11/26

[Student Pilot 0]

If unemployment is 20%, that might be an indicator that the economy is doing poorly, in which case you as an employee should be thankful you have a job. That is the nature of the markets. During times of prosperity the employees have more relative power and during times of recession the employers have more relative power. You just have to deal with it as a fact of life.

Or you can choose a centrally planned society, where everyone has a "job" with free housing and healthcare (if you can call it that). Of course, there is never chance for improvement and a snowball's chance in hell of becoming prosperous without having the central planner in your back pocket. But hey, at least everyone has job security.

If you want to live a comfortable life, you will have to take some risks. You cannot ever get around the risk-reward relationship. Don't want risk? Then you get no rewards and have a low standard of living. As much risk as possible? Then you potentially get many rewards but also have the chance of complete failure. Obviously, the ideal circumstance is somewhere in the middle.

-Student Pilot

[vilas 477]

If unemployment is 20%, that might be an indicator that the economy is doing poorly

there are also other reasons, for example issuing robots to industry as one reason

other reason - you may not know living in US, but in ex-commie state we know

buying by other company to destroy

example:

there is producer A and B

both do something, never mind what... "thing X"

company A in west do X for 5 USD

company B in east do X for 1 USD

so if market borders opens (1989) for example on west people can buy X for 2 USD not 10

so ...

for example you have market for this X for 1 000 sales year

in this example company A was earning 5 000 USD

and when company B enter market than for example position of A is in danger

but... government of country where B is, is corrupted

so A can buy B industry for 100 USD and delete competition :/

you may say "Vilas is wrong, A can buy B and there manufacture something"

no, because people in country of A will loose jobs

and company A won't let it happen

so company A buys B and destroys it

maybe not often, but there were such situations

unemployment was also spiral of wrong government decisions

but there is something more what applies to unemployment - in socialism people worked less time, so more people were need

now work more/harder, so less people are need to make job (for example noone eat breakfast for hour but 10 minutes )

[sudayev 27]

unemployment was also spiral of wrong government decisions

Poland owes that rampant unemployment and appalling economy between 2001-2004 mostly to Democratic Left Alliance (post commie) during their "divide and rule" politics.

but there is something more what applies to unemployment - in socialism people worked less time, so more people were need

now work more/harder, so less people are need to make job (for example noone eat breakfast for hour but 10 minutes )

When I used to live in the "capitalist" USA and UK then I had 1 hr lunch breaks during the job and everyone was very happy. Moreover our state laws guaranteed us such breaks. Swinging

[maturin 12]

As another example, the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were in it for power as well. If they were so concerned about the collective good, then why did they live in wealth while the people of the Soviet Union lived in poverty? The leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution were in it for themselves and only used economics as the method for achieving power.

Not really true. The Bolshevik leaders were ideologically committed. If all historical movements had ideology based on self interest, the world would be very different. Asserting that Ayatollah Khomeini was led to radical islamism through his pursuit of power rather than the other way around would be ridiculous. His beliefs were what caused his pursuit of power.

If the Communist nomenklatura lived in luxury it was because of human weakness and small-scale corruption. But there was a constant effort to improve living standards. (Or to make people live in near-starvation in order to squeeze out enough capital to allow higher living standards in the future, which is what happened.) There was also a struggle between utopian ideas of equality and practical necessities for development. The communists couldn't agree whether or not they should pay their specialists and scientists more than workers. While Stalin allowed researchers incredible privileges, and specialists and officials became a sort of ruling class, the higher-ups did not take the logical step to make their advantages hereditary and independent of their employment. To do so would be an even graver transgression against Marxism. When the ideology was spent in the 1980s, private industries run by the nomenklatura on the side became common. At that point Marxism was dead and its dictates were merely an excuse for retaining power.

[call_911 10]

many problems in world are due to religions

if there are religion conflicts like "people of god A kill people of god B, cause people of god A believe they must show god A to people of god B"

also problem is when "west" tries to change "east" with it's (west) money-godlike philosophy of life

"west" believes it's hamburgers and coca-cola should rule the world, while in other world there are other values

i can compare old Polish traditional rules basing on catholic church , for example:

respect to older

example - if you are in bus or tram you MUST give place to sit for old man

what do american in Polish bus ?

sits with MP3 on ears and sings disturbing others to travel in silence :/

i once traveled by train with group of americans, omg :(

they were keeping their legs and boots on other seats !!!!!

they not cared that they can dirt seat and someone can dirt himself a coat :(

when conductor came to check tickets, they were laughing at his accent instead of being thankful that he knows their language

my girl told them to "f***" , one old american (50 years ) had clock with Mikey Mouse :(

o my god , what a kind of...

i remember many US propaganda movies, all those James Bonds, all other movies of US, many movies when they were saying "we must destroy communism, evil empire" and etc, even McGyver when he was on "missions" in east, hehe, McGyver

you wanna know the truth about living in "evil empire" ?

i can say from my parent's and my memory how "bad was it"

we had free of charge education, you have to pay for studies ? we had it free

we had free medical care, you must pay for doctor, we had no

we had militia eyes on everything, so you could safely go street in evening, bandits were rare

we had free holidays and etc.

we had flats for free, now we must work hard to buy home , which previously was given by the state

of course we were more poor, it is truth,

but your "propaganda" was saying "communism bad"

i have comparison and i can say "every medal has two sides"

you wanna know what changed since i have your "freedom" ?

i must work very harder and i cannot afford to have my own flat (which was given free in communism)

my younger friend has to pay for study,

when i broke leg i had to pay for many things, if my friend is ill - his employers not pays him, while he is ill :/

if my children (in future) would like to go to mountains, sea - i must pay for it, previously it was given by my mothers bureau (FWP - Fundusz Wczasów Pracowniczych - employers holidays found)

when i am walking evening on street i must look around if there is no group of robbers

my mother doesn't leave home at night, cause she afraid someone can rob her, take money and beat on street

it is "other face of your freedom", there is ca. 30% people who say they are not satisfied with this what they have now

of course it all depends of money you earn and etc.

but belive me, i would rather have flat to live with my girl than "freedom of speech and travel", i prefer roof over my head and not to afraid of loosing job (there was almost no unemployment before 1989, almost no homeless people)

many people lost jobs in 1990's , many commited suicides because had no money to live, among them 2 people in my block (there are 60 families in my block), cause had no job and money for food and pay for flat

think now yourself about words "we must destroy evil empire and commies" from cold war

you wanted to "fight communism" (free flat, free holidays, medical care and free studies) and "bring freedom" ( freedom of unemployment, poor people without medical care and homeless beging for food) ?

wanna know whom i met yesterday ? old grannie asking for few PLN on bread :( she worked all her life and now has pension not enough to live)

instead of "equal poor with social care" we found in situation when "i cannot afford to buy something"

thats why there always be problems east-west

for example we care about ecology while US not signed international agreements on pollution and use pickups with 6 litter engine which pollute air

they are 5% of population of whole world and they behave like they were 95% :(

and till US won't change look at other world, till religions in world will be used in politics - world will be boiling in blood

on one Kreator song there is also other phrase "terror is a shadow of a fear"

people afraid of something and attack, like animal attacks when feels in danger

to destroy Taliban world should show them "that there is other world"

Talibs have brain washed and no idea, that there is better world than they know

and their leaders use lack of knowledge to wash brains

it will be many many years of education to see "oooo there is other world" for both sides

one side believes "i will get 70 women in heaven when i will kill american" and it is all making problems in world, too much religion lies , too much brain wash, to low education

if they had in their villages internet, and see how world is beauty, they would rather go with camera and make photos than take rifle and die

but from the other side, "west" should not so much tried to change east philosophy and tradition, if my knowledge about US was only from americans i met in life - i would hate them (guy in train, guy in bus)

but i saw many TV programs, how american help each other, when for example his house burned in fire, that i believe that they are good to each other

but it is all thanx to knowledge from internet, TV and etc,

they also payed big price in D-Day

without knowledge i could only judge by arrogant guy in bus and other in train who was hiding his wallet in his pants saying to wife "there is everyone thief, hide money" - he had no idea we know english

other difference east/west is approach to truth

for people from east "lie" is "bad", people from west say "marketing" "PR" - sorry, but for us those are "lies" if it is not true

other difference is sex-approach

in east countries pedophile is not human being and not deserve life

while i heard about man imprisoned in UK for rape on 13 years old for 4 months !!!

4 months ?

this guy was latter lynched by mob, but i cannot understand 4 months

40 years should be price or death, not 4 months

raping child is biggest crime for me, it was case worldwide known , or look at Lithuanian who killed pedophile and is searched by police

for "west" he is killer, for me he is hero, cause he killed someone who hurt children and if he would need help - i would give him any help i can

so there are basic differences east-west

and they cannot be changed if for someone in west (those Helsing human rights fighters) pedophile is human - i will never agree that pedophile is human, never

looking at what "westernians" often write here, sometimes i have doubts "do they have any moral barriers"

Not all Americans are bad don't understand these forumns sometimes. Take a trip to Normandy Beach an look at all the head stones of Americans.

[jakerod 254]

Not all Americans are bad don't understand these forumns sometimes. Take a trip to Normandy Beach an look at all the head stones of Americans.

That was 50 years ago. Things have changed. I'm not saying that all Americans are bad or anything, just that events which occurred 50 years ago are not a good way of measuring present trends in American society.

[GoOB 0]

I like this discussion - It's like watching Fox News or something, wake up people. Capitalism and social security aren't mutually exclusive. I am sitting rather comfortably in my apartment (rented from a company the municipality owns) surrounded by the baubles of my own excessive consumerism. This all whilst my arm is in a cast thanks to an operation that made a dent of 24,75 USD in my budget. An operation that has left me unable to work for three months, and during these three months my generous government (together with my most kind employers, as they are bound by law to do) provides me with 80% of my regular income. I have also been accepted to start a candidature in social anthropology come january - During that time I will be able to opt for a loan of 5000 SEK a month at approximatley 1% interest. So I shall be able to continue to enjoy capitalism whilst my socialist (well, somewhat socialist) government provides me with knowledge.

Oh, did I mention that my cousin is currently on three month paternity leave to care (during which he receives a percentage of his income from

the state and indeed, his employer) for his newborn child? This ofcourse after his wife had three months of maternity leave under the same conditions.

It really is quite amazing - All this in exchange for having a third car or fifty credit cards, I know my kid will thank me for paying high taxes, and I know I thank my government for providing me with these oppurtunities and caring for my health, and indeed thankful for that my taxes will go towards caring for my own children aswell as my parents welfare when they grow older.

Erh... But we really are off-topic in the offtopic section - Aren't we?

[Spetz 0]

I hope India does something to prevent this again, they buying some P8I , E3D AWACs, Phalcon AWAC, maybe some F-18s(in race against Rafeal, F-16, mig-35, eurofighter)

[riffleman 20]

People talk about topic of thread,not other things.read the heading and first post than response.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

People talk about topic of thread,not other things.read the heading and first post than response.

How about you say please?

[sudayev 27]

I like this discussion - It's like watching Fox News or something, wake up people. Capitalism and social security aren't mutually exclusive. I am sitting rather comfortably in my apartment (rented from a company the municipality owns) surrounded by the baubles of my own excessive consumerism. This all whilst my arm is in a cast thanks to an operation that made a dent of 24,75 USD in my budget. An operation that has left me unable to work for three months, and during these three months my generous government (together with my most kind employers, as they are bound by law to do) provides me with 80% of my regular income. I have also been accepted to start a candidature in social anthropology come january - During that time I will be able to opt for a loan of 5000 SEK a month at approximatley 1% interest. So I shall be able to continue to enjoy capitalism whilst my socialist (well, somewhat socialist) government provides me with knowledge.

Oh, did I mention that my cousin is currently on three month paternity leave to care (during which he receives a percentage of his income from

the state and indeed, his employer) for his newborn child? This ofcourse after his wife had three months of maternity leave under the same conditions.

It really is quite amazing - All this in exchange for having a third car or fifty credit cards, I know my kid will thank me for paying high taxes, and I know I thank my government for providing me with these oppurtunities and caring for my health, and indeed thankful for that my taxes will go towards caring for my own children aswell as my parents welfare when they grow older.

Erh... But we really are off-topic in the offtopic section - Aren't we?

I heard this from a swedish couple I have met quite recently, that in Sweden you really do not have to work because social care system will take care of you by providing following considerations like: unemployment benefit, social housing, medicines discount, healthcare and few other things. So.. Who pays for it? Taxes in sweden must be horribly high in order to provide support for those in need but also for those who "enjoy" living and rely on the state's benefits.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sudayev

[vilas 477]

I like this discussion - It's like watching Fox News or something, wake up people. Capitalism and social security aren't mutually exclusive. I am sitting rather comfortably in my apartment (rented from a company the municipality owns) surrounded by the baubles of my own excessive consumerism. This all whilst my arm is in a cast thanks to an operation that made a dent of 24,75 USD in my budget. An operation that has left me unable to work for three months, and during these three months my generous government (together with my most kind employers, as they are bound by law to do) provides me with 80% of my regular income. I have also been accepted to start a candidature in social anthropology come january - During that time I will be able to opt for a loan of 5000 SEK a month at approximatley 1% interest. So I shall be able to continue to enjoy capitalism whilst my socialist (well, somewhat socialist) government provides me with knowledge.

Oh, did I mention that my cousin is currently on three month paternity leave to care (during which he receives a percentage of his income from

the state and indeed, his employer) for his newborn child? This ofcourse after his wife had three months of maternity leave under the same conditions.

It really is quite amazing - All this in exchange for having a third car or fifty credit cards, I know my kid will thank me for paying high taxes, and I know I thank my government for providing me with these oppurtunities and caring for my health, and indeed thankful for that my taxes will go towards caring for my own children aswell as my parents welfare when they grow older.

Erh... But we really are off-topic in the offtopic section - Aren't we?

no, we don't go offtopic

why ?

we discuss source of terrorism, and when i hear this HansLudwig "communism" about our european countries arguments my blood boils and i full understand those who do terror acts vs US, if americans think this way, my blood boils

they are 5% of population of world and push their army to kill other people

this is source of terrorism

we want social care - there kill send troops and say about "communism"

fu*** i want live in social-care society, not sick society when everyone has gun and kids kill each other in schools , cause everyone has gun and try to change government and slave other country,

if they are slaves (aka this military service for health care) it is their problem, but they want others to live their way and it is world problem :(

every society should live according to it's tradition, roots, will - not US will forced to others by Army and Marines since Korea, Vietnam, whatever :/

even in Africa there were acts when CIA were doing coups, south America is also not free, all those "ecole del americas" and supporting soups, drug dealers and etc. what i watch in French Planete channel

americans came from wild west philosophy (first killing Indians, than killing each other for money like on westerns movies, now killing each other in school-shootings) , we came from completely other philosophy , during socialism we had social care, small crimes level, all was under control and it was good cause we felt safe, without risk, they told us , we will be rich when we will fight communism...

even your fairy tales fox with TNT chase for ostrich, mouse and cat using hammer to each other, shooting to each other

your fairy tales for children look like another Rambo "kill and kill and shoot and shoot"

look at our fairy tale and found there single shot, agression, violence ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWrdsD8noAU

compare to US fairytale :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlRAat0WiK4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq3_OwrojFM

in every US tale there is only shooting and violence and hunting each other, you grow in violence since child, later on youtube we can see movies of US soldiers toying and having fun shooting in Iraq

there were some famous movies in YT about satisfaction of US soldiers abroad, all all those their laughs in background when they fire to someone :/

so if you wanna understand "where terrorism comes" , first you must understand "who cause hate", yes, some americans cause hate, when you hear them :/

their capitalistic philosophy just pushes people against them

but i try to keep my view on americans looking on Discovery program when they help each others for example like afro-americans keep together when one man has home burned , other from street help to rebuild

i hope it is true, not "competition, fight each other, only money counts, take gun and shoot other"

they say we have our brains washed ?

heh, since childhood we preferred cooperation than competition, only new young yuppies want sick rat-race

i remember work with young (new poles) and old people

old people - take it easy, help each other, if you not know something, i will teach you

new poles - i will be better, i will not tell when you do mistake - but i will tell boss, he will fire you and give me more MONEY, money, money

young worker suck dick of boss (first secretary and girl from warehouse), slept with them just to get more money, they telltale, they tap/bug you and tell all boss, zero between human relations, only "be better than others and kick others"

i ran from this "young people" company and now i work in state institution with people 50 years old and i am very happy, cause they left old spirit

spirit free of "rat-race"

sometimes i watch Orange County Choppers or other programs about live in US, and good, how boss can call dirty words other people ? in one Hotrod builder guy kicked employee - is this america ? very agressive :(

land of kicking, shooting each other ?

so if we say about source of terrorism - yeah, it has source in people who :

- wanna change other country

- push armies to other country

- have view as aggressive

look at law system , for example civil law :

legitim, legitimate proportion - in European countries children must get after parents because it is parents duty to take care about children

what is in anglo-sas countries ? UK, US ?

if for example father was bad man (cheating wife, beating wife, drunkard, whatever) and he met another woman

he not care about children and gave money by testimony to new wife

what happen in USA , UK ?

in "normal" europe child will get 50% by law order

cause it is father's duty to care about life he given

wonder how it looks in US ?

you don't have free flats and etc.

will this child will die of hunger because his father has new woman ?

wild west ?

if i was judging US only by news in TV "F16 bombed something, F117 bombed something , another kid killed 10 kids in school" what would be view on USA ?

give me something positive and human

not another plane bombed something , another kid killed in school kids

if you wanna stop terrorism, you must stop your aggressive behavior and show more human face, not wild west cruel competition

your fight terrorism looks silly

it is like Monthy Python movie, man eat chocolate by chocolate , not wash teeth and says he do it to avoid caries

man, if you eat sugar and not wash teeth - you will get caries

sorry for my post , but really, i never had time before to chat about life philosophy

for me all other world was "scene in TV", but when i speak to living people from other countries, sometimes my blood boils hearing their attitude to humanism and etc.

maybe i am not catholic, but for me saint are words of John Paul 2 - "matter of humanity is how you treat weak and poor"

but jungle-law "stronger survive" seems to be US philosophy, sorry but "stronger will survive" is rule of animals , not humans

many religions on east , not only Christianity, but others, define human being other way, than wild animal hungry for money and power over others :(

and you are surprised by terror ? when you behave against "humanity", you have terrorism

money orientated culture is wrong and causes anger , if i was living in country bombed by F16 and heard such "wild west" logic, i would be talib too :(

there are many countries that i have respect, not only Sweden, Czechs, but Russia, but France, Germany

please what positive america has to offer to the world?

except guns, killing, bombs, competition and rat-race in Ernst&Young , Wallmart, legal Hitler symbols in some states, street-gangs shooting people, another M16, another F-16... what, please tell me what you have except guns, shootings, invading other countries to fight with social governments ?

do you have more than will to control others ?

if your answer is empty "f*** Vilas commie" - than you know reason for terrorism

i wanna see other america face than gang members shooting on streets, F16 bombing other country, lack of social care, please show me something positive

http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia7.html

?

guys fully armed in texas forests who only train to shoot ?

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/militia_m.asp?xpicked=4&item=19

is this your culture offer ?

train to kill and fight and nothing more ???

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/142000/warriors_for_christ:_is_promise_keepers_making_a_comeback/

or gangsta rap ?

Edited November 8, 2009 by vilas

[GoOB 0]

I don't know of a single person who prefers living on unemployment to working - And unemployment benefits are payed by the workers themselves through their union fees. Social security benefits (for people who aren't able to work, for various reasons) however are payed for by the government and if the leave is temporary, by the employer of the person who is unable to work jointly.

Ofcourse social benefits opens the doors to people who want to exploit the system - And some do that, they get jobs under the table whilst they still receive social benefits, but the system can't be made to punish the people who need this money for the crimes of the people that exploit the system and break it's laws.

And there is no social housing - My municipality makes money off of renting out apartments, yet they strive to keep rents low and controlled so that there is a level of housing availible for all income layers.

And I beleive I posted who pays for it all in my previous post - Yes, I pay high taxes (though not quite as high as the norwegians do), something I gladly do. This in exchange for not having to pay a quarter of a million SEK when or if I need surgery next time, to get a chance to study what I want for free and not having to work at McDonald's to make ends meet when I grow old. I am also glad to pay high taxes out of solidarity - I may never need healthcare again, but I am rather certain that alot of other people will. My close friend for instance has cerebral paresis, he gets all the tools he needs to function and be productive in society from paying his taxes - A specially adapted car, an electrical wheelchair a specially adapted apartment, the list goes on, and I will get the same benefits if I ever get in an accident that leaves me with a handicap.

Edited November 8, 2009 by GoOB

[gabe_ruckus 5]

Vilas, you have to deliberately go out of your way to only find such negative press on a country.

We have social security programs in the US. I said earlier I used to have state health care (We have this at the state level and not the national level depending on your income). I used to have state food benefits and I could have applied to live in a rent controlled flat provided by a state group. I used the food and health care benefits, worked hard, and didn't enjoy a lot of new things for a while. That's life, though, sometimes you have to make some sacrifices and work hard to get ahead. You've got a very Randian view of how a capitalist society works, and fortunately, it's not as black and white as you're putting it.

[derk yall 0]

The problems is that in the old era, people worked hard, but they had assured things like flat, school, health care. But now, when our economy was destroyed by the western companies, people work hard and can afford almost nothing.

I think that this is where the difference is. In USA you have a working economy, we had a working economy wich was completly destroyed (In fact it was sold very cheap because of coruption, or they tricked us( for example Air France)) etc. by the western companies wich doesnt wanted to have concurence on these markets. And the problem is that these western compagnies have illegal workers (from ukraina etc.), because they work cheap.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think wars over who has the best imaginary friend are quite sad. :(

Regards walker

[maturin 12]

People talk about topic of thread,not other things.read the heading and first post than response.

Can you blame people for responding to the posts that contain easily understandable english and aren't 500 words long?

[Takko 10]

what do american in Polish bus ?

sits with MP3 on ears and sings disturbing others to travel in silence :/

Wheres the problem?

when i am walking evening on street i must look around if there is no group of robbers

Right, before your own gov robbed you

[Student Pilot 0]

Wow...Vilas....brevity is not your strongpoint, is it?

I am honestly not too sure where your hate of America and the western world comes from. You enjoyed your socialist benefits, that's great. Do you know why you don't get them any more? It is not because the US came in and destroyed your communism/socialism. If you recall, we never invaded eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. And we never would have because of the nuclear deterrent. The reason why you do not get your benefits anymore is because your nations went bankrupt, failed, and formed new governments based loosely on the free market design. The west did not destroy communism, communism destroyed itself because it is NOT a sustainable position.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the arrogance of the west is what causes people to hate the west and therefore causes terrorism against the west. If this is not correct please tell me.

You are correct, many in the west are arrogant. It comes from our culture of individualism and emphasis on personal achievement. You are correct, we do occasionally try to export our views to the rest of the world. Do you know why? Because we honestly think they work best. Why do we think this? The US is still here (for now) while the communist nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are not. Even China has introduced significant free market reforms in their economy.

We also believe that our system of economics maximizes the happiness of the greatest number of people. When people are free to make as good a life for themselves as they possibly can, we think they will be less inclined toward terrorism because they will have more to lose. This is why we have little tolerance for terrorist leaders who do not give their followers that opportunity. Terrorist leaders stoke hatred of the west using religion, economics, politics, what have you so that they remain in power. Does the west cause this hatred? Sometimes, yes. But you know what, no country is perfect and no country ever will be. Sometimes we make mistakes, just as Poland has made mistakes and China has made mistakes. What causes hatred is not the mistakes themselves, but dwelling on those mistakes and refusing to look past them. This is what terrorist leaders do, they cause their followers to dwell on the mistakes and refuse to see the good.

Shoot, brevity isn't my strong point either, apparently.

One last parting word: there is no need to use offensive language (F***). I understand there is a lot of emotion in these debates, but do not let the emotion rule your thinking. I completely disagree with you and you completely disagree with me, but it doesn't mean we can't be respectful toward one another.

-Student Pilot

[derk yall 0]

Wow...Vilas....brevity is not your strongpoint, is it?

I am honestly not too sure where your hate of America and the western world comes from. You enjoyed your socialist benefits, that's great. Do you know why you don't get them any more? It is not because the US came in and destroyed your communism/socialism. If you recall, we never invaded eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. And we never would have because of the nuclear deterrent. The reason why you do not get your benefits anymore is because your nations went bankrupt, failed, and formed new governments based loosely on the free market design. The west did not destroy communism, communism destroyed itself because it is NOT a sustainable position.

Sorry, that is false. There were several revolutions in 1989 wich called for the change of the governament. The leader of these revolutions promised a better life and told the people about a west, where everyone is rich and so. People believed them. So, people believed lies, the regime changed, later the economy was destroyed by western companies wich doesnt wanted concureces here. There wasnt a bankrupt or thing like these. There were only false promise about the west, but because of these false promise, or we can tell lies. People finded themself cheated. that plus the destruction of the economy by foreign compagnies had bringed the hate.

Also to all, dont compare apples and oranges.

Capitalism, socialism, communism = economy

Dictatorship, democracy, etc = means od directing a country.

[Baff1 0]

James Bond is or was British...

Just remember that America has never had an Empire...

America has a massive empire.

Colonies too, hundreds of them all round the world. Little pieces of American soil in far off lands. U.S. flag flying, U.S. laws enacted. U.S. Soldiers all over the place.

I know the words "Empire" and "colony" are a bugbear for American's because of their connotations with the British Empire they violently seceded from, but honestly.

No empire. Really, who are you trying to kid?

With regards to the Czech economy immediatley after the collapse of the Soviet Union, how much of it's economy was directly linked to Russia's please.

Either in the form of trade goods sold to Russia or subsidised resources bought or recieved from them.

The Ukraine for example has heavily subsidised Russian gas still. Their economy is directly dependant on the success of Russia's economy.

The residents there may blame the price increases on joining a capitalist market, but in 1989-1991...was Russia in a postition to subsidise the entire Soviet Union anyway?

Is it not possible that the collapse of the Soviet Union's primary economic driver is what crippled the Czech economy and caused the destruction of it's domestic industries perhaps?

That the civil/political unrest was a direct result of the economic instability and not the otherway round.

On the subject of "terrorism" and it's causes, I believe terrorism to be the direct tactical counter to overwhelming military force.

It's a side effect of empire. Wherever you have minorities too dis-empowered to get their will/freedom by military means, too dis-enfranchised to get their will/freedom by political means, then there will be terrorism.

So if America imposes it's will around the middle east, it will find it self on the receiving end of middle eastern terrorism. If Russia imposes it's rule in Chechenya or Georgia, the same. Britain in Ireland. Spain in the Basque regions. France in Algeria. Rome in Palestine. Historical examples abound.

Empire provokes terrorism. Wherever there is one, there is the other.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Baff1

[Deadfast 43]

If communism was so great why there were fences and armed guards on the borders.

They sure as hell weren't there to protect from the evil west when it was people from the inside of the border getting shot trying to leave.

[derk yall 0]

...

With regards to the Czech economy immediatley after the collapse of the Soviet Union, how much of it's economy was directly lnked to Russia's please.

Either in the form of trade goods sold to Russia or subsidised resources bought or recieved from them.

The Ukraine for example has heavily subsidised Russian gas still. Their economy is directly dependant on the success of Russia's economy.

The residents there may blame the price increases on joining a capitalist market, but in 1989-1991...was Russia in a postition to subsidise the entire Soviet Union anyway?

Is it not possible that the collapse of the Soviet Union's primary economic driver is what crippled the Czech economy and caused the destruction of it's domestic industries perhaps?

That the civil/political unrest was a direct result of the economic instability and not the otherway round.

After the Velvet revolution, the state fabriques and compagnies were privatized. Because everyone shouted that the state is the worst employer and thing like that. So there was a privatization in wich theoraticly everyone could gain something. The reality was diferent. And it crippled our country. For example the czechoslovak merchant fleet was completly sold by a robber (that men was once an example to everyone, everyone taked him like a good capitalist and our example). Many thing got wrong in that privatisation. So it ended that czech governament, nor people owned something and all was bought by foreigners.

Deadfast: Comunism is economy, not a mean of directing a country. In ÄŒSSR there was a dictatorship and the economical model was socialistic. In fact communism was never aplicated in the world. I am not a commie, but it's good to find these diferences.

[maturin 12]

Sorry, that is false. There were several revolutions in 1989 wich called for the change of the governament. The leader of these revolutions promised a better life and told the people about a west, where everyone is rich and so. People believed them. So, people believed lies, the regime changed, later the economy was destroyed by western companies wich doesnt wanted concureces here. There wasnt a bankrupt or thing like these. There were only false promise about the west, but because of these false promise, or we can tell lies. People finded themself cheated. that plus the destruction of the economy by foreign compagnies had bringed the hate.

Also to all, dont compare apples and oranges.

Capitalism, socialism, communism = economy

Dictatorship, democracy, etc = means od directing a country.

The dissidents in Eastern Europe were more motivated by a desire for social and political freedom than capitalist gain. The economy was already destroyed by the defunct communist regimes and mercantilism of the Soviet Union.

Are you suggesting the police states imposed on an unwilling population (Poland voted for a liberal democratic state after WWII) were preferable?

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

-Karl Marx

Doesn't sound like economic theory to me. Communism is a comprehensive utopian project that demands the subordination of economy and government to the socialist objective. And you will never see a pure command economy that is democratic because you can't have a command economy without centralized control. The Soviet system failed even with the boon of totalitarianism. How could it ever work if the system was beholden to the fractures and calculus of differing ideologies and ethnic groups? To call Communism an economic system alone is pointless.

State control of industry and social welfare isn't socialism, it's just left-wing organization. The Incas did for hundreds of years.

Communist economic policy involves a "corresponding" "political transition." It's right there in Marx's own words.

Edit: Not to say privatization wasn't a mess and that East German reunification wasn't a semi-predatory absorption.

Edited November 8, 2009 by maturin

[derk yall 0]

I am not sugesting that. I dont recal that I suggested or wrote something like that in my posts.