The Neocons Were Right, After All

[dilloduck]

I agree, however that is not how it works.

The way the Repbulcians are trying to work things, if you have a significant amount of wealth you are virtually gauranteed that if you play the game you will only get wealthier and wealthier. That is not how things should be.

I agree you should be able to pass on advantages to your children, but there should be some limits to this. Bush wants to eliminate the inheritance tax because this would almost ensure that dynasties would be self perpetuating.

The system should decide who is worthy. The higher you get up the ladder the harder it should be to reach the next rung. The way it is right now, the rungs get further and further apart to about the 85% percentile of income, and then they start getting closer together.

Wade.

"SHOULD BE"? cmon wade---your gettin some bad acid

 

[Zhukov]

Again your understanding of Russian history is lacking. The Whites wanted to reinstall the Czar and uphold the pre-existing economic structure of inequity.

White Russian Armies

Had the whites won, the same oppresive political regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have re-estabilished itself.

Hardly.

It says right there in your link:

The designation White had two meanings. First, it stands in contradistinction to the Reds of the revolutionary Red Army of supporters of the Soviets and Bolshevism

The officer core of the White army upheld monarchist ideals. However the White army drew support from representatives of many other political movements: democrats, social revolutionaries, and others who opposed the October Revolution. The rank-and-file troops included both active opponents of the Bolsheviks (many cossacks) and enlisted apolitical peasants.

The desire for a return to monarchy was held predominantly by the officers of the old Imperial army, and they by no means amounted to a majority of the White faction.

Further, the White's were supported by the French, the English, and the U.S. It is unlikely that anything more than a constitutional monarchy would have been implemented after a White victory given the support of the western powers and the nature of the widespread popular revolution that had deposed the tsar in 1917 in the first place.

The revolution was hijacked by the communists, and it was against that hijacking that most Whites fought, not for a reinstitution of Romanov authoritarianism.

 

[wade]

They (the Officer corp) were the ones who mattered. If the Whites had won, it would have been the officers who setup the government.

They may or may not have put the Czar back in power, but they would have maintained the status quo in terms of wealth and land distribution, which would have amounted to pretty much the same thing.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They (the Officer corp) were the ones who mattered. If the Whites had won, it would have been the officers who setup the government.

They may or may not have put the Czar back in power, but they would have maintained the status quo in terms of wealth and land distribution, which would have amounted to pretty much the same thing.

Wade.

Wow wade, it it's amazing how you know for a fact what would have happend in hypothetical realities.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree, however that is not how it works.

The way the Repbulcians are trying to work things, if you have a significant amount of wealth you are virtually gauranteed that if you play the game you will only get wealthier and wealthier. That is not how things should be.

I agree you should be able to pass on advantages to your children, but there should be some limits to this. Bush wants to eliminate the inheritance tax because this would almost ensure that dynasties would be self perpetuating.

The system should decide who is worthy. The higher you get up the ladder the harder it should be to reach the next rung. The way it is right now, the rungs get further and further apart to about the 85% percentile of income, and then they start getting closer together.

Wade.

Your thinking is child-like and harmful. You're a destructive child.

 

[Zhukov]

You're not to be responding to me, remember?

But since you have:

which would have amounted to pretty much the same thing.

Had the whites won, the same oppresive political regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have re-estabilished itself.

I consider those two statements unequal.

They (the Officer corp) were the ones who mattered. If the Whites had won, it would have been the officers who setup the government.

I certainly doubt they would have been able to.

Any attempt to revive the monarchy or any aristocratic authoritarianism would have resulted in another war.

The ones who mattered were the millions of dissatisfied russians, not the few hundred aristocrats.

 

[Bonnie]

I do it on purpose...
Because telling that US's main goal was not OIL is bad faith.... or at least #2....

The whole world think USA did this war for OIL, for main goal.
the popluation of France, of UK, of Spain, Germany, Italy, all the countries....even US.

In fact, all the opponents of Bush.

Some of you always say that if France did not the war, it was because france had interests in Iraq. And if somebody deny, everybody would say that it is bad faith...You don't want to believe that France refused because for France and French this was an unfair war, an illegal war.


Nevertheless, you still continue to say that USA's goals was Iraq freedom and Hussein's fall.
THIS is bad faith too :
for you, the french goals were vicious and hypocrite, while the US goals were praiseworthy and great.

Maybe France refused to do war because we have interests. But it was not the only reason : the unfair and illegal war was a reason too. THat was the reason of the population.

USA's main goal was OIL
At least, if you are too proud to admlit it, say that it was one of the wanted goals.....


(the YOU is not necessary you Sir Evil)

Holy shit are you actually saying that you beleive France was simply being just and moral and at the same time looking out for it's own intersts (hand in hand with Hussein and his money?)

Does the fact that Iraq will soon be a democratic country mean anything to you? Or are you such a snob that you think freedom is only for some????

 

[Comrade]

Hardly.

It says right there in your link:



The desire for a return to monarchy was held predominantly by the officers of the old Imperial army, and they by no means amounted to a majority of the White faction.

Further, the White's were supported by the French, the English, and the U.S. It is unlikely that anything more than a constitutional monarchy would have been implemented after a White victory given the support of the western powers and the nature of the widespread popular revolution that had deposed the tsar in 1917 in the first place.

The revolution was hijacked by the communists, and it was against that hijacking that most Whites fought, not for a reinstitution of Romanov authoritarianism.

Thanks Zhukov! I was going to get angry at wade for trying to explain this to him yet again. This way I can just tell him to get bent with his 'I don't understand history' bullshit. It's nice to know you can see it.

 

[wade]

Thanks Zhukov! I was going to get angry at wade for trying to explain this to him yet again. This way I can just tell him to get bent with his 'I don't understand history' bullshit. It's nice to know you can see it.

Except it is not really true. The Whites were definitely fighting to restore the status quo. Whether or not that would have meant a restoration of the monarchy is an unknown, especially given that most of the Rominov's were slain. But it is a fact they were intending to restore the old aristrocracy and enforce the pre-revolution land and wealth distribution.

Comrad - sorry if you took offense, but I have to assume from your 20 years of Lenin rule statement that your knowledge of this period of Russian history is rather poor. I had two semesters of Russian History from a Russian teacher - she hated communism so much she would start foaming at the mouth and spitting when she discussed stalins reign - pretty soon no one would sit in the front two rows of the class.

Wade.

 

[NightTrain]

Except it is not really true. The Whites were definitely fighting to restore the status quo. Whether or not that would have meant a restoration of the monarchy is an unknown, especially given that most of the Rominov's were slain. But it is a fact they were intending to restore the old aristrocracy and enforce the pre-revolution land and wealth distribution.

Is this fact with backup or is this from your lunatic teacher that had 4 too many bong hits before class?

Comrad - sorry if you took offense, but I have to assume from your 20 years of Lenin rule statement that your knowledge of this period of Russian history is rather poor. I had two semesters of Russian History from a Russian teacher - she hated communism so much she would start foaming at the mouth and spitting when she discussed stalins reign - pretty soon no one would sit in the front two rows of the class.

So, your Russian teacher spit on you and that qualifies you as an expert? You talk a good game, but you sure don't produce the goods. Typical Liberal. For three reasons :

1) You get your ass handed to you.

2) You have no facts to back yourself up with.

3) You get your ass handed to you.

So far, Comrade has won every round. Back your statements up with legit info and you may get somewhere. Just a friendly FYI.

 

[wade]

Comrad has provided how many sources to back up his positions? Hmmm... that'd be none.

If you are the judge of who wins or looses a debate, then of course I have no chance of winning. But that means nothing as you are no judge at all.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Comrad has provided how many sources to back up his positions? Hmmm... that'd be none.

If you are the judge of who wins or looses a debate, then of course I have no chance of winning. But that means nothing as you are no judge at all.

Wade.

And it's another insightful personal attack from wade.

 

[theim]

For the life of me I can't comprehend how people see communism/socialism beneficial to any nation. It has NEVER worked, DOES NOT work, and most likely never will. My current events teacher explained failry simply how the evolution from communism to totalitarianism is totally natural. And she is a raving lefty teacher in Madison, WI.

1) Look at the basic goal of Communism. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy doesnt it? A nice utopia where everyone works together and shares everything. except...

2) Who the hell actually DECIDES what people's real ability and needs are? Someone has to. You can't have everyone vote on everyone else's ability to work. So lets say they vote one guy in to decide. Real demorcratic like. Of course this man is super-human and will free himself from Human Nature to only make wise and fair decisions.

3) But what if Joe, who is a neurosurgeon, is somewhat unhappy that he is getting pretty much the same as Bob, a mailman. Joe sees himself as doing more work, and getting proportionaltly less. And here is where it begins to fall apart. Human Nature. We all want stuff. Always have, always will. So Joe decides he's not gonna work anymore.

4) Well we can't have that! Joe needs to put in his "fair share"! But how to make him do it? His friends will give him things to survive and get by on even if we totally cut him off. If we just let him be, more people will do the same! What to do...what to do... There is really one option left:

5) FORCE . The people must be kept in line. Everyone must contribute his or her share! If they don't, they are just being greedy and self-serving, and should be MADE to contribute! So the head honcho guy assumes the role of not dolling out responsibilities, but making sure that people OBEY and all work for their paradise!

6) Remember Human Nature. We all want stuff. If we see an easy opportunity to get lots of stuff at relativlely little effort, we will take it. Our boss man decides that since he is already forcing people to work for the utopia...why cant they instead work FOR HIM? He is already telling them what to do and forcing them to do it. Why not cut himself in on the action and make himself rich, so he can buy stuff from all around the world?

7) Voila. One Communist Dictatorship made fresh to order.

===============================================

As she explained, the idealistic Marxist/Leninist utopia will never come to pass. It is fantasy. I like to think of Socialism as Communism's little brother. Socialist yearn a communist utopia, but they are not ready to amass the power over the people to fully force them along. So they are taking it one baby step at a time. In Europe I say a few possible outcomes after more years of socialist governments:

1) Return to Fascism: We are already seeing this begin in Germany. The Neo-Nazi party is the one with the biggest percentage gains, and is now in 2 state legislatures. Eventually people will get fed up with the high taxes/unemployment of Germany's current socialist government. Its like the 1920's all over again.

2) Return to Capitaliam: Its certainly possible, and probably the most likely. In 10 or 20 years they will wake up and see how much havoc socialism has wreaked on their national economies.

3) A Continent Full of Communist Dictatorships: Hey, maybe they will take it all the way to the end. Then a new Cold War will start. Then the US will again drive the centralized economy into the ground. Then all the people will be free to actually make their own decisions. Then they will hate us again. Its what Euros do, you see.

Wade you are no conservative, fiscal or otherwise. If pressed I would put you borderline socialist, maybe just far-left radical.

 

[NightTrain]

Unlike so many "democracies" in that part of the world (Indochina, Malyasia, the Phillapines, etc...) the Vietnamese people are well educated, healthy, enjoy a rising standard of living, and the government is relatively free of corruption. And they did this without Chineese, Russian, or US help. Vietnam will hopefully be the case in point - communism is a means of land/property/wealth/power reform that can make true democracy possible.

(*** Note *** Emphasis is mine.)

You are a communist.

How very predictable that you hide under the Liberal umbrella. Your 'hate Bush at all costs' is nothing more than simple Communist bullshit.

You have been asked for backup. No legitimate backup provided.

You have been owned, and yet you refuse to be honest about it.

If you were an honest Commie, at least I could respect you for it. Instead, you lie and pretend to be something you're not.

I should ban your sorry commie ass.

 

[Zhukov]

Except it is not really true.

And, pray tell, what exactly was not true?

However, since you have backed off from your original absolute statement of:

Had the whites won, the same oppresive political regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have re-estabilished itself.

to the speculative statement of:

Whether or not that would have meant a restoration of the monarchy is an unknown

I consider the matter resolved.

 

[wade]

(*** Note *** Emphasis is mine.)

You are a communist.

How very predictable that you hide under the Liberal umbrella. Your 'hate Bush at all costs' is nothing more than simple Communist bullshit.

You have been asked for backup. No legitimate backup provided.

You have been owned, and yet you refuse to be honest about it.

If you were an honest Commie, at least I could respect you for it. Instead, you lie and pretend to be something you're not.

I should ban your sorry commie ass.

First off, I am not a communist. I argue the point simply because it is there, and it is fun to do so. I am in favor of limited socialism under well regulated capitalism.

As for having been "owned", that is laughable. As for not having provided sources, I have. As for backup (whatever that is), it seems only those who do not espouse right wing propobullshit have to do so.

As for banning me, if you have that capability, it would only show your true nature - stifel decent. I.e.: A fascist hiding under the stars and stripes.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Zhukov,

I've not replied directly to any of your posts, though I did post a general response recently, in the hopes that maybe you would not repeat your mistake of the past, and I might be able to change my position w.r.t you.

But here you are again... cutting and pasting and putting what I've said out of context. Not as badly as before, but it is here. Please, if you are going to quote me, make sure you maintain the context of the quote.

Thank you,

Wade.

 

[Zhukov]

But here you are again... cutting and pasting and putting what I've said out of context.

The first time you complained about your own words, to be fair it showed only your lack of a sense of humour more than anything else.

This time it is simply a demostration of your illogical obstinance.

Don't blame me for what you write.

 

[wade]

For the life of me I can't comprehend how people see communism/socialism beneficial to any nation. It has NEVER worked, DOES NOT work, and most likely never will. My current events teacher explained failry simply how the evolution from communism to totalitarianism is totally natural. And she is a raving lefty teacher in Madison, WI.

1) Look at the basic goal of Communism. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy doesnt it? A nice utopia where everyone works together and shares everything. except...

2) Who the hell actually DECIDES what people's real ability and needs are? Someone has to. You can't have everyone vote on everyone else's ability to work. So lets say they vote one guy in to decide. Real demorcratic like. Of course this man is super-human and will free himself from Human Nature to only make wise and fair decisions.

3) But what if Joe, who is a neurosurgeon, is somewhat unhappy that he is getting pretty much the same as Bob, a mailman. Joe sees himself as doing more work, and getting proportionaltly less. And here is where it begins to fall apart. Human Nature. We all want stuff. Always have, always will. So Joe decides he's not gonna work anymore.

4) Well we can't have that! Joe needs to put in his "fair share"! But how to make him do it? His friends will give him things to survive and get by on even if we totally cut him off. If we just let him be, more people will do the same! What to do...what to do... There is really one option left:

5) FORCE . The people must be kept in line. Everyone must contribute his or her share! If they don't, they are just being greedy and self-serving, and should be MADE to contribute! So the head honcho guy assumes the role of not dolling out responsibilities, but making sure that people OBEY and all work for their paradise!

6) Remember Human Nature. We all want stuff. If we see an easy opportunity to get lots of stuff at relativlely little effort, we will take it. Our boss man decides that since he is already forcing people to work for the utopia...why cant they instead work FOR HIM? He is already telling them what to do and forcing them to do it. Why not cut himself in on the action and make himself rich, so he can buy stuff from all around the world?

7) Voila. One Communist Dictatorship made fresh to order.

===============================================

As she explained, the idealistic Marxist/Leninist utopia will never come to pass. It is fantasy. I like to think of Socialism as Communism's little brother. Socialist yearn a communist utopia, but they are not ready to amass the power over the people to fully force them along. So they are taking it one baby step at a time. In Europe I say a few possible outcomes after more years of socialist governments:

1) Return to Fascism: We are already seeing this begin in Germany. The Neo-Nazi party is the one with the biggest percentage gains, and is now in 2 state legislatures. Eventually people will get fed up with the high taxes/unemployment of Germany's current socialist government. Its like the 1920's all over again.

2) Return to Capitaliam: Its certainly possible, and probably the most likely. In 10 or 20 years they will wake up and see how much havoc socialism has wreaked on their national economies.

3) A Continent Full of Communist Dictatorships: Hey, maybe they will take it all the way to the end. Then a new Cold War will start. Then the US will again drive the centralized economy into the ground. Then all the people will be free to actually make their own decisions. Then they will hate us again. Its what Euros do, you see.

Wade you are no conservative, fiscal or otherwise. If pressed I would put you borderline socialist, maybe just far-left radical.

Theim,

I really don't care what label you wish to put on me.

As for your analysis of Communism, it is greatly flawed. The idea under communism is not really based upon "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.", that is a Maoist perversion. The root of communism lies in "the labor theory of value". In a nutshell this means that labor, no matter what the form, should have the same value.

Communism is premised on the concept that everyone values their free time equally - that the neurosurgeon's free time spent with his children is of no more value than the mail man's. That the time spent at work is work. Some recognition for more difficult or dangerous jobs is recognized, and it is recognized that these should be compensated more than eaiser or less dangerous jobs.

Communism assumes that a person will desire to achieve for achievements sake, where capitalism assumes the only motivation for achievement is personal benefit. The truth lies somewhere between.

The Neurosurgeon may indeed choose not to work, and his family and friends may or may not decided to feed, cloth, and house him. This is true under either system. Under communism, he is expected to work if he is able, however under the philosophy he can always choose not to be a neurosurgeon and instead be a mail man (or some other similar job depending on availability).

In fact, this of course does not happen because of the huge investment required to educate a neurosurgeon vs. a mail man. Communism expects someone who has accepted such investment to pay it back through application of the skill involved, and will punish him for failure to do so. Capitalism does the same thing through massive debt and punishing him should he fail to utilize that education through economic measures (bankruptcy).

Your "current events teacher" must have failed to make the grade in PolySci and has no business teaching anyone. It's a damn shame that almost anyone who can read can get a teaching cert. in this country! If she understood what she was talking about, she'd know that Communism does not fail when it comes to sciences and other technical skills.

Lets look at your example: You (actually your teacher) claims Communisms failure lies in its inability to motivate the neurosurgeon - THIS IS TOTALY FALSE! Where communism fails is in its ability to motivate the mailman! It is in jobs where there is no prestige or other non-monetary social benefit that communism has a motivation problem. It is in getting people to do mundane jobs well that communism has a problem - why should I work hard to sort the mail when it will not effect my paycheck and I cannot be fired?

It is interesting that your choice was the mail man. In the US, the mailman position is a very interesting case. This civil servant position was, for a very long time, very much like a job under communism. Mailmen had a very secure position (it was nearly impossible to fire a mailman) with very little upward mobility. In the early years, this was a well regaurded position and mailmen had a lot of pride in their work, and there was not many problems with mail personel performance. They were respected public servants, ranking right up there with firemen and police officers. However, over time this changed, the job becomming less and less prestigious. Workers started becomming increasingly inefficient, since they were not rewarded or penalized in any meaningful way for good vs. poor peformance. Private sector competition made the growing inefficiency of the post office very apparent. To rectify this, changes were made, installing quota requirements putting the job (and its pension) at risk - and managers were expected to use this to increase efficiency. The results are history - managers abused their power to assign workloads to their subordinates to benifit their own advancement within the Post office beurocracy - and over-worked over-stressed mail men started shooting!

That is the problem with communism. The problem is not with the ability to motivate white collar positions or technical experts, it is that it tends to use the "whip" rather than the "carrot" to motivate workers in mundane jobs. This leads to a neurotic society of mostly medocre performers.

The problem with capitalism is that the white collar workers, who are generally closer to the money, tend to overcompensate themselves. Middle, and espeically upper, management in the USA is grossly over-compensated. Upper level management condones the over-payment of middle management because by doing so they inflate their own salaries. If Joe, 3 tiers down from the VP level, is making $200,000 a year, then Bob who is 1 tier down makes $400,000 a year, when in fact in terms of their replaceablity and value to the company they should each be making half that.

What has happend is that management thinks they should be compensated for their "excellence" in line with sports stars and entertainers. Their ego's insist that they are the "quarterback" of their company, so they should get compensated appropriately. As a result we have seen our company management salaries bloat while the workers have actually lost ground. Now, our management has decided the workers are still too expensive and have decided to exploit cheap foriegn labor through "outsourcing". Of course, the next logical step is that management jobs too, one level at a time, will be outsourced. In the end, company ownership itself will be outsourced, and we will have nothing left at all.

Wade.

 

[wade]

The first time you complained about your own words, to be fair it showed only your lack of a sense of humour more than anything else.

This time it is simply a demostration of your illogical obstinance.

Don't blame me for what you write.

This is not a humor board. And as RWA pointed out, humor and sarcasm don't generally come through well in print. And of course there was nothing humorous about what you did. Cutting and pasting someone elses comments to intentionally put them out of context is deceptive, rude, and and a very small thing to do.