Political Change

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]As an example of this. I heard a story about what happened in a factory in the USSR. Workers of a factory broke the manufacturing machines of the factory so that they could not work. And they still kept their job and received their salary, despite of them being guilty of breaking the machines and ensuring that they can't do their job until the machines have been fixed/replaced. This story comes from quite a reliable source, from a businessman who used to do business in the USSR in the 1980's. I have absolutely no reason to think his words being lies.

I wanted to address this first.

I would have to think there was more going on than mere laziness to get their wages otherwise one would expect a more wide spread occurance yes? If they got away with it, why didn't more factories do the same?

Perhaps there were other underlying issues? Dissatisfaction with the state? With working conditions? With type of work? Given the Soviet sysem I doubt they workers had true say in production as well.

I don't doubt your word that it happened, but I think the causes may be something different entirely.

Quote[/b] ]I can see that people from the USA might not have their public healthcare arranged as well as it is arranged here.

It's a freakin' mess.

Quote[/b] ]I believe though that an individual should have the most power regarding how his life turns out to be. I see that socialism reduces individualism. When people are completely equalled, individualism has no place. You can't step forward and say that you are in some regard better than someone else, if you want to be totally equal with everyone else. As such, the idea of everyone being equal is just unacceptable, it is impossible to achieve in reality and thus I refuse to accept it as being a realistic view of how things should be arranged.

I agree the power to choose one's life needs to be in their hands...not decided on external or false factors (background, race, economic situation). If someone has the apptitude, why can't they go to MIT just because they don't have the money? There are scholarships to be sure, but not nearly enough to cover those that deserve to go to college but can't afford it.

However, I don't think socialism limits individuality just because it draws people to a level playing field. There are always achievers and leaders, and there is no reason to think that they would not flourish under pretty much any system of government. Equality of economy is far different than equality of ability.

Everyone is not equal. Abilities, aptitudes, skills, etc will always set individuals apart, but that does not mean that everyone should not get the same opportunites or services which is my main point. If someone wants to live off the state and play xbox and they are happy with that existence then so be it. In my opinion, laziness does not eliminate one from basic needs. Some extra rights maybe, but not needs. But there will always be people that want more from life than that, and they will continue to advance the species.

I toyed with the idea of non-workers being housed in apartment buildings, while workers recieve houses. Is that discrimination or just rewarding for contributing to the community?

Quote[/b] ]I think that a truly socialistic system is utopy, because of the nature of the human beings. Human beings are competitive by nature. Competitiveness does not fit well into the ideology of socialism, as I see it. When you have a community in which people chant "what is mine is yours, what is yours is mine" competitiveness has no place... because you would then be supposed to share everything. Competing is not sharing. Competing is good! It makes us try harder, opposed to not even trying. Competing makes us advance beyond the limits we thought we had.

That in my opinion, is the biggest challange to be overcome by socialism.

Tied into "individuality," people want there stuff to be at least somewhat different than other peoples. I personally don't want to live in a row of cookie cutter houses and neither do most people I think (though that doesn't explain the proliference of American suburbs). They want the layout to be somewhat different...different colors...different pictures or furniture etc.

The image today is that that is impossible, at least with state controlled production, and we have the image of the USSR to thank for that.

So the question becomes "How do you over come that?" Well local production is certainly one possibility. Communities over a given area will have different wants and needs. Individual inventiveness is another. In the USSR if you were the nail that stuck out you were hammered. In my personal ideology, that would definitely not be the case. Individual inventiveness should be encouraged in any fashion.

So perhaps what I have been suggesting all along is not a try socialist society based on everyone gets the same house...everyone gets the same car (all would be different under local control anyway)...but everyone does get the same healthcare and opportunities for education and work (or not).

Competition while driving us, has equally been responsible for stymieing us. Especially where profit, market share, or gaining of some form of wealth are concerned. Cooperative competition can be equally driving.

[Necromancer- 0]

Akira..

European social systems are different than in the US. We also have a different political system than in the US. We see the world different than you do.

[Akira 0]

Akira..

European social systems are different than in the US. We also have a different political system than in the US. We see the world different than you do.

Uh....yeah.  

And?

[Spokesperson 0]

Innovation works perfectly well in a socialist system. Cuba is a planned economy and is a world leader in biotechnology. They export advanced medicines to many countries. In the USSR there was no problems with innovations either, but you got to remember that the trade was mostly limited to the less-developed eastern block. In the west you don't have to rely on your own country only when it comes to new innovations, because you aren't that isolated.

Quote[/b] ]I think that a truly socialistic system is utopy, because of the nature of the human beings. Human beings are competitive by nature. Competitiveness does not fit well into the ideology of socialism, as I see it. When you have a community in which people chant "what is mine is yours, what is yours is mine" competitiveness has no place... because you would then be supposed to share everything. Competing is not sharing. Competing is good! It makes us try harder, opposed to not even trying. Competing makes us advance beyond the limits we thought we had.

Innovation is drastically reduced in socialism, as I see it. A community in which you are given a job, or a profit, for just being part of the community, reduces the amount of effort from your side. This is certainly very obvious. The more we go into socialism, the more the effort from individuals reduce.

As an example of this. I heard a story about what happened in a factory in the USSR. Workers of a factory broke the manufacturing machines of the factory so that they could not work. And they still kept their job and received their salary, despite of them being guilty of breaking the machines and ensuring that they can't do their job until the machines have been fixed/replaced. This story comes from quite a reliable source, from a businessman who used to do business in the USSR in the 1980's. I have absolutely no reason to think his words being lies.

In the same way the upper class and well-to-do's back in Rome talked about that there always will be slavery because it's in the human nature. Why would a country that doesn't support private ownership, where the common people rule, have to be an utopia? You expression "what is mine is yours, what is yours is mine" is based on the same liberal lie that communists share wives, eat children and so on. Socialists are against private ownership, which means they're against private ownership of the means of production. A tootbrush, a car or a TV are by no means means of production.

That USSR factory story might be true, it happens in all countries and after all not everybody were happy with the USSR (now they are very much so though). I wouldn't believe businessmen because they are the ones who profit from this current society. Naturally they'll do everything to make socialism look bad. Capitalists are interested in staying in power, by all means neccessary. Be it tanks, coups, media or whatever.

[falseprophet 0]

Hmm... well i dont like all the politician they promise to protect the environment, lower the taxes, antagonize the youth crime-rate.. and what are they doing? Nothing.. just try to get voted, go to the parlament talk shit and earn a lot money for it.. or try to help their own business...

well fu** them...

i just say:

back th the primitiv!

fu** all the politics!

every political party is shit, the humanity and mankind too.. we are all just a virus and.. ahhhhhh fu** it all!

after milles years we didnt learn to life in peace.. we are all to selffish for this communism and social shit.. we just look for ourself... so the system atm is worse.. but maybe the best what we can get...

(maybe i am bit extreme.. but fu.. it )

[Spokesperson 0]

Politicians promise a lot but forget that the companies are controlling more than they do with regards to the economy. If it isn't profitable to protect the environment or similar nothing will happen. That's the logics of profit and capitalism.  

If you ignore politics, politics will strike back on you.

There are many good political parties but they are more or less banned due to a lack of money and influence. They need money to reach out to the voters, and they need money to organize campaigns, but how does one get money if no one knows about you? The pro-capitalist parties (all the same with minor differences) easily find corporate sponsors and similar. Only the rich and those who favor the current system get somewhere. That's no democracy, it's the dictatorship of the capital.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]There are other factors that are inevitable that cause empires to fall. WW1 far from the primary cause. If the UK hadn't participated they would've lost their super power status way before. Prussia and Austria would've defeated its enemies and in the end reduce Britains power. UK didn't fight the war because it was fun. It was necessary to maintain the balance of power in Europe. And as a side benefit it helped the economy. Well, I could say my arguments come from god. You say yours come from Phds. That's an appeal to authority and is a try to bypass the argumentation as a whole, which is bad. If you have sources I'll take a look at those and discuss them.

Socio-economic factors are rational. WW1 was rational. Everything has a reason, therefore everything is rational

The UK would not have lost it's superpower status way before. Please stop rattling off whatever comes into your head.

Yes the UK didn't fight the war because it was fun. Looks like your getting somewhere Spokesperson.

Prussia? Looks like your getting different periods of history mixed up again. And it was Austria-Hungary by the way. Britains power would not have been reduced as it's economy would have stayed strong. The economy would have recieved a boost from the war. Britain's Empire would remain in tact and not be threatened, thus remaining the global superpower most likely past 1945 as there would have been no WW2.

The balance of power may have been disrupted in Europe, so what? Britain would have stiil remained the worlds superpower.

Your arguments certainly don't come from God. From you 'knowledge' of WW1 and history it is very clear that your arguments are made up by you on the spot.

Saying my knowledge comes from people with PHD's is not an 'appeal to auhtority' (whatever that means) or an attempt to bypass argumentation as a whole. Which makes no sense as I have argued my points repeatedly in a clear manner. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know.

Sources? Okay.

The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagine Might What Have Been

The What Ifs Of 1914 by Robert Cowley.

Robert Cowley, the founding editor of MHQ: The Quarterly Journal Of Military History and the editor of this book, is an expert on World War 1.

Here are some extracts from the first essay. England Stays Out

Quote[/b] ]European entanglements would only diminish Britain's worldwide influence, power, and economic predominance.

Quote[/b] ]Its strength undepleted by a war in which it played little part, it will remain the dominant presence on the globe far beyond 1945 - a date that will have no special meaning in history.

Quote[/b] ]As happened too often in those days of crisis in both England and the continent, politicians seemed more afraid of what would happen to them if they didn't go to war rather than if they did.

Quote[/b] ]The French may have been able to stop the Germans...Their elan had not yet been sapped...There were good commanders on the rise, men like ferdinand Foch and Louis Felix...who were more than a match for their German opposites. The French Army was better than most people think...England may have only joined the war when the Germans actually did come close to taking the channel ports...But by that time the possibility of a deal may have surfaced.

Another essay from Cowley. The Brigadier and the Private

Quote[/b] ]Great Britain would hold that day - and would stay in the war that bankrupted it.

Another extract froma different essay. Postscript: Falkenhayn's Despair

Quote[/b] ]If an armistice had come at the end of 1914. Our country (USA) would have remained...a crude, boisterous and not always charming provincial cousin...'The American Century' would have to wait...1918 would not have found the world's most powerful nation, Great Britain, deep in debt to us.

Germany Wins the Marne...If There Is a Marne

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile a bit more of France, including Nancy, and some of Belgium would be incorporated into the Reich. Historians like Niall Ferguson have suggested that Germany would have initiated a Central European Economics Union ( which it would dominate). France would pay huge reperations, enough to keep it underarmed and angry for another generation.

Doesn't look to me that WW1 was a rational socio-economic decision for Britain. Here we have a world expert on WW1 pointing out time and time again that Britain would have been far better off economically had it stayed out of the war or if it had joined but gotten out early.

[ozanzac 0]

I think you'll find most people in a stable democracy, want radical political change like a kick in the nuts. Those that do want radical change, are a vocal minority, usually, by one-eyed idealists or radicals.

Now, if you talked too someone, living in a system where they're constantly under threat, a revolution may very well be the only way for change.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Who cares? I want to go shopping .

Chops I have probably disagreed with everyone of your posts and been unduly negative in your general direction...

...but that is classic!!!

What I mean is that I think I undstand your meaning, and it is spot on.

Sad...but true.

[Spokesperson 0]

No, it's not a mix up of time periods "again". The kingdom of Prussia was the leading state in the German Empire up till after the ww1. However I intended to say Germany as a whole of course. And yes, it's Austria-Hungary if you insist.

The truth is that nobody wanted British exploitation and imperialism anywhere. From Zimbabwe in the south to Ireland in the north. The british empire was on decline already before the end of world war 1, as any empires based on oppression are. British imperialism was way worse than the current US one, both for its own people and the people of the world. The economic development in the US and similar countries had grown past that of the UK even before ww1:

"By the turn of the twentieth century, Britain’s economic fortunes were in relative decline. Germany and the United States were becoming the biggest threats in terms of domestic economic production, having vastly superior natural resources compared to Britain. Furthermore, Germany had developed its own policy of imperialism which led to friction with other imperial powers in Europe up to the First World War." from Wikipedia Economic History of Britain

World War 1 was inevitable and couldn't be avoided just like anything else in history. The arms race started way before Gavrilo Princip fired his pistol.

Quote[/b] ]The economy would have recieved a boost from the war.

Well, the war surely cost a lot for the tax payers, but without a war a crisis would've erupted later on. High and rising unemployment, low demand, low production, no investments. The demand for war materials was profitable for some and boosted much of the economy (just like in any wars where industrial losses are few). It got people employed, and busy with the war. Thus the crisis was avoided (but at a high stake).

Quote[/b] ]The balance of power may have been disrupted in Europe, so what? Britain would have stiil remained the worlds superpower.

If the balance of power is disrupted there's war.

Quote[/b] ]Saying my knowledge comes from people with PHD's is not an 'appeal to auhtority' (whatever that means) or an attempt to bypass argumentation as a whole. Which makes no sense as I have argued my points repeatedly in a clear manner. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know.

It is an appeal to authority ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ) because you're not presenting their arguments. There are many phd's who are of an opposite opinion. It doesn't say anything.

What ifs are irrelevant as well. If you have a determinist view of nature and thus history there can be no "what ifs". If "scientists" talk about what ifs they are very unscientific.

What if 2+2 was 5?

[-Snafu- 77]

No, it's not a mix up of time periods "again". The kingdom of Prussia was the leading state in the German Empire up till after the ww1. However I intended to say Germany as a whole of course. And yes, it's Austria-Hungary if you insist.

The truth is that nobody wanted British exploitation and imperialism anywhere. From Zimbabwe in the south to Ireland in the north. The british empire was on decline already before the end of world war 1, as any empires based on oppression are. British imperialism was way worse than the current US one, both for its own people and the people of the world. The economic development in the US and similar countries had grown past that of the UK even before ww1:

"By the turn of the twentieth century, Britain’s economic fortunes were in relative decline. Germany and the United States were becoming the biggest threats in terms of domestic economic production, having vastly superior natural resources compared to Britain. Furthermore, Germany had developed its own policy of imperialism which led to friction with other imperial powers in Europe up to the First World War." from Wikipedia Economic History of Britain

World War 1 was inevitable and couldn't be avoided just like anything else in history. The arms race started way before Gavrilo Princip fired his pistol.

Quote[/b] ]The economy would have recieved a boost from the war.

Well, the war surely cost a lot for the tax payers, but without a war a crisis would've erupted later on. High and rising unemployment, low demand, low production, no investments. The demand for war materials was profitable for some and boosted much of the economy (just like in any wars where industrial losses are few). It got people employed, and busy with the war. Thus the crisis was avoided (but at a high stake).

Quote[/b] ]The balance of power may have been disrupted in Europe, so what? Britain would have stiil remained the worlds superpower.

If the balance of power is disrupted there's war.

Quote[/b] ]Saying my knowledge comes from people with PHD's is not an 'appeal to auhtority' (whatever that means) or an attempt to bypass argumentation as a whole. Which makes no sense as I have argued my points repeatedly in a clear manner. The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know.

It is an appeal to authority ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ) because you're not presenting their arguments. There are many phd's who are of an opposite opinion. It doesn't say anything.

What ifs are irrelevant as well. If you have a determinist view of nature and thus history there can be no "what ifs". If "scientists" talk about what ifs they are very unscientific.

What if 2+2 was 5?

Yes it is a mix of periods again. It was not known as Prussia, since the states were united it was called Germany i.e. The German Empire.

You corrected me when I called Marxism an 'ideology'. Just doing the same thing to you.

What is this truth of exploitation got to do with it? Stop by passing the argument at hand. (Doubt you know the truth anyway) I bet Northern Ireland was glad to be part of Britain when Eire was suffering economic depression.

I already said numerous times before that the US was economic leader of the world before WW1 but Britain was still the superpower. Do you not pay attention?

I already said Britain was in relative decline before the war for feck sake. And that the US was starting to take over. You said that it was a rational economic decision for Britain to enter World War 1. Which makes no sense as the war speeded up it's decline. And don't trust wikipedia, at least my arguments are from proper academic sources and not a site which anyone can edit.

There was nothing inevitable about WW1. For example if Germany had won an early victory it would have not turned into a global war but a European one. Yes the arms race did start way before, but there were many causes ie outcome of Franco-Prussian War, web of treaties, socio-economic factors within Germany etc. Oh and saying that Gavrilo Princip caused the war by killing Archduke Ferdinand is wrong, the powder keg was already there, he simply lit it. He was not the definitive factor in causing the war.

What I meant is that the economy would have had a boost staying out of the war. Most countries that stay out of wars tend to do well economically. Britain could have sold arms, industrial goods etc. to the nations which were at war.

How do you even know the employmewnt situation was before WW1? How do you know there was low demand? How do you know there was low production? How do you know there was low investments? My point is that you don't. You do not even provide sources for these...these..."facts". Anyway it sounds more like the 1930's your describing and even if it was it's a woeful one at best.

What crisis are you on about? What crisis was avoided? (rhetorical questions by the way)

If the balance of power is disrupted there is not always a war. I didn't see Britain go to war with America when they lost their golbal superpower status. We were not bombing American cities, or engaging the US Navy after we were forced out of Suez by the US.

For the last time it's not an appeal to authority. It was to show that you that you are not always *gasp* right and that someone who spends their life studying this area may know more than *gasp* you.

I'll repeat myself to make sure the message is hammered home.

The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know

Not presenting their arguments? Where do you think I have been getting my arguments from? Thus it does say something and I will repeat it again.

The reason I said that my knowledge comes from experts in 20th Century Europe was to a) show my knowledge is reliable and accurate. b) Show that as they are experts in thier field it is their life to study and research this area and thus they will know more on 20th Cent. Europe than you could ever possibly hope to know.

In case you don't understand they know 20th Century history more than you do. Regardless of people of the other opinion. Even historians on the other opinion will agree that Britain's economy was ruined after WW1, it is not open to interpretation. Britain's economy was ruined by the war. End of.

Why are you going on about What If's for? I believe you have forgotten what we have been arguing about. Lets take a little look again.

You said that all decisions are based upon economy and are thus rational or something along that lines. I have then showed (numerous times) using Great Britains entry into the war as an example that this is simply not the case. Using arguments and points from History lecturers and a historical expert on WW1 that Britain's economy was ruined because of the war.

And I don't have a determinist view of nature. Science and Politics, History etc. are very different things. They are nowhere near as uniform as science. Thus this point makes no sense. History could have gone very differently for the sake of a few things. Annie Oakley could have easily shot the Kaiser. The driver of Archduke Ferdinand's car simply took a wrong turn and landed up on the street that Princip was in. He was just simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We are going round in circles. I have repated my arguments god knows how many times. Basically people can either go with me who has presented arguments by historians specialising in the field of 20th Cent. Europe and WW1 or Spokesperson.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ] It was not known as Prussia, since the states were united it was called Germany i.e. The German Empire.

Germany was not known as Prussia, but Prussia was. The Kingdom of Prussia, a state in the german empire, existed from 1701 to 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

It no mix of periods at all. You're mistaken.

Quote[/b] ]Which makes no sense as the war speeded up it's decline. And don't trust wikipedia, at least my arguments are from proper academic sources and not a site which anyone can edit.

It was fully rational even if it led to a speed up of the decline, if it did. Rationality doesn't automatically imply the optimal results. The British Empire had to enter the war because of many reasons (geopolitics, trade etc) and it did. Winning the war could mean a different geopolitical situation. No arms race, new markets, less expenses. And the war had its capitalist profiteers. They didn't have to pay the price of war. Those who earned money on guns and other peoples' deaths.

You didn't provide any arguments from your academic sources. Just statements (without proper backing). No reasoning. At least the wikipedia excerpt gives reasons and facts. Your "academic" "what-if" Tolkien/Bible/Harry Potter sentence quotes don't say anything. Because it's speculation based on some alleged facts. "What if" can never be scientific no matter the facts. The facts is what lead to the reality as we know it. Changing reality requires a change of prerequisites, that is, including facts. And when you change a fact you get fiction. "Science" based on fiction is no science.

Everything that has happened has been inevitable. Everything that will happen is inevitable. Chemical processes are deterministic and leaves no room for souls or free will.

Quote[/b] ]What I meant is that the economy would have had a boost staying out of the war. Most countries that stay out of wars tend to do well economically. Britain could have sold arms, industrial goods etc. to the nations which were at war.

How do you even know the employmewnt situation was before WW1? How do you know there was low demand? How do you know there was low production? How do you know there was low investments? My point is that you don't. You do not even provide sources for these...these..."facts". Anyway it sounds more like the 1930's your describing and even if it was it's a woeful one at best.

Not always. The US has done well economically before thanks to wars and its military force. Same thing with britain before. WW2 had the WW1 effects repeated.

Economic crises and problems are reasons for many wars. But economy is the reason for them all. People don't enter or start wars if they don't think they can benefit from them. If the wars go well, the crises are solved for a while. If not, it deepens and there's revolution for instance.

About Gavrilo. Yes he wasn't the real cause for the war. That's why I pointed out that the arms race started before he fired his gun.

Quote[/b] ]For the last time it's not an appeal to authority. It was to show that you that you are not always *gasp* right and that someone who spends their life studying this area may know more than *gasp* you.

That's precisely an appeal to authority. You present no arguments or facts. Just say that a phd/god/the leader knows best. You're avoiding the debate about the arguments and facts that way.

Quote[/b] ]Britain's economy was ruined by the war.

The ruin came after the war. When there was no demand for military supplies or materials and no need for war time military production, unemployment grew. And did that until the end of the depression and finally the start of the ww2.

"The United Kingdom is in the relatively unusual position that it is possible to measure nineteenth-century real GNP using all three variants of the national income procedure - the income approach, the expenditure approach, and the value added approach. Unfortunately, there are some marked inconsistencies between them, most notably in the period from the mid-nineties to the First World War. The income-based estimates record a striking slowdown in the progress of real incomes, and this is strongly supported by other indicators, for example the abnormally high level of industrial unrest and other signs of social and political discontent."

"Measuring the growth of industrial production in the UK, 1851-1907" Feinstein. That should at least give a hint about a pre-war economy on decline. That's a crisis.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ] It was not known as Prussia, since the states were united it was called Germany i.e. The German Empire.

Germany was not known as Prussia, but Prussia was. The Kingdom of Prussia, a state in the german empire, existed from 1701 to 1918.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

It no mix of periods at all. You're mistaken.

Quote[/b] ]Which makes no sense as the war speeded up it's decline. And don't trust wikipedia, at least my arguments are from proper academic sources and not a site which anyone can edit.

It was fully rational even if it led to a speed up of the decline, if it did. Rationality doesn't automatically imply the optimal results. The British Empire had to enter the war because of many reasons (geopolitics, trade etc) and it did. Winning the war could mean a different geopolitical situation. No arms race, new markets, less expenses. And the war had its capitalist profiteers. They didn't have to pay the price of war. Those who earned money on guns and other peoples' deaths.

You didn't provide any arguments from your academic sources. Just statements (without proper backing). No reasoning. At least the wikipedia excerpt gives reasons and facts. Your "academic" "what-if" Tolkien/Bible/Harry Potter sentence quotes don't say anything. Because it's speculation based on some alleged facts. "What if" can never be scientific no matter the facts. The facts is what lead to the reality as we know it. Changing reality requires a change of prerequisites, that is, including facts. And when you change a fact you get fiction. "Science" based on fiction is no science.

Everything that has happened has been inevitable. Everything that will happen is inevitable. Chemical processes are deterministic and leaves no room for souls or free will.

Quote[/b] ]What I meant is that the economy would have had a boost staying out of the war. Most countries that stay out of wars tend to do well economically. Britain could have sold arms, industrial goods etc. to the nations which were at war.

How do you even know the employmewnt situation was before WW1? How do you know there was low demand? How do you know there was low production? How do you know there was low investments? My point is that you don't. You do not even provide sources for these...these..."facts". Anyway it sounds more like the 1930's your describing and even if it was it's a woeful one at best.

Not always. The US has done well economically before thanks to wars and its military force. Same thing with britain before. WW2 had the WW1 effects repeated.

Economic crises and problems are reasons for many wars. But economy is the reason for them all. People don't enter or start wars if they don't think they can benefit from them. If the wars go well, the crises are solved for a while. If not, it deepens and there's revolution for instance.

About Gavrilo. Yes he wasn't the real cause for the war. That's why I pointed out that the arms race started before he fired his gun.

Quote[/b] ]For the last time it's not an appeal to authority. It was to show that you that you are not always *gasp* right and that someone who spends their life studying this area may know more than *gasp* you.

That's precisely an appeal to authority. You present no arguments or facts. Just say that a phd/god/the leader knows best. You're avoiding the debate about the arguments and facts that way.

Quote[/b] ]Britain's economy was ruined by the war.

The ruin came after the war. When there was no demand for military supplies or materials and no need for war time military production, unemployment grew. And did that until the end of the depression and finally the start of the ww2.

"The United Kingdom is in the relatively unusual position that it is possible to measure nineteenth-century real GNP using all three variants of the national income procedure - the income approach, the expenditure approach, and the value added approach. Unfortunately, there are some marked inconsistencies between them, most notably in the period from the mid-nineties to the First World War. The income-based estimates record a striking slowdown in the progress of real incomes, and this is strongly supported by other indicators, for example the abnormally high level of industrial unrest and other signs of social and political discontent."

"Measuring the growth of industrial production in the UK, 1851-1907" Feinstein. That should at least give a hint about a pre-war economy on decline. That's a crisis.

Prussia - The wikipedia article you pointed out to me proves you wrong.

Quote[/b] ]The Kingdom of Prussia (1701-1918): formed the elevation of Brandenburg-Prussia to a kingdom, this state went on to become the dominant state of the German Empire (1871-1918).

Emphasis on German Empire.

Quote[/b] ]It was fully rational even if it led to a speed up of the decline, if it did. Rationality doesn't automatically imply the optimal results. The British Empire had to enter the war because of many reasons (geopolitics, trade etc) and it did. Winning the war could mean a different geopolitical situation. No arms race, new markets, less expenses. And the war had its capitalist profiteers. They didn't have to pay the price of war. Those who earned money on guns and other peoples' deaths.

How could it be rational when the economy was exhausted by war? A major war is incredibly expenisve to pay for and when it is over a number of years it is going to do some serious damage to the economy, bankrupt the nation and put it in debt to other nations. How that is rational for the economy makes absolute no sense. It also exhausted the industry. All countries in the war except the USA had shit economies.

What you were saying earlier on in the thread was that the economy was the basis of every decision so the capitalists/upper classes/whatever can make more money. So one would assume Britain would only take action which benefited the economy as a whole and did not exhaust it.

Quote[/b] ]Economic crises and problems are reasons for many wars. But economy is the reason for them all. People don't enter or start wars if they don't think they can benefit from them. If the wars go well, the crises are solved for a while. If not, it deepens and there's revolution for instance.

Evidence of an economic crises in the UK before WW1 please. Britain didn't benefit from WW1 and it certainly didn't go very well for them. The armies on the Western Front barley moved during most of the war. Albiet at the beginning and the end.

Quote[/b] ]That's precisely an appeal to authority. You present no arguments or facts. Just say that a phd/god/the leader knows best. You're avoiding the debate about the arguments and facts that way.

Eh no. They spend 100's of hours reading books, going over sources, writing essays etc. on the subject. Thus they are bound to have better knowledge than you. All you do is a 5 min search on shitipedia. You never present any reliable evidence for you arguments. and I'm not avoiding, I've countered nigh on all your points.

Quote[/b] ]The ruin came after the war. When there was no demand for military supplies or materials and no need for war time military production, unemployment grew. And did that until the end of the depression and finally the start of the ww2.

"The United Kingdom is in the relatively unusual position that it is possible to measure nineteenth-century real GNP using all three variants of the national income procedure - the income approach, the expenditure approach, and the value added approach. Unfortunately, there are some marked inconsistencies between them, most notably in the period from the mid-nineties to the First World War. The income-based estimates record a striking slowdown in the progress of real incomes, and this is strongly supported by other indicators, for example the abnormally high level of industrial unrest and other signs of social and political discontent."

"Measuring the growth of industrial production in the UK, 1851-1907" Feinstein. That should at least give a hint about a pre-war economy on decline. That's a crisis.

For the 50th time I already said Great Britain was in relative decline before the war. How much times do I need to repeat myself? Relative decline + WW1 = Speed in decline and exhausted economy = USA world economic leader in 1918. Put in a scientific way there since that's what you think history is - science.  

How that shows the economy was the basis for Britains decision to got to war does not make sense at all. While the USA stayed out of most of the war and had an economic boom during it.

Quote[/b] ]You didn't provide any arguments from your academic sources. Just statements (without proper backing). No reasoning. At least the wikipedia excerpt gives reasons and facts. Your "academic" "what-if" Tolkien/Bible/Harry Potter sentence quotes don't say anything. Because it's speculation based on some alleged facts. "What if" can never be scientific no matter the facts. The facts is what lead to the reality as we know it. Changing reality requires a change of prerequisites, that is, including facts. And when you change a fact you get fiction. "Science" based on fiction is no science.

History is not science. History isn't comprised of formulae. I'm not arguing that history is scientific. What a load of crap.

And wikipedia is reliable?  

And you have never citied any sources to back up your arguments. My arguments were the arguments of my lecturers and that What If? book that provided solid fact as well as possible scenarios. I lraedy explained the one about the lecturers. Stop ignoring points that don't fit in with your 'vision'.

My sources were written by an academic. It's his job. Wikipedia isn't relaible or a trusted academic sources as it can be edited by anyone. Moreover some of those outcomes would have been pretty likely. For example Germany just taking some land from France and making them pay for reparations etc. As that is what basically happened at the end of the Franco-Prussian war. Afterall WW1 was still the age of imperialism that the Franco-Prussian war was in.

Moreover Marxism is also a What if? It isn't solid evidence of anything. It's just simply his thoughts. So is also load of fairytale/harry potter bullshit.

Which it is.

Some of the statements I put up were not what if. I'll repeat them again. (You Marxists just love ignoring things that don't fit in with your arguments.)

Quote[/b] ]European entanglements would only diminish Britain's worldwide influence, power, and economic predominance.

This hows that an involvement in a major European war would damage Britains economy. Something the 'capitalists' in that contry would not want as they would make more money if Britain was not in a war. Moreover arms makers were already producing weapons for an arms race so there was no need for a war for that particular group to make dosh.

Quote[/b] ]Great Britain would hold that day - and would stay in the war that bankrupted it.

Basically what is said here is that World War 1 bankrupted Britain. No overall economic benefit at all. Don't see how this one needs explaining...but you asked for it.

I'm done arguing with you, You ignore arguments that disprove you, try to change the argument, constantly cite 'facts' from Wikipedia, repeat arguments over again thus I have to repeat myself again, inherently biased with your marxist 'vision', think history is science and that events are inevitable. (load of crap). Oh and refuse to accept the fact that you do not know everything.

But if you feel the need to reply PM me and lets stop using this thread for our own personal debate.

[Spokesperson 0]

No, you say that prussia was another time period. Prussia existed until 1918 but as a part of the germany empire after it was formed. That's what wikipedia says. Thus, talking about prussia is not a mix of time periods.

Quote[/b] ]How could it be rational when the economy was exhausted by war? A major war is incredibly expenisve to pay for and when it is over a number of years it is going to do some serious damage to the economy, bankrupt the nation and put it in debt to other nations. How that is rational for the economy makes absolute no sense. It also exhausted the industry. All countries in the war except the USA had shit economies.

What you were saying earlier on in the thread was that the economy was the basis of every decision so the capitalists/upper classes/whatever can make more money. So one would assume Britain would only take action which benefited the economy as a whole and did not exhaust it.

Everything that happens is rational. People didn't know the results beforehand. At that time, with the information available, it was the only rational option. Countries don't always profit from wars, but capitalists are. And capitalists were and are those who rule the UK. US companies profit from oil in Afghanistan and Iraq. They profit from security contracts and projects to name a few examples. In the end it's also beneficial for the economy of the US. In geopolitics everything can be reduced to economy. Because economy is power.

Quote[/b] ]Eh no. They spend 100's of hours reading books, going over sources, writing essays etc. on the subject. Thus they are bound to have better knowledge than you. All you do is a 5 min search on shitipedia. You never present any reliable evidence for you arguments. and I'm not avoiding, I've countered nigh on all your points.

Again, an appeal to authority. X has read 100 books. X claims P. Therefore X must be correct. So the argument is, he's read 100 books and therefore he's correct. Where's the argumentation?? Where are the facts and arguments? I too can claim I read 101 books. It will be a debate about an amount of books not the facts. Only they are interesting. Conclusions are based on facts, not on an amount of read books. "God created the world. Therefore his opinion must be correct. " "That's correct because I read the bible".

Quote[/b] ]History is not science. History isn't comprised of formulae. I'm not arguing that history is scientific. What a load of crap.

Really? So if history can't be explained in scientific terms it must be magic of some sort? Isn't that what harry potter is about?

Quote[/b] ]And you have never citied any sources to back up your arguments. My arguments were the arguments of my lecturers and that What If? book that provided solid fact as well as possible scenarios. I lraedy explained the one about the lecturers. Stop ignoring points that don't fit in with your 'vision'.

I did at least three times. Wikipedia, angus-reid and that essay. You'll have to cite your lecturers if that's the case. You can't just claim something. And lecturers don't have to be correct just because they are lecturers. The only thing that is relevant is a persons arguments. You posted quotes with statements without arguments and facts. What if?-cases are fiction and can't be base for any science.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover Marxism is also a What if? It isn't solid evidence of anything. It's just simply his thoughts. So is also load of fairytale/harry potter bullshit.

What is what if? in marxism? In marxism there are theories just like the one of gravity. It's scientific analysis, objectivity, reproductionability, observations, hypotheses and conclusions based on facts.

[-Snafu- 77]

No, you say that prussia was another time period. Prussia existed until 1918 but as a part of the germany empire after it was formed. That's what wikipedia says. Thus, talking about prussia is not a mix of time periods.

Quote[/b] ]How could it be rational when the economy was exhausted by war? A major war is incredibly expenisve to pay for and when it is over a number of years it is going to do some serious damage to the economy, bankrupt the nation and put it in debt to other nations. How that is rational for the economy makes absolute no sense. It also exhausted the industry. All countries in the war except the USA had shit economies.

What you were saying earlier on in the thread was that the economy was the basis of every decision so the capitalists/upper classes/whatever can make more money. So one would assume Britain would only take action which benefited the economy as a whole and did not exhaust it.

Everything that happens is rational. People didn't know the results beforehand. At that time, with the information available, it was the only rational option. Countries don't always profit from wars, but capitalists are. And capitalists were and are those who rule the UK. US companies profit from oil in Afghanistan and Iraq. They profit from security contracts and projects to name a few examples. In the end it's also beneficial for the economy of the US. In geopolitics everything can be reduced to economy. Because economy is power.

Quote[/b] ]Eh no. They spend 100's of hours reading books, going over sources, writing essays etc. on the subject. Thus they are bound to have better knowledge than you. All you do is a 5 min search on shitipedia. You never present any reliable evidence for you arguments. and I'm not avoiding, I've countered nigh on all your points.

Again, an appeal to authority. X has read 100 books. X claims P. Therefore X must be correct. So the argument is, he's read 100 books and therefore he's correct. Where's the argumentation?? Where are the facts and arguments? I too can claim I read 101 books. It will be a debate about an amount of books not the facts. Only they are interesting. Conclusions are based on facts, not on an amount of read books. "God created the world. Therefore his opinion must be correct. " "That's correct because I read the bible".

Quote[/b] ]History is not science. History isn't comprised of formulae. I'm not arguing that history is scientific. What a load of crap.

Really? So if history can't be explained in scientific terms it must be magic of some sort? Isn't that what harry potter is about?

Quote[/b] ]And you have never citied any sources to back up your arguments. My arguments were the arguments of my lecturers and that What If? book that provided solid fact as well as possible scenarios. I lraedy explained the one about the lecturers. Stop ignoring points that don't fit in with your 'vision'.

I did at least three times. Wikipedia, angus-reid and that essay. You'll have to cite your lecturers if that's the case. You can't just claim something. And lecturers don't have to be correct just because they are lecturers. The only thing that is relevant is a persons arguments. You posted quotes with statements without arguments and facts. What if?-cases are fiction and can't be base for any science.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover Marxism is also a What if? It isn't solid evidence of anything. It's just simply his thoughts. So is also load of fairytale/harry potter bullshit.

What is what if? in marxism? In marxism there are theories just like the one of gravity. It's scientific analysis, objectivity, reproductionability, observations, hypotheses and conclusions based on facts.

Whatever, believe what you want but it's saturday and I've got more important things to do than argue on a forum.

Last points

You claim to be deterministic. Consequenty if he has researched this area more then they will know more than you, they also have qualifications in it etc. If they were not of a ceratin standard then they would have not gotten a job at a university. Fits perfectly with your deterministic nature logic. If it was a media studies lecturer then fair do's but he isn't. You appeal to authority as well when you argue your points of view by citing Marx just because he has looked into society more than me. And yet again I have never claimed them to be 100% right just that they will ahve a better understanding.

Prussia - Seems it was a misunderstanding, when you said it was at war with the UK in WW1 or something along that lines, I didn't understand this. As Prussia was not independent after unification. After unification it was Germany. I did not deny it's existance. But it was Germany that went to war not the Prussian state alone.

Oh and Marxism is a sociological theory thus it is not fact. It is a theory on society as is functionalism, neo-marxism, liberal feminism, radical feminism etc. They use various research methods to try and prove themselves but they are always wrong in some areas or do not make sense in some areas. Sociology is about looking into how society works, everything is open to interpretation and nothing is taken for granted. Just like alternate history but unlike science.

In addition gravity is not a theory, it is known.

[R3MF 0]

the existing order seems just fine, after all the UK is near the top so why mess with a winning formula?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

the current political system much of the world is in now is the best compromise currently available.  period.

Until a better, more attractive system comes about there is going to be no change.  There will eventually be change but i predict the current system will last at the very least a few  hundred years (UNLESS TWO THINGS HAPPEN : there is either a major major war or a total global economic crash.)

Quote[/b] ]In addition gravity is not a theory, it is known

nope just a widly accepted theory.  The evidance for it is great, but it is still a theory.  Its the same as flying.  To this day there is actually no agreed conclusive reason as to how Planes manage to stay in the air.

[Commando84 0]

Politicians promise a lot but forget that the companies are controlling more than they do with regards to the economy. If it isn't profitable to protect the environment or similar nothing will happen. That's the logics of profit and capitalism.

If you ignore politics, politics will strike back on you.

There are many good political parties but they are more or less banned due to a lack of money and influence. They need money to reach out to the voters, and they need money to organize campaigns, but how does one get money if no one knows about you? The pro-capitalist parties (all the same with minor differences) easily find corporate sponsors and similar. Only the rich and those who favor the current system get somewhere. That's no democracy, it's the dictatorship of the capital.

i think there are people running corporations and they will go to the green side one by one, it wont take a year or two, but it will happen, the same like the enviroment cars and removing dangerours pesticides and stuff. It takes a little time and hard work but the world will repair itself again..

i dunno if we can heal the world but we can slowly remove and optimize the bad stuff and the world will start to heal itself like it always been doing.

Yeah also corporations are looking at money but they are also wanna look at the future i think and build and keep having customers and having their business running stabile instead of getting to shut down during storms or whatever caused by global warming... ect.

also i think the best way is a middle road between capitalism and communism, ie democratic socialism of some sort like in Sweden and other european countries.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]In addition gravity is not a theory, it is known

nope just a widly accepted theory.  The evidance for it is great, but it is still a theory.  Its the same as flying.  To this day there is actually no agreed conclusive reason as to how Planes manage to stay in the air.

Really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I was making a point not a scientific argument.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]the existing order seems just fine, after all the UK is near the top so why mess with a winning formula?

Near the top? In what way? Like when people freeze to death every winter because they can't pay their electricity bills? Unemployment? Is that good?

Quote[/b] ]the current political system much of the world is in now is the best compromise currently available. period.

Until a better, more attractive system comes about there is going to be no change. There will eventually be change but i predict the current system will last at the very least a few hundred years (UNLESS TWO THINGS HAPPEN : there is either a major major war or a total global economic crash.)

There is one economical system that works better. It's planned-economy. Just compare Cuba to the other latin countries in the region. Cuba is the only country in the world with sustainable development according to WWF. It has less child mortality rate than the US (that's a common measure of the healthcare standard). Higher life expectancy than the US. No malaria and such diseases. No homelessness and no exploitation. High economic growth the latest ten years too.

Or as Einstein puts it:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." in "Why Socialism"

Quote[/b] ]i think there are people running corporations and they will go to the green side one by one, it wont take a year or two, but it will happen, the same like the enviroment cars and removing dangerours pesticides and stuff. It takes a little time and hard work but the world will repair itself again..

i dunno if we can heal the world but we can slowly remove and optimize the bad stuff and the world will start to heal itself like it always been doing.

Yeah also corporations are looking at money but they are also wanna look at the future i think and build and keep having customers and having their business running stabile instead of getting to shut down during storms or whatever caused by global warming... ect.

also i think the best way is a middle road between capitalism and communism, ie democratic socialism of some sort like in Sweden and other european countries.

The people who run corporations are supposed to do what's profitable, by law. They are responsible for other people's money (the share holders or capitalists). If they can't profit from measures to improve the environment, they won't implement any. Or why did Cuba manage to get environment friendly that quick and not any other countries?

There is no middle road between capitalism and socialism. It's either capitalism or socialism. Either you have capitalist oppression or you don't. All social democratic countries are capitalist countries, but with higher welfare. Most countries got voting rights right after the russian revolution. And since the dissolution of the soviet union social democracy is on a decline. The welfare state dissolves. Why?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

you have just proved my point.  you can argue what you are trying to, but evidently its just not attractive to most people in developed nations around the world.

[Spokesperson 0]

I think it is, but they don't know about it. More and more people don't vote. Even more think the current system is shit. People are positive, but they won't think of any solutions automatically. Not many know what communism is. They think it's what people had in the USSR or what they saw in liberal propaganda movies.

[R3MF 0]

Quote[/b] ]the existing order seems just fine, after all the UK is near the top so why mess with a winning formula?

Near the top? In what way? Like when people freeze to death every winter because they can't pay their electricity bills? Unemployment? Is that good?

we have the fifth biggest economy by GDP.

the second highest level of absolute military spending.

and a disproportionately large international influence for a small island nation.

not too shabby.

[Spokesperson 0]

UK might be one of the biggest economies, yes. But normal people don't benefit from it. Those who own and rule the country do.

Why do you have that high military spendning? Well, it seems like you like to go to other countries and oppress, rob and burn. Little brother of the US!

[-Snafu- 77]

to go to other countries and oppress, rob and burn. Little brother of the US!

Like the USSR, Che Guevara, Mao's Commies etc. Little brother of the US? Well technically the US was the love child of European immigrants. So not really.

Be careful getting into an argument with this guy R3MF. It is his sole purpose in life to trawl through internet forums pimping his commie views. Even when you counter one of his points he will reply in arrse covering double speak.

I would say people actually do benefit from big economies. I don't earn much but I got plenty of food, NHS, increase in living standards among the majority of people, people got better health etc.

Also I don't see how this magical socialism is supposed to better the world. The system will still be corrupt, people will still be power hungry and do anything to get into a position of power, not everyone will be equal, not everyone will have motor vehicles, crime will still exist etc.

Moreover earlier on in this thread you mentioned that luxury goods are horrible parts of capitalism. So what are we supposed to do for entertainment in the socialist world? Sit and do nothing? No TV? No cinema? No pubs? No computers? These are all luxury goods. Are we going back in time to a subsistance farming based lifestyle where people work for hours on end to produce barely enough food for themselves?

What is your vision Spokesperson? You going to get rid of the family structure to? Just like one of your heroes Pol Pot?