Why is West dominator of the world?

This thread was nothing more than personal dispute.. 😀 😀 :diablo: :diablo:

But thanks to those who actually bothered take an insigth to the actuall issue, but from my behalv it can go too. Propaply all that can be said has been said and if chiniee has something more to say, or I have to him, we do it in PM

GA you can close this thread

Gentlemen,

This thread is in danger of becoming a personal dispute between the two of you.

Few of us are interested in reading other people’s personal bickering.

Please be careful. 🙂

GA

“….The monkey in the corner should
take note”

i purposely didn’t answer you in defencetalk while you still answered after. tells pages about your character. Anyway with you i cant have a conversation or a debate just arguing. there is no point because every time i write some you have a twist involed

squabbling as defined by dictioanry.com
“To engage in a disagreeable argument, usually over a trivial matter; wrangle”

well i missed a b but me and you are not known for our good spelling

well the thread was closed just after my last post and before that it didnt practically seem that way…but what ever you want to say…so what next, should we try to discuss ‘civilized’ some other topic around, something more military and simpler this time or just act fakely mature and ignore each other untill next thread we cannot keep it in bay 😉 ??

And sorry for my english but does ‘squallbling’ got something to do whit seabirds :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: 😎 :p :confused: :confused:

but i posted 2 days ago this comment here

Constant squallbling………..

I already had the general feeling and i stopped replying in the other forum as well

Thougth this propaply is the most impropriate thing to do…

I ignored all that you said something that i agreeded also. You see unlike you, i like to always came up whit conclusion over some thread not just argue over arguing sake. So when ever i leave the subject its couse its useless to talk about it, or you have answred my guestions.

This was wrote over that matter in that other forum, so that part of your last statement was rigth, the opinion has been posted twice… :p :p 😉 😉

For a moment this seemed to work between us two, but how on earth did it end up to this again??? 🙁

I posted the same opinoin in two forums.

im guilty as charged

nuff from me

this is not debate nor dicussion its just arguing. I come to the conclusion whatever i write you always have some twist in it

bye bye

“….The monkey in the corner wrote
The lesson in his book“

You know that one would have been much smarter thing to say, If I wouldnt use the exactly same words myself just few hours ago in that other forum 😉 😉 😉 😀 :rolleyes: 😎 :p

nuff from me

this is not debate nor dicussion its just arguing. I come to the conclusion whatever i write you always have some twist in it

bye bye 🙂

Constant squallbling………..

Im just wondering if you read the articles or my post at all

I gave my opinion of why europe increase its lead and providing reasons and examples of this while my articles explain why china became inward instead of outward. I can cut and paste my post to prove to you i wrote it all

well you do that if it pleases you, i read what you wrot…hmm…copy and pasted and you didnt show any indications that you would have understood its relevance to this question. It isent enough that it happens in your mind, but it has to be shown in your text if you want to impress me.

Because the advert of Leninism-Marxism. Marixism had flaws in its original theory which lenin had to correct in his own forms

wow, This why i like so much about discussions whit teenagers, they so boldly puts in two sentence a thing that even experts arent unanimous…
But go ahead, proove this, point out the faults of Marx and Engels writings and how exatly Lenin fixed them and faulty again, as you say and I will do what ever you want me to do…

The reason the cultral revolution and and great leap forward where needed were because of the expereince in soviet production. Figures are just figures. Goals to achieve dont bring development. If china had earlier experience with capitalism it would be a true superpower.

Those useles waste of life and limp were only factors of Maos megalomaniacism and testical contest whit russians. Mao wanted to show of and when he relaised (or did he realised that in first place?) that its impossiple, he simply ignored it and made up and ‘theory’ to get there.

But I agree, if China would have been in the similar levels than western europe, they would have had lot more better starting points to supermacy. But this only if they would have followed the theory and wouldnt have falled into Proletarian-dictature trap as Russians did.

Fall of the industralised west in favour of communism was one

and who says that this will not happen? Remember, Marx in most of the all was a prophetical in these matters, he didnt set up dates. And Like i already told you, Engels predicted that first opportunity wouldnt go well. The battle still goes on laddy, And it will fall, I bet my hat on it 😉 😎 😎

Constant squallbling………..

Your links showed some indicators to this yes, but they did, at best explain only some of the proximate reasons how chinese downfall came. Neither there was any indications to the comparision this devolpment to European one, nor there was any indications that you would have understand it yourself

Im just wondering if you read the articles or my post at all

I gave my opinion of why europe increase its lead and providing reasons and examples of this while my articles explain why china became inward instead of outward. I can cut and paste my post to prove to you i wrote it all

Marxism hasent been flop at all?? What make you think so?

Because the advert of Leninism-Marxism. Marixism had flaws in its original theory which lenin had to correct in his own forms

If china would have been led trough Soviet ways, China migth be at the moment, a true superpower, close to domination…

The reason the cultral revolution and and great leap forward where needed were because of the expereince in soviet production. Figures are just figures. Goals to achieve dont bring development. If china had earlier experience with capitalism it would be a true superpower.

Take japan for a example. If china only opened it doors earlier

Crazy stuff??

Fall of the industralised west in favour of communism was one

What you wrote is almost indentical to what i was repeating a few times already. My links refered it almost the same but in a more interesting manner. Why didn’t you read what i wrote?

Your links showed some indicators to this yes, but they did, at best explain only some of the proximate reasons how chinese downfall came. Neither there was any indications to the comparision this devolpment to European one, nor there was any indications that you would have understand it yourself

Well, In theory there is only one way and that is world revolution. But in practice even Leninism-Marxism has proven to be a failure while Marxism was a complete flop in real life

Marxism hasent been flop at all?? What make you think so? Only Marxism-leninism or practically, a state which conducted it went wrong. Russia wasent really ready for its choice, and thougth Lenin have to rewrite some theoryes, mostly there were considering power and controll mechanism during the revolution process. This was first time revolutionar movments had got some sort of basis to their works, but still Lenin failed to came up a solution to prevent the revolution to eat its childrens…
Good example is finnish history when Our sosialist tryed to make revolution. they instantly set up an expermental and really advanced democratic system that would have suprassed all systems used sofar. But as the bourgerous counter actions let to bitter and bloody civil war, their power structure was too slow to make fast decissions of the war situation and this eventually lead onto riff between the revolutionar goverment and the leadership of revolutionar army. And whit this drift, the red guards were unable to use their technical superiority over whites with better leadership and it all ended up in massacure of some 40,000 finns. A big number to compare our total population of that time.

Marx have managed to predict all phases of capitalism, and even rigth win economist still use his terms when speaking of their own system. Engels once wrote that, its wery likely that firts sosialist state burst up in some place where they aren’t ready for it, they prosper, then fall and communist will be seen as monsters and demons afterwards.

Neither was Maosim. That some theory Mao just woke up and throught himself. It was somethig which had evoled over the three different militry bases. Jiangxi Soviet to Yuannan base then to manchuria. This was all developed on the way with practical experience. This was not just siting in a room then just writing down thoughts it was practical experinece ained with these bases

And this devolpment showed its failure when these masterminds started their great leaps towards and all sort of cultural revolutions…If china would have been led trough Soviet ways, China migth be at the moment, a true superpower, close to domination…

Marxism-Leninism was the product of practical experience but only so because Marx predicted alot of crazy things that wouldn’t happen. So lenin had to change the theory and ways to achieve in in his own interuptation

Crazy stuff?? Man, I will love to hear bit more of your thougths on this matter :rolleyes:

What you wrote is almost indentical to what i was repeating a few times already. My links refered it almost the same but in a more interesting manner. Why didn’t you read what i wrote?

But in reality there is only one mechanism to achieve it…

Well, In theory there is only one way and that is world revolution. But in practice even Leninism-Marxism has proven to be a failure while Marxism was a complete flop in real life

The actions of Russian revolution were impulses but the theoryes were born before that. Marxism-Leninism was more of product of practical experience to expand the idea of revolution and sosialistic chanching phase

Neither was Maosim. That some theory Mao just woke up and throught himself. It was somethig which had evoled over the three different militry bases. Jiangxi Soviet to Yuannan base then to manchuria. This was all developed on the way with practical experience. This was not just siting in a room then just writing down thoughts it was practical experinece ained with these bases

Marxism-Leninism was the product of practical experience but only so because Marx predicted alot of crazy things that wouldn’t happen. So lenin had to change the theory and ways to achieve in in his own interuptation

But empire its all about hegemony, and agressive hegemony in a way that You cannot build empire whitout braking other hegemonies,a nd doing that it leads to wars…and when you have destroyed all rivaling powers, there alwyas finds neighbours that have their own hegemony and will not let it go whitout figth. And if theorethically you ahve conquered all and there isent diversing elements from societyes vertical dimensions (other societyes, civilications) left, the horizontal elements (classes, castes) beguns to couse stress as their nature is to couse stress.

But you keep on fighting and you will inevitably lead to your own fall. That’s why empires fall. You fight too much and you overextend.

I read the post you told me to read and you didn’t make it so clear. What i interrupted it as was
“When any empire beguns to fight against devolpment and progress of human evolution, they are going wrong”

Is that your point?

Well part of it, well In brief, China didnt become dominat global player instead of Europe, couse its geography was too favourable to early unification and centralization thus creating faovorable conditions of philospohyes that supported authorithanity and isolation, that lead eventually to stagnation and isolation and when there werent potent foreing threads, innovative citicens become more a thread to the state than helpfull acpect agaisnt outside enemyes. This lead to decay in the science and innovative thus letting Europe from opposite conditions to envolp more stronger and eventually spread their power to all over the globe.

In Europe, the geographical conditions allowed smaller hegemonies to stay longer in power and to compete against each others thus creating more vivid scientifical culture and innovates. It become almoust a rule that those kings and princes who didnt allow innovatives to become general, were eventually suprassed by those who were ready to accept new ideas.

It didn’t mean any short cuts but two different ways to achieve communism.

But in reality there is only one mechanism to achieve it…

I have to disagree. red october was a impluse the russian revolution was a impluse, The collectiztions in russia were a impluse. Like i said before the chinese communist already established their own little commune system in yunnan and wanted to impement it on a larger scale. One of the main factors that made it not work was the sheer scale of the project. Farmers were told to grow wheat in the snow. farmers were told to use twice as much wheat seeds in one paddock. China was diverting as much man power to steel and industrial production as had been allocated to arigculture. Plus the natural disaters that also wreaked havoc. If those policies were worked out for local conditions and less centralized planning it would have functioned a lot better

The actions of Russian revolution were impulses but the theoryes were born before that. You ahve to remeber that Bolsevics werent the sole ignators of revolution in Russia. Marxism-Leninism was more of product of practical experience to expand the idea of revolution and sosialistic chanching phase, thougth involving elements of Soviet collapse in ideas like ‘proletartian dictature’ that was and is a necceserity in revolution, but afterwards too stressing element that leads to failure of the system.

Entertainment is always a product of a prosperous society. Only the technology of entertainment changes. Two thousand years ago, we have gladiators, today, we have the WWE.

If you ever played the Simcity games, entertainment is actually a social factor you need to instill in a society to keep its citizens happy and productive. Of course,there is always something negative when you take entertainment too far.

The arts, which is also related to entertainment, is also essential in social and cultural development. The arts and technology are two fields that are heavily interconnected. Whenever you find plenty of art, you also find plenty of technology. And once again, there is also a collaborative factor between entertainment, art and technology.

well entertaiment it self migth not numb people, but the ammount of time we use just to amuse ourselves…and it wouldnt be so bad if we choose our amusment in ways that it make us think, but when we constantly just turn our brains off and start watch TV or listen some cheap pop music, we eventually amuse ourselves to death, like Rodger Waters wrote…Reading serious literacy and listening music whit saying, is much better, I would just wish that TV and movie industry would afford us more braintwisting to watch… Offcourse sometimes its good just go whit the flow and forget theinking, but not all the time…

Who is to say that many of our collective technological ideas for example, originated from science fiction, which is of course, a literary art meant to entertain.

But then of speaking of art, its not the same thing. Supposedly art should have always been done for the art or for the aritst himself, not for public’s pleasure, and science-fiction, thougth normally regarded as entertaiment, is more close to ‘real’ literacy than most people think. At least sci-fi that i tend to like are the ones that makes you really use your brain and feel yourself bit stubid as you didnt understand it so clearly, challenging one i I would say…

Generally in a society that has become prosperous, it leads to entertainment, then art and technology. And it is a self reinforcing cycle.

Well art seems to appear in any form of inteligent human life, its not just prosper’s side effect, but entertaiment is, At least i think so a related to the system and dependaple to it as you said also. But art in its pureness can be quite opposite, more an anti-system in nature, thougth beeing anti-something usually generates from that somethingh and by means of dialectism is same thing, at least in orgins. But I want to believe in pure art that rises from individual consicuense of man, thougth otherwise I tend to think human as product of collective, not individual organism… But art migth be the sole way of finding your true self, and only working way of processin yourself solely out from any society. To this point nobody have managed to do that but its another thing… :rolleyes:

One classic element why empires fall is because of being overstretched. You are too big for your britches. In fact, China at the decay of the Qing Dynasty was an exceedingly big country since it covers territory right up to Siberia like Lake Baikal, Port Arthur, and the Amur region.

To control an empire you need a big bureaucracy and military. Both factors require a lot of money. And once you lose the money tap, the decay sets in, as you would have problems maintaining both your massive bureaucracy and military.

But there have been big empires like US, that arent (att least yet) falling due
controll proplems…And in modern world, thechnology can In my mind override this factor.

In fact, while an empire may have expanded and became an empire because of war, war is the last thing it needs to sustain. Obviously it will break your wallet. The last kind of war you can ill sustain is a guerilla type of war that goes on for years and years, where attrition, not just by personnel, but by the sheer cost of war.

But empire its all about hegemony, and agressive hegemony in a way that You cannot build empire whitout braking other hegemonies,a nd doing that it leads to wars…and when you have destroyed all rivaling powers, there alwyas finds neighbours that have their own hegemony and will not let it go whitout figth. And if theorethically you ahve conquered all and there isent diversing elements from societyes vertical dimensions (other societyes, civilications) left, the horizontal elements (classes, castes) beguns to couse stress as their nature is to couse stress.

I read the post you told me to read and you didn’t make it so clear. What i interrupted it as was
“When any empire beguns to fight against devolpment and progress of human evolution, they are going wrong”

Is that your point?

what do you mean by this? In my understanding there isent any short cuts to communism…

It didn’t mean any short cuts but two different ways to achieve communism.

And my stance is that only one is really a scientifical ideology, another is mere an impulse of political climate and opportunism

I have to disagree. red october was a impluse the russian revolution was a impluse, The collectiztions in russia were a impluse. Like i said before the chinese communist already established their own little commune system in yunnan and wanted to impement it on a larger scale. One of the main factors that made it not work was the sheer scale of the project. Farmers were told to grow wheat in the snow. farmers were told to use twice as much wheat seeds in one paddock. China was diverting as much man power to steel and industrial production as had been allocated to arigculture. Plus the natural disaters that also wreaked havoc. If those policies were worked out for local conditions and less centralized planning it would have functioned a lot better

Marxism key thesis is that economy is a sosial phenemmenon.

It was not a way of economic planning but a way to produce and service differently. A classes society where people would control production but a way of shared production. Whats funny to me is, people are meant to work and then get things shared out

But that particular acpect isent saying that “all nomand of cavlands rise and tomorrow we shall take big leap over centureys of devolpment”

Not nomad as in moving around by leaderless industries were production was not controlled

yes but that werent the rule in europe when the so called ‘new age’ begun…ofcourse the catholics put resistance in individual cases, but they didnt manage to prevent the whole change of athmosphere…

The repressive actions of the Church may have cost European advancement by centuries. In other words, because of what they did, we are lucky to get where we are. And if we didn’t have things like the Inquisition, it is quite likely we as a society would have been more advanced, perhaps by a century or so.

Repressing a few individuals is more than enough, especially if these individuals include people like Galileo. Revolution begins with an individual.

Agree whit that, but the next biggest factor is the entertaiment…In west we are practically numbed whit overdoze of entartaiment that we have lost our ability to collective thinking, thus just believing all the little lies they fed us…and its doesent need to be lies, just impresses and stressing one fact over another, but mostly took almoust all news and happenings out of bigger picture. The basic understanding of world is effectively blurred and people are lead like pigs…

Entertainment is always a product of a prosperous society. Only the technology of entertainment changes. Two thousand years ago, we have gladiators, today, we have the WWE.

If you ever played the Simcity games, entertainment is actually a social factor you need to instill in a society to keep its citizens happy and productive. Of course,there is always something negative when you take entertainment too far.

The arts, which is also related to entertainment, is also essential in social and cultural development. The arts and technology are two fields that are heavily interconnected. Whenever you find plenty of art, you also find plenty of technology. And once again, there is also a collaborative factor between entertainment, art and technology.

Who is to say that many of our collective technological ideas for example, originated from science fiction, which is of course, a literary art meant to entertain.

Generally in a society that has become prosperous, it leads to entertainment, then art and technology. And it is a self reinforcing cycle.

In schools, we should be teached to guestion every auchrority

Very true

Intresting accpect, thougth thinking it bit future, is there similar factors that every empires fall? Can we determ as we can genrally determ why empire can rise, how it would fall or is it always too dependaple of the empires individual elements??

One classic element why empires fall is because of being overstretched. You are too big for your britches. In fact, China at the decay of the Qing Dynasty was an exceedingly big country since it covers territory right up to Siberia like Lake Baikal, Port Arthur, and the Amur region.

To control an empire you need a big bureaucracy and military. Both factors require a lot of money. And once you lose the money tap, the decay sets in, as you would have problems maintaining both your massive bureaucracy and military.

In fact, while an empire may have expanded and became an empire because of war, war is the last thing it needs to sustain. Obviously it will break your wallet. The last kind of war you can ill sustain is a guerilla type of war that goes on for years and years, where attrition, not just by personnel, but by the sheer cost of war.

One problem when you run out of money is that you don’t have capital for reinvestment. When you don’t have enough capital formation, you won’t have new business formation, and older businesses will not have the money to expand or reconstruct themselves.

We have already mentioned education and the world view (a dynamic world view vs. a static world view which can be determined by religion and philosophy).

China becoming a superpower economically in the mid 21st Century does not mean the US will fall. If you can still be a prosperous nation and live much better than you are now. If it is to fall, it would have to be by its own internal factors and how they deal or fail to deal with it. How the US will be in the 21st Century is pretty much based on its own actions, not because of someone else.

Well two days ago i thought to myself.

ummm…. I got school in 5 more days and i got five essays to write(i had planned this at the start of the holidays). should i continue this right now or should i finish my VCE homework. logical choice to me since i already have had 2 months off

well all in all its just education, who needs it 😉

The problem i am having is your trying to use more complicated words mixed with other complicated words. When we were in the thread in about the russian army you used a easier type of writing. change of heart?

Yeas, i aknowlidge that but Then again, I dont know how to use ‘comon’ terms of these things in english. Many matters that i have recently covered, are more difficoult, apstract things and I havent got any eduction who to write about philoshophyes and science-philoshophyes in english, so bardon me…technical stuff and childish mockery are more simple matters. Speaking of Marxism is hard enough in finnish, and translate that into english on my own… :confused:

That was according to marxism. But there must have been a higher steep than pratically nomad type industries

what do you mean by this? In my understanding there isent any short cuts to communism…

Of course i acknowledge it. I have been stating the difference between the two. My point is(which i have stated many times alread) is Maoism was a completly different form than Marxism-Leninsim. But both principles were communism. Each system had different ways of reaching communism

And my stance is that only one is really a scientifical ideology, another is mere an impulse of political climate and opportunism

Commusim wassn’t about economic development it was about social development. Marx did not factor that the starting force of communism was in a barren land like russia but the ndustriallized nations like germany and western europe where the conditiosn during his time were extremly bad for the proletariat which would cause revolution since they would seek production and the wealth instead of creating it

Marxism key thesis is that economy is a sosial phenemmenon. its part of sosial devolpment, and likewise. the concept of dialectic-materialism should be good thing to learn if wanting to achieve higher understanding of communism. marxism is economical as it is sosial ideology

What Marxism-Leninsim is was change that theory because some pridictions of Marx did not happen like the overthrow of the bourgeoisie elite, which did not happen owning to the explotation of the imperialist powers. which vis a vis lead to russias rise as a power. Lenin changed that theory and theroized that when the exploited people rose up the imperialist countries would have general overthrow because they had no prosperity

Yes, there is some acpects of opportunity in leninism as well, im not denying it, But that particular acpect isent saying that “all nomand of cavlands rise and tomorrow we shall take big leap over centureys of devolpment”