Ben No.3

Two issues: 1. The failing of society in the Middle East The major issue. The Middle East only falls back to traditional values because the modern society failed, see my previous post. 2. The reasons why society failed This is mainly historical interest, but it helps us to understand the Middle East nethertheless. Western involvement is one of the primary reasons for the failure of modern secular societies in the Middle East.

Some, I assume, are good people. But why walk all the way to Germany and not stop at the first safe country like Turkey? Turkey has no welfare system? Turkey does keep a lot of refugees. There are just so many that no single country can handle it own their own. The situation requires international cooperation.

No Bennie, you have made an attempt to understand the ME and as usual I respect that but this time I am going to correct you because I dont want you thinking that Islam isnt the problem Of course it is, that is exactly the problem because the Islamic world is basically going through a crisis of identity ...they need to recognize and address extremism within there communities. There is no other solution Also the Arab Spring was caused exactly because of the lack of allocation of resources due to this view that families and dictators had been ruling most of the countries in a form of divine right and they refused to be inclusive The entire ME is one cauldron of historical resentment and outdated ideologies. They have no respect for human rights and in most countries its the death penalty for homosexuality Its much easier for you to tell me what exactly is positive at the moment in the ME? In 2013, Saudi Arabia introduced laws against the abuse of wives. Pretty progressive considering the circumstances. Bruce, I have the disagree with you. As I said, the Iran had an secular head of state. So the question is raised why there has been this return to religious fundamentalism. If we want to answer that question, looking at the decades of disaterous western involvement is necessary, and not doing it is simply either intellectual laziness or patriotic blindness. "Islam" isn't a problem. An ideology in its own is not a problem. It would be wrong to say that Islamic societies are inherently less moral than ours, that is a ridiculous sentiment. Every religion is awful. Developed nation naturally become more agnostic, and they're governments are backed by law and reason, rather than charisma or tradition. If a society fails in some way, there's often a fallback to these other forms of government. I'm the US, we see this with Trump, who clearly represents the fallback from reason to charismatic leadership (though this is no surprise as the US lacks a traditional government other than law and reason). In the Middle East, we see a fallback to tradition. The question is what caused this, how do we fix it and how can we prevent it from happening again? If those problems are solved, Islam will become just another's religion where we cherry pick the good parts. The bible also tells us to stone the gays, you know? Religion is in itself a problem, because it carries centuries old values. And that is true for every religion, not just Islam. The problem is the failed society, not the "evil islam"

So what are they? Cowards or murderers and rapists? Besides, you completely ignore that also large parts of the refugees are ordinary citizens fed up with the state of their country. What about them?

@Meshugger: "It's a philosophical question between nominalism and realism. In nominalistic world of ideology, there is only power to enforce the ideals but they have no intrinsic value in themselves; as in there is no objective measurement on one is better than the other. When taken to it's logical end, there is no love, truth or beauty as they are just accidents based on random chemical reactions in a world of chaos. Realism however recognizes that there are universals, like archetypes found in civilizations who have had no contact with each other in the world. Like god(s), family, solidarity, adultery, father-figures and mother-figures. These in turn are manifested as virtues like bravery, valor, good, evil, loyalty and so on, which are slightly different in different communities and ethnical groups, but still universal values in themselves. Law and justice is a direct consequence of such." You are assuming an idealistic world view here, so the notion that the ideas of humans shape the society they live in. However, if we assume a materialistic work view, so the circumstances of society dictate which ideas are commonly held to be true, it suddenly is a very different problem.

I don't have the time to carefully read everything said about the middle east, I could only skimm through, so I'm sorry if anyone already meant jones this, but we ("the west") kinda messed up the Middle East ourselves. During colonialism, the borders in the Middle East were drawn with almost complete disregard for cultural and ethical borders. A big problem in itself already. In the 50s, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected secular head of state, because of oil. They replaced him with a military dictatorship. When in the 70s a rebellion rose, it combined the struggle for freedom with religious dogma, thereby not creating but definitely strengthening the tight combination of religious and political endeavour that we have today. And that's just one country. The entire Middle East is a prime example of failed intervention. That it creates such an anti-American backlash is not very surprising. Islam in itself is not a problem, but the tie between political revolution against a US backed dictatorship and Islam, just as one example, obviously is problematic from a secular perspective. Oh my oh my, I wonder where all that hate towards the west comes from. I have no idea. The Middle East terrorism is an enemy we created. We should admit that, we should pay reparations, and we should gladly accept the refugees. It is our moral obligation. Anyway, the reason I'm here is this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/african-man-drowns-venice-grand-canal-video-onlookers-italy-racism-he-is-stupid-migrant-a7546806.html I find that disgusting and obscene. An act that once again reminds us if the ugliness of humans.

We must create a Leftist registry Put me on

From my point of view, it's the source of all of US's political problems, or most of them anyway. It was fine when it was Republican, or even a swing state, but now it's an evil, lawless Democrat empire. A lawLESS empire? I thought the problem with the left was that they regulate the economy too much

Yes, it's going to cost more than the entire highway budget. Trump always brings his projects in ahead of time and under budget.Is that why he went bankrupt?

I take it you disagree with me. So please do elaborate. Where am I wrong?

What would you rather spend that money on? Rather than protecting your noble homeland? On social programs, perhaps? Kill the commie! To be honest, I'm completely on your side. My hope is it will eventually bring down Trump.

It's related. But rather than stating the fact of the existence of inequality, i tried to shows its effects, for us. So it's different. Your link is the cause. This topic is the effect

Firstly, we should establish two things: inequality leads to a power centralisation in society, and capitalism and democracy aren't inherently connected. We should also establish what the middle class is. Anyone who earns in a 25% (so anything from -25% to +25%) of the average income is considered middle class. The first part should be very obvious to anyone that looks at history: the Roman Empire was supposedly ruled by the senate, while the power actually lied with the autocratic regime. Eastern Europe was ruled by bureaucrats and claimed that the political and economic power lied with the people. Any modern dictatorship claims to represent the will ignore the people, thus claiming to be democratic. The second also be obvious if you look at history: Spain under Franco, Chile under Pinochet, Kongo under Mobutu, Germany, France and Japan before democracy was introduced, the US during the time of the slave trade, the UK when only few had the right to vote. So democracy and capitalism aren't inherently connected, it rather is a connection that needs to be created and preserved. If you think about it, at first they don't seem to go well with one another. Marx excellently pointed out why: All power lies with the Bourgeoisie, until the Proletariat has enough and the revolution occurs. The revolution did indeed occur, but it occurred in mostly agricultural countries and they erected regimes Marx never would have supported. So why did democracy and capitalism go so well with each other, what stopped the Marxian apocalypse? The answer lies in the middle class. The middle class is the engine of capitalistic democracy, because it is interested in preserving that exact democracy: the middle class doesn't want to be oppressed by the rich, and it doesn't want to be expropriated by the poor. In a capitalist society, it is the only class that is inherently interested in avoiding both a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and of the proletariat, to use Marx' language, not because of idealism but because of self preservation. Now, for the past few decades, this was the case. Inequality was very low, and the 20th Century is the only time to date where we see this. The mechanism that cept the inequality low were high taxation, Hyperinflation, expropriation of the means of production by the government, and, of course, large scale wars. The relatively balanced society this created meant a turn in the intellectual world, away form Marx-style apocalypses towards Kuznets-style fairy tales. Now, however, inequality is back, strong as ever. For those particularly interested in this process, I recommend picking up "Capital in the 21st century" by Thomas Piketty (important factor is that whenever the rate of return on capital exceeds economic growth (r>g), inequality is rising). Once again, capital is getting centralised in very few hands. This threatens the very existence of a middle class. If the middle class looses its political impact to the upper class, this threatens democracy itself. We already see this in the US: only those with wealthy backers have a real chance in political campaigning. This creates a plutocracy, even though officially still a democracy, since the richest can heavily influence who will rise to political power. The people now merely have the choice of deciding the nuances of the agenda of the upper class. To quote from the manifesto (and sorry for the poor translation): "the modern government is merely a committee, that handles the common interest of the bourgeois class." This is not to say that we are any close to a Marxian apocalypse or that said scenario is even realistic, but it is to show that Marx' observations start to become more relevant again. Inequality matters! It affects all of us, our freedom and our rights. To combat inequality is to preserve democracy. We might disagree on how this should be done, but it is absolutely necessary for us all to realise the problems that come with an capitalist economy that was let loose.

Have a lovely Trip.

science is just another tool of cultural marxist oppression and in taking away the rights of white men down with politicized SJW science, go alternative science KNOWLEDGE FOR EVERYONE, FUNDED BY EVERYONE!!!! Make Science communist

A change brought forward by my fellow cultural Marxist so we can safely destroy America and its last defender, Trump with such evil methods like PC and social justice.

Oh, and I kinda like this poster...

Indeed, i agree if the people of NK could hold a referendum to get him out of office, the world would be a better place. But I think he'd disagree with the people. So...

Well thank you good sir. And the phone is second hand. Besides, look at Engels and tell me that only workers can be socialists Bennie everyone wants you to join there side, young people are the ideological political and social future of all these different movements and views we have around systems of government I want you to join me, I recognize and support the ONLY system that has guaranteed the happiest and overall wealthiest countries in the world in the last 500 years . Bennie I represent a world of progress and economic sustainability. Join me....join the world of Responsible Capitalism....it offers real advantages to uplift people Marx was an idealist, human beings are not equal and we should not be seen as equal as we define our own destinies and some people for a variety of reasons will achieve more than others. One of the best ways to motivate people is to incentivise them Read this on Responsible Capitalism http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanrefoy/2014/09/25/delivering-responsible-capitalism-the-growth-of-employee-ownership/#302359113653 Look, capitalism isn't all bad. But it has so many ugly sides. History shows that pure state run economies don't work. Okay, I'll take socialism, heavily democracise it, put in capitalist elements to put up for its flaws. Here some things I stand for: -All life ensuring businesses are to be owned and run by the government, or the government participates in the market. Those are: Housing, basic food, education, water, electricity, internet, land, arms and all forms of physical force, mobile networks, public transport. All income generated will be used to government expenses -All citizens receive an unconditional basic income that ensures an acceptable standard of living for everyone -ADDED II: Oh, and a secular society: no religious teaching, symbolism or clothing outside of institutions build for said purpose -Income and wealth are under a heavy progressive tax -Capital, which includes but is not limited to companies, shares, land and private wealth can not be inherited and will be used to government expenses -ADDED: all means of transportation within a city should be run as a shareconomy. Nobody owns a car, but everyone can hop into any car, and so on. -Government should erect a basic bank that should ONLY store wealth and give loans to private persons and should not proceed towards investment banking (???... probably this wouldn't work) -The goal of government owned companies is not profit but the supplying of the people. It is the goal of the government to, overall, break even. Profits that should arise are welcome yet should be used for innovation and expansion -The government should push forward the arts and the sciences through regular funding Programs, independent from national borders. The arts and the sciences as an international effort, to say so -All large companies (800+ employees) should be directed by a board, where at least half of the seats are filled by candidates directly voted for by the employees of the company -Government is to release all its economic activities on a daily basis, including all payment to government employees. High ranking employees should be named. If the people feel that the government mishandled their money, it is the right of the people to call for an referendum on reelections Is that socialism or responsible capitalism? I don't know the right label, and frankly, I care little. And.. you're "responsible capitalism" won't stay responsible if there are no people with my views, pointing out flaws and unfairness. And I realise we have some of these things to some extent. But not fully. Plus this is only what I could come up with right now.

Well thank you good sir. And the phone is second hand. Besides, look at Engels and tell me that only workers can be socialists

In my defence... I am on my phone

Rememer that for the left the rules apply only to you never to them. Obviously!!! You better get your guns out-me and my fellow leftist fascist fanatics are teaming up with North Korea so we can finally invade the US, after our strategy of killing the American dream through cultural Marxism failed.

That's how populism works... you need a constant source of input to stir up the people. If that dies down, populism looses its support. Now, if the populist is the opposing party then it's easy: just constantly attack everyone in government and everything they do. That's how the election was won. If the populist is in power, that doesn't work. So they constantly need to show off their "great new archivements" to keep it going. If they can't portrait themselves as "te greatest ever!", they loose all attraction and thus power.

iirc they also supported the US internment of Japanese civilians. Anyways how does this follow from anything that was being discussed? It arose during a discussion few days ago wether "anything good ever came out of socialism".

What's so death culty about the communist party?