that people were more educated than is the case in the U.S. and many parts of Europe. So, something had to be working, I guess.


wolfix said:
Lets examine this ...... Let's take that communistic hike. And for the fun of it, lets hike the Ho Ching Ming Trail. Ok, so we share. Sounds great. Human nature is the base problem with communism. I want more then you. And maybe I should get more then you because I am larger and I carry a bigger pack ..... So I take more. Then we come to a fork in the trail ...... I want to go this way. You want to go that way. The rest of the group do not know which way to go. If they go with capitolistic me , they know that once they get to the end, they can have the things they want if they work har enough. If they go with you and your cat, they know that when they get to the end, they will have to go to work , and do more work then their fair share, because of the 2 guys in the back who insist on more Snickers bars that will not pull their own weight.

I offer them rewards for their motivation. You offer them ...What? The warm fuzzy feeling of helping the unmotivated?

Communism punishes the motivated individuals. And the truth is, the motivated individuals are the ones who create a better society.

Of course I have noticed that communism is usually enforced with a large military.

"Virtually all war is motivated by capitalist greed for material gain." When the Russian tanks rolled over Afghanistan in the late 70's it was because 2 capitolistic countries were going at it?

Our prisons are full because of the lack of proper values. The welfare system of this country is what has caused the defeatism of individuals. And it is this defeatism that has filled the prisons. Our system has rewarded bad behavior since the mid 60's.

Carrera. .... I think I have seen you post the fact you have a nice bike. Unless you are a trust fund baby, you were motivated to work for it.
Would you want to share it??? Would you want to let everyone ride it?
And you have a education and have studied in many places. {I think I have that right.} Somewhere along the way you worked extra hard for these privledges. Why?
The key to social justice is to provide jobs for everyone.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
In order to attain goals, one needs a system, correct? Myself I believe in having a logical system and a plan.
The U.S. economy has no plan. It's basically at the mercy of global market forces. Increasingly Americans are turning to religion so ask yourself how things will be in 20 years time.
Bear in mind that before Lenin overthrew the Tsars, Russia was an incredibly backward country with a massive peasant population. In fact, it wasn't really much more advanced than Middle Eastern countries today.
After Lenin, Russia became electrified and began to build a solid economic foundation. It overtook every other European country (on a massive basis militarily). Education and health care was better than you would find in the U.S.A.
The problem was corruption set in and Gorbachev failed to reform the system so it could adapt to the modern world.
Since the fall of communism/socialism, people are increasingly turning to religion. If capitalism is so wonderful, how come so many people are burying their head in the sand?


limerickman said:
Communism can't possible work, carrera because of the human element.
Look at the old Soviet setup, it became totalitarian essentially.

Democracy isn't perfect but I know which system I prefer to live under.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
In order to attain goals, one needs a system, correct? Myself I believe in having a logical system and a plan.
The U.S. economy has no plan. It's basically at the mercy of global market forces. Increasingly Americans are turning to religion so ask yourself how things will be in 20 years time.
Bear in mind that before Lenin overthrew the Tsars, Russia was an incredibly backward country with a massive peasant population. In fact, it wasn't really much more advanced than Middle Eastern countries today.
After Lenin, Russia became electrified and began to build a solid economic foundation. It overtook every other European country (on a massive basis militarily). Education and health care was better than you would find in the U.S.A.
The problem was corruption set in and Gorbachev failed to reform the system so it could adapt to the modern world.
Since the fall of communism/socialism, people are increasingly turning to religion. If capitalism is so wonderful, how come so many people are burying their head in the sand?

You're trying to equate religion to a political ideology : which is illogical.
The fact of the matter is that the USA was always a religious state : they have the highest number of attendees going to worship in the western world.
To try to suggest that popularity of religion is tied in to their economic health is balderdash.

You also make a mistake in your use of titles : Capitalism is an economic system.
Communism is a political system.
The correct terminology is Capitalism vis-a-vis Market System.

You should be comapring Communism to Democracy (and not capitalism).
You're comparing apples and pears otherwise.
 

Colorado Ryder

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,245
0
0
stevebaby said:
They just didn't want the japanese to buy it from the dutch.As japan has no oil of its own,this would have crippled them economically.
The Japanese had no intention of "buying" the oil. They intended to and did take the oil. The were "forced" to this action when the US put an embargo on oil exports to Japan.

stevebaby said:
You should read what I actually said before you post.I believe that I actually said the war was over "the china market and the oil from the dutch indies."
The China Market in the 1930's? You have got to be kidding. 1930's China was rural and poor. There was no market. If the US was concerned about the "China market" why did the US wait till they were attacked to fight Japan? If the "China market" of the 1930's was so good the US would have responded to Japan's 1931 invasion.

stevebaby said:
The us and other european powers maintained a military presence in china at this time,against the wishes of the chinese government.It was their own presence,as invaders,that they wished to protect.As every country in asia was "owned "by one of the western powers or another,they also did not want the example of an independant asian country able to take on the west either economically or militarily.
What presence did the US have in China in the 1930's?

stevebaby said:
I'm certainly not defending japanese militarism.What I am doing is pointing out that noone involved in the pacific oil war had clean hands.
The pacific war wasn't fought over oil. It was fought over Japanese expansion. You know when they invaded China, Manchuria, Korea, Thailand, Burma, India, Indochina, Phillipines, Singapore, Indonesia, United States.

stevebaby said:
or the role of the us in exonerating hirohito of the crimes committed with his knowledge.
Exonerating Hirohito? The US basically dictated the surrender terms to the Japanese. What would have been the benefit of trying Hirohito for war crimes? He was basically a figurehead. The military really ran Japanese affairs.
To state otherwise would show a lack of understanding of Japanese society in the 1930's and 40's.

stevebaby said:
What I am doing is pointing out that noone involved in the pacific oil war had clean hands.It should also be remembered that the winners write the history.
Maybe you should point out the US basically re-built Japan after the war. A war that the Japanese started.
 

Colorado Ryder

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,245
0
0
Carrera said:
In order to attain goals, one needs a system, correct? Myself I believe in having a logical system and a plan.
The U.S. economy has no plan. It's basically at the mercy of global market forces.
Therein lies the beauty of the capitalistic system. A capitalistic economy can respond to changes in market forces.
 

Colorado Ryder

New Member
Mar 17, 2005
1,245
0
0
limerickman said:
You also make a mistake in your use of titles : Capitalism is an economic system.
Communism is a political system.
The correct terminology is Capitalism vis-a-vis Market System.
I understand what you're trying to say here. But Communism is inherently an economic system. When the state owns all property and controls production it can't help but become a economic system.

Democracy empowers the individual to seek success, while communism empowers the state to seek an individuals success.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Colorado Ryder said:
I understand what you're trying to say here. But Communism is inherently an economic system. When the state owns all property and controls production it can't help but become a economic system.

Democracy empowers the individual to seek success, while communism empowers the state to seek an individuals success.

The use of language in this discussion is important :

Capitalism, as you know is an economic system.
By and large capitalism is a by-product of democracy but it would be mistaken to suggest that democracy and capitalism are one in the same.
Not all capitalist economies are a by-product of democracy.

The same applies to communism.
The market system is a by-product of Communism but again it would be a mistake to suggest that communism and market system are one in the same
as well.
Not all market systems are a by-product of communism either.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Carrera said:
In order to attain goals, one needs a system, correct? Myself I believe in having a logical system and a plan.
The U.S. economy has no plan. It's basically at the mercy of global market forces. Increasingly Americans are turning to religion so ask yourself how things will be in 20 years time.
Bear in mind that before Lenin overthrew the Tsars, Russia was an incredibly backward country with a massive peasant population. In fact, it wasn't really much more advanced than Middle Eastern countries today.
After Lenin, Russia became electrified and began to build a solid economic foundation. It overtook every other European country (on a massive basis militarily). Education and health care was better than you would find in the U.S.A.
The problem was corruption set in and Gorbachev failed to reform the system so it could adapt to the modern world.
Since the fall of communism/socialism, people are increasingly turning to religion. If capitalism is so wonderful, how come so many people are burying their head in the sand?

First we must separate goverment from private Enterprise. Just because a concern is based in the US doesn't mean it's best economic interset lies there.
Aside from that how do you know that the US has no plan. I hate to burst your bubble but the latest numbers say that the market is at a 4 year high,gas is down ,the public is spending and the economy is gaining despite the set backs this year.
These are facts not theory. Is everyone rich? No they never were and never will be,but despite Bush,despite war and hurricanes the economy is growing in retail,housing etc..
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
jhuskey said:
Aside from that how do you know that the US has no plan. I hate to burst your bubble but the latest numbers say that the market is at a 4 year high,gas is down ,the public is spending and the economy is gaining despite the set backs this year.

I am guessing that you are being a smidgeon wry here JH. ;)

Mounting debt, see Paul Craig Roberts' articles on the job creation/loss figures (the trend is loss of exportable production in return for non-exportable production). Gas prices are at least 2x what they were pre-2001, and the market took a *huge* hit 4 years ago, so a 4-year high ain't really a big whup.

jhuskey said:
These are facts not theory. Is everyone rich? No they never were and never will be,but despite Bush,despite war and hurricanes the economy is growing in retail,housing etc..

In essence the US is trading rapidily increasing national debt and net trade balance losses for sluggish (and fragile) growth.

Not convinced the UK is doing anything better in that regard either. ;)
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
darkboong said:
..In essence the US is trading rapidily increasing national debt and net trade balance losses for sluggish (and fragile) growth...
That's the part that the Repigs conveniently leave out of their propaganda.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
thank god for that, i'll just stick with my curry, pizza and burgers, i hate all that foreign muck.

If America didn't come to the aid Europe and Asia, I can assure you that you'd (anyone who would have survived), would be eating a lot of bratwurst or sushi!!
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I'm trying to suggest capitalist countries don't have a plan as such. Capitalist countries assume that war and high levels of crime are a natural phenomenon. Marxists have previously compared the origin of the modern capitalist society to the old classical system of slavery.
Capitalism is an imperfect system that automatically leads to inequality on basis of class or some other basis. Inequality leads to instability, crime or even war. In the current case it may lead to our extinction as a species since the powers that be are powerless, at this stage, to prevent over-exploitation of the resources of our planet and the environment.
The cycle is never-ending.
Communism was the first real attempt to develop a system whereby one might fully exploit the potential of a given society.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we all choose an authoritarian, Soviet system of state. What I do think is it's a pity Gorbachev failed to reform communism and re-adapt Marxism to the changing world. The system had basically become corrupt and stagnant but reform of the USSR would have been a better alternative to collapse.
Obviously the old idea of prohibition of private property was a bad one and I think Gorbachev's idea was to blend communism together with freedom and democracy.


Colorado Ryder said:
Therein lies the beauty of the capitalistic system. A capitalistic economy can respond to changes in market forces.
 

Billsworld

New Member
Sep 6, 2005
804
0
0
Carrera said:
I'm trying to suggest capitalist countries don't have a plan as such. Capitalist countries assume that war and high levels of crime are a natural phenomenon. Marxists have previously compared the origin of the modern capitalist society to the old classical system of slavery.
Capitalism is an imperfect system that automatically leads to inequality on basis of class or some other basis. Inequality leads to instability, crime or even war. In the current case it may lead to our extinction as a species since the powers that be are powerless, at this stage, to prevent over-exploitation of the resources of our planet and the environment.
The cycle is never-ending.
Communism was the first real attempt to develop a system whereby one might fully exploit the potential of a given society.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting we all choose an authoritarian, Soviet system of state. What I do think is it's a pity Gorbachev failed to reform communism and re-adapt Marxism to the changing world. The system had basically become corrupt and stagnant but reform of the USSR would have been a better alternative to collapse.
Obviously the old idea of prohibition of private property was a bad one and I think Gorbachev's idea was to blend communism together with freedom and democracy.
The problem is that communism seeks to make everyone equal. The problem with that is, not everyone has equal talent or drive. At least in a capitalist society , you can still double your efforts to break out of the class that you are in. In the former USSR you would spend that time waiting in line for bog roll, when you could be busting your ass to make more money or attend classes to get a masters degree. A govt cant deliver services as well as the free market. Look at the half assed health care system in Canada vs.the US. If the govt could deliver services better they sould distribute everything. Food , clothes, cars , gas etc... Neither is perfect. Capitalism has proven to be better. :D
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
It won't be proven to be better if it leads to our extinction as a species.
Did you know that societies tend to go through certain trends? Classical Greece, for instance, represents a period where the Greeks believed all problems could be solved by humanism (sort of applying philosophy to politics). But later on, they gave up. They finally decided to apply philosophy to more practical issues such as law or general education. Skeptics believed true knowledge was impossible - hence skepticism.
The Roman period that followed slowly led us into religion. The mediaeval period was a disaster and stagnant period more or less.
This modern age we now live in has been very good for technology and medicine but very bad in the political sphere. I mean, have you noticed how backward our political system is in comparison with other spheres of development. The whole mess of Iraq, terrorism, environmental disasters e.t.c. have beeb caused by politicians to a certain extent.
I think the mistake we are seeing today is that every country is adopting capitalism and I have this strong feeling it will lead us up a blind alley. The dreams of prosperity and cohesion of the political elite have not been fulfilled as people expected. Democracy has been destabilised recently and greed has been a definite factor in politics. More worryingly, there has been this huge increase in people turning to religion as they did in the Middle Ages.
Just food for thought.



Billsworld said:
The problem is that communism seeks to make everyone equal. The problem with that is, not everyone has equal talent or drive. At least in a capitalist society , you can still double your efforts to break out of the class that you are in. In the former USSR you would spend that time waiting in line for bog roll, when you could be busting your ass to make more money or attend classes to get a masters degree. A govt cant deliver services as well as the free market. Look at the half assed health care system in Canada vs.the US. If the govt could deliver services better they sould distribute everything. Food , clothes, cars , gas etc... Neither is perfect. Capitalism has proven to be better. :D