Political Sciences

[Vladimir]

Id be very interested to find your opinions on teh various political sciences

[ed84c]

and what would those be?

[Giacomo525]

Political science is figuring out why the heck are people so uninformed about politics, which in turn is nothing more than war without that many people dying.

[Vladimir]

No political sciences are the various ways in which various governments coexsist inntereact their formation and such

[ed84c]

No political sciences are the various ways in which various governments coexsist inntereact their formation and such

 

Lolly Roffles!, 'coexist'

[Vladimir]

That part may have been a major exaggeration especially among the different poiltical reasoning, however i will not sit here and teach you the prescious little that i understand of other political sciences other than the one i support. That is what i asked the forums about

[Ophiolite]

Political Science currently suffers, and will continue to suffer for sometime, from the complexity of its subject matter: human behaviour in dynamic groups. This renders prediction impossible, and reduces theories to little better than opinions.

[ed84c]

No i wasnt making a point, it was a mere joke, Vlad.

 

However i would be interested in the Political Science that you 'support'

[Vladimir]

That should only make it more interesting.

I am a comunist, living in a capitalist country.

[ed84c]

hence the name., lol my avitar is me in a CCCP jacket, wearing 2 russian medals purchased of ebay and a soviet navy military hat.

 

But thats a mere interest.

 

So communism, do you think it could ever work?, and put your self in the position of stalin, would you still adhere to your idealism even if you are one of the most powerful men on the planet?

[Vladimir]

Stalin should never have ever have gotten into power. He did so against the direct wishes of Vladimir Ulanyov first premier of Russia (lenin)

Comunism is the step forward from capitilism. It is capitalism in its most advanced forms. The reason taht it ddnt quite work out as it could have done in the motherland is because comunism is meant to be placed after the stability of the industrial age. Lenin in his glory felt that the uniqueness of the Russian people could allow them to bypass this. When Stalin won, and teh Union of the Soviets was created, that was when Russia left a path that would have ensured that it would have remained under excellent peace talks with the United States and the equal of said country

[ed84c]

That wasnt quite my question, i think you read too much into it.

 

Im just asking whether you would stand by your idealisms enough to act like a normal part of the population, even if you were the most powerful man on the planet, and could have anything ordered you want.

[Ophiolite]

Comunism is the step forward from capitilism. It is capitalism in its most advanced forms.

Vladimir you should know better. Socialism is the first step after capitalism (CCCP after all) . Then comes communism. No country (N.Korea???????) has ever made that step.

[Giacomo525]

Though Communism in theory is a nice solvant, it doesn't diminish the fact that all political science theories are mere theories when compared to fact. Capitalist? Ha! Communist? Ha! Elections? Ha!

 

I think, though, that you're moving into economic sciences, a very different, though related, branch than political sciences.

[ed84c]

Vladimir you should know better. Socialism is the first step after capitalism (CCCP after all) . Then comes communism. No country (N.Korea???????) has ever made that step.

 

socialism is the restriction of prosperity.

[Ophiolite]

Socialism is the formal acknowledgement and application of group responsibilities.

[Drug addict]

socialism is the restriction of prosperity.

 

here's a comparison of economic indicators between the UK and Sweden with a commentary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1387530,00.html

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Vladimir you should know better. Socialism is the first step after capitalism (CCCP after all) . Then comes communism. No country (N.Korea???????) has ever made that step.

Socialism is a belief that all people sould be equal. Comunism is is the foundation for the belief that all people believe and act in the prosperity of the state.

I should know, i lived in the U.S.S.R for 40 years.

PLease take those medals off! it is an offence to the millions that died

[ed84c]

here's a comparison of economic indicators between the UK and Sweden with a commentary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0' date='5673,1387530,00.html[/quote']

 

You cannot compare two completely different countries like that.

 

And anyway it was in the guardian

[Ophiolite]

Socialism is a belief that all people sould be equal. Comunism is is the foundation for the belief that all people believe and act in the prosperity of the state.

That does not square with my reading of Karl Marx' date=' or of Engels.

I should know, i lived in the U.S.S.R for 40 years.

I have been wearing trousers for over fifty years, but I am not an expert on fabric technology.

PLease take those medals off! it is an offence to the millions that died

What medals? Do you mean ed84c? I agree, but please overlook it. He is young.

[YT2095]

Soyuz nerushimi respublik svobodnik, splotila nevyeki velikaya Russ

 

redakterobot: Vladimir, tozhe ty govoresh ochin horosho po-Angliski )

[Drug addict]

You cannot compare two completely different countries like that.

 

Your argument in post 15 was 'socialism is the restriction of prosperity'. To evaluate this claim, you need to compare markers of prosperity, such as GDP, life expectancy, etc., from capitalist and socialist countries, so why not compare Sweden and the UK? Which countries would you compare?

 

Some figures from the article:

GDP per capita in 2002:

- UK: $26' date='240

- Sweden $ 27, 310

Curent accounts:

- UK deficit of $26 billion

- Sweden surplus of $10 billion

Life expectancy:

- UK 29th in world

- Sweden 3rd in world

Population below absolute poverty line for developed nations ($11/day)

- UK 15.7%

- Sweden 6.3%[/quote']

and so it goes on.

 

The sources of the data for the article can be found at http://www.monbiot.com

 

And anyway it was in the [i'] guardian [/i]

 

The Guardian is a left of centre newspaper,yes, and it certainly takes a progressive stance on many issues, but the source for a lot of the data in that article was from the Economist, a publication that supports neoliberalsim and argues that the more freedom you give the rich the better the poor will be and that "punitive taxes" condem a country's people to remain poor.

 

Yet this arguement is undermined by their own statistics. So can you tell me how socialism restricts prosperity?

[ed84c]

i was quoting a poster.

 

But the point i was making really is related to people working and not working. I would rather not do any work at school, or in a place of work, but i do and i hope to be rewarded, in a socialist, or more to the point communist society the people who do no work would only earn slightly less than me, apposed to a lot.

 

I find it somwhat ironic that people claim socialism is 'fair'?, well those are my thoughts anyway, and i know probably at lot less about it than you, so your probably in a better position in this discussion.

[Ophiolite]

I can assure you ed that in a capitalist society a substantial number of individuals advance to high paid positions through guile, dishonesty, corruption, blackmail, nepotism and the like, without making significant contributions to anyone or anything, apart from their own welfare. Curiously, the same thing happens in socialist countries. You don't suppose it might be related to human nature do you?

[budullewraagh]

ah, but the socialist countries are hardly socialist when such actions occur