Federal government will fund Hill monument to victims of communism

[bjre]

Communism spreads out the oppression over everyone, fascism targets specific groups.

If Communism is like that, how can communism win in many countries during the 20th century? It has some reason in it.

The answer is that there are so many problems not solved, communism provided one of the solutions.

If you read novels of 19 century written by Charles John Huffam Dickens, Victor-Marie Hugo, and others, you can easily find how cruel the society was. Acturally, many social problems have not been solved even now. Communism is at least an approach for solving those problems.

There is no need to call it "totalitarian communism", because by its very nature, communism is totalitarian, because a tyrannical regime is the only way to force people to act against their own nature (anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't know what communism actually is). As for whether or not government should be spending money on it... maybe not, but who cares, we have wasteful expenditures thousands of times larger that we should worry about first.

What is people's nature? Prople want to living better life. If they have less money, they want to buy cheap things. they want to get better paid jobs. They want to build their life by their own hands.

"force people to act against their own nature", Does the current goverment do such things?

Canadian cellphone rates among world's worst

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/08/11/canada-cellphone-rates-expensive-oecd.html

Using a comparison package of 780 calls made, 600 text messages and eight multimedia messages sent per year, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that Canada has the third-highest wireless rates among developed countries.

But the communication service is a business that need a permit. Only selected people can do it. So the price is high.

Is this against people's nature?

The dentist price is high, people need cheap solution, but experienced dentists, doctors are not allowed.

Illegal dentist exposed; 1,500 patients urged to get HIV tests

The occupant, Tung Sheng Wu, also known as David Wu, is believed to have been practicing dentistry without a licence in the province for more than a decade.

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/illegal-dentist-exposed-1-500-patients-urged-to-get-hiv-tests-1.1401968#ixzz2eCt4pL8w

But in the decade, no one actually have HIV while accidents in licenced hospitals happened.

What is more:

Who said we should trust western medical system because it is "scientific"?

Let's see the data:

America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:

• 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

• 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

• 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

• 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

• 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

Thus, America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

Are there any significant difference between American doctors and medicine and Canadian ones.

Is this against people's nature?

When reccoons invade house, people want to let them never come, but was arrected.

Man arrested for allegedly attempting to kill raccoons with a shovel

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/01/man-arrested-for-allegedly-attempting-to-kill-raccoons-with-a-shovel/

Is this against people's nature?

When people need more living space, they are not allowed to build for their own without a permit.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/06/omb_approves_illegally_built_home_addition.html

After a seven-year court odyssey and series of hit-and-miss legal arguments, a Toronto family has won the right to keep an illegal addition on their home.

This is the rare case in which a family has taken on several levels of bureaucracy and, faced with years of struggle, simply outlasted it. The family lost at several divisional courts, a committee-of-adjustment panel and an earlier OMB hearing, but continued to appeal.

Is this against people's nature?

There are too many examples.

People has the nature try to spend less and make a better life expecially for hard working people, who are the most people in this country, but this is often not allowed,

Only very small amount of people is allowed with the help of laws to make huge amount of money as they like.

Edited September 7, 2013 by bjre

[Moonlight Graham]

Because the only way you can force people to not have their own property, to relinquish it all to "collective ownership", is through force.

Yes, of course the only way to "force people" to do anything "is through force". But what if the large majority of the population wants to have collective ownership of the means of production and land etc.? What if they voluntarily give it up to the collective? Keeping in mind that Marx thought that, at least at first, there would still be some class differences and not entirely equal wealth in the early stages of communism, and that people wouldn't necessarily have to give up all of their material possessions.

If the majority wanted collective ownership, there would of course be people who wouldn't want to give their capital/land up to the state etc., but forcing a minority to do so and follow the law of the land isn't "totalitarian" more than forcing people to pay taxes in a democratic society is totalitarian. Forcing a minority to follow the law is not at all, by definition, totalitarianism.

Furthermore, once all production and reward is collectivized, you have a scenario of tragedy of the commons.. what is the motivation of any person to work harder or more productively if they are in any case entitled to have their needs fulfilled by the state, and they cannot acquire any additional reward through working?

The only way to get people to work productively when they have no "selfish" economic incentive to do so is through forceful coercion.

Is economic reward the only reason you work, or put hard effort into your work? Is money the only way to reward people for hard work? What if hard work or high productivity were rewarded with, for example:

- vacation time/free time

- nicer office/work space/work environment

- promotion to more desirable jobs

- first in line in the cafeteria, the best parking spots etc.

- public recognition

- plus any other imaginable advantage and/or tangible or socially constructed reward that doesn't significantly affect wealth or equality in standard of living.

And what if lack of hard work or productivity were punished with the opposite?

To put it even more simply, a communist economic structure is against human nature, and to make a person live in a way that is contrary to his/her nature requires force.

What is human nature, and how do you know what it is, beyond philosophical argument? Why do ie: many tribal societies (like in many aboriginal societies around the world, past and present) live in largely communal, collective societies? Are hunters or pastoralists who share all meat equally within their tribe/village living against "human nature"? Is the satisfaction that you're fulfilling your duty of ensuring everyone in your community gets to eat against human nature?

[Bonam]

Yes, of course the only way to "force people" to do anything "is through force". But what if the large majority of the population wants to have collective ownership of the means of production and land etc.? What if they voluntarily give it up to the collective? Keeping in mind that Marx thought that, at least at first, there would still be some class differences and not entirely equal wealth in the early stages of communism, and that people wouldn't necessarily have to give up all of their material possessions.

If the majority wanted collective ownership, there would of course be people who wouldn't want to give their capital/land up to the state etc., but forcing a minority to do so and follow the law of the land isn't "totalitarian" more than forcing people to pay taxes in a democratic society is totalitarian. Forcing a minority to follow the law is not at all, by definition, totalitarianism.

Yes, the majority sometimes thinks it wants that. It only finds out the bitter reality after its implemented. Lots of people want those more productive than themselves to be obligated to share the products of their labor. Too bad that once you implement communism, all that extra productivity that people were so envious of mysteriously disappears, since there is no longer any incentive for it.

Is economic reward the only reason you work, or put hard effort into your work? Is money the only way to reward people for hard work? What if hard work or high productivity were rewarded with, for example:

- vacation time/free time

- nicer office/work space/work environment

- promotion to more desirable jobs

- first in line in the cafeteria, the best parking spots etc.

- public recognition

- plus any other imaginable advantage and/or tangible or socially constructed reward that doesn't significantly affect wealth or equality in standard of living.

And what if lack of hard work or productivity were punished with the opposite?

These are all examples of capitalism, just with a different currency.

What is human nature, and how do you know what it is, beyond philosophical argument? Why do ie: many tribal societies (like in many aboriginal societies around the world, past and present) live in largely communal, collective societies? Are hunters or pastoralists who share all meat equally within their tribe/village living against "human nature"? Is the satisfaction that you're fulfilling your duty of ensuring everyone in your community gets to eat against human nature?

Philosophical debate is what we have here. And as to tribal societies and small villages, they are more comparable to a family unit. When everyone knows one another and works together to survive, that is the dynamics of a family unit. When a state forces its will on millions of people "for the common good", that is a different dynamic.

[eyeball]

These are all examples of capitalism, just with a different currency.

They are examples of economics, just with a different ideology.

When a state forces its will on millions of people "for the common good", that is a different dynamic.

We need to evolve to a point where the people force their will on the state. That's a truly different dynamic that only ever occurs rarely if at all. Citizen's assemblies and referendums are the closest we've ever come to making it an institution.

Edited September 9, 2013 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, the majority sometimes thinks it wants that. It only finds out the bitter reality after its implemented. Lots of people want those more productive than themselves to be obligated to share the products of their labor. Too bad that once you implement communism, all that extra productivity that people were so envious of mysteriously disappears, since there is no longer any incentive for it.

Under a Lenin-style system, mostly yes. But those systems have mostly been mediocre at best or horrendous at worst, and I certainly don't advocate them

These are all examples of capitalism, just with a different currency.

Seriously?

Philosophical debate is what we have here. And as to tribal societies and small villages, they are more comparable to a family unit. When everyone knows one another and works together to survive, that is the dynamics of a family unit. When a state forces its will on millions of people "for the common good", that is a different dynamic.

Your family unit argument is valid. But, again, the state doesn't necessarily have to force its will on the majority if the majority votes democratically for a certain system and laws to be implemented and upheld. There will always be outliers as I've said, like people in Canada who don't like paying taxes.

Maybe we need a system where we all function more as a community rather than as individual self-serving gluttons and hoarders. This goes for both domestically and between other nations.

[Bonam]

Maybe we need a system where we all function more as a community rather than as individual self-serving gluttons and hoarders. This goes for both domestically and between other nations.

Hint: It's not the system that makes people function like "individual self-serving gluttons". People, by their very nature, look out for themselves and their loved ones first and foremost. That is an obvious result of evolution, there's no way around it.

A good economic/political system harnesses humanity's selfish nature and uses it to better society as a whole. Capitalism with some level of taxation that pays for things that are mutually useful is an example of that system. People work for their own benefit, keep the majority of the reward, and some portion of the productivity is used for the "common good". And that is all perfectly reasonable and valid.

On the other hand, a "bad" system, such as communism, decides that human nature (selfishness) is bad, and tries to make people act differently, to act in a "non-selfish" or "altruistic" way, for the betterment of others (besides themselves, their loved ones, and their very immediate community). This inevitably fails.

Why is communism tyrannical? Because at the core of communism lies the assumption that human nature (or at least one of its main aspects: selfishness) is inherently bad, and must be beaten/trained/brainwashed out of people. Moderated capitalism says... why fight human nature when you can embrace it and achieve even greater benefit.

I don't think it can be simplified much more than that. Those are the fundamental facts underlying the debate as I see it. To sum it up even more...

The axioms:

- Selfishness (for oneself, relatives/loved ones, closest community) is an inherent part of human nature

- Harnessing human nature is better than trying to change it

From those two axioms the failure of communism is immediately apparent.

[bjre]

A good economic/political system harnesses humanity's selfish nature and uses it to better society as a whole. Capitalism with some level of taxation that pays for things that are mutually useful is an example of that system. People work for their own benefit, keep the majority of the reward, and some portion of the productivity is used for the "common good". And that is all perfectly reasonable and valid.

However, large portion of taxation is not pay for mutually useful.

Example 1: the 9% each year of tax is pay for the interest of loan from private banks, it is pay for selfishness of the bank bosses.

Example 2: at least 2/3 of the billions pay for CAS, is not for the children no matter those children need or need not "help".

The axioms:

- Selfishness (for oneself, relatives/loved ones, closest community) is an inherent part of human nature

- Harnessing human nature is better than trying to change it

From those two axioms the failure of communism is immediately apparent.

Are you tring to say "Harnessing selfishness is better than trying to change it"?

But who will be able to "Harnessing selfishness", the law makers? what if they themselves have this "human nature"?

Are you able to ask a Monster to "harness" himself?

Or are you able to ask a selfish weak small animal under the threat and lure by the Monster "harness" the Monster?

In this case, you think your "axioms" did not failure the current system?

Edited September 10, 2013 by bjre

[segnosaur]

A good economic/political system harnesses humanity's selfish nature and uses it to better society as a whole. Capitalism with some level of taxation that pays for things that are mutually useful is an example of that system. People work for their own benefit, keep the majority of the reward, and some portion of the productivity is used for the "common good". And that is all perfectly reasonable and valid.

However, large portion of taxation is not pay for mutually useful.

I don't think the previous poster would deny that money raised through taxation is sometimes wasted. However, every economic system will occasionally have waste. A 'capitalist' system (based on harnessing 'greed') will generate more wealth, so that it can afford situations of waste, and still provide a better standard of living for all citizens.

Example 1: the 9% each year of tax is pay for the interest of loan from private banks, it is pay for selfishness of the bank bosses.

Normally I try not to criticize people for their typos, but I can't quite figure out what you're saying here.

Are you complaining about interest charged on loans? In that case that's not a tax. (And I'd have to say that the interest isn't paying for the 'selfishness of banks'.. its partly paying for the risk the bank is taking should you decide to default, and its paying for lending you money instead of using it for something that could earn revenue in some other way.)

Example 2: at least 2/3 of the billions pay for CAS, is not for the children no matter those children need or need not "help".

Not sure what you're complaining about here. ARe you suggesting all of the money in the CAS should be given directly to the children?

Are you tring to say "Harnessing selfishness is better than trying to change it"?

I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying.

But who will be able to "Harnessing selfishness", the law makers? what if they themselves have this "human nature"?

Even if our politicians are subject to selfishness and human nature, they are still limited by our democratic system. Anyone who tries to let their selfishness override their work as a politician will probably find themselves out of a job.

In this case, you think your "axioms" did not failure the current system?

Again, your grammar makes it a little hard to figure out what your saying.

However, our current system is anything but 'failed'. Yes, we do occasionally have recessions and other economic problems. But the standard of living in western democracies with capitalist systems (with taxation to support social programs) is typically far better than those in countries with command economies. And that also extends to the "poor". (An individual that would be consider 'poor' in the U.S., Canada, or western Europe would be considered rather affluent when compared to an individual living in a communist country).

[hitops]

Congratulations. This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen posted in the 8 years I've been reading these forums.

Also a verifiable fact. Not one you're going to have much fun thinking about, I'm sure.

It's pretty simple. 30 million is conservative estimate on Stalin's death toll. Find anything that comes close, ever. You can't.

However, large portion of taxation is not pay for mutually useful.

Example 1: the 9% each year of tax is pay for the interest of loan from private banks, it is pay for selfishness of the bank bosses

It's not the bankers fault, nobody put a gun to the government's head and forced them to borrow. Banks offer a service and if you don't want to serve their interests, you don't have to use it. But if you do, you have only yourself to blame if it goes bad.

But you are right, taxation is not equally beneficial. It takes a far larger portion of earnings from the high-earners than the low earners because it is progressive. It is also confers vastly more benefit to the poor, as they bear the largest benefit and the smallest costs.

Edited September 12, 2013 by hitops

[bjre]

It's not the bankers fault, nobody put a gun to the government's head and forced them to borrow. Banks offer a service and if you don't want to serve their interests, you don't have to use it. But if you do, you have only yourself to blame if it goes bad.

Who knows what is the bank's role in making this happen. Lending from private bank is far from the only option, there are other solutions. For example:

Government should not do that, They should borrow money from Bank Of Canada if need. No matter Bank Of Canada charge interest or not, it is belongs to all the people in Canada.

This is the secreat of the how the top bank bosses take values created by all working people, no matter labours, or bussness men, or lawyers, or doctors, or any others. Mortgate is another way to do this.

The law should be change to make only the company owned by the government can provide morgage. So that the interest can be all becomes tax dollars for all the Canadians. It is unfair that the laws allows only serveral selected private company to lend you money with 0 reserve requirement to make money for its private bosses.

But you are right, taxation is not equally beneficial. It takes a far larger portion of earnings from the high-earners than the low earners because it is progressive. It is also confers vastly more benefit to the poor, as they bear the largest benefit and the smallest costs.

Even when high end pay more tax as current, it is still not fair, when high end take almost everything from the low end, no matter how much high end pay tax, it is still not as much as low end, because the low end has nothing left, 100% depend on his monthly income, at the same time, high end can have no income without low end work.

The exploitation from Marxist theory compare to what top bankers nowadays is actually too small, the top bankers now can make money from all people in all business without any employment relationship, which is far more smart and far more profitable than Marx can imagine.

The bank bosses can do this totally rely on the laws, the lawmakers can only harnessing poor people, they are not able to do anything harnessing the real monsters.

If any law maker dicide to let top bank boss take less money, I think he will not be able to work as a lawmaker anymore.

[bjre]

Again, your grammar makes it a little hard to figure out what your saying.

Sorry, although I have to work to make living, I still like to spend more time on improve my English, it is not easy for me, because I am no longer young.

But the standard of living in western democracies with capitalist systems (with taxation to support social programs) is typically far better than those in countries with command economies. And that also extends to the "poor". (An individual that would be consider 'poor' in the U.S., Canada, or western Europe would be considered rather affluent when compared to an individual living in a communist country).

That is because the western "democracies" take what more other countries created than they pay. Just like the bankers take away more of what other people created. The western countries takes most poor countries created and give only some small amount to keep those poor country not hunger to death. You can see this easily, in poor countries, people work same time, they get far less payed than western countries. Like what Apple did. That is the reason for outsourcing. That means when the economy can not sustain, western country take money from poor countries. So the reason why western country people live better life, is not because the system is better, it is because they takes from other countries.

[ReeferMadness]

For the most part, yes. Although, for the majority of the population, fascism can actually be in line with their natural inclinations. Some fascist regimes were not particularly repressive or tyrannical towards their nation's majority, whereas a communist regime oppresses and tyrannizes all. That is not to say fascism is any better than communism, just different.

Oh, geez. Get an education so you don't spout such utter nonsense. Or, failing that, google the terms so you can at least learn what they mean.

[Bonam]

Oh, geez. Get an education so you don't spout such utter nonsense.

Right back at you.

[bjre]

That is because the western "democracies" take what more other countries created than they pay. Just like the bankers take away more of what other people created. The western countries takes most poor countries created and give only some small amount to keep those poor country not hunger to death. You can see this easily, in poor countries, people work same time, they get far less payed than western countries. Like what Apple did. That is the reason for outsourcing. That means when the economy can not sustain, western country take money from poor countries. So the reason why western country people live better life, is not because the system is better, it is because they takes from other countries.

That explains why most countries in this planet are democrac capitalism, but most of them are not rich, among them are the poorest ones.

[Moonlight Graham]

Hint: It's not the system that makes people function like "individual self-serving gluttons". People, by their very nature, look out for themselves and their loved ones first and foremost. That is an obvious result of evolution, there's no way around it.

Sorry for the late response.

I think selfishness is a part of human nature, or a potential part. Yes it has an evolutionary aspect to it. But I also think altruism is a part of human nature. It makes people feel good when they help other people, and that also must have an evolutionary aspect to it. I think selfishness and altruism are 2 sides to the same coin. Like being violent vs being peaceful. The potential within humans to do both is inherent. Maybe being selfish and being violent are more "base" instincts to human nature than their counterparts. It reminds me of a quote from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back:

Luke Skywalker: Is the Dark-Side stronger?

Yoda: No, no. But easier, more seductive.

Communism and Socialism though is not simply about altruism, and doesn't have to be about it at all. It's also about what people consider to be fairness in the distribution of wealth. In capitalism, by its nature there will be a small minority who are owners of business and the majority will be workers (employees). Owners also hold a monopoly of power on how company profits are controlled and distributed. The vast majority of the time, owners keep all or virtually all of the profits to themselves and reward little to the workers besides their market-value wage & benefits.

By the nature of the capitalism, in a profitable business virtually all workers are paid less than what their actual value is to the business they work for. It would make no logical sense for an employer to hire a worker at a certain wage if that worker is only going to make the employer break even by hiring them. Necessarily then, a worker will contribute more value to their company than they will be rewarded in their pay/wage/salary. The difference between the worker's actual value and their wage is collected by the owner through company profits, and the owner(s) keep those profits. For any profitable company, a typical worker will never be rewarded the true value of what they contribute, while owners will always be rewarded with more reward than the true value of what they contribute.

Some people see this as just, some people don't. Communists see this as unjust, capitalists see it as just. Communism is largely about the idea of trying to re-balance worker exploitation from ownership's power monopoly inherent in a capitalist system.

A good economic/political system harnesses humanity's selfish nature and uses it to better society as a whole. Capitalism with some level of taxation that pays for things that are mutually useful is an example of that system. People work for their own benefit, keep the majority of the reward, and some portion of the productivity is used for the "common good". And that is all perfectly reasonable and valid.

What I'll say about capitalism is that it does use humanity's selfish nature to be extremely effective and efficient at creating wealth. Creating lots of wealth is good, but IMO there are wealth distribution problems and problems of exploitation and "a race to the bottom" within capitalism that are immoral and "bad".

On the other hand, a "bad" system, such as communism, decides that human nature (selfishness) is bad, and tries to make people act differently, to act in a "non-selfish" or "altruistic" way, for the betterment of others (besides themselves, their loved ones, and their very immediate community). This inevitably fails.

I don't quite support communist systems as they've existed. I believe in a system that rewards hard work and innovation (selfishness), but also fairly distributes wealth and profits. This may exist in a modified communist or modified capitalism system, or a whole different economic system

Why is communism tyrannical? Because at the core of communism lies the assumption that human nature (or at least one of its main aspects: selfishness) is inherently bad, and must be beaten/trained/brainwashed out of people. Moderated capitalism says... why fight human nature when you can embrace it and achieve even greater benefit.

There are aspects of capitalism which are also tyrannical. As I've argued, I also don't believe that selfishness is human nature and altruism is not. They are both aspects of human nature, but selfishness I believe is our more basic, animalistic, nature, that's "easier, more seductive". Selfishness may be easier to exploit in an economic system, but that doesn't mean that it's "better", or will lead to a better society. I also don't think communism has been properly put into practice, not even close.

Capitalism creates massive power and wealth imbalances that are, IMO, immoral. This can be seen in our society but more easily in comparing rich countries to poor countries in the international capitalist economy, and how the rich exploit the poor for profits, resources, cheap labour etc. It's a race to the bottom, and selfish humans in the rich countries can only improve these relations through altruistic regulations that will mean less wealth for the rich...which will probably never happen.

I also think our capitalist system, which rewards selfishness, conditions people to become more selfish and greedy. People become a product of their environment (nature vs nurture argument). People will always have selfishness in them (or the potential), but capitalism/consumerism nourishes and increases it.

[jacee]

And when will Chairman Harper erect a monument to the victims of Capitalism? Or is he just a transparent idealogue?

I think we should do that!

A pan Canadian art piece, with a slag pond and a river full of bulbous cancerous fish, babies with Minimata disease ... and a tickertape of deaths from contaminated water, air, soil and hazardous labour conditions ... in Canada.

The costs of air pollution:

21,000 premature deaths per year

$8b per year health costs.

What about planting a dead tree ?

Feel free to jump in and elaborate ...

When's the monument going in?

We can be there !

[bleeding heart]

I think we should do that!

A pan Canadian art piece, with a slag pond and a river full of bulbous cancerous fish, babies with Minimata disease ... and a tickertape of deaths from contaminated water, air, soil and hazardous labour conditions ... in Canada.

The costs of air pollution:

21,000 premature deaths per year

$8b per year health costs.

What about planting a dead tree ?

Feel free to jump in and elaborate ...

When's the monument going in?

We can be there !

[eyeball]

I don't quite support communist systems as they've existed. I believe in a system that rewards hard work and innovation (selfishness), but also fairly distributes wealth and profits. This may exist in a modified communist or modified capitalism system, or a whole different economic system

That system, if its to be sustainable will have to incorporate and account for natural capital - the goods and services our planet's ecosystems deliver that everyone rich and poor require. Neither capitalism or communism will prevail so long as these continue to exist outside contemporary human economies. I think maintaining that deluded view is probably what causes most if not all the really gross disparity in wealth and power that exists in both communist and capitalist societies.

Decentralization of government and a move towards local area-based resource management and area-rooted resource ownership would also help but don't expect very many distant governments, either communistic or capitalistic to go that route. Leaving west coast fisheries management for example in Ottawa has resulted in ownership of the fish quotas it assigns to owners that are just as distant from the communities of people who've relied most on this natural capital. The tragedy of the commons has been replaced with the tragedy of enclosure resulting in quota value skyrocketing and now instead of too many people chasing too few fish we have too much capital chasing fish, and now people too, straight to the bottom.

Myself, I don't hold out much hope for avoiding a really hard crash/landing.

[Icebound]

..... because a tyrannical regime is the only way to force people to act against their own nature ....

I won't agree or disagree with this statement.

But I would ask you to check out the 1960's experiment where very nice people were coaxed, not coerced, into doing very terrible things..., Willingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Monuments are distractions.... we put up a monument...walk by it and say, "Oh, how terrible"... and walk on. Do we really study the history to understand what happened, why it happened, and how to look for the same signs in today's societies?

...

...

[PIK]

Sorry, although I have to work to make living, I still like to spend more time on improve my English, it is not easy for me, because I am no longer young.

That is because the western "democracies" take what more other countries created than they pay. Just like the bankers take away more of what other people created. The western countries takes most poor countries created and give only some small amount to keep those poor country not hunger to death. You can see this easily, in poor countries, people work same time, they get far less payed than western countries. Like what Apple did. That is the reason for outsourcing. That means when the economy can not sustain, western country take money from poor countries. So the reason why western country people live better life, is not because the system is better, it is because they takes from other countries.

Or maybe it was the liberal immigration plan of raping these countries of their best and brightist and bringing them here.

[bjre]

Or maybe it was the liberal immigration plan of raping these countries of their best and brightist and bringing them here.

It is because of many people like my kind, who do real hard work that create real value, instead of just talking and prepare documents with some kind of educated prefered "language", that keep this society running, and feed greedys, and avoid the country from bankrupt.

[cybercoma]

It is because of many people like my kind, who do real hard work that create real value, instead of just talking and prepare documents with some kind of educated prefered "language", that keep this society running, and feed greedys, and avoid the country from bankrupt.

It's pretty narcissistic to think that your work is more valuable than others'.

[geogsArrose]

A clean fast is better than a dirty breakfast. inhindina