What is Your Political Philosophy?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel

In the end the US will be reduced to a poverty, equally shared, like we see in all communist countries of history.

you know, Ned, you keeping repeating stuff doesn't make it true.

I actually lived in the SU, while you were spoon-fed anti communist propoganda.

OK, Azazel, compare the USSR to the United States. In which country was the average citizen better off?

I would say, just based upon my observation of the USSR, that virtually no one who was not a communist party member live anywhere near the US middleclass level. By American standards, most Russians appeared to live in poverty.

[Az]

You must look at the entire capitalist economic system. Look at south america, africa, south east asia.

I would say that compared to the average Brazilian, the average soviet citizen lived great.

[BeBMan]

I´m a moderate apolytonist

[Ned]

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England.

The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States.

So, does the USSR compare? Of course not.

What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned


... A lot of people came to the United States because of that. We were the land of equal opportunity. A land that rejected nobility and class structures.

And a lot of others came to the US in chains because they'd been sold down the river. A point you do no state, but do not ignore either.

The rest of your post was pretty good - but what about the underclass? The damned? The junkies, illegals, and homeless? How much does the American dream mean to them?

Don't get me wrong here - I firmly believe the US (and more the Australian) views on equality between rich and poor are fine models. But I don't think they're the ultimate models.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have put antebellum US rather than US. The ACW did change this situation totally.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Azazel
I actually lived in the SU, while you were spoon-fed anti communist propoganda.

Living there for the first 6-7 years of your life doesnt make you any authority on the conditions there.

[Az]

Living for 40 and 60 years does. I talk to my parents, too.

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England.

The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States.

So, does the USSR compare? Of course not.

What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

Nice try. How does exactly one has equal opprotunity in the US, when the income of your parents has such a drastic impact on your life?

[Sandman]

The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I consider capitalism and the free-market useful wealth creation tools, but that is all.

Marxism has some useful insights, but it is simply too violent to be workable. The struggle for survival is more important than the class struggle.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

I am anti-nationalist.

[Az]

The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

( I'd rather they did talk english. would help them live a better life )

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Sandman
...
Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. ...

I am anti-nationalist.

Culture is the mould that builds up around a society - a set of beliefs and traditions. It can actually be quite harmful, especially if it advoates things like "We've always won in the past! Fight the war now!". It's a double edged sword.

Never mind what you're against. WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

And Azazel - who would lead a better life if they spoke English? The 2nd geneation Punjabi's? The thrust of the post was that they would speak English anyway - or did you mean the poster? It's hard to tell from your response.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy


And a lot of others came to the US in chains because they'd been sold down the river. A point you do no state, but do not ignore either.

The rest of your post was pretty good - but what about the underclass? The damned? The junkies, illegals, and homeless? How much does the American dream mean to them?

Don't get me wrong here - I firmly believe the US (and more the Australian) views on equality between rich and poor are fine models. But I don't think they're the ultimate models.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have put antebellum US rather than US. The ACW did change this situation totally.

Cruddy, thanks for your post. Yes, there were many immigrants who came to the US to "serve." Certainly, all that "officially" came to an end 140 years ago. But the US is motivated to end the last vestages of those time so that our land truly is the land of equal opportunity for all.

What I see elsewhere in the world is that very few capitalist countries wanting to become like the United States - providing equal opportunity, a social safety net, but otherwise not overly penalizing wealth. Most seem to trend towards Marxism using high taxation and socialism. Both attack class structures, but in a different way.

So long as American borders remain open, though, bright young people will continue to move to the United States because of our system. This "brain drain" phenomenon has been fueling American productivity since its founding. Until the rest of the capitlist world pushes aside their Marxists (or class-based restrictions on advancement), they will continue to be less productive than the US and the brain drain will continue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
Living for 40 and 60 years does. I talk to my parents, too.

Azazel, no you do not have to look at the entire capatilist structure for the reasons I initially stated. The US has made equal opportunity our guiding priniciple. One can have classes and capitalism. Most other societies that did not so forcefully reject class still have the remnants of a class system. I give you England.

The only valid comparison that I know of is with the United States.

So, does the USSR compare? Of course not.

What does this tell us - that the US approach - equal opportunity works. It also tell us that the USSR approach is not as good.

Nice try. How does exactly one has equal opprotunity in the US, when the income of your parents has such a drastic impact on your life?

Azazel, our major problem today is caused by a bad public school system. Most "wealthy" citizens, like Clinton and Gore, avoid it like a plague. Until we fix this, I agree, that wealth has a lot to do with getting a better eduction which is the key to making yourself successful in the US.

But, beyond that, anyone who is bright enough or works hard enough can make it here, anyone. I give you Bill Gates. I give your Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. These are just a few Americans who made it almost solely on their own efforts.

So a key issue for America is fixing the public school system -- progressive taxation or socialism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
The most important thing for me is the continued survival of the human race.

I don't care if organisms with no benefit to the human race die out. Most organisms that have names are useful though.

I consider capitalism and the free-market useful wealth creation tools, but that is all.

Marxism has some useful insights, but it is simply too violent to be workable. The struggle for survival is more important than the class struggle.

I think we should stop arsing about looking for life on Mars, and put it there. Two planets are better than one.

Culture and identity are tools to help us survive, nothing more. I reject the kleptomaniac attitude of some on the left, culture is not some fantastical Faberge Egg to be fiercely protected and guarded. I don't care if some Amazonian tribe starts wearing T-shirts. I don't care if some ancient folklore dies out, or if a group of enthusiasts tries to restart it. I don't care if a second-generation immigrant to the UK doesn't speak Punjabi, and I don't care if they do.

I am anti-nationalist.

I agree with a lot of this. Keeping priorities straight is good. Taking useful insights from Marxism is the right thing to do as well.

But, being pround of your country and history is hardly a bad thing, in my view, since England has done so much good for the world even though they did it for selfish reasons.

[Sandman]

Culture is the mould that builds up around a society - a set of beliefs and traditions. It can actually be quite harmful, especially if it advoates things like "We've always won in the past! Fight the war now!". It's a double edged sword.

Yes, if a certain culture is destructive or excessively wasteful, then it should be either extinguished, adapted or accomodated, so that it no longer behaves in a malignant manner.

Never mind what you're against. WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

Space exploration. War on disease. Putting capitalism in it's place. Global unity. Socialism where appropriate.

[Sandman]

But, I being pround of your country and history is hardly a bad thing, in my view, since England has done so much good for the world even though they did it for selfish reasons.

Thanks to nationalism, we have situation whereby the surface of the Earth could be turned into molten glass due to equipment malfunction. This is utterly unacceptable, and not something to be proud of.