The presenter argues for Capitalism by pointing out that there have been successful capitalists in fascist states as well as in democratic ones hence Capitalism is “resilient”. However, this does mean that any country should be ruled by capitalists.
Compassion, love, friendship and solidarity are even more resilient through aeons of time and are the values without which human existence would have no meaning. Should not every civilised country be run by people who stand for these values?
Ivan Ribar was a national hero, Josip Broz was the leader of the Yugoslavian communist party, Lazar Koliševski was a drunk idiot. There is no need for a good leader too be good but he has to do something good or be someone that means something to the people. In communism strong leaders are the point and in democracy its the people.
Democracy has triumphed everywhere? Mexico is a fucked up country where we know that voting is merely a lie. What happened to the death guys from the Bush elections that also were voting? Come on, the only thing that we can agree is that democracy has always been a lie to (most) of the countries.
@Reido2828 when Yugoslavia was in socialism we were weary successive and how about china being weary important to the world. Communism was a dream but the leaders were corrupted, and look what capitalism is doing, Greece is almost bankrupt and a recession all over EU. You should look at the wall street or what ever it is that Americans are doing is a start towards socialism and later to communism.
Your quite uneducated about the subject at hand. China is communist but their economic policies are completely capitalist:P Theres 250 000 millionaires in Shanghai alone. hardly communist eh. Also 0 innovation came from Communist countries. You also answered your own question to. Corruption in Communism which is why it fails. Same thing with America. Corruption caused it to fail. So neither system is perfect but I have friends from Yugoslavia and they all tell me their glad they left.
@Reido2828 .zero iinovation came from communist countries?youre an idiot. although i agree communism is idiotic and will never work,nevr has,you are an idiot who thinks rewards are the only reason for innovation.you really thnk einstein when he was thinking of light and the universe at age 15 cared about patheitc material rewards?lol look at russias history in science and technology,as well as china to see what innovation has come you idiot.
@M10663 Check out the RSA animation on "the surprising truth about what motivates us", it might help you drag Reido2828 out of the pit of ignorance. Grtz
I never once said rewards are the only reason for innovation. I never said that at all. Innovations through Capital rewards is much better than any other system because people are free to innovate and can do very good very quickly. They don't have much regulation stopping them. China is not a communist country schmuck its a capital country. Just has a large government over lookin them. I did look up Russias scientific achievements but they do not equal any free market country
You just answered your own question fool. Communism collapsed because of corruption just like capitalism. But the difference in America is its not real Capitalism but Corporatism. Theres a difference between the two. Communism offers no incentives to innovate which is why most products made by former Soviet blocs were crap. Even today their junk and I hear all kinds of stories of planes breaking in the air and boats sinking randomly.
@Reido2828 And Capitalism? The corruption is even greater that's why it will fall so weary soon. If you tell a Chinese in the face that they are capitalists they would kill you. China has never been a Capitalist country and might never be. The Soviet Russia was the real communist country. Every one that went with the rules had a great life.
Im from Canada so many chinese live here. Chinas rich elite are capitalist but the poor class are not. The US will fall down but it is still one of the most powerful nations on earth. Don't forget where most of the companies for business are. Communism collapsed because as I told you before when cutbacks are needed then the people will riot against the government. The states should control nothing of the private sector. Soviet Russia had no respect for life or difference of opinions
@Reido2828 well now you sound resist saying that those Chinese are still part of China. if they left they can even in any communist country. If you didn't like Soviet Russia you could have left it any time.
Thats bull shit! ahahaha that is total bullshit. Many soviets left but had to do it via refugee status. If you truly believe that communism works then my god your a flat out moron kid.
@Reido2828 well i don't believe it works i know it does. look on wall street žižek joined them showing that the as you said great america it is becoming a socialist country. Why insult me? Because i'm starting to make sense to you? Well you have been brain washed and might love america more than your homeland, showing that you are some kind of a traitor and stick to capitalism only because america is currently a Democratic country. Why call me a kid? are you a kid? well its the same to me.
Im not American first of all and no brain washing here. Do you believe in Communism because of Zizek? number 1. Wall street is because of socialism. That is a fact that it was not capitalism with the bailouts but socialism. 2. Thank god for Asia. Fuck communism and free market will lead the way. 3. You made no sense what so ever because you either distorted facts or your points were not valid. Name a successful communist country? You have yet to do so. Your the one who is brainwashed
You have not presented any facts at all. And it seems you just believe in ZIzek rather than the actual idea of Marxism. What America proves and what happened to the soviets is the government cannot control and run a bureaucracy because it fails at doing it. Look up Libertarian socialism for a bit of education. You are inexperienced and ZIZEK being on wall street means nothing because the government is what is causing the problems. Again you have not named a successful communist nation
@Reido2828 Try being a bit logical and think what would happen if only america was a capitalist country and the world was communist as it is in reverse now. Learn that its Žižek not Zizek. Name me 1 Capitalist country that isn't corrupted (A country fails if corrupted). And America lives out off other country's money, it will fall soon and still the politics steal money from country. Communism was but a dream, no one to fulfill it, with Žižek trying to do that.
I don't need to think in a hypothetical situation because most people don't want to live in a communist country. No one immigrates to them and everyone wants to live in Canada and the USA. I cannot name any country that is not corrupt because it does not matter what system your under people are corrupt and can be bought. But communism takes so much power away from the people. Maybe its not suppose to be like that but it is. Lets not forget all the millions murdered by communists. WEAK
It has everything to do with communism little boy. You see if you understand human psychology you'd understand why Communism is junk. People cannot have that type of control/power over the people because they abuse it. Again name one fucking successful communist country little boy. I can name many failed ones. Back up your so called facts. Yugoslavia also was a dump under communism. i talked to my friends dad the other day who lived there. Hated the lifestyle and the system.
@Reido2828 in America you are even more spayed on than you are in communism. Why must i repeat that communism was a dream of many people. many people left Yugoslavia because of religion, culture, politics,... and do remember that Yugoslavia was never an communist country only socialist and that Tito rebelled against Stalin. And you have yet to name me one non corrupted capitalist country.
There is no such thing as a none corrupt capitalist country but my country of Canada is very successful and is way past the USA. The united states is a junk place to name for Capitalism because of what happened to the country. Also Communists murdered millions of people; even more than hitler. So again communism fails because as with the USA as well the states should never have control over the people. Only certain regulations should the state enforce but never control.
@Reido2828 Tell me you know that you country is a Social-Democracy. If Russia was so behind in time than how come they went to space first? Or how did they defeat Hitler and Napoleon? They were the fastest growing industry country, so don't think you and Russians are so different.
Russia didn't defeat hitler on their own. It was the allied army. Also read more into hitlers defeat in Russia and Napoleon lost because of lack of knowledge of the Russian winter. Russia today in the free market is profiting much more than they used to and is making much better quality projects. Dude your clearly a kid who doesn't know much about Communism. Fuck name one fact about communism that is good for the 21st century?You can't because ill debunk it to show you it doesn't work
@Reido2828 its a bit unusual to call a 33 old man a kid and to keep to the same thing without hearing reason. Russia didn't conquer Germany but they came to Hitler first. I would have said the conquered the Nazis or Germans. You should learn some manners and learn to ask before you insult.. Communism = no rich or poor, Maximum safety at cost of a bit of freedom,...
Yeah bullshit! And if your 33 then please present valid points in the argument then. Most political philosophies have ideas to keep the people safe prosperous etc. but they all break down because of people them selves. And communism is no different.
@Reido2828 You see you have proven my point its democracy. In communism there will be no votes. The government is responsible for all. Or might i say That the Leader of the communist country controls most off all things going on in the country.
Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha you have made no points you moron. And this comment proves if you did make points your lost in transition. Read up on psychology 101 and then read Noam Chomsky then read up on Libertarianism. You putz I can't believe you just said what you said. For a 33 year old you certainly lack people experience. You must work in a factory or behind a wall where you don't get much interaction with the general population. Forgive my harsh honesty but seriously THINK
@Reido2828 2 books prove nothing but that you are narrow minded and naive to think that these 2 books you read are making you the smartest man on this world. On the other hand those books are American and if you read a russian book you would see a big difference. You honesty and mind are as dough as an french canadian in the forest mating with others such as your self.
What book? What the hell are you talking about now. You see how dumb you are? Lol dude grow up! And I won't read peoples thoughts on systems either because I look at it and learn for my self. Thats the difference I guess between me and you. I believe in actual democracy while you believe people need to do everything for you and always tell you what to do. Seriously narrow minded? You have not made any valid points. I'm Anglo Saxon also no French in me. Your intellect is at a near 0
@Reido2828 you are really stupid aren't you? You cant make a difference at all. you wrote that i should read
psychology 101 and then read Noam Chomsky then read up on Libertarianism. Liberty is an american trait no the worlds. You belive in you self and what your ass tells you, while i believe in socialism. You are the most stupidest man i ever met. You didn't even know that Canada is a half Socialist country and half democratic country. Your Intelligence quotient is at a big minus.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha I can see why your 33 and still wanting communism back. You couldn't function in a free society as welfare would be your first and only option. Canada is at the least 80 to 20 socialism. We have a strong free market. Also you old man listen here. I believe in socialism to but guess what communism does not work. As for Liberty its something all individuals want. Its interpreted differently in each culture. Your still lagging behind me on intellect to.
None of your points make much sense at all and you seem to be living in a fantasy because you have made no points at all lol and seriously you are a brainwashed nitwit and your not half either. Just a stupid man with no vision of the world and seems to think its either Capitalism or Democracy. If your leading the revolution then the human race is fucked after all. Seriously re-read your shit and tell me if it makes sense. It doesn't make much sense at all. I thought you were a child.
@Reido2828 i have made my point you made your...'tips' you use anything i say as thou i said nothing your but an smartass canadian worthless in all looks.
Looks? Did you see what I look like? Nope so your insult again shows your intellect. You provided no points at all and no valid responses. I can see why you need socialism and communism because your not smart enough to run your own life.
@Reido2828 i saw your intellect in all you comments and tell me are you a follower or a leader? If you think your a leader you are wrong, you are only following the rules the difference is that democracy you have more freedom but are less safe and around. And i see you don't even know that Canada is a Socialist-Democracy you are showing you are only a smart ass with no knowledge of neater politics or you country. Are you a child because you act like one?
We have a conservative government in power, we have some socialized programs but the country as a whole other than Quebec is not socialist in anyway. Canada is quite liberal but the market system we have is very open and we have good competition with our monetary system to which is why Canada got voted one of the best places to do business. I see this conversation is just pointless rambling (By you) because you have not countered anything I have said nor provided any valid points.
@Reido2828 You should learn that socialism doesn't have any effect on liberality. Socialism is for the growth of industry and has a small effect to lower the poor and rich. Your whole country is a socialist-democracy there are no small programs only half of all you programs.
You have proven again that your Intelligence quotient is at a minus and that you have weary little knowledge of what we are talking about. Socialism is what made Canada so good not democracy.
@svord000 Socialism is less liberal than liberalism, because it allows for less privately-owned enterprise. This is a fundamental distinction. Because certain goods or industries are shared amongst everyone, this means that ownership is forced onto everyone, and paid for by everyone, through taxation. Since this action forgoes the freedom to choose whether to opt for a certain service/good, or not, Socialism is less free/liberal.
@ExEverest10 Finally someone that understands. yes i know that and whats not to love about it? But i and redio were talking about socialism and democracy.
@svord000 Well, what's not to love about it are a number of typically inherent features of government-run businesses or industries, and a partial removal of the capitalistic dynamic where, given competition, prices are lowered to the lowest point possible, the same goods are improved upon continuously, and the industry's discarded as soon as people stop consuming that industry's goods/services, whereas in a partially Socialist country a lag between the change in demand and later supply exists,
@ExEverest10 I wonder has any socialist country bankrupt because of industry? Lets look at Greece. They have much less industry than other country's in the EU. They are directed towards truism and hardly anything else. Socialism isn't only about industry its as well about Agriculture, growing lots of livestock, etc..
@svord000 Agriculture is an industry...(at least using the economic term. even if it doesn't quite compare to the factories you see in other industries, food is still 'mass manufactured', especially now that farms start to resemble factories rather closely).
@svord000 But anyways, that may be used in support of my point; Greece may have so little industrial backing behind it because the citizens were never forced to innovate, the gov't always had them covered. Therefore, when the gov't wasn't there anymore (due to deficit, and a necessary cut in public spending), neither was a domestic capitalist infrastructure built by the citizens. From a purely financial standpoint, a socialist state is death to economic growth in the sector that's socialized;
@svord000 the Gov't institution effectively becomes a monopoly (or, slightly better, an oligopoly) where there's no competition, and no pressure to attract the customers, since the customers are 'stuck' with you. Another general concern of a Gov't institution is that it's based on a bureaucracy of the Gov't; it gets its funding from there, and it may be structured accordingly due to political reasons. This is very bad, because there's no darwinism;
@svord000 the Gov't is always evolving (using the contemporary definition, not Darwin's one) from it's past status quo, rather than being completely swept aside as a result of a failure, like happens so often in business; your organization can't compete you fail, and go bankrupt. Your gov't can't 'compete', everyone will lose everything to make sure that horrible gov't still stays in place.
@svord000 ...which facilitates waste (sometimes a rather significant amount).
But anyways, you may have been talking about democracy & socialism, but liberalism doesn't equal democracy (indeed, liberalism typically includes democracy, but the opposite is not true). And it is about 'liberality' that you spoke, not democracy, so I felt that particular sentiment was incorrect.
@svord000 IQ cannot be 'at a minus'. It can be very small, but it can't be negative, using the accepted definition.
It's 'very' not 'weary'. If you were trying to be 'clever', this backfired, since I'm fairly sure that 'weary' can't be used successfully as a play on words in this context.
Seriously you have not provided any fucking points on anything. I doubt your 33 and I'd say your more like 18 because your lack of arguments have proven time and time again that a welfare state is not good for humanity. I understand if your poor and jealous of other people who are at least smart enough to make it and work hard for it. Intelligence Quotient? I'll have you know intelligence comes in many forms and the form yours comes in is STUPIDITY. You work at walmart?
What made my country successful was not socialism. There never was any socialism because Canada is apart of the Monarch and so it was a king and queen affair so believe me no socialism here. My country was made good by people who work hard and still work hard today. Canada thrives and is a good place to do business because of the market we have created. Your country has done nothing good because it has been stuck in a caveman's ideology for the last 100 years.
@Reido2828 Canada is apart of the Monarch? First, surely it's 'C is apart *from* the Monarch', and two, a Monarch is not a country I know of, so what I guess you're really saying is that 'The State of Canada is apart from its Monarch'...and lastly, the existence (or lack thereof) of a monarch does not automatically dictate or influence the state's socialist tendencies.
It did for many centuries in England and in the former colonies of Britain to. There was no class then only the royal family got labelled into class. Canada is a constitutional monarchy but its blend of government differs with England. Look up the history. And the monarch now does not influence our social policies but this is only recent. Churchill had us and the Australians fight WW2 due to the monarch influence in the country. Re check your history.
@Reido2828 Britain & the former colonies were chiefly autocratic and w/ industrialization capitalistic (w/ varying degrees of capitalism), there was no significant socialism to speak of until the 20th century. I suggest you look up the history. I suggest you also look up English 101, since I clearly stated 'socialist', not 'social' tendencies. Worse still, even if I had stated 'social policies', which is what you appear to be talking about, War hardly qualifies as a 'social [domestic] policy'.
Were talking in general here of the country. War is not a domestic policy but it is still a policy that was influenced greatly by the monarch because Canada is still a common wealth state and a constitutional monarch.
@Reido2828 I'm not sure that the monarch had significant enough sway to rally troops from other nations to his cause, at least after the 'glorious revolution' of 1688. If you mean the british empire, true, this was the case for some time, though I disagree that this was the case during WW2. Canada stood to gain a lot of political goodwill and to avert either a financial crisis, or a cap on growth as a result of nazi occupation of western powers; even if Canada was influenced by the brits,
@Reido282 this influence was marginal in comparison to the other imperatives for military action against the nazis. Anyways, I wasn't talking about War, I was talking specifically about the alleged causal link between the presence of a monarch and socialism, since, as far as I understand, you've said that because the state was apart from it's monarch it wasn't socialist. This I take to mean that, given the monarch's presence within the nation's borders, that nation is likely to become socialist.
I'll get technical then. Canada i'd say is around 70 free market and 30 socialism because one of our biggest provinces Quebec has been a socialist place for a good many decades now while in the west it has been mostly free market and low taxes due to the abundance of resources. Canada does have some socialism but its a weak amount compared to say Scandinavian. And a constitutional monarch back in the early days was not socialist at all lol it was run by the royals under the monarc
@Reido2828 oh were still talking? sorry but your facts are much of an false and worthless kind. ExEverest's facts are much more fun to think about than yours and more true.
You still have not provided any facts little boy about communism. Progress is made through human rewards and compensation and communism has no compensation for humanity's innovation. There is a reason why Russia lagged behind the rest of the world under communism and still does even today. Name one success of communism? You haven't yet and you have not made any sense. ZIzek is an intelligent man but again he was directly influenced by communism. Nothing else.
If you actually believe that the Soviets were strong and fair promoting state atheism, spying on their people, and controlling everything than your dreaming kid. Communists told people what to do. People could not do as they pleased. Did you live in a communist country? If you say no then please keep your big mouth shut. Your a god damn kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Reido2828 AHA the question is have you lived in it to speak like this? I know the rules of communism and i agree. The spying and rules make you most safe.
I have friends here from Yugoslavia and they all said their glad they left the communist crap behind them. The fact remains that the only way to have a successful system is to have we the people control it and keep the government out of it. Sorry puts communism is not the answer and all it will do is make things worse. Also on your point about China. 250 000 millionaires in Shanghai. They communist? Their economic policies are very free market and its thriving for them. Learn to read
@Reido2828 fact: Yugoslavia was a socialist confederacy. China's communism is different in some ways and those that left Yugoslavia left before socialism because they liked capitalism more. Now than China has money and ignores the most important parts of communism such as free health care, free houses, must have jobs, no rich or poor,.... I chose China for its known enough and tell me how would lets say America buy things if it was the only capitalist country (same as now communism)?
America is a socialist nation and has been for a couple of decades with the bailouts, military spending and socialized education and defense departments. Some aspects of socialism are good and can be combined with capital markets but Communism as we have seen in so many nations past does not work. The leaders of communist and socialist nations live with capital while the rest slave away. China is moving away from communism and thats a fact. The chinese are making capitalism work.
@Reido2828 you say its a socialist i say its democracy think about that. Look at China and tell me is there more poor or rich? there is almost no middle class and that's what communism was trying to fix. China is trying to be a capitalistic country and that is destroying it completely.
Are you kidding me? Where are these facts coming from? Wow your more full of it than mr Zizek here. China was always dirt poor because of communism PERIOD. Capitalism is now giving it a fighting chance. CHinas middle class is rising but yes it is having a hard time keeping up BUT is that because of socialism and government control still? We don't know yet. China and India's rise is a good day for the free market. Check your facts again please because there wrong.
@Reido2828 Look at most of the facts. Most of East EU was communist or socialist, Yugoslavia was never communist but it was a socialist country. China has always had a different communism.
Why do all you pro communist thinkers sound like your children? I have seen the facts and that is why communism collapsed and socialist countries have no idea how to combat inflation or cut spending lol its a weak philosophy and makes people weak in the process. Communism is communism so if China's is different then USA's true free market society is not the real capital philosophy it was founded upon. Your arguments are so weak.
@Reido2828 lets make this easy China is going better and better when the USA is on a downfall to bankrupt as you should have seen in the giant money print in Washington. In real communism there is no money. You work you get a good life you don't work you get kicked out of the country in 1 year. Communism is easy to live in and no crime if you think of it.
@svord000 It wasn't very successful. It was a lot better than communism, but even Tito's reforms couldn't compare with the western nations of the time; the preformance was so poor, in fact, that the economy was shrinking. It shrunk 5.3% from 1980-1989, when the UK has grown 72% in the same period. That was indeed the reason why Yugoslavia fell apart; Slovenia and Croatia seceded because they were becoming tired of Milosevic sticking to Tito's economics, did they not?
@ExEverest10 The people were most happy when were in Yugoslavia, all had a house were happy and had more than they had in the monarchy Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia fell apart because Tito died. Slovenia went out to save itself when Croatia tried to help Yugoslavia. All of the country's in Yugoslavia had a nice economy, they were growing in all ways. Because Slovenia was the most evolved it was an important part of Yugoslavia by helping the other country evolve. Etc.
@svord000 You knew all these people? Unless you're a sociologist or know enough about the sociology of Yugoslavia to qualify as such, you are acting very pretentiously indeed. Unless you either of these two types of persons, I see no legitimate way of you knowing that people were most happy as a part of Yugoslavia (especially if I make an, imo, safe assumption that the political leaders of everyone but Serbia and Montenegro weren't acting of their own accord when they pushed for secession).
@svord000 Secondly, they may have been happy and ignorant, but neither could've lasted for long. As the stats show, the federation would've defaulted causing a collapse in public financing, leading to privatization, chaos, a loss of jobs, and deflation of housing prices, as everyone was selling to pay for healthcare, etc, but no-one was buying.
@ExEverest10 Yes, yes Greece has failed, but tell me did they have much too much freedom? The loss of jobs?
The luxuries? Yes that is it and communism would never allow that. Free health care, free food, free housing. If they wen't to communism or socialism when the collapse began they would have been saved. Too many rich and too many poor, that's the case too little of the middle class and that's what communism assures will not happen. (lets not flood this video pleas)
@svord000 I was talking about Yugoslavia...Greece precisely didn't have enough freedom; had they, the darwinist mechanic would've kicked in and naturally propelled those who were willing to make their own fortune to the top, evolving the middle class due to a need for specialized labour, in turn because of a sensitivity to advantages over the competition (done through new tech & new techniques of production); industrialization 101. Whatever luxuries they did have (I'm not aware of any)
@svord000 could've been accomplished in a sustainable manner through a capitalistic expansion of the economy.
Greece is socialist, they have an extensive public sector.
There are precisely too little rich, and too little poor; such a welfare state guarantees that the poor will never reach the lowest brackets of poverty (hence, no real 'poor'), and to little rich because there are no industries for them to rise to the top of.
@svord000 I think you misunderstood the numbers I've given you, Yugoslavia did *not* have a nice economy, it was *shrinking*, for 9 years. This is a catastrophic financial result. If this is your definition of a nice economy, UK must be defined as a utopia, a paradise on earth. Which it clearly was not, and due to the large discrepancy between the UK and Yugos, neither was the latter's economy nice.
Tito died in 1980. There was a period of 10-11 years before Yugoslavia began falling apart.
@ExEverest10 The economy was nice but it was the WW2 and the oil crisis that made the biggest difference. WW2 destroyed most of the important buildings and the oil crisis after drained most of the money. Yugoslavia started falling apart after Tito's death. The economy was good before Tito died. As i said many times to Reido it's the corruption that destroyed most of great country's such as Yugoslavia and USSR.
@svord000 WW2? Are you kidding me? Are you saying that Yugoslavia's economy was nice, because it was doing well 40-50 years before it's disintegration? I really think you should re-consider this point.
As for the Oil Crisis, indeed, the point's valid, but also begs the question, why has it not bounced back? Other countries have; what was so special about Yugos?
@ExEverest10 So you are saying that all the money spent on weapons and other things was nothing serous? WW2 devastated many country's and Yugoslavia was weary devastated by it. As for the economy, the trade was with the USSR and other communist country's. The broken alliance between Yugo and the USSR was a minus as well.
@svord000 No, of course not, but we are talking about the disintegration of the federation 40-50 years after the conclusion of fighting. At most, I would allow for 15 years of slow & fickle economic growth, during which any country could've disintegrated, socialist or no. If 15 years is ample time to adjust, this still leaves 25-35 years during which Yugo could function on par with other countries.
@ExEverest10 you must take a note that until SFRJ we were simple farmers and with a king and so on, but the SFRJ is what raised it too a much bigger level of technology. Meaning that it was growing in industry as economy. But the oil crisis, WW2 and death of Tito were the real problem stooping us. The oil crisis took lots of money and so did WW2 for the military equipment but the death of our leader was the worst thing that shock the country and made it fall apart.
@svord000 And with his death no one would listen to another man because they haven't proven them self's in the way as Tito did. As even you should know that there can be no country with no leader, so that's why it fell apart.
@svord000 Even if I grant that Tito's existence was crucial for the success of SFRJ, then this is still hardly a trump card for socialism, if the latter political system largely owes its success or failure due to the strength of its leader. Since strong leaders are unlikely to occur statistically, this means the majority of the time the regime will have mediocre or weak leaders, driving the regime into the ground...whereas capitalism (for example) doesn't suffer from this problem.
@ExEverest10 Not at all. Capitalism's leaders (they being several plutocracies who come together when necessary) favour staying out of the limelight. They install their figureheads into places like The White House. Or if the figurehead is the "wrong" figurehead, then enough people to make sure he goes in the "right" direction. Those leaders are not weak (except socially, maybe mentally) but they do drive society into the ground.
@nakedmambo ...Because we have a number of established plutocracies in the west? At the expense of sounding patronizing, it is not enough to state an opinion and expect people to believe it (especially one as conspiratorial as yours); the important aspect is the backing proof. Which is what exactly?
@ExEverest10 Of course. We haven't ever seen the global effects of plutocratic economic leadership, or perhaps mis-leadership, have we? It doesn't matter to me whether or not you "believe" it.
You can keep asking for proof to be brought on a plate to you or just open your bloody eyes and see what's in front of you.
@nakedmambo Ah, the righteousness of the 'true believer' who cannot recognize his own fallability. If the proof is as easy to grasp as opening one's proverbial eyes, why don't you put it in writing? Prove it to me. Not that you will be able to, just as I won't be able to disprove your theory...but please, indulge my provocation.
@ExEverest10 Do you think a 500 character You Tube comment is enough space, or that I should spend time spreading over several comments, something you are too obdurate to work out for yourself? Or which has been reiterated in places where you can easily find it?
You're waffling on about 'political' faces, oblivious to the real leadership of the world which is economic, and how it influences political policy. I'm afraid you've written many posts, but said little of any substance.
@nakedmambo That is a widely cast net indeed; 'something I can work out for myself'? I can, likely, work out a new discipline in physics or mathematics, given enough time and desire. So I do not see that sentiment alone as a compelling reason for your silence. Let us invoke the spirits of Stuart Mill and Bentham, and ask, where is the net utility greater, when a) I, spending at least a few hours attempting to establish with some degree of certainty your particular position out
@nakedmambo of the many proposed in favour of a plutocratic world-view? Or, when b), you spend a few minutes outlining your particular position? Since I am somewhat familiar with the arguments in favour of this view, I am not likely to gain by revisiting them, so, morally speaking, it is a good thing to prevent an exponentially larger waste of time on my part (when I could be doing more productive things), by briefly defining your argumentation.
@nakedmambo You can also cite the sources of those arguments which are similar (if not equivalent) to yours; or do I take a lack of this easily typed reference to mean that you don't really care about the particular arguments invoked in favour of your view, you only care about the view being correct? If so, that is a troubling and pernicious tendency indeed, even if you are the only person misinformed by the inclination.
@nakedmambo What you really mean to say in the latter part of your comment is that I've written many posts, and you haven't grasped much substance; whether the posts contain much substance is another matter all together. While I think there's significant substance to be found, if only because of my examples which give (relative to the disagreeing party's equivalents') considerable credence to my views, I do have a conflict of interest in judging the quality of my comments,
@nakedmambo so I will refrain from arguing regarding this. And did you mean 'facets'? I am not familiar with the expression 'political faces'.
Do not misinterpret my position, however; Industry does have some explicit political power, unto itself, and aplenty of implicit/influential power, but I don't find this power to be consolidated, as there are very few monopolies, and a small number of oligopolies around the world,
@nakedmambo and nor do I see this power to be as large as to dwarf or rival that of the elected candidate's constituency. People aren't bribed to vote, at least not on a significant scale, and because they A) make up the only legal force capable of voting in a good portion of the most powerful politicians, B) in an environment where legislation is fairly rigidly enforced and C) where there is a vast number of politicians vying for a given seat, ...
@nakedma the most industries can hope for is influence and coercion, rather than a soldierly receptiveness to orders, let alone the quasi-NWO allegations you are stating. The political leadership, a leadership much more important than the economic variant in a tightly legislated nation (a politician can potentially pass a law that will arrest and seize the property of anyone, whereas a billionaire can only change the law by attempting to influence the society through paid marketing,
@nake become a politician who will be kept in check by his constituency [or the constituencies of other politicians with whose support he needs to pass a bill], or use his relatively small possessions to the harm of the state and/or nation [and typically himself, as any investment that is made with an apolitical mindset is supposed to be the best one can make in a given situation; therefore any change will supposedly equal to worse returns], blackmailing the legislative branch(es)),
@nakedmambo dances to the tune of the people, rather than vice versa. [I'm sure I missed a few other ways in which political leadership trumps, but the ones mentioned should paint a relatively full picture]
I was considering calling you a 'paper tiger', but I won't do you the honour of exalting your superficial prowess; you appear to be a typical YT visitor with an opinion: ignorant, impotent, and obstinate. You've spent 2 comments asking me to find the knowledge you should possess, the easy committal to writing of which, if correct, should resolve this disagreement then and there.
@nakedmambo It is not my 'job' to present your own argument(s) for myself; this vocation is yours alone, especially since I've previously addressed the popular variants of this view's supporting arguments, and found them lacking. (PS: your thesarus search for 'stubborn' was obvious)
@ExEverest10 Obvious to you perhaps, you're probably remembering your own steps with a thesaurus. The number of posts you've wasted on your typing equivalent of verbal diarrhoea is astonishing. I have a job to go to so I can only manage the few I've written. I don't care a fig that you think I should supply you with answers on here; I told you it's not my job. And I won't be worrying that I didn't see off 'some guy' on You Tube who fancied himself as political philosopher.
@nakedmambo ...And in the face of overwhelming intellectual force, you cower and run. Sure you have a job 'to go to', sure; for English-speaking people generally have such a tight schedule they barely have the ability to type one *GASP* YT comment a day...just as surely as you have an argument to support your opinion, the knowledge of which is 'a priori' required for me to consider the validity of your outlook.
@nakedmambo 'I have an opinion, and I expect everyone to take it seriously despite a lack of announced supporting arguments! I am merely stating a statement, as a fallible human being, who is also capable of lying!' Neanderthal.
[and I don't use the thesarus to make myself sound smarter, but I am very sorry to hear that you are pathetic enough to do so]
@ExEverest10 Except that I didn't. It was you who mentioned that, I just used my normal vocabulary. You can often tell those with a weak vocabulary, they accuse other people of having consulted a dictionary/thesaurus.
Didn't I already say that I'm not bothered whether or not you consider anything I say as valid?
@nakedmambo So you say now, but you did not deny it when speaking of my accusation, which colloquially, 9 times out of 10, implies that you admit the assertion to be fact. I would be also willing to bet that 99.9% of the English-speaking population doesn't know what obdurate means without consulting a dictionary, so if that figure is correct, and I reckon it's a safe bet it is, it is also a safe bet that you didn't either, prior to reaching for a thesaurus.
@actingonlifecom77 a) It's 'Napoleon'. b) I don't believe I stated that the person was lacking in culture. c) I was neither criticising his level of intelligence (in this particular argument), for a diverse vocabulary does not imply great intelligence. I simply criticised what appeared to me to be his desire to appear intelligent (or, at the very least, knowledgeable) by using a rare word instead of commonplace ones he would use far more regularly.
@nakedmambo It is also a fairly safe bet to say that you are lying currently about your knowledge of the term, due to the lacking eloquence and astuteness of your prior comments, and my inability to check A) whether you actually had consulted a thesarus, and B) whether I can tell whether you're lying by the intonation of your voice and body language, making it very easy to lie, and superficially appear truthful.
@nakedmambo People with a 'strong' (diverse or comprehensive would be better adjectives, no?) vocabulary can also accuse others of using a thesaurus when an obscure word sneaks its way into remarks that are otherwise made up of vernacular; as has been proven here.
@nakedmambo If true, your insouciance is unfortunate, at least in my opinion; I make up another unit of the voting population, who can offset your political, economic and cultural power, assuming we are both 'average' people, with 'average' capabilities. I also happen to be a unit who is willing to readress the choices that lie in front of him, in light of new information;
@nakedmambo in the absence of such information, which you may provide, I will, given a few assumptions on my part, as well as our core disagreement, likely negate your contribution (or damage) to society. On the other hand, you could effectively double your political/economic/social power in regards to this particular issue (which is a fairly extensive one at that; structures of government are typically pervasive, and may be affected by me in a similarly systematic fashion),
@nakedmambo if you convince me that your view is correct, and mine, wrong. The first step to this is the pronouncement of your arguments, which should not take longer than 10 minutes to write. A worthwhile price for doubling one's own democratic input, no?
@svord000 Not that strong leaders don't help, but I do disagree that a country can't exist without a (strong) leader; it can, and in the case of the western countries, where there's very little input from the leaders (relative to their autocratic colleagues), they do.
@ExEverest10 People DO need strong heroic authorities in order to be able to emulate their example of courage and self-sacrifice. Because only through courage and self-sacrifice can something really be changed,and democracy really won. That's why the OWS people won't achieve anything. No revolution can be done in silk gloves. No revolution can be done without a leader -- an example of courage. But Americans do have their hero, they just refuse to recognize him as such-- Bradley Manning.
@ididete Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
@ididete Well, democracy 'wins' if all fully functioning humans within a given nations vote in an election that is 'fairly' (however you define that) enforced, and which has a plural number of parties vying for power. But I take your sentiment to mean that this is how we can make democracy work, and be an effective form of government.
@ididete Anyways, the zeitgeist in the west, at least in my opinion, is relatively full of self-sacrificing sentiment (what with the focus on charities and middle-class guilt for consuming things they don't 'need'); the problem is not immorality of the demos, but the latter's ineptitude at picking leaders and driving them to adopt effective and politically inventive policies (should the occasion call for it).
@ididete Progress is slow and not guaranteed, and this, at least in my opinion, is the main shortcoming of democracy: people are generally not smart, inventive, or questioning. As for the 'silk gloves' sentiment, the dissidents of the Arab spring may disagree with you, were there not already 2 governments who relinquished their power as a result of nigh purely non-violent protest?
@ididete But, of course, whether the new governments will prove to be diffirent, or a new coat on the same house, is still a valid question. Then again, even the 'violent' revolutions change virtually little, as the French revolution aspired to be a grand reconstruction of France under liberal values, but has only switched the tyranny of the aristocracy with the tyranny of ochlocracy initially, and then the tyranny of a new nobility later.
@ididete Whereas the American revolution changed very little too, as the American settlements already possessed a liberal (in the original sense of the word) inclination. As for Bradley Manning, he may be heroic, but I don't find it likely that he will easily fulfill the role of a leader; the latter needs charisma like fish needs water.
@ididete Anyways, an intelligent and charismatic leader no doubt helps the nation to prosper, but the existence of such a person in top government office is not necessary for the latter's prosperity, as evidenced by mediocre Chinese leadership, and their double-digit growth; and if not that, for I know little about how charismatic China's leaders were in the last 20 years, so I am only judging based on preconceptions,
@ididete ...then one can also cite the lacking leadership of Bush Jr., and the advance of the economy, only a significant (but not overwhelming) portion of which could be attributed to the housing bubble.
@svord000 In regards to USSR, do you mean to say that the USSR stopped trading with Yugos during these 25-35 years when very little was happening? Because that doesn't sound very accurate, since the US and USSR (as I've said) appeared to have given Yugo very preferential treatment during this entire time, grooming them to be their puppet state. And if that's correct, this once again undervalues Yugo's economy, as one can guess that without these artificially attentive superpowers,
@svord000 ...Yugo would've been a second-rate socialist economy of which there were a few at the time. I mean no disrespect, I can appreciate your heritage and national pride, but Yugo was given much better treatment than most internationally, and still managed to shrink significantly, when other countries continued to grow. Even with regards to the Oil Crisis, Yugo appears to have been affected as much as any other country-this, once again, appears to beg the question of why this was so.
This reporter is a douche
Maff234 5 days ago
jesus is my hero! LOLOLOLOLOL
machinevos 1 week ago
Zizek has a remarkable ability to do a lot of talking without actually saying anything.
kzearo 1 month ago
@kzearo I disagree. He is quite clear and concise, maybe try reading his books to understand where he is coming from?
version191 2 weeks ago
@kzearo
You have the remarkable ability to listen to someone without actually hearing anything.
machinevos 1 week ago
Those of you in negatively commenting do not have the slightest idea what this cultural theorist is trying to say.
estifanostz 1 month ago 3
wow this "reporter" such annoying, vulgar eugh
zarkoasenov 1 month ago
This sophist is a disgrace to Slovenia and for me personally. I can't believe people take this professional-babbler seriously.
xleax 1 month ago
@xleax it must be that you don't understand english or just retarded for writing this
zarkoasenov 1 month ago
@zarkoasenov obviously both, genius.
xleax 1 month ago
The presenter argues for Capitalism by pointing out that there have been successful capitalists in fascist states as well as in democratic ones hence Capitalism is “resilient”. However, this does mean that any country should be ruled by capitalists.
Compassion, love, friendship and solidarity are even more resilient through aeons of time and are the values without which human existence would have no meaning. Should not every civilised country be run by people who stand for these values?
abilityoflove 2 months ago 5
This guy is too smart for me too understand.
Keydob3 2 months ago
what a lame ass show...it ended right when he was about to say the most interesting part of the whole conversation.
Punkirudeboy 2 months ago
Jesus was a hero really. You could argue that he was also the first socialist.
qita0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qita0 If he existed of course.
Konicava 3 months ago
commons, the shared substance of our being.
masbbo 3 months ago
Ivan Ribar was a national hero, Josip Broz was the leader of the Yugoslavian communist party, Lazar Koliševski was a drunk idiot. There is no need for a good leader too be good but he has to do something good or be someone that means something to the people. In communism strong leaders are the point and in democracy its the people.
svord000 3 months ago
I love Zizek , but this guy got him by the balls.
alexshemesh 4 months ago
Why are these shows so short!!!!! put more, let him speak more, make a plan and let him speak freely along that plan for 30min or an hour??
why cant they do that??
akinigiri 4 months ago
Democracy has triumphed everywhere? Mexico is a fucked up country where we know that voting is merely a lie. What happened to the death guys from the Bush elections that also were voting? Come on, the only thing that we can agree is that democracy has always been a lie to (most) of the countries.
MalditoNihilista 4 months ago
Elvis from Slovenia!
smallpotatoes989 4 months ago
Who is this retarded interviewer?
jumpnjza2 4 months ago
'mister.' jesus christ. what an abomination for such a 'formal' society. that's 'DR.' zizek, you douche puppet.
jamischrist 4 months ago
Am i the only one who keeps watching zizek videos one after another at youtube?
burningmindsvideos 4 months ago
@burningmindsvideos no you arent, i cant stop, lol, and i am not even interested in politics and philosophy.
MrStarkiller17 4 months ago
Fuck Communism
Reido2828 5 months ago
@Reido2828 fuck capitalism... and you.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Libertarian socialist is me fool. Capitalism is much better than communism. Name a successful communist nation?
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828
Name a successful Capitalist nation.
ignoranttwat 4 months ago
@Reido2828 when Yugoslavia was in socialism we were weary successive and how about china being weary important to the world. Communism was a dream but the leaders were corrupted, and look what capitalism is doing, Greece is almost bankrupt and a recession all over EU. You should look at the wall street or what ever it is that Americans are doing is a start towards socialism and later to communism.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Your quite uneducated about the subject at hand. China is communist but their economic policies are completely capitalist:P Theres 250 000 millionaires in Shanghai alone. hardly communist eh. Also 0 innovation came from Communist countries. You also answered your own question to. Corruption in Communism which is why it fails. Same thing with America. Corruption caused it to fail. So neither system is perfect but I have friends from Yugoslavia and they all tell me their glad they left.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 .zero iinovation came from communist countries?youre an idiot. although i agree communism is idiotic and will never work,nevr has,you are an idiot who thinks rewards are the only reason for innovation.you really thnk einstein when he was thinking of light and the universe at age 15 cared about patheitc material rewards?lol look at russias history in science and technology,as well as china to see what innovation has come you idiot.
M10663 2 months ago
Comment removed
arthursaey 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M10663 Check out the RSA animation on "the surprising truth about what motivates us", it might help you drag Reido2828 out of the pit of ignorance. Grtz
arthursaey 2 months ago
@M10663
I never once said rewards are the only reason for innovation. I never said that at all. Innovations through Capital rewards is much better than any other system because people are free to innovate and can do very good very quickly. They don't have much regulation stopping them. China is not a communist country schmuck its a capital country. Just has a large government over lookin them. I did look up Russias scientific achievements but they do not equal any free market country
Reido2828 1 month ago
@svord000
You just answered your own question fool. Communism collapsed because of corruption just like capitalism. But the difference in America is its not real Capitalism but Corporatism. Theres a difference between the two. Communism offers no incentives to innovate which is why most products made by former Soviet blocs were crap. Even today their junk and I hear all kinds of stories of planes breaking in the air and boats sinking randomly.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 And Capitalism? The corruption is even greater that's why it will fall so weary soon. If you tell a Chinese in the face that they are capitalists they would kill you. China has never been a Capitalist country and might never be. The Soviet Russia was the real communist country. Every one that went with the rules had a great life.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Im from Canada so many chinese live here. Chinas rich elite are capitalist but the poor class are not. The US will fall down but it is still one of the most powerful nations on earth. Don't forget where most of the companies for business are. Communism collapsed because as I told you before when cutbacks are needed then the people will riot against the government. The states should control nothing of the private sector. Soviet Russia had no respect for life or difference of opinions
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 well now you sound resist saying that those Chinese are still part of China. if they left they can even in any communist country. If you didn't like Soviet Russia you could have left it any time.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Thats bull shit! ahahaha that is total bullshit. Many soviets left but had to do it via refugee status. If you truly believe that communism works then my god your a flat out moron kid.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 well i don't believe it works i know it does. look on wall street žižek joined them showing that the as you said great america it is becoming a socialist country. Why insult me? Because i'm starting to make sense to you? Well you have been brain washed and might love america more than your homeland, showing that you are some kind of a traitor and stick to capitalism only because america is currently a Democratic country. Why call me a kid? are you a kid? well its the same to me.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Im not American first of all and no brain washing here. Do you believe in Communism because of Zizek? number 1. Wall street is because of socialism. That is a fact that it was not capitalism with the bailouts but socialism. 2. Thank god for Asia. Fuck communism and free market will lead the way. 3. You made no sense what so ever because you either distorted facts or your points were not valid. Name a successful communist country? You have yet to do so. Your the one who is brainwashed
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 1. žižek and wall street are but a little part of the beginning.
2. free marketing is what made WW2.
3. more and better facts made than you and if Russia was not capitalistic i would name it but it was better than america in the past.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
You have not presented any facts at all. And it seems you just believe in ZIzek rather than the actual idea of Marxism. What America proves and what happened to the soviets is the government cannot control and run a bureaucracy because it fails at doing it. Look up Libertarian socialism for a bit of education. You are inexperienced and ZIZEK being on wall street means nothing because the government is what is causing the problems. Again you have not named a successful communist nation
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Try being a bit logical and think what would happen if only america was a capitalist country and the world was communist as it is in reverse now. Learn that its Žižek not Zizek. Name me 1 Capitalist country that isn't corrupted (A country fails if corrupted). And America lives out off other country's money, it will fall soon and still the politics steal money from country. Communism was but a dream, no one to fulfill it, with Žižek trying to do that.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
I don't need to think in a hypothetical situation because most people don't want to live in a communist country. No one immigrates to them and everyone wants to live in Canada and the USA. I cannot name any country that is not corrupt because it does not matter what system your under people are corrupt and can be bought. But communism takes so much power away from the people. Maybe its not suppose to be like that but it is. Lets not forget all the millions murdered by communists. WEAK
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Stalin was a weak leader, this has nothing to do with communism
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
It has everything to do with communism little boy. You see if you understand human psychology you'd understand why Communism is junk. People cannot have that type of control/power over the people because they abuse it. Again name one fucking successful communist country little boy. I can name many failed ones. Back up your so called facts. Yugoslavia also was a dump under communism. i talked to my friends dad the other day who lived there. Hated the lifestyle and the system.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 in America you are even more spayed on than you are in communism. Why must i repeat that communism was a dream of many people. many people left Yugoslavia because of religion, culture, politics,... and do remember that Yugoslavia was never an communist country only socialist and that Tito rebelled against Stalin. And you have yet to name me one non corrupted capitalist country.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
There is no such thing as a none corrupt capitalist country but my country of Canada is very successful and is way past the USA. The united states is a junk place to name for Capitalism because of what happened to the country. Also Communists murdered millions of people; even more than hitler. So again communism fails because as with the USA as well the states should never have control over the people. Only certain regulations should the state enforce but never control.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Tell me you know that you country is a Social-Democracy. If Russia was so behind in time than how come they went to space first? Or how did they defeat Hitler and Napoleon? They were the fastest growing industry country, so don't think you and Russians are so different.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Russia didn't defeat hitler on their own. It was the allied army. Also read more into hitlers defeat in Russia and Napoleon lost because of lack of knowledge of the Russian winter. Russia today in the free market is profiting much more than they used to and is making much better quality projects. Dude your clearly a kid who doesn't know much about Communism. Fuck name one fact about communism that is good for the 21st century?You can't because ill debunk it to show you it doesn't work
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 its a bit unusual to call a 33 old man a kid and to keep to the same thing without hearing reason. Russia didn't conquer Germany but they came to Hitler first. I would have said the conquered the Nazis or Germans. You should learn some manners and learn to ask before you insult.. Communism = no rich or poor, Maximum safety at cost of a bit of freedom,...
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Yeah bullshit! And if your 33 then please present valid points in the argument then. Most political philosophies have ideas to keep the people safe prosperous etc. but they all break down because of people them selves. And communism is no different.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 You see you have proven my point its democracy. In communism there will be no votes. The government is responsible for all. Or might i say That the Leader of the communist country controls most off all things going on in the country.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha you have made no points you moron. And this comment proves if you did make points your lost in transition. Read up on psychology 101 and then read Noam Chomsky then read up on Libertarianism. You putz I can't believe you just said what you said. For a 33 year old you certainly lack people experience. You must work in a factory or behind a wall where you don't get much interaction with the general population. Forgive my harsh honesty but seriously THINK
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 2 books prove nothing but that you are narrow minded and naive to think that these 2 books you read are making you the smartest man on this world. On the other hand those books are American and if you read a russian book you would see a big difference. You honesty and mind are as dough as an french canadian in the forest mating with others such as your self.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
What book? What the hell are you talking about now. You see how dumb you are? Lol dude grow up! And I won't read peoples thoughts on systems either because I look at it and learn for my self. Thats the difference I guess between me and you. I believe in actual democracy while you believe people need to do everything for you and always tell you what to do. Seriously narrow minded? You have not made any valid points. I'm Anglo Saxon also no French in me. Your intellect is at a near 0
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 you are really stupid aren't you? You cant make a difference at all. you wrote that i should read
psychology 101 and then read Noam Chomsky then read up on Libertarianism. Liberty is an american trait no the worlds. You belive in you self and what your ass tells you, while i believe in socialism. You are the most stupidest man i ever met. You didn't even know that Canada is a half Socialist country and half democratic country. Your Intelligence quotient is at a big minus.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha I can see why your 33 and still wanting communism back. You couldn't function in a free society as welfare would be your first and only option. Canada is at the least 80 to 20 socialism. We have a strong free market. Also you old man listen here. I believe in socialism to but guess what communism does not work. As for Liberty its something all individuals want. Its interpreted differently in each culture. Your still lagging behind me on intellect to.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@svord000
None of your points make much sense at all and you seem to be living in a fantasy because you have made no points at all lol and seriously you are a brainwashed nitwit and your not half either. Just a stupid man with no vision of the world and seems to think its either Capitalism or Democracy. If your leading the revolution then the human race is fucked after all. Seriously re-read your shit and tell me if it makes sense. It doesn't make much sense at all. I thought you were a child.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 i have made my point you made your...'tips' you use anything i say as thou i said nothing your but an smartass canadian worthless in all looks.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Looks? Did you see what I look like? Nope so your insult again shows your intellect. You provided no points at all and no valid responses. I can see why you need socialism and communism because your not smart enough to run your own life.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 i saw your intellect in all you comments and tell me are you a follower or a leader? If you think your a leader you are wrong, you are only following the rules the difference is that democracy you have more freedom but are less safe and around. And i see you don't even know that Canada is a Socialist-Democracy you are showing you are only a smart ass with no knowledge of neater politics or you country. Are you a child because you act like one?
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
We have a conservative government in power, we have some socialized programs but the country as a whole other than Quebec is not socialist in anyway. Canada is quite liberal but the market system we have is very open and we have good competition with our monetary system to which is why Canada got voted one of the best places to do business. I see this conversation is just pointless rambling (By you) because you have not countered anything I have said nor provided any valid points.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 You should learn that socialism doesn't have any effect on liberality. Socialism is for the growth of industry and has a small effect to lower the poor and rich. Your whole country is a socialist-democracy there are no small programs only half of all you programs.
You have proven again that your Intelligence quotient is at a minus and that you have weary little knowledge of what we are talking about. Socialism is what made Canada so good not democracy.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 Socialism is less liberal than liberalism, because it allows for less privately-owned enterprise. This is a fundamental distinction. Because certain goods or industries are shared amongst everyone, this means that ownership is forced onto everyone, and paid for by everyone, through taxation. Since this action forgoes the freedom to choose whether to opt for a certain service/good, or not, Socialism is less free/liberal.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 Finally someone that understands. yes i know that and whats not to love about it? But i and redio were talking about socialism and democracy.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 Well, what's not to love about it are a number of typically inherent features of government-run businesses or industries, and a partial removal of the capitalistic dynamic where, given competition, prices are lowered to the lowest point possible, the same goods are improved upon continuously, and the industry's discarded as soon as people stop consuming that industry's goods/services, whereas in a partially Socialist country a lag between the change in demand and later supply exists,
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 I wonder has any socialist country bankrupt because of industry? Lets look at Greece. They have much less industry than other country's in the EU. They are directed towards truism and hardly anything else. Socialism isn't only about industry its as well about Agriculture, growing lots of livestock, etc..
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 Agriculture is an industry...(at least using the economic term. even if it doesn't quite compare to the factories you see in other industries, food is still 'mass manufactured', especially now that farms start to resemble factories rather closely).
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 But anyways, that may be used in support of my point; Greece may have so little industrial backing behind it because the citizens were never forced to innovate, the gov't always had them covered. Therefore, when the gov't wasn't there anymore (due to deficit, and a necessary cut in public spending), neither was a domestic capitalist infrastructure built by the citizens. From a purely financial standpoint, a socialist state is death to economic growth in the sector that's socialized;
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 the Gov't institution effectively becomes a monopoly (or, slightly better, an oligopoly) where there's no competition, and no pressure to attract the customers, since the customers are 'stuck' with you. Another general concern of a Gov't institution is that it's based on a bureaucracy of the Gov't; it gets its funding from there, and it may be structured accordingly due to political reasons. This is very bad, because there's no darwinism;
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 the Gov't is always evolving (using the contemporary definition, not Darwin's one) from it's past status quo, rather than being completely swept aside as a result of a failure, like happens so often in business; your organization can't compete you fail, and go bankrupt. Your gov't can't 'compete', everyone will lose everything to make sure that horrible gov't still stays in place.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 'that the* horrible gov't will stay in place', rather.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 ...which facilitates waste (sometimes a rather significant amount).
But anyways, you may have been talking about democracy & socialism, but liberalism doesn't equal democracy (indeed, liberalism typically includes democracy, but the opposite is not true). And it is about 'liberality' that you spoke, not democracy, so I felt that particular sentiment was incorrect.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
Comment removed
ExEverest10 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@svord000 IQ cannot be 'at a minus'. It can be very small, but it can't be negative, using the accepted definition.
It's 'very' not 'weary'. If you were trying to be 'clever', this backfired, since I'm fairly sure that 'weary' can't be used successfully as a play on words in this context.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000
Seriously you have not provided any fucking points on anything. I doubt your 33 and I'd say your more like 18 because your lack of arguments have proven time and time again that a welfare state is not good for humanity. I understand if your poor and jealous of other people who are at least smart enough to make it and work hard for it. Intelligence Quotient? I'll have you know intelligence comes in many forms and the form yours comes in is STUPIDITY. You work at walmart?
Reido2828 4 months ago
@svord000
What made my country successful was not socialism. There never was any socialism because Canada is apart of the Monarch and so it was a king and queen affair so believe me no socialism here. My country was made good by people who work hard and still work hard today. Canada thrives and is a good place to do business because of the market we have created. Your country has done nothing good because it has been stuck in a caveman's ideology for the last 100 years.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Canada is apart of the Monarch? First, surely it's 'C is apart *from* the Monarch', and two, a Monarch is not a country I know of, so what I guess you're really saying is that 'The State of Canada is apart from its Monarch'...and lastly, the existence (or lack thereof) of a monarch does not automatically dictate or influence the state's socialist tendencies.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10
It did for many centuries in England and in the former colonies of Britain to. There was no class then only the royal family got labelled into class. Canada is a constitutional monarchy but its blend of government differs with England. Look up the history. And the monarch now does not influence our social policies but this is only recent. Churchill had us and the Australians fight WW2 due to the monarch influence in the country. Re check your history.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Britain & the former colonies were chiefly autocratic and w/ industrialization capitalistic (w/ varying degrees of capitalism), there was no significant socialism to speak of until the 20th century. I suggest you look up the history. I suggest you also look up English 101, since I clearly stated 'socialist', not 'social' tendencies. Worse still, even if I had stated 'social policies', which is what you appear to be talking about, War hardly qualifies as a 'social [domestic] policy'.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10
Were talking in general here of the country. War is not a domestic policy but it is still a policy that was influenced greatly by the monarch because Canada is still a common wealth state and a constitutional monarch.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 I'm not sure that the monarch had significant enough sway to rally troops from other nations to his cause, at least after the 'glorious revolution' of 1688. If you mean the british empire, true, this was the case for some time, though I disagree that this was the case during WW2. Canada stood to gain a lot of political goodwill and to avert either a financial crisis, or a cap on growth as a result of nazi occupation of western powers; even if Canada was influenced by the brits,
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@Reido282 this influence was marginal in comparison to the other imperatives for military action against the nazis. Anyways, I wasn't talking about War, I was talking specifically about the alleged causal link between the presence of a monarch and socialism, since, as far as I understand, you've said that because the state was apart from it's monarch it wasn't socialist. This I take to mean that, given the monarch's presence within the nation's borders, that nation is likely to become socialist.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10
I'll get technical then. Canada i'd say is around 70 free market and 30 socialism because one of our biggest provinces Quebec has been a socialist place for a good many decades now while in the west it has been mostly free market and low taxes due to the abundance of resources. Canada does have some socialism but its a weak amount compared to say Scandinavian. And a constitutional monarch back in the early days was not socialist at all lol it was run by the royals under the monarc
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Precisely what I was saying. Glad we could agree.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@Reido2828 oh were still talking? sorry but your facts are much of an false and worthless kind. ExEverest's facts are much more fun to think about than yours and more true.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
You still have not provided any facts little boy about communism. Progress is made through human rewards and compensation and communism has no compensation for humanity's innovation. There is a reason why Russia lagged behind the rest of the world under communism and still does even today. Name one success of communism? You haven't yet and you have not made any sense. ZIzek is an intelligent man but again he was directly influenced by communism. Nothing else.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@svord000
If you actually believe that the Soviets were strong and fair promoting state atheism, spying on their people, and controlling everything than your dreaming kid. Communists told people what to do. People could not do as they pleased. Did you live in a communist country? If you say no then please keep your big mouth shut. Your a god damn kid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 AHA the question is have you lived in it to speak like this? I know the rules of communism and i agree. The spying and rules make you most safe.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
I have friends here from Yugoslavia and they all said their glad they left the communist crap behind them. The fact remains that the only way to have a successful system is to have we the people control it and keep the government out of it. Sorry puts communism is not the answer and all it will do is make things worse. Also on your point about China. 250 000 millionaires in Shanghai. They communist? Their economic policies are very free market and its thriving for them. Learn to read
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 fact: Yugoslavia was a socialist confederacy. China's communism is different in some ways and those that left Yugoslavia left before socialism because they liked capitalism more. Now than China has money and ignores the most important parts of communism such as free health care, free houses, must have jobs, no rich or poor,.... I chose China for its known enough and tell me how would lets say America buy things if it was the only capitalist country (same as now communism)?
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
America is a socialist nation and has been for a couple of decades with the bailouts, military spending and socialized education and defense departments. Some aspects of socialism are good and can be combined with capital markets but Communism as we have seen in so many nations past does not work. The leaders of communist and socialist nations live with capital while the rest slave away. China is moving away from communism and thats a fact. The chinese are making capitalism work.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 you say its a socialist i say its democracy think about that. Look at China and tell me is there more poor or rich? there is almost no middle class and that's what communism was trying to fix. China is trying to be a capitalistic country and that is destroying it completely.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Are you kidding me? Where are these facts coming from? Wow your more full of it than mr Zizek here. China was always dirt poor because of communism PERIOD. Capitalism is now giving it a fighting chance. CHinas middle class is rising but yes it is having a hard time keeping up BUT is that because of socialism and government control still? We don't know yet. China and India's rise is a good day for the free market. Check your facts again please because there wrong.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 Look at most of the facts. Most of East EU was communist or socialist, Yugoslavia was never communist but it was a socialist country. China has always had a different communism.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000
Why do all you pro communist thinkers sound like your children? I have seen the facts and that is why communism collapsed and socialist countries have no idea how to combat inflation or cut spending lol its a weak philosophy and makes people weak in the process. Communism is communism so if China's is different then USA's true free market society is not the real capital philosophy it was founded upon. Your arguments are so weak.
Reido2828 4 months ago
@Reido2828 lets make this easy China is going better and better when the USA is on a downfall to bankrupt as you should have seen in the giant money print in Washington. In real communism there is no money. You work you get a good life you don't work you get kicked out of the country in 1 year. Communism is easy to live in and no crime if you think of it.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 It wasn't very successful. It was a lot better than communism, but even Tito's reforms couldn't compare with the western nations of the time; the preformance was so poor, in fact, that the economy was shrinking. It shrunk 5.3% from 1980-1989, when the UK has grown 72% in the same period. That was indeed the reason why Yugoslavia fell apart; Slovenia and Croatia seceded because they were becoming tired of Milosevic sticking to Tito's economics, did they not?
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 The people were most happy when were in Yugoslavia, all had a house were happy and had more than they had in the monarchy Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia fell apart because Tito died. Slovenia went out to save itself when Croatia tried to help Yugoslavia. All of the country's in Yugoslavia had a nice economy, they were growing in all ways. Because Slovenia was the most evolved it was an important part of Yugoslavia by helping the other country evolve. Etc.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 You knew all these people? Unless you're a sociologist or know enough about the sociology of Yugoslavia to qualify as such, you are acting very pretentiously indeed. Unless you either of these two types of persons, I see no legitimate way of you knowing that people were most happy as a part of Yugoslavia (especially if I make an, imo, safe assumption that the political leaders of everyone but Serbia and Montenegro weren't acting of their own accord when they pushed for secession).
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 Secondly, they may have been happy and ignorant, but neither could've lasted for long. As the stats show, the federation would've defaulted causing a collapse in public financing, leading to privatization, chaos, a loss of jobs, and deflation of housing prices, as everyone was selling to pay for healthcare, etc, but no-one was buying.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 Yes, yes Greece has failed, but tell me did they have much too much freedom? The loss of jobs?
The luxuries? Yes that is it and communism would never allow that. Free health care, free food, free housing. If they wen't to communism or socialism when the collapse began they would have been saved. Too many rich and too many poor, that's the case too little of the middle class and that's what communism assures will not happen. (lets not flood this video pleas)
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 I was talking about Yugoslavia...Greece precisely didn't have enough freedom; had they, the darwinist mechanic would've kicked in and naturally propelled those who were willing to make their own fortune to the top, evolving the middle class due to a need for specialized labour, in turn because of a sensitivity to advantages over the competition (done through new tech & new techniques of production); industrialization 101. Whatever luxuries they did have (I'm not aware of any)
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 could've been accomplished in a sustainable manner through a capitalistic expansion of the economy.
Greece is socialist, they have an extensive public sector.
There are precisely too little rich, and too little poor; such a welfare state guarantees that the poor will never reach the lowest brackets of poverty (hence, no real 'poor'), and to little rich because there are no industries for them to rise to the top of.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 I think you misunderstood the numbers I've given you, Yugoslavia did *not* have a nice economy, it was *shrinking*, for 9 years. This is a catastrophic financial result. If this is your definition of a nice economy, UK must be defined as a utopia, a paradise on earth. Which it clearly was not, and due to the large discrepancy between the UK and Yugos, neither was the latter's economy nice.
Tito died in 1980. There was a period of 10-11 years before Yugoslavia began falling apart.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 The economy was nice but it was the WW2 and the oil crisis that made the biggest difference. WW2 destroyed most of the important buildings and the oil crisis after drained most of the money. Yugoslavia started falling apart after Tito's death. The economy was good before Tito died. As i said many times to Reido it's the corruption that destroyed most of great country's such as Yugoslavia and USSR.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 WW2? Are you kidding me? Are you saying that Yugoslavia's economy was nice, because it was doing well 40-50 years before it's disintegration? I really think you should re-consider this point.
As for the Oil Crisis, indeed, the point's valid, but also begs the question, why has it not bounced back? Other countries have; what was so special about Yugos?
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 So you are saying that all the money spent on weapons and other things was nothing serous? WW2 devastated many country's and Yugoslavia was weary devastated by it. As for the economy, the trade was with the USSR and other communist country's. The broken alliance between Yugo and the USSR was a minus as well.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 No, of course not, but we are talking about the disintegration of the federation 40-50 years after the conclusion of fighting. At most, I would allow for 15 years of slow & fickle economic growth, during which any country could've disintegrated, socialist or no. If 15 years is ample time to adjust, this still leaves 25-35 years during which Yugo could function on par with other countries.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 you must take a note that until SFRJ we were simple farmers and with a king and so on, but the SFRJ is what raised it too a much bigger level of technology. Meaning that it was growing in industry as economy. But the oil crisis, WW2 and death of Tito were the real problem stooping us. The oil crisis took lots of money and so did WW2 for the military equipment but the death of our leader was the worst thing that shock the country and made it fall apart.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 And with his death no one would listen to another man because they haven't proven them self's in the way as Tito did. As even you should know that there can be no country with no leader, so that's why it fell apart.
svord000 4 months ago
@svord000 Even if I grant that Tito's existence was crucial for the success of SFRJ, then this is still hardly a trump card for socialism, if the latter political system largely owes its success or failure due to the strength of its leader. Since strong leaders are unlikely to occur statistically, this means the majority of the time the regime will have mediocre or weak leaders, driving the regime into the ground...whereas capitalism (for example) doesn't suffer from this problem.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 Not at all. Capitalism's leaders (they being several plutocracies who come together when necessary) favour staying out of the limelight. They install their figureheads into places like The White House. Or if the figurehead is the "wrong" figurehead, then enough people to make sure he goes in the "right" direction. Those leaders are not weak (except socially, maybe mentally) but they do drive society into the ground.
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo ...Because we have a number of established plutocracies in the west? At the expense of sounding patronizing, it is not enough to state an opinion and expect people to believe it (especially one as conspiratorial as yours); the important aspect is the backing proof. Which is what exactly?
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Of course. We haven't ever seen the global effects of plutocratic economic leadership, or perhaps mis-leadership, have we? It doesn't matter to me whether or not you "believe" it.
You can keep asking for proof to be brought on a plate to you or just open your bloody eyes and see what's in front of you.
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo Ah, the righteousness of the 'true believer' who cannot recognize his own fallability. If the proof is as easy to grasp as opening one's proverbial eyes, why don't you put it in writing? Prove it to me. Not that you will be able to, just as I won't be able to disprove your theory...but please, indulge my provocation.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Do you think a 500 character You Tube comment is enough space, or that I should spend time spreading over several comments, something you are too obdurate to work out for yourself? Or which has been reiterated in places where you can easily find it?
You're waffling on about 'political' faces, oblivious to the real leadership of the world which is economic, and how it influences political policy. I'm afraid you've written many posts, but said little of any substance.
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo That is a widely cast net indeed; 'something I can work out for myself'? I can, likely, work out a new discipline in physics or mathematics, given enough time and desire. So I do not see that sentiment alone as a compelling reason for your silence. Let us invoke the spirits of Stuart Mill and Bentham, and ask, where is the net utility greater, when a) I, spending at least a few hours attempting to establish with some degree of certainty your particular position out
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo of the many proposed in favour of a plutocratic world-view? Or, when b), you spend a few minutes outlining your particular position? Since I am somewhat familiar with the arguments in favour of this view, I am not likely to gain by revisiting them, so, morally speaking, it is a good thing to prevent an exponentially larger waste of time on my part (when I could be doing more productive things), by briefly defining your argumentation.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo You can also cite the sources of those arguments which are similar (if not equivalent) to yours; or do I take a lack of this easily typed reference to mean that you don't really care about the particular arguments invoked in favour of your view, you only care about the view being correct? If so, that is a troubling and pernicious tendency indeed, even if you are the only person misinformed by the inclination.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo What you really mean to say in the latter part of your comment is that I've written many posts, and you haven't grasped much substance; whether the posts contain much substance is another matter all together. While I think there's significant substance to be found, if only because of my examples which give (relative to the disagreeing party's equivalents') considerable credence to my views, I do have a conflict of interest in judging the quality of my comments,
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo so I will refrain from arguing regarding this. And did you mean 'facets'? I am not familiar with the expression 'political faces'.
Do not misinterpret my position, however; Industry does have some explicit political power, unto itself, and aplenty of implicit/influential power, but I don't find this power to be consolidated, as there are very few monopolies, and a small number of oligopolies around the world,
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo and nor do I see this power to be as large as to dwarf or rival that of the elected candidate's constituency. People aren't bribed to vote, at least not on a significant scale, and because they A) make up the only legal force capable of voting in a good portion of the most powerful politicians, B) in an environment where legislation is fairly rigidly enforced and C) where there is a vast number of politicians vying for a given seat, ...
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedma the most industries can hope for is influence and coercion, rather than a soldierly receptiveness to orders, let alone the quasi-NWO allegations you are stating. The political leadership, a leadership much more important than the economic variant in a tightly legislated nation (a politician can potentially pass a law that will arrest and seize the property of anyone, whereas a billionaire can only change the law by attempting to influence the society through paid marketing,
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nake become a politician who will be kept in check by his constituency [or the constituencies of other politicians with whose support he needs to pass a bill], or use his relatively small possessions to the harm of the state and/or nation [and typically himself, as any investment that is made with an apolitical mindset is supposed to be the best one can make in a given situation; therefore any change will supposedly equal to worse returns], blackmailing the legislative branch(es)),
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo dances to the tune of the people, rather than vice versa. [I'm sure I missed a few other ways in which political leadership trumps, but the ones mentioned should paint a relatively full picture]
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo
I was considering calling you a 'paper tiger', but I won't do you the honour of exalting your superficial prowess; you appear to be a typical YT visitor with an opinion: ignorant, impotent, and obstinate. You've spent 2 comments asking me to find the knowledge you should possess, the easy committal to writing of which, if correct, should resolve this disagreement then and there.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo It is not my 'job' to present your own argument(s) for myself; this vocation is yours alone, especially since I've previously addressed the popular variants of this view's supporting arguments, and found them lacking. (PS: your thesarus search for 'stubborn' was obvious)
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Obvious to you perhaps, you're probably remembering your own steps with a thesaurus. The number of posts you've wasted on your typing equivalent of verbal diarrhoea is astonishing. I have a job to go to so I can only manage the few I've written. I don't care a fig that you think I should supply you with answers on here; I told you it's not my job. And I won't be worrying that I didn't see off 'some guy' on You Tube who fancied himself as political philosopher.
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo ...And in the face of overwhelming intellectual force, you cower and run. Sure you have a job 'to go to', sure; for English-speaking people generally have such a tight schedule they barely have the ability to type one *GASP* YT comment a day...just as surely as you have an argument to support your opinion, the knowledge of which is 'a priori' required for me to consider the validity of your outlook.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo 'I have an opinion, and I expect everyone to take it seriously despite a lack of announced supporting arguments! I am merely stating a statement, as a fallible human being, who is also capable of lying!' Neanderthal.
[and I don't use the thesarus to make myself sound smarter, but I am very sorry to hear that you are pathetic enough to do so]
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Except that I didn't. It was you who mentioned that, I just used my normal vocabulary. You can often tell those with a weak vocabulary, they accuse other people of having consulted a dictionary/thesaurus.
Didn't I already say that I'm not bothered whether or not you consider anything I say as valid?
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo So you say now, but you did not deny it when speaking of my accusation, which colloquially, 9 times out of 10, implies that you admit the assertion to be fact. I would be also willing to bet that 99.9% of the English-speaking population doesn't know what obdurate means without consulting a dictionary, so if that figure is correct, and I reckon it's a safe bet it is, it is also a safe bet that you didn't either, prior to reaching for a thesaurus.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Umberto eco points out that culture isn't knowing when napolean was born it's knowing where to find the information.
actingonlifecom77 1 month ago
@actingonlifecom77 a) It's 'Napoleon'. b) I don't believe I stated that the person was lacking in culture. c) I was neither criticising his level of intelligence (in this particular argument), for a diverse vocabulary does not imply great intelligence. I simply criticised what appeared to me to be his desire to appear intelligent (or, at the very least, knowledgeable) by using a rare word instead of commonplace ones he would use far more regularly.
ExEverest10 1 month ago
@nakedmambo It is also a fairly safe bet to say that you are lying currently about your knowledge of the term, due to the lacking eloquence and astuteness of your prior comments, and my inability to check A) whether you actually had consulted a thesarus, and B) whether I can tell whether you're lying by the intonation of your voice and body language, making it very easy to lie, and superficially appear truthful.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo People with a 'strong' (diverse or comprehensive would be better adjectives, no?) vocabulary can also accuse others of using a thesaurus when an obscure word sneaks its way into remarks that are otherwise made up of vernacular; as has been proven here.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo If true, your insouciance is unfortunate, at least in my opinion; I make up another unit of the voting population, who can offset your political, economic and cultural power, assuming we are both 'average' people, with 'average' capabilities. I also happen to be a unit who is willing to readress the choices that lie in front of him, in light of new information;
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo in the absence of such information, which you may provide, I will, given a few assumptions on my part, as well as our core disagreement, likely negate your contribution (or damage) to society. On the other hand, you could effectively double your political/economic/social power in regards to this particular issue (which is a fairly extensive one at that; structures of government are typically pervasive, and may be affected by me in a similarly systematic fashion),
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@nakedmambo if you convince me that your view is correct, and mine, wrong. The first step to this is the pronouncement of your arguments, which should not take longer than 10 minutes to write. A worthwhile price for doubling one's own democratic input, no?
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Jesus wept! Bugger off.
nakedmambo 2 months ago
@nakedmambo No.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ExEverest10 Brevity?
curiosofsigns 2 months ago
@curiosofsigns ...is not in my vocabulary :)
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@svord000 Not that strong leaders don't help, but I do disagree that a country can't exist without a (strong) leader; it can, and in the case of the western countries, where there's very little input from the leaders (relative to their autocratic colleagues), they do.
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 People DO need strong heroic authorities in order to be able to emulate their example of courage and self-sacrifice. Because only through courage and self-sacrifice can something really be changed,and democracy really won. That's why the OWS people won't achieve anything. No revolution can be done in silk gloves. No revolution can be done without a leader -- an example of courage. But Americans do have their hero, they just refuse to recognize him as such-- Bradley Manning.
ididete 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ididete Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@ididete Well, democracy 'wins' if all fully functioning humans within a given nations vote in an election that is 'fairly' (however you define that) enforced, and which has a plural number of parties vying for power. But I take your sentiment to mean that this is how we can make democracy work, and be an effective form of government.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete Anyways, the zeitgeist in the west, at least in my opinion, is relatively full of self-sacrificing sentiment (what with the focus on charities and middle-class guilt for consuming things they don't 'need'); the problem is not immorality of the demos, but the latter's ineptitude at picking leaders and driving them to adopt effective and politically inventive policies (should the occasion call for it).
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete Progress is slow and not guaranteed, and this, at least in my opinion, is the main shortcoming of democracy: people are generally not smart, inventive, or questioning. As for the 'silk gloves' sentiment, the dissidents of the Arab spring may disagree with you, were there not already 2 governments who relinquished their power as a result of nigh purely non-violent protest?
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete But, of course, whether the new governments will prove to be diffirent, or a new coat on the same house, is still a valid question. Then again, even the 'violent' revolutions change virtually little, as the French revolution aspired to be a grand reconstruction of France under liberal values, but has only switched the tyranny of the aristocracy with the tyranny of ochlocracy initially, and then the tyranny of a new nobility later.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete Whereas the American revolution changed very little too, as the American settlements already possessed a liberal (in the original sense of the word) inclination. As for Bradley Manning, he may be heroic, but I don't find it likely that he will easily fulfill the role of a leader; the latter needs charisma like fish needs water.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete Anyways, an intelligent and charismatic leader no doubt helps the nation to prosper, but the existence of such a person in top government office is not necessary for the latter's prosperity, as evidenced by mediocre Chinese leadership, and their double-digit growth; and if not that, for I know little about how charismatic China's leaders were in the last 20 years, so I am only judging based on preconceptions,
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@ididete ...then one can also cite the lacking leadership of Bush Jr., and the advance of the economy, only a significant (but not overwhelming) portion of which could be attributed to the housing bubble.
ExEverest10 2 months ago
@svord000 In regards to USSR, do you mean to say that the USSR stopped trading with Yugos during these 25-35 years when very little was happening? Because that doesn't sound very accurate, since the US and USSR (as I've said) appeared to have given Yugo very preferential treatment during this entire time, grooming them to be their puppet state. And if that's correct, this once again undervalues Yugo's economy, as one can guess that without these artificially attentive superpowers,
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@ExEverest10 grooming it* to be a puppet state
ExEverest10 4 months ago
@svord000 ...Yugo would've been a second-rate socialist economy of which there were a few at the time. I mean no disrespect, I can appreciate your heritage and national pride, but Yugo was given much better treatment than most internationally, and still managed to shrink significantly, when other countries continued to grow. Even with regards to the Oil Crisis, Yugo appears to have been affected as much as any other country-this, once again, appears to beg the question of why this was so.
ExEverest10 4 months ago