A
Anonymous
Guest
Onhell said:
How about Czechoslovakia or Hungary? At that time, those were quite advanced countries in international comparison.
How about Czechoslovakia or Hungary? At that time, those were quite advanced countries in international comparison.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Yugoslavia was at one point the wealthiest of the communist nations. It had advantages over the rest of eastern Europe:
1. Dictator Tito had a very confidant and persuasive personality and did not allow Stalin or the rest of the soviets to meddle into the country's economy.
2. Advertising was allowed, which brought in more dough than the rest of the East Bloc.
3. Yugoslavs were allow to work in foreign countries. Many worked in Switzerland and Germany and brought back plenty of money into the country.
4. The powers that be, although hungry for power, were intelligent enough to exploit a good opportunity if they saw one. Croatia's coast brought in plenty of tourists, especially Germans. For the longest time (and probably still) tourism was the #1 economic activity.
I remember taking a family trip in the mid '80s to visit friends in Czechoslovakia and I was shocked how much we could buy with the Yugo dinar there. I was also shocked that the Czechs and Slovaks were allowed only one trip out of the country every four years.
I also recall that in the early '80s the Yugoslavian economy was even comparable to that of Italy. The naive thought that we'd one day surpass them, but you can't do that when hardly anything is being innovated in a commie land, even if it had plenty of socialist aspects.
1. Dictator Tito had a very confidant and persuasive personality and did not allow Stalin or the rest of the soviets to meddle into the country's economy.
2. Advertising was allowed, which brought in more dough than the rest of the East Bloc.
3. Yugoslavs were allow to work in foreign countries. Many worked in Switzerland and Germany and brought back plenty of money into the country.
4. The powers that be, although hungry for power, were intelligent enough to exploit a good opportunity if they saw one. Croatia's coast brought in plenty of tourists, especially Germans. For the longest time (and probably still) tourism was the #1 economic activity.
I remember taking a family trip in the mid '80s to visit friends in Czechoslovakia and I was shocked how much we could buy with the Yugo dinar there. I was also shocked that the Czechs and Slovaks were allowed only one trip out of the country every four years.
I also recall that in the early '80s the Yugoslavian economy was even comparable to that of Italy. The naive thought that we'd one day surpass them, but you can't do that when hardly anything is being innovated in a commie land, even if it had plenty of socialist aspects.
A
Anonymous
Guest
And the dream that was Yugoslavia is lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
It is the only way it could have been. People's minds do not function at their optimum under duress, threats, lies and promises based on faith. Communism never cured the bad blood between the various ethnic groups, it only hid it, until the time came when it was more acceptable to talk about such things as national identity and then it exploded louder than before.
This is meaningless. You haven't described what you thing the difference between Religion and "pseudoreligion" is. Religions cling to beliefs which are by their very nature unverifiable. Ideologies like Communism cling to beliefs which are within the realm of what we currently know about the laws of physics and whatnot.Genghis Khan said:
Genghis Khan said:
Spoken like a true Cold Warrior. Communism has no hope of working for you, Khan, because you have been raised in a society which regards the individual as the highest and most natural expression of freedom. Your world is divided into parts which belong to certain individuals. Had you been raised from birth with no conceptualization of property, then you'd think Communism was a perfectly logical form of social organization.
It HAS worked, and quite well, in the past. Most Native Canadian societies, before European contact, had no concept of private property. When one person killed a moose or planted some maize, he never thought that nobody but he should consume it. Many sociologists and anthropologists contend, in fact, that this was the root of many of the conflicts the Natives had with the first European settlers here - the worlds in which they lives (not physically, but conceptually) were so incredibly different, that what looked like stealing to a European was actually a sign of acceptance and welcoming.
I know it must be difficult for you to accept that there can be a different world view out there, but trust me. A modern example, perhaps, might be in China (albeit not as extreme as was in Native Canadian cultures). traditional Chinese values place far less emphasis on the individual than Western ones. Sacrifice for the society was the most important virtue. That's why in the Korean War, Chinese soldiers marched in wave after terrifying wave against the UN forces (my Great Uncle told me about this...) They didn't care about themselves. Similarly, it's why there can be such a great disparity between rich and poor in China and the people still be relatively content. They don't care about their own personal property. (These are increasingly less true, however, as China gets more Westernized. traditional Confucian values are what I mean.)
If you're curious as to how these different "world views" have come about, and how they change, I suggest you read Foucault's The Order of Things, where he discusses these different "Epistemes". It's a bit heady, but I think you might learn something.
In addition, there's a serious flaw in your argument when you say "Communism can't work because it hasn't worked in these cases." The places where "Communism" has been attempted were never actually Communist. I can't put it any more plainly. Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc. were DICTATORS who exploited Communists, not Communists themselves. For true Communism to work, you need a Revolution from the people - not just an overthrow of the political order, but a profound change in how the people see themselves and the world. In fact, I would argue that the "internal" or "personal" revolution is pretty much ALL that is necessary for a Communist system to flourish, as once it happened the established order would simply fall away.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Genghis Khan said:
What bullshit have you been reading? that's not marxism, marxism wasn't about aiding the dumb and lazy, it was about allowing people to express themselves, and about the cummunal ownership of the means of production, NOT the abolition of private property... Jesus tap-dancing christ have you people even READ Marx? I'm seriously starting to wonder...
A
Anonymous
Guest
IronDuke said:
From what I understand, Genghis Khan was raised in Yugoslavia.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
IronDuke said:
*sigh* Look it up in the dictionary that others have provided above. Communism and physics? Highly unrelated.
IronDuke said:
Like Perun said, I was born in old Yugoslavia; I was NOT raised in a society that regards the individual as the highest and most natural expression of freedom. I had to fight for that belief virtually every day of my life in a world that was impervious to logic and common sense. I know perfectly well how Marxism works in practice and Yugoslavia is still the LEAST constraining and controlling of the "noble" experiments. I could see how people have come to expect benefits they did not earn and demand them.
Kids are not born with knowledge of how to think for themselves, or how to treat everyone with respect. In a world that teaches you nothing about rational self-interest, you have two ridiculous choices: be a meek sheep, or a callous wolf. Every natual instinct in the human body fights against the percepts of communism -- where you're told that the group (whatever that is in any particular moment) is more important than you.
IronDuke said:
People that are supposed to overthrow any political order, will look for a leader. If the system is communism, the power hungry will take control, like it has in every instance. Use your inductive logic. I believe in the phrase, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There will not be many highly intelligent, motivated, innovative and generally productive individuals who would willingly belong to such a system. You may wish to belong to such a society, but I know from experience, most people would flee if given half a chance.
IronDuke said:
That is an interesting twist: stealing is accepting and welcoming. I suppose this means that you would also consider the warfare among North American Natives as "accepting and welcoming". You are welcome to that view. I would not call it civilized. (This is not meant to imply that Europeans were perfect examples of a civilized societies).
IronDuke said:
Since sacrifice was extolled as a virtue, it was easier for communism to take root in China and North Korea. Why should any person think twice about their inherent value as an individual if they've always viewed themselves simply as a replaceable cog in a wheel?! They're welcome to such behaviour; if they wish to die needlessly... Tell me, would you have gladly fought for the communists? I want nothing to do with it.
IronDuke said:
That depends on the context. I certainly would not die in the jungles of Vietnam fighting for people who do not want your help. If communism was creeping into my country, I'd certainly would fight it.
First of all, where you grew up has nothing to do with it. Despite being nominally Communist, Yugoslavia was still within the Western tradition of individualism.
This proves my point exactly. You call it stealing and it is thus reprehensible to you (and to me as well, I must admit.) However, to the Native Canadians, it was a sign that the early Europeans were welcomed. They didn't differentiate between "yours" and "mine." Instead, everything was merely being used by its steward, not its owner. Nobody could actually own anything in the sense that the Western tradition sees it. There was no idea or concept of property (which is thus the crux of the argument when it comes to negotiations based on centuries-old treaties; both sides interpreted the wording of the documents incredibly differently based ont heir world view at the times they were signed, and it leads to vastly different interpretations.)
They only saw "enemy" and "friend", and if you were "friend", then you were welcome to any stuff they had, and they were welcome to anything you had. In essence, the Natives thought that by "taking" some of the Europeans things, they were showing that they were all one family.
It seems crazy to us, but it's how it was. That, I think, is what true Communism is.
Genghis Khan said:
This proves my point exactly. You call it stealing and it is thus reprehensible to you (and to me as well, I must admit.) However, to the Native Canadians, it was a sign that the early Europeans were welcomed. They didn't differentiate between "yours" and "mine." Instead, everything was merely being used by its steward, not its owner. Nobody could actually own anything in the sense that the Western tradition sees it. There was no idea or concept of property (which is thus the crux of the argument when it comes to negotiations based on centuries-old treaties; both sides interpreted the wording of the documents incredibly differently based ont heir world view at the times they were signed, and it leads to vastly different interpretations.)
They only saw "enemy" and "friend", and if you were "friend", then you were welcome to any stuff they had, and they were welcome to anything you had. In essence, the Natives thought that by "taking" some of the Europeans things, they were showing that they were all one family.
It seems crazy to us, but it's how it was. That, I think, is what true Communism is.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Sounds like a garden of Eden if the meaning of stealing can be redefined to get around the "thou shalt not steal". Seriously, how do you expect scientific and technological progress in this society of yours?
Genghis Khan said:
Your question is predicated on the belief that greed/self-interest is the only thing which motivates people to do anything. That's a pretty dim view of the potential of humanity. Communism, according to Marx, assumes that greed is a social construct, not natural, and that under such a system the work itself is its own reward.
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
I do not think that greed is the only motivator. However, I do believe that you have a very naive view of human nature and a simplistic view of human desires. People are naturally selfish. This selfishness can take two basic forms: a) I care about myself and I could care less if anyone else gets hurt in the process of getting what I want; b) I care about myself and I do my best to act rationally and justly so that I do not trample on others' rights. For example, stealing something valuable from a stranger[sub]1[/sub] would be "a" and going to univesity to get an education would be "b".
Your view of society will work on a small scale, as Marx critics have said, but on a global scale[sub]2[/sub] it cannot work. Here's a rhetorical question: Who will provide all the necessary things that would make all societies equal? Let's say that Joe Brown invents a computer and starts to make computers for the whole globe. Before he accomplishes his goal, Mary Smith invents the internet. Should she provide the internet to those that already have the computer before most of the world's population even has the computer? That would be unfair under socialist/communist ideology. But not to provide the internet as soon as possible would stagnate progress. This is why we do not hear of many advancements in societies that undervalue individualism, which is not simply "selfishness."
Related to human nature is a biological study on apes and altruism[sub]3[/sub] I have read recently. I working off memory here. The researchers tried to see how far an ape would go to help a human. In the first instance the human faked injury and pretended to reach for its briefcase. The ape comprehended the situation and brought the briefcase to the human. In the second instance the human faked injury and reached for the briefcase again, except this time it was not as easily reachable. The ape tried to reach for the case, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not succeeding. Finally, the same scenario occurred except that the briefcase was in a cage. The apes being intelligent creatures would not sacrifice themselves in order to help the human. The conclusion is that the willingness to help others in distress runs deep in our human genes, but as animals in general, we're still thinking of our own self-interests.[sub]4[/sub]
[sub]1[/sub] Though this is probably OK in your book.
[sub]2[/sub] And before you say "but communism has never been tried on a global scale so you can't say that it work work" -- save it! The reason why such a scenario "would work" is because no newborn citizen will have knowledge of a possiblity of a freer society. There would be no America or the West to sneak in Rock N' Roll music, or Rambo movies, or whatever piece of Americana survives in even the most drearest societies.
[sub]3[/sub] Altruism in the biological sense is when an organisms by its very actions hurts itself in order to help another organism without seeking any personal benefits. (Animals perform altruistic deeds under this definition for their youngs all the time. That's no surprize).
[sub]4[/sub] I assume that you, clearly at least a sympathist for communism, would not find it offensive to imply that humans descended from apes.
Your view of society will work on a small scale, as Marx critics have said, but on a global scale[sub]2[/sub] it cannot work. Here's a rhetorical question: Who will provide all the necessary things that would make all societies equal? Let's say that Joe Brown invents a computer and starts to make computers for the whole globe. Before he accomplishes his goal, Mary Smith invents the internet. Should she provide the internet to those that already have the computer before most of the world's population even has the computer? That would be unfair under socialist/communist ideology. But not to provide the internet as soon as possible would stagnate progress. This is why we do not hear of many advancements in societies that undervalue individualism, which is not simply "selfishness."
Related to human nature is a biological study on apes and altruism[sub]3[/sub] I have read recently. I working off memory here. The researchers tried to see how far an ape would go to help a human. In the first instance the human faked injury and pretended to reach for its briefcase. The ape comprehended the situation and brought the briefcase to the human. In the second instance the human faked injury and reached for the briefcase again, except this time it was not as easily reachable. The ape tried to reach for the case, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not succeeding. Finally, the same scenario occurred except that the briefcase was in a cage. The apes being intelligent creatures would not sacrifice themselves in order to help the human. The conclusion is that the willingness to help others in distress runs deep in our human genes, but as animals in general, we're still thinking of our own self-interests.[sub]4[/sub]
[sub]1[/sub] Though this is probably OK in your book.
[sub]2[/sub] And before you say "but communism has never been tried on a global scale so you can't say that it work work" -- save it! The reason why such a scenario "would work" is because no newborn citizen will have knowledge of a possiblity of a freer society. There would be no America or the West to sneak in Rock N' Roll music, or Rambo movies, or whatever piece of Americana survives in even the most drearest societies.
[sub]3[/sub] Altruism in the biological sense is when an organisms by its very actions hurts itself in order to help another organism without seeking any personal benefits. (Animals perform altruistic deeds under this definition for their youngs all the time. That's no surprize).
[sub]4[/sub] I assume that you, clearly at least a sympathist for communism, would not find it offensive to imply that humans descended from apes.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Genghis Khan said:
Marxism wasn't really about equallity, it was about ending the exploitation found in Smith's Capitalism... well the REALITY of Smith's Capitalism. In Marx's communism the "equality" comes in the joint ownership of the MEANS of production, NOT in the abolition of private property, I am repeating myself because it bears repeating. Marx stipulated that there is an amount of necessary work that needs to be done to meet your basic needs of food, shelter and any other material goods like clothing etc. After that the worker produces surplus labor. Capitalists exploit the worker by denying pay of the surplus work or making them work longer than they need to to meet their basic needs. Remember that in Marx's time factory workers worked 12 to 14 hour days.
At any rate, Marx theorized that as technology progressed, as the division of labor became more streamedlined The amount of necessary work would decrease and the amount of leasure time would increase and that is when we would exercise our species-being; what we most like to do/excell at. So one can still be the best computer maker, the best golfer, the best writer, etc. Individual talents are not only allowed in Communism (Marxism), but also encouraged...
Remember Smith spoke about Enlightened Self-Interest which in your quote would be example "b". He knew we are inherently selfished, but argued that it was in the Capitalists best interest to pay their workers good wages to keep them happy and to be able to afford the products being produce thus making their business grow in the process. AS you can imagine Wal-Mart doesn't follow Enlightened Self-Interest, but rather exploits their workers in a similar way to that described by Marx.
Not to mention Selfishness can be curved and Altruism can be taught, it is all in upbringing, sure there will be a few that will always be selfish and oh well, who cares, but marility, values, feelings are taught, thus I think it is a cop out to say "our nature is selfish, this would never work", since society is based on TEAMWORK.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Cruise as Von Stauffenberg!
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0985699/plane.JPG.html
Click on the photo to see the similarities between Von Stauffenberg and Tom Cruise.
This picture is Von Stauffenberg, in case people might have doubts:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0985699/plane.JPG.html
Click on the photo to see the similarities between Von Stauffenberg and Tom Cruise.
This picture is Von Stauffenberg, in case people might have doubts:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Cruise does look a lot like Stauffenberg on those pictures. The big question is: Will we have Tom Cruise looking like Stauffenberg, or will we have him being Stauffenberg on screen?
In case you are not sure what I mean, let me explain with another example. When I watched Troy (please no comments about the film), I didn't have the feeling the character I saw there played by Orlando Bloom was Paris. Sure, he looked a lot like I'd imagine him, but... he wasn't Paris. It seemed to me like Bloom was still stuck in his role as Legolas of the Lord Of The Rings films. The same facial expressions, the same movements... his Paris didn't have any personality. Having seen Bloom in other films, I concluded: That's just Bloom. Legolas was Orlando Bloom too.
The thing is, Tom Cruise always plays similar characters in his films too. He always uses the same facial expressions, the same movements, and you never really feel you are watching a character there, you're just watching Tom Cruise giving an acting performance. For comparison, take Alec Guinness. Guinness didn't only look like the characters he was playing, but he became them. When you watch one of his films, you never have the impression that you're watching Guinness, but you've got the feeling you're actually watching King Feisal, Obi Wan Kenobi or Adolf Hitler.
In case you are not sure what I mean, let me explain with another example. When I watched Troy (please no comments about the film), I didn't have the feeling the character I saw there played by Orlando Bloom was Paris. Sure, he looked a lot like I'd imagine him, but... he wasn't Paris. It seemed to me like Bloom was still stuck in his role as Legolas of the Lord Of The Rings films. The same facial expressions, the same movements... his Paris didn't have any personality. Having seen Bloom in other films, I concluded: That's just Bloom. Legolas was Orlando Bloom too.
The thing is, Tom Cruise always plays similar characters in his films too. He always uses the same facial expressions, the same movements, and you never really feel you are watching a character there, you're just watching Tom Cruise giving an acting performance. For comparison, take Alec Guinness. Guinness didn't only look like the characters he was playing, but he became them. When you watch one of his films, you never have the impression that you're watching Guinness, but you've got the feeling you're actually watching King Feisal, Obi Wan Kenobi or Adolf Hitler.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I know what you mean Perun. I have the same with Henry Fonda. He became the character.
What you say about Bloom, I had the same feeling, but that was mainly because of the three LOTR-films that I saw not long before the release of Troy. Luckily I haven't seen a Cruise film the last two years (last one was "War Of The Worlds", so it might help.
What you say about Bloom, I had the same feeling, but that was mainly because of the three LOTR-films that I saw not long before the release of Troy. Luckily I haven't seen a Cruise film the last two years (last one was "War Of The Worlds", so it might help.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Raven said:
I knew Lord Of The Rings was missing something!
But then, he had Gimli...
I don't think Tom Cruise is a particularly bad actor, I don't think he'll do a bad job on this movie. I just think he's batshit insane and shouldn't be allowed to talk offscreen. Ever.
