Liverpool FC Forum

Top · by **LFC2007** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:36 am

Seriously, in the final analysis conflict occurs because not everybody can be kept happy (I think it's very much unrealistic to think everyone could). That's why conflict in the broadest sense occurs, but whereas simple conflict ought to be treated as an absolute inevitability that arises out of humans being social animals, war - or large scale military conflict - is an avoidable consequence because of our immense capacity to reconcile our differences - we are a distinct species in that respect. That's why comments such as 'humans are warlike animals' aren't worth very much, IMO.

Top · by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:39 am

Plebs of the world unite ,yes it does mean something different in liverpool Heimdall . You have been told before . It means your a :censored:

, ok mate

Top · by **LFC2007** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:43 am

As demonstrated

Top · by **CTID** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:10 am

It's all down to education. The disgruntaled lower working class (which i am part of) are simply lashing out and the BNP are there to worm there way in. Seeming resonable to a young generation who werent there to see the roots of this poisonas lots foundation and what they really stand for. They are abhorant yes, But they entitled to their nasty opinion none the less. If people from poorer backgrounds had a better education, then they would see through these lies. You can't blame these comunities. Blame the fu*kers who keep em pinned down in poverty

Top · by **Benny The Noon** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:08 am

Wars through the times have been started mainly because of religon and greed . IMO

Top · by **JoeTerp** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:55 pm

Dazzer wrote:
heimdall wrote:
Reg wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
Reg wrote:Economics doesnt create war Divvy, politics does.

And those two things are never, ever related in any way, are they mate?

(Not that I'm anti-capitalist like...)

Communism nor capitalism didnt start wars, its usually desparate politicians who've lost teh plot that do.

Y'now what i mean Bob!

Money is usually the driving force for wars, that is true of almost every single war ever fought.

Yes wars are started for money reasons world war 1 and 2 was funded both sides by same people the rothschild family.Same family that riped of england in 1700 and same family that is ripping off USA atm running there fed bank go figure.But must be nice to live in a bubble where capitalism is great and it does no harm.

governments seeking more power or land has nothing to do with capitalism.

Once again, I think you are confusing capitalism with Corporatism and/or Crony capitalism, which is only possible through government. There isn't anything inherently wrong with capitalism, its only government sticking their hands in the pie that screws everything up.

Top · by **made in UK** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:16 pm

governments seeking more power or land has nothing to do with capitalism.

Don't know about that.

Top · by **Reg** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:01 pm

made in UK wrote:
governments seeking more power or land has nothing to do with capitalism.

Don't know about that.

Lenin's Bolshevik revolution nor PolPot´s tryanny in Cambodia were hardly done in the name of capitalism, nor northern Koreans attacking the south and it would be stretching the realms of reality to suggest Mao´s long trek was a scam to boost their stock market. I suspect the Argie invasion of the Falklands might be another poor example.

At the end of the day ideology is a strong motivator.

Top · by **made in UK** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:11 pm

At the end of the day ideology is a strong motivator.

Exactly.

governments seeking more power or land has nothing to do with capitalism.

Which is why I said "I don't know about that".

Top · by **JoeTerp** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:17 pm

invading a country for its resources has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to deal with force and stealing.

Capitalism is about property rights, voluntary association, free trade, etc.

Top · by **Reg** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:46 pm

The word Capitalism brought the old style 'free trade by whatever means' into the modern world, defining it and commiting its operation to the legal framework of common law.

Piracy on the high seas, slavery and bondage as well as forceful invasion and sequestration of land and goods was unsupportable once the world developed past a certain point, probably around 1825. The law allows free trade to advance whilst protecting the rights of buyer and seller and other political, geographic and cultural concerns.

Unless someone wants to start a war that is.

Top · by **Yossi_Benaloon** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:47 pm

JoeTerp wrote:invading a country for its resources has nothing to do with capitalism. That has to deal with force and stealing.

Capitalism is about property rights, voluntary association, free trade, etc.

That depends who will take advantage of the resources.

If Country A invades Country B so its associated companies can take financial advantage of either the resources or the war/reconstruction effort then, yes, it has a lot to do with capitalism.

If country A invades country B and then uses a state owned organisation to exploit the resources then, no its not capitalism.

Top · by **LFC2007** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:15 pm

Look, economic systems don't ponder whether to go to war or not. They might, though, set the conditions for conflict to arise. To that extent, it's legitimate to question whether some systems tend to give rise to greater or lesser conflict than others (or more pertinently, how they might in future), and how that squares with your own ideological standing - some might say it would be a price worth paying, for example.

Top · by **JoeTerp** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:32 pm

Yossi_Benaloon wrote:If Country A invades Country B so its associated companies can take financial advantage of either the resources or the war/reconstruction effort then, yes, it has a lot to do with capitalism.

If country A invades country B and then uses a state owned organisation to exploit the resources then, no its not capitalism.

there is not really a difference between the two situations here, and niether are capitalism, they are both some form of Fascism, the first being less overt, and more properly described as Crony Capitalism or Corporatism.

Top · by **Reg** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:47 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
Yossi_Benaloon wrote:If Country A invades Country B so its associated companies can take financial advantage of either the resources or the war/reconstruction effort then, yes, it has a lot to do with capitalism.

If country A invades country B and then uses a state owned organisation to exploit the resources then, no its not capitalism.

there is not really a difference between the two situations here, and niether are capitalism, they are both some form of Fascism, the first being less overt, and more properly described as Crony Capitalism or Corporatism.

Both are smash and grab.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bnp - Forced to accept non-white members

Who is online