Another country starts to fall into Daesh control... Of course, it's the one where USA armed "opposition"

[Kidlicious]

Lots of things could happen if we stopped saying they were impossible without ever bothering to try.

Only and empire could do that, and why would it?

[Aeson]

But come on. It's just disconnected from reality. Your own country has the biggest number of prisoners in the world, both in absolute numbers, and per 10000 population. How can you say things that democracy doesn't need oppression, if your country is one of the most oppressive in the entire world? I just don't understand. You seem to say mostly reasonable things, but in some cases you're like you come from the moon.

That's why i'm talking about theoretical. Both Communism and Democracy are supposed to give political power to the people (with the difference that Communism is also supposed to give all economic power to the people as well). In practice, both don't, and they both need oppression to keep it that way. So i don't understand what's the point to compare to theoretical Democracy to practical Communism that existed in one specific country.

There are many democracies in the world today. They don't all have the US prison population? The US should certainly drop the "War on Drugs" and that would help drop the prison population a good bit. The rest is cultural, and you can see violence vary by nation even though they are democratic. Democracy itself doesn't require large prison populations.

Do we have non-Capitalist Democracy, like, anywhere at all?

Each democratic country has their own collection of policies. Comparing Sweden to the US you'll see pretty big differences. There are many Socialist policies that have been adopted (via democratic process) even in the US though.

The reason you don't see any purely Socialist democracies is because most people don't want to live in purely Socialist economies. Nor do most people want to live in purely capitalist/free market economies. So when allowed a vote, they vote for somewhere between the extremes, because it's stupid to go to either extreme.

Well, and? We were practically in the state of war.

So? Americans could travel the world freely, so it wasn't forced by the Cold War, it was something about the Soviet system.

Well, you had theoretical rights that may or may not be applicable, depending on how rich a person is. We had practial rights for everyone and we actually had them, all of us. So, that's not an easy question, what's better, more rights for the rich, or more rights for everyone.

You're forgetting stuff like right of speech, right of religion, right of association, right to vote, and various other rights that Americans had that Soviets didn't. The only "rights" Soviets had over Americans was that everyone had the same standard of living, and in most cases that was lower than the standard of living enjoyed by working class Americans. So it wasn't much of a right.

That's Communist ideas, you know? That's actually EXACTLY what Communists promised to common men before the revolution. No excesses, enough wealth for everyone.

Communism wasn't able to do it. Free market liberal democracy can do it, and would benefit by doing so.

Locally, yes. As a total sum of worker's wealth and capitalist's wealth, obviously, capitalists gain more wealth by reducing wages of their workers by outsorcing, and workers lose wealth.

No, the actual affect has been that workers in the West have stayed about the same while workers in developing countries have gained. So overall it's a gain. Just not as much as it should have been.

And yes, you do see a rampant unemployment and ballooning loans of western countries as a results of globalization.

Debt (personal or national) doesn't have anything to do with globalization. It's due to people and governments spending more than they currently make. (Debt spending isn't necessarily bad either.) Current unemployment levels don't really have anything to do with globalization. Recessions happen, and it takes a while to get back to near full employment. The US is most of the way back already, and didn't have to stop globalization to do so. Nor did we have to rid ourselves of globalization before the crash to get near full employment.

Social democracy exists in some Western European countries, but that's mostly an exception rather than a rule. I don't believe that, for example, US capitalists will be willing to turn the country that way. And all examples of a new "democracies" show rampant pillaging and corruption. So, it's a nice wishful thinking (in the same category where the hopes of communism were), but most of the time it doesn't seem to work.

The US is continuing to move towards more liberalization on the social front, and isn't that far off ideal on the economic front. Historically the US has been on a very long trend towards increased liberalization. Further liberalization socially is just a matter of time given demographics.

The fix to the current problems with globalization can certainly happen within a free market economy. It already is happening through democratic processes in many developing nations.

[kentonio]

how do you propose to separate interests from actions?

You don't. It's very much in our interests to have a peaceful world full of prosperous potential trading partners. Instead for too long we've looked for areas we can exploit for short term gains and ignoring the long term costs.

[Ellestar]

Each democratic country has their own collection of policies. Comparing Sweden to the US you'll see pretty big differences. There are many Socialist policies that have been adopted (via democratic process) even in the US though.

The reason you don't see any purely Socialist democracies is because most people don't want to live in purely Socialist economies. Nor do most people want to live in purely capitalist/free market economies. So when allowed a vote, they vote for somewhere between the extremes, because it's stupid to go to either extreme.

So my statement still stands, in the real world Democracy = Capitalism. In theory it may not be that way, but in practice it is.

There are many democracies in the world today. They don't all have the US prison population? The US should certainly drop the "War on Drugs" and that would help drop the prison population a good bit. The rest is cultural, and you can see violence vary by nation even though they are democratic. Democracy itself doesn't require large prison populations.

So, given the statement above, theoretic Democracy may not need oppression, but in practice it's a Capitalism where Capitalists need oppression so to exploit other citizens. In some specific countries in a short historical periods there may be enough wealth shared so it is not really the case, but most of the time Capitalist Democracy needs oppression.

Also, even the least problematic Democratic countries "require oppressing it's own citizens' rights to choose for themselves how to live their lives in at least some respects" - namely, even in the most tame Western European countries things like completely inhumane Juvenile court or copyright laws (that long become a Capitalist's way to make money instead of protection of original authors) are obvious examples of oppression of it's common citizens.

So, in theory both Democracy and Communism are made for the common people, but in practice it just doesn't work that way.

So? Americans could travel the world freely, so it wasn't forced by the Cold War, it was something about the Soviet system.

It was something about the security. Maybe the fact that, like, 100% of our capitalist neighbours invaded our country during the revolution didn't help USSR feeling safe. Or maybe it was WW2 where capitalists killed 25 millions of our population? I don't know, man.

You're forgetting stuff like right of speech, right of religion, right of association, right to vote, and various other rights that Americans had that Soviets didn't. The only "rights" Soviets had over Americans was that everyone had the same standard of living, and in most cases that was lower than the standard of living enjoyed by working class Americans. So it wasn't much of a right.

Well, if you say so. I didn't really feel the problems with freedoms in USSR, i was a child. So i can't really say if it was a problem in practice for a common men. I know, liberals cried about it a lot, but they do the same now, and now they obviously lie, so their words can't be trusted at all. Other than that, i don't know, i never heard from anyone, say, from my older relatives, about the lack of freedoms in USSR. So i think yes, in theory that may have been a problem, but in practice we enjoyed our guaranteed standard of living without any significant downsides.

Communism wasn't able to do it. Free market liberal democracy can do it, and would benefit by doing so.

As i already explained, Communism did everything it promised.

No, the actual affect has been that workers in the West have stayed about the same while workers in developing countries have gained. So overall it's a gain. Just not as much as it should have been.

Workers in the West ceased to be workers. And that loss of a real economy will be felt by the Western economies sooner or later. So far you're ballooning your credits, but it can't go on forever. Of course, your Capitalists have enough money for their grand-grand children to live well, but common people will not be happy.

[Ellestar]

You don't. It's very much in our interests to have a peaceful world full of prosperous potential trading partners. Instead for too long we've looked for areas we can exploit for short term gains and ignoring the long term costs.

That's an interesting fairy tale, but in practice who exactly is that person caring about "a peaceful world full of prosperous potential trading partners"? Instead capitalists start wars for short-term gains.

In his monumental three-volume work “Capital,” Karl Marx quoted economist T.J. Dunning: “Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent certain will produce eagerness; 50 percent, positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.”

Dunning concluded: “If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated.”

Seriosuly, only now i understand that what we were taught about capitalists in USSR schools was right. It was a theory back then, but now i see it all in practice - all these wars and revolutions started by USA, supposedly a "democracy".

I guess internet goes both ways, it works both against "dictators" and against "democracies", it becomes harder and harder to lie to the people and oppress them without being called out for it.

[kentonio]

That's an interesting fairy tale, but in practice who exactly is that person caring about "a peaceful world full of prosperous potential trading partners"? Instead capitalists start wars for short-term gains.

Stupid capitalists start wars for short-term gains. Clever ones do things that expand the overall markets allowing for long term prosperity. In the same way that stupid music companies imposed increasingly hardline piracy protections which mostly just drove away customers, while the smart ones realized that offering a fair price and not imposing stringent controls actually resulting in a far bigger market and increased profits.

[kentonio]

Gaddafi had a whole bunch of sons waiting in the wings. I think the one actually being groomed to take over was reasonably decent and progressive, by relative standards. Also, until the uprising, Gaddafi had been generally behaving himself for quite a while, hence why the West had accepted him back into the fold. Saif. Things were moving in the right direction, I'd say...

I missed this the first time, so let me just take this opportunity to call you a hypocritical ****. A dictator wanted to install his son as the next dictator (oh but he would have been a progressive dictator!!) and you're ok with that. Don't you ****ing dare claim to be a progressive in future, you dictatorship enabling dick.

[NICE MOBIUS]

I missed this the first time, so let me just take this opportunity to call you a hypocritical ****. A dictator wanted to install his son as the next dictator (oh but he would have been a progressive dictator!!) and you're ok with that. Don't you ****ing dare claim to be a progressive in future, you dictatorship enabling dick.

Obviously you didn't click on any of the links, did you?

Just caught up in your own useless narrative of how to fix things while lurching from one disaster to the next.

The problem with you is that you're too emotional, not to mention the fact that you want to impose your views and world beliefs onto others. No wonder the world is messed up with people like you making the decisions.

I, on the other hand, am pragmatic. You have to start with the hand you're dealt with. If that means dealing with dictators then so be it. The thing with Gaddafi's son is that it was partly because of him that Libya was already moving towards more freedoms. Who's to say that that wouldn't have meant a peaceful transition of power somewhere down the line...?

Certainly better than the alternative cluster**** that's actually happened - which, by definition, you clearly espouse to...

You can't have it both ways.

Also, it's not like we're not friends with countless dictators in the world as it is, like your best mates the Saudis for example.

[kentonio]

You're not pragmatic, you're a hypocrite who whines about perceived failures of the west while happily going along with a situation where millions of Libyans are forced to live under a dictatorship on the grounds that 'Who's to say that that wouldn't have meant a peaceful transition of power somewhere down the line...?'. That's actually sickening, please go away and think about your severely misaligned moral compass.

[kentonio]

Also pretty funny calling the Saudis MY best mates, when I've spent years ripping into the hypocrisy of the west calling one of the most repressive and extremist regimes in the world our 'allies'.

[C0ckney]

You don't. It's very much in our interests to have a peaceful world full of prosperous potential trading partners. Instead for too long we've looked for areas we can exploit for short term gains and ignoring the long term costs.

that's all well and good in the abstract, but let's try to apply it. iraq gets split into three: turkey is outraged by having an internationally recognised kurdish state on its borders, iran is also not very pleased; israel and its huge US lobby is outraged because the shia state in the south becomes dominated by iran; the sunni state is poor and unstable with tensions between ex-ba'athists, the tribes and hardcore islamists. plus there would be a whole host of transitional and internal issues. how do you untangle all of that? the short answer, from my point of view at least, is that outsiders can't, and therefore we should leave things well alone, only intervening insofar as to provide support for the people themselves to find solutions.

[kentonio]

that's all well and good in the abstract, but let's try to apply it. iraq gets split into three: turkey is outraged by having an internationally recognised kurdish state on its borders, iran is also not very pleased; israel and its huge US lobby is outraged because the shia state in the south becomes dominated by iran; the sunni state is poor and unstable with tensions between ex-ba'athists, the tribes and hardcore islamists. plus there would be a whole host of transitional and internal issues. how do you untangle all of that? the short answer, from my point of view at least, is that outsiders can't, and therefore we should leave things well alone, only intervening insofar as to provide support for the people themselves to find solutions.

Outsiders certainly shouldn't, which is why I didn't say we should impose a breakup, simply support it if thats the direction the Iraqi people themselves chose to go. We created a vast and terrible mess in that region, and unravelling it is going to be long, hard and painful. If we only ever take the easy short term option, then it will never be resolved.

[C0ckney]

Outsiders certainly shouldn't, which is why I didn't say we should impose a breakup, simply support it if thats the direction the Iraqi people themselves chose to go. We created a vast and terrible mess in that region, and unravelling it is going to be long, hard and painful. If we only ever take the easy short term option, then it will never be resolved.

right, but the point is that when we intervene, we intervene constrained by those things. no action will be taken that completely outrages israel or turkey; no action will be taken that strengthens iran (at least intentionally). therefore, our intervention in iraq can have no good outcome because its own internal logic prevents it.

[NICE MOBIUS]

You're not pragmatic, you're a hypocrite who whines about perceived failures of the west while happily going along with a situation where millions of Libyans are forced to live under a dictatorship on the grounds that 'Who's to say that that wouldn't have meant a peaceful transition of power somewhere down the line...?'. That's actually sickening, please go away and think about your severely misaligned moral compass.

You're only attacking me so forcefully because you're embarrassed by the fact that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever to do about the whole situation.

I mean look at your central argument: They're not perceived failures - they're actual failures! The West should never have got involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria! The litany of failure egregious in the extreme!

But hey, if you're against my criticism of the West, then you must for their actions!? You can't have it both ways, Kent.

We should never have got involved, but we did. Seriously, what's your beef about that!?

And how else do you propose to magic away these dictators!? Regime change!? That's worse than Blair and Bush...

Clearly your issues are that it is YOU that has sickening ideas and a severely misaligned moral compass.

[Aeson]

So my statement still stands, in the real world Democracy = Capitalism.

No.

The reality is there is a spectrum between free market and socialism, and you'll find democratic nations with economies at a wide range of points in that spectrum. Pretending capitalism and democracy are the same thing is just absurd.

In some specific countries in a short historical periods there may be enough wealth shared so it is not really the case, but most of the time Capitalist Democracy needs oppression.

You're conflating "need" with "sometimes does".

Or maybe it was WW2 where capitalists killed 25 millions of our population? I don't know, man.

Fascism != Capitalism != Democracy.

Well, if you say so. I didn't really feel the problems with freedoms in USSR, i was a child. So i can't really say if it was a problem in practice for a common men. I know, liberals cried about it a lot, but they do the same now, and now they obviously lie, so their words can't be trusted at all. Other than that, i don't know, i never heard from anyone, say, from my older relatives, about the lack of freedoms in USSR. So i think yes, in theory that may have been a problem, but in practice we enjoyed our guaranteed standard of living without any significant downsides.

That's why you needed a prison style wall and shot people who were trying to leave?

Workers in the West ceased to be workers.

Just because they're paid well doesn't mean they aren't workers.