Greek PM announces referendum on EU membership

[civfanatic]

Biased? History teach us that any socialist state ends as a poor country.

Look at PRL it was name give my country by socialists after WWII when they took control over the counry even if people do not wanted them (yes, the remnants of Home Army < Armia Krajowa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > were even fighting against Soviets and new socialist goverment by short period of time and in some regions of country, unfortunetly they were too weak and Soviets were determined to destroy Home Army), how we ended? We debt (yes yes, these briliant socialists take debt that we are paying up to this day), destroyed economy (oh look, great socialism destroyed our economy, but how, socialism in theory should make economy strong!), socialism were trying to destroy traditions, culture even family relationships, and partially they succeded here.

So please explain me, how I can like socialism and socialists? My grandpa was socialist, fine man yes, he really belived in that system, and what happened? He ended as normal poor man with small pension, and his collegues from party were all bunch of thiefes that stolen for example materials to build buildings, money, everything.

Socialism is a cancer, patology. My father and his friends were talking about how life was poor back then, how they were hating socialists, and they lived in that system, in real socialism, not in Your fantasy.

We were not that puppet, in fact Soviets were affraid that LWP (Peoples Armed Forces) will go against Soviets, many officers in LWP were against both SU and socialism, even our socialist leaders had balls to go against decisions made in SU, for examle Gomułka.

But this is not a reason to love socialism, that real socialism, not utopia You belive in.

Poland WAS a puppet. The KGB directly and indirectly influenced almost every branch of government. PRL's foreign policy, and to a large degree its internal policy, was molded by Moscow.

Its understandable that Poles hate socialism; after all, socialism in PRL was meant to benefit the USSR, not Poland. For example, in the 1950s Poland was forced to sell coal to the USSR at 10% of world market price (Poland was not a puppet, yeah right ). In fact the whole existence of PRL was meant to serve Soviet Union's geopolitical interests, such as forming a buffer between Soviet territory and Western Europe. The USSR did not care what happened to Poles or Poland as long as their interests were satisfied. If PRL did not comply, they would just repeat what they did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Pfff, facts, what facts, that because their brilliant leader they are poor?

Start with Post #12 on this thread: http://defenceforumindia.com/military-history/26667-cuban-missile-crisis-insight-2.html

Ask people that escaped from North Korea how great socialism is, they will so happy in it that they decided to escape. So yeah, socialism is great system.

North Korea!
Is that the best you could come up with!

 

[niceguy2011]

they failed! EU won!

 

[asianobserve]

If they will give chance to people like Ron Paul and people from his camp, situation should change for better, better for US and for the rest of world.



On the other hand I want USA as a superpower, mainly because they are the only superpower where people belive that they can change the world for better without conquering it with military means... something very unique and positive.

But I know I know, You belive that Yanks = Devils, and everybody should love Che Guevara that was a mass murderer.



He is idiot... or maybe not, I just heard the rethoric of these eurocrats and I wonder if any country if it want will let be out of EU or they will force such country to stay by any means possible, and I fear the worst.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

 

[civfanatic]

If I remember correctly Ron Paul wants to end the current U.S. foreign policy of interventionism and revert to a more isolationist approach.

I think the whole world will benefit if Ron Paul gets elected, including the U.S. itself.

 

[asianobserve]

You obviously don't know shit. Batista and his 'free market policies' absolutely wrecked Cuba.

Maybe it's you who should revisit history. Dig a little dipper than name callings and petty finger pointings by the ideologues, free market did not wreck Cuba in the 30s and 40s, CORRUPTION did it! Corruption was reeking in that country from top to bottom because the American mobs were fuelling it. Yes, American mobs, who were being chased out of the US at that time and were looking for a sbactuary (unlucky for ordinary Cubans those mobs found convenient allies in corrupt Cuban officials).

Just scratch a little deeper...

 

[asianobserve]

I think france, germany, norway are all going down the drain because of socialism or are they ?

Germany socialist? What do you mean by Socialist by the way? Like Cuba or North Korea? If Germany fits the bill for your "Socialism" then Breat Britain is also a Socialist state... :shocked: They are Euro welfare states but still capitalistic countries. Please read again your bible DK. I don't think Marx invisioned SOcialism to be ruled by private enterprises and the financial market!

 

[civfanatic]

Maybe it's you who should revisit history. Dig a little dipper than name callings and petty finger pointings by the ideologues, free market did not wreck Cuba in the 30s and 40s, CORRUPTION did it! Corruption was reeking in that country from top to bottom because the American mobs were fuelling it. Yes, American mobs, who were being chased out of the US at that time and were looking for a sbactuary (unlucky for ordinary Cubans those mobs found convenient allies in corrupt Cuban officials).

Just scratch a little deeper...

Go read my post again. There's a reason why I put free market policies in quotation marks. You do realise the meaning of quotation marks when used in that manner, yes?

And those same corrupt Cuban officials were supported financially and politically by the U.S. govt so that U.S. corporations had a free reign in exploiting Cuba's economy. As Roosevelt said in reference to certain Latin American leader(s), "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".

 

[asianobserve]

You are obviously too biased to debate these matters with a clear head. I doubt you can even define or differentiate between Marxism, Leninism, and/or National Socalism (Nazism). All those ideologies are very, very different.

You obviously don't understand the mindset of Damian. He is what you call a libertarian, the less government intervention the better for everybody. You know were Marx and Hitler converge, and the most hated concept of libertarians, STATE CONTROL. This is why Nazism and Communism are lumped in libertarian discussions.

Libertarians just want to be left alone with the most minimal state interference possible. Which I agree.

 

[asianobserve]

Go read my post again. There's a reason why I put free market policies in quotation marks. You do realise the meaning of quotation marks when used in that manner, yes?

And those same corrupt Cuban officials were supported financially and politically by the U.S. govt so that U.S. corporations had a free reign in exploiting Cuba's economy. As Roosevelt said in reference to certain Latin American leader(s), "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".

Still, it was corruption that wrecked havoc in Cuba not free market.

 

[civfanatic]

You obviously don't understand the mindset of Damian. He is what you call a libertarian, the less government intervention the better for everybody. You know were Marx and Hitler converge, and the most hated concept of libertarians, STATE CONTROL. This is why Nazism and Communism are lumped in libertarian discussions.

You obviously don't know much about Marx or communism either. Marx was vehemently opposed to state control. In fact the whole point of communism is to build a stateless society.

Still, it was corruption that wrecked havoc in Cuba not free market.

It was the corruption associated with rampant, unregulated capitalism.

 

[asianobserve]

You obviously don't know much about Marx or communism either. Marx was vehemently opposed to state control. In fact the whole point of communism is to build a stateless society.




It was the corruption associated with rampant, unregulated capitalism.

Oh please, "Marx was not against state control." His theory is dependent on state control, one where the proletarians control society, Socialism. The proletarians are supposed to rise up and wipe out the capitalist class first before they reach Marx's Communist nirvana. There must first be a DICTATORSHIP BY THE PROLETARIANS, this my friend is a kind of government. So your claim about no government is BS. The government in Marxism just don't take the form of Western democracies, but it is still a government (taken for the root word "govern").

What Marx was intending to wipe out is property ownership or wealth. To him this is the root of all evils and inequality that was plaquing the World (in 19th century).

Maybe in Communism, were everybody is supposed to be equal, there is no government. But I'm not sure about this since Marx did not thoroughly discussed how this stage is supposed to work out. He just pointed it out as his ultimate destination, in his dreams.

 

[civfanatic]

Oh please, "Marx was not against government." His theory is dependent on a form of government, one that is ruled by the proletarians, Socialism. The proletarians are supposed to rise up and wipe out the capitalist class first before they reach Marx's Communist nirvana. There must first be a DICTATORSHIP BY THE PROLETARIANS, this my friend is a kind of government. So your claim about no government is BS. The government in Marxism just don't take the form of Western democracies, but it is still a government (taken for the root word "govern").

What Marx was intending to wipe out is property ownership or wealth. To him this is the root of all evils and inequality that was plaquing the World (in 19th century).

Maybe in Communism, were everybody is supposed to be equal, there is no government. But I'm not sure about this since Marx did not thoroughly discussed how this stage is supposed to work out. He just pointed it out as his ultimate destination, in his dreams.

Communism = stateless, classless, society where all property is owned by the people in common. In Marxist theory, the state is the ultimate source of all class divisions, ergo the state must be abolished in order to bring out true communism.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was supposed to the intermediate socialist state between the proletarian revolution and the establishment of a communist society. This intermediate state was supposed to be temporary, and gradually abolished. It is true that Marx never elaborated too deeply on the exact characteristics of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"; in The Communist Manifesto he offered a "Ten-Point Plan" on how a socialist government should govern, but that hardly qualifies as a framework for a new government. Many people have interpreted this stage differently. On one side of the spectrum you have council communists and Marxist libertarians who advocate decentralized direct democracy in a style reminiscent of the worker councils (soviets) in the early stages of the Russian Revolution; on the other hand you have Stalinists and the like who advocate a totalitarian government in the name of "protecting the Revolution".

However, if you have read any of Marx's works (unlikely), you would know that Marx was strongly opposed to powerful governments, as he himself was a victim of state repression in Germany (the erstwhile Prussian Empire).

 

[asianobserve]

However, if you have read any of Marx's works (unlikely), you would know that Marx was strongly opposed to powerful governments, as he himself was a victim of state repression in Germany (the erstwhile Prussian Empire).

If it'll change your view about me please consider that I have a degree in Political Science. Das Kapital was a compulsory subject, but I spit it out in the end. Bottomline is that each individual is simply too unique to be bottled up in one boring classless, propertyless society that has no place for indivual freedoms.

What if my dream is to be the best entrepreneur in the World? Or what if I want to be better than Buffet at investment? (Not necessarily because of money but because I want the challenege of besting the best) What would hapen to me in a Socialist state? Would I have a place in it, or in Communism? The answer is clearly in the negative. So where is individual freedom in Marx's fantasy?

It's all about control (by a superstate, in his theory). Without control Marx's theory will ultimately collapse.

 

[asianobserve]

Or can I watch porn in the internet in Marx's Socialism or Communism? If not, then I don't want anything to do with those fantasies.

 

[civfanatic]

If it'll change your view about me please consider that I have a degree in Political Science.

Yeah, and I have a degree in BS (bullshitting).

What if my dream is to be the best entrepreneur in the World? Or what if I want to be better than Buffet at investment? (Not necessarily because of money but because I want the challenege of besting the best) What would hapen to me in a Socialist state? Would I have a place in it, or in Communism? The answer is clearly in the negative. So where is individual freedom in Marx's fantasy? So it's all about control (by a superstate, in his theory).

First of all, every society (including nominally stateless ones) are governed by certain mores and societal rules. For example, in most places of the world you cannot commit murder without some kind of consequence, and for some reason libertarians (except perhaps a few extreme fringe elements) do not get upset by this or argue for the right of people to pursue their dreams of becoming the world's biggest murderer, if that is indeed their dream. Similarly, there are certain things that a communist society would restrict, particularly the right to pursue free enterprise. The argument would be that free enterprise would create social tensions and class antagonisms, therefore causing harm to society as a whole just as committing murder would.

Second of all, I personally do not believe in the plausibility of a communist society in today's world (though I would like to), which is why I do not identify as a communist but as a democratic socialist. I have no intention of spending a large amount of my time describing a hypothetical communist world that will probably never come about.

 

[asianobserve]

Democratic socialist? What is that animal? Anyway, you can ridicule my degree but for the record I have no ambitions of being the World's greatest Murderer.

You're creating all this high sounding hybrid like "democratic socialism" (sounds like "national socialism") becaUse the fact is Marx's socialism is a far off BS. It'll never happen.

And please for your own sake don't equate "murder" to "free enterprise." You'll sound like a loony if you insist on the comparison.