Emasher Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 I'm afraid now that we've reached the end of the discussion. We've reached the fundamental difference in our ideologies, if I'm reading you post correctly. Humanism is already an ideology, by the way, assuming that's not what you were referring to.
The fish Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 Humanism is already an ideology, by the way, assuming that's not what you were referring to. I resent and contest that, sir...
Raining_again Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 Emasher uses wikipedia. It was effective!! (i had to say it sry )
Nicktendo Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 Wild Nicktendo ran away... Because he and his lecturer were WRONGZZ!!!11
The fish Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) I think you'll find it's a philosophy regarding intrinsic value, namely that of humanity. This is, to many, the same thing as a ideology - the difference is de facto negligible - and I make the distinction only as a massive pedant. Communists shouldn't call themselves Humanists, namely because they aren't humanists, generally. Few have done so much to oppress the human and humanity as communist regimes. Edited September 27, 2010 by The fish
Nicktendo Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 I think you'll find it's a philosophy regarding intrinsic value, namely that of humanity. Wild the fish used counter... Emasher's defence lowered.
The fish Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 So now you have an enormous production base of around 3 billion people. If, and it is a big if, the capitalist system is successful and we see development in these countries which mimics the West, where will the production base shift? Or if it doesn't who will be the producers? Will there be a rich/poor divide...? I would argue there would have to be. Can the world sustain another 3 billion people? The world needs to sit down and have a serious talk about which direction it wants to go in. "Development" in my view, should not be how we measure ourselves as human beings. I believe this 3 billion can be maintained as long as there is work that needs doing. The issue in this day and age is that there are more work-capable adults than jobs, and it's only expanding. Whilst GM/HYV crops and renewable/fusion power should, at least in future, prove sufficient to sustain the population, the losses in jobs will create a problem of previously unseen scale. Few want to let the jobless suffer if there are no jobs, but those with jobs will not want to work if they can live as comfortably without work. As such, those working would require, by some easily recognised measure, a greater quality of life. For those who have trained and studied to get to their qualified positions, fair enough, but unskilled labour will be a whole different kettle of fish - what decided if a person gets a job, and therefore better conditions, when all candidates are essentially equally qualified?
Nicktendo Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 I think you are vastly underestimating the level of production that would be required to sustain a potential 4 billion consumers, let alone the sort of work that would be available. The world cannot continue to just keep growing and growing and growing. It's a vicious cycle, for every new person who reaches the status of middle class consumer, going by current population levels there needs to be around 2 or 3 times that number of people to produce for that person. The world cannot yield that much food, in terms of crops and as food for animals (meat) in order to feed everyone, they are already worrying now about food levels once China begins to mature. We need to counteract this process now, and capitalism is the wrong system to achieve this, not that I'm suggesting another one that can.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 I wish people would stop judging communism by the communist regimes in the east.
mcj metroid Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 I guess we just sit here and watch while the knowledgeable go at it with pitchforks. It IS good reading though, Everytime someone posts something I find myself been swayed to their side
Nicktendo Posted September 27, 2010 Posted September 27, 2010 (edited) I feel as though this discussion is beginning to get a bit bogged down in side issues, so I'm going to add my final thoughts to the original topic question. How do you solve a problem like North Korea? You can't. Without overthrowing the global order and capitalism, it's impossible. North Korea is a totalitarian regime which exists in opposition to and as a direct result of Western imperialism. Without this system it would follow the same path as other Third World countries, where the population would be used as cheap labour to provide the West with consumer goods. The facts of this discussion are, from a Western perspective - that no one, not one single person taking part in this discussion would be want to or even be prepared to spend a life living in a) North Korea or b) as a Third World labourer. So here's my question - why should anyone else? Why should someone put up with an evil regime? Why should someone work in a factory for 60 hours a week with barely a penny to show for it? Because true freedom is a myth. 'Freedom' is decided at conception. An accident of birth dictates whether you are 'free' or not. We can harp on as much as we like about freedom and democracy, justice, responsibility, equality and how much we need it, love it and require it - how proud we are to practice it, but the hard truth is, without un-freedom there comes no freedom. Call me a dreamer, naive or what you will, but I for one, long for a world where your life is not written at birth. Where real equality is not dictated by geographical boundaries, where true equality goes beyond race and religion, to ensure that every single human being is born to enjoy and experience the same opportunities and right to existence as the next one. Whether you label it communism or crazy, the simple fact is the current system will just never, ever allow it. Perhaps it is one of the true shames of our species that we have allowed this practise to continue. Whether it is simply a case of 'survival of the fittest' or something else, you would have thought that conciousness and intelligence could have given us so much more, instead it will eventually be our downfall because no-one will let the status-quo change. Edited September 28, 2010 by Nicktendo
ipaul Posted November 23, 2010 Author Posted November 23, 2010 North Korea fires on South Korea. Fun times.
Emasher Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 I think at this point, its safe to say that just ignoring North Korea is becoming an increasingly worse policy. If they're just going to isolate themselves from the world, fine, but when they start shelling other countries they give up any right they had to sovereignty. The west's current war fatigue will only go so far.
MoogleViper Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 It is possible that (as they say) they were provoked.
Frank Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Saw that on the news today. Pretty interesting. I've also heard them saying that the bombing was to show South Korea/ the world the power of North Korea. Also something related to how the leader of Korea's son is taking over soon. I'm intrigued as to what this will lead to. From what I've heard the US and Russia are fairly worried.
Nicktendo Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 It is possible that (as they say) they were provoked. The BBC said that the South were conducting "Military drills close to the border" prior to the attack... so not really the; "ZOMG INTENERNATIONUL CONDEMNATION OF UNPROVOKED ATTAKZ!11!!1" Headline that most news agencies are going with is pretty unrepresentative. But the real question is, are we surprised?
ipaul Posted November 23, 2010 Author Posted November 23, 2010 The BBC said that the South were conducting "Military drills close to the border" prior to the attack... so not really the; "ZOMG INTENERNATIONUL CONDEMNATION OF UNPROVOKED ATTAKZ!11!!1" Headline that most news agencies are going with is pretty unrepresentative. But the real question is, are we surprised? I haven't read any news coverage all that sensationalist. A military drill surely doesn't qualify the South Koreans to have artillery fired at them?
jayseven Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 North Korea don't have patience, South Korea pushed their luck. North Korea flexed their muscles... and broek TEH LAWR! Let's just home we're not fucked. I say 'we' -- we'll probably be fine. But still... monumental times ahead. Shitting myself.
Debug Mode Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Nothing is going to happen folks. The amount of times I've heard South Korea say "Provoke us again and we will attack". It's all right to be scared, just stop douching around in dangerous territory. There's the pacific ocean TO THE FUCKING EAST with plenty of space for your drills.
Emasher Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Regardless they were firing artillery INTO THEIR OWN WATERS and they let the North Koreans know ahead of time exactly what they were doing, so they can't use the "We thought it was real" excuse. There's absolutely NO excuse for the way North Korea acted in this situation.
jayseven Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 TBH we only know what we're being told. Korea acted just as any country would've done... a few centuries ago. North Korea don't abide by the international rules of 'democracy,' let alone politics. They bear a face of terror, and I'm sure they'll do everything they can to maintain it. Ponder-point; what'd happen if england bombed a fairly deserted part of france? I'll return to my hole and hope it all goes away if I ignore it.
Emasher Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 I see nothing to suggest what we're being told isn't true in this case. The world isn't the same as it was a few centuries ago either. I would expect unless there were serious tensions between England and France beforehand, the whole thing would be covered up as an accident or something like that. This situation is quite a bit different though.
LostOverThere Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 I'm not trying to be whiny, but genuinely curious. I'm really interested in knowing why North Korea would do this? I mean, what do they have to gain from doing so?
ipaul Posted November 24, 2010 Author Posted November 24, 2010 (edited) I'm not trying to be whiny, but genuinely curious. I'm really interested in knowing why North Korea would do this? I mean, what do they have to gain from doing so? International attention and bargaining power basically. Of course they need aid because their population is so woefully underfed, since their economy is crippled and especially so since the bad harvests recently. Edited November 24, 2010 by ipaul
Recommended Posts