What is Your Political Philosophy?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

In the end the US will be reduced to a poverty, equally shared, like we see in all communist countries of history.

you know, Ned, you keeping repeating stuff doesn't make it true.

I actually lived in the SU, while you were spoon-fed anti communist propoganda.

OK, Azazel, compare the USSR to the United States. In which country was the average citizen better off?

I would say, just based upon my observation of the USSR, that virtually no one who was not a communist party member live anywhere near the US middleclass level. By American standards, most Russians appeared to live in poverty.

[Az]

You must look at the entire capitalist economic system. Look at south america, africa, south east asia.

I would say that compared to the average Brazilian, the average soviet citizen lived great.

[BeBro]

I´m a moderate apolytonist

[Ned]

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England.

The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States.

So, does the USSR compare? Of course not.

What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned


... A lot of people came to the United States because of that. We were the land of equal opportunity. A land that rejected nobility and class structures.

And a lot of others came to the US in chains because they'd been sold down the river. A point you do no state, but do not ignore either.

The rest of your post was pretty good - but what about the underclass? The damned? The junkies, illegals, and homeless? How much does the American dream mean to them?

Don't get me wrong here - I firmly believe the US (and more the Australian) views on equality between rich and poor are fine models. But I don't think they're the ultimate models.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have put antebellum US rather than US. The ACW did change this situation totally.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Azazel
I actually lived in the SU, while you were spoon-fed anti communist propoganda.

Living there for the first 6-7 years of your life doesnt make you any authority on the conditions there.

[Az]

Living for 40 and 60 years does. I talk to my parents, too.

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England.

The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States.

So, does the USSR compare? Of course not.

What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

Nice try. How does exactly one has equal opprotunity in the US, when the income of your parents has such a drastic impact on your life?

[Sandman]

The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I consider capitalism and the free-market useful wealth creation tools, but that is all.

Marxism has some useful insights, but it is simply too violent to be workable. The struggle for survival is more important than the class struggle.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

I am anti-nationalist.

[Az]

The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

( I'd rather they did talk english. would help them live a better life )

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Sandman
...
Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. ...

I am anti-nationalist.

Culture is the mould that builds up around a society - a set of beliefs and traditions. It can actually be quite harmful, especially if it advoates things like "We've always won in the past! Fight the war now!". It's a double edged sword.

Never mind what you're against. WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

And Azazel - who would lead a better life if they spoke English? The 2nd geneation Punjabi's? The thrust of the post was that they would speak English anyway - or did you mean the poster? It's hard to tell from your response.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy


And a lot of others came to the US in chains because they'd been sold down the river. A point you do no state, but do not ignore either.

The rest of your post was pretty good - but what about the underclass? The damned? The junkies, illegals, and homeless? How much does the American dream mean to them?

Don't get me wrong here - I firmly believe the US (and more the Australian) views on equality between rich and poor are fine models. But I don't think they're the ultimate models.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have put antebellum US rather than US. The ACW did change this situation totally.

Cruddy, thanks for your post. Yes, there were many immigrants who came to the US to "serve." Certainly, all that "officially" came to an end 140 years ago. But the US is motivated to end the last vestages of those time so that our land truly is the land of equal opportunity for all.

What I see elsewhere in the world is that very few capitalist countries wanting to become like the United States - providing equal opportunity, a social safety net, but otherwise not overly penalizing wealth. Most seem to trend towards Marxism using high taxation and socialism. Both attack class structures, but in a different way.

So long as American borders remain open, though, bright young people will continue to move to the United States because of our system. This "brain drain" phenomenon has been fueling American productivity since its founding. Until the rest of the capitlist world pushes aside their Marxists (or class-based restrictions on advancement), they will continue to be less productive than the US and the brain drain will continue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
Living for 40 and 60 years does. I talk to my parents, too.

Quote:

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England. The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States. So, does the USSR compare? Of course not. What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

Nice try. How does exactly one has equal opprotunity in the US, when the income of your parents has such a drastic impact on your life?

Azazel, our major problem today is caused by a bad public school system. Most "wealthy" citizens, like Clinton and Gore, avoid it like a plague. Until we fix this, I agree, that wealth has a lot to do with getting a better eduction which is the key to making yourself successful in the US.

But, beyond that, anyone who is bright enough or works hard enough can make it here, anyone. I give you Bill Gates. I give your Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. These are just a few Americans who made it almost solely on their own efforts.

So a key issue for America is fixing the public school system -- progressive taxation or socialism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I consider capitalism and the free-market useful wealth creation tools, but that is all.

Marxism has some useful insights, but it is simply too violent to be workable. The struggle for survival is more important than the class struggle.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

I am anti-nationalist.

I agree with a lot of this. Keeping priorities straight is good. Taking useful insights from Marxism is the right thing to do as well.

But, being pround of your country and history is hardly a bad thing, in my view, since England has done so much good for the world even though they did it for selfish reasons.

[Sandman]

Culture is the mould that builds up around a society - a set of beliefs and traditions. It can actually be quite harmful, especially if it advoates things like "We've always won in the past! Fight the war now!". It's a double edged sword.

Yes, if a certain culture is destructive or excessively wasteful, then it should be either extinguished, adapted or accomodated, so that it no longer behaves in a malignant manner.

Never mind what you're against. WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

Space exploration. War on disease. Putting capitalism in it's place. Global unity. Socialism where appropriate.

[Sandman]

Quote:

But, I being pround of your country and history is hardly a bad thing, in my view, since England has done so much good for the world even though they did it for selfish reasons.

Thanks to nationalism, we have situation whereby the surface of the Earth could be turned into molten glass due to equipment malfunction. This is utterly unacceptable, and not something to be proud of.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Thanks to nationalism, we have situation whereby the surface of the Earth could be turned into molten glass due to equipment malfunction. This is utterly unacceptable, and not something to be proud of.

Thanks to nationalism? Even the USSR and China, both internationalist counties, have nuclear weapons. This indicates that so long as you have disagreements in this world and no world government, people will be acquiring WMD to advance their agenda.

The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

England's acquisition of nuclear weapons had a lot to do with the USSR's acquisition of them. They needed a deterent to protect itself from Stalin and crew. Is this nationalism at work? Hardly.

[Sandman]

Thanks to nationalism? Even the USSR and China, both internationalist counties, have nuclear weapons. This indicates that so long as you have disagreements in this world and no world government, people will be acquiring WMD to advance their agenda.

They're not internationalist in any serious sense. Both espoused nationalist doctrines, mingled with Marxism. Ever hear of 'socialism in one country', or 'the Great Patriotic War'?

Nationalism is handy if you want to convince sensible people to run into machine guns, or indeed overcome their natural aversion to killing. But it does more than help fight wars, it helps start them.

The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

I never said that all nuclear weapons have to be owned by nationalists.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

England's acquisition of nuclear weapons had a lot to do with the USSR's acquisition of them. They needed a deterent to protect itself from Stalin and crew. Is this nationalism at work? Hardly.

There's an important difference here - the reason nations acquire nukes is to avoid nuclear blackmail. I would say even North Korea's acquisition is a valid one, if done for reasons of self preservation.

Organisations like al Queda want nukes because they want to use them. Clearly unacceptable.

Ideally, no one would have them. Since that is not the case, I prefer proliferation to non-proliferation. It may well prevent future wars. It's not pleasant to think of them all being used - but that isn't the reason they're made. They were made to prevent aggression - since the alternative is truly unacceptable.

A world without nukes would not be a safer one. Quite the reverse.

[Ned]

Cruddy, what you say makes some sense if you discount terrorist groups.

[Cruddy]

Ned, I've always been unhappy with the label "terrorist". To me it's just something to discredit the opposition with.

[Ned]

Cruddy, I am "sure" you feel exactly like that about the IRA and would have no qualms at all about their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

But, true, any revolutionary groups that simply fights a guerilla war without resort to terrorist acts should not be labelled as terrorists. I was thinking of the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, whome the Russians problably believed were terrorists.

[Az]

I give you Bill Gates

was a rich man's son. His father had a couple of million bucks. Politicians- they don't matter. That's the effect of democracy, not capitalism.

[Cruddy]

Ned, you missed my point. ALL WAR IS AN ABOMINATION, BAD NEWS, HELL ON EARTH...

Your comparison between the IRA (heavily involved in peace talks at the minute) and the Mujihideen in Afghanistan is an interesting one.

You see, you are contrasting

a) the "uprising" against a legitimate response to the request of a sovereign state to help with insurgents - the Afghani side.

b) With the uncalled for and unwanted deployment of British troops to keep order - the Ulster side.

Read that paragraph again - the RUSSIAN side was "legitmate", in legal terms, and the British one wasn't!

Do I think the Russian decision was bad? Of course, and so did the majority of Afghani's (and an awful lot of Muslims).

Do I think the British decision was good? On balance, yes, and so did the majority of the people of Ulster. The alternative was to watch a slow decline into civil war in a neighbouring country.

To me, neither side of a conflict is "terrorist". Or maybe, all armed groups are "terrorist". Labelling just one side or the other ignores the fact that armed conflict is a place no sane human being wants to be.

For the record, I approved of the recent occupation of Iraq. For the simple reason that it gave us an end point to pull forces out of Kuwait and especially, Saudi Arabia. The latter removes maybe 70% of Al Qaeda's recruiting arguments.

Not because I thought it would be easy, or "justified", or because Hussein had WMD. He just had to go, so we wouldn't be sat on the border or patrolling the no fly zone for decades to come.

[Buck Birdseed]

Az: Granted the fact that children are born clean slates, who decides what to mould them into? Who decides what is a better way of thinking than another? For example, communist fraternalism is usually extremely hostile to female concerns, centering on promoting the virtues we've traditionally ascribed to males, thus making that strong group already stronger. Is that what communism is about? Combatting the weaker groups? That's what I mean is right-wing about your way of thinking.

Also, do you seriously think we'll ever be able to stop people from grouping together with those similar to themselves? Do you think we'll be able to erase sexes and races and sexualities as you want to erase cultures and classes?

Cruddy: I don't think direct democracy is going to help getting rid of the rule of the majority or the strong groups, unfortunately. Participatory democracy, formalised identity groupings working together pluralistically and an increased emphasis on diversity within liberal democracy is probably as close as we're going to get.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Cruddy: I don't think direct democracy is going to help getting rid of the rule of the majority or the strong groups, unfortunately. Participatory democracy, formalised identity groupings working together pluralistically and an increased emphasis on diversity within liberal democracy is probably as close as we're going to get.

Winston Churchill always thought of democracy as a stepping stone to a better form of govt. The quote is;

"Democracy is the very worst form of government. Apart from all the others, of course".

Suggest you read his books. They've not great reading, and they have no new answers - but you might be able to simplify some of your thinking after you have read them. You will know what are not the answers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy

For the record, I approved of the recent occupation of Iraq. For the simple reason that it gave us an end point to pull forces out of Kuwait and especially, Saudi Arabia. The latter removes maybe 70% of Al Qaeda's recruiting arguments.

Not because I thought it would be easy, or "justified", or because Hussein had WMD. He just had to go, so we wouldn't be sat on the border or patrolling the no fly zone for decades to come.

I am glad there is at least one other person on this forum (and indeed anywhere) who sees the problem that the US and the UK faced. I have argued the need to end the no fly zones and sanctions and to get out as justification for forcing a resolution of the WMD issue many times here.

The French and UN view that we could "take our time" with inspections and sanctions, even if that was forever, was simply not acceptable to the US and to the UK. While others have pointed out our occupation of Germany and our troops on the border in Korea were extended occupations of 40+ years, they were and are "peaceful." This simply is not the same thing as being heavily involved in low level combat for decades and perhaphs forever. Besides, during this entire period of time, the Iraqi people would have continued to suffer under a sanctions regime that would have prevented normal life even if Saddam was not the monster he was.

We needed to end it. We would have been glad to end it with full cooperation by Saddam. But it was he who chose the path of defiance instead.

But now, we can set up a new government, one that is hopefully better than the old, and leave Iraq and Kuwait before our presence causes even further "irritation."

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
But now, we can set up a new government, one that is hopefully better than the old, and leave Iraq and Kuwait before our presence causes even further "irritation."

Sorry Ned - only people with the power to do that are the UN security council. We signed the treaties and we should have read the small print.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Cruddy, I am "sure" you feel exactly like that about the IRA and would have no qualms at all about their acquisition of nuclear weapons..

If the IRA had nukes, they wouldn't use them. If they did use them

a) They still don't get a United Ireland. What they would get is a United Britain very keen to retaliate.

b) They lose ALL their support from overseas sources.

c) They condemn their own cause to the history books.

I don't like the IRA, (strictly, Provisional IRA). But I don't think they are fools.