<<That system might be a variant of socialist or it might even be communist, perhaps a mixture of whatever is pragmatic>>
Since some years ago, I call it cherrypickism. I define myself as a cherrypicker. :) Peace and best wishes. Xi On 6 feb, 04:33, Morpheal <[email protected]> wrote: > POLAND 20 YEARS AFTER CAPITALISM: COMMUNISM IS NOW A FREE CHOICE > > The whole situation in Eastern Europe is poorly understood. The end of > the Cold War was not universally meant (by all of its architects) to > be the end of communism. In fact it was only meant to end the > increasingly deadly, threateningly apocalyptic, Cold War strangle hold > and military state of tension. Soviet, Stalinist style, dictatorship > is not definitive of state planned socialist variations on economic > practices. In fact the Soviet tyranny and its iron grip on much of > eastern Europe, has no real and valid relation to communist, or > socialist economic practice. The one need never be assumed as being > inevitable in relation to, or being equatable as being the same as the > other. They are not the same thing. Much of Soviet extremism and > political practice was a reaction caused by east west push and shove > dominating two thirds of the 20th century. > > United States led capitalism's ability to do what is right for > humanity when costs exceed profits needs to be reassessed very > carefully. They have had twenty years in which to prove their point > and they have failed to remedy the larger part of the problems that > the Cold War left in its wake. The Cold War had remained the excuse > for not being able to, and for not having the fiscal means. If > Capitalism cannot see its way to that remediation and rectification, > finding the challenge too costly and preferring a worldwide economic > downturn, of lasting impact and indefinite duration, then Capitalism > truly is a dying system and another system must take over the task > that Capitalism has failed in. That system might be a variant of > socialist or it might even be communist, perhaps a mixture of whatever > is pragmatic, but what it will not be is a Cold War tug of war, > tearing apart the minds and spirits of Eastern Europe. Certainly not a > tug of war that insists that Capitalism is the one and only answer to > the world’s problems and pain. > > Freedom is now possible, and that freedom includes a free choice as to > what economic system is implemented, what level of centralized > planning, what amount of state ownership, how much intervention, and > to what extent real value economics, where what needs to be done gets > down regardless of the accounting of the costs and their profit > margins, will be implemented. Freedom now means the reform of > Capitalism, and radical changes to that system, to prevent further > damage to humanity’s future, progress and survival. The wars of the > 20th century combined with German Fascism and Soviet Cold War > ideology, did their damage, and Capitalism has continued to take a > horrendous toll. What is now necessary is for people who are free to > choose, to be able to choose what is best for humanity and progress, > not on the basis of a Soviet communist model or an American Capitalist > model being forced upon them without any choice in regards to > accepting or amending the rules to create a more viable and effective > system than either side in the Cold War was able to offer. > > COLONEL GADDAFI’S DREAM: CAN HE REBUILD AFRICA ? > > Colonel Gaddafi has long been a dreamer of big dreams that found big > opposition from those who seek to oppress and misuse Africa. It has > the technical and productive ability to reclaim desert, grow enough > food, desalinate water, remedy major sources of conflict including > lack of modern non sectarian education, but it cannot and could not do > so in the world of east west political confrontation and manipulation, > inclusive of the utterly failing capitalist system. Can the > alternative happen now ? Can Colonel Gaddafi actually turn vast areas > of the African desert into agricultural paradise, transform salt water > into drinking water, and raise the African continent up to a new level > of cooperation where the continents problems can actually begin to be > solved ? If the world economic crisis stands in the way of his dream, > can he overcome that obstacle and get Africans to cooperate to change > everything, by working together, with their existing resources, no > longer stopped by the communist, Capitalist and sectarian warlords and > slavers who have persisted in oppressing Africa’s progress ? > > LUDICROUS OBAMA GENEROSITY TO FAILED EXECUTIVES: > > Half a million dollars to an executive of a failed corporation is far > too much profit paid out to those who have failed so badly. Remember > that that is a cash ceiling, and does not take into account all the > other perks and fringe benefits. Lesser persons than executives lose > their jobs for one mistake, even if they are not guilty of making it. > Executives seem to be immune from that fact, like demi-gods, paid the > equivalent, in one year, of what can be more than 12 years before tax > wages, for a lesser species, the beaten down and out worker. Why do we > pay failure half a million when it could help 12 people survive > another year ? Axe them. Axe them all. Haven’t they made enough > mistakes, without being required to take any responsibility ? > > Besides that, anything above 100K in salary and base benefits, should > be performance bonus, based on ethics and the financial health of the > corporation. 500K is not enough incentive for most people to change > the way they do business, when it is all being done so very very > wrong. There are many who would jump at the chance of 100K jobs, who > are qualified, ethical, and able to take on the responsibilities. Many > educated, experienced, working people never see half that in a good > year. > > FUNDING SCIENCE THAT BENEFITS THE ECONOMY: > > The BBC says: “The Science Minister, Lord Drayson, has suggested that > more of the UK's research budget should be spent in areas that would > benefit the economy.” > > Since when has it been proven that capitalist economics pursues > research and development as to what is right and good for the future > of humanity, rather than only what is profitable ? We can see by the > extent of what has not been done and what is not being done, for the > sake or right and good, that funding science for what benefits the > economy would be a catastrophic error, worsening an already disastrous > situation. Remember that television, as we know it, would never have > been developed if a Russian, working a day job for an American > corporation, had not spent his nights working on the project, without > pay, in one of their laboratories. After all, the corporation thought > there was no profit to be made in the development of television. > > DUNCAN FORGAN AND INTELLIGENT LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS: > > Duncan Forgan, a researcher in the UK, estimates a probable 31,513 > other worlds where intelligent life could exist, somewhere out in > space. The results of one mathematical estimation, but it does bring > up an interesting point. > > I believe it is certain that there are intelligent extra-terrestrial > species. Some more advanced than our own. What we must never assume is > that superior intelligence makes a species friendly, and passive, > rather than hostile and aggressive in relation to us. We can see how > difficult it is with the same species, and with that species having > interests in common, inclusive of its own survival on its own home > planet. Clearly intelligence and technological progress do not provide > a good prediction in regard to peace. > > The successful, surviving species, will be the the species capable to > winning wars. The trick to the game of survival is to cooperate as a > species on your own planet, overcoming ideological differences quickly > enough, to build vessels capable of inter stellar space travel, and to > develop new weapons directed not against their selves, but instead to > be pointed at the enemy, out there in inter-stellar space. Eventually > you do meet up with that enemy, and then you have to use everything > you learned in all the previous millennia of your species evolution, > to survive the next battle. > > The universe, species survival and continued species evolution, will > ultimately go to the species that is able to put aside their own > sectarian, ideological, differences, to work together cooperatively. > Species that fight themselves, and wreak havoc on themselves will > destroy themselves even before the enemy out there, gets to them, to > finish them off. That ending could come from being found useless, and > backward, as a species, proven unworthy for alliance with others who > are already advancing their lines, and winning against their enemies. > > Robert Morpheal --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
