• This topic has 13 voices and 27 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342310

    Anonymous

    image

    Vondra opened the conference instead of Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas who did not attend it because of the Czech parliamentary session that has been held almost permanently since Tuesday due to obstructions by the leftist opposition and the coalition´s effort at pushing through its crucial reform bills.

    Slovak Prime Minister Iveta Radicova has not taken part in the conference either, due to her busy schedule.

    Vondra said at the opening that he hoped that the conference would give an answer to the question why armed resistance against the communist regime is not considered legitimate.

    Czech historian Jiri Pernes said he believes communism is not a dead ideology and is a permanent threat.

    He said the poor will always blame the rich as long as there are big social differences in society and they will try to change the situation to improve their position.

    Pernes said communist ideology is so simple that even uneducated people can understand it.

    Oldrich Tuma, head of the Czech Institute of Contemporary History, said only several months ago he would have said communism was dead but now he is not sure of it.

    Tuma pointed to the recent protests against social injustice in Rome, Athens or New York. "Although this are not communists or communist parties, it is a return of certain slogans," he said.

    The three-day conference will focus on the history of the former Czechoslovak Communist Party (KSC), established in 1921. It is organised by the Institute of Contemporary History, the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes (USTR) and the Czech Radio.

    http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/prague-conference-on-czech-slovak-communism-opens/710239

    #365574

    Anonymous

    2010 parliamentary elections results

    SMER party – 34,79 %

    Communism is still alive and well in Slovakia    :-X

    #365575

    Anonymous

    All "failed" states of EU are or were until recently ruled by various leftist parties like communist and socialist parties. Intresting protesters in these countries are leftists. They all protest against capitalists but it seems they dont know that their countries are lead by leftist parties.

    The great bankrupt state of Greece is ruled by Panhellenic Socialist Movement, third biggest party is Communist Party of Greece. Most greek protesters are ironicaly leftists and anarchists.

    The great nearly bankrupt state of Spain is rulled by Socialist Workers' Party, third biggest party is United Left. Most of spanish protesters are leftists.

    The great bankrupt state of Ireland was lead by Fianna Fáil until 2011, third lagerst party was Labour Party. Labour Party was in coalition with Fianna Fáil (more like Fianna Fáilure). Altho Fianna Fáil isnt socialist or communist party they are generaly leftists in nature.

    The great nearly bankrupt state of Slovenia was lead by Social Democrats (ex-communists) until 2011, third largest party was Zares (ex-communists). Protesters in Slovenia protest against the "evil capitalists".  ;D

    #365576

    Anonymous

    Socialism and capitalism are both bullshit, since they both rely on a central bank monopoly. Printing paper, giving it value, and then making an increasing amount of bets and bets-on-bets (while calling it investment) will sink any economy. Money needs to be labor based. Yes, that will mean "getting rich" will be tough, but look at society right now when everyone "tries to be rich." It's utter chaotic shite. If you can work honestly, earn a living, have a family, and get by, who cares about being "rich." Most of the money in the current US economy just sits in bank accounts and doesn't circulate. It is one of the prime weakening factors of the economy and it is because people do not care about their nation, but rather just about "being rich."

    #365577

    Anonymous

    Socialism in any form = cancer

    #365578

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Socialism in any form = cancer

    Same goes for capitalism. Economy must not be treated as valuable in itself, it should be only there to serve the nation's interests. It should also be noted that both socialism and capitalism ensure the development of classes and class warfare, thus preventing national unity. Such a situation is always beneficial for world jewry.

    #365579

    Anonymous

    Once enough Slavs get over their post-USSR/commie trauma, they'll get over their philo-capitalism, as well. Going from one side to the other, but not leaving the rigged playing field is no way to true prosperity.

    #365580

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Once enough Slavs get over their post-USSR/commie trauma, they'll get over their philo-capitalism, as well. Going from one side to the other, but not leaving the rigged playing field is no way to true prosperity.

    I really hope that they will realize how stupid these concepts are. However, I'm afraid in a future Slavic nationalist state it might for some time be necessary to strictly prohibit the advocation of socialist and capitalist ideas.

    #365581

    Anonymous

    The problem is that "socialists" today are really "international socialists." They say "the best way to ensure my freedom is to ensure everyone's freedom." They try to help everyone and end up helping no one. Their effort is diluted and wasted. They are painfully naive.

    National Socialism, a notoriously dirty and often down-right heretical term, is the idea that communities help one another. Efforts are focused and therefore more productive. Focused on towns and cities, nationals regions (German Nazis called these "Gauen"), and finally on the nation – which is really an extended family since it is all bound by blood.

    The German model as implemented by the NSDAP is not even the only one of its kind. It was centered around and built around German culture and then went on to be ruined by Prussian smugness. Good thing that Slavs don't have any sort of aristocratic class (maybe the industrial oligarchs of Russia could fall into that category…) so a National-minded Socialism (or Syndicalism or whatever you want to call it, lets not get caught up in semantics) is actually the best idea anyone has yet proposed about the crony dichotomy of left-right or capitalism-communism.

    If you manage to cut past the media spin you can actually see that Colonel Ghadaffi in Libya basically over-threw a Western-finance puppet and built a similar community minded nation from Libya. Far from perfect, but anyone who manages to tell the international finance sharks "f*** you" and run a nation for 40 years, should be seriously looked at. Libya had the best quality of living and highest GDP per capita in all of Africa. For a poor, war-torn continent, that is quite something.

    #365582

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    The problem is that "socialists" today are really "international socialists." They say "the best way to ensure my freedom is to ensure everyone's freedom." They try to help everyone and end up helping no one. Their effort is diluted and wasted. They are painfully naive.

    National Socialism, a notoriously dirty and often down-right heretical term, is the idea that communities help one another. Efforts are focused and therefore more productive. Focused on towns and cities, nationals regions (German Nazis called these "Gauen"), and finally on the nation – which is really an extended family since it is all bound by blood.

    The German model as implemented by the NSDAP is not even the only one of its kind. It was centered around and built around German culture and then went on to be ruined by Prussian smugness. Good thing that Slavs don't have any sort of aristocratic class (maybe the industrial oligarchs of Russia could fall into that category…) so a National-minded Socialism (or Syndicalism or whatever you want to call it, lets not get caught up in semantics) is actually the best idea anyone has yet proposed about the crony dichotomy of left-right or capitalism-communism.

    If you manage to cut past the media spin you can actually see that Colonel Ghadaffi in Libya basically over-threw a Western-finance puppet and built a similar community minded nation from Libya. Far from perfect, but anyone who manages to tell the international finance sharks "f*** you" and run a nation for 40 years, should be seriously looked at. Libya had the best quality of living and highest GDP per capita in all of Africa. For a poor, war-torn continent, that is quite something.

    I agree. National Socialism/Syndicalism/however you want to call it is the best and most logical way to ensure that a nation will grow strong and prosperous.

    #365583

    Anonymous

    I don't understand some of your points, guys. Have you studied the economic theory? You can discuss economics processes and etc, but the conclusions sometimes seem not substantiated.

    Quote:
    Socialism and capitalism are both bullshit, since they both rely on a central bank monopoly. Printing paper, giving it value, and then making an increasing amount of bets and bets-on-bets (while calling it investment) will sink any economy. Money needs to be labor based. … Most of the money in the current US economy just sits in bank accounts and doesn't circulate. It is one of the prime weakening factors of the economy and it is because people do not care about their nation, but rather just about "being rich."

    A central bank doesn't give a value to money, it only prints it and their amount comparing with an amount of goods determines their real values. And just the money on bank accounts do circulate in the economy. Banks are made to supply one members of economy, who don't have money, with money of those members, who don't know what to do with them except to store.
    To accuse concepts themselves isn't a right way. Some ideas of socialism are very attractive, such like social equity and equality of all people. The another thing is how to organize such real working economy. The history shows that pure socialism doesn't work. The most appropriate model of economy for European countries is the "Swedish socialism", which in fact is capitalism but with very progressive tax system (the more one's wage is, the more tax rate one faces) and therefore with a lot of social transfer from rich people to poor men. But there appears a riddle. Could this economy operate if there wouldn't be other types of economies (more pure capitalistic like the American economy), which growth rate is bigger and which produce a huge amount of products consumed in Sweden? Scientists incline to the answer "No". It seems that there can't exist a world with only socially fair type of economies.

    #365584

    Anonymous

    Points for Puchacz for that thing with banks, finally someone who can explain things better than I do  :)
    But, puchi, I disagree with you on socialism.
    Social equality is a chimaera. Our society and social hierarchy are based on social inequality. You know, "hierarchy". Superordination and subordination defy any social equality. Now equality of citizens before law is desirable, of course, but this is another dimension.
    Social rank is derived especially from wealth, which again implies no equality.

    Social equality is attractive to those who are closer to the bottom. It is also attractive to those who use it as a slogan to gain sympathies of those who are closer to the bottom. You know, those notorical socialist leaders and "fighters for the poor" who live in huge manors and drive their asses in Porsche  ;).

    Socialism may (and may not) work from an economical point of view, but what does it do with society? What does paternalism, etatism, dirigism do with people?
    It changes them to sheeple. It makes them think and they are entitled to money from the state, that the state will care for them, that the state will solve everything for them.
    Yeah, it does, but it also takes away freedom as a price. It deforms human society. Look at Sweden, Greece, Spain (how did Spanish socialist Zapatero get to power? By promising he will abide to terrorist demands and "save" the country…), but also Slovakia, or even France.

    It is also a form of "bribe" which buys votes, that is why socialists managed to stay in power for decades in some countries.

    America is far away from being a pure capitalist state. Just look at the socialist Obama. I am sure the capitalists did not elect him. The most capitalist states are China, probably Russia, but at some points also other countries of former communist bloc – "wild capitalism" of eastern Europe  :)

    The best way is a mild mix of some socialist concepts into capitalist framework. The problem is, how much should socialism there should be? I say – less than it is now.

    #365585

    Anonymous

    If you think Obama is a socialist, then you are in a sense, painfully wrong. He is not int he classic sense. But you are, in a sense, right. He is a socialist for the rich. Big banks fail due to stupid and down right corrupt decisions and the American tax payer bails them out. However, if an average person gets screwed over and faces a pay-cut (such as a police officer or public school teacher) then they say, sorry, we can't help you, it's socialism.

    The main issue is that big banks gamble with money. Investment banks and savings banks were separated in the US right after the Great Depression of the 1930s – Glass-Steagol Act. However, under Clinton Glass-Steagol was overturned and boom, 12 years later, another economic downturn. Banks need to be public. They are the nation's wealth and shouldn't be in the hands of a few private citizens who make money from money. The US Federal Reserve is not public, it is a private corporation in place since 1913. Many presidents have opposed it. Two of them were shot dead.

    You two are still thinking socialism in the Marxist sense, which is everyone is equal. Socialism in the NS sense, is everyone deserves equal opportunity. The important thing is that the local stores open each morning. That people can be productive. It is making money serve the people and not having people serve money. Money is only a means to an end. Right now in the US the richest 1% of people own over half the nation's wealth. That's "capitalism" for you. They have successfully lobbied to end regulation and without regulation it is like playing a sport without a referee. People make their own rules and the best ones are that prohibit or make increasingly difficult for others to succeed. Banks in the US have done just this.

    If I go bankrupt, no one cares. If a billion dollar bank goes bankrupt, then all of a sudden we need "bailouts." With a sensible money policy NO BAILOUTS will be needed. Money will flow in the economy like blood throughout the body – everywhere it is needed.

    We are so far into Anglo-Jewish money mindset that I am not surprised that people don't see another way. Making money from money and not from productive labor is the single worst aspect of our current system. NS Germany was more capitalist than than most western nations now. Messerschmidt, Krupp and other firms know for making weapon were ALL PRIVATE. So were the companies who built the autobahn, but the trick is that it was a joint effort between government and private sector. This is now called "socialism" and is supposed to be dirty. The hilarious thing is that anyone who offers a truly sensible solution is actually mirroring NS in a way. But they refuse to see it as such.

    Quote:
    The best way is a mild mix of some socialist concepts into capitalist framework. The problem is, how much should socialism there should be? I say – less than it is now.

    You have described NS more than you'll ever admit.

    #365586

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    But, puchi, I disagree with you on socialism.
    Social equality is a chimaera.

    It changes them to sheeple. It makes them think and they are entitled to money from the state, that the state will care for them, that the state will solve everything for them.

    I agree with you. (although you disagreee with me ;D).  I didn't manage to write it how I wanted. I didn't mean that I like socialistic idea of equality in its initial formula. There shouldn't be full equality of different people. I think that in some degree unequallity should be compensated by a government. But of course this help of the government to poor people can make them lazy and non-willing to change their life of dependants, if the size of a social help is unjustifiedly very large.

    America is far away from being a pure capitalist state. Just look at the socialist Obama. I am sure the capitalists did not elect him. The most capitalist states are China, probably Russia, but at some points also other countries of former communist bloc – "wild capitalism" of eastern Europe  :)

    That's true. Today pure capitalism (it means without any governmental interference in the economy at all) doesn't exist. But we can say about a degree of socialism in a state in accordance with % of social expenses in the whole governmental expenditures. In this sense the USA are much less socialistic than Scandinavian countries.

    The best way is a mild mix of some socialist concepts into capitalist framework. The problem is, how much should socialism there should be? I say – less than it is now.

    Maybe in Slovakia. But personally I'd like to live in more social oriented country with a structure of the economy like in Sweden. :)

    Quote:
    We are so far into Anglo-Jewish money mindset that I am not surprised that people don't see another way. Making money from money and not from productive labor is the single worst aspect of our current system. NS Germany was more capitalist than than most western nations now. Messerschmidt, Krupp and other firms know for making weapon were ALL PRIVATE. So were the companies who built the autobahn, but the trick is that it was a joint effort between government and private sector. This is now called "socialism" and is supposed to be dirty. The hilarious thing is that anyone who offers a truly sensible solution is actually mirroring NS in a way. But they refuse to see it as such.

    The fact is that Hitler's National Socialism didn't pay a lot of attention to the economical programme. What you have described above isn't something new, it's merely one of possible models of capitalism. Such capitalism was invented by Keynes, when he proposed to increase governmental expenditures to make new worker places and give an impetus to the economy.
    The problem of ownership of companies is a  separate question. For example libertarians suppose that all work can be done by private companies, including such traditional governmental spheres like state security and army. But I don't understand how it could work in reality. Some goods are known as public goods and according to the modern economical theory a production of most of them seems to be accomplished only by the institute of a "state".
    Making banks public will result only in equality of interest rates of loans and credits and not in disappearance of interest rates. They are necessary, because without additional gain from them nobody deposits his money in a bank. And a claim of "no more money from money" means only that the additional money should be ensured by some real increase in a production of something, but not requires abolishment of banks and other financial instruments.

    #365587

    Anonymous

    Yes, interest is necessary. However, with public banks interest are not a predatory and there is transparency. A bank should be treated as a public utility. We all get electricity and we all pay the electric bill, but it is a reasonable amount. With banks, this train of thought should be adopted. They serve the needs of working people.

    Hitler's economic model was capitalistic in that it had profit motive, but it was socialistic in that it had plenty of public projects. But the key is that it did away with the predatory aspect of capitalism and these are what lead to crisis. It also did away with the bureaucratic hell that often results with socialism. It was truly third position. The economy was just part of the NS project, but it was the single most important part, as well as the most universal. Any state can adopt it. However, the cultural aspects of an NS projects, each nation must take on its own. This is where German chauvinists always screw up, they call NS, "Germanization." A nationally syndicated economy is not intrinsically German, though Germany had the most famous (or infamous) model of it.

    From what I know about Keynes, he differed on one major aspect from the NS model in Germany: Keynes did not object to debt based currency. Hitler brought the control of the money totally under state control and issued debt-free money and banks gave low interest loans. The idea was to get money flowing as much as possible and not get people tied down in payments of all sorts. Working citizens earning a wage or salary are happy citizens and form a productive nation. And they did in Germany, the country from a crisis in 1932 to knocking on Stalin's door in Moscow in 1941 with the biggest army of its time.

    Impressive… though I disagree with crazy arms production. Today, the Slavic nations could go on such a production craze, but build up their infrastructure and update various technologies with military upgrades included somewhere in there.

    The key is: state sovereignty over the money supply and reasonable issuance of debt.

    This will be making, in a sense, money from money, or out of thin air, but in an organized fashion that is geared towards allowing people to work and not for pure profit. Money is a utility.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

10 User(s) Online Join Server
  • 'las
  • Lucifer Morningstar
  • Jan Pat II
  • Tujev
  • slovborg
  • ca$hbunni