Thread: Economic impacts on politics.

Clue about Ramil's political views: His avatar...

Since I moved to England I have realised that everyone in the English speaking world is totally brainwashed when it comes to ideologies other than capitalism. Despite not actually knowing anything about them, they automatically reject them on principle. God job Hollywood...

Many years ago a friend of mine tricked an American girl by describing the ideal communist society and saying "would you like to live in such a country..?". She said "yes" and my friend told her that she had just admitted to being a communist... Whereupon she got really upset and angry. The story went around for years as a joke.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Clue about Ramil's political views: His avatar...

A lot of people don't really know that anarchism does not mean chaos. But then no one asked me.

Originally Posted by Seraph

A lot of people don't really know that anarchism does not mean chaos. But then no one asked me.

I call myself an anarchist, but to my frustration I understand, that people just too fond of being slaves to power. Nobody wants to be free (really free, taking the rather heavy responsibility involved). Political hierarchy is good for those who is willing to accept and submit, but what shall others do? Clench their teeth and endure?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is a famous populist slogan which cannot by definition have a decent implementation. So, I need my two islands and a Moon, can I have it? The only real implementation could be is to teach the people they do not need anything except for the bare minimum which would be established by the Communa (=by the present governors of the Communa that is). I don't really feel like loving that scenario very much. Do you?

Have you ever try to read commi/merxist books in order to understand what this phrase really means?
To understand this phrase in your way is like to think that anarchy it's when one can wear leather jacket and poop at the streets.

This phrase rises from class unequality in that times. Workers had to work almost whole day and have a piece of bread while nobels could waste their time having fun with prostitutes, drinking and hunting using money which workers made for them.

Originally Posted by Siberian.Bear

Have you ever try to read commi/merxist books in order to understand what this phrase really means?

I actually didn't happen to critisize a commi/marxist books. As a matter of fact, I just replied to Ramil's comment. And Ramil seemed to be interpreting the phrase that way: "I doubt anyone would object after the interim stage. To everyone according to his needs, after all." Meaning, who wouldn't like communism in which you get all your needs. So, I replied that the usage of that phrase in that way means the Communa would control what you need rather than giving you what you think you need. Which, I think is fairly sad. Having said that, I do not intend to critisize a commi/marxist books for a very simple reason: their authors are not here to reply. And if their book is really convincing that still does not mean anything to me as I mentioned earlier. An idea could be convincing, but fundamentally wrong. In practice, as Johanna mentioned, the classic commi/marxist books had failed to correctly predict the future.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Crocodile, you're looking at everything in bad light. Moderate consumption can be easily satisfied without violence, etc.

I think I'm just being realistic and not idealistic. I think the term "moderate consumption" is very subjective. Is that necessary to drive a car? Depends, isn't it? Some people are ready to work really hard to get their two islands and a Moon. Why should they be fundamentally deprived of that right?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yet it's pretty much destroying the planet at a fast pace..

Could you spell it out for me? How's that happenning due to the capitalism? Don't the socialist states have thier own ecological issues? I think it's actually a question of the better usage (technology-wise) of the present ecological niche rather than the discussion about the ownership and the distribution of goods and services.

In response to Croc:

I think advertisments and media (which are very much part of captitalism/consumerism) makes people constantly want things they don't need:

Regular holidays at the other side of the earth, food/drinks they certainly don't need, designer clothes, shoes... Constantly new "must-have" electronic gadgets, a new car every three years...

Producing all these products and shipping them to market takes a terrible toll on the planet.

While we are fretting about not having the latest handbag or gadget... people elsewhere on the planet are starving, animals are becoming extinct, the polar caps are melting and the rain forests are being chopped down.

I am certainly not advocating a communist revolution to fix the worlds environmental problems though. I am just saying that if the general political aim was to build a fair society (rather to become rich and consume a lot..) then there probably wouldn't wouldn't be as much ecological damage.

And I am not saying that technological progress is bad; just that it ought to be made to benefit society as a whole instead of the small percentage who can afford it. Also that it should be used in moderation, stopping ridiculous excesses.

I agree that the socialist states had (have) environmental issues. But they were of a different nature, perhaps not quite as serious on a global scale. Plus, we've already said here that 'communism' as in Eastern Europe was derailed from the ideal. People said it was just "state capitalism" although I don't quite know what that was supposed to mean exactly.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think I'm just being realistic and not idealistic. I think the term "moderate consumption" is very subjective. Is that necessary to drive a car? Depends, isn't it? Some people are ready to work really hard to get their two islands and a Moon. Why should they be fundamentally deprived of that right?

Why deprived? If there are spare islands and moons -- why not? The problem with capitalism, as many 'classics' before me have noticed is the competition. Oh, I admit, that this makes people try to make their goods better and cheaper, but from the other hand it creates production overtake. If you compare world's economy with a living organism, you'll probably get it with three hearts, several dozen legs and arms, two, maybe three heads, and shockingly -- several brains as well. This organism will probably be quite a survivor, but at the same time a grossly inefficient one.

The surplus production, however, has to be consumed and thus they start building things that would last for probably a year or little more (I know it since my mobile phones stop working regularly every year). Millions of people produce these assorted surpluses (creating pollution and spending the valuable resources along the way, some of which are even non-renewable). Isn't it a shame that we have starving people on a planet where more than enough food is produced to feed everyone?

Originally Posted by Hanna

1. Producing all these products and shipping them to market takes a terrible toll on the planet.
2. I agree that the socialist states had (have) environmental issues. But they were of a different nature, perhaps not quite as serious on a global scale.

Ok, I see what you say and I partially agree. So, what you're saying is true with a very big B-U-T. But the socialist states would produce much less products and services with much less efficiency taking comparable toll on the ecology. For example: compare the lowest commercial gasoline octane rating in the Europe/North America and in the SU. Who was quicker to implement the alternatives to the CFCs - the Europe/North America or the SU?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus, we've already said here that 'communism' as in Eastern Europe was derailed from the ideal.

I think that 'derailing' was in a much more humane direction promoting more inequality and less social justice. Let me explain myself. The classic communism strives to: (i) eliminate private property, (ii) eliminate exploitation of a person by a person substituting that with the exploitation of a person by the government, and (iii) enforce the equal distribution of goods and services. Accoring to the classical communism, family is one of the ways of exploitation of a wife by her husband and children by their parents, so the so-called 'institution of family' should be elimnated as part of the communization of the entire society. There should be the commune of free wives and the children should be 'parented' by the designated governmental institutions and not by their parents. The 'derailed' Eastern European version of the communism was much more humane in that respect and has not enforced the separation of the existing families. Instead of the 'elimination of the institution of family' a new less orthodox principle was invented that 'the family is a cell of the society' and so the families were kept together. (Thanks God!) There are other examples demonstrating the relatively humane nature of the Eastern European version of the communism.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why deprived? If there are spare islands and moons -- why not?

That's the whole point. There will always be resources to compete for. Two men love the same woman. And what had the communists proposed in that case? Let's share, right?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Isn't it a shame that we have starving people on a planet where more than enough food is produced to feed everyone?

It would have been much more shameful had the majority of the starving people done something with their outrageous corruption and stopped killing each other with the weapons invented, produced and delivered to the starving people by the non-starving people.

Transcription, complete text at US declares financial war on world - economist — RT

Originally Posted by Seraph

A lot of people don't really know that anarchism does not mean chaos. But then no one asked me.

I meant to post this twice now... but you know my brain has been on a fast decline.

When my girl's first saw Ramil's avatar they said "Oh, he's using Alex's painting!"

Alex Paints an Anarchy Symbol in Wizards of Waverly Place


Alex Paints an Anarchy Symbol in Wizards of Waverly Place - POWET.TV: Movies Games Comics and Toys

Another fun little Easter Egg from the Disney TV show “Wizards of Waverly Place”. In episode 23 of season 2, “Paint by Committee”, Alex Russo, played by Selena Gomez, paints a giant letter A on a wall in an abandoned train tunnel. When asked about it’s meaning she says “It’s my initial in a circle representing … my initial in a circle.” but the symbol bears a striking resemblance to an anarchy symbol.

What could be the symbolism behind this logo? Alex Russo is a pretty free spirited girl, often opposing authority and rules, so the anarchy symbol certainly applies on a fairly superficial level, but I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest the art department be insinuating we all be better off in a world without Government.

Later in the episode as Alex paints her mural “New York Above and Below” we can once again see the iconic “initial in a circle” shown in the below portion referred to as the “gritty grimy New York, filled with barf”.

Wizards of Waverly Place is known for hiding such symbols. Alex Russo can be seen wearing peace symbols as part of various outfits throughout the show. These occur so frequently that an effort is made to include at least one peace symbol in Selena Gomez’s outfits in every episode of season 2. As opposed to the anarchy symbolism, the crew have made clear that they have strong feelings about putting forth a positive message of peace. Earlier this month Powet reported on Selena wearing an I love hoe bags t-shirt. Though in that case it may have been a mere coincidence, this painting’s resemblance to an anarchy symbol seems to be more than chance.

By the way, the 'classic' symbol looks like that:


What appears on my avatar was modified by punk subculture and is not, strictly speaking, an anarchy symbol. There's also the black banner:



More here Anarchist symbolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The A letter inside the circle is the easiest symbol of all though and that's why it's so popular. There's @ too.