|
Post by wonkothesane on Dec 11, 2005 13:09:31 GMT -5
Bring back magic beans!!!!! Still have to give you my 'Irish History in one post' post just been stupidly busy in college and trust me it will be a long one. Magic beans, hmmm. How do those work? Their magic ;D Just a quick one on the Ireland thing- Jerry Adam's party is a Marxist Socialist party (it always amazed me how they could do so well fundraising in the us!) And Iain Paisely party is a protestant christian unionist (Northern Ireland should stay part of the British Empire) party. They hate each others guts but are both dying to be in power and since for Northern Ireland to be allowed to govern itself they both must both agree to share power as the leaders of the two biggest parties of both traditions! And both have been menbers and fundraiser of paramiltary or quasi paramilitary group. It's a barrel of laughs.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Dec 11, 2005 13:19:34 GMT -5
Magic beans, hmmm. How do those work? Their magic ;D Just a quick one on the Ireland thing- Jerry Adam's party is a Marxist Socialist party (it always amazed me how they could do so well fundraising in the us!) And Iain Paisely party is a protestant christian unionist (Northern Ireland should stay part of the British Empire) party. They hate each others guts but are both dying to be in power and since for Northern Ireland to be allowed to govern itself they both must both agree to share power as the leaders of the two biggest parties of both traditions! And both have been menbers and fundraiser of paramiltary or quasi paramilitary group. It's a barrel of laughs. Yep, except for all the bombs going off and shit. I see what you mean about polarization and such, though. The Protestants want to be part of the UK, and the IRA's main drive is to get rid of the British. Yep, opposite ends of the spectrum here indeed. Oh, i think the IRA did so well in the US for fundraising was because of the huge number of Irish Americans here. Many of them can trace their roots back to all sections fo Ireland, both north and south, and see themselves as exiles after the potato famine hit in the 1840's. So they make the case that they never wanted to leave Ireland in the first place. They had to, in order to live and survive. Thing is, they have become Irish in name only. They know nothing about their ancestry, or the homeland. But they also look to the IRA with sympathy because the Irish Americans look at the British with suspicion, and see the remaining Irish over there as oppressed somehow. And most Irish Americans lean more liberal anyway, minus the athiesm. So this goes a long way in explaining their support of Adams. Thanks for the input man. Oh, i noticed that you're from Cork, in the South.
|
|
|
Post by Samantha on Dec 17, 2005 9:36:17 GMT -5
Here is a brief introductionOn a side note if you were to ask the unionists, they would probably say they ARE British. Not just want to be a part of Britain. In the same way Russ, you no doubt ARE American. A wiki explanation of the Orange order which has alot of links for further reading on this. On another side note, if some see Europe as a Godless place, this might give a very brief taste of why we feel it's better to leave religion out of politics. lol I just saw the title of this thread again! Just, ever so slightly off topic but hey ho.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 4, 2006 21:28:31 GMT -5
Can't get much more specific than that. Perhaps if socialism didn't have such a bad reputation in world history, i might look at it more favorably. Oh, and the athiesm makes no sense to me. Why must socialism seek to destroy religion, even the optional religions of the world? Seems like a waste of time if you ask me. The Socialists could put more of their time and energy into other avenues than to destroy religion.
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jul 5, 2006 7:40:02 GMT -5
Socialism isn't about destroying religion. Obviously self-proclaimed socialists have attempted to suppress religion, but socialism is generally a tollerant ideology. There's no reason why it would want to dictate people's spiritual beliefs. However, I don't think an organised and political Church, or fanatical religious preaching is compatible with socialism. I hope the 'fuck socialism' comment wasn't meant seriously.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 5, 2006 13:09:07 GMT -5
Socialism isn't about destroying religion. Obviously self-proclaimed socialists have attempted to suppress religion, but socialism is generally a tollerant ideology. There's no reason why it would want to dictate people's spiritual beliefs. However, I don't think an organised and political Church, or fanatical religious preaching is compatible with socialism. I hope the 'fuck socialism' comment wasn't meant seriously. I know in general Socialists are more tolerant, but that wasn't my point. In the past, Socialist countries and their centralized govts have done everything possible to suppress and eradicate not only the state religion, but also every other minority faith in the proximity. Millions of people have suffered and died at the hands of this wasteful Godless zeal, and i think it was a big waste of time and manpower, not to mention human life. I don't think State religion and Socialism are compatible, either. Nor do i think mandatory State religion and membership is a good thing. Perhaps if a Socialist State wants to cement control over their masses, they should do it by other means. Perhaps by endorsing a religion of the working class, for example. I don't know what, just speculating. Oh, and the 'fuck socialism' comment probably came out of ignorance, nothing more. There are many things that Socialists could contribute to a society in the positive, but there are also just as many negative possible contributions as well. For one, i don't think a dictatorship of the proletariat should be implemented at all. Simple, uneducated people have no business running govt or leading other people. Govt should be run by the best and smartest of a group. And a govt run for the people, but not BY the people sounds like nothing more than a despotism, if you ask me. I see too much of that happening already. The economics of Socialism also should be re-forumulated, too. It's a fact that Socialist economies in the past have had enormous success in the beginning, but later have trickled off to stagnation and collapse. USSR and China are excellent examples, and China knows this, as they are moving away from pure Socialist economics. Anyway, i think Social Democracy may have a good chance of working well, if the economy has a real long term goals in mind for production. People need something to look forward to, is what i meam.
|
|
|
Post by wonkothesane on Jul 10, 2006 13:05:39 GMT -5
Back to this thread- oh God!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay first- despot update (kinda has a Fox News ring to it- "Now over to Cory with news of from the despot update desk" ) Chevez- gone and orderd plans from the Russian and want to get their permission to open two (why two- is there a discount!!!!) Kalashnekhov riffel factories all in the name of nation security.............. what a pesky little phrase that one is! But to top it off, feeling insecure about you bigger possible wanting to kill you neighbour, want to show the world your above petty political bullshit..... why not go to North Korea- talk about urinatation in a hurricane!!!!! But still there is an interesting grouping of new leaders in central and south america who might keep him in line as they have a common cause. But anyway, I hate talking about this stuff. I am very interested in politics, economics and history and I can analyse what goes on in the world and I think I can give-not on an internet forum because it would take to long- a reasoned critique of a political system or ideology and I can argue or support the views others might give about one or other system of ideas in reasonable academic terms. BUT I don't believe in any of it and find most of it bullshit made up to supress one group or another or to segregate a society under the pretense of better government but really just for reasons of power. I am me- I am beyond and more than any ideology or system of perscribed belief, beyond and more than any ism or ist beyond loyalty to any random geographical location, constucted state or impossed ethnicity - and I say that without arrogance more as a reassurance and affirmation of my own autonomy. I find it disturbing that one person would refer to themselves or others as a capitalist or a socialist. For me it places those things above their humanity at that generally leads to, even if it take a while, people getting killed for what they hold to be thruth in their own minds. Words are- despite the best efforts of government of all shades of the political spectrum (they all look the same to me!!!) to destroy language sometimes consiously other times not- still very powerful and must be used with care arnd consideration. WH Auden once said when asked what role poetry played in society the role of the poet and everybody really is to use words many correctly otherwise physical violence insues. (I'm not going to argue about what he meant by correctly, i will presume it to me carefully i think it is a reasonable assumption!) "Simple, uneducated people have no business running govt or leading other people. Govt should be run by the best and smartest of a group." This is an idea that has led to a very undemocratic situation in my own country. Who is simple or not, who is educated or not? What is education and can it only be proven by a formal institution? What about self education. At the moment I do not have a vote in the upper house of parliment- why- I do not have a university degree (most people in this country don't even know this!!!!) however in two year I will have hopefully completed my degree and will hopefullly be a lot wiser, but I would hope two years in my life doing anything would make me wiser. Oh and then I magically get to vote because ofcourse simple people should not have a detremental on government and by my governments standards I shall no longer be simple. I am sorry to pick out Russ on this one, please don't take offence, but just to say that when the constitution of my country was being writen this was the reason given. Nobody in my family before this generation attended university and most left school when they were fourthteen- yet none of them could truly be said to be uneducated. It was the same with censorship and religious intolerance- they where for the protection of the simple and uneducated. Uninspired, control-freak, manipulative, patronising scheemers populate the governments of every country- they are not the best or smartest (whatever those terms mean!) they are just the most cunning. And it will stay like that aslong as we cling to primitive ideas nationhood and simply sloganised ideologies that simply wish to seek and destroy what they perceive as the opposite and the other even if it is for purely selfinterested survival. Society will be better and will truly progress when people have the confidence to educate themselves as to who they really are as individuals and love what they are. This is beyond simplistic politics and man-made ideology of all hues. Rant over- and I'm going to try really hard not to post on this topic again it's just frustrating- I not even going to reread the post ;D
|
|
|
Post by k151 on Aug 12, 2006 3:28:58 GMT -5
It's late but I will add a quick note. I live in Canada, more socialist than the USA. I live in the most socialist province in Canada, the birthplace to medicare and, AFAIK, crown corporations. Now, medicare is, IMO, a good idea and it works ok here (with problems of wait-times as of late.) A mix of public and private healthcare would do this country good (with a majority government, Stephen Harper could/would probably do that). Does socialism work here? It seems to, this is a province of farmers and rural people have more of a say in provincial elections. Most people in cities, more than half the population, despise the current government, the NDP. This province could be a rich place of wealth, jobs and development. Instead, the population has stagnated at under 1 million for the last 3 decades or more and new job creation is much, much, MUCH lower than Alberta. If you want a place with too much government and too much control, socialism is for you. Having said that, there isn't "socialism" "liberalism" and "conservatism". The scale is ever-changing and is interpreted differently. Though a right wing conservative, Bush is a radical maniac in comparison to Canada's right wing conservative party. Despite friendliness between the two, Canada's government is much more left than the USA's. The left is also much, much more extreme in the United States. Ralph Nader is more left than our NDP, though I would shudder at being under the rule of either one, federally. The socialism in this province is mild. Consisting of overspending, overtaxing and overcontrol. Private buisness is very much alive and healthy (though not booming as it SHOULD be), there is quite a normal rich-poor divide comparable to any other place in Canada. I would be fine with the abolishment of the crown corporations. That will not happen until the NDP are gone. Though not a crown since 1989 (thank god), the Canadian airline, Air Canada, is a pathetic disgrace. The mismanagement of that company is just staggering.
What i'm getting at, here, is like any other form of government, the mild socialism I speak of can work, but it doesn't work well. In fact, I think people have to understand that NO government, in any way, shape or form, can work really well. IMO, capitalism, at least normal capitalism (not the tyrannical morons running the USA) is a more proper government in a place like Canada, with such extreme excess in exports, we need small government that nurtures private buisness and doesn't needlessly spend.
|
|
|
Post by shygirl28 on Oct 11, 2006 22:06:52 GMT -5
I learned in my business class in college that in socialist nations, they have a "brain drain" meaning that doctors go elsewhere to practice because wages in socialist nations are equally distrubuted. But on the bright side, my professor said that the executives wouldn't get all their perks & high pay if we were a socialist nation.
|
|
dog
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by dog on Oct 11, 2006 23:16:09 GMT -5
I learned in my business class in college that in socialist nations, they have a "brain drain" meaning that doctors go elsewhere to practice because wages in socialist nations are equally distrubuted. But on the bright side, my professor said that the executives wouldn't get all their perks & high pay if we were a socialist nation. Well, working on my USSR example, it is true that doctors and teachers were paid about the same as factory workers. Another thing that struck me as odd was the high expenses of the Russian medical system in the 1980's. It got to the point where entire hospitals and the old Zemstvo clinics had to be shut down because they had niether the funding nor the trained medical personnell to run them. In my own home city of Houston, for example, we have a substantial Russian minority of doctors and nurses working in our med centers, because they could not find well paying jobs back home.
|
|
dog
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by dog on Oct 13, 2006 21:11:39 GMT -5
I learned in my business class in college that in socialist nations, they have a "brain drain" meaning that doctors go elsewhere to practice because wages in socialist nations are equally distrubuted. But on the bright side, my professor said that the executives wouldn't get all their perks & high pay if we were a socialist nation. I live in a socialist nation and doctors here are well-paid. Which one?
|
|
dog
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by dog on Oct 14, 2006 10:04:19 GMT -5
Which one? the one with the highest pressure of taxation of the oecd:s we just had an election, however, and a right-wing alliance is now taking over from the socialists. Still, though, the dominating right-wing party here would probably be labeled as Communism in usa. I still don't know which country you're talking about.
|
|
dog
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by dog on Oct 15, 2006 20:32:59 GMT -5
I still don't know which country you're talking about. sweden Oh okay. Thanks, i couldn't figure it out there.
|
|
|
Post by cradith on Nov 13, 2006 1:04:13 GMT -5
I live in Ontario Canada and I have to laugh when the government says they are creating and helping people get jobs, only if you are under 25 and on welfare or want to make less than $10.00/hr. Our lovely NDP government that we had started the ball on getting hospitals amalgamated, my Dad's girlfriend had to go to another hospital to keep her job since the hospital she worked at they use for teaching and only certain medical conditions. Because of mismanagement on my hydro bill I have to help pay down the provincial debt if I did not have this my bill would be alot less. Our health cre system does work but the amount of time you sometimes have to wait is terrible. Now we a health fee we have to pay at tax time. From the courses I took at University I learned that by the time I retired there will not be anything left in Canada pension because of all the baby boomers that will be using the system and there is not enough people working to keep it going. Socialism brought alot of good programs to this country but unfortunately every time we get a new party in power these programs get changed. Bob Rae the NDP gov. we had believe he could do alot of things but once he got into power and had to clean up the mess the last gov left, he did alot of unpopular things he got voted out but the ironic thing is that the next party in power continued with what Rae was doing. The casino I work at had to let people go because of the non smoking by-law, which I agree with but that and don't being able to go out free alcohol is not helping business. But I would not want Canada to become like the States, I'm glad I was not given a bill when I left the hospital after I had my son, and what was not covered by our health care my work benefits picked up.
|
|