That's the real problem with state intervention in business, it will bias one business over another, and often not the business that performs but the business which is in the personal interest of the politician/party, to the expense of everybody else.
I'd make it illegal for any politician, party member or public servant to become a shareholder in any private enterprise.
Maybe, but that is the natural aim of business, to maximise profit. It's the governments job tob to maintain the balance between the interests of the nation and the interests of business.
The Soviet's shot their own workers for striking, and if the soldier wouldn't shoot his own comrade, they shot him. See the Berlin uprising of 1953, where tanks were deployed against picket lines.
The law counts for proponents of the state, but never its opponents, as they by default become 'the enemy of the people'.
Well yes. Rand is anti-social, anti-welfare, egoism over altruism and holds the belief that the sole motivation within people at all times is self-interest. She's a dumbed down version of Nietzsche.
I would say that sounds in a sense Nationalist, even a trace of Libertarian, as opposed to Communist. Nonetheless you still need a society that reflects effort through incentives towards it.
The point is history shows it doesn't work, and it's descent into Stalinism time and time again. One or two ideas from the Bolsheviks I would use if it was up to me, but it's still so flawed, the idea of paying a doctor and a taxi driver the same wage is just ridiculous. The idea of throwing away Culturism(inherited values, traditions, morals etc)is just wrong.
New ideas are needed towards Socialism and politics in general, it seems that philosophy and political ideology has barely moved an inch since WWII.
Agreed. Israel and its situation don't warrant nuclear weapons. The fact that they do however possess them doesn't mean Muslims should have them. I won't essentially reason that two wrongs make a right.
I'm not saying it wasn't Bin Laden i'm saying it was, but there can be such a thing as a happy coincidence over a very unhappy event.
As for Iran many substances are banned to trade with them if they could potentially be used in a vioent application, but the problem is many things in the industry have dual or multi-purpose applications. So they ban one thing on one count but it means it can't used for anything else neither.
There is business by the back door if you like, that's the purpose of places like Dubai, but even still the narrow range of Muslim consumption is not in the interests of modern traders.
One major problem we have is that our female employees, no matter how talented, are simply not allowed to work in many Muslim states, and in general for everyone else the middle east is not a particularly nice place to work or do business in. Another factor would be Muslim states lack of an infrastructure, compare the road networks of say Israel in comparison to the rest of the middle east.
You're right there is a loose sense of pragmatism when it comes to the oil trade in the middle east, they will sell oil, but just you watch them, if they can sell it to anybody else before the West they will, hence Iran's growing links with China. Or in the case of Iraq under Saddam, most of its oil contracts had gone to France, Germany and mainland Europe, not Britain and the US. I don't consider this just a coincidence.
Many countries break the rules though and no action is taken. As for 9/11, not to say the government had any involvement but it does suit their purposes for a war they would want all the same.
I'm often in Iran and other parts of the middle east, at the moment there's just been a project cancelled on a rig due to the Iranian states sudden droppout of funding for the project. Sometimes there is a reason(often bureaucratic)for this but at others it is simply an exercise of might. The whole network of business there is so tied to the state and the religion, also entire projects fall as say when a certain cleric falls from favour within the state.
The frequency of necessary sanctions upon the Middle east is bad for business too, it would make things easier to remove the cause of those sanctions.
Iran would be probably the major one. States like Turkey are the most compatible with us. I believe the West is trying to trigger Modern Capitalism across the Muslim world, let's face it they are nations least welcoming to the global markets.
Examples lie in the perhaps overwillingness to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. And obviously our business interests are hindered due to hardline Islam states and to replace them would make the world run more efficiently(and plausibly beneficial for everyone).
My theory is that Western governments think that if they can break hardline Islam in its homeland, that will break fundamentalism amongst Muslims at home. This in order to protect the Super-Capitalist(or Corporate Socialism if you like) multicultural system of today, as Islam is a threat to any type of Capitalism or modern economy.
Any Muslim culture doesn't have to expand through open war, it can simply outbreed any populace it encounters. A Britain 50 years from now will have a Muslim majority(unless something drastic changes)and then our freedom of speech, voting system, gay/women rights and other Liberties will be negated, quite ironically, by our own Democracy.
And crucially it will be a Europe no longer allied with the US/Canada.
This said, the last thing the Muslim states themselves want is n open war, the Liberals are right when they say the West is after war, but the bigger picture escapes them.
Well which system created healthcare for all? Which system raised class mobility to otherwise unseen levels? Which system promoted mass public works and the greatest national facilities the world has ever seen? Which extreme socialist system encorporates instead of annihilates the trade unions? Which system purported mass consumer rights(far beyond ours even today)?
The answer is National Socialism/Fascism, untrustworthy because you're relying on the dictator to be an incredibly noble person.
Communism's two flaws
1) Spiritual/Cultural void, the Bolsheviks bond over the current class system but then destroy the current class sytem under Communism, then there is nothing for the society to relate together over. One reason why it so easily turns to Stalinism.
2) Profit motive. Many people simply won't apply more skill or take on more responsibility without an incentive to do so. Without the incentives for effort the system needs someone ruthless to drive it, again, Stalinism.
I believe in everything highlighted, Communism does not deliver upon that. There's only one type of Socialism that has and it's not Communism, and that system I do not trust for other reasons.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
RE: COMMUNISME OR KAPITALISME ?
That's the real problem with state intervention in business, it will bias one business over another, and often not the business that performs but the business which is in the personal interest of the politician/party, to the expense of everybody else.I'd make it illegal for any politician, party member or public servant to become a shareholder in any private enterprise.