United States eventual future?

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

Um...Facism and Communism are at the exact opposite ends of the political spectrum. Neither one is a "deviation" of the other, they are seperate and distinct political systems.

IE. By posting the definition of Facism you've also pretty well posted a defintion for the exact opposite of actual marxist communism.

[Zythus]

Re: United States eventual future?

Um...Facism and Communism are at the exact opposite ends of the political spectrum. Neither one is a "deviation" of the other, they are seperate and distinct political systems.

IE. By posting the definition of Facism you've also pretty well posted a defintion for the exact opposite of actual marxist communism.

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power.
If that isn't a deviation of communism , then I'll eat my newly bought $300 dollar surround sound speaker system for my PC.

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

Read Marx. I'll expect pictures of the eating process.

[Zythus]

Re: United States eventual future?

Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a 19th century philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary. Marx addressed a wide range of political as well as social issues; he is most famous for his analysis of history, summed up in the opening line of the Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Marx believed that like all other socioeconomic systems, capitalism will be displaced by communism, a classless society after another transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[1][2]


capitalism will be displaced by communism, a classless society after another transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, that what marxism states.
___________
1.Facism ---------------------------communism--------------2.Marxist



they both come back to communism ....

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

And you completely and thoroughly don't understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means as compared to "A facist Dictatorship" Just because the word dictatorship is in both, doesn't mean they are the same.

Consider "Tyrrany" and "The Tyrrany of the Majority" the same word appears in both, the utterly do not imply the same things.

[Zythus]

Re: United States eventual future?

dictatorship of the proletariat means the midpoint between capitalism and communism. and dictator isn't the key word here. its that they both relate to pro-communism. Unless you care to enlighten me....

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

In a fascist dictatorship, all power rests in the hands of one single leader, who rules by fiat, decreeing how things are, and those under them must follow or suffer consequences.

The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is more closely akin to true and full democracy, where the proletariat communally control all the means of production, and through agreement decide upon mutually beneficial roles for the members of the society.

Capitalism and Communism aren't opposites. Especially not according to Marx, who sees Capitalism as an unfortunate but necessary point on the path to communism.

[coldsunlight]

Re: United States eventual future?

Um...do you actually know anything about the trade embargo between the US and Cuba?

The embargo forbids -Americans- from doing business with Cubans. Cuba is welcome to trade with anybody else they feel like, but American markets are closed to them.

since the US doesn't trade with Cuba, if the other countries do, the US will stop trading with them Come back to history, Cuba used to trade with the Soviet Union, but right after Soviet Union collapsed, it couldn't trade with Soviet Union anymore.
When Vietnam wanted to get in the WTO, it had to expel all the bank accounts of North Korea. And North Korea actually cannot put its money in some banks in Sweden like the others because Sweden doesn't accept, thus it used to put money in such countries like Vietnam.
The US embargo will isolate its victims to nearly the whole world

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

Er...Cuba trades fairly often with all kinds of countries. Lemme get you some numbers.

Cuba's major export partners: Netherlands 22.8%, Canada 20.6%, China 7.7%, Russia 7.5%, Spain 6.4%, Venezuela 4.4%

Cuba's major import partners: Germany 14.1%, France 8%, Netherlands 7.2%, Belgium 5.5%, Italy 4.9%, the People's Republic of China 4.1%, Ireland 4%

I'm not seeing many countries on those lists that "The US is screwing over for dealing with Cuba"

Come back from history to the actual present?

[Zythus]

Re: United States eventual future?

In a fascist dictatorship, all power rests in the hands of one single leader, who rules by fiat, decreeing how things are, and those under them must follow or suffer consequences.

The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is more closely akin to true and full democracy, where the proletariat communally control all the means of production, and through agreement decide upon mutually beneficial roles for the members of the society.

Capitalism and Communism aren't opposites. Especially not according to Marx, who sees Capitalism as an unfortunate but necessary point on the path to communism.

exactly how is it "full democracy" when it clear says "decide upon".
you don't deny the fact that capitalism is a stop on the path to communism,
and we are talking about capitalism to communism. they both have the keyword: communism....

[devonin]

Re: United States eventual future?

exactly how is it "full democracy" when it clear says "decide upon".

Uh...because all the people make the decision? Thus...democracy?

you don't deny the fact that capitalism is a stop on the path to communism

Marx says that communism can only properly develop out of the realisation that capitalism is not a viable system, and once it undergoes catastrophic collapse, people will understand their error. It isn't quite the same thing as saying "capitalism is communism lite, and then you get communism' the tenets of communism are in -direct opposition- to the tenets of capitalism, that is why there needs to be a revolution.

Revolutions are only revolutions if they result in an entirely new system being developed in place of the old one.

and we are talking about capitalism to communism. they both have the keyword: communism....

Um..."capitalism" does not contain the keyword "communism" you're short 1 o, 2 m's, 1 u, and an n

[Coolgamer]

Re: United States eventual future?

A militaristic police state.

Oh wait, you meant the FUTURE. Uh, more of the same, police brutality, censorship, strong arming deals with other lands, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and supporting coups and dictators with blood money and oil, taking over global economics with organizations like the WTO, attempting regime changes, and then acting all shocked and surprised when people suddenly want to kill us and, oh I don´t know, fly a bunch of planes into buildings or take hostages at an embassy.

[Sullyman2007]

Re: United States eventual future?

I was thinking about this idea when i was debating gay marriage, the war in iraq, and abortion in my government class. It becomes more and more apparent to me that with this country's continuing need to have security and order they end up wanting the government to solve the problems associated with this lifestyle. When the people want a set rule for more and more things like gay marriage and abortion we continually give the government more power to decide these things for the country. Now i can eventually see a excess of these conflicts arising which will revert this country back to the way it was before it was created, where congress creates set rules and standards for everyone regardless of the minority. We cant have the ability to govern ourselves while have someone in a higher position govern us as well. Its a give and take relationship and i fear is becoming more and more unbalanced.
Has anyone else considered this revert of government power in relation to the country's needs?

I'm not EXACTLY sure what your asking, but it sounds like you think the government has to much of a say in setting the "rules and standards" we live by.
If thats the case, then you should know that this country is an In-direct Democracy, for a reason. We started out as a Direct Democracy, meaning the people had a DIRECT say in creating the rules and standards we (they) lived by.
Its not like that today. Instead of making those decisions ourselves, we elect representatives that we believe have beliefs similar to our own.
Therefore, if we don't want a direct say in what happens, we cant expect things to work out the way we want them.

Hopefully, hes referring to Russia's communism.
I get the feeling that the US is going to collapse of its own accord, the higher you go, the harder you fall. These issues, gay marriage, abortion and all, they are only within the American border. However, worldwide and internationally, US is being a nuisance, a prime example would be the jig in Iraq, with Bush's failing ambitions on his treasured little oil. Pulling on another country's affairs along with dragging neighbors, Canada, into this nonsense. That, is how US declares supremacy and rises above other countries, but as sept 11 has once shown us, US will be a considerable target for retribution, terrorism, just because its so egotistic and arrogant. You may go on flaming me about this "Canada pulled into the war" but its true. Stephan harper couldn't refuse the calling of bush to help with the US affairs, he didn't want to have a bad record with the US.

I'm not going to in-depth on this one. First off, despite what you may believe, oil has nothing to do with the war. All you just did was make a list of completely biased opinions about the US.
By the way, when you said, "These issues, gay marriage, abortion and all, they are only within the American border". Thats a load of bull. We aren't the only ones with those types problems.

if the other countries don't obey what the US ask them to do, they cannot export and import, they will lose their stand in global affairs. Cuba is a good example for disobeying stronger force. LOL
-----------------------
Still, when Bush called out for the wars, a bunch of people eagerly supported. And those Republicans most of the time win the congress, anyway, that there are nothing really involve communism

Why do you all make it sound like the US is the big bully? We really don't care who other countries trade with. Its not our business. Cuba? We don't set embargo's on who Cuba trades with, they do. We just don't trade with them.

"And those Republicans most of the time win the congress, anyway, that there are nothing really involve communism"

Umm...what?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: United States eventual future?

What I effectively see as happening, eventually, is that the independent actions of citizenry will come to have a dminishing relationship to the functioning of government, gradually eroding the place of it in American life. Meanwhile, continuing global political machinations will garner most of the attention of the US government. At some point in time, every country on earth will have a notable nuclear arsenal. At this point war in the classic sense will effectively cease. Smaller conflicts will continue and perhaps be emboldened by the effective stalemate of the Damocles sword of the 21st century. The United States, no longer able to take on an interventionist role, will see the government fed military industrial complex dissipate. Corporations which made their money on warfare will pressure international agencies like the UN to put treaties into place permitting the use of private mercenary forces. It will eventually succeed due to the UN's unwillingness to take on meaningful risk, and the demand for private security forces. There will be fierce and constant criticism of this action, and many highly public incidents that shake faith in both the UN and soldiers of fortune. Eventually the UN will dissolve, along with the governments of most developed countries. At minimum they will assume global insignificance. Many of the third world countries that made use of mercenary forces will continue on in chaos, losing even the security offered by the mercenaries as a result of their emaciated economies. More fortunate countries will establish some level of peace, which enables their markets to grow, securing their prosperity. The diminished role of government will mean private forces have to take control of many things once run bureaucratically. Over time, the invisible hand of the market will stabilize things. The small scatterings of warn-torn third world nations will see their citizenry leave more willingly than ever before, as the difference between the prosperity of themselves and their neighbors becomes crystal clear. The world will be better, more prosperous, and more united than ever before.

Ceterus Paribus, at least. Mutually Assured Destruction stands as the most visible alternative.

[Coolgamer]

Re: United States eventual future?

Why do you all make it sound like the US is the big bully? We really don't care who other countries trade with. Its not our business. Cuba? We don't set embargo's on who Cuba trades with, they do. We just don't trade with them.

Maybe because the United States has a history of interfering with the economies and trade of other nations.

Cases in point:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Santos_Zelaya Overthrown leader of Nicaragua, attempted to regulate American mining and lumber companies, and sought loans from European banks rather than American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wto#Criticism_3

http://counterpunch.org/carlsen09122003.html

Both of the above links involve the World Trade Organization, of which the United States is a key player.

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

Colonel Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was the president of Guatemala from 1951 to 1954, when he was ousted in a coup d'état organized by the US Central Intelligence Agency, known as Operation PBSUCCESS, and was replaced by a military junta, headed by Colonel Carlos Castillo, plunging the country into chaos and long-lasting political turbulence. He had promoted a land reform program that benefited thousands of impoverished peasants. This outraged the United Fruit Company, which Secretary of State Dulles had represented during his years as a corporate lawyer. The action was labeled as a strike to Communism, despite Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán having been democratically elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem American officials played a key role in making Ngo Dinh Diem president of South Vietnam. In september 1963, the Secretary of Defense and U.S. Ambassador Henry CAbot Lodge assured Diem of continued American support. However, he refused to promise that he would not negotiate with communist-led insurgents. Six weeks after the meeting he was killed. The killing was covered up as a suicide until photos leaked of the handcuffed body with multiple bullet wounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Convoy_to_JGS_headquarters

On December 4, 1972, President Salvador Allende of Chile told the UN General Assembly that his country would "no longer tolerate the subordination implied by having more than eighty percent of its exports in the hands of a small group of large foreign companies." Nine months later, Allende was overthrown. He was replaced with the dictator Augusto Pinochet.