She never indicated she was a socialist, in fact she said she was for smaller trade/barter system. Thats still a smaller form of local capitalism for the most part. What she is against I think and I agree with her is corporatism. Which is fucking strangling the earths resources in favor of a very few select sets of hands.
A world without war?
- Thread starter Soulful
- Start date
I would have went with pencil dick over darling, it has more resonance to a man if you insult his manhood. Vs patting a woman on the head, men dont have the struggle to be taken seriously in society, so those words dont sting quite as much.
I can't prove that they're not happy, but I think you'd have a really hard time proving that they're happy as can be, and you made the assertion. I do no think that the west really has to worry about less developed nations (I personally hate the term 3rd world) rising up against them and demanding their fair share. The west has too many resources (often times taken from these countries) and technology that these nations cannot compete with. These nations also are often times rife with crime, unless there is some form of totalitarian regime in charge that controls the population and deals heavy punishment to criminals who go against the systematic crime-structure in place. Crime often times comes from a place of social/economic inequality. That's not to say all crime, but a good portion of it. When people can't get what they need, they'll take it from others. As long as these nations are deprived of their needs and access to their own resources to use for their own purposes, there will be civil wars. As long as there is inequality, like I said, there will be physical conflict. Of course, a regime of complete centralized power could come in to play and suppress its citizens. This might not be a war in the technical terms, but it is armed aggression, either through fear or actual implementation, against the populace.
I do agree though that it does seem like western society is the one with the problem equating more stuff to happiness, and I also agree with your statement that if war became unprofitable, many armed conflicts would cease (I'm thinking the west would stop acting out aggressively towards the rest of the world).
I do feel your assumptions about me and the Scandinavian society (do you mean Sweden?) are loosely based sinse you refer to stereotypes and not facts. You don't know my political viewpoint, and I do get annoyed that I have to be exposed to guilt by association because I critizice a system. I would like the discussion to continue without domination techniques.
I wanted to leave out my political views of this discussion, but maybe I have to say: I am not a socialist. I am an individualist and that is why I oppose to capitalism, socialism and communism, because I feel these large organisations are oppressive, excluding of other cultures and contributes to conflicts.
Great, apology accepted.
I agree that crime arises from desperation and poor socioeconomic conditions, but crime isn't exactly the same as war... even coups and violent revolutions tend to be more contained than wars. If someone is being kept down, then they're usually too weak to do anything about it.
The worst wars have always been between strong global powers/superpowers-- the European Wars, the World Wars... and then of course, the cold war-- a nuclear war between USA versus Russia would have been absolutely cataclysmic in the 80s, but as a comparison the war in Iraq, which is certainly a mismatch, is relatively contained and has a much much lower casualty rate.
I'm actually more likely to believe that if global equality were ever achieved, it would mean more wars, and probably more horrible ones. It would be nice at first because everyone would be so happy, but then a few generations later that act of kindness would be forgotten and people would start asking themselves if they could get more, or why they should settle for what they have... and there would still be corruption and envy and need and desire.
Like it or not, the power imbalance is probably a good thing in terms of limiting the scale of conflict. In fact, the centralized world government that everyone is so terrified of is probably the best shot at bringing total peace to the world... no equality, but peace.
I also think that for the most part, weaker powers do not attack stronger ones unless they're insane... if everyone was the same, then all it would take is a single dispute and then alliances would be forming and you'd have an enormous war with huge amounts of people being killed.
True. It says more about your perception of it.
Agreed, your logic is flawed.
Yes, people are naturally affected by the environments they grow up in. This does not necessarily mean that their perception is wrong. Actually it means nothing. So why did you bring it up?
Glad you agreed that socialism doesen't have to imply collectivity or collective values. Yet you claim the Soviet Union as the prime example of anti-capitalism or regulated capitalism to hold up your point. Your view of socialism is inconsistent. Oh, and I'm not a socialist either.
You are patronizing.
Good points, but I don't think it's capitalism that's the issue, it's unfettered, unregulated capitalism that has been wreaking global havoc and raking in obscene profits for corporations.
Last edited:
At the risk of bringing back up what may have been contentious discussions, I want to follow up on this:
Why is this? Population control?
Why is this? Population control?
I've always had a strong aversion for war and I've always dreamt of a world without it. I guess that's my ideal world. But no matter how strong I hope that that day will come, I still voted for no because I know that war will never stop. Simply because there will forever be a war or conflict in each one of us and this becomes even more problematic on the larger scale. I feel bad every time I'm starting to get the feeling that there is no hope for the human race. That is, the thought that we will not cease in destroying each other. We will always be different individually and culturally and worse, greed never fails to corrupt humanity.
I don't believe that war will ever end, however I also believe that we should never stop trying to make it end, and we should never give up the hope for world peace.
Perhaps a better question is; what can we do to end war?
Perhaps a better question is; what can we do to end war?
Last edited:
I wish it would end but I think that, as long as the human heart can envy what others have or desire to dominate others or control others, war is inevitable.
To be reductionistic for brevity's sake, war stems from desire and we always seem to desire and, because our desires conflict with other's desires, wars will erupt until humans can cease from our own egotism and desires...will this ever happen? I don't know but, until it does, wars will not cease.
To be reductionistic for brevity's sake, war stems from desire and we always seem to desire and, because our desires conflict with other's desires, wars will erupt until humans can cease from our own egotism and desires...will this ever happen? I don't know but, until it does, wars will not cease.
Last edited: