Thread: Marxism Leninism

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Presidens and parliaments are nothing but puppets to entertain the masses. They don't control anyting.

I agree with that statement when you speak about the local capitalistic governments. That's obvious. But what about the other local governments? For example, could you really say Stalin was a puppet?

Hmm. To a degree. You see,a puppet does not necessarily have to know it is a puppet. Things are usually quite the opposite.
He tried to act independently, but after being put in certain circumstances his actions become predictable. I would call this... an indirect manipulation. I'd say that in 1920s he was independent. But if you ask me about Stalin in 1940s I wouldn't be so sure. And I would definitely say no, if you ask me about him after the WW2.
I cannot prove my saying, call it a hunch, if you like, but I'm suspecting that Hitler too was manipulated into many of his blunders. By trying to resist he was making things only worse.

And another thing. I think that that infamous world government started its forming up in the beginning of 20th century. It has made its first baby steps during WW1, it has attained relative maturity by the beginning of the WW2 and it achieved a true world's power by the mid-60s. Stalin could have suspected of its existence, he might even know it for sure, but even though he remained independent from direct manipulations there were plenty of opportunities for subtle indirectness.

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, the top government are those whose interests are represented by the governments of the G8. I mean richest clans (about two dozen families) abiding mostly in USA who has been defining the world's politics during the last 80 years. [...] I mean those who control the federal reserve, those who control the speculative oil prices, those who control the prices for gold - they are the true world's government.

Can you support that idea with any type of evidence? (And perhaps name anyone?)

Hmm, how about the Rothschilds? (as the most famous representatives of this group). Vandebilts, Du'Ponts?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Hmm, how about the Rothschilds? (as the most famous representatives of this group).

Unlikely. How about the OPEC? Do you really think Rothschilds (who spent so much money on Israel) govern the world together with the hypothetical shade bosses that control OPEC (who spent so much money on Islamic terrorism)? So, that "world government" builds with one hand and destroys with another?

Originally Posted by Ramil

He tried to act independently, but after being put in certain circumstances his actions become predictable. I would call this... an indirect manipulation. I'd say that in 1920s he was independent. But if you ask me about Stalin in 1940s I wouldn't be so sure. And I would definitely say no, if you ask me about him after the WW2.
I cannot prove my saying, call it a hunch, if you like, but I'm suspecting that Hitler too was manipulated into many of his blunders. By trying to resist he was making things only worse.

Alright, I see what you're saying. I think it's really hard to live in the socium and be totally independent of it, or totally influence it. I'd say if someone, at least, could pull at more strings than the others, that is enough to call that person "in control" of the situation. For the rest, Voland said it all. You can apply the same thinking you have onto that hypothetical "shade government" if we assume its existence. Do they always agree with each other? I suspect that's impossible. Then, some of them dominate over the others at some point, and lose the other times. So, is that possible they'd be really in a total control of the world if they are victims of circumstance in their own circle?

Think about it that way. Some people believe that when they become managers they would be independent, in control of the situation. But that doesn't usually happen. When you are at the bottom of the "food chain", you feel small, but you only report to your boss, and the boss above and up the hierarchy. So, in fact, there's a very limited number of people (logarithmic) you'd be dependent upon. However, when you become a manager, you depend on virtually EVERYONE down the hierarchy doing their job up to your expectations. So, the amount of people you depend on with each hierarchical level is exponential. Therefore, the hypothetical "world government" depends on EVERYONE on the planet! That's absurd.

I'd say Stalin seemed to be more dependent later on just because some of his major plans didn't seem to work out. But, he had definitely more control over the country in later years (even after the WWII) than in the 20s. (For example: the kolhoses only appeared in the 30s, and that granted Stalin the degree of control over the peasants he hadn't had in the 20s.)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Hmm, how about the Rothschilds? (as the most famous representatives of this group).

Unlikely. How about the OPEC?

OPEC are mere oil suppliers. They cannot blackmail the world. Even if they stop selling their oil (which they can't since there's much more involved than simple turning a valve - oil production is an uninterruptable technological process and it costs you dearly to stop it) they would end up being poor again.

Do you really think Rothschilds (who spent so much money on Israel) govern the world together with the hypothetical shade bosses that control OPEC (who spent so much money on Islamic terrorism)? So, that "world government" builds with one hand and destroys with another?

Exactly what they are doing. They have to do this in order to run the most sophisticated machine in history. Terrorism is sort of necessary at this point since there is no global wars. If you want people come to you and ask for money you must create demand for money. So you arrange two or more factions fight each other and then they would both come to you and ask for more loans.
So if you control the production of money you rule this world.

There was a story on this forum:
Imagine you forged 100 gold coins and start giving them to people on one condition - they would have to return it to you along with the interest. Say you ask 3%. At the end of the term they would have to give you back 103 coins. The question is - where are the missing three coins? Those who fail to return the interest would borrow 3 more coins from you and again - they would have to return additionally 0.09 coins which had never existed.
You would of course produce more coins but peope would never be able to return their debts fully. This I what I call the control.

Federal reserve prints money then gives it to banks and governments. Virtually everyone on this planet directly or indirectly is owing money to the Federal Reserve. Then I ask again - who controls the Federal Reserve and what is their agenda?

Originally Posted by crocodile

You can apply the same thinking you have onto that hypothetical "shade government" if we assume its existence. Do they always agree with each other? I suspect that's impossible.

Not quite. They don't have to agree with each other although there is certain concensus and understanding among them (after all, they're in the same boat).

Think about it that way. Some people believe that when they become managers they would be independent, in control of the situation. But that doesn't usually happen. When you are at the bottom of the "food chain", you feel small, but you only report to your boss, and the boss above and up the hierarchy. So, in fact, there's a very limited number of people (logarithmic) you'd be dependent upon. However, when you become a manager, you depend on virtually EVERYONE down the hierarchy doing their job up to your expectations.

A rather perverted view over things. If you become a boss, you start to understand that you don't have to rely on EVERYONE. You find out that people are replaceable and you really need to rely on two or three key figures. Then you create a system of balances and counterweights to neutralise the key figures you rely on and to prevent them from plotting against you. Pretty simple, really. Machiavelli covered everything pretty thoroughly.

So, the amount of people you depend on with each hierarchical level is exponential. Therefore, the hypothetical "world government" depends on EVERYONE on the planet! That's absurd.

Indeed! That's why you are wrong here.
If you're feeling mathematical here's what I have to say: every single individual has negligibly small potential of influence. They have to unite in millions and act as a single being in order for you to even notice them.

But, he had definitely more control over the country in later years (even after the WWII) than in the 20s. (For example: the kolhoses only appeared in the 30s, and that granted Stalin the degree of control over the peasants he hadn't had in the 20s.)

Control and power are slightly different things. He might indeed have more power but what about the control? Was he making the history or his actions were merely a response to some circumstances?

If you want people come to you and ask for money you must create demand for money. So you arrange two or more factions fight each other and then they would both come to you and ask for more loans.

=> Hmm.. sounds a bit stretched. What would the loan-issuing institutions get in return? According to your logic, both terrorists and Israel come for loans, so both depend eventually on the Federal Reserve. But, terrorists only spend their capital on the weapon that's lost! Also, Israel spends the capital on its army (so it's also lost). Lost-lost. Destroyed. No return. Why? How do the terrorists promise to pay back? Also, Rothschilds handed out capital to Israel for free. No promises to ever pay back! How do you settle that?

Control and power are slightly different things. He might indeed have more power but what about the control? Was he making the history or his actions were merely a response to some circumstances?

=> That's what I was also saying. At some point (the higher in the hierarchy, in my opinion) that difference is blurred. (Machiavelli said many things, and not all of them always work - there are just too many factors. For example: a key person may just go elsewhere for the better pay.)

So if you control the production of money you rule this world.

=> Sounds rather bombastic... There's a difference between the money and the capital, right? You can't really effectively control capital centrally. In a complex system, there should be more decision nodes, remember? The story of 100 coins is educational, but the conclusion is controversial. First, modern money is not the gold coins of the past. There is also that nasty stuff like inflation, default, etc. You know all that. Second, in the past, the process of issuing gold coins by the governments was based on the stable process of mining gold. Hence the new 5 coins would appear over time.

Federal reserve prints money then gives it to banks and governments. Virtually everyone on this planet directly or indirectly is owing money to the Federal Reserve. Then I ask again - who controls the Federal Reserve and what is their agenda?

=> Ok, so you're saying the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov are that alleged central world government?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If you want people come to you and ask for money you must create demand for money. So you arrange two or more factions fight each other and then they would both come to you and ask for more loans.

=> Hmm.. sounds a bit stretched. What would the loan-issuing institutions get in return? According to your logic, both terrorists and Israel come for loans, so both depend eventually on the Federal Reserve. But, terrorists only spend their capital on the weapon that's lost!

Yeah, but the demand for money remains high and printing more money is justified this way. Sooner or later the conflict would end and something would have to be done to restore things that had been destroyed. And this again would require more money.
Think again, if you can print as much money as you need money are free to you.
You do not even want your money back - what for? You give people pieces of paper and people give you back real assets - land, resources, energy, raw materials, etc. No matter what price is - you can handle that because you can always print more brazilions of green pieces of paper.
No government controls the money production. Think this over again.

Also, Israel spends the capital on its army (so it's also lost). Lost-lost. Destroyed. No return. Why? How do the terrorists promise to pay back? Also, Rothschilds handed out capital to Israel for free. No promises to ever pay back! How do you settle that?

Consider this an investment. You may also say they own the whole country and all its assets. And I've added later Vanderbilts and Du'Ponts. There are more of them.

For example: a key person may just go elsewhere for the better pay.)

That is why you have to maintain a tight grip on him. It's one of those stick and carrot things. Should I go all the way down describing multitudes of ways to do it? And again - even the key persons are replaceable.

So if you control the production of money you rule this world.

There's a difference between the money and the capital, right? You can't really effectively control capital centrally.

Why not? The monopoly for money production is their capital.

In a complex system, there should be more decision nodes, remember?
First, modern money is not the gold coins of the past.

Yeah, they worth nothing.
And once you've pushed the start button the decisions made in the middle do not matter much. You don't have to control every single aspect of this system. It doesn't really matter in which country a military coup or a revolt, or a war will occur - you will gain anyway.

Second, in the past, the process of issuing gold coins by the governments was based on the stable process of mining gold. Hence the new 5 coins would appear over time.

Yes, but you won't give this 5 more coins for free. You will ask your 3 per cent.
It's a closed loop. Remove the interest and fix the value and this system will become fair again like in the good old days.

=> Ok, so you're saying the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov are that alleged central world government?

The board of Governors are hired employees. They work for salary though some of them may be among those few who is a member of the clique.

Ramil, there seems to be too much of a distance between our point of views. You tend to think the "world government" actually exists, by pointing out the body which might benefit from the current situation. By the way, it's the US Department of the Treasury which pushes the button and prints the "evil" green paper, not the Federal Reserve:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury

The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury include:
[...]
- Producing all postage stamps, currency, and coinage;
[...]

Also, the Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System) (And earlier you mentioned the President is a "puppet".) So, in your view of the world, the puppet theatrically appoints other puppets who ask another puppet institution to print out evil green paper and then give that paper to the other puppets who in return present the former puppets with the real resources, then the other puppets want to fight with each other so they also ask the former puppets for the evil green paper (and surprisingly get it!) so they buy some stuff with that green paper, destroy the stuff, and say back to the former puppets: "Hey, eventually you don't need the evil green paper and you'll benefit somehow anyways, so just #### off!"

So, honestly, if you really believe in all that, you have all the rights in the world to support anything that would destroy that puppet theatre. Whether the real people would appear from the ruins of that theatre that's another utopia story...

The president is appointed and then he's told who's going to sit in the Federal Reserve Board. I don't contradict myself. It is indeed a puppet theater. Formalities must be observer or the cattle stock would get suspicious.
People we are talking of are above the law, above the constitution. You're quoting wiki that quotes some other stuff written for the 'cattle stock'. Does it really prove anything?

I know, that you could say that I am a paranoid and full of conspiracy theories. In fact, there is no conspiracy. It's out there in the open. It's so simple that people like you just refuse to believe it. Simply because it overthrows everything they'd known about the modern world. It cannot be simply because it cannot be they say.

Well, it's their right. Blue pill or Red pill - take your pick.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Blue pill or Red pill - take your pick.

What's the difference if the movie is black-and-white?

Scroll down and watch the video;

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja ... ergoal.htm

I happen to agree that the situation is pretty much exactly as Ramil outlines.

The economy of the world (based on the dollar, the Bretton Woods system, and limitless borrowing into the future) is a "castle made of air", or "the emperor has no clothes". Basically, it's fake - it's an illusion.

It MAY continue to work for as long as the majority continues to believe in it, or PRETEND that they believe in it.

One of my university lecturers said as much - and he said that a lot of economists supported it simply because they knew of no alternative that could realistically be implemented.

Ludwig von Mieses for example - was an economist who spoke out against this and accused other economists for playing along in a theatre that they knew perfectly well was unsustainable.

I guess the question is: How long can this system continue for... Indefinitely, or? Is there an alternative?

Some people say that the current economic crisis is the beginning of the end for the world economic system as we know it. For example the "La Rouche movement". Others think this system has many years left of life in it - others deny altogether that there is a problem.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The economy of the world (based on the dollar, the Bretton Woods system, and limitless borrowing into the future) is a "castle made of air", or "the emperor has no clothes". Basically, it's fake - it's an illusion.

It is. So, would you prefer to get your pay in golden coins?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

The economy of the world (based on the dollar, the Bretton Woods system, and limitless borrowing into the future) is a "castle made of air", or "the emperor has no clothes". Basically, it's fake - it's an illusion.

It is. So, would you prefer to get your pay in golden coins?

I would.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It is. So, would you prefer to get your pay in golden coins?

I would.

Great! What would you do with those golden coins? (After you spent the X of your golden coins to pay a goldsmith to forge a nice golden ring off the Y of your coins.)

Crocodile, where there is a will there is a way... !

It was possible to use bank notes while the monetary system was fully backed by gold. It was not THAT long ago.

Just because the money is backed up by actual assets doesn't mean that it has to be GOLD, it can be gold + something else -- other precious metals or minerals.

You'd still use banknotes - all this is practicalities that could easily be solved. This is covered in plenty of books by people who understand it a lot better than I do. Basically this is about having a monetary system that regular people can trust in! Instead of a playground for speculation by traders, risky and unethical lending by the banks or money-printing by certain governments.

And yes - regarding investments - to illustrate: I had to re-invest my employer-contributed pension plan. I won't use it for many decades, so needed to think ahead. I had to choose London listed companies, but I was able to find a Swiss gold tracker, mineral/energy companies in ex-USSR, some Chinese tech companies plus an Islamic bank.

What these have in common is that they are backed by real assets and not based on speculation and market hype. Also they are in growing, not contracting economies. The other day the brokers called me and asked if I had access to insider information - my picks had been very lucky and they thought it was suspicious.

So it's not just talk. I seriously have no faith in the future of the monetary system out of London / New York. At best it will continue to stand still or mediocre growth while inflation grows. At worst it will crash like a house of cards, like 1929. The difference is that this time the East is ready to take over the lead.

Btw - The pensioners of the ex USSR must be the best example of a totally scr*wed generation ---- ever! Imagine working all your life to build communism, and fighting fascism and starving during the war. Then just when they want to retire it all falls to pieces! Everything they worked to build up gets bought up for peanuts by cowboy capitalists... Then they are forced to live in poverty in capitalism. What a very tragic irony.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The difference is that this time the East is ready to take over the lead.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It is. So, would you prefer to get your pay in golden coins?

I would.

Great! What would you do with those golden coins? (After you spent the X of your golden coins to pay a goldsmith to forge a nice golden ring off the Y of your coins.)

Gold can always be exchanged for something else unlike paper money which can be rendered useless if something happens.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Gold can always be exchanged for something else unlike paper money which can be rendered useless if something happens.

Well, you could still exchange paper money with blank paper, or you could use the paper money as a wall paper. See? There's no fundamental difference between gold money or paper money. They worth some goods and services only as long as the other people are ready to exchange. In time of war or famine people are very willing to exchange their gold for food, but not vice versa. So, the real measure (=value) of the capital is the amount of the goods and services you could get. Hence the dependency on the GDP. And so the story rolled out.

Originally Posted by Johanna

What these have in common is that they are backed by real assets and not based on speculation and market hype. Also they are in growing, not contracting economies.

Congrats on your short-term capital gain! (Seriously congrats. I always like it when people get more capital, and not lose capital. That's why I'm not a communist. )

So, if you think about it, you've got two totally different things in your above statement:

1. The investments are backed by assets.
2. The investments are located in growing economies.

The former stabilizes the capital and the latter increases it.

Now, let's pause and think about it:

1. Assets. You see, assets by themselves cannot grow. If they grow, it means that people are looking for stability in volatile markets, and so they are willing to include more assets in their portfolios. Therefore, the growth of the assets is purely speculative! It grows purely on people's expectations!

2. Growing economies. So, why those economies grow? A very complex question. There are lots of reasons and no one would know them all. But one of the very important reason is better capitalization. In places where there weren't certain goods or services they started to appear. The GDP had grown. Then when the economy grows, it spurs investors to invest, so more capital is thrown in there, and more businesses appear. So, the GDP grows even more spurring the investors even more, etc. That is exactly what is called the market hype. Everyone knows that those eastern markets are risky.

So, to sum it up, you were trying to explain your gains by them not being "based on speculation and market hype", but it's exactly the opposite! It's actually based on both!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

See? There's no fundamental difference between gold money or paper money.

Are you joking or practicing sophistry?

Hence the dependency on the GDP. And so the story rolled out.

The main point of gold is that it isn't bound to GDP of any particular country. Yes, in times of trouble you can't buy very much for gold but gold is still worth something even then unlike paper money which you can use as toilet paper indeed. Besides, gold would eventually regain its value when troubles end while paper money would sooner be redesigned and reissued.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Are you joking or practicing sophistry?

I was joking. But the point of that joke was that the money on it's own only worth the media it's issued on. Unless someone else is willing to exchange. And it's true that the gold is usually worth more than the paper (unless you find yourself in South America some 400-500 years ago).

Originally Posted by Ramil

The main point of gold is that it isn't bound to GDP of any particular country.

Ha-ha, that's funny. So, you're saying that gold mines are equally distributed across the world? In reality, some countries would be able to issue their gold money for cheaper than the others. And some countries won't be able to issue their currency at all! And that would be unfair again. And then all kinds of strange questions would start, like what would be the value of the raw gold? The raw gold (as any other raw material) would be regulated by the supply and demand, but as soon as someone would put it under the press and stamp a coin, it would then be regulated by the amount of the goods and services it could be exchanged for. That would create a special inflated (=unjust) demand for the raw gold and subsequently cause other issues. Also, if you're so obsessed with the dependency on the particular colour of that "evil paper", let's move towards something like "WTO currency". Does that sound compelling?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, in times of trouble you can't buy very much for gold but gold is still worth something even then[...]
Besides, gold would eventually regain its value when troubles end [...]

I think you should seriously start considering the investment into the real estate market. The real estate maintains its value much better even in times of trouble (as people have to live somewhere) and definitely regains its value afterward. Unless, of course, the communists would deprive you of your property (for the social justice reasons), but that's another story.