Does that evil commies, always starting wars and being malicious, mind set still affect the countries that participated in world war 2?
lolitalovely
2011/11/27 23:26:08
SLIDESHOW: Commies!
1 of 3
When They Dropped the Atomic Bomb by Jackie Doll
This video is a really catchy song I found while watching Atomic Cafe. It's kind of accusatory towards communism. Atomic Cafe poked fun at all the stuff America did during the atomic era.
-
When They Dropped the Atomic Bomb by Jackie Doll
This video is a really catchy song I found while watching Atomic Cafe. It's kind of accusatory towards communism. Atomic Cafe poked fun at all the stuff America did during the atomic era.
-
This is a post WWII world view map if I'm correct
There are two of these one post war and one during war.
-
Another perception map
Post war during the Iraq war probably.
Does that evil commies, always starting wars and being malicious, mind set still affect the countries that participated in world war 2?
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
25% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
25% | ||
~Let me explain this a little. I'm neither, for nor against communism. If it was used in optimum conditions I'm sure it would eliminate hierarchies effectively. (I don't see it ever being capable of eliminating all hierarchy, as it has to set up some kind of a hierarchy for governing.)
~To the point, though, there was a lot of media against communism during WWII. It was negative and could almost be interpreted as propaganda in a lot of cases, but It seems that that negativity towards it in all forms has stayed pretty strong to this day. (At least in half of my family it has.) I just wanted to ask opinions. correct me if you think I'm wrong about any of this. I'm basing it off of descriptions from a philosophy major, 2 computer geeks and an old woman that never went to college. (they were the only people I knew who lived in that time.
~To the point, though, there was a lot of media against communism during WWII. It was negative and could almost be interpreted as propaganda in a lot of cases, but It seems that that negativity towards it in all forms has stayed pretty strong to this day. (At least in half of my family it has.) I just wanted to ask opinions. correct me if you think I'm wrong about any of this. I'm basing it off of descriptions from a philosophy major, 2 computer geeks and an old woman that never went to college. (they were the only people I knew who lived in that time.
You are also very naive if you really believe that "communism", even under optimum conditions, works as an economic system. Certainly it can eliminate "hierarchies" of wealth effectively - but it eliminates most wealth, not just that of the wealthy. Compare communist East Germany to capitalistic West Germany -- how many Mercedes, BMWs, Porsches, Audis and VWs did East Germany build? West Germany was a thriving, open society while East Germans could barely put food on the table. Same story with communist North Korea and capitalist South Korea. They are starving in the North and thriving in the South.
Winston Churchill said it best: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
The problem with all forms of collectivism is that they stifle creativity and initiative. Rousseau realized that when he came up with the idea of reverence for the "State" and following the "General Will", he knew it went against human nature. So Rousseau was the first to advocate a collectivist state along with indoctrination in the schools so the children would grow up to be subservient citizens.
It works for at least 80 years. It looks like it can sustain itself. It needs further situational study for true understanding of it's growth abilities and natural tendencies. As implemented in the past, though, It has a lot of room for corruption. As for culture, it makes sense that more people would have less motivation, (It's complicated to explain but here is my best shot:In my experience you can't grow without motivation to overcome an adversity. I don't see communism helping motivate anyone to overcome adversity.) but they may be able to use a strong devotion to the good of the nation to counteract that and the culture would only make sense to have less weight put on freedom and more on the happiness of your neighbors, making the people completely happy about how everything works. It's culture is a complete opposite of our self determination. That's the biggest qaurrel, for Americans, I've seen with their government. (Not that I've really asked any Europeans or others.)
The fact is that it is capitalism, not communism, that is finding success in China -- China's economic success is due solely to the limited free market they have allowed to operate. When China was under Mao and pure communism, they couldn't even feed their masses -- they had one "Five Year Plan" after another, and they all failed. Also, China's success is coming to an end, as, as demands for higher wages than the essentially slave wages the workers are paid are increasing costs of production. There is also increasing pressure on China to operate in a more environmentally responsible way - their cities are the most polluted in the world.
The United States, a nation just over two hundred years old, grew to be the dominant economic and military power in the world because of free enterprise. All forms of collectivism such as socialism and communism fail because they stifle human endeavor, destroy liberty and go against human nature. The great Scottish philosopher David Hume said it best when he wrote of his opposition to measures to impose “perfect equality” b...
The fact is that it is capitalism, not communism, that is finding success in China -- China's economic success is due solely to the limited free market they have allowed to operate. When China was under Mao and pure communism, they couldn't even feed their masses -- they had one "Five Year Plan" after another, and they all failed. Also, China's success is coming to an end, as, as demands for higher wages than the essentially slave wages the workers are paid are increasing costs of production. There is also increasing pressure on China to operate in a more environmentally responsible way - their cities are the most polluted in the world.
The United States, a nation just over two hundred years old, grew to be the dominant economic and military power in the world because of free enterprise. All forms of collectivism such as socialism and communism fail because they stifle human endeavor, destroy liberty and go against human nature. The great Scottish philosopher David Hume said it best when he wrote of his opposition to measures to impose “perfect equality” because first, “man’s different degrees of art, care, and industry will immediately break” it, and second, it will “reduce society to the most extreme indigence; and instead of preventing want and beggery in a few, render it unavoidable to the whole community.” That has been the history of Marxist nations throughout the twentieth century.
I suggest you read F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" to fully understand the dangers of collectivism. Hayek was a Nobel Prize winning economist and in the 1940s he warned that socialism inevitably leads to tyranny.
In regards to your mentioning the industrial centres within China I have to agree they are very polluted. The smog atmosphere in Bejing is akin to Victorian Manchester which is often, though not indisputably, thought of as the first industrial city. The essential fact is pollution is a consequence of industry, however the difference between Manchester (considered a centre of free trade and enterprise regar...
In regards to your mentioning the industrial centres within China I have to agree they are very polluted. The smog atmosphere in Bejing is akin to Victorian Manchester which is often, though not indisputably, thought of as the first industrial city. The essential fact is pollution is a consequence of industry, however the difference between Manchester (considered a centre of free trade and enterprise regardless of the lingering old feudal system laws impeding it) and somewhere like Bejing was that the living conditions of the working man, were appauling: if you were born and breed manchunian, in the lower working classes, you could look forward to an average morality rate of 15 years of age.
In regards to the last part of your argument, I am not convinced. I think your philosopher, David Hume, has a negative perspective towards human nature. If the only thing propelling us to work or achieve is monetary reward then really it probably is time to despair - start believing all the stuff about the apocalyptic 2012, forget family life because its all an illusion to facilitate our selfish gene, and while we are it why not abandon any necessity for morality too because really thats only an illusion aswell: for your every luxury in a capitlist system someone else is suffering to accomodate it.
I could go on, and on - but it seems pointless: I'm sure you'll dig up some other 'expert' to validate your theory, thus preventing any real recognition or responsibility for anything!!!
David Hume is hardly "my" philosopher, he was one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment.
Also, I am not trying to dig up any "expert" to validate my "theory". It has been proven through history over the years since the first collectivist ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who came up the his idea of obeisance to the "State" and the "General Will" back in the 18th century.
Rousseau wrote of the General Will in terms of liberty but it was essentially an authoritarian concept, the earliest outline of what would be subsumed by Marxism and Lenin’s ‘democratic centralism.’ Laws made under the General Will must by definition have moral authority, the people making the laws for themselves cannot be unjust because the General Will is a...
David Hume is hardly "my" philosopher, he was one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment.
Also, I am not trying to dig up any "expert" to validate my "theory". It has been proven through history over the years since the first collectivist ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who came up the his idea of obeisance to the "State" and the "General Will" back in the 18th century.
Rousseau wrote of the General Will in terms of liberty but it was essentially an authoritarian concept, the earliest outline of what would be subsumed by Marxism and Lenin’s ‘democratic centralism.’ Laws made under the General Will must by definition have moral authority, the people making the laws for themselves cannot be unjust because the General Will is always righteous.
Rousseau’s state was not only authoritarian, it was totalitarian as well, as it orders every aspect of human activity, including thought. Under Rousseau’s “social contract,” the individual is obliged to ‘alienate (i.e. transfer) himself, with all his rights, to the whole of the community’ (i.e., the State). The procedure called for by Rousseau demanded total submission of the individual to the State and the General Will. The original social contract oath he proposed for the constitution of Corsica states: ‘I join myself, body, goods, will and all my powers, to the Corsican nation, granting her ownership of me, of myself and all who depend on me."
Even Rousseau recognized that his collectivist society went against human nature, but he believed that children could be ‘educated’ to like and accept his “State” and its “General Will.” Rousseau didn't use the term ‘brainwash’, but he wrote, "Those who control a people’s opinions control its actions", by training them to "consider themselves only in their relationship to the Body of the State’. ‘For being nothing except by it, they will be nothing except for it. It will have all they have and will be all they are." To me, that is a very scary society to live in!
Seriously, you should read the classic "The Road to Serfdom", by the Austrian economist Friederich Hayek. Written in 1944, Hayek warns that central planning ultimately leads to tyranny.