That sounds like a page right out of the US’s foreign policy play book.
Um.
Edit: Beaten! But confirmed!
I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.
How’d that whole revolution thing work out for 'em again? :D
Not so well in the end, but that’s not really the point here…
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.[/quote]
Well, it is true that free markets can only work in a free society if you define a free market to be a market in a free society.
Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.[/quote]
I would say that is an extremely unfair characterization of Tsarist Russia, not just relative to what replaced it but relative to other countries at the time.
You know what’s good for that? Crelm toothpaste with the miracle ingredient, Fraudulin![/quote]
OK, now that’s funny.
… that was only 8-9 months old. The populace had been seething under the Romanov Tsars’ feudalism before that.
… that was only 8-9 months old. The populace had been seething under the Romanov Tsars’ feudalism before that.[/quote]
You make it sound like feudalism was the issue that toppled the Tsar. I mean, seething? Give me a break. Romanov screwed the pooch with his mishandling of WWI. There were plenty of issues with the Tsarist regime per se, but none of them were deal breakers. Only WWI and the misery it created, combined with his masterstroke of both separating himself from the direct control of government AND making himself personally responsible for how the war was conducted at the same time could be a catalyst for that kind of change. If anything, the Tsar was excessively open to reform in a manner that made him appear weak willed, which set the stage for his later mishandling of the war issue.
I don’t know if you’re basing this extremely negative perspective of pre Soviet Russia on some sort of conventional wisdom or on reputable sources; I’d be interested in seeing the latter if that is the case. I don’t mean that to spur a lot of random googling, I just mean that most of the scholarly work on the matter, especially more recent ones, have really tossed the Soviet reimagining of their history aside.
The exact degree of civil liberties in Czarist Russia isn’t terribly relevant anyway since DeepT was talking about freaking China, and they seem to do quite well in combining a repressive political system with a rapidly growing capitalist economy.
Also, freedom in Western countries has by and large declined, rather than increased, ever since the general trend towards socialism started in the 1930s, although there were temporary upsurges after toppled dictatorships here and there. The recent anti-terrorism legislation just confirms this trend.
If anything, historical evidence seems to suggest that the winning ticket, from the viewpoint of a politician, is a combination of as much economic freedom as necessary with as much state regulation as possible. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be an intrinsic link between liberty and prosperity.
The mistake of the Soviet bloc countries was not that they were oppressive but that their economy offered no profit incentives. They were ultimately toppled by bankruptcy, not by a revolt for freedom (of which their people had much more in 1990 than in 1950), and they eagerly voted their old communist oppressors back into power when the consumerist wonderland they had imagined was slow to arrive. China’s government seems to have learned this lesson.
Also, freedom in Western countries has by and large declined, rather than increased, ever since the general trend towards socialism started in the 1930s, although there were temporary upsurges after toppled dictatorships here and there. The recent anti-terrorism legislation just confirms this trend.
Oh yes, we’re real short on the “freedom” to starve in mass financial panics. :)
And the money needed to feed the masses just fell from the sky! Nobody was forced to pay for higher taxes or mandatory insurance!
China is like every other government headed by bullies and tyrants. They feel most threatened when they start to lose control of their own people.
The United States has in all reality always posed a threat to communist, fascists, kingdom ships, etc. Even nations such as Germany, Britain, and France don’t have the freedoms of speech that the United Stated holds sacred.
People who are free to say anything they like and compete with the ruling classes on an educational and/or competitive level in business tend to disagree with governments that thrive on control and that is the threat China and North Korea feels.
They already know that if they don’t attack the US and if they dont support or supply others that attack the US then the United States will not attack them but the more their own peoples ears hear about the freedoms of others thru radio, TV, or other mediums the more those nations will feel as if they have to be militarily stronger. Not to protect their people from the US, but to protect themselves, the ruling class, from their own people.
As for the Western Civilizations, yes communism has been creeping in. Russia has released a lot of old documents of the former Soviet Union and something that is pretty striking is the McCarthy issue. We all know what the mass media label “McCarthyism” means because we hear it all the time used in the media to point out injustice.
The funny thing is, McCarthy was right. The Soviet documents show that a lot of money left the Soviet Union to pay subversives in the United States during the cold war era and that some of that money went directly to some of the people McCarthy named. Yet, they got off and even now poor McCarthy’s name is used to define “witch hunt.”
As it turns out, some of that money went also to fund some of the “Peace Movement” and other groups that turned the nation on its head. Sadly, the people who joined in the marches had only the best intentions in mind a lot of the time… well okay a lot of the time they had getting high and laid on their mind but masked it in a good cause.
Tyrants can not abide free people and so they try to influence them in such a way that benefits the tyrant. We humans are such willing fools.
Next topic you should look into is why the leaders of a free nation who should only have the best interests of the people in mind can be members of elite and underground groups that do not have public forum and do not answer to anyone.
The most powerful capitalists and government leaders of all nations seem to share membership in these groups regardless of their political views. The watchdog for the people should be the media, but even with the medias great amounts of bias and hunger for ratings, the members of the media who also go to these meetings don’t utter a whisper about them.
Top of this list would be the Bilderburg group, but there are others and they hold the power of the world economy and governments in their palm.
Getting high and getting laid sounds like a pretty good cause to me.
And you’re complaining that the Soviets funded peace activists? Is there some other way they could have spent money on mitigating the threat of a nuclear exchange or massive conventional war that you would have preferred?
I was not complaining, I was simply stating fact. The Soviet intent for funding anything in those days was simply a means to an end… the free worlds end as a matter of fact.
No, I am not against anything, I am for everything and that makes me the biggest fool of all doesnt it.
So what groups are you reffering to? Masonic lodges? The Illuminati? The Elders of Zion? I am also curious how you know that the capitalists, politicians and media figures go to these meetings if no one is reporting about it.
As I said, the Bilderburg group is at the top of that list. There is also the Tri Lateral Commission and a few others. How is it known who shows up at them? You see, because you have the worlds most powerful men all coming together and refusing to even acknowledge it, it is assumed they aren’t there to play chess so many freelance journalists live for those meetings. As a matter of fact, they do pretty well at getting pictures of the people who enter or exit at times.
Instead of trying to poke a finger at me, why don’t you look it up if you are truly interested. Elders of Zion? Masons? Trust me, your stabs don’t go unnoticed but like I said, I am only stating fact. I don’t intend to get into a debate over religions or old men wearing funny hats.
The people attending these functions are still induviduals and they are still answerable to their electorate or stockholders, if they do not satisfactorily carry out their duties there are, in most cases, mechanisms present for their removal. There is no reason to believe that their loyalty to these groups would supercede their loyalties to their offices, it stands to reason that they are more concerned about their own sphere of interest and their own powerbase than the goals of these groups. When I look at the membership list of the Bildersburg Group I have a hard time imagening they can even agree on anything beyond vague and lofty mission statements. Likely they just attend to hobnob and feel special.
So what groups are you reffering to? Masonic lodges? The Illuminati? The Elders of Zion? I am also curious how you know that the capitalists, politicians and media figures go to these meetings if no one is reporting about it.[/quote]
They are called “Country Clubs.”