20 May 07
Garry Kasparov was detained for five hours today and journalists from Londons The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal who were with his party were made to miss flights to Samara, where a joint Russian and EU conference was being held. He was going to attend protests outside it.
So much for “Chess makes man wiser and clear-sighted”
(Vladimir Putin).
20 May 07
Originally posted by lordhighgusKasparov is a brave man.
Garry Kasparov was detained for five hours today and journalists from Londons The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal who were with his party were made to miss flights to Samara, where a joint Russian and EU conference was being held. He was going to attend protests outside it.
So much for “Chess makes man wiser and clear-sighted”
(Vladimir Putin).
If I were him, I would consider this a warning from Czar Pooty.
20 May 07
Originally posted by lordhighgusThe faeces is really gonna hit the preverbial fan there big time.
Garry Kasparov was detained for five hours today and journalists from Londons The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal who were with his party were made to miss flights to Samara, where a joint Russian and EU conference was being held. He was going to attend protests outside it.
So much for “Chess makes man wiser and clear-sighted”
(Vladimir Putin).
Gotta love that imported democracy!
20 May 07
Originally posted by PalynkaOh... are you suggesting that Russia went democratic, multi-national and corporate all by itself?
You're really a XXIst century D. Quixote, aren't you?
What do you mean by 'imported democracy'? If anything, Russia's democracy is quite particular.
Are you suggesting that the people in Russia chose a form of democracy which saw their assets being sold off to a couple of very rich, extremely dangerous and absolutely corrupt individuals?
No. I don't think it was a democratic choice at all. I think it was placed on them by the powers that profit; Multi-nationals.
20 May 07
Originally posted by belgianfreakCorrect.
Shav - I don't know my Marks very well, but I have been told in the past that all previous Communist regimes have failed because they followed directly from Feudalism? Did he not say that Communism must follow just such a corporate democracy?
Communism is not an alternative for capitalism, it's a next stage of human society/economic evolution.
Basically the friction between worker and owner will create progression. Because the worker is the majority, the progression should be in their favour. For this to happen there has to be industry (no use striking, for example, if all you're producing is food, because then you'll starve).
Roughly.
20 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirDemocracy isn't about putting the person of shavixmir's choice in power.
Oh... are you suggesting that Russia went democratic, multi-national and corporate all by itself?
Are you suggesting that the people in Russia chose a form of democracy which saw their assets being sold off to a couple of very rich, extremely dangerous and absolutely corrupt individuals?
No. I don't think it was a democratic choice at all. I think it was placed on them by the powers that profit; Multi-nationals.
I agree that most Russians didn't see what a tragedy Yeltsin would eventually be, but that is a different matter from saying that a majority didn't want him at the time. I doubt that in 1991 anyone could imagine he'd be shelling the parliament to impose his reforms (as he did in 1993). Besides, he did serve a second term (with much more dubious results, if you ask me).
And that Yeltsin was a criminal is not something I'm disputing, but if you knew anything about Russia you'd see that the country was sold mostly to Russian oligarchs and not to multi-nationals.
Russia's democracy may be a troubled one, but most of those troubles came from within. Russia is just too big, even for multi-nationals.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199167
20 May 07
Our president (Bush) emphasized in his debate against Kerry that he was on a first name basis with "Vladimir." Since everything else is falling apart in his presidency, maybe he could put some pressure on "Vladimir" and claim something for his crowning achievement in history. Carter has the Camp David Accord. What does Bush have? The Bankruptcy bill?
21 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirThe problem with that scenerio is the power of the upper crust of the corporation, able to shift production around and manipulate the system to counter the aims of the workers. You can see that in the use of plant closings that just so co-incidentally kill off a union and rebuild the plant in a third world country where just also accidentally the wages are one third the first world county. When that third world country gets too uppity, a new 4th world country is found, ad nauseum.
Correct.
Communism is not an alternative for capitalism, it's a next stage of human society/economic evolution.
Basically the friction between worker and owner will create progression. Because the worker is the majority, the progression should be in their favour. For this to happen there has to be industry (no use striking, for example, if all you're producing is food, because then you'll starve).
Roughly.
21 May 07
Originally posted by KunsooThrough God all things are possible. He has God.
Our president (Bush) emphasized in his debate against Kerry that he was on a first name basis with "Vladimir." Since everything else is falling apart in his presidency, maybe he could put some pressure on "Vladimir" and claim something for his crowning achievement in history. Carter has the Camp David Accord. What does Bush have? The Bankruptcy bill?
21 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirThat's not an evolution, that's a devolution.
Correct.
Communism is not an alternative for capitalism, it's a next stage of human society/economic evolution.
Basically the friction between worker and owner will create progression. Because the worker is the majority, the progression should be in their favour. For this to happen there has to be industry (no use striking, for example, if all you're producing is food, because then you'll starve).
Roughly.
21 May 07
Originally posted by shavixmirIf communism is the next stage of "evolution" then we are all doomed.
Correct.
Communism is not an alternative for capitalism, it's a next stage of human society/economic evolution.
Basically the friction between worker and owner will create progression. Because the worker is the majority, the progression should be in their favour. For this to happen there has to be industry (no use striking, for example, if all you're producing is food, because then you'll starve).
Roughly.