Interesting and Humour - page 3465
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Google shows how the Earth's surface has changed over 30 years
https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/
What is the difference in YOUR UNDERSTANDING of socialism and capitalism?
Only concrete! Without the snotty stuff, like "orientation" and so on.
In the USSR we had the stigma of capitalism and socialism, this is not the right division. Take the spectrum from one extreme of unregulated capitalism (the wild west), to the other extreme of a ban on private property.
The development system itself was the same in the world of the NTR. But the approaches are different. The Wild West accounted for 20% of socialism in some countries, and the opposite in some countries - 80% of the DZ against 20% of socialism.
But there wasn't a single country that went to the full extreme of one end of the spectrum.
In your system of measurements there were 99% of countries which differed from each other and all of them you categorize as capitalism, and 1% which you categorize as socialism. In this case I'm not talking about the number of countries, but the number of varieties of systems.
Some capitals are still monarchies for example.
In my perception of the world a system of governance so that social interests exceed personal interests at least by 1% is already moving to the left.
To your question I would like to ask my own: Is the country where the system is regulated so that 70% of social interests and 30% of personal interests are socialist for you or not?
In short, it's all in the feel-good stuff?
That's it, thanks, got it!
P.S. It's not "in the USSR", it's the definition of socialism and communism from the creators of those definitions - Marx and Engels
In short, it's all in the feel-good stuff?
That's it, thanks, got it!
P.S. It's not "in the USSR", it's the definition of socialism and communism from the creators of those definitions - Marx and Engels.
And who told you that I revere Marx a lot?
ZS I don't give a fart about his dreams.
You have insisted that socialism can only be the same as in the USSR. Get away from that dogma and everything will fall into place.
I wrote above, socialism (even complete, not partial) is a particular case of capitalism. As the basis of development is placed in the NTR and the efficiency of capital.
Yes, in the USSR there was no private appropriation of interest, but there was interest. And that makes socialism just a variant of capitalism.
They have the same basis of NTR (scientific and technological development).
No development, the system goes wrong. In the West this is solved by stock exchanges and regular crises, in the USSR it was solved by the dilution of the risks for the entire population. But the essence is the same.
By the way, the lending rate itself is not a dogma, it can be banned tomorrow, but then there is no measure of the effectiveness of investment. In other words, why should I listen to that man, how I know that what he says is right.
The system of risk-taking by those who give the orders is built in the case of interest. Take it away and the loudmouths (those who shout the loudest) will give the orders, not those who understand something.
It looks to me like we are witnessing the death of a social system built on interest. It's a Protestant idea and quite fresh - about 500 years old.
Apart from socialism, which had no interest rates, and no banks in their capitalist sense at all, there is the Muslim banking system, in which interest rates are forbidden.
You are wrong when you write about risk regulation. The fact is that a society built on profit has no prospects, that's exactly the point. And a society built on the profits of lending interest has no prospects three times over.
The development of the USSR was driven by the setting of national economic objectives at the state level. And the most important and valuable thing was the fact that millions of people were able to realise those grandiose objectives to the maximum. What would Korolev be without the state rocket program? And millions of people stood behind Korolev, entire high-tech industries, which did not exist before, were created. Jobs were created.
It seems to me that we are witnessing the death of a social system built on interest. It is a Protestant idea and quite fresh - about 500 years old.
Apart from socialism, which had no interest rates and no banks in the capitalist sense, there is also the Muslim banking system, which forbids interest.
You are wrong when you write about risk regulation. The fact is that a society built on profit has no prospects, that's exactly the point. And a society built on the profits of lending interest has no prospects three times over.
The development of the USSR was driven by the setting of national economic objectives at the state level. And the most important and valuable thing was the fact that millions of people were able to realise the maximum of those grandiose objectives. What would Korolev be without the state rocket program? And millions of people stood behind Korolev, entire high-tech industries, which did not exist before, were created. Jobs were created.
In fact, revolutionary figures got us hooked on Marx's worldview.
There was no such thing as capitalism and socialism. There was a formation called feudalism, which had a stable structure of society "tomorrow we will live like today".
It was replaced by NTR formation (about 500 years ago), the change of paradigm of NTR is not expected, though I will not argue that the interest rate for loans might have become obsolete. So what, the interest rate will not be changed for something else, the main thing that this is not a change of formation, NTR continues. Thus far the non-transparent revolution has developed extensively. Apparently, it is time to develop it intensively, that is all. That is, not in breadth but in depth.
After deep development, the period of broader development will begin again.
Let me translate: USA has now extended its model to the whole world (well, where it has taken root, where it has not), therefore they (as a leader) face the task of moving to a new development paradigm (not changing the formation, but changing the paradigm, in this case the 6th technology), when they master the 6th and create a skeleton of the 7th, they will shift to an extensive system, dropping the 6th mode to areas where the 5th mode will be by that time.
Well, if you look at it that way, lobotomies were entertained in the US and quickly banned in the USSR. Who else had the American Dream to pour a full skull, through the nostrils?
In fact, the revolutionaries have put us on Marx's worldview.
There is no such thing as capitalism and socialism. There was a formation called feudalism, which had a stable structure of society "tomorrow we will live like today".
It was replaced by NTR formation (about 500 years ago), the change of paradigm of NTR is not expected, though I will not argue that the interest rate for loans might have become obsolete. So what, the interest rate will not be changed for something else, the main thing that this is not a change of formation, NTR continues. Thus far the scientific and technological revolution has developed extensively. Apparently, it is time to develop it intensively, that is all. That is, not in breadth but in depth.
After deep development, the period of broader development will begin again.
Let me translate: USA has now extended its model to the whole world (well, where it has taken root, where not), therefore they (as a leader) have a task to move to a new paradigm of development (not to change the formation, but to change the paradigm, in this case the 6th technology), when they master the 6th and create a skeleton of the 7th, they will pass to an extensive system, dropping the 6th pattern on the territories where the 5th pattern will be by that time.
When reading your words about the NTR I was immediately reminded of socialism. I participated in the development of new enterprises. When comparing projects, the "scientific and technological level" was always taken into account. I was one of those who provided this level, because it was considered that if an electronic computer was applied in an enterprise, the level was high and if not - low. So from my own experience: it was almost always extremely difficult to justify WHY the use of computers in an enterprise is good. That it became better: higher labor productivity, safety, quality of products.... All in all it was a disaster.
There can't be an NTD in and of itself. It can only be for WHY.
People need grandiose goals. The NTR is undoubtedly a part of such goals, but a part. But goals are needed.
PS.
I am silent about basic science
So? So if they have it, it's okay for us? I know a thing or two about it, and the U.S.S.R. is so white and fluffy.
Nobody is saying that the USSR was white and fluffy. But why do you keep saying that it was good in the West and bad here? Why the fuck, can you please explain to me?
All those who criticize Russia (those who live here), tell me, what have you done to make it better (if you do not like how it was and how it is now)? А? Specifically, please. Like "I developed this and that for the good of mankind, and Russia is oppressing me and won't give me a break", more specifics and less words.
In one of states there is a stele on which it is written something like "on the earth the maximum 125 million persons should live, the others should be destroyed" and nothing, Americans aren't bothered with anything, except the belly full of hamburgers and beer (the most fat, not overweight, but the fat nation in the world), have moved to America, have destroyed (and continue to destroy) the native population, the right one who has a revolver, and such policy they promote all over the world. The strategy is simple: they hold rallies, unrest among the people, revolution, change the government to the right one and that's it, the deal is done. The revolution doesn't work? - The terrorists will do what the revolutionaries didn't do. They're locusts. That's what England and France did. Where are the refugees coming from in Europe? Who did this, for what purpose? Open your eyes already, you blind people.