How to develope the 3rd world

[kirovman]

Maybe i'm not a very good example, but I sure as hell wouldn't elect an incompetent boss who could bring down the company. I'd vote in somebody with good business skills, because a successful company would obviously benefit me, the employee.

But how do you know he has all the necessary skills? Did you interview him?

Or did his election campaigners tell you about all the wonderful things he's going to do?

 

[$kelet0r]

Thats why you need to be qualified to stand.

what you seem to be driving at is the philosophical concept so beloved of naive college students of meritocracy
which a 10 year old can see can never work

 

[Solaris]

Getting into specifics here...

Theres lots of ways to do it, need a degree, in management for example to stand in a level 2 postion in a level 3 production organsiation.

But lets 'chunk up' why arn't you convinced?

 

[gick]

But how do you know he has all the necessary skills? Did you interview him?

Or did his election campaigners tell you about all the wonderful things he's going to do?

Meh, you're probably right.

 

[kirovman]

Getting into specifics here...

Theres lots of ways to do it, need a degree, in management for example to stand in a level 2 postion in a level 3 production organsiation.

But lets 'chunk up' why arn't you convinced?

Because of the corruption involved, and people are easily influenced by superficial things.

So instead of getting every worker to stand in an election, why doesn't the company just pick the one who is best qualified for the job?
When someone is hired, there is a kind of election anyway - a discussion between department heads and a weighing up of their skills. Popularity will come into it a little, but not so much like with everyone voting. I doubt people would know if someone was corrupt or not anyway. You'd get rumours "Argh, he's corrupt" floating around and it would be a mess.

 

[Solaris]

what you seem to be driving at is the philosophical concept so beloved of naive college students of meritocracy
which a 10 year old can see can never work

Grr this ALWAYS happens when I debate this, I put in a page of righting and people just go oh its stupid itl never work, or else they get into stupid specifics like:

well what about street cleaners? Under communism they wouldnt be able to use the C45 Street Broom becuase its imported from America, thus communism will fail.

Give me a proper argument dammit!

 

[$kelet0r]

you do know what meritocracy is do you 0.o

 

[Solaris]

Yes, your point?

 

[$kelet0r]

your view of communism (which differs from that of marx) is that leadership in a communist society is derived from the merits of that person relative to his/her peers
however, the immediate problem is that no one person in any society deserves jack shit - they must earn it and even then what do their achievements mean?
nothing. a person's past is not a template for the future
and furthermore on what basis are some merits preferred over others
it doesnt make sense
when for example you go for an interview for a job the selection process is subjective not objective - there is no other way of doing it
the successful candidate is chosen not because his merits are superior to another but because of the way he sold himself, projected his personality and qualities

and you never addressed by earlier point

under communism the well-being of the people would deteriorate because of diminishing marginal returns in a stagnant system
there is no innovation or progress in an equal society thus the social depreciation would internally destroy a communist nation eventually

it is blind utopian idealism to say that communism would work because above all it is a rigid model whatever way you look at it that is goes against human nature by advocating the community over the self interest

 

[Solaris]

nothing. a person's past is not a template for the future

I disagree, what more do you have to judge on someone than there previous actions?

under communism the well-being of the people would deteriorate because of diminishing marginal returns in a stagnant system
there is no innovation or progress in an equal society thus the social depreciation would internally destroy a communist nation eventually

Whats this based on? We'd still have scientists, researchers, ect.
In a closed system, why do you need advancement?

 

[ComradeBadger]

Becuase without advancement society fails.

Also, with your voucher system.. overseas trade would be very difficult, since you purposely created inflation in your own country..

 

[Solaris]

Thats why it needs to be an international movement.

 

[$kelet0r]

if its international it just becomes a larger stagnant system - no progress, no survival of the fittest, no need for competition = an artificial construct that defies both human nature and good sense
a society that does not progress fails ultimately - rome, egypt china all reached a pinnacle of advancement and then stopped, their inherent social immobility and rigid political structure destroyed them
communism is even more prone to the law of diminishing marginal returns because it punishes innovation by advocating society over the individual and by sharing any rewards equally
The USSR was a true communist nation economically - less so politically because of the obvious problems of containing human ambition and individual ability - and it failed because communism makes no allowances for depreciation - no progress means that the same depreciation curve applies constantly

 

[Last One In]

Imo i hate the thought of people "developing" the whole world with a passion.
I hate anyone who thinks we should try and cram as many humans on this planet "because we have a right to reproduce therefore we should"
Generally developing a country means upping "quality of life" (being compfortable) lowering death rate etc, this is usually through higher technology to beat "natural problems"

I'd rather be dead than living on a planet covered in human pods, everyone living the same "easy life" with no purpose.

Developing 3rd world countries means they will all get a large house, a car, a perfect family with no illness......it would be awful.
Life is no fun without a struggle.

Why don't you move to a third world country and see how you like it, then you can preach about how shitty a comfortable life is.

 

[CptStern]

Why don't you move to a third world country and see how you like it, then you can preach about how shitty a comfortable life is.

actually that'd be a good idea ..Short recoil could do them a great service ...like plow miles of farmland in minutes flat, dig canals for new river systems to deliver much needed water, bore through solid moutain with nothing more than a pen knife to create the third world's very first rapid transit system ..he'd be a regular Paul Bunyan carving the land up with nothing more than his bare hands and an iron will tempered by the blazing heat of a thousand suns ...it'd be a golden era to be sure

 

[GhostBoi]

It sickens me to think that people think that the whole world can be the great crap-producing consumerists we are in America and other developed nations. The fact is not even the parts that are already developed will be able to be sustained much longer with all the massive debt, resource depletion, deforestication, climate change. Don't get me wrong I love being a crap-producing comsumer, but to think that we can go on this way for another generation, let alone generations really ticks me off.

 

[short recoil]

You think your life has a purpose?

No but at least i am not going to waste it like most.

you think you have it tough?

No, i have it extremely easy in comparison to some people around the world

grow up kid, there's a WHOLE world outside your bedroom, you're not special.

That's exactly why we shouldn't desperatley try to develop every single country, otherwise the world would be bedrooms.....
There's no point living if you are just going to have everything delivered to your door, not have to worry about illness, not have to worry about someone attacking you.......your life would be exactly as you expected, unless the film is good there is no point in watching it again...

You're an ignorant piece of trash that deserves a swift kick in the teeth.

I'm not the ignorant one, "developing the world" without control will lead to serious problems.
And yes i deserve a kick in the teeth, since i've never had one...you're welcome to try.

 

[Solaris]

What do you mean?

You dont have to worry about dying of maleria, aids(well....), starvation ect that these people do!

 

[GhostBoi]

What do you mean?

You dont have to worry about dying of maleria, aids(well....), starvation ect that these people do!

He means that he realizes that we have it better here, but if everyone had this standard of living the world would be in much more serious trouble than it is now, as I said climate change, resource depletion, deforestification, dessertification, debt, etc....

 

[French Ninja]

Tera-form Mars ftw.

And cut down on our wasteful stuff, its not all that hard, really. Make people carry around a fork, spoon, knife to eat with. Viola, no more plastic shit.

Terra forming Mars, in the methods I know, would take hundreds of years.
It's easier to search for a planet/moon that already has an atmosphere and send a colony ship there.

 

[15357]

you scare me more every day - south korea even today after decades of growth is still very undemocratic

Since growth and democracy aren't the same thing?


I mean, if it wasn't for the military rule of the 60s and 70s, we would be poorer than most countries in Africa. We have to eat and have a roof above our heads. Who cares about democracy when you're starving?

 

[Gunner]

And yes i deserve a kick in the teeth

Your logic is flawless. No, really. Shut up and go read a book you tool.

 

[kirovman]

Who cares about democracy when you're starving?

tru.dat

 

[Mr Stabby]

there is alot of corrupt regimes, we need to dispose of first, then we need trade, let the people help themselves thorugh trade, make it illegal for companies to buy resources at very cutdown prices.

 

[jondy]

And yes i deserve a kick in the teeth, since i've never had one...you're welcome to try.

Shorty, mate, I don't care if you're the toughest mother****er in the world, you're still a horribly naive, arrogant person.

 

[Solaris]

Since growth and democracy aren't the same thing?


I mean, if it wasn't for the military rule of the 60s and 70s, we would be poorer than most countries in Africa. We have to eat and have a roof above our heads. Who cares about democracy when you're starving?

Thats why the peasantry need to revolt execute the upperclasses and the berousgois, distribute the wealth take over all pirvate buisness's, seize the diamond mines and your laughin'.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Solaris, Communism doesn't work for the simple reason that people are flawed. EVERYBODY has to have the desire to be equal. And most humans want to be better than everyone else. If money is abolished, people will find other ways to get power. Eventually, someone corrupt would get voted in, and he's go in with his group of mates, and they'd start oppressing people. People will vote him down - but there'll be no military to move him, because he's convinced the leaders to support HIM. And then he's gone and turned it into a totalitarian regime.

Humans are flawed, therefore we're always going to live in an unbalanced society.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

Thats why the peasantry need to revolt execute the upperclasses and the berousgois, distribute the wealth take over all pirvate buisness's, seize the diamond mines and your laughin'.

And from the working class will emerge the strongest of them, he will establish a dictatorship, because of the power lust. You can't take away the lust for power in human nature.

You can limit it's effects though. Ratherthan being violent and establishing enemies (which you are doing by creating a revolution), you can cooperate, everyone will prosper. Obviously it's not going to be equal, but nothing ever will be equal. I believe the society that European countries are now are pretty much the closest to being equal we will ever be, apart from a society where all are as equally poor.

 

[jverne]

Thats why the peasantry need to revolt execute the upperclasses and the berousgois, distribute the wealth take over all pirvate buisness's, seize the diamond mines and your laughin'.

emm...is by any chanse clarky (from these forums) your brother or something!?
dude...you think you are the only one who came up with this idea? NOOOOO there were probably millions before you...and guess what no one really succeded!

your just a stereotipical 15-18 year old middle class boy who is in high school or university (whatever) that heared some basic stuff about marksism in some documentary, by some older brother or form your history teacher, and you are trying to make the world a better place! been here, done that!

hey kid...listen...homo sapiens sapiens evolved around 10 000 BC since then there isnt a single record of a community (with more than 20 people) that lived in harmony with everyone and everything! 12 freaking thousand years have passed since then and maybe there were 3 attempts to create something like you propose (a better world)! they all failed!!!! dude you're trying to completly revise 4 500 000 000 years of evolution and 2 000 000 years of human evolution in what!? 1 year!!?!?

you'll soon grow up and realize the truth...but this only shows that you think, which is good by the way!

BTW...sorry for trying to persuade you in thinking my way...it seems that theres still some you in me! the truth is that i really don't give a shit about your idea...in the end we'll all end up as worm food...sooner or later!

 

[ComradeBadger]

Marx thought he'd found the laws of History.

Heh.

 

[Solaris]

Oh Hostile.

Ok.

Kirkovman: Communism doesn't make anyone equal, people can still have different house's, they could choose to have a nicer setee instead of a car, pink walls instead of green ect. Its about equality of choice, so everyone has the same freedom to live how they want, unlike now when being poor kind of stops you from doing alot of fun things.

Alot of people have these fears about communism turning into a dictatorship, why may I ask is it more vulnerable to it than our current 'democracy', they both work under the pretence that you vote for your leader, just in communism you vote for alot more things, instead of just having one vote every 4 years, you have a say in everything that effects you.

jverne: No hes not my brother, and I never claimed to have invented the concept of communism. Wow I like how you try to make it look like your older than me, so as to seem more right, the hey kid bit would have worked well.

hey kid...listen...homo sapiens sapiens evolved around 10 000 BC since then there isnt a single record of a community (with more than 20 people) that lived in harmony with everyone and everything!

I'm not saying that will ever happen.

Your only argument is that its failed 3 times? It needs to be an international movement, so all the other countries can keep an eye on the other ones, so no dictators take power. The soviet union didnt have the nessacary institutions, and was founded in a national crisis, the foundations wern't there, although a couragous movement, it was bound to fail.

that heared some basic stuff about marksism in some documentary,

The ragged trousered philanthropist got me into it, then 'The collected works of karl marx'(I admit I didnt read alot of it, its kinda heavy), and The Socialist workerx200.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Heh.

You do know that Karl Marx wasn't a poltical idealogist. He was a man analysing the explosion in growth of industry of the industrial revolution. He saw communism as a utopia that would come into being once capitalism had exhausted itself. He thought he'd discovered the inevitable laws of History.

He is also to have supposedly said on his death bed
'I can honestly say I am not a Marxist'


My own problem with Marxism is it's ridiculous impact on Historiography.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Stop allowing multinationals to exploit them.

 

[Cole]

*Looks at angry lawyers post*
*Stands up*
*Claps*

 

[Solaris]

Heh.

You do know that Karl Marx wasn't a poltical idealogist. He was a man analysing the explosion in growth of industry of the industrial revolution. He saw communism as a utopia that would come into being once capitalism had exhausted itself. He thought he'd discovered the inevitable laws of History.

He is also to have supposedly said on his death bed
'I can honestly say I am not a Marxist'


My own problem with Marxism is it's ridiculous impact on Historiography.

I belive he said "If that is what a marxist is, then I am not a Marxist".