|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 22:09:22 GMT
The US have had an influence in making things worse in other countries allowing them to torture and kill their own people because it has been in the best interest of the US to do so, mainly in the interest in preventing socialism from being successful because its highly damaging to a free market capitalist system and it's quite sickening. They've also managed to do this without going to war with other countries in some cases so I'm saying the West should act as the 'worlds policeman' because as you say look what happens in places like Iraq. I would like to see us in the West at least trying to do the right thing though, the sanctions against South Africa had a helping hand in the demise of apartheid. You don't have to go war with countries in order to try and get them to do the right thing. Edge - this is drivel. And before you ask what part - the whole lot if it. You don't agree with Chomsky then?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 22:12:53 GMT
Thanks for the reply. Like you I have not got the time to reply in depth. I believe that many whom you consider to be on the right also feel passionately about the future of the country, which is why some are arguing to get out of the undemocratic EU and want border controls. Even if any of us do not need support now, our children may need it in the future BUT What I am interested is your opinion on the bit you seem to have missed out...In repetitive of principles hasnt Jesus set the bar so high that a Christian in the West can be accused of hypocrisy, if they "pass by on the other side" in the face of WORLD poverty and exploitation? I don't think we should be passing by on the other side though bigjohn. To me it seems like we have got all the resources we need on this planet so that no-one has to suffer, it's just that the resources are not distributed fairly. I really wish that we were trying to solve world poverty and exploitation and in order to do this we need to everyone (or at least most of the people) to be pulling in the same direction and yet we're not. Collectively, the Waltons own over 50% of the Walmart company, and are worth a combined total of $175 billion (as of January 2015).[2] In 2010, six members of the Walton family had the same net worth as either the bottom 28% or 41% of American families combined (depending on how it is counted). Do the Walton family really need all that money, can anyone say they've truly 'earned' that money through sheer hard work? Chomsky says that we in the West have got a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of the third world, we've deliberately held them back and prevented them from doing things for our own personal benefit. An example of this is the textiles industry when we in charge of India, we knew they had better materials and a better process than ourselves so we prevented them from being able to do it just so the British textiles industry could thrive. It's interesting to read the lengths the USA have gone to just to try and keep socialism/communism from becoming a mainstream idea, the atrocities they've had a hand in all because it is in their best interests. Are you serious? Socialism / Communism was a mainstream idea for the majority of the 20th century. It failed. Not because of nasty America. But because it is a shit system. Suggest you get a flight to the world's last remaining communist country and try your luck there. I'm sure they'd welcome you. Make sure you take some sandwiches with you. You'll need them.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 22:14:10 GMT
Edge - this is drivel. And before you ask what part - the whole lot if it. You don't agree with Chomsky then? No - I find him dull and sanctimonious.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 22:21:30 GMT
I don't think we should be passing by on the other side though bigjohn. To me it seems like we have got all the resources we need on this planet so that no-one has to suffer, it's just that the resources are not distributed fairly. I really wish that we were trying to solve world poverty and exploitation and in order to do this we need to everyone (or at least most of the people) to be pulling in the same direction and yet we're not. Collectively, the Waltons own over 50% of the Walmart company, and are worth a combined total of $175 billion (as of January 2015).[2] In 2010, six members of the Walton family had the same net worth as either the bottom 28% or 41% of American families combined (depending on how it is counted). Do the Walton family really need all that money, can anyone say they've truly 'earned' that money through sheer hard work? Chomsky says that we in the West have got a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of the third world, we've deliberately held them back and prevented them from doing things for our own personal benefit. An example of this is the textiles industry when we in charge of India, we knew they had better materials and a better process than ourselves so we prevented them from being able to do it just so the British textiles industry could thrive. It's interesting to read the lengths the USA have gone to just to try and keep socialism/communism from becoming a mainstream idea, the atrocities they've had a hand in all because it is in their best interests. Are you serious? Socialism / Communism was a mainstream idea for the majority of the 20th century. It failed. Not because of nasty America. But because it is a shit system. Suggest you get a flight to the world's last remaining communist country and try your luck there. I'm sure they'd welcome you. Make sure you take some sandwiches with you. You'll need them. I'll have to disagree with you. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Out of interest can you tell me what you think is so wrong with the system that has just been described. And can you also tell me where this example of the system has been correctly implemented (and failed) in the 20th Century? China however is an awful example and certainly not the type of society I'd like to live in.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 28, 2015 22:25:16 GMT
Yes, All true commentary, But how should it impact upon individuals' consciences and more importantly behaviour. Shouldn't Christians who are not pragmatic follow the principle in the Rich Young Ruler, or risk being the subject if the parable of the Plank and the speck of sawdust? I understand what you're saying, I'm not wealthy and I haven't got anything to give away but if I did I would. A real life example I'll give you is Richard Branson, I'm sure he does a lot of charity and I'm sure he might be a perfectly nice fella but I honestly don't know how he can sleep at night when he's pumping money into a space tourism program that only the elite in our society will be able so squander their money on, when there are people all over the world dying of hunger etc. I can tell you hand on heart that if I had Bransons wealth I would not be wasting it on space tourism I'd be using to make conditions better for the most disadvantaged people on our planet. But we are relatively rich in this country. We seem to justify this by 'talking about the system ' and pointing at others. Jesus also challenged the individual. Again from Christ's own teaching the message of the Rich Young Ruler and the parable of the Plank and speck of sand are conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2015 22:28:48 GMT
Expanding on your US, WWII point. Following that train of thought through, the west should be busy intervening in dozens of countries across the world where despots are busy torturing and killing their people. Wouldn't we also be at war with China, a country with a pretty poor human rights record. Following your principles works to a point, but asking the west, especially the US, to act as the worlds policeman, leads to the fiasco that is Iraq. Sometimes principles shouldn't be forgotten but put to one side whilst reality takes over. Back to John's original post though, I note you seem to have ignored the christian aspect of the question he asked. It's a fair enough point for anyone with principles, and the plank and speck parable in particular. The US have had an influence in making things worse in other countries allowing them to torture and kill their own people because it has been in the best interest of the US to do so, mainly in the interest in preventing socialism from being successful because its highly damaging to a free market capitalist system and it's quite sickening. They've also managed to do this without going to war with other countries in some cases so I'm saying the West should act as the 'worlds policeman' because as you say look what happens in places like Iraq. I would like to see us in the West at least trying to do the right thing though, the sanctions against South Africa had a helping hand in the demise of apartheid. You don't have to go war with countries in order to try and get them to do the right thing. W Have you been to Africa .? Have you seen first hand how poor and even more importantly how poorly run many African countries are ? Have you seen the levels of corruption that these countries operate under . It's all well and good criticising the west and certain individuals for their vast wealth , but for things to improve on a global scale then many regimes need to be toppled before things can ever improve for their impoverished citizens . All the money in the world will not and cannot solve Africa's problems on its own . African countries need to take some responsibility themselves and to be fair some already do . It is however absolute nonsense to think that the western world can miraculously drag the African continent back from the brink from future famine and water shortage. As the population continues to explode and mans impact on the planet becomes more profound we will see greater problems in the future that no one will be able to do anything about . More emphasis needs to be done in terms of education and hopefully reducing family sizes. Within the next 20 years there is not going to be enough food and water to go around . The sooner people wise up to these simple facts the better. Taking advice from well meaning American experts is one thing , but actually turning things around 'on the ground' is another . The redistribution of wealth by the worlds most wealthy 10% is never going to happen . If they gave away half their wealth tomorrow to fund new projects across the globe it would only serve as a temporary plaster across a gaping wound . That gaping wound is called climate change . Already we are starting to see fuel prices start to rise once again and this will again affect the poorest members of society most . This will impact itself in the more arid regions worse than many can imagine . We cannot reverse the current global trends . We cannot reduce mans effect on the planet and we cannot stop human greed from dominating proceedings . It's only a matter of time before we see much bigger droughts and catastrophic crop failures in such places. Sooner or later we will as a nation have to admit defeat and to a certain extent allow nature to take its own course . This is why many American agricultural food producers are currently spending millions of pounds collating information from weather satellites across the globe to assess the impact changes in temperature and weather conditions is having and how best to prepare for the future by increasing food production where possible. The days of 'set aside ' may as a result be coming to an end for us in the UK too. The days of allowing pasture and arable land to stand idle may be over as the deman for food production will rocket. ...... So the moral of the story is ....Go and get an allotment and some seed potatoes ...!
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 22:33:07 GMT
I understand what you're saying, I'm not wealthy and I haven't got anything to give away but if I did I would. A real life example I'll give you is Richard Branson, I'm sure he does a lot of charity and I'm sure he might be a perfectly nice fella but I honestly don't know how he can sleep at night when he's pumping money into a space tourism program that only the elite in our society will be able so squander their money on, when there are people all over the world dying of hunger etc. I can tell you hand on heart that if I had Bransons wealth I would not be wasting it on space tourism I'd be using to make conditions better for the most disadvantaged people on our planet. But we are relatively rich in this country. We seem to justify this by 'talking about the system ' and pointing at others. Jesus also challenged the individual. Again from Christ in it's own teaching the message of the Rich Young Ruler znd the parable of the Plank and speck oof sand are conveniently ignored. We are relatively rich indeed, and yet the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider and wider.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 22:44:16 GMT
Are you serious? Socialism / Communism was a mainstream idea for the majority of the 20th century. It failed. Not because of nasty America. But because it is a shit system. Suggest you get a flight to the world's last remaining communist country and try your luck there. I'm sure they'd welcome you. Make sure you take some sandwiches with you. You'll need them. I'll have to disagree with you. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Out of interest can you tell me what you think is so wrong with the system that has just been described. And can you also tell me where this example of the system has been correctly implemented (and failed) in the 20th Century? China however is an awful example and certainly not the type of society I'd like to live in. What's wrong with it? Simple. It doesn't work. That's why its not possible to tell you somewhere where it has been a success. In fact everywhere that has tried it turned out to be a disaster. Do you really need to be told this?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 22:55:39 GMT
I'll have to disagree with you. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Out of interest can you tell me what you think is so wrong with the system that has just been described. And can you also tell me where this example of the system has been correctly implemented (and failed) in the 20th Century? China however is an awful example and certainly not the type of society I'd like to live in. What's wrong with it? Simple. It doesn't work. That's why its not possible to tell you somewhere where it has been a success. In fact everywhere that has tried it turned out to be a disaster. Do you really need to be told this? Give me a specific example of where the system as described in the section you've quoted me in has been correctly (correctly is important here) implemented and where it has failed.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 22:59:45 GMT
What's wrong with it? Simple. It doesn't work. That's why its not possible to tell you somewhere where it has been a success. In fact everywhere that has tried it turned out to be a disaster. Do you really need to be told this? Give me a specific example of where the system as described in the section you've quoted me in has been correctly (correctly is important here) implemented and where it has failed.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 23:01:57 GMT
Give me a specific example of where the system as described in the section you've quoted me in has been correctly (correctly is important here) implemented and where it has failed. That's not an example
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 28, 2015 23:03:01 GMT
That's not an example It's as close as you're going to get.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 28, 2015 23:06:27 GMT
That's not an example It's as close as you're going to get. I'm only asking for one example, it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with one if it's such a bad system.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on May 28, 2015 23:53:06 GMT
Whether its socialism or capitalism the end result is the same. A few get rich and the rest have to pick up the crumbs.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 29, 2015 0:21:22 GMT
The US have had an influence in making things worse in other countries allowing them to torture and kill their own people because it has been in the best interest of the US to do so, mainly in the interest in preventing socialism from being successful because its highly damaging to a free market capitalist system and it's quite sickening. They've also managed to do this without going to war with other countries in some cases so I'm saying the West should act as the 'worlds policeman' because as you say look what happens in places like Iraq. I would like to see us in the West at least trying to do the right thing though, the sanctions against South Africa had a helping hand in the demise of apartheid. You don't have to go war with countries in order to try and get them to do the right thing. Edge - this is drivel. And before you ask what part - the whole lot if it. I think there is a fair bit of truth in what he says
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 3:12:34 GMT
Edge - this is drivel. And before you ask what part - the whole lot if it. I think there is a fair bit of truth in what he says I also think that Partick Potter is being rather pompous in dismissing Edge's comments as "drivel" Bathman. I agree that Edge can be a bit of an idealist wet flannel at times, but a good deal of what he says is far from drivel.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 29, 2015 4:40:09 GMT
Edge - this is drivel. And before you ask what part - the whole lot if it. I think there is a fair bit of truth in what he says The "drivel" in what Edge said is saying America's actions are driven by the goal of "preventing socialism bring successful"; socialism, as defined by Edge as the public ownership of the means of production etc. That fight was settled some 25 odd years ago. Socialism and Communism are dead. What we are left with today, for better or worse, is a global economy based on free market capitalism with varying degrees of state control. The one exception being of course North Korea. What is left of socialism is... Well, I don't really know. In this country, away from the sound bites all political parties are basically the same. There are no radical differences IMO. Just the odd policy difference. Certainly when compared to the politics of the majority of the 20th century.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 29, 2015 4:50:25 GMT
It's as close as you're going to get. I'm only asking for one example, it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with one if it's such a bad system. I don't understand your question. You are asking me for an example of a socialist state that worked or one that didn't? Well the answer to the first is none. The answer to the second is choice any of the countries that adopted state ownership - say Romania for example. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. You seem unable to distinguish between theory and practice. The problem with socialism (or communism fir that matter) is not the theory. That's why Marx is so popular - he's preaching a utopian system. It's that it doesn't work in practice. For example this piece of Marxist thinking; Worthy certainly. Practical - absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 5:35:35 GMT
I understand what you're saying, I'm not wealthy and I haven't got anything to give away but if I did I would. A real life example I'll give you is Richard Branson, I'm sure he does a lot of charity and I'm sure he might be a perfectly nice fella but I honestly don't know how he can sleep at night when he's pumping money into a space tourism program that only the elite in our society will be able so squander their money on, when there are people all over the world dying of hunger etc. I can tell you hand on heart that if I had Bransons wealth I would not be wasting it on space tourism I'd be using to make conditions better for the most disadvantaged people on our planet. But we are relatively rich in this country. We seem to justify this by 'talking about the system ' and pointing at others. Jesus also challenged the individual. Again from Christisas own teaching the message of the Rich Young Ruler and the parable of the Plank and speck of sand are conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 5:42:31 GMT
But we are relatively rich in this country. We seem to justify this by 'talking about the system ' and pointing at others. Jesus also challenged the individual. Again from Christisas own teaching the message of the Rich Young Ruler and the parable of the Plank and speck of sand are conveniently ignored. Edge Again you are commenting on the situation, about the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an easy and obvious thing to do, but avoiding my question ...What should the response PERSONALLY of rich Christians to those parables.What would Jesus say today to INDIVIDUAL Christians about their wealth?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 5:55:05 GMT
Edge
Do you think that Chomsky is correct in the clip below from the Guardian?
‘Gay cake’ ruling sets dangerous precedent
Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, outside court in Northern Ireland as a judge ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against him by refusing to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage
Thursday 21 May 2015 19.13 BST Last modified on Friday 22 May 2015 00.00 BST
In the light of the Belfast ruling (Christian bakers lose ‘gay cake’ court case, 20 May), ask which of the following you would also be in favour of: 1) A gay bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice Old Testament or Qur’an verses against homosexuality on to a cake intended for a conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim event; 2) A Jewish bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice antisemitic imprecations on to a cake for a neonazi/radical traditionalist Catholic/Islamist event; 3) A Palestinian bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice a celebration of the anniversary of the state of Israel on to a cake for a Zionist organisation.
Chomsky noted that “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” – but this applies no less to freedoms of belief and conscience. The gay couple in question were always free to express their beliefs: they could have sought out a baker sympathetic to their views to ice their cake, or iced it themselves. Instead, they used the law to force a person to express views he finds abhorrent. This issue has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with freedom of belief, conscience and expression – it being an implacable attack on these latter. It sets a dreadful precedent. The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 29, 2015 6:38:03 GMT
I think there is a fair bit of truth in what he says The one exception being of course North Korea. Venezuela, Cuba & China...
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 29, 2015 6:45:23 GMT
Edge Again you are commenting on the situation, about the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an easy and obvious thing to do, but avoiding my question ...What should the response PERSONALLY of rich Christians to those parables.What would Jesus say today to INDIVIDUAL Christians about their wealth? He'd tell them they need to give it up and give it to the poor wouldn't he.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 6:53:06 GMT
Edge Again you are commenting on the situation, about the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an easy and obvious thing to do, but avoiding my question ...What should the response PERSONALLY of rich Christians to those parables.What would Jesus say today to INDIVIDUAL Christians about their wealth? He'd tell them they need to give it up and give it to the poor wouldn't he. But they don't, perhaps too difficult of a principle to live up to?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 29, 2015 7:02:23 GMT
I'm only asking for one example, it shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with one if it's such a bad system. I don't understand your question. You are asking me for an example of a socialist state that worked or one that didn't? Well the answer to the first is none. The answer to the second is choice any of the countries that adopted state ownership - say Romania for example. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. You seem unable to distinguish between theory and practice. The problem with socialism (or communism fir that matter) is not the theory. That's why Marx is so popular - he's preaching a utopian system. It's that it doesn't work in practice. For example this piece of Marxist thinking; Worthy certainly. Practical - absolutely not. What I'm saying is you can certainly give examples of where socialism and communism hasn't worked, but I'd argue it's because it either wasn't carried out correctly or there were other factors like influence from the US. Chomsky makes a very compelling case and I'd love to see you debate him on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 29, 2015 7:03:20 GMT
He'd tell them they need to give it up and give it to the poor wouldn't he. But they don't, perhaps too difficult of an principle to live up to? I think some would, some wouldn't it depends on the type of person you are.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 7:26:36 GMT
Some some Christians are disregarding the principle, because it is too difficult(since " Jesus" is still here as part of the Trinity). Some would rather talk the talk than to apply the principles to themselves personally. A bit like the accusation made to champagne socialists, or the leaders of virtually every state that calls itself 'socialist' ( Do as I say, not as I do). Great principles but not many genuinely actively follow them. The millionaire. Tony Blair would call himself a Roman Catholic socialist and could justify it if necessary, and what right have other Christians to judge ( leave that to God). Even Tony Benn was a millionaire.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 29, 2015 7:40:58 GMT
I don't understand your question. You are asking me for an example of a socialist state that worked or one that didn't? Well the answer to the first is none. The answer to the second is choice any of the countries that adopted state ownership - say Romania for example. I think I'm going to give up on this debate. You seem unable to distinguish between theory and practice. The problem with socialism (or communism fir that matter) is not the theory. That's why Marx is so popular - he's preaching a utopian system. It's that it doesn't work in practice. For example this piece of Marxist thinking; Worthy certainly. Practical - absolutely not. What I'm saying is you can certainly give examples of where socialism and communism hasn't worked, but I'd argue it's because it either wasn't carried out correctly or there were other factors like influence from the US. Chomsky makes a very compelling case and I'd love to see you debate him on this topic. I get you - but here's the rub. Can you give an example of where socialism / communism has worked. It's been tried in plenty of places. The answer is no. So ask your self why that is the case. The answer is it doesn't work. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm not an uncritical fan of American capitalism. In many ways I detest it; there are huge issues. But, its underlying principles make sense which is why it has survived where socialism has died. It needs people to figure out how best to make it work for everyone. What that is is another discussion - but I'd put true free trade at the top of the list. And serious jail time for financial corruption second. I've read quite a bit of Chmosky. Like I said he tires me out.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 29, 2015 7:47:12 GMT
The one exception being of course North Korea. Venezuela, Cuba & China... Yeah I was thinking about Venezuela and Cuba as well. The latter's socialism was underpinned by Soviet cash for a long time then latterly by Venezuela oil money. It looks like it is now gradually moving to capitalism. Communist Cuba in large part being a product of America's misguided "reds in the bed" foreign policy. As I said in a previous post America has many sins to its name - particularly in regards relationships with its near neighbours in the Americas. Who knows where Venezuela will end up. In trouble if it doesn't make an accommodation with the West I suspect. China is of course discovering it's own version of state controlled capitalism! All very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 29, 2015 7:50:05 GMT
Some some Christians are disregarding the principle, because it is too difficult(since " Jesus" is still here as part of the Trinity). Some would rather talk the talk than to apply the principles to themselves personally. A bit like the accusation made to champagne socialists, or the leaders of virtually every state that calls itself 'socialist' ( Do as I say, not as I do). Great principles but not many genuinely actively follow them. The millionaire. Tony Blair would call himself a Roman Catholic socialist and could justify it if necessary, and what right have other Christians to judge ( leave that to God). Even Tony Benn was a millionaire. I come to a very different conclusion to you. I think the parable Jesus and the young rich man highlights the absurdity of how much man values material possessions, it seems quite strange to me that if he or anyone were a true beleiver in God (which I'm not)that they would not be willing to give up their possessions in order to spend an eternity in Heaven.
|
|