Idol of democracy.

[Athena]

Quote by: Autolykos And what are the principles of this so-called ideology of democracy? Germany was *not* a Christian Republic during WWI. It was an empire. - Rob

Google German democracy 1914 and you will get several sites such as the snip taken from this site.


"WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Germany

Ninetieth anniversary of the German SPD voting for war
August 4, 1914, and its consequences
By Peter Schwarz
6 August 2004
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

This Wednesday marked the ninetieth anniversary of the most fateful date in the history of German social democracy. On August 4, 1914, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) fraction in the German parliament voted in favour of war credits enabling German imperialism to go to war. With the notorious statement of its chairman Hugo Haase, “We will not desert our fatherland in its hour of need,” the SPD placed itself firmly behind Kaiser Wilhelm II and his government in what was to emerge as the bloodiest mass slaughter in human history until that time.

The vote in favour of war credits represented an unprecedented betrayal of everything the SPD stood for. The German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg described the betrayal as follows: “Never before in the history of class struggles, since there have been political parties, has there been a party that, in this way, after fifty years of uninterrupted growth, after achieving a first-rate position of power, after assembling millions around it, has so completely and ignominiously abdicated as a political force within twenty-four hours, as Social Democracy has done.” And she concluded: “On August 4, 1914, German social democracy abdicated politically, and at the same time the socialist International collapsed.”

Its democracy was not organized as ours, but neither is our democracy organized as it was. I do not know why you are choosing to argue with me. There is more to gain by looking at the facts and comparing what happened to Germany with and what happened in the US that led the Bush family declaring the US is in charge of the New World Order. We have more to gain by understanding the order of New World Order and the education for that purpose, and the political developments in the US, than in blindly defending our positions like pre world war, reactionary Germans. This is very much a statement of culture and you would benefit by studying German history.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Athena Google German democracy 1914 and you will get several sites such as the snip taken from this site. "WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Germany Ninetieth anniversary of the German SPD voting for war August 4, 1914, and its consequences By Peter Schwarz 6 August 2004 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author This Wednesday marked the ninetieth anniversary of the most fateful date in the history of German social democracy. On August 4, 1914, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) fraction in the German parliament voted in favour of war credits enabling German imperialism to go to war. With the notorious statement of its chairman Hugo Haase, “We will not desert our fatherland in its hour of need,” the SPD placed itself firmly behind Kaiser Wilhelm II and his government in what was to emerge as the bloodiest mass slaughter in human history until that time. The vote in favour of war credits represented an unprecedented betrayal of everything the SPD stood for. The German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg described the betrayal as follows: “Never before in the history of class struggles, since there have been political parties, has there been a party that, in this way, after fifty years of uninterrupted growth, after achieving a first-rate position of power, after assembling millions around it, has so completely and ignominiously abdicated as a political force within twenty-four hours, as Social Democracy has done.” And she concluded: “On August 4, 1914, German social democracy abdicated politically, and at the same time the socialist International collapsed.” Its democracy was not organized as ours, but neither is our democracy organized as it was. I do not know why you are choosing to argue with me. There is more to gain by looking at the facts and comparing what happened to Germany with and what happened in the US that led the Bush family declaring the US is in charge of the New World Order. We have more to gain by understanding the order of New World Order and the education for that purpose, and the political developments in the US, than in blindly defending our positions like pre world war, reactionary Germans. This is very much a statement of culture and you would benefit by studying German history.

It is important for one to get as many of his facts straight as possible.

A democracy and a monarchy are not the same thing. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Germany was, at best, a constitutional monarchy during WWI. It was ruled by a Kaiser (read: emperor). Thus it was most definitely not a democracy. Trust me, I've studied German history.

- Rob

[Athena]

Quote by: Autolykos It is important for one to get as many of his facts straight as possible. A democracy and a monarchy are not the same thing. In fact, they are mutually exclusive. Germany was, at best, a constitutional monarchy during WWI. It was ruled by a Kaiser (read: emperor). Thus it was most definitely not a democracy. Trust me, I've studied German history. - Rob

Well someone concerned about facts, should have more of them. Perhaps you want to say when Germany became a Christian Republic and explain Social Democrats to fit your understanding of German history? How about beginning with The constitution for which Bismarck was responsible and what Social Democrats had to do with it, and things like a national pension plan, national medical plan, Worker's Compensation, and how Britan and the US imitated Germany? Life, and democracy, are not as black and white as you seem to think.

[Athena]

Quote by: Ken Carman I disagree. Communism and socialism set up a method, or at least attempt to, of governance... just like democracy. In communism leaders are chosen according to Marx's idea, for example, that eventually the ruling class would go away and the people would, essentially, pick amongst themselves. Of course this never happened because the whole concept Marx set up didn't work on large societal scale. Very small groups have come close. re: The ideological positions you refer to can be found in the writings of all the founder(s) of the different "isms" and "ocracies." To divorce those who founded the different societies that have strived struggled towards the democratic ideal but recognize Marx's ideological skew is a skewed view in itself. I agree with the second paragraph and, although I hate to do this because the Right does it so often and often does it poorly, but we are not just a democracy. (Some would claim we are not a democracy at all, but that is wrong too.) We are a representative form of democracy, a subcategory if you wish, where we vote on representatives and even vote for representatives who then vote on for our actual leaders, such as when we "vote" for the president. I'm not a fan of that last part of our system, but that is what it is. All this is the way it is because our founders had their ideological positions that they unified into our Constitution and some of the system of governance we now argue about. Some has been changed, just like those who attempted following Marx changed theirs. We have just come a tad closer to the "idea," or the model. In fact one could argue that an actual Communist country that is a lot closer to the Marxist ideal would be very similar to a democracy. The ideological bent? "The people decide." In fact if any country had actually ever fulfilled Marx's dream they might have been closer to an actual democracy in one way than we are: the people decide. After an unspecified (? Don't remember for sure whether Marx ever mentioned any period of time.) period of time the leaders were to give up their power. :rolleyes: RIGHT. Of course countries that attempted to follow Marx were doomed to fail from the start. Too "pie in the sky" as the cliche' says.

Thank you for bringing up the argument that Communism carries the intent of turning increasing power over to the people. Communism, socialism, fascism are all democracies. That is they all engage the people in decision making, and in some ways the USSR was more democratic than the US which has autocratic industry. Autocracy is the opposit to democracy, not communism. What separates capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism is, verying degrees of government controls over the economy. Currently the US is a fascist democracy. This is required for the New World Order.

[Athena]

The democracy of Athens has both a philosophical beginning and a political one. If the Persians had not began invading Greek city/states, Athens political organization would probably never have taken a democratic form.

When the Persians first invaded Athens, it was custom for the people to flee, as people flee hurricanes today. But the Persians didn't stop at looting. They did terrible damage to both private and public property, including the temple of Athena! At this time Athena was more of grain goddess than a goddess of Liberty, Justice and Defense. She had to be appeased, or the crops wouldn't grow and the people would go hungry. It wasn't until after the wars, when her temple was rebuilt, that she became the Goddess of this new understanding of relationships, democracy.

The democracy of Athens, and why it threatens to be a tyranny today, was modeled after Sparta, a very strong military state. Sparta so controlled the lives of its citizens, they didn't even have money, because money would allow people to make independent choices. There is no independence in Sparta! Everyone served the state. However, Athens wanting everyone to serve the state during a time of war, also wanted to maintain individual independence. There are vital differences between Sparta and Athens.

The US was the Athens of modern times and Germany the Sparta of modern times. For economic and military reasons, the US has imitated Germany in every important way. This includes such things as privacy and all our human relationships, and spirit of our country. Interested?

[Gilligan]

Would you act any different if there were no government? If there were no cops would you suddenly go on a crime spree? I know I wouldn't. Do you HAVE to have a stop sign to make it across an intersection alive? It'd be nice to see what the world would be like without its leaders, who seem to be leading us down a continual path of destruction.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Gilligan Would you act any different if there were no government? If there were no cops would you suddenly go on a crime spree? I know I wouldn't. Do you HAVE to have a stop sign to make it across an intersection alive? It'd be nice to see what the world would be like without its leaders, who seem to be leading us down a continual path of destruction.

Nice post.

Something people forget is that whether or not there are any laws, people still need to not upset too many other people or they run the chance of discovering that some things are still "enforced".

Truthfully most people only know a small fraction of the laws, and laws don't even cover a large part of our lives, yet people still manage to get by ok. Amazing? Not at all.

[argonak]

It does not seem very wise to expect your fellow man to treat you with kindness and compassion given the evidence of history.

We create governments to protect us. Othertimes, governments create themselves to abuse us. If large, modernized region had no government, it would very quickly gain one, in the form of an oppresive, tyranical, dictatorship made up of brutal, greedy people. To think otherwise is very, very naive.

[Livemike]

Quote by: argonak It does not seem very wise to expect your fellow man to treat you with kindness and compassion given the evidence of history. We create governments to protect us. Othertimes, governments create themselves to abuse us. If large, modernized region had no government, it would very quickly gain one, in the form of an oppresive, tyranical, dictatorship made up of brutal, greedy people. To think otherwise is very, very naive.

Then why hasn't Somalia gained such a government? It is remarkable peaceful
without a government. The only threat to general peace seems to be from those
former warlords who claim to be the "government", and to have been "elected" without
even able to hold an election in the country.

[SteveA]

Quote by: argonak It does not seem very wise to expect your fellow man to treat you with kindness and compassion given the evidence of history. We create governments to protect us. Othertimes, governments create themselves to abuse us. If large, modernized region had no government, it would very quickly gain one, in the form of an oppresive, tyranical, dictatorship made up of brutal, greedy people. To think otherwise is very, very naive.

Well even if we don't expect government to be kind and compassionate, we should at least minimize its use and be fair/just when it does get involved. To allow otherwise provides the opportunity and focal point for "brutal, greedy people" to rule.

I believe you're missing the forest for the trees.

If large, modernized region had no government, it would very quickly gain one, in the form of an oppresive, tyranical, dictatorship made up of brutal, greedy people.

Aren't you basically describing a lot of governments that have existed? How could such an individual gain that power if the people rejected such a method of ruling?

You can't by a tyrannt over people that won't tolerate tyranny. Why did America evolve, at least initially, into a relatively free country? Was it because we created the Constitution or because of social views that reject authoritarian activities?

To believe the Constitution protects people from tyranny is naive. It's a piece of paper. What protects us from tyranny is that most (well, at least many) people in the U.S. don't tolerate it.

[argonak]

Quote by: Livemike Then why hasn't Somalia gained such a government? It is remarkable peaceful without a government. The only threat to general peace seems to be from those former warlords who claim to be the "government", and to have been "elected" without even able to hold an election in the country.

I didn't mean to imply it'd be a united, efficient, federal government with an organized amry of sync marching oppressors.

But from what I've read of somalia, I was under the impression its in anarchy with very small scale warlords controlling various portions of the country. If I'm wrong I'll naturally conced the point that it is possible for people to live in a happy self fulfulling anarchy where no one orders anyone else around or sets laws or any sort of control.

[argonak]

Quote by: SteveA Well even if we don't expect government to be kind and compassionate, we should at least minimize its use and be fair/just when it does get involved. To allow otherwise provides the opportunity and focal point for "brutal, greedy people" to rule.

Governments shouldn't be kind, they should be just. Being kind to someone doesn't neccessarily help them. A lot of the times even with best intentions we just seem to make things worse. (I admit its hard to stand by when someone is in pain and you think you can help them)

Aren't you basically describing a lot of governments that have existed? How could such an individual gain that power if the people rejected such a method of ruling?

Um, yes, I was. And to answer your second question, ussually through the means of a loyal following of very brutal men.

You can't by a tyrannt over people that won't tolerate tyranny. Why did America evolve, at least initially, into a relatively free country? Was it because we created the Constitution or because of social views that reject authoritarian activities?

I agree. America became what it is because we fought for it.

To believe the Constitution protects people from tyranny is naive. It's a piece of paper. What protects us from tyranny is that most (well, at least many) people in the U.S. don't tolerate it.

"Most people" won't protect you when the invading armies of an oppressor march through your city and gun the resistance down. Its possible not even ALL the people could stop it. But I agree that what little protection we do have comes from our own refusal to accept tyrany.

[SteveA]

Being kind to someone doesn't neccessarily help them.

I'd recommend you rethink your definition of kindness. I know what you're trying to say but it needs to be said clearer.

Kindness isn't giving a 5 year old child all the candy they ask for, even if 51% of them wanted it . Other examples as well could be given to demonstrate that blind slavery to others desires isn't necessarily kindness to either party.

A lot of the times even with best intentions we just seem to make things worse. (I admit its hard to stand by when someone is in pain and you think you can help them)

And it appears you agree.

Um, yes, I was. And to answer your second question, ussually through the means of a loyal following of very brutal men.

Yes, though I'll add, brutality is often disguised as compassion or protection in some form.

I agree. America became what it is because we fought for it. "Most people" won't protect you when the invading armies of an oppressor march through your city and gun the resistance down. Its possible not even ALL the people could stop it. But I agree that what little protection we do have comes from our own refusal to accept tyrany.

And the reason why this rarely happens to a free people is that there's little to gain if people simply refuse to be subjugated. Hence, why our current socialistic version of government has evolved. If you can convince enough people to accept tyranny or brutality because it's somehow in the best interest of everyone, then you can still achieve the same results and avoid the infighting as well.

Either way, the destruction is real and ultimately these costs bring such systems down.

I'm not a pacifist, and recognize there's a need for peaceful people to assure they can defend themselves but I think a simple rule of thumb for who's the aggressor in most any war is to look at who's walking around with a gun in someone elses backyard. Maybe preemption could be justified for somethings but the problem with such logic is that if everyone were to assume they had a right to preempt anything other than an obvious threat to their security, we'd have non-stop wars, as it's always possible to imagine a scenario where someone else could be threatening you in some non-obvious manner.

We live in a world with plenty of potential for either tyranny or large scale destruction. It's social values that keep the peace and defend our liberties. If any society desires war or is willing to subjugate themselves to another, it's a relatively easy path to follow, though short lived. Step carefully.

[Athena]

Quote by: argonak I didn't mean to imply it'd be a united, efficient, federal government with an organized amry of sync marching oppressors. But from what I've read of somalia, I was under the impression its in anarchy with very small scale warlords controlling various portions of the country. If I'm wrong I'll naturally conced the point that it is possible for people to live in a happy self fulfulling anarchy where no one orders anyone else around or sets laws or any sort of control.

I think we have a terrible understanding of what government does. Government organizes a work force and makes commerce possible. Only if people live very primitively can they do without government, however, no environment can absorb the city populations we have today without well developed commerce, requiring a well developed work force.

Primitive people lived without the formal governments we have today, but this is not possible for large organizations of people. When there are few people they can live with informal rules. "You slap my wive, or jerk around my kid, and I will kick your butt". In a village where everyone knows everyone else this works just fine. In a city with a million people, we are not restrained by our relationships. We are strangers in a crowd, and that is when government formalizes the informal rules of conduct and must enforce what is now formal laws. When there is no government to serve this function- we get things like the men in Polland thinking it is great sport to kill Jews and being free to do so. Most of us do not want the informal law of inner city slum ghettos, where is not save for children to walk home from school. "What you think you doing, stepping on my turf, fool?"

[Athena]

American became what it is, because the time was right for it, and the immigranting Europeans had better weapons and enough numbers to destroy the people who lived with much more freedom than you have today.

Native Americans and Celts enjoyed much more freedom than Romans or citizens of the US. We once understood freedom rest on owning enough land to be self sufficient. This way of life could not support the population of the US today, and people have given up freedom to have material goods. When we exhaust oil, we will have to undo what we have done, and return to a simpler life, where hopefully family once again be an important part of our understanding of freedom.

[Athena]

Quote by: argonak Governments shouldn't be kind, they should be just. Being kind to someone doesn't neccessarily help them. A lot of the times even with best intentions we just seem to make things worse. (I admit its hard to stand by when someone is in pain and you think you can help them) Um, yes, I was. And to answer your second question, ussually through the means of a loyal following of very brutal men. I agree. America became what it is because we fought for it. "Most people" won't protect you when the invading armies of an oppressor march through your city and gun the resistance down. Its possible not even ALL the people could stop it. But I agree that what little protection we do have comes from our own refusal to accept tyrany.

What is just about mimium wage and $200,000 homes?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena I think we have a terrible understanding of what government does. Government organizes a work force and makes commerce possible. Only if people live very primitively can they do without government, however, no environment can absorb the city populations we have today without well developed commerce, requiring a well developed work force.

I believe the cause and effect are backwards here.

People work and trade without government involvement. Government results as commerce and wealth increase to resolve disputes but government doesn't create commerce or the work force.

When a lot of people pack into a small area, like our modern cities then there are bound to be a larger number of disputes or conflicts between people but the cities, people and industries themselves were created by individual desires, not legal mandates.

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA I believe the cause and effect are backwards here. People work and trade without government involvement. Government results as commerce and wealth increase to resolve disputes but government doesn't create commerce or the work force. When a lot of people pack into a small area, like our modern cities then there are bound to be a larger number of disputes or conflicts between people but the cities, people and industries themselves were created by individual desires, not legal mandates.

You are so right and the US has all the oil it needs.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena You are so right and the US has all the oil it needs.

Yes, if we could only extract it without dealing with government granted monopolies.

[Athena]

Government is not democracy. Democracy is an ideology, and government is only one form of manifesting the ideology.

Idealogy is, a combination of Greek words meaning to manifest logos (the word, universal intellegence) in speech. Before we can speak, we must think about our thought, or what comes out of our mouths is little better than a dogs barking.

Logos is the controlling force of the universe. Only human beings can manifest the logos in speech. This is what makes us like the gods, and it is why we are the only creatures whose actions could be considered sin. A sin being doing something we believe is wrong and harmful. Animals lacking the ability to make such judgements, can not sin. It is unnatural for humans to violate the laws of logos, because they are reasonable creatures, and going against reason, violating the law, is obviously destructive. Logically, that which is destructive will ultimately destroy self. Something is obsiously wrong with a person who violates the law, from which there is not escape.

In Aristotle's mind, the worst possible loss a human could endure is loss of liberty in the form of freedom of thought and action. Socrates gave his life for law and liberty, and Aristotle left Athens, before it could sin against freedom of thought and liberty, again. This is what is so wrong with slavery, and autocratic industry is no better than slavery.

In a forest or desert, hundreds of miles from other humans, there is complete freedom of thought and action. However, humans are not only thinking creatures, but also social creatures, and they tend to congregate in cities, where the variety of thoughts and actions can be overwhelming. Here is where a governing body comes to play. Some of form of decision making that generates social agreements. A means to create order out of chaos.
This may friends is the meaning of democracy, and I hope discussion of democracy as a way of life continues.