Can we Create an America that can Lead the World - Page 2

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 20:34

And better than I could have

Alexander's Horse · February 9, 2003, 20:35

And all the little countries aren't so little.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Are well you have just put your finger on everything that is wrong with current thinking in your country.

You may think it is "wrong", but it reflects reality. America has no equal on the world stage right now.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 20:42

Drake, while what you say is true, it is also true that the most respected and able leaders lead by example, or not at all.

THAT is the crux and point of my first post, and my post in the "post cold war landscape" thread.

The US is uniquely positioned *right now* to truly make a difference, world wide....if only we try to live up to the ideals we were founded on, and if only we are willing to put our own interests aside for the interests of humanity (and by the way, it should be noted that in serving the interests of humanity, we wind up serving some of our own interests as well....but in a very differente way than we're doing now).

-=Vel=-

Alexander's Horse · February 9, 2003, 20:43

That's what you think Drake - lol.

And even if you think it, you shouldn't say it publicly.

Its this kind of arrogance and hubris which has got you into the fine pickle you are in today.

Feeling omnipotent at the moment? (tee hee)

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
At this point, I think that only a revolution can effectively do away with this economic slavery.

Welcome to the party, comrade!

BTW, stay away from the ISO. They're rather cult-like and pretty lousy Marxists. But they're kinda strong at DePaul University.

I strongly suggest heading west on Fullerton and going to New World Resource Center, at Rockwell and Fullerton. It's an all-point's-of-view-on-the-left bookstore. They could probably use you as a volunteer. Get in touch with Dr. Pelz and talk w/ him. He used to teach at DePaul, now teaches at Elgin Community College. He's a very smart many and is friggan' hilarious.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Drake, while what you say is true, it is also true that the most respected and able leaders lead by example, or not at all.

I don't disagree with you, Velo. I was just pointing out the problems in AH's "first among equals" policy. It doesn't work very well in a world where the US has no equals and its closest allies aren't even making an effort to sit at the big kid's table.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
At its core, and on the moment of its birth, the beast was created to serve the people....

No, it wasn't. It was created to serve the interests of the merchants, landlords, and slaveholders of colonial America. Although the franchise has expanded, the same class of people which ruled then, rule today. It's their beast, not ours. It knows its master, and any attempt to try and take it for ourselves will only rsult in disaster. As Marx put it in his preface to the 1872 edition of the Communist Manifesto, "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'"

Alexander's Horse · February 9, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I don't disagree with you, Velo. I was just pointing out the problems in AH's "first among equals" policy. It doesn't work very well in a world where the US has no equals and its closest allies aren't even making an effort to sit at the big kid's table.

But your view of other countries is completely wrong.

I see a big fall for somebody ahead unless this attitude changes. I really do - and in fact it already seems to be starting, LOL.

But at the end of the day, you can warn but people have to make their own mistakes, especially when they hell bent on a view of the world and their place in it.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 20:58

Che....that's splitting hairs. IF what you are saying were true, IF the only interests to be served were among the groups you named off, then there would not have been....I repeat *would not have been* any increase in the franchise at all. None whatsoever.

And why not?

Because there would be no incentive for those groups to share power.

That we have seen the francise increase, and increase steadily over the years our country has been around invalidates your argument completely, IMO.

I know you'd rather turn me to the "dark side" as it were, and join the Communist fight, but it ain't gonna happen.

I have seen a sufficient number of communist implosions to realize that particular horse has been beaten to death.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 20:59

AH - I like your style....when I'm elected President of the US, I'd like you to consider a cabinet level position...special advisor at the very least....

-=Vel=-

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2003, 21:01

Quote:

But your view of other countries is completely wrong.

Prove it. Show me one other country that is anywhere close to being America's equal.

I don't know why you're accusing me of arrogance. I haven't made any recommendations on what the US should do or not do with its unrivaled power; I merely noted that it exists. It isn't arrogant to state the way things are.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 21:03

Drake - I think the point he's trying to make is that "wise is the king who wields his power lightly."

Indeed, what you say is correct, and because it is correct, because America is the big dog on the block, it is not something that needs be spoken of.

The grizzley bear in the forest KNOWS he's the biggest game in town, as do all the smaller (and not so smaller) creatures around him.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

I have seen a sufficient number of communist implosions to realize that particular horse has been beaten to death.

-=Vel=-

Capitalism has a much higher failure rate.

Drake Tungsten · February 9, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Drake - I think the point he's trying to make is that "wise is the king who wields his power lightly."

If that's what he's saying, then I agree with him completely. I never said that America should go around doing whatever it wants just because it can.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 21:07

Capitalism also has a much higher success rate. One need only witness the parade of imploded communist countries to get the sense that there must be something flawed with the model.

Where are the thriving Communist nations today, and how do they rate, in terms of affluence and strength of their economies to the capitalistic nations? Is there even a comparison?

Nope.

And yet, the communists would have us believe that if we "try just one more time" we'll get it right.

Don't hold your breath.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 21:12

Well we keep trying with capitalism here in the US and our economy keeps crashing. But we still try it over and over again.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 21:19

It's true that the US economy has gone through a lot of ups and down, but rather than crashing, it keeps growing! It's bigger than it's ever been.

The stock market crashed (once), but since then, we've kept right on trucking.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's true that the US economy has gone through a lot of ups and down, but rather than crashing, it keeps growing! It's bigger than it's ever been.

The stock market crashed (once), but since then, we've kept right on trucking.

-=Vel=-

The economy has crashed several times. The last big crash was in 1929. About that time the USSR was lookin' pretty good

. You are just taking a point in time and judging by that. Look at history. It matters what point in time you are at.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 21:34

How do you define "crash" - yes, there is very definitely a boom-bust, expand-contract cycle in the economy, but even when the stock market crashed in '29, the economy didn't stop (though that is the closest we have come to seizing up).

Look at the countries that are florishing today....they are florishing because they've adopted an economic model that works.

Had communism worked better, they'd have won the cold war, and, no doubt, more countries would now be adopting their proven stronger economic system.

But that's not what happened.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 21:45

Vel,

No economy ever completely stops, but it was very bad in the Great Depression. It was disasterous. I will not give the details. You can do an internet search if you have forgoten how bad it was.

Marx predicted that nations would accumulate captital at an amazing rate while they were in the capitalist stages. There is no argument there. You can't really compare capitalism to communism. Marx predicted that capitalism would be better for the world at one part of history and communism would be better for the world at another part. That's because capitalism has so many problems with it. In particular, the crashing part and the exploitive nature of it. No industrialized nation has ever had a communist revolution. As soon as one does I'm possitive that it will do very well.

As far as the Cold War goes, the US beat the **** out of Russia. Duh' like that wasn't going to happen. It doesn't prove that capitalism is better than communism. It just proves that the Russians didn't do to good in that one.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 21:55

Thing is, Duncan, you'd think that if communism was superior, there'd be at least ONE modern day example of a thriving, exceling communist nation.

There's not.

I contend that there's a reason for that, and the reason is....it doesn't work.

It looks GREAT on paper. Absolutly fantastic, but power abhors a vacuum, and into any centrally planned, highly centralized system, that vacuum WILL be filled, generally with ambitious, power hungry men (a la Stalin).

The human race is not advanced enough for any sort of utopia, and that is what communism promises. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thing is, Duncan, you'd think that if communism was superior, there'd be at least ONE modern day example of a thriving, exceling communist nation.

There's not.

I contend that there's a reason for that, and the reason is....it doesn't work.

It looks GREAT on paper. Absolutly fantastic, but power abhors a vacuum, and into any centrally planned, highly centralized system, that vacuum WILL be filled, generally with ambitious, power hungry men (a la Stalin).

The human race is not advanced enough for any sort of utopia, and that is what communism promises. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.

-=Vel=-

Sadly, its our fault that Stalin took power. We were hostile to the USSR from its very birth. They needed a dictator. When you are at a state of war you have to centalize power. The US does it too when they have to.

Every communist nation has faced the US as its enemy. No doubt the US is strong, and thats hard for a third world nation to deal with. You just have to admit the communist nations have done suprisingly well even if they have had to give great powers to men like Stalin. Damn, look at Cuba. How the hell could that little nation do so well while the US has been on its back the whole way trying its damndest to keep it down.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Well we keep trying with capitalism here in the US and our economy keeps crashing. But we still try it over and over again.

Crashing is just part of the process. When times are good, people spend their money and buy all sorts of new things; new cars, new furntiure, new appliances. But after awhile, a lot of people have everything they want, they don't need to spend any more. So things so down, the economy suffers.

Then a few years later, when things starts breaking down, or the latest model makes your old stuff look grossly obsolete, people go out and start buying again. It's a cycle, just like the waves or the seasons. You can't expect to have prosperity all the time.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Crashing is just part of the process. When times are good, people spend their money and buy all sorts of new things; new cars, new furntiure, new appliances. But after awhile, a lot of people have everything they want, they don't need to spend any more. So things so down, the economy suffers.

Then a few years later, when things starts breaking down, or the latest model makes your old stuff look grossly obsolete, people go out and start buying again. It's a cycle, just like the waves or the seasons. You can't expect to have prosperity all the time.

Actually communism is very stable. Sure you have shortages sometimes, but you don't have long periods where many people are unemployed and struggling to survive.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che....that's splitting hairs. IF what you are saying were true, IF the only interests to be served were among the groups you named off, then there would not have been....I repeat *would not have been* any increase in the franchise at all. None whatsoever.

There are two factors which you ignore. One, power concedes nothing without a fight. So, you are looking in the right direction when you say that the franchise would not have been extended, except, there were fights. At a certain point, denying the franchise to unpropertied white males became more destabilizing than allowing them to vote. Ever here of the Dorr County War in Rhode Island. Disnefranchised white men lead a virtual rebellion against the state government, complete with guns and cannon. Although it was put down, they got the vote. Women got the vote following a period of intense agitation, after WWI, after the Russian Revolution (which granted women the vote before the US). Black people got the right to vote in a period of global colonial revolution, when the left was growing in the United States and Black nationalism was on the rise. The cost of continuing to prevent these groups from voting would have eventually resulted in political upheaval. Better to give them the right to vote.

At the same time, when the vote was used to unseat entrenched elites in the South during Reconstruction and the Progressive Era, Southern elites unleashed a wave of terror that broke those government and stripped Black men of their right to vote. During the 1920s and 1930s, as Socialists and Communists and the like grew in popularity, laws were changed to make it almost impossible for anyone but the two entrenched parties to get on the ballot. In North Carolina, for example, a Democratic or Republican candidate might have needed only 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot (IIRC it was less) while independents needed 30,000 signatures. This pattern was repeated across the United States. In the South, the polical system was completely locked up by the Democratic Party and all decisions were made away from the public. In the North, powerful machines like Taminy Hall in NYC completely controlled all the big cities, and by extention the states.

Today, though we have primaries instead of caucases (except in Iowa), and it's becoming easier for independents to get on the ballot, it now requires huge sums of money to be seen in the race. If you can't get on television, you aren't running, and the big money goes to those who approach capital on bended knee. Labor doesn't even donate a tenth of the money corporations and the wealthy donate.

At the same time, the Republican Party has a policy of discouraging Black voters. They challenge Black's right to vote (and those who don't know better will leave), they post police to intimidate and harass Black voters, in Florida the illegally stripped 91,000 people of the right to vote on the basis that they might be convicted felons (some of whom were convicted for crimes in the future

), etc. Nor is the Democratic Party overly concerned about this, despite Black people being part of their base. After all, they wouldn't want Black people to have too much influence on the Party's handouts to the wealthy. Voting machines in Black districts are often much older than those in white districts, tending to break down more often so that votes can't be cast.

Yet, the franchise is still a potent weapon. After all, despite the machinations of the Republican Party here in Florida, we were still able to force class size amendments and education reform on a state government that refused to give the people what they wanted (although they've managed to cut the heart out of an amendment that would have restored the old state system of universities, i.e., one state system instead of multiple universities with overlapping programs). If the franchise weren't important, the Republicans wouldn't have gone to so much trouble trying to keep so many legal voters off the rolls. Would have meant a different President, and maybe a different governor here in Florida.

Oerdin · February 10, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Actually communism is very stable. Sure you have shortages sometimes, but you don't have long periods where many people are unemployed and struggling to survive.

Yes, it is very stable. Every thing is **** all the time every time.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Capitalism also has a much higher success rate.

Only because capitalism cooks the books, so to speak. When one side is constantly invaded and subjected to terrorism and the other side isn't, it skews the numbers. One one side starts out with the industrialized world and the other with dirt farmers, it skews the numbers. And of course, the capitalists only count the successful capitalist countries, and ignore all the unsuccessful ones when making their comparisons.

So while the Communist governed countries may have a success rate of 0%, the capitalists only have a success rate of 10%, when the rest of the world is included. And for a time, the Communist states were doing better than the Third World. Up until the 1970s, for example, North Koreans had a higher standard of living than South Korea. Cuba's standard of living exceeded that of many Latin American nations (including Puerto Rico, a part of the United States). East Germany had a higher standard of living than Spain or Italy.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

Actually communism is very stable. Sure you have shortages sometimes, but you don't have long periods where many people are unemployed and struggling to survive.

If communism is such a superior system, why then does one regime after another either collapse or switch to some form of capitalism?

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
If communism is such a superior system, why then does one regime after another either collapse or switch to some form of capitalism?

Because Communist led states get attacked and messed with while the leading capitalist states don't. Of course, as usually, you ignore the 150 failing capitalist states.