Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gallipoli
Consul
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 318
|
Quote Reply
Topic: USSR or USA?Which one do you favor most? Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 09:38 |
Russian Imperialism? hahahahaha
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 10:10 |
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi
Precisely. Democracy is defined by universal political rights for the
whole adult population regardless of class, ethnicity, sex,
religion, merit, wealth... Universal suffrage DOES equal Democracy. If
you claim otherwise, you'll have to answer some tough questions such as;
1. From which percentage of the population upwards are we allowed to
call an Oligarchy a Democracy? How is this percentage determined? Who
determines it? Mosquito thinks 5% is enough, you think (approx.) 45% is
enough. Is there an official figure somewhere?
2. Do you call a country which denies minorities the right to vote a
Democracy? Since you seem to answer 'no' to this, in what way do
you think the women differ from a minority, other than the fact that
they are, indeed, a majority? What makes you think it is ok to ignore
women when it comes to political rights? Because everyone did it that
way? Because women are (or were) incapable of making political
decisions?
3. Which country is more democratic, the one in which the women have
the right to vote or the one where they don't? If Switzerland would
abolish the right to vote for women today, would you still call it a
democratic country? If 'no', why was it acceptable to call them so in
1970? Has the definition of 'Democracy' changed since 1970?
|
TJK basicly answered this. Yes, the definition of democracy has changed, and will change. There are no Real and True definition of what a democracy is, but it's basicly 'rule of the people'. Neither has it anything to do with whether women are capable or not (of course they are), but it is anachronistic to judge out an older system because of modern values, just as it is wrong to call killing PoWs in the 17th century 'war crimes'. The Greek democracy was a democracy - heck, the word was invented to describe that system - and so was pre-universal suffrage Switzerland.
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 10:21 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
TJK basicly answered this. Yes, the definition of democracy has changed, and will change. There are no Real and True definition of what a democracy is, but it's basicly 'rule of the people'. Neither has it anything to do with whether women are capable or not (of course they are), but it is anachronistic to judge out an older system because of modern values, just as it is wrong to call killing PoWs in the 17th century 'war crimes'. The Greek democracy was a democracy - heck, the word was invented to describe that system - and so was pre-universal suffrage Switzerland. |
not quite. Athens were a democracy but not everyone who lived in Athens was a citisen. Those who were not born as the children of athenians were foreigners and their number in athens was somtimes as big a number of Athenian citisens. And slaves had no rights at all. But those who were citisens were all equal and had the same rights. The vote of nobleman was worth 20 votes of paesants and you call it democracy Styr?
Just like in Poland. Between 10 and 15% of people were citisens and they all had full and equal rights. Thats different from Sweden where were citisens of better and worse class - so Sweden was not democracy.
Edited by Mosquito
|
|
Rava
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 10:48 |
What's so funny Gallipoli, belive that Russians has already given up a dream of Great Russia including the countries they lost and being Superpower again? You don't know them....
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 10:48 |
Originally posted by Mosquito
not quite. Athens were a democracy but not everyone who lived in Athens was a citisen. Those who were not born as the children of athenians were foreigners and their number in athens was somtimes as big a number of Athenian citisens. And slaves had no rights at all. But those who were citisens were all equal and had the same rights.
Just like in Poland. Between 10 and 15% of people were citisens and they all had full and equal rights. Thats different from Sweden where were citisens of better and worse class - so Sweden was not democracy.
|
"Not quite"? What was wrong in what you quoted, since nothing following those two words explains that. I know perfectly well how the Athenian democracy worked.
"just like Poland". So you think a system where a tiny fraction of the population has full political rights and the rest have no say is more democratic than a system where a large part has full political rights and the rest also has full political rights albeit a smaller representation, in a country that by the scholars, politicians of the age as well as the writers of the Enlightenment was referred to as the "freest land in the world"? You are appearing like some kind of a nationalist who can't accept there were early democratic-like systems outside and before your country. May I ask if these are your own personal conclusions or words by an authority on the subject? If not, I suggest you do some reading. Probably the newest English title on the subject, Age of Liberty, Michael Roberts, Cambridge, might be of interest. This is OT though, and will be my last post on the subject in this thread.
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 20:55 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
"Not quite"? What was wrong in what you quoted, since nothing following those two words explains that. |
Not quite - i dont quite agree that meaning of the word "democracy" can change so much trough history that it is loosing its sence.
So you think a system where a tiny fraction of the population has full political rights and the rest have no say is more democratic than a system where a large part has full political rights and the rest also has full political rights albeit a smaller representation, |
.
Technically yes - because only those 10-15% of people were the citisens. If some of the citisens got better rights than others it is not a democracy. Roman Republic wasnt a democracy for the same reason. Some of the people had better political rights than others, while all were represented. You may call the system which was in Sweden by many names but not as democracy.(im not saying that your system was good or bad here). If vote of one person is worth as much as 20 votes of other people it is not a democratic system. If you dont see it i suggest reading some books about history and evolution of political systems.
in a country that by the scholars, politicians of the age as well as the writers of the Enlightenment was referred to as the "freest land in the world"? |
Well, some of those scholars and philosophers of enlightment consdered the political system of PLC as the ideal utopia (eg. Russeau). And that system was working in Poland long before the enlightment, over 100 years before it. The enlightment brought consitution of the 3rd May 1791 and enlargement of the "citisen class". But i have never said that Swedes were not a free people. All i said is just that the system in Sweden wasnt democracy in the technical meaning of this word.
You are appearing like some kind of a nationalist who can't accept there were early democratic-like systems outside and before your country. May I ask if these are your own personal conclusions or words by an authority on the subject? If not, I suggest you do some reading. |
It has nothing to do with nationalism. Part of my education was learning about all the political systems which appeared in the history. I have studied constitutions of many countries not only of my own. And studied - means that i have read them and later when i was examined i was able to answer for example for questions like: what were the similarities and differences between Charte constitutionelle of Luis XVIII from 1814 and constitution of Belgium from 1830. Maybe im not a professor but i feel well enough on the ground of constitutional law to discuss it.
Edited by Mosquito
|
|
TMPikachu
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 21:23 |
out of the ashes of the USSR have come Russian love brides.
Who orders those brides? Lonely, overweight, bald (or balding) Americans.
See? The world CAN co-exist peacefully!
Edited by TMPikachu
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 21:35 |
Technically yes - because only those 10-15% of people were the
citisens. If some of the citisens got better rights than others it is
not a democracy. Roman Republic wasnt a democracy for the same reason.
Some of the people had better political rights than others, while all
were represented. You may call the system which was in Sweden by many
names but not as democracy.(im not saying that your system was good or
bad here). If vote of one person is worth as much as 20 votes of other
people it is not a democratic system. If you dont see it i suggest
reading some books about history and evolution of political systems. |
Then if you really go with that, the USA is not a democracy. because
during presidential elections, 500 votes can have more weight than
500,000. That's pretty much what happened in 2000.
There's no real definition of democracy that's scientifically thorough.
Especially if you look at how ultimate power (the citizens) vs.
who has immediate power (the officials) has changed.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 21:59 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
Then if you really go with that, the USA is not a democracy. because during presidential elections, 500 votes can have more weight than 500,000. That's pretty much what happened in 2000. |
Not really, the problem was a voting system, not the difference between the rights of citisens. It wasnt an intention of the Legislator to give more importance to the votes of some citisens over others. It was just a result of long not reformed voting system which in fact didnt change for 200 years.
|
|
Beylerbeyi
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 04:17 |
When I wrote 'universal suffrage equals Democracy' what I meant was that it is a prerequisite of Democracy.
Also, you haven't answered any of my questions. If you think the meaning of the term 'Democracy' changed in time, it means that you also believe that the old regimes and the new ones are different things. What you are saying amounts to 'at some points in history Oligarchies were called Democracies'. And of course, you should come up with a viable definition for Democracy for each age and mention criteria so that we can tell what is a Democracy and what is not. I think you are just trying to claim Democracy for your nations, because Democracy is such a nice word.
Frankly, the Athenians could be calling their (admittedly more participatory) Oligarchy Democracy as much as they like, but an Oligarchy is an Oligarchy- it is a political term defined by political science. North Korea also calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but it is no democracy...
Or if you want to be picky, you can use Aristotle's definition of 'Democracy', in his classification of regimes: 'the rule of majority in self interest' in contrast to a 'Polity', which is 'the rule of majority in interest of all'. Which makes Democracy a corrupt regime.
BTW, TJK, I don't understand your comment on swear words? I haven't insulted anybody, maybe you should be more concerned about others who call people 'idiots', 'stupid' etc... Still, PM me the word that bothers you and I'll consider editing it.
|
|
TJK
Consul
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 05:53 |
PM sent..
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 15:09 |
I think the most telling thing is that had the USSR won the cold war we would probably be shot for having this discussion.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 16:30 |
I agree...some guys tend to idealize the USA vs USSR discussion to a Capitalsm vs. Communism dsicussion, but in fact this is Democratic system vs. autocratic system.
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 17:15 |
Originally posted by Temujin
I agree...some guys tend to idealize the USA vs USSR discussion to a Capitalsm vs. Communism dsicussion, but in fact this is Democratic system vs. autocratic system. |
I would say that democratic vs totalitarian. The only difference between USSR and Nazi Germany was that USSR was on the allied side. Altough not from the begining because till 1941 USSR and III Reich were good allies.
I think the most telling thing is that had the USSR won the cold war we would probably be shot for having this discussion. |
I think that you are completelly wrong Tobodai. You would have been arrested before saying anything and not shot but sent to the mines of Kolyma or Vorkuta where you would live few months or even about a year if you strong and healthy.
Edited by Mosquito
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 17:24 |
Beylerbeyi, I did answer your questions. Even if not in a 1-2-3 list, the answer can be deducted from my reply.
Mosquito, exactly, and many people do not realize that the USSR was one of the aggressors of the war, attacking Balticum, Finland and Poland the same time the Germans attacked Poland, France, Denmark and Norway.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 17:48 |
I completely agree
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 17:49 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Mosquito, exactly, and many people do not realize that the USSR was one of the aggressors of the war, attacking Balticum, Finland and Poland the same time the Germans attacked Poland, France, Denmark and Norway. |
That's why i said that apologist's of the USSR in my opinion are idiots and fools. To me there is no difference between them and neonazists.
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Sep-2004 at 22:00 |
Agree with you Mosquito to an extent there but maybe just a little harsh. One(neonazis) is full of hate and the other seems completely mis-guided on just how evil the USSR really was no matter what its intent may have been.
Capitalsm vs. Communism is indeed all the apologist seem to see.
|
|
Shifty Russian
Janissary
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 06:04 |
Could be just me but there some really idiotic posts - esp - the one that said - i support neither because im anti-globalization. and the one that said America has Greater Nuclear bomb power.
- just quickly - Russia had enough nuclear bombs to blow this world for time over... why so many bombs? because they wanted to get rid of the cocroach and rat problem
I casted my vote for Russia - for national pride reasons... but when it comes to chosing the lesser of the two evils - i think its rather arrogant for anyone to do so with great certainty - and or great pride esp. when ur from America or Russia.
At the end of the day - both countries have their problems and good points - which are very similar.
For example - the land of opportunity - that likes to consider it self up their with the best of them, when it comes to equality... Is really not that equal - 12 -30 percent live below the relative poverty line - but that depends what stats u look at - Considerable ammount of inequality between first and fith quintiles. Incredible ammounts of racism and sexism (remember we're talking cold war era)
on the other side of the coin the USSR also promoted equality - it more two tear unlike the US system - theres the common people (98% rough figure) and those incharge. Russians can also be some what racists although there arent many foreigners there - because - who wants to go to RUssia? Plus theres another unequal power not mentioned - called the marfia.
When it comes to military power - both had it sweat - and both could do a lot of demage- - - - - if anyone from any of the two side thought they could push the other over - is a fool (back in the cold war era) Russia had the numbers and the resources to cause un imaginable destruction if so prevoked (allies at that time included CHina, and north Korea - both could hold their own when it comes to war)
So to America who were very technologically advanced with many allies - I believe a lot of people are unaware of how big the USSR were when it comes to CHemical and Bio weapons - jat the rate of 40mega tonnes p/a - whilst the USA could do hardly produce 10percent of that going by memory - esp. when it was revealed that the USA was making bio weapons secretly when they promised not to, in i believe the 70s. There were Cities with 30,000+ scientist that produced nothing but bio and chem weapons.
When it comes to foreign policy for both nations - its to hard to describe briefly. But the moral is - both coutries had millions of nice people in - who meant no one no harm, and to lable them as evil - because either one of them was under the control of a system 'you' didnt believe in - would be unfair.
I love my economics and could pick problems with the two systems forever - but i havent the time
Being RUssian myself - i can honestly tell u that for people who knew little about America - alot of Russians used to love the country - whether it would be for the music (my self being a big fan - of Micahel Jackson and Madonna at the time) or for the sneakers that they bought at the black markets - many never regarded Americans as evil in the same way many Americans considered USSR evil.
- - - -thats my two cents..... want 2 more? just ask for it
|
I'm Shifty Russian, Suka
|
|
Shifty Russian
Janissary
Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 06:17 |
i didn't read all the replies on this topic of us v ussr
but another 2 cents for those comparing nazis with ussr with america
it comes down to economics and a tiny bit of bad luck in regards to whom got to control Russia and Germany in some of the Eras
But it breaks down like this - Germany (WWII) - Military Dicatorship Brought about by the instability with in the country after not knowing what to do with them selves - after WWI - being abit neive - blah blah blah we know what happened - RUssia - Combination of Military and Communist Ideologies - - - -The revolution came because of frustration in regards to what the Tsar was doing with economy and other misc" thing with Japan blah blah blah - - - But the point being it wasnt meant to be some Military at first - just more Equal - America - Controlled/Free Market economy - Not as equal - but comes with the opportunity for everyone to make lots of money mmm.... money just like the other systems has flaws and good points - and a lot of people that were pretty determined to make Germany and RUssian see things from their perspective with out going into all the complexities of each nation
|
I'm Shifty Russian, Suka
|
|