Your Government

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

FedFem
I do not think America's economy is dependent on any wars. Anyway the current way we are fighting them is not going to boast an economy, they are low fatality but high cost. Nor do I believe that America is too arrogant, we get blamed no matter what we do, so exactly what encouragement do we have to bother to try to get along...

[Pooeypants]

Wouldn't a mix between communism and democracy be socialism?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 06:03 AM FedFem I do not think America's economy is dependent on any wars. Anyway the current way we are fighting them is not going to boast an economy, they are low fatality but high cost. Nor do I believe that America is too arrogant, we get blamed no matter what we do, so exactly what encouragement do we have to bother to try to get along...

*cough*Iraq*cough*oil*ahem*

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Sep 2 2003, 07:32 AM Wouldn't a mix between communism and democracy be socialism?

No, because one is a political system and one is economic. Communism is inherently democratic, or else it wouldn't be communism.

Socialism is one of two things, depending on the context

A) the period of transition between capitalism to communism. When communist or socialist revolutionaries take power the period following is socialism, or 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This does not mean dictatorship as in Iraq, rather Marxists argue that capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgois, with their priorities at the front. So the dictatorship of the proleteriat would put workers interests first.

B) The ideology of traditional socialist parties. The purpose of socialist parties, as opposed to communist parties, is for them to be elected and hopefully stay elected while other countries elect their own socialist parties. When we are all democratically elected socialist, the world can move on. However, as has been stated, when people get in power they like it, and will happily corrupt their founding principles to stay elected. Look at Tony Blairs New Labour. They happily sit right of centre, rather than centre left.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 2 2003, 01:03 AM FedFem I do not think America's economy is dependent on any wars. Anyway the current way we are fighting them is not going to boast an economy, they are low fatality but high cost. Nor do I believe that America is too arrogant, we get blamed no matter what we do, so exactly what encouragement do we have to bother to try to get along...

GWB, the US economy, actually even more so the British economy, rests upon the export of arms. While the US government spending money on its own wars is not hugely helpful to your economy, other people making war is. Which is why you got friendly with Iraq and Iran, to sell them both weapons. Or India and Pakistan. Or the Tutsi's and the Hutu's. The US/UK need people to make war, or their principle exports die off, which will collapse their economies.

It also has residual effects. The end of wars mean damaged infrastructure need rebuilding. Whose got better knowledge of how to do this but the US and the EU! Yey, so they blow up their roads and buildings with our bombs only to pay us to fix them.

[Johnson]

National government with a corporatist economy.

[fedfem]

Johnson, Corporatism, as are most forms of government is vulnerable to corruption. Think Enron and others who have--with the blessings of government--damaged the economy and hurt the citizenry. Who is to protect the citizen?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Adams
If I ever decide to experiment with drugs, I want the ones you are on. Gun sales at their highest level reached only 3.5% of our GNP.

[G. Adams]

Just alcohol.

Gun sales? When did I limit it to guns? If I did it was my mistake, I was talking arms. So we're talking fighter jets, NBC weapons (well not really nuclear but its easier to abbreviate), tanks, military communications technology etc.

[Johnson]

Originally posted by fedfem@Sep 2 2003, 05:23 PM Johnson, Corporatism, as are most forms of government is vulnerable to corruption. Think Enron and others who have--with the blessings of government--damaged the economy and hurt the citizenry. Who is to protect the citizen?

Corporatism does not refer to a corporate dominated economy, corporatism is the reorganization of industry. read my sig.

[fedfem]

I read your sig and the page linked and find it interesting. It looks workable in print but my question was how the workers are protected. Enron employees were shareholders and had legistlative powers but still got screwed. What safeties can prevent that from happening?

[Johnson]

Workers are protected by striking, only working with the government instead of against it in the form of marxist labor unions.

labor disputes are solved with a government mediator. corporation representatives for the labor legislature are elected democratically.

there have been tons of corporatist systems put to use; they have only failed due to warmongering, and not a flaw in the system.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Personally I think it unlikey that you can combine two government forms and get the advantages of both without getting the disadvantages of both. But I am corrupted by experience with reality, rather than 'pure' political science...

[Johnson]

You don't combine them. Corporatism is what's called "the third way."

the majority of you voted for "new deal" in this poll. the new deal was third positionist.

17 May 1976 Ronald Reagan tells Time magazine:
"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'"

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Only a third voted for that, everyone important voted for oligarchy. (lol)

[G. Adams]

Don't you think Ronald Reagan was simply trying to taint the image of the New Deal by connecting it was fascism?

The problem with government working with the corporations to mediate with the Unions is that they are bought the same class with similar interests so they will be working to supress the workers and unions as they do now.

[Gwala]

Benevolent Dictatorship.
It's the only way anything gets done. Go look at Singapore for a GREAT example.

-Gwala

[Fallen Angel]

Call me old fashioned, but a monarchy does the job for me.

[Johnson]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Sep 3 2003, 06:02 AM Don't you think Ronald Reagan was simply trying to taint the image of the New Deal by connecting it was fascism? The problem with government working with the corporations to mediate with the Unions is that they are bought the same class with similar interests so they will be working to supress the workers and unions as they do now.

1.) no.

2.) The problem with marxist labor unions is that they don't want to stop at fair wages and hours. They want world revolution. They don't want their management to give them equal opportunity, the organized labor union wants to overthrow them. Ever catch an eyeful of how many red flags are flying at strikes? you'd be amazed.

[RebelWithanAK]

I chose "New Deal" though it's rather misrepresented: The welfare government is merely having radical socialist policies voted into a centralized democratic system. Communism is more like socialist anarchy, in that it has no centralized system - or at least isn't supposed to.

Gwala, you remind me of the quote "democracy can do not great good or great evil," and I have to say that I'd probably agree, considering certain domestic policies having been enacted in the past three years that have in effect nullified the system as it stood for 60 years...

Johnson, what about Japan and its prolonged recession of the last decade?