Who Gets To Save The World?

this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder, no offense to anyone, what world politics would be like now if the Germans had won the Second World War..

and please don’t say “Oh well, we’d all be Aryan blond haired blue eyed Nazi fucks!” either. not what im looking for.

tomciu11, what are you referring to when you say “China is just beginning to show its importance at this time”???? and as for worrying about them, i think the world has always been keeping one eye on them…the country may appear to be asleep in many political aspects, but i assure you, they aint….

But isn’t that the majority of humanity? You don’t just see it from countries. You see it from individuals, groups, anything that can be put together. It is all about me vs you, and if you do soemthing wrong, shame on you, but if I screw up, hey, it’s okay. I have got good reason to do something bad.

That is our problem. Most people would rather think tht blaming everybody else is what they should do. I know I have been that way at points in my life. They think that no mistake could ever be made by them, and if they do, the magnitude never is an equal.

Until we learn to take responsibility for the fact that we do make mistakes, and try to work with others. Whether this be onl a global or local scale, we will fail,

Of course this is a country that has people so obsessed with a doomsday and the whole December 21, 2012 thing that they seem to want it to happen. Of course they will deny that they would ever have anything to do with the end of the world.

“Of course this is a country that has people so obsessed with a doomsday and the whole December 21, 2012 thing that they seem to want it to happen.”
Erm…what’s this then (I’m not Canadian)?
“Who gets to save the world?” suggests that the fact it CAN be saved is a foregone conclusion. Maybe it is too late…

[quote comment="62404"]…we dont need the commies running the world….[/quote]

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.

[quote comment="62419"][quote comment="62404"]…we dont need the commies running the world….[/quote]

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.[/quote]

“All Power comes from the barrel of a gun.”
-Mao

Yea Mao! Go commies, go. Just kidding Dan, but communism has largely been discredited. Is that a good thing, or bad? I dunno, I guess we need to use any illusions and delusions we can. :)

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the urgent vs. the important, and how the tyranny of the now pulls us from a wider point of view. It seems we are increasingly leading a decontextualized life, devoid of perspective. This entry resonated with me, Matt. Thanks.

[quote comment="62430"]I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the urgent vs. the important, and how the tyranny of the now pulls us from a wider point of view. It seems we are increasingly leading a decontextualized life, devoid of perspective. This entry resonated with me, Matt. Thanks.[/quote]

Yes, contextualize!

Why is it that U.S. never acknowledges U.S.S.R’s involvement in WWII and the losses suffered? It is universally accepted that the U.S. saved Europe, that WWII was U.S. against Hitler who was killing Jews. Who needs to remember the fact that all of Europe quickly caved under German attacks while Russia’s Stalingrad was leveled by Germany, Leningrad was under blockade for 4 years, and Soviet deaths outnumbered U.S. at 1 to 55. The eastern front is never even mentioned. But, of course it was communism and they could never be fighting for “good”.

By the way, do you know why Stalin is one of the most beloved leaders in Russia? Because he was the one who led Russia to victory. It is all in the context.

For anyone interested in Stalinism-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Fate

[quote comment="62446"]Vika, the contributions made by Russia are freely acknowledged in the US. No one is trying to cover that up. The United States was fighting on two fronts, plus giving massive amounts of military aid to Russia via ocean convoys. The tanks and aircraft that Russians were using to force the Germans back were American.

Stalin is reviled for being a murderer of great substance . Untold millions of Russian and Soviet citizens were murdered by Stalin. Have you read the Great Russian novel “Life and Fate” by Grossman? Or was it still banned?[/quote]

It is nice if you know many of such people, I don’t. There is an interesting article discussing this matter, ever so briefly though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm

Most people agree now though that towards the end, bombing of the railways, etc. actually was only 17% effective in reducing Germany’s mobility, supplies, etc.

“Life and Fate” is not banned and I have not read it. They are actually making kids read “Archipelago Gulag” in high school, which I also have not read. I tried but I can’t. There is a great Russian author, Pikul, if you can get a hold of any of his books, highly recommend it. But he has never been in favor and only a few are trunslated.

Finally, trust me, Stalin IS in the second place according to the latest poll of “who is the favorite Russian/Soviet” leader. Nikolas II is leading - he destroyed the country economically and was the cause of October revolution, but because he was executed, he is seen as “suffering for all sins”. Russia is a strange country.

I know who the author is and what the book is about, Robert. I prefer “The Spark of Life” by Remarque. It is about a Nazi camp, it is shorter, more powerful and much more life-asserting. Unlike Grossman, who writes about crawling outside the barbed wire and dying in freedom, “Spark of Life” is about outliving your tormentors.

Comminism works in THEROY…and i mean theroy…i was born in Poland and lived there 14 yrs until i came to Canada, so i know all about communism and its dehuminizing affects…Poland went from being run over and occupied by the Nazis during the WW I I to another evil occupation just as evil for the next 40 years…Enough said….

Democracy is the best kind of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

[quote comment="62467"]Democracy is the best kind of government, except for all the others that have been tried.[/quote]
Perhaps. What is a democracy? How do you run a democracy? Is it really a democracy?
I personally don’t believe in democracy (at least in the current sense) much at all. A majority can easily be coerced into whatever opinion through the mass media or patriotism, among a myriad of other possibilities. People don’t always know what’s good for them - at least on the political level.
For instance, is Putin a democracy? He’s used the mass media and the political machinery to quash practically all resistance and deluded the masses (some 70-80%, quite seriously) into supporting him.

The issue of what democracy is is a fascinating one and unfortunately one that is rarely properly discussed.

[quote comment="62470"]
… is Putin a democracy?
[/quote]
I meant to add they voted for him using similar voting privileges to our own. Does that right in its own constitute democratic rights or is it more inherent politically?
That was my main point. And in that case how could we define (and produce) a democracy immune to internal corruption that legitimately represented the will of the people (in the event that is a good thing)?
As you can see, democracy is something of a farce in most instances.

[quote comment="62427"]

Like any system of government, all have their pros and cons. Some have more pros than others and vice versa. My point being that people are often misguided when it comes to what communism actually is. Hence, there are no true communist countries on the face of the globe, just as there aren’t any true democracies.[/quote]

That’s very true. I always wondered what Marx and Engels would say today about countries like Cuba and China and the former Soviet Union. I also find it funny when politicians - especially in the US and Canada - use the D word in their rhetoric. Most people don’t realize that real “democracy” entails 50 % of the people being part of the government. What we have today are elected aristocracies. I know in the past Matt has labelled the US and Canada as plutocracies, which I’d partly agree with.

Depending on the country and who you ask, one man’s democracy is another man’s dictatorship. Just look at Zimbabwe.

[quote comment="62479"
The will of the people - in true democracy, has to be represented irrespective of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing since government officials are acting out the will of the people. They cannot alter people's opinions, if it is a true democracy.

I tend to lean to the opinion that a true democracy can exist either only in small tribal societies where each individuals well being depends on the communitys well being and vice versa. Everyone can also be heard.[/quote]
Then there’s the issue of what to do about the media. A huge proportion of society is massively influenced by it in many countries. The so-called ‘free media’ is never free for long - someone always owns it (or will soon) and has the power. Then pretty soon that echoes the wishes of someone on the political scene. Politics is rarely a free debate as it is now. Since the media is always a force of coercion and so little can be done I honestly wonder whether democracy actually can exist, if it even could.

[quote comment="62489"]Sure democracy can exist, on paper, until somebody edits what is written :)

Media would not be such a problem if people were free and open to discussion, but they are often close-minded and stuck to their own opinions.[/quote]
I think part of the problem there is ignorant self-righteousness (especially in the US). Now I think about it I do that a awful lot too. But you can never have much of a debate or discussion if people have been FOXified.

[quote comment="62489"]I struggle so much with the question of why do people listen to and buy into what somebody that they do not know, with unverified credentials, wrote about an issue that may or may not be important in the future?[/quote]
I think that’s a psychological thing. I can’t stand to watch people like my dad take mainstream news as gospel - it sickens me. I don’t know what it is but whoever came up with the concept of the mass media in its present form was surely a genius.

[quote comment="62419"][quote comment="62404"]…we don’t need the commies running the world….[/quote]

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.[/quote]

It’s worth pointing out that a communist (and a Maoist at that) was just recently elected the Prime Minister of Nepal.

I wish I had the optimism to be a communist, but it only works as long as everyone plays nice. Of course, I wish I was optimistic enough to think democracy would work. Sigh.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to change things when it (inevitably) gets off track. Not ‘easy’, but ‘easier’.

[quote comment="62501"][quote comment="62419"][quote comment="62404"]…we don’t need the commies running the world….[/quote]

We’d probably be better off if ‘commies’ ran this world, but unfortunately, there aren’t any true communist countries to take the lead.[/quote]

It’s worth pointing out that a communist (and a Maoist at that) was just recently elected the Prime Minister of Nepal.

I wish I had the optimism to be a communist, but it only works as long as everyone plays nice. Of course, I wish I was optimistic enough to think democracy would work. Sigh.
The advantage of a democracy is that it is easier to change things when it (inevitably) gets off track. Not ‘easy’, but ‘easier’.[/quote]
You can only have a functional and neat political system if it is defined and respected. Otherwise you will have a tyranny and possibly a dysfunctional government that usually cannot operate as effectively. The UK for example has a very well defined political system. It accepts that it is a somewhat limited democracy codified through an unwritten (for now) constitutional monarchy. In return most political views are heard adequately through the parliament’s 3 major parties. Hardly ideal but it allows (still) for significant progress and is mostly politically liberal. Most people have come to accept it, despite flaws, to allow for moderate reformism at a compromise for a ‘better’ democracy. The monarchy helps to keep powerful political families or dictators from emerging within the legislature. Although, the system has been in decay of late - partly a victim of its own inability to change as necessary (for instance a large section of the House of Lords is still appointed). But it is a defined system the British people (largely) profoundly respect and support.

Partly for this reason I don’t support Canada becoming a republic. The British monarchy aren’t exactly that admirable but the system certainly is. A Canadian republic would have similar weaknesses to the US system.

In communism, everybody has different notions of equality. How it is to be implemented is undefined. Some follow ‘to each according to his needs’, some believe in a more absolute form of equality. In either case this is dangerous because people are inherently unequal in ability, not to mention those in power will resist bitterly. A fair system would actually allow for inequality to compensate for varied effort and skill. Apart from that, it is violently predisposed against every other system and radical beyond madness. We are not a society of peasants and workers any longer. The agricultural sector has been steadily industrialized much as other labor in past. Services are remarkably important now, being adaptive, beneficial and diverse. The mid 19th-century notions of proletarian equality are stupidly irrelevant today. We must work with our existing political and judicial institutions if we hope to improve socially - on every level in our globalizing society - not overthrow them in violent revolution.

This goes for existing communist regimes too. It would be best to dismantle these peacefully and carefully. China is a fine example of this. The Chinese would not benefit from rapid democritization. Rather, it would cause havoc and mayhem to its economy which has only one chance to improve - and rapidly - before wild aging, the likes of which have never occurred, hits hard (among very many other major issues). China’s repression of civil liberties is terrible and wholly regrettable, yet civil turmoil and anarchy would be worse still. Even they recognize the importance of economically liberal reform. Communism really is dead and it is not something to be missed. In the longer term (well after I am gone) China may become a genuinely modern and respectable nation, but I simply can’t see a revolution accomplishing much that the current government is not already (potentially) capable of doing itself.

In today’s world the only place to find ‘democracy’ is in the dictionary, under ‘D’. The word has truly lost meaning though. To me, it certainly rings hollow.

I’m thinking of starting my own blog. I get political rant compulsions all the time and it might be better to just publish and discuss them separately.

Just realized how bad my grammar can be if I don’t proofread. I should do that more.

[quote comment="62507"]
In communism, everybody has different notions of equality. How it is to be implemented is undefined. Some follow ‘to each according to his needs’, some believe in a more absolute form of equality. In either case this is dangerous because people are inherently unequal in ability, not to mention those in power will resist bitterly. [/quote]

An excellent look at this point can be found in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” which is in his “Welcome to the Monkey House” anthology.

As for the original question of “who gets to save the world?” the only answer, as hopelessly idealistic as it sounds, is People. We can’t simply leave it up to a single nation, or a single governmental ideal to solve all the problems of the world.

The original ideal of communism- dissolution of the idea of the State as a means of protecting and distributing property and goods in favor of a system where every person voluntarily contributes their labor towards creating all of the goods and services required to allow all people access to all of the resources required to live a fulfilling life- is a lovely idea, but not one I personally see as realistic.

All of the various versions of Democracy that we see in action around the world are all deeply flawed in some way or other, but as Patrick mentioned above quoting Churchill, they’re better than anything else that’s been tried so far. What tends to be lacking in them is the fact that the vast majority of the electorate is relatively uneducated on the actual principles of government and governing, and not a lot of effort is made to change this, as it would almost universally lead to wholesale changes in who holds positions of power within the democracies of the world.

People need to educate themselves, and learn more than just who makes the best handbags and what car gets the best gas mileage. We need to learn more than just what will make us money in the world. More people need to learn more about topics like economics, political science, sociology and philosopy, because it’s topics like these where you actually begin to see some of the structures that make our world work the way it does, and until more people can see them and understand them, we are going to have a hell of a time dismantling these structures.
(note: I’m showing a bit of bias here, my degree is in Sociology)

As long as structures that promote socio-economic imbalance in the world exist, be they governmental, religious, industrial, or anything else nations with outlooks like those of the US will serve a purpose in our world, however distasteful we may find that.

“The original ideal of communism- dissolution of the idea of the State as a means of protecting and distributing property and goods in favor of a system where every person voluntarily contributes their labor towards creating all of the goods and services required to allow all people access to all of the resources required to live a fulfilling life- is a lovely idea, but not one I personally see as realistic”.

I don’t think that its necessarily unrealistic. For refence, I point to the concept of Participatory Economics (Parecon) the suggested economic system for an anarchist society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

The only place to find non-sequitur is in the dictionary … under “non”.

If anyone cares to consider seriously what the world would be like if WW2 had never happened. Look to Pat Buchannan, he is a leading light in the anti-war movement.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” I am terribly sorry. Is there a better turn of phrase somewhere that can, in your words, save the world?

Banned in China - your assurance of quality content.

[quote comment="62533"][quote comment="62532"]

Really? Did I miss a meeting or something?[/quote]

Yeah you must of. I’ll fill you in..

Pat Buchannan posts on the website antiwar.com. Buchannan had some very astute comments recently on the situation in Georgia if you recall. Buchannan also recently wrote a book about WW2 - “Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War”. You know, WW2 could have been avoided. If Winston Churchill wasn’t such a hard head. Chuchill would have realized that Hitler was acutally a “rational actor”. Thus it seems to me that Pat Buchannan is a leading light in the anti-war movement.

Winston Churchill was a guardian of sorts. He was also very hot headed and loved war.
A weaponized Britain ensured its own survival during the second world war. British forces liberated millions and it should be recognized that they also killed thousands of civilians.

What can history teach us? Is it naively idealistic to think that maybe in this circumstance Britain did the right thing by confronting Hitler. Is it being naively realistic to think that maybe in some circumstances there are instances of wanton chaos existing in the world? And as we have seen them in history - perhaps this wanton chaos can exist in the present and must be confronted. Not used as an excuse to justify our own crimes, certainly not - but used to ensure the applicability of law and reason as it stands today - in our best institutions.

Where is my medal for stating the obvious?

“Sorry, no medal. This is called the Chaos Theory. Even Sun Tzu applied these principles in his “The Art of War”

However, we can be quite sure that Hitler did do a very dumb thing by attacking Russia !!”

Vika, if I wasn’t such a drunken alcoholic (9years sober!), i’d fly up to where you are and buy you a drink!

The new world order is coming, we aint see nothing yet. Im sure lot of you here heard of alex jones, david icke, bill cooper and phil schneider.

the gouvernement is preparing heres another proof: projectcamelot.org/norway.html