Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 20+
Slovakia
Same as Hayek and Keynes.
Now I am not sure what you want to point out? That I should not have opinion and discus it in this thread because I might be wrong? Well with the say logic I can tell you that you might be equally wrong that I am wrong.
Go figure.
Joined Jul 2009
8,895 Posts | 15+
Bulgaria
Actually if you check it out, people who lived in the societies of hunters and gatherers before farming and animal husbandry, didn't lived as bad as one might think. They have many positives, some historians actually suggest that hunter-gatherer societies were a lot more egalitarian then when agriculture and animal husbandry came, it seems that people from hunter-gatherer societies were also healthier, and had more free time (less work) to be involved with music, drawing, inventing, etc.
Maybe be a bit more humble and a bit more curious. Ask questions, don't make pronouncements.
You'd be surprised how much there is to learn in any given subject, especially a complex, large scale one like this.
Joined Aug 2009
11,736 Posts | 5,403+
Athens, Greece
Come one Antonina, you know better than this. There are far richer countries than the Scandinavian ones, with far more natural wealth and resources, that waste their potential and are downright miserable and poor (except for a privileged minority). The defining difference is the quality of the state and whose interests it serves. If it serves the interests of a limited elite, or of foreigners (as in colonial regimes), it only pillages the wealth of a nation and its possibilities. If it is corrupt, bureaucratic and dysfunctional (the case of Greece), it undermines the very foundations of the economy.
The size of the population is a factor, but not necessarily a negative one. Agreed, if we're talking about natural wealth, the less people the more for each. However, wealth is not only about a stroke of luck, but in most cases it can be created. And to do this, first of all, you need a healthy state. That is why Scandinavian countries are rich and happy, and not because they have abundant natural resources. Except for Norway and its oil, what cash was lying around for Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark to pick?
As for the "protestant work ethic", it is an absolute myth. Those countries have the least work-hours per citizen, and would seem lazy when compared to Greeks or Poles. But what matter is not how much you toil and sweat, but what you produce, how valuable and desirable it is, and how easily (and thus less costly) it is produced. Heavily mechanised and modernised production is one secret of successful economies; the other is a supportive, healthy state, that can guarantee economic growth AND social cohesion and peace.
All in all, the Scandinavian model is attainable, there's nothing uniquely identifying it with small populations or blonde protestants (that was a joke, not sarcasm
). Once you have a functional state, dedicated to its people and run by them, a 'more democratic' democracy, to put it more bluntly, the most difficult part toward prosperity would be completed. And my guess is that the citizens of such a country would create a social state for themselves, and perhaps keep a few services and resources for themselves.
My reference to these countries was regarding their strong social protection net.
Joined Aug 2009
11,736 Posts | 5,403+
Athens, Greece
We've discussed this before. The natural progress of mankind is to head where Europe was, not the other way around. New capitalist economies pass through the stages that Europe underwent - from 19th century's wild Capitalism, to the relative socialist one of the 20th century. Not that there's anything special about Europe, it's just that it is the older industrial continent, and where all kinds of socio-economic experiments and breakthroughs took place.
Globalisation of Capital is of course trying to hard-wire historical procession, by using the developing countries to blackmail us all into being propelled back to a Dickensian past, but those responsible are ignorant of history or simply too arrogant or greedy to learn from it. The French and Russian Revolutions did not just 'happen' as a whim of history, nor was Marxism the fantasy of a senile old man. They were the inevitable answers to a system devoured by its excesses; they will happen again, should the critical point be reached. It took many many years, lots of wars, revolutions, social struggles, blood, compromise and will, for Europe to reach its prosperity, peace and social calmness. To annul all of these is a dangerous folly.
No, my friend. Perhaps the 'European model' will be abandoned for a while, after all. But it will emerge again after some years, perhaps not even in Europe in the first place. History tends to repeat itself and the forces of human society and nature will find their way to re-stablish themselves. A couple of generations or more may be lost, a quick snatch by a few will be made, and then history will categorise this anomaly as a sad parenthesis.
Joined Mar 2012
18,030 Posts | 10+
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
I agree with you that during that time, these people who lived as hunter-gatherer were relatively healthier than someone who frequently eats fastfood, drinks soda and beer and is into a couch-potato lifestyle. However, having engaged in such way of life as you mentioned was in accordance with the demands of the society that was to survive in contrast to the freedom and liberty that this world order grants in keeping with solitary and social nature of humanity. Not all people are into group life, there are those who want to be alone, and that right to enjoy thyself should not be interfered, which I dislike about communism or socialism because of the element of control of peoples lives. Those who want to be in a particular group or organization should not be curtailed with their rights to choose which community they want to be with, not that of communist party only, there are those who like also to join Christmas party, birthday party, other political parties, demonic rituals which are not violation of the laws like drinking of the blood of farm animals and wearing of their horns, and calling them Children of Beelzebub, New Age or Old Age, Born Again Christians or Born to be Alive where the Messiah of Joy belong, and they're organizations that are prohibited when the religious freedom and right to self organization are denied to the people.
Those prohibitions are not in keeping with human nature because every person has an inherent right to exercise ones civil liberties because they're called as human rights. Life of people is priceless, thus, it is imperative that it must be duly taken care of by not harming it or undergoing the experience of melancholy and unimaginable self pity because of deprivation of those rights. Communism or socialism is going to interfere with the exercise of them by way of deprivation, and that must fail because it is not in accordance with human nature together with the environment that it thrives. Survival is not enough as measure of form of existence in this world by every person, it should be in the state of thriving with tranquility and freedom. In short peace, love and rock 'n roll
Joined Mar 2012
18,030 Posts | 10+
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
I agree with you, Solidaire, the purpose of the government is very important in running a productive and progressive state. You are correct about pointing out the economic failures of former colonial nations, like my country for that mater because there are privilege citizens in countries like that and corruption starts there, so the few and the foreigners are protected because of the economic and political powers as citizens of rich and powerful nations. There goes the actual inequality between them, but the good thing about democracy is there is equality of them before the eyes of the law. I love that fiction of law. A fiction of life that has certain truths over it. The supremacy of the reality sets in when the truth is the intention under the light of freedom of speech.
Joined Apr 2010
16,754 Posts | 20+
Slovakia
May be you can tell your own opinion and put your arguments on the table
I am certainly willing to learn 
Joined Apr 2012
287 Posts | 1+
I'm just wondering why do people call China, Soviet Union, Vietnam and other countries that believes in Communist beliefs Communist countries.True Communism has never been achieved so far in human history.
Because these countries were led by people who called themselves communist and in China, SU and Vietnam the state party itself is called communist party. these countries were totally controlled by self-described communists, thats why the countries under their repressions were/are also called communist.
Joined Jul 2012
666 Posts | 1+
That's true, Communism was never reached, it's not better for head leaders, so If reaching Communism means less convenience for them, I see no reward as they didn't seem to care for the mass of working people. They had their own interests.
Joined Jul 2009
8,895 Posts | 15+
Bulgaria
I agree with you that during that time, these people who lived as hunter-gatherer were relatively healthier than someone who frequently eats fastfood, drinks soda and beer and is into a couch-potato lifestyle. However, having engaged in such way of life as you mentioned was in accordance with the demands of the society that was to survive in contrast to the freedom and liberty that this world order grants in keeping with solitary and social nature of humanity. Not all people are into group life, there are those who want to be alone, and that right to enjoy thyself should not be interfered, which I dislike about communism or socialism because of the element of control of peoples lives. Those who want to be in a particular group or organization should not be curtailed with their rights to choose which community they want to be with, not that of communist party only, there are those who like also to join Christmas party, birthday party, other political parties, demonic rituals which are not violation of the laws like drinking of the blood of farm animals and wearing of their horns, and calling them Children of Beelzebub, New Age or Old Age, Born Again Christians or Born to be Alive where the Messiah of Joy belong, and they're organizations that are prohibited when the religious freedom and right to self organization are denied to the people.
Those prohibitions are not in keeping with human nature because every person has an inherent right to exercise ones civil liberties because they're called as human rights. Life of people is priceless, thus, it is imperative that it must be duly taken care of by not harming it or undergoing the experience of melancholy and unimaginable self pity because of deprivation of those rights. Communism or socialism is going to interfere with the exercise of them by way of deprivation, and that must fail because it is not in accordance with human nature together with the environment that it thrives. Survival is not enough as measure of form of existence in this world by every person, it should be in the state of thriving with tranquility and freedom. In short peace, love and rock 'n roll
I believe you actually have a wrong perspective of what life was in former Eastern bloc countries.
There is often such misconception that people were doing nothing else but to work, didn't have free time, didn't have entertainment, organizations etc.
This is not true, all my life i lived in Bulgaria, and half of my life i spent in the times of socialism. Yet i won't dwell on that, because quite frankly i don't know how you have went from discussing the hunter-gatherer societies (which Karl Marx refers to as "primitive form of communism"), to the freedom and liberties
For the healthy life i didn't mean to compare it with modern day living and health, i meant that hunter gatherer societies were healthier then people that discovered farming and lived by eating different sets of vegetables, and working hard on the field.
You have actually captured a very significant part of hunter gatherer societies, the fact that all do some work which is significant for the survival of the society. It is only natural for people to live in groups, yes occasionally there is a lone wolf, a person who wants to be away from all others, but those are minority, people usually form some kind of society/group, tribes, countries, empires etc.
Joined Mar 2012
18,030 Posts | 10+
In the bag of ecstatic squirt
This is one thing that is very good with Historum because people like me who are ignorant of the actual happening in other nations like Bulgaria, during the height of the Cold War shall be enlightened by the people of those territories like youI believe you actually have a wrong perspective of what life was in former Eastern bloc countries.
There is often such misconception that people were doing nothing else but to work, didn't have free time, didn't have entertainment, organizations etc.
This is not true, all my life i lived in Bulgaria, and half of my life i spent in the times of socialism. Yet i won't dwell on that, because quite frankly i don't know how you have went from discussing the hunter-gatherer societies (which Karl Marx refers to as "primitive form of communism"), to the freedom and liberties
One thing however, I am pretty sure of the deprivation of civil liberties like the freedom of expression over those territories where it is illegal to say anything against communism within the nation. I am also sure of the fact that those who dwell in the Eastern Block were not allowed to create organizations of their own as working people like labor unions which has its own charter and is regulated by the government only regarding the purpose that must be within the bounds of the law, but not with their desire to create an organization of their own unlike in communists territories that the people can only adhere to the communist or socialists concepts, whereas in democratic society, the people have the choice.
Indeed, there are minorities in the society, and in democratic system their rights are well protected and respected and they are not forced by the society to conform with what they want. In communism, the people are forced by the communist party to follow what the majority want, whereas, in democracy, by way of respect over the civil liberties of the people, they are allowed to exercise their freedom like when communist state sponsors atheism, all must follow it, like the destruction of churches in Russia and turning them into swimming pool for their athletes.
On your differentiation between the hunter gatherer and the farming class, I don't think there is some kind of genetic manifestations of that, to prove the physical condition of the former being healthier than the latter.
Joined Dec 2009
10,107 Posts | 48+
Romania
so why do you think no communist country was thought to that in order to save communism?
Joined Mar 2012
715 Posts | 1+
New York City
Karl Marx himself abhorred the Cult of personality idea.
''From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.''
''From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.''
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-