Don't you guys realize......

[Loknar]

I was wondering if everyone here realized that Communism is light years ahead of humanity ?


Before I say my piece let me s ay this: I like Communism; I believe if all of us embraced it, it would indeed be for the best.


That said, I think man is just not grown up enough to embrace it. You may see some "enlightened" countries these days, but make no mistake they only care about them selves. The only way Communism will be able to take root in society is either by an extremely slow and gradual process, or by a blood soaked revolution. So far the revolutions are yet to produce a true %100 communistic government.


I follow capitalism because I believe it works for this day and age, despite the fact that it is a very old and antiquated economic system. As long as people want to care for them selves and not about the whole, capitalism will be strong. And right now, I have no faith in humanity.

[lucid]

I feel the same. I don't like seeing hungry or homeless people but I don't delude myself into believing that it can change any time in the near future. The way this world works has evolved over thousands of years and it isn't gonna suddenly change. No matter how much you hate the US.

[Guest1]

All of us realize that, but we alos realize humanity would never catch up unless we worked to get them to.

[lucid]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 08:21 PM
All of us realize that, but we alos realize humanity would never catch up unless we worked to get them to.
You don't work at accelerating humanity by demonizing groups of people when those groups can crush you.

[Osman Ghazi]

I kind of agree. I'm a sort of fatalistic Marxist who believes that capitalism will die eventually so why fight against it? I prefer to try and make capitalism work as much as possible, by using capitalimsm to help as many people as I can. I'm not stupid. I don't think that we will get communism or socialism any time soon. But we will, one day.

I think that the only evil which needs to be fought against today is American imperialism. It retards the developement of the late stages of capitalissm and thusly it retards the progress of humanity. I just want to finish the capitalist stage ASAP.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You don't work at accelerating humanity by demonizing groups of people when those groups can crush you.


Why is that? It won you the cold war did it not?

[elijahcraig]

An economic system only "works" insofar as it is able to stablize a society and benefit the majority's interests. Capitalism does neither, and because of this political economic fact, it will destroy itself.

[Dune Dx]

i dont think Communism will be set up as long as human greed remains and as capatilism fuels greed I dont think communism will come about.

Its not like capatilism is the first social system with greed therefor when capatilism dies out I dont see how suddenly everyone will be ready fo communism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I was wondering if everyone here realized that Communism is light years ahead of humanity ?

I think oppression altogether is on its way out.
Communism is the answer, folks. As soon as the blatant oppression of this complex hierarchy is made more visible, the people will simply no longer stand for it and it will collapse. Clearly there are many who already see it, it's only a matter of time. Not light years.


I follow capitalism because I believe it works for this day and age, despite the fact that it is a very old and antiquated economic system. As long as people want to care for them selves and not about the whole, capitalism will be strong. And right now, I have no faith in humanity.

Who exactly does it "work" for, Loknar? People do care about the whole. You're just not seeing things in a class perspective. People care about their economic class. In much of the first world, however, the majority of the people are fooled into this "middle class" mentality. The middle class does not exist. It's something invented by the bourgeoisie to thwart class unification of the oppressed masses.


I kind of agree. I'm a sort of fatalistic Marxist who believes that capitalism will die eventually so why fight against it? I prefer to try and make capitalism work as much as possible, by using capitalimsm to help as many people as I can. I'm not stupid. I don't think that we will get communism or socialism any time soon. But we will, one day.

Would feudalism have ended if the French had refused to fight?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Do you people realize that this is one of the few threads in OI where we don't yell at each other :o Keep it up!

My opinion:

I do believe in "the good of humanity", that humans are not self centerd, greedy and lazy people by nature. I believe that you can stimulate people to get these characteristics, just like you can stimulate to be social minded, generous and hard working. Therefor I think that my idealism is grounded and that a Communist society will be possible.

Capitalism is in my opinion stimulating people to be greedy, self centerd. Many people hate their job, constantly seeking for excuses not to work, or work slower, thus stimulating lazyness.

Third. If you truely believe that the world would be a better place in a Communistic Society, then struggle for it. People with a lack of ambition and ideals achieve nothing. The Proletariat Class without ideals for a better tomorrow, will achieve nothing. Suppose that the women, gay, minorities, anti-war, etc -movements were without ideals, where would that have left us?

That Utopian society is closer then you think, no need for a very slow process of hunderds of years. In the Sixties people, became more idealistic. They stopped a war, introduced tons of Social Laws, made the US President very nervous and broke with their ideas the conservative ideas. If they had pushed a little bit further. Nowadays people are non-idealistic with the result that a war broke out, gay and minorites were supressed, civil rights were deminilazed and that lying from the Gov't is openly beeing tolerated and even supported by some.

Ideals are the architectual design for a grand building of tomorrow; Communism.

[Raisa]

I think we got to get socialism right first.

And we have to. Capitalism is going to eat us alive.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 08:08 PM
I was wondering if everyone here realized that Communism is light years ahead of humanity ?
Yes!

So?


Before I say my piece let me s ay this: I like Communism; I believe if all of us embraced it, it would indeed be for the best.

Agree


That said, I think man is just not grown up enough to embrace it. You may see some "enlightened" countries these days, but make no mistake they only care about them selves. The only way Communism will be able to take root in society is either by an extremely slow and gradual process, or by a blood soaked revolution. So far the revolutions are yet to produce a true %100 communistic government.

Maybe


I follow capitalism because I believe it works for this day and age, despite the fact that it is a very old and antiquated economic system. As long as people want to care for them selves and not about the whole, capitalism will be strong. And right now, I have no faith in humanity.

I don't agree with this too much of course, but still we are far away from an "ideal" society. Still that's not a good reason enough for me to support capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

A gradual reform would I feel be the best way to move towards communism/anarchism. I feel that it can be done with in 50 years (and I hope to live to see it).

The two main reasons why you shouldn't be supporting capitalism is that
1) It is destructive of the environment. While we still have capitalism we will still have environmental destruction. While it may happen under a equal society, it is less likely.
2) It is destrucive of humans. Humanity is an animal that has proven to be very succsessful. Unfortunately this means that we destry the enivorment (see above point) and large segments of our population live in conditions that most of use have never seen except on TV or in magazines. Capitalism continues to promote the inequality that communism trys to fix.

It has been said that if you are not a communist by the time you're 18 you have no heart, and if you are a communist after, no brain. I say, if you don't continue to fight for the best world possible your brain is of no use to you.

[cubist]

I DON'T BELIEVE ITS LIGHT YEARS AHEAD, but i concour taht now is not the time, when the time is right it will happen. That said it doesn't mean that i should face the music and follow capiatlism, it means i should prepare for the inevitabliilty and educate the world to prevent capitalism rising from the ashes of its own self desrtuction and that i should particiapate in keeping the flame alive inside the workers heart and soul for reform and improved living standards of all people from all cultures,

as martin luther king said,

man suffers a kind of poverty of the spirit, we have a techonological abundance, we have learnt to fly the skies like birds, and to swim the seas like fish but we haven't learnt to walk the earth as brother and sister.

[Professor Moneybags]

This whole topic is moot. There would be nothing wrong with communism provided it was never forced on anyone. But alas, that is never the case, is it ?

[cubist]

moneybags, for the first time i actually like your post,

[Capitalist Imperial]

I'll never support communism, because it hinders the inventive and innovative spirit. Without individual competition, much incentive to invent and innovate is lost.

This is why America has given the world the largest amount and most significant inventions in the last 150 years, and why the USSR is not known for bringing anything tangible to the world at all (except the 1st man in space. Good shot, but the US even surpassed them in that arena).

We need competition to progress. From a utilitarian standpoint, capitalism is still easily the best.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 20 2004, 02:33 PM
This whole topic is moot. There would be nothing wrong with communism provided it was never forced on anyone. But alas, that is never the case, is it ?
I agree with you, partially. I do believe that Communism shouldn't be forced on a population. Rather it should be the choice of the population, the revolution should merely be used to enforce that choice. A population can choose for Communism, but if the Capitalists, Leaders and Generals fight against this choice with violence, I believe that we should use violence to free ourselves. Ghandi like tactics will not work in such a situation.

Communism isn't dogmatic. You don't have to choose for the authoritian version of Communism. You don't have to force Communism into people. There is a broad libertarian movement within Communism, many Che-livers are amongst them, join this fight. Capitalism and Communism, isn't a choice between freedom and solidarity, Leaders from both camps tend to dictatorship, we as the people should prevent that freedom, solidarity and the power of the people is lost. No leaders, no exploitation.

Capitalist Imperial. Do you really need competition from someone to stimulate you?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 20 2004, 04:23 PM

Capitalist Imperial. Do you really need competition from someone to stimulate you?
Perhaps not as an individual, but I think mankind needs it to maximize his rate of progression.

This is not only a theory, but in fact history is full of a myriad of clear examples that support what I am saying.

Free-market, capitalist nations are clearly the most inventive, innovative, and are the largest contributors to world advancement with respect to technology and infratructure.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 20 2004, 04:32 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 20 2004, 04:32 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 20 2004, 04:23 PM

Capitalist Imperial. Do you really need competition from someone to stimulate you?
Perhaps not as an individual, but I think mankind needs it to maximize his rate of progression.

This is not only a theory, but in fact history is full of a myriad of clear examples that support what I am saying.

Free-market, capitalist nations are clearly the most inventive, innovative, and are the largest contributors to world advancement with respect to technology and infratructure. [/b]
There has never been a true free market capitalist society. The nearest there has ever been (with one possible exception) ended in a huge financial crash and created the largest depression of all time.

[Capitalist Imperial]

You understand what I'm saying.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 06:35 PM
You understand what I'm saying.
Your right, I do, I just felt like being picky.

But in regard to your actual point, the profit of the entire society, created by a successful system would increase the standard of living of all sociaty, and as such be an insentive.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 03:46 PM
I'll never support communism, because it hinders the inventive and innovative spirit. Without individual competition, much incentive to invent and innovate is lost.

This is why America has given the world the largest amount and most significant inventions in the last 150 years, and why the USSR is not known for bringing anything tangible to the world at all (except the 1st man in space. Good shot, but the US even surpassed them in that arena).

We need competition to progress. From a utilitarian standpoint, capitalism is still easily the best.
1) Are you an idiot, who doesn't think of easier more efficient ways to do work unless you are being paid to do so?

2)You do not need competition to drive yourself to make your job easier.

3) Was the United States a feudal society in 1917? Was the USSR that much behind by the 50's?

4) "We need competition to progress. From a utilitarian standpoint, capitalism is still easily the best."

Wrong again, socialism gives the greatest good to the greatest number.

[Dune Dx]

"the greatest good to the greatest number" this isnt good enough what about the poor minority that dont have this greatest good?

[Dune Dx]

Before you said that Communism would be good if people chose but its not the case its usually forced on them. well do you mean the whole population must want it becuase there will always be people who dont want it and communism creates a society of every one has an equal right to speach as long as they agree with the state

[Faceless]

We need competition to progress. From a utilitarian standpoint, capitalism is still easily the best.
Utilitarianism is the typical apologist's response. Capitalism is good because a few people are rich and millions are poor but this is as a net value better than that which Communism could bring about. Such a philosophy is amoral because it can not account for the net happiness of society (whatever that means).

But one would expect utilitarians, with their amoral standpoint to at least have some scientific ground to stand on. They fail here too.

Capitalism relies on:
1) the stagnation of a huge industrial reserve army thus not mobilising the full productive capacity of society,
2) underproduction to keep the price of products low or else, in competitve, non-monopolistic capitalism, things go the way of the article to follow.
Imperialist Capitalism will still degenerate though.
From a scientific point of view the utilitarian fails.


How will capitalism fail?

The following cycle is true of Capitalism:
M-C-M'
M is money. This buys commodities, C. After a process these are sold for more money, M', where M'>M.
How is the extra money produced and where does the extra value come from?
It is not a matter of buy cheap, sell expensive. This affects only distribution. Sure, some shrewd merchants can pull it off but they are in the minority. Why would Merchant A allow Merchant B to buy his commodities cheap and sell them at a greater price to Merchant C when Merchant A can just sell his goods straight to Merchant C for a higher price?
So then, how is it that the cycle of M-C-M' exists?
The following explains how commodities are exchanged in the market:
amount x of commodity A= amount y of commodity B
Lets think about what is in common between all commodities to allow them to be equated in the market in such a way. What is it that gives them equivalent "values"? An analogy can be quoted here: if a kilo of iron is put on one side of the scale and a kilo of feathers on the other, what propety is shared between the two qualitatively different objects? The answer is of course mass. Can an equivalent common property be found between x of A and y of B? The answer is yes, labour input. This is how everything is given value in the market.
It is not how much a person "wants" the product (ie its "use value") because no matter how hungry you are, a shopkeeper always charges the same amount for a chocolate bar.
So it is the labour input which gives commodities value but how does that explain the initially quoted cycle of M-C-M'?
If labour time is the defining property of a commodity's value (ie"exchange value") then value can be measured in hours of time taken to produce it. Now I can finally come to explain how profit is made in the capitalist mode of production. We can re-write the previous cycle as:
M-C-M+s
s = surplus capital. (ie the difference between M and M'.)
If a worker does 8 hours of work and is paid sufficient to allow him to survive (buy clothing, food, water, and a roof over his head) which we will say is 2 hours of labour then 6 hours of labour is surplus. We have a definition for how the Capitalist can make profit.
It is worth taking note here that amount of profit = unpaid labour. ie PROFIT = EXPLOITATION
the labour bought is the variable component of capital and the means of production (machines, raw materials etc.) the constant component of capital which does not generate surplus. The surplus capital is derived from the variable component since it is just unpaid labour. The more productive labour employed, the greater is the surplus. Again, I'll rewrite the cycle:
© + (v) -- © + (v + s)
c = constant capital
v = variable capital
s = surplus capital
Now for the conclusion. Two ratios can be written:
rate of profit = s/(c+v)
c/v
As a result of competition, the value of c/v increases over time. ie the capitalist wants to mechanise the process of production and have to have as few employees as possible. constant capital increases by investing a portion of the surplus capital. As this happens, the ratio for the rate of profit decreases over time.

I'll repeat that:
THE RATE OF PROFIT DECREASES OVER TIME
So Capitalism must fail.

[Faceless]

Amd on "competition=progress" we only need to look through history to see the shallowness of this arguement.
Pre-historically a primitive communism existed with the sharing of everything in the hope of decent progress. Through a period of barbarism and even to feudalism some communist relics remained. Usury was illegal as morality had it then and villages would communaly chip in to make legal challenges to the nobles. There was fierce opposition to the opening of the guilds as these peasants saw clear as day the economic facts of journeymen being exploited by the guildmaster. But for all this communal thinking anf resistance to the Machiavellian era of Capitalism, here we are. You see no characteristic of human nature is definate and no characteristic defines historic progress. Advances in the means of production are the forces which change society. As Rousseua suggested, humankind has a perfectabilite and our "nature" is malleable to situation and economic advance.

[DaCuBaN]

competition=progress

Which is, of course, why we've made more headway since the world aligned it's space projects rather than all competing with one another. We have elections (aka competitions) every few years, yet we get the same old cronies in every time.

I fail to see any progress.

*EDIT*
Competition merely inhibits us from seeing the bigger picture - in some scenarios i can imagine being 'blinkered' to be useful, but only in very specific circumstances. Surely it's more useful to be able to see what is actually happeneing, and react on circumstance rather than to be committed to a head-on-head with your arch nemesis?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 20 2004, 04:23 PM
Rather it should be the choice of the population, the revolution should merely be used to enforce that choice. A population can choose for Communism, but if the Capitalists, Leaders and Generals fight against this choice with violence, I believe that we should use violence to free ourselves. Ghandi like tactics will not work in such a situation.
Aha, see what I mean ? It needs the initiation of force to set up and run.

There would be nothing stopping voluntary "contract communism" within a laissez-faire capitalist society, obviously providing no one was forced to join. So if you speak the truth and don't want to force communism on anyone then where's the beef, reds ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 05:32 PM
There has never been a true free market capitalist society. The nearest there has ever been (with one possible exception) ended in a huge financial crash and created the largest depression of all time.
Have you been reading the FDR book of fairytales again ?

The crash was the fault of government + federal reserve. I thought that "stock market bubble" myth had been dispelled long ago.

[Nas]

communism is way ahead of its time

socialism will eventually succeed after capitalism



but those are not mine main concerns , is when a certain group of people(Elite Capitalists) realized this and they figured out what would some day happen and they know capitalism cannot go on forever, they fear that some day there could be a change (Socialism) and they know how to stop this change , they know how to slow down this change, they know that as long as they remain in control , everything will be alright for them and for their own society

this "slow down" of progress is what you guys should realize

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:51 PM
Amd on "competition=progress" we only need to look through history to see the shallowness of this arguement.
Pre-historically a primitive communism existed with the sharing of everything in the hope of decent progress. Through a period of barbarism and even to feudalism some communist relics remained. Usury was illegal as morality had it then and villages would communaly chip in to make legal challenges to the nobles. There was fierce opposition to the opening of the guilds as these peasants saw clear as day the economic facts of journeymen being exploited by the guildmaster. But for all this communal thinking anf resistance to the Machiavellian era of Capitalism, here we are. You see no characteristic of human nature is definate and no characteristic defines historic progress. Advances in the means of production are the forces which change society. As Rousseua suggested, humankind has a perfectabilite and our "nature" is malleable to situation and economic advance.
Eloquently put, but speaking of history, we must llook at reality.

In the last 150 years, the USA has contributed more significant inventions and innovations, and the most revolutionary inventions and innovations, both tangible and intangible, to the world than any other nation, or even combination of nations, and is still doing so today.

Communist nations, even when counted together, have yielded little benefit to the world, be it intangible or tangible, especially when compared to the US. This dichotomy cannot be ignored.


Does this count for nothing?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by lucid+May 19 2004, 08:23 PM--> (lucid @ May 19 2004, 08:23 PM)
Che y [email protected] 19 2004, 08:21 PM
All of us realize that, but we alos realize humanity would never catch up unless we worked to get them to.
You don't work at accelerating humanity by demonizing groups of people when those groups can crush you. [/b]


Thos groups can also crush themselves. Thats what the capitalist leaders really fear i think. their shitty idea of selfishness DOES rule the world, that is why we have to get all scared when other people possess nuclear weapons.

Youre scared of yourselves.

edit:............. can i blame you? No.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 20 2004, 08:22 PM
Before you said that Communism would be good if people chose but its not the case its usually forced on them.
people will never choose to have communism, because communism takes trust, and right now in capitalism, we have no reason to trust anything that much.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 20 2004, 09:21 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 20 2004, 09:21 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 20 2004, 04:23 PM
Rather it should be the choice of the population, the revolution should merely be used to enforce that choice. A population can choose for Communism, but if the Capitalists, Leaders and Generals fight against this choice with violence, I believe that we should use violence to free ourselves. Ghandi like tactics will not work in such a situation.
Aha, see what I mean ? It needs the initiation of force to set up and run.

There would be nothing stopping voluntary "contract communism" within a laissez-faire capitalist society, obviously providing no one was forced to join. So if you speak the truth and don't want to force communism on anyone then where's the beef, reds ? [/b]
Nicaragua and many other countries tell the story that objects your toughts. I will take Nicaragua as an example. The people of Nicaragua choose a Socialist Government. The Government had populair support, the population wanted Socialism. The only one objecting were the Capitalists and former Leaders - And the US. They started terroristic actions against Nicaragua, The people of Nicaragua and on their right to choose. Clearly the Capitalists, former Leaders and US didn't respect their opinion, in such a case, violence is needed.

Out of scenario. When on a lovely day, Communism is the choice of the population, violence will be used against the expected Capitalist Attacks. This is not oppression, this is defence. Violence to not to let the minority (Capitalists) rule over the majority (proles) again. Abolisment of the bourgeoisie class will follow, since business owners and leaders will no longer be necessary. There will no longer be class Capitalists, only ideologic Capitalists. But Capitalism as an ideology would die out, through enlightment.

Laissez-faire Capitalism is just the right of the strongest, but then counting in money. We don't need no Jungle politics.

[Osman Ghazi]

Aha, see what I mean ? It needs the initiation of force to set up and run.

There would be nothing stopping voluntary "contract communism" within a laissez-faire capitalist society, obviously providing no one was forced to join. So if you speak the truth and don't want to force communism on anyone then where's the beef, reds ?

Are you that naive? Any system that requires force to set up must be bad?
Well, A)If you had to use force to overthrow a military dictatorship, would that be wrong? and B) I would never accept LF and so you would have to fight against me to set it up, therefore it is bad. According to your fucked up logic anyway.


Eloquently put, but speaking of history, we must llook at reality.

In the last 150 years, the USA has contributed more significant inventions and innovations, and the most revolutionary inventions and innovations, both tangible and intangible, to the world than any other nation, or even combination of nations, and is still doing so today.

Communist nations, even when counted together, have yielded little benefit to the world, be it intangible or tangible, especially when compared to the US. This dichotomy cannot be ignored.


Does this count for nothing?

Most new inventions (not innovations though) are created by scientists. Now, in capitalist society, scientists must get money from companies who tell them only to invent things that will make money. In communist society, they will simply be given the resources they need, which will (presumably) speed up the progress of humanity, no?

The reason that the 'communist' societies of the world contributed little to science is because they were all feudal or semi-capitalist countries before they became socialist. Also, the reason that America has so many inventions coming out of it is simply because it is the most populated of the industrialised nations. The more people, the more inventions, no?

[Professor Moneybags]

Are you that naive? Any system that requires force to set up must be bad?
Well, A)If you had to use force to overthrow a military dictatorship, would that be wrong?

A- This isn't a military dictatorship.
B- What about the force required to maintain it ?


and B) I would never accept LF and so you would have to fight against me to set it up, therefore it is bad. According to your fucked up logic anyway.

I don't need your permission to set up LF as it doesn't demand anything from you other than non-intervention.


Most new inventions (not innovations though) are created by scientists. Now, in capitalist society, scientists must get money from companies who tell them only to invent things that will make money. In communist society, they will simply be given the resources they need, which will (presumably) speed up the progress of humanity, no?

You incorrectly assume making money and progress are two completely different things.


The reason that the 'communist' societies of the world contributed little to science is because they were all feudal or semi-capitalist countries before they became socialist. Also, the reason that America has so many inventions coming out of it is simply because it is the most populated of the industrialised nations. The more people, the more inventions, no?

So why isn't China the most technologically advanced country on earth ? That's industrialised.

[DaCuBaN]

China is behind the 'western world' in industrialisation - it happened a lot later there than, as an example, in the UK.

You disagree that China is fast becoming the world superpower?


I don't need your permission to set up LF as it doesn't demand anything from you other than non-intervention.


Just thought I'd best point out that doing nothing is considered an 'action' - INaction admittedly, but it's still a choice - you ask that I do not interfere.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:30 PM
China is behind the 'western world' in industrialisation - it happened a lot later there than, as an example, in the UK.

You disagree that China is fast becoming the world superpower?


I don't need your permission to set up LF as it doesn't demand anything from you other than non-intervention.


Just thought I'd best point out that doing nothing is considered an 'action' - INaction admittedly, but it's still a choice - you ask that I do not interfere.
China is not really becoming a superpower as fast as you may suggest.

Their economy is in a huge crisis, their military is a paper tiger. Many soldiers, but outdated equipment and not enough money to employ it anyway. Also, it lacks a decent Navy, which is still the cornerstone of any military. Also, they used to be more technically proficient, relatively speaking, than they are now. They only recently put a man in space, a full 40 years behind the US and Soviets.

Population does not make a superpower. Often times, it can actually hinder progress if the people and infrastructure can't be sustained.

[DaCuBaN]

Which is why china allowed the population who bred to keep only their first born.

I never mentioned population though as I agree wholeheartedly that the levels of population in some provinces are nothing but a hinderance.

My point was a refutal of moneybags retort to


the reason that America has so many inventions coming out of it is simply because it is the most populated of the industrialised nations

Which in itself is perfectly true - there are many many inventions coming out of UK, Germany, and other industrialised nations. My point was that China, although industrialised has many other problems to deal with (political ideologies aside) and that it has the potential in the relative short term (say 100 years) to overtake the USA as the 'world power'.

I'm not trying to pit USA vs China

[Osman Ghazi]

China is not really becoming a superpower as fast as you may suggest.

Their economy is in a huge crisis, their military is a paper tiger. Many soldiers, but outdated equipment and not enough money to employ it anyway. Also, it lacks a decent Navy, which is still the cornerstone of any military. Also, they used to be more technically proficient, relatively speaking, than they are now. They only recently put a man in space, a full 40 years behind the US and Soviets.

Population does not make a superpower. Often times, it can actually hinder progress if the people and infrastructure can't be sustained.

Hmm, well according to the CIA (supposedly anyways, this is something I've heard but not verified) by 2020 China will match the United States in their level of technology.


A- This isn't a military dictatorship.
B- What about the force required to maintain it ?


Oh, so the government lacks the support of the military? Your Head of State isn't also the highest military official? I'll admit, it is different than your standard military dictatorship, but any attempt to change ethe system would be met with force.


So why isn't China the most technologically advanced country on earth ? That's industrialised

Ummm...

The reason that the 'communist' societies of the world contributed little to science is because they were all feudal or semi-capitalist countries before they became socialist

It was in the very text you quoted. When China was at the same technogical level as Europe, they did have a much higher proportion of inventions.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:30 PM
Just thought I'd best point out that doing nothing is considered an 'action' - INaction admittedly, but it's still a choice - you ask that I do not interfere.
Inaction is not an action. Hence "INaction". You lose nothing by leaving me alone.

[dark fairy]

of course it takes time but something like this would take such time to be accomplished properly... so if that is what you mean sure you are right... we would have to work on it to accomplishe it... i don't think any of us fighting for it now would get to see it but damn it is good to know im part of this fight

[Dune Dx]

No one replied to my postes sniff sniff :(