Why did Emanuel Pessagno succeeded in obtaining Portuguese service and Christopher Columbus didn't?
If Italian sailors like Emmanual Pessagno and Lanzarote Malocello were accepted by the Portuguese and eventually worked for the kings of Portugal then why was Christopher Columbus dismissed by Portugal ?.
History - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Portugal was sailing all around the Atlantic since at least the 1420's... They knew it was a very big stretch to sail west to reach the Orient (and possibly they knew there was a huge land mass in the way, although without any gold or spices). And, of course, in 1488 Bartolomeu Dias discovered it was possible to sail around Africa to reach India and China, the precious Sea Route to the East was open and was 100% portuguese, there wasn't much need in finding out another route towards the west. But Columbus did sail for Portugal, from 1476 to 1485, he lived there, in the island of Porto Santo and married the daughter of one of Portugal's early explorers, Perestrello. And found out everything there was to know about sailing, charting and exploring in those years.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
How come the US wont ADAPT and ADOPT successful strategies from OTHER countries
How come the US wont ADAPT and ADOPT successful strategies from OTHER countries?
Health care in Canada, drug reforms in Portugal etc...How come the US wont just take some other contries ideas and tweek them to make it work OUR citizens? I know the variables (difference of economy, natural resourses etc) But are we too dumb to COPY a little??? I thought this was a MELTING POT built on the foundation of DIFFERENT PEOPLE???
Government - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Conservatives. And the us has its head way up its ass to do that they are to "proud" its like the homeless guy who thinks hes an aristocrat. If they can stop being so afraid of change maybe the us will get somewhere new but naw they wont do that you know it. Us is to egocentric only worrying about being ontop
2 :
For any life-threatening condition Canadians with MONEY always flee Canada. That is of course WHY all Democrats demand their system be copied. As an example, had I been in Canada 31 August 2006 there is a 100% chance I would not have seen September 1st. I got the "only hope" procedure (by the way, no one asked about insurance/ability to pay until after) that's STILL ILLEGAL in Canada - for COST-effectiveness reasons. Even if I had cash pouring out of my pockets it CANNOT be done there. It's a CRIME to do it. Tell me. Why do you hate your children so much you want that system for them?
3 :
Because Americans value different things than citizens of other countries. They inherently do not trust their government and value personal and group freedoms. Their constitutions, laws, and republic is specifically designed to limit government powers, keep certain powers at the local (i.e. state) level, and to allow individuals and the free market to run things. In many areas that has worked extremely well for them. Now... you can argue that the Canadian health care is better, but if you look at exactly how the Canadian system works, you quickly realize that the American people simply aren't willing to give the government the kinds of powers it would need to implement such a system nor are they willing to give up certain basic 'freedoms' necessary to implement a system like that. Complete state take over of all hospitals. Complete state take over of all medical insurance. Direct state control of education systems -- forcing local school boards to accept PE, health, sex education, etc. standards. Limiting of medical lawsuits. State government control over medical schools. Federal laws on drug patents. State planning of all hospitals, medical equipment purchases, etc. State and federal control over which procedures are covered. Removal of employer health plans to be replaced by federal income tax hikes. Federal distribution of funds to states with penalties for those not meeting federal government standards. etc., etc. These aren't small changes. You'd need massive constitutional changes, government buy out hospitals, hundreds of law changes in each of the states, entire industries put out of business, etc. Ignoring personal interests of various groups (doctors, lawyers, wealthy, etc.) who won't benefit on this, the massive turn-over time and costs of trying to switch to such a system, legal challenges, etc. most Americans simply aren't willing to try such an exercises. And of course, without such wholesale changes it is highly unlikely that you would see any of the benefits of a single-payer health care system.
4 :
The US won't adapt, because it would be financially disastrous. Right now, health care reform would be too costly.
Health care in Canada, drug reforms in Portugal etc...How come the US wont just take some other contries ideas and tweek them to make it work OUR citizens? I know the variables (difference of economy, natural resourses etc) But are we too dumb to COPY a little??? I thought this was a MELTING POT built on the foundation of DIFFERENT PEOPLE???
Government - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Conservatives. And the us has its head way up its ass to do that they are to "proud" its like the homeless guy who thinks hes an aristocrat. If they can stop being so afraid of change maybe the us will get somewhere new but naw they wont do that you know it. Us is to egocentric only worrying about being ontop
2 :
For any life-threatening condition Canadians with MONEY always flee Canada. That is of course WHY all Democrats demand their system be copied. As an example, had I been in Canada 31 August 2006 there is a 100% chance I would not have seen September 1st. I got the "only hope" procedure (by the way, no one asked about insurance/ability to pay until after) that's STILL ILLEGAL in Canada - for COST-effectiveness reasons. Even if I had cash pouring out of my pockets it CANNOT be done there. It's a CRIME to do it. Tell me. Why do you hate your children so much you want that system for them?
3 :
Because Americans value different things than citizens of other countries. They inherently do not trust their government and value personal and group freedoms. Their constitutions, laws, and republic is specifically designed to limit government powers, keep certain powers at the local (i.e. state) level, and to allow individuals and the free market to run things. In many areas that has worked extremely well for them. Now... you can argue that the Canadian health care is better, but if you look at exactly how the Canadian system works, you quickly realize that the American people simply aren't willing to give the government the kinds of powers it would need to implement such a system nor are they willing to give up certain basic 'freedoms' necessary to implement a system like that. Complete state take over of all hospitals. Complete state take over of all medical insurance. Direct state control of education systems -- forcing local school boards to accept PE, health, sex education, etc. standards. Limiting of medical lawsuits. State government control over medical schools. Federal laws on drug patents. State planning of all hospitals, medical equipment purchases, etc. State and federal control over which procedures are covered. Removal of employer health plans to be replaced by federal income tax hikes. Federal distribution of funds to states with penalties for those not meeting federal government standards. etc., etc. These aren't small changes. You'd need massive constitutional changes, government buy out hospitals, hundreds of law changes in each of the states, entire industries put out of business, etc. Ignoring personal interests of various groups (doctors, lawyers, wealthy, etc.) who won't benefit on this, the massive turn-over time and costs of trying to switch to such a system, legal challenges, etc. most Americans simply aren't willing to try such an exercises. And of course, without such wholesale changes it is highly unlikely that you would see any of the benefits of a single-payer health care system.
4 :
The US won't adapt, because it would be financially disastrous. Right now, health care reform would be too costly.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Is Portuguese a good language to learn with an International Relations major
Is Portuguese a good language to learn with an International Relations major?
should i learn Portuguese from Brazil or from Portugal. i already know english and spanish. my spanish may need some improving but i can have conversations so i think i'll be okay. but is learning Portuguese demanding enough for me if i want to work with the Untied Nations or something related to that in some way.
Higher Education (University +) - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Actually, the truth is, no, it isn't. It's good that you're doing your research, but know that as far as what languages to know for working with the United Nations or something related to that, and getting closer to the front of the line to more likely being hired, means knowing whats most useful. That all boils down to what is most widely used, so for that line of work, listed in order of priority, go with either Mandarin Chinese, German, French, Arabic, Japanese, Portuguese or Russian. Whatever you decide, if you're not going to be taking it in School, be careful of what learning method you use. Linguists, and people with vast experience in learning languages will almost always agree on the fact that most language learning methods out there are 50-70 percent fluff! It's pretty easy to get away with telling you that you'll be able to speak a language when for example, someone says "hello", they're speaking English, and it doesn't mean they can actually communicate. Being semi-fluent means you have a functional comprehension of at least 65% in the conventional range of that language, while fluent would be anything greater than 80%. If you don't have the time to learn a language properly, and you're after something quick and easy, then you're probably headed towards disappointment. The best method to getting as far as you can get in the shortest period of time is called the “3 stepâ€. The first step is to complete a FULL Pimsleur (MUST BE PIMSLEUR) course. Listen to each lesson at least 2 times, taking notes the first time with new vocabulary and studying before listening the second time. The 2nd step is to form a list of the 3,000 most commonly used words/vocabulary in English, to also include the eight parts of speech (verbs, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections), which you can search the web for. Once you've formed the list, you need to find accurate generic-translations, which you can apply to most common case scenarios of that language(definatley the most challenging part of all this).Once that's done, make flash cards or whichever method works best for you in memorizing vocabulary, but try to include each word in a sentence, in addition to just the new word and it's meaning. After you've memorized all that, the 3rd step is to locate 4 movies that are preferably some kind of Disney movie, or anything of a slower pace. Childrens movies seem to work best for this. Watch the movie in the language you're trying to learn with good, quality English subtitles. Watch ONLY these same 4 movies continuously as much as possible, to the point where you know what's going to be said next. Try to plan completing each step in this order, exactly as described within a time-frame of about 8-10 months. When you're done, you should be somewhere in the range of “semi-fluencyâ€, at the point where learning after the “3 step†is quick and easy, and being close to fluent after 2 years of using it everyday, and learning at least an additional 100 new vocabulary words a month during that time. You'll thank me when you're done!
2 :
Yes, I think it's good. Brazilian Portuguese would be the best for you if you want to do some kind of work related to the UN, or work for an NGO, or with development issues. Brazil's economy and its influence will continue to grow in the coming years. And there simply aren't many people learning Portuguese as a second language. Only knowing Spanish is OK, but Spanish+Portuguese will open a lot more doors for you. It's also the easiest language for you to learn if you've already studied Spanish because both languages are so similar. (Oh, and don't forget, Portuguese is also spoken in countries in Africa: Angola and Mozambique, for example.)
3 :
Portuguese may be beneficial to learn, because it is more scarce in the international relations business. Everyone knows Spanish and French. I speak European Portuguese, but Brazilian is more widely spoken and would be more useful.
should i learn Portuguese from Brazil or from Portugal. i already know english and spanish. my spanish may need some improving but i can have conversations so i think i'll be okay. but is learning Portuguese demanding enough for me if i want to work with the Untied Nations or something related to that in some way.
Higher Education (University +) - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Actually, the truth is, no, it isn't. It's good that you're doing your research, but know that as far as what languages to know for working with the United Nations or something related to that, and getting closer to the front of the line to more likely being hired, means knowing whats most useful. That all boils down to what is most widely used, so for that line of work, listed in order of priority, go with either Mandarin Chinese, German, French, Arabic, Japanese, Portuguese or Russian. Whatever you decide, if you're not going to be taking it in School, be careful of what learning method you use. Linguists, and people with vast experience in learning languages will almost always agree on the fact that most language learning methods out there are 50-70 percent fluff! It's pretty easy to get away with telling you that you'll be able to speak a language when for example, someone says "hello", they're speaking English, and it doesn't mean they can actually communicate. Being semi-fluent means you have a functional comprehension of at least 65% in the conventional range of that language, while fluent would be anything greater than 80%. If you don't have the time to learn a language properly, and you're after something quick and easy, then you're probably headed towards disappointment. The best method to getting as far as you can get in the shortest period of time is called the “3 stepâ€. The first step is to complete a FULL Pimsleur (MUST BE PIMSLEUR) course. Listen to each lesson at least 2 times, taking notes the first time with new vocabulary and studying before listening the second time. The 2nd step is to form a list of the 3,000 most commonly used words/vocabulary in English, to also include the eight parts of speech (verbs, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections), which you can search the web for. Once you've formed the list, you need to find accurate generic-translations, which you can apply to most common case scenarios of that language(definatley the most challenging part of all this).Once that's done, make flash cards or whichever method works best for you in memorizing vocabulary, but try to include each word in a sentence, in addition to just the new word and it's meaning. After you've memorized all that, the 3rd step is to locate 4 movies that are preferably some kind of Disney movie, or anything of a slower pace. Childrens movies seem to work best for this. Watch the movie in the language you're trying to learn with good, quality English subtitles. Watch ONLY these same 4 movies continuously as much as possible, to the point where you know what's going to be said next. Try to plan completing each step in this order, exactly as described within a time-frame of about 8-10 months. When you're done, you should be somewhere in the range of “semi-fluencyâ€, at the point where learning after the “3 step†is quick and easy, and being close to fluent after 2 years of using it everyday, and learning at least an additional 100 new vocabulary words a month during that time. You'll thank me when you're done!
2 :
Yes, I think it's good. Brazilian Portuguese would be the best for you if you want to do some kind of work related to the UN, or work for an NGO, or with development issues. Brazil's economy and its influence will continue to grow in the coming years. And there simply aren't many people learning Portuguese as a second language. Only knowing Spanish is OK, but Spanish+Portuguese will open a lot more doors for you. It's also the easiest language for you to learn if you've already studied Spanish because both languages are so similar. (Oh, and don't forget, Portuguese is also spoken in countries in Africa: Angola and Mozambique, for example.)
3 :
Portuguese may be beneficial to learn, because it is more scarce in the international relations business. Everyone knows Spanish and French. I speak European Portuguese, but Brazilian is more widely spoken and would be more useful.
Friday, June 1, 2012
What is the difference between socialism and communism
What is the difference between socialism and communism?
With the recent comments likening Obama's tax plan with socialism, I've been reading some crazy posts from people fearfully equating socialism with communism. Now, I know that North Korea, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba, and (perhaps) China are examples of communism at work. And it is my understanding that much of Western Europe and all of Scandinavia operates under socialist principles. What means this word "socialism"? Could someone please explain the differences between socialism and communism? How is the socialism of the United Kingdom or India or Portugal or Sweden different from the national socialism of Czechoslovakia or the USSR or the GDR? And, if you're feeling extra articulate, how would our government need to change in order to be socialist too? I'm not really satisfied with these answers. They just raise new questions. How is the economic system distinct from the political system? Didn't Nepal elect the communists to parliament? Weren't the national socialists of Germany anti-communist -- and weren't they too elected to parliament? So socialists tax everything (including my TV) in order to provide social services like healthcare, education, child support, and social security to everyone -- regardless of income -- for a permanent welfare state.. with private businesses. Communists are extreme socialists who retain power through military force, own or have their hand in all the companies, and who also provide the aforementioned social benefits, but just not as well. ... And capitalists take tax money to secure their stake in foreign resources, provide limited social benefits expecting people to take care of themselves, and prop up giant failing corporations like mega-banks and car manufacturers. Please clarify.
Government - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Just one 4-year term.
2 :
The level of state ownership.
3 :
if barrack obama gets into office, you will see what communism is.
4 :
socialists are black (barack obama) and communists are white (russians
5 :
According to the philosopher Karl Marx..... Socialism is the TRANSITIONAL STAGE to the ultimate goal of COMMUNISM.
6 :
exactly CHANGE that will do it CHANGE good luck smile
7 :
Well Commies are a bunch of control freaks who keep power by Military means.. They rule with force.. Socialists Govern through self beliefs, they have a narrow single minded vision of what there country should be like..One is as bad as the other..
8 :
Socialism gives people some freedom but communism completely controls you. Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism, and Communism is the point where the state "withers away."
9 :
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that others are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies."
10 :
Socialism is being forced to live for society, Communism is being forced to live for the state (government).
11 :
Both mean that you work so that someone else will reap the benefits of those labors. I believe communism is the extreme of socialism in the way that the government will own everything and your rights are stripped away to the fullest. Notice that Americans rights are gradually being stripped away one law, Act and or directive at a time. Its has never been so apparent as we have seen in this last administration. Unfortunately, Bush cannot be totally blamed for our rights being taken away -- we are just able to recognize those acts due to the availability of the internet.
12 :
Dearest Ingird, I will try, Socialism is an economic system. Basically the government decides what you need and how much. The money is provided through many sources. Taxes, tariffs, inflation, are possibilities. Hitler was known as the "little paper hanger" for printing out German marks to spend them on war material. It got his country going again. In England everything belongs to the government (The King or Queen). The citizen pays "rent" for what they have. Even the use of the tee-vee has a small tax. If you are using your tee-vee with out a tax stamp, you face a hefty fine. The tee-vee police come around and check out the neighborhood with electronic equipment to bee sure you are not using the box without paying the tax. England is a Kingdom. The Nazis were a dictatorship. Communism is a government system, a kingdom is a government system, a dictatorship, Democracy, Republic, or feudal state are all systems of government. Any of these may be a socialism, or maybe mot. Communism defines itself as a socialism, and in Europe operates that way. China is Communist, but is also operating as a free enterprise system. They make and sell things for a prophet. Kind of a "blended" system. The United States is a free enterprise system but has initiated many socialistic elements over the years. With many of our large businesses going "offshore" in recent years our system is breaking down. Many people want the government to take care of them (welfare state). Our nation is a Republic, government is through Representatives, These Representatives are elected by a Democratic vote. This makes the United States unique in history. To make our system into a socialism, would be simple. Our government, through Congress would initiate programs so that everyone is given everything that they need. Then fund it by taking away extra from those who have extra. No mater how hard you work, you get about the same. Those who don't work get about the same. Special skills for special jobs? Why bother. A partial socialism at state level may work, but on a national level it would be DISASTER!!!
13 :
The socialism of Sweden is completely different from the communism of the old USSR. Socialism allows businesses to exist, while in Communism it is state-controlled. Last time I checked, IKEA is not a branch of the Swedish Government. On a side note, most "communist" governments have very dictatorish elements to them. Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro have been "alive" for an incredibly long time.
14 :
What a load of hooey this lot have written! Why don't you go and see what socialists have to say for themselves about socialism and communism? Is it because you might agree with them? http://socialistparty.org.uk/FAQFrame.htm
15 :
Socialism is as you are seeing the State mandated control of certain infrastructure and services outside of the basic needs provided by Government. Public Education is actually a form of socialism. It is hinged on empowering workers against their employers and creating a "level playing field" (you'll see that term all over Obama's website unless he scrubbed it it was everywhere on there) Socialism is basically the precursor to communism at which point ( and we've seen it through out history over and over and over) an economic system fails under the socialized government and the Government steps in and buys up the free market thereby creating a socialized economy at which point it becoms communism.
16 :
For many supporters of socialism, "socialism" means that the workers control the means of production, while "capitalism" means another class controls the means of production. Historically, supporters of socialism have varied from opponents of the state (like Proudhon or Bakunin) to supporters of it (like Engels), as well as from supporters of completely free markets (like Proudhon or Tucker) to supporters of planned economies (like Marx) to supporters of free access to common means of production (like Kropotkin). Indeed, many socialists (e.g. most anarchists) regard markets where people own their own means of production (or have reasonable chances to do so) as forms of socialism, and states where the state owns the means of production (as in the Soviet Union) as capitalism, with the ruling party as the capitalists. For most socialists, communism (small-c) refers to those forms of socialism which do away with money and paired exchange in favor of free access to goods and unpaired exchange. Marxists expect to create communism during the "withering away of the state." Anarchocommunists propose to create voluntary communism (alongside voluntary collectivism, voluntary mutualism, etc.). Errico Malatesta wrote, in defense of anarchocommunism: "[I]nstead of running the risk of making a confusion in trying to distinguish what you and I each do, let us all work and put everything in common. In this way each will give to society all that his strength permits until enough is produced for every one; and each will take all that he needs, limiting his needs only in those things of which there is not yet plenty for every one." http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/MalatestaATAC.html
With the recent comments likening Obama's tax plan with socialism, I've been reading some crazy posts from people fearfully equating socialism with communism. Now, I know that North Korea, Vietnam, Nepal, Cuba, and (perhaps) China are examples of communism at work. And it is my understanding that much of Western Europe and all of Scandinavia operates under socialist principles. What means this word "socialism"? Could someone please explain the differences between socialism and communism? How is the socialism of the United Kingdom or India or Portugal or Sweden different from the national socialism of Czechoslovakia or the USSR or the GDR? And, if you're feeling extra articulate, how would our government need to change in order to be socialist too? I'm not really satisfied with these answers. They just raise new questions. How is the economic system distinct from the political system? Didn't Nepal elect the communists to parliament? Weren't the national socialists of Germany anti-communist -- and weren't they too elected to parliament? So socialists tax everything (including my TV) in order to provide social services like healthcare, education, child support, and social security to everyone -- regardless of income -- for a permanent welfare state.. with private businesses. Communists are extreme socialists who retain power through military force, own or have their hand in all the companies, and who also provide the aforementioned social benefits, but just not as well. ... And capitalists take tax money to secure their stake in foreign resources, provide limited social benefits expecting people to take care of themselves, and prop up giant failing corporations like mega-banks and car manufacturers. Please clarify.
Government - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Just one 4-year term.
2 :
The level of state ownership.
3 :
if barrack obama gets into office, you will see what communism is.
4 :
socialists are black (barack obama) and communists are white (russians
5 :
According to the philosopher Karl Marx..... Socialism is the TRANSITIONAL STAGE to the ultimate goal of COMMUNISM.
6 :
exactly CHANGE that will do it CHANGE good luck smile
7 :
Well Commies are a bunch of control freaks who keep power by Military means.. They rule with force.. Socialists Govern through self beliefs, they have a narrow single minded vision of what there country should be like..One is as bad as the other..
8 :
Socialism gives people some freedom but communism completely controls you. Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism, and Communism is the point where the state "withers away."
9 :
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that others are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies."
10 :
Socialism is being forced to live for society, Communism is being forced to live for the state (government).
11 :
Both mean that you work so that someone else will reap the benefits of those labors. I believe communism is the extreme of socialism in the way that the government will own everything and your rights are stripped away to the fullest. Notice that Americans rights are gradually being stripped away one law, Act and or directive at a time. Its has never been so apparent as we have seen in this last administration. Unfortunately, Bush cannot be totally blamed for our rights being taken away -- we are just able to recognize those acts due to the availability of the internet.
12 :
Dearest Ingird, I will try, Socialism is an economic system. Basically the government decides what you need and how much. The money is provided through many sources. Taxes, tariffs, inflation, are possibilities. Hitler was known as the "little paper hanger" for printing out German marks to spend them on war material. It got his country going again. In England everything belongs to the government (The King or Queen). The citizen pays "rent" for what they have. Even the use of the tee-vee has a small tax. If you are using your tee-vee with out a tax stamp, you face a hefty fine. The tee-vee police come around and check out the neighborhood with electronic equipment to bee sure you are not using the box without paying the tax. England is a Kingdom. The Nazis were a dictatorship. Communism is a government system, a kingdom is a government system, a dictatorship, Democracy, Republic, or feudal state are all systems of government. Any of these may be a socialism, or maybe mot. Communism defines itself as a socialism, and in Europe operates that way. China is Communist, but is also operating as a free enterprise system. They make and sell things for a prophet. Kind of a "blended" system. The United States is a free enterprise system but has initiated many socialistic elements over the years. With many of our large businesses going "offshore" in recent years our system is breaking down. Many people want the government to take care of them (welfare state). Our nation is a Republic, government is through Representatives, These Representatives are elected by a Democratic vote. This makes the United States unique in history. To make our system into a socialism, would be simple. Our government, through Congress would initiate programs so that everyone is given everything that they need. Then fund it by taking away extra from those who have extra. No mater how hard you work, you get about the same. Those who don't work get about the same. Special skills for special jobs? Why bother. A partial socialism at state level may work, but on a national level it would be DISASTER!!!
13 :
The socialism of Sweden is completely different from the communism of the old USSR. Socialism allows businesses to exist, while in Communism it is state-controlled. Last time I checked, IKEA is not a branch of the Swedish Government. On a side note, most "communist" governments have very dictatorish elements to them. Kim Jong-Il and Fidel Castro have been "alive" for an incredibly long time.
14 :
What a load of hooey this lot have written! Why don't you go and see what socialists have to say for themselves about socialism and communism? Is it because you might agree with them? http://socialistparty.org.uk/FAQFrame.htm
15 :
Socialism is as you are seeing the State mandated control of certain infrastructure and services outside of the basic needs provided by Government. Public Education is actually a form of socialism. It is hinged on empowering workers against their employers and creating a "level playing field" (you'll see that term all over Obama's website unless he scrubbed it it was everywhere on there) Socialism is basically the precursor to communism at which point ( and we've seen it through out history over and over and over) an economic system fails under the socialized government and the Government steps in and buys up the free market thereby creating a socialized economy at which point it becoms communism.
16 :
For many supporters of socialism, "socialism" means that the workers control the means of production, while "capitalism" means another class controls the means of production. Historically, supporters of socialism have varied from opponents of the state (like Proudhon or Bakunin) to supporters of it (like Engels), as well as from supporters of completely free markets (like Proudhon or Tucker) to supporters of planned economies (like Marx) to supporters of free access to common means of production (like Kropotkin). Indeed, many socialists (e.g. most anarchists) regard markets where people own their own means of production (or have reasonable chances to do so) as forms of socialism, and states where the state owns the means of production (as in the Soviet Union) as capitalism, with the ruling party as the capitalists. For most socialists, communism (small-c) refers to those forms of socialism which do away with money and paired exchange in favor of free access to goods and unpaired exchange. Marxists expect to create communism during the "withering away of the state." Anarchocommunists propose to create voluntary communism (alongside voluntary collectivism, voluntary mutualism, etc.). Errico Malatesta wrote, in defense of anarchocommunism: "[I]nstead of running the risk of making a confusion in trying to distinguish what you and I each do, let us all work and put everything in common. In this way each will give to society all that his strength permits until enough is produced for every one; and each will take all that he needs, limiting his needs only in those things of which there is not yet plenty for every one." http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/MalatestaATAC.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)