America is Nosy

[Kurgan]

but i believe that the world could not exist without communism.

 

That is an odd belief. Communism was only invented in the 1840's (and has gone through countless iterations ever since).

 

 

 

And some would argue that China has had to become LESS communist to survive (but still remain an authoritarian society of course, why is that kind of power so hard to part with? therein lies the failure of the system itself).

[toms]

Actually Communism could fall anywhere on the left axix of that chart.. just as capitalism could fall anywhere on the right axis/border of that chart.

 

Communism and capitalism are both ECONOMIC theories.. neither has any bearing on personal or political freedoms.

 

Capitalism zealots tend to hold to some sort of belief that the inherent market forces in capitalism somehow create a better market for personal and political freedom.. but there seems very little evidence of that. In effect it is anarchist theory.. that the fluctuations and tides of capitalism will lead to enough instability that political and personal freedoms will never be controlled. *

 

There have been any number of examples of capitalist dictatorships.. and there have also been examples of "communist" regimes where people are personally free.

 

Communism itself, like democracy, basically arose against capitalist dictatorships. The monarchies that ruled almost every country in the world for centuries were essentially capitalist dictatorships... only the rich had power and choice, the poor had neither.

 

Numerous small communes have run for decades without any loss of personal freedoms. And i'd argue that a lot of "primitive" societies worked on communist principles. People in polynesia or the amazon rarely had personal possessions, everything was shared among the tribe. That worked well for centures until the west came in and taught them the value of capitalism. (which was when most of their civilisations collapsed).

Of course, the ultimate example of a communist nation is the one from Star Trek.. a utopia where possessions no longer exist and people get what they need.

And the ideal communist country would also be the ultimate democracy.. where every decision was arrived at by refferendum of the whole population.

 

So neither communism nor capitalism have any relation to personal freedoms and politcal freedoms.. so why have communist states tended to fall more often in this century than capitalist ones? I guess maybe because capitalism more accurately reflects the whole "alpha male" and evolutionary battle.. where our genes force us to always try and be better than everyone else. This gives communism an inherent disadvantage as it is always battling our genes.

-

* however, without the controlling balance of major communist states, it seems to me that capitalism in the west is becoming ever more extremist. Capitalism has always worked only when it has had democratic governments to keep it in check. because the best interests of the people DON'T always conincide with the best interests of the MONEY.

When capitalism becomes more powerful than democracy then you end up back where we started with basically monarchies.. but replace kings and lords with chairmen and shareholders. And as global business in the west gets bigger and bigger.. and governments have less and less control of them.. we risk heading to one of those OTHER common sci-fi futures.. the ones where the MegaCorps rule all.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Sometimes I wonder if we aren't in one already. In part, at least.

[Totenkopf]

Sorry, but I wasn't aware that personal possessions went completely by the wayside in ST. I daresay that had someone tried to take any of Kirk's possessions from his SF apartment in the movies, they'dve disintegrated before they got past the door. Still, I'll grant you that the apparent lack of money and the prolific use of things like food replicators do make it seem like a sort of utopia.

[Mace MacLeod]

Minor geek-o-rama point: In Star Trek, money isn't used on Earth. And presumably in the Federation proper, although other species and various Empires do.

 

In Star Trek IV, the marine biologist who ends up going back with them asks Kirk in exasperation whether they use money in the future, and he definitely replies; "No!"

 

And yeah, America's nosy. Stop being nosy, America! Pisses me off...

[Samnmax221]

Pisses me off...

So does the Quebec sovereignty movement, if I remember correctly. That really had nothing to do with the topic but I really don't have any idea how we got here.

[Totenkopf]

Well, Mace, no money does not = no possessions. That was my basic point.

 

toms--I don't believe anyone could reasonably contest your point about the number of US troops under UN command. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it either. And besides, perhaps the numbers of troops involved should reflect the populations of member countries, not the size of their economies. How many troops do either the PRC, India or even Russia contribute? And givien the general incompetence of UN leadership, I'd reccomend vs any of them providing more than they do already (if at all).