Jump to content

Vladimir Putin

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vladimir Putin

  1. I could certainly have gone more in-depth about the growth of America, but since the overall message isn't based on an idea of our growth, this doesn't negate my points. And you can't argue that the market regulations of Europe seriously restructured their economies around large welfare systems. The US had a manufacturing superiority to Europe way before WWII, so we still would have come out ahead even if their production capacity wasn't as crippled.
  2. Communism is doctrinal, it has a very specific set of right and wrongs, but capitalism, feudalism, and their predecessors were evolutions of a market. Trying to restructure society as a whole is a necessity of communism, capitalism doesn't require anything but a free market. Because of this, and several other reasons, communism is more morally biased.
  3. Communism relies on faulty assumptions and bad history. It was entirely a reactionary development, because without the new conditions brought on by the Industrial Revolution a landless proletariat wouldn't have developed. The yearning for a "simpler" lifestyle in which even the working class owned land and was economically independent was based on bad history and is simply nostalgic. For some reason, communists see capitalism as a recurring element in the past, when in reality the concept of a lasseiz faire market didn't come about until well after even the Americas were discovered. Reactionary ideologies that are based on false assumptions, like that requiring infinite resources in order to maintain a decent standard of living, make communism obsolete. Morally communism is inferior to capitalism because it has decided a proper way to live in a doctrinal form, where capitalism doesn't make decisions on appropriate lifestyles, but is rather the result of market forces. Market forces are determined by people who participate in the market, so capitalism is rather an outcome of their choices, and not an attempt to force them to make certain concessions in order for everyone to be equal. If equality were the goal of society, then that would be reflected in capitalism, but since it's practically impossible for everyone to be equal, equality only comes about through economic opportunity. Also, the pure ridiculousness of communist goals force it to be considered obsolete. Trying to remove all class divisions is quite simply impossible, and attempting to manufacture the outcome anyways will lead to gross violations in personal freedoms. These freedoms are considerably more important than a chance at economic equality, and morally it's not possible to justify the removal of rights in exchange for a mere possibility of material equality.
  4. This is a discussion topic I posted on another forum, WEbook's, and thought it would be an interesting topic here. It's not about the practical application of either, but rather the bias towards evil that each one has conceptually, which is why it's not a repeat topic. I found the discussion that Taswegan and I had in private messages warranted an open forum for opinion. Posted below are the messages, and the original post in the topic that prompted my message can be found here: http://www.webook.co...347e&fview=true -------- Original Message ------------- From: malashenko Sent: 3/13/2010 11:10 PM PST Subject: Post You Made in "Torture" Discussion Hello there, I just read the post you maid regarding defian16's post in the topic about torture in the forums. While I do believe you were right in pointing out his bad history (though there were quite a few things in your version of history I am in contention with), I did have reservations about what you said regarding the battle of ideologies. You said that communism isn't evil, and that it is equivalent in morality to capitalism. Taken both as just concepts and not applications, communism is considerably worse on a moral spectrum than capitalism. Capitalism is essential a division of labor spawned from a similar doctrine, mercantilism, while communism is a division of labor and total restructuring of society spawned from the Industrial Revolution, which was not doctrinal. This split alone guarantees significant divisions in moral responsibility, and because communism was founded on a revolutionary mindset, as opposed to the evolutionary growth of capitalism, it takes on more of the burden. The goal of communist movements remains to be the removal of the class division, and by extension, capitalism—certainly a violent endeavor. Granted, in practical application both communism and capitalism fall prey to abuses in their agenda, but on the whole communism remains far more conceptually biased in terms of morality, and does so in a negative way. From: Taswegan Sent: 3/14/2010 4:01 AM PDT Subject: Post You Made in "Torture" Discussion Thanks Tom for your interest. We do have a different take on communism, I see capitalism far more conceptually biased in terms of morality in a negative manner too if you take its general attitude toward ordinary people under its control. Communism is based on the ideal of sharing wealth. Capitalism is based on the ideal of accumulating wealth. Capitalism will grow and appear fair while it has room to grow. But if that growth were to be stopped it would not stop at eating itself. It is after all based on greed and accumulation. We are witnessing much of that behavior at the present time. Communism on the other hand, if we disregard mans apparent inability to handle power properly, has the ability to share the earning of a country among all, where all will ultimately benefit and prosper. I am presently studying the growth of China in this regard. China appears to be flirting with capitalism and capitalism is sucking up to China because it wants to be part of the growth taking place there. There is a profit to be made. I seem to think that what is happening is totally unbelievable and that it will end up creating a new type of economy altogether. The worlds largest companies are almost like a totalitarian state in their own right and they talk a similar language as does a communist organization in this manner. What is happening now is cooperation between communism and capitalism without conflict even being contemplated. Both are concentrating on trade and growth and this must be good. Thanks again. END MESSAGES First I'd like to summarize the arguments made by both sides in the above messages. A major component of this discussion is that we weren't arguing the application of communism or capitalism, but rather the degree of moral bias that the concept of either has. I believe we were in agreement on the point that communism and capitalism share different amounts of moral burden, and that capitalism is a passive force, while communism is a more proactive ideology. The major differences in our argument stemmed from, on my side: that communism is a reactionary movement, that capitalism is an evolutionary development, and that communism seeks to use force to remove the class division/capitalism; on Taswegan's side: that capitalism is only sustainable so long as it can grow, and that communism has the ability to share earnings to ultimately benefit everyone. I'm certain there are countless other arguments, which is why I've made this topic. To reinforce the points I made about capitalism, I find it necessary to analyze the origin of both systems. Mercantilism was the natural development of a declining feudal system in Europe, and essentially held that members of a state, especially colonies, need to amass as much wealth for their home territory as possible. Capitalism came from this system naturally, because as the wealth gained by colonization grew and increased technological capacities, the government simply could not regulate business efficiently. Private businesses were able to get capital for their venture much more easily and their successes began the system of economic deregulation that would eventually become the lasseiz faire market. Adam Smith's economic insights weren't the origin of capitalism, but rather the first description of an existing system. This sort of development, one that was not a reaction, but rather an extension and eventual separation from the originating ideology, makes capitalism a passive system. Market forces spawned capitalism, and market forces dominate capitalist doctrine. The way that applies in argument to its level of moral bias is simple; market forces represent society's wants and needs, and therefore its determination of what would be considered right and wrong, so capitalism is not a determining factor in those wants and needs but rather a result. Communism by contrast is a system trying to produce a revolutionary outcome in its followers, with a clear bias against the existing system. By assaulting the status quo, communism becomes more morally biased, it already made up its mind about what way to live was right, and what way to live was wrong. Taswegan's main argument against capitalism was that it is only fair and healthy so long as it has room to grow. Any system of thought, however, falls prey to this kind of growth trap. There are limited resources available to mankind, and the distribution of those resources is a point central to the difference between communism and capitalism. Communism seeks to share economic output equally, but in order to do that and ensure any decent quality of life, you need a fairly large amount of resources. Perhaps this is the largest flaw of communism, that its equality relies on the premise of boundless exploitable resources—something that doesn't exist anywhere. Personal ambitions must be stifled in order to maintain this system of equality, but since that equality will never be able to match the opportunity available under a capitalist ideology, the revolutionary actions required to achieve a communist state of government cannot be justified. Morally, then, communism simply can't be on even ground with capitalism, because it already has to work to reach justification before actual policy can be implemented. Of course this is just the starting point, so I'd love to see more analysis and discussion on the topic of whether communism or capitalism (conceptually) has more bias towards evil.
  5. Note: This was originally posted on WEbook by me, and I would like some reviews on there, so if you have a WEbook account please PM me. Over the course of the last 120 years, the United States has been a major world power. The 20th century, that is "America's century," is now a decade finished. We've seen massive domestic problems in healthcare reform, economic recovery, and perhaps most importantly, foreign relations. And as Obama leads the nation through these uncertain times, it has become quite evident to me that we are not going to be at the top of the pile much longer. Take a look at any of the other Western nations today, from the United Kingdom, France, to Canada, and you'll see the increasing irrelevance of a highly centralized nation-state. Viewing the historical background of this shift makes it seem far less immediate. After picking up the pieces in the aftermath of WWII, most Western European nations chose a route toward centralizing power in a mass of tangled bureaucracy, which they justified by claiming it was necessary to build the welfare states that they now are. The US avoided this policy, opting instead for Congress and the Presidency to stay the antebellum course of conservative free market regulation. And for the next 60 years this served us well, supported in large part by the existing industrial capacity, and the burgeoning innovative capacity of the modern United States. Meanwhile the European community spent that time trying to install their new technocratic governments, a process which has at best produced mixed results, and more certainly has handicapped their political influence. Today, as a result of Europe's shift in policy from international affairs to the ever more tumultuous domestic arena that is the European Union, individual nations there simply don't have clout to deal with large threats. Take Denmark for instance: in May of 2009 the Danish prime minister met with the Dalai Lama to talk about his situation. In response the Chinese essentially cut off all major trade and political relations until Denmark denounced the Tibetan struggle - which they did. With this kind of action taking place in the middle of the EU and with the world watching, you'd think there might be some reprisal. And it's not just tiny European countries either - in December 2009 a mentally ill British man was executed in China; the EU "condemned" the action. So with Europe being now subordinate to the international community's (meaning openly hostile nations and rouge states) whims, it falls to the US and its supporters to tackle increasing military tension between countries. Unfortunately we are managing not just to fail miserably at this, but make it look worse than it is. Virtually every country in the world dislikes the US, Americans, or some part of this country, and especially resents us for policing them. This situation is certainly not helped by the fact that we do an increasingly bad job, with a few exceptions, of maintaining world order. Largely this isn't our fault, it's our society's, and while those terms may seem synonymous, they aren't. We Americans are inspired more than anything else by a sense of rugged individualism and the promise of riches (material or otherwise) through hard work. And yet almost all elements of our culture are based on mass participation, while selling the "look" of individuality. What exactly this does to us politically is infinitely far-reaching, but essentially it comes down to our perception. Imagine asking a middle school-aged girl what she thought of war; most likely she would think it's "bad," or "evil," but try asking her what she thinks about the War on Terror and she'll give you one of two answers. One, she'll say how we need to beat the terrorists at any cost, and most likely reference 9/11 or some other incident. Less likely, she'll tell you that it's pointless and we need to bring our troops home. What she won't say is that the War on Terror, or any war for that matter, is a form of policy. Both of these messages are fueled by the conflict between advertising (not just in the commercial sense) technique and the message of advertisement. We rely on stereotypes to define extremely complex issues - a trait that isn't too helpful when you're seeking international approval and pursuing global foreign policy. Essentially that's the attitude that angers the rest of the world; the dissociation from fact and fiction. Increasingly we've had a cultural advertising of simple fixes to complex problems; but a band-aid won't stop a brain hemorrhage. Realistic solutions can't be found in this sort of cultural climate, and it's no wonder everyone hates us. The chance of us making a recovery in a full sense, that is a recovery of American society, is approaching zero, and we aren't making the changes necessary to stabilize our country and the world. For this reason, you can expect for sure that America will not be number one in the 21st century, probably not even number two. What kind of country can survive in the post-American world, and what does that mean for us? Predicting the future is very certainly improbable, but general trends, especially those backed by history, point to two outcomes: a new unipolar world, or the return of the multipolar world. Candidates for the leader of a post-American political hegemony are numerous, but the nation state is not so important as the ideology in determining our successor. Seeking to replace American-style global capitalism is a difficult task, but the emergence of two types of ideological rivals, Russian and Chinese style authoritarianist capitalism seem to be the most potent threats. Vladimir Putin is one sleek dictator, and a popular one at that, but his interest in personal economic gain as the leader of the Russian Federation seems to be rekindling the fires of imperialism. Putin's material ambition has distorted a half-century of ideological politics for Russians, and has adversely affected the Eastern European continent. Those not in the EU can't seek its meager protection, and even member states don't want to, or cannot attempt to stop his outreach. Russia seeks domination once again, this time not for the people (which is what happened last time, but at least they lied about it then), but for its leaders. For the US though, Putin could present one of the most probable allies against the tyranny of a rising China. China does not have to capacity to catch up to Western nations without a major change in its domestic and foreign policies, but its desperation in attempting to do so is what's worrying. Unlike Russian authoritarianist capitalism, China seeks to rise to global leadership as is, carrying its dated Communist agenda with it. This dead weight is what is keeping China back right now, but in the future they're not going to be able to keep air pumping into Deng Xiaoping's quasi-reform policies. To deal with that, as seen just recently with Denmark, China wants to polarize the world into pro-Chinese and pro-US blocs, and neither side could support itself against the other, with too much internal conflict. The Middle Kingdom is not meant to be a global hegemon, at least not yet. One positive to the attempt of unipolarity by China or perhaps Russia would be that we could most likely avoid a serious military conflict - with two superpowers competing for total domination both sides would see that they could not support a true war. Multipolar worlds are inherently dangerous, but in the past they didn't have nuclear weapons or instant communication. Today a multipolar world seems likely to result from either the aforementioned failure of Chinese leadership, or from a breakdown of international politics before then. Europe is increasing introverted, America is trying to both be extremely domestically oriented and defend the rotting corpse of our brief hegemony, and the rising powers are all busy with international squabbles. Right now we're in a pre-multipolar world, but once the US loses its grip on international policy we are headed straight for the heart and the essence of multipolarity. That's extremely bad, because in a multipolar world there is no one to mediate diplomatic differences on a significant level, and that usually means, and has meant, that war becomes more common. Western nations and the rest of the world would compete on even, though not by any means fair, ground. Nuclear warfare is very likely to happen at some point in a multipolar world, especially if the issue of rouge states isn't dealt with by then, which it almost definitely won't be. Because these entities don't care one bit for international policy now, when it can be enforced, imagine them in a rule-free environment. The US would have to actually deal with South America and the Caribbean, or else retreat into a shell of its former glory, Brazil and Venezuela especially would affect us strongly. Hugo Chavez's attempts at a South American USSR have failed so far because most people think he's a radical; at the point when international consensus disappears, it becomes easy for extremists to fill the void of power. Regarding the role of America in the 21st century, and of the state of the world in general, especially in the next decade, it's safe to believe that things will be bad, and that they will get worse.
×
×
  • Create New...