Vortex

Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

The Nexerus said
What about Sweden's economy relies on "the exploitation of the third world"?

Please don't tell me your advocating this

Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

Dervish said
I never said that.

Lol yeah sorry, I didn't mean that YOU said that, I mean that yes I agree with you that people would not want to go to the communist system because I believe they have been taught to fight against it.

Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

Of course the revolutionaries did not want it to be a dictatorship and yes I agree that's what happens when you create a oligarchy but that is, like I said not true Marxism. Anyhow not true Marxism has been tried and since the world now hates communists I doubt we will ever get another go.

As to what Churchill said, yes all the other systems tried so far have not been as good as democracy but Marxism has not been tried.

And yes I have to agree with you most people have been taught to fight against communism from a early age.

Holding Corperations responisble for their pollution.

Oh boy I love it when it comes to to this stage of the conversation where I have to explain that those countries were/not true communism/Marxism. Those countries you mentioned dervish are not true Marxist societies but a disgusting morphed form of Marxism and is closest to Stalinism or Maoism than anything else. As you realise those countries were/are a dictatorship which is the first stage of being a contradictory pseudo-communist society. The second everyone is equal... But some people are more equal than others, for there are plenty of/are starving families in those particular countries while the pseudo-communist elite dine with fine foods and wines. May I also mention in a Marxist society there would be no money, all those countries fail amazingly at that one, for money leads to capitalism wether it is Stalins state capitalism or China's Capitalism it makes no difference.

Apologies for that little rant, I just find it my duty to tell people the difference between those countries and a true Marxist society.

Elder Scrolls Online RPing

Yeah forgot we were talking bout the first dominion not the skyrim one. Anyway... LONG LIVE WUEEN AYRENN!!

Your Political Ideology

I feel you, but I believe some sort of Government or political structure needs to be in place so society does not fall on itself

Your Political Ideology

Well if you govern technically your a states man

Your Political Ideology

Kadaeux said
I am a full supporter of Kadaeuxianism. So long as I run the show, Emperor of the Earth would be an acceptable title, I don't have a problem. Any current system with Politicians in charge of it, fuck that.

If your the Emporer technically speaking your a politician or at the least a statesman.

Your Political Ideology

The Nexerus said
You have a habit of going off on tangents where you do nothing but rant about how awful western civilization is. I'm going to ignore those in this post.No, it doesn't matter if they were there first or not. Why would it matter? As for slavery, it's not a European invention. Arabs took more African slaves than Europeans did. Furthermore, Europeans were the ones to eventually end slavery. Usually, they had to do this by force, since slavery had been engrained into the society of their colonies since before Europeans had ever arrived there.

You have a habit of going off on a tangent where you do nothing but praise capitalism or imperialism. It matters wether they were first or not because, it's their homeland. As for slavery yes I agree it is not a European invention only for the fact however that it is not a invention at all but a concept. Arabs took more slaves then Europeans? Where's your proof? And even if that is true it matters not because we are discussing European colonisation not Arab Slavery. Europeans were the first to end slavery? Ha, don't make me laugh. Many middle eastern or Asian empires abolished slavery far before Europeans did. Also most native people of pick-a-country did not have slavery in the first place.

Your Political Ideology

The Nexerus said
I can't think of any examples of settler migration ever having happened in Asia on any large scale.

Yes it did not happen on large scale but it still happened.

The Nexerus said
In Africa, people like the Boers had lived in their lands since before the later comers, the Zulu—who had the advantage of having black skin and thus being assumed to be the original inhabitants of whatever part of Africa they migrated to—had arrived.

And there were people before the Boers came. And if what you say is true then the boers can exploit their part of Africa all they like but I doubt that they were the first peoples to live in that area.

The Nexerus said
It's not important who lived there originally anyway; no ethnicity is native to anywhere on the planet.

True enough but it still matters wether the colonists where their first or not. If they were then if they want to exploit the minerals then they can go for it. But if they are going to kick out the indigenous people in the process then no, that is not right.

The Nexerus said
You keep using the term 'exploitation' as a buzzword, as if the evil white-devils swarmed in and slaughtered the local populace, then used their bones as pickaxes to mine the diamonds out of their sacred monuments after having eaten their flesh.

In many instances the "white devils" as you described them did in fact kill much of the local populace or at the very least enslave them into the workforce. Are the settlers cannibals? No of course not. But did they mine their sacred monuments or cut them down for materials? Yes. Say if you were a native inhabitant who's whole life is dedicated to that particular monuments as it was supposedly placed their by the gods and all of a sudden it is dug up by the settlers, don't know about you but I would be fairly pissed.

The Nexerus said
Teaching the locals that the riverbed they've been using to shit in actually contains massive deposits of gold is hardly exploitation. There's a mutual benefit there. Who's benefiting more? That could be argued. But if it's the Europeans, then rightfully so. They're the ones who found the stuff in the first place.

But the native people were their first so it's their right to shit in the river if they want to, for they have no use for gold or money anyhow. As for the Europeans being right in benefiting more from the natives, I could not disagree with you more (surprise!). Who cares if the Europeans were the first to discover the diamonds or whatever? The Europeans should not have had so many or wars or be so greedy and cut down the forests and mine the mountains in order to fill their greed or war or whatever is the fashion to do in Europe at the time.