Your Government

[Johnson]

I wouldn't consider Japan a corporatist economy.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Johnson+Sep 3 2003, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Johnson @ Sep 3 2003, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
Yep, I know about those red flags at strikes and marches, I'm usually waving one.

Marxist labour unions quite rightly aim at world wide revolution, taking power out of the hands of a minority of rich capitalists and return it to the proleteriat.

[RebelWithanAK]

But Johnson, then what would you call Japan's economy?

[Anarchist Patriot]

I am for no government. Just Anarchism. For those who don't understand, I did not say anarchy but Anarchism. The reduction of government into loosely formed social units. Complete liberty and justice for all!

[RebelWithanAK]

Well, complete liberty. I dunno about justice.

Democracy, in theory.. but I mean something of an ACLU-style democracy, where the people *actually* have rights, as opposed to just some illusion that, in theory they do (ie: America). Call me one of those crazy civil liberatarians.. anarchy, on the other hand, is more of a utopia solution. It assumes that every person in the world, when capitalism goes away, will, through their own good will, not kill anyone. People don't work like that. I hate "big brother" and the government as much as the next guy (or maybe more), but the fact remains that it's more likely for really really bad sh.t to happen under anarchy than it is under a well-enforced democracy.

[ColWTH]

Can anyone REALLY seriously discuss socialism or communism as a viable concept?

Those concepts don't even belong as CHOICES on the list!

Ash heap of history stuff!

[G. Adams]

Sean, feel free to cut this reply, but I really have to say this guy above is an ass.

Yes we can discuss socialism and communism as viable concepts because they ARE viable concepts, however they rely upon mankind relinquishing hatred, jealousy, nationalism and selfishness. And private capital. In fact, all it would take is for people to live up to the standards advocated by Jesus, Allah, the first Buddha etc. So, and somehow my gut tells me you are Christian, if you could live up to the standards of Christianity, you yourself would fit right in with socialism.

For example, lets look at Europe for whether socialism is a viable concept. Lets see now, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland all have working social democracies, which are the right wings of socialism. TADA! Now we can discuss these concepts.

[Sodfather]

Originally posted by G. Adams@09-17-2003 10:26 AM Sean, feel free to cut this reply, but I really have to say this guy above is an ass. Yes we can discuss socialism and communism as viable concepts because they ARE viable concepts

I think ColWTH was saying it doesn't belong on the list figuratively, not literally. As in, socialism is so horrible that it doesn't deserve to be on the list.

Or I'm wrong and ColWTH has said something very stupid because, as Adams said, communism and socialism could have a chance of being the ideal government under the right conditions (as stated by Adams), just as democracy could be the ideal government under the right conditions (as stated by myself and others).

[Section 8]

Personally, I choose other. The best form of government would have to be a communist anarchism. As you can imagine it's awfully hard to explain, so I encourage you to read chapter 20-24 in the following online book:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...whatis_toc.html


Here is a quote:

"In a nutshell, then, the meaning of Communist Anarchism is this: the abolition of government, of coercive authority and all its agencies, and joint ownership-which means free and equal participation in the general work and welfare."


Shalom

[G. Adams]

Thats exactley what communism is anyway, although you may take a different route there than usual communists.

[ColWTH]

Sodfather is totally correct.

Certainly if one needs to make a dispassionate discussion of "governments" socialism and communism should be on the list. After all, one needs to see failure and negative examples before one discusses governments that are viable and WORK!

But, really, what kind of "ass" would imagine that such governments COULD work? They are ENTIRELY against human nature. In fact the sophist, Marx, imagined he could jettison human nature and remake it in the glorious revolution of communism! Absurd. Stupid! And, in the end, murderous.

If one bothers to actually READ Marx's philosophy, as opposed to just looking at his government plans, one sees his desire to destroy the essential truth of human nature and create a "new man". Human nature CANNOT be recreated. It is what it is. It shall NEVER change.

Man is greedy, Selfish, Evil, Dangerous, suspicious, hateful and violent. He is also filled with passion, often kind, frequently joyful and often optimistic. Marx's stupiduty imagines that the negative characteristics of man do not exist and that his positive ones can be redirected from within (self interest) to the state.

When all is said and done the ONLY way Marx's ridiculous ideas can become fact is for the government to grind it's iron boot heel on the necks of the people and to oppress them so bad that their human nature, in fact their very spirit, is destroyed. But, even so, this is an impossible task in the end.

[G. Adams]

Ahh bollocks. Man is a blank slate at birth, nothing but instincts, primarily being survival. If man is taken out of the position that his survival instincts require him to be violent, possesive and greedy then he will no longer be greedy.

Look at Tibet (up until the chinese invasion). They grew up in a more caring, sharing environment and...low and behold, the population is generally more caring and sharing than others. So much so that there has never been a real violent movement for expelling the chinese, instead following peaceful methods.

[ColWTH]

If man is such a "blank Slate at birth" why does a 3 year old grab a toy from you and say "MINE!" A parent sure would not teach that kind of reactionary selfishness at such a young age!

Man is man despite his environment. However, the environment CAN make it worse or better, still man IS the same at birth as he is at death in essential make up.

[G. Adams]

If a child feels that it is going to lose whatever, of course it is going to stamp its feet and shout mine. That is the same as it is in current life, if you feel someone is going to take away something of yours, you would shout mine. But under communism no-one would be taking away anything from you (except if your a capitalist in the revolution). If you worked, regardless of how lowly your position, you would be provided with everything you needed, because everybodies input in society is neccesary.

[ColWTH]

Ha, ha. What a naive view of human nature...

“under communism no-one would be taking away anything from you”

Uh, that would be because you have NOTHING to take away. Including your FAMILY because THAT would be destroyed by the iron boot of government as well.

“If you worked, regardless of how lowly your position, you would be provided with everything you needed, because every bodies input in society is neccesary.”

So, by “lowly position” you admit that some will be “above” you even in communism! It is this permanent imbalance between men one of the things that makes communism stupid.

And if you worked hard you would eventually STOP working so hard because you WILL see that others are getting exactly the same thing YOU are for doing LESS work! Then everyone else would eventually work less and the entire system would suffer malaise and collapse. Ever heard of the Soviet Union!?

This fool hardy experiment in socialization has been tried many, many times for hundreds of years. Even the “Pilgrims” who came to the Americas imagined they would start a commune of equal ownership in the system of government, the proceeds of work and the ownership of property. Guess what happened? They had to jettison the plan because people eventually stopped working when they saw other colonists were not working as hard as they were but still getting all the same things out of the system. There was no advancement and no reward so everyone gave up.

When you grow up out of your somewhat childish respect for communism you will wonder how you could ever have been so enamored by such an idiotic idea.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Communism. Communism is not about brainwashing, or everyone being the same. It's about state ownership of essential industries - water, gas, public transport, electricity. In its most extreme state, when the Russians were starving, it extended naturally to food production and distribution.

The reason Communism does not work is because of human greed. Not the reasonable desire to make a profit, but the excessive desire to control ALL the electricity in a country, or the water supply - compare that to private enterprise turning a 100% profit margin on the manufacture of fashion shoes!

Democracy in its current Western states (globalisation) has been stolen by organised crime, which is its own failing. The concept of elected leaders is great, but falls down when greedy businessmen buy their way into power so that they can better control the country, using it as their own factory.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by ColWTH@09-21-2003 07:45 PM Ha, ha. What a naive view of human nature... “under communism no-one would be taking away anything from you” Uh, that would be because you have NOTHING to take away. Including your FAMILY because THAT would be destroyed by the iron boot of government as well. “If you worked, regardless of how lowly your position, you would be provided with everything you needed, because every bodies input in society is neccesary.” So, by “lowly position” you admit that some will be “above” you even in communism! It is this permanent imbalance between men one of the things that makes communism stupid. And if you worked hard you would eventually STOP working so hard because you WILL see that others are getting exactly the same thing YOU are for doing LESS work! Then everyone else would eventually work less and the entire system would suffer malaise and collapse. Ever heard of the Soviet Union!? This fool hardy experiment in socialization has been tried many, many times for hundreds of years. Even the “Pilgrims” who came to the Americas imagined they would start a commune of equal ownership in the system of government, the proceeds of work and the ownership of property. Guess what happened? They had to jettison the plan because people eventually stopped working when they saw other colonists were not working as hard as they were but still getting all the same things out of the system. There was no advancement and no reward so everyone gave up. When you grow up out of your somewhat childish respect for communism you will wonder how you could ever have been so enamored by such an idiotic idea.

I can't see how the iron boot of government can take anything away from you when there is no government.

By lowly position I was saying crappy job as sensitively as possible. Somebody has to collect the garbage you know.

The Soviet Union is not an example of Communism at work because it was not communist. Simple enough for you?

If someone was slacking in your workplace you could, under communism, vote to fire him. Because it is your bussiness, as well as your fellow workers. Something you can't do in our nepotism riddled system.

Yes socialism has been tried many times, but people give up in a few years and it all falls into either dictatorship like the USSR, or capitalism, like China. But if you look at capitalism, it has been imposed for 300 years if we count the embryotic capitalism of Britain, France, Spain and Hollands world trade. And yet, 300 years on, 220 if we want more fully fledged capitalism, its still not working. Oh, it might be working for ME, YOU and everyone on these boards, but for the majority of people around the world earning $1.04 a day doing harder work than I will ever have to, its not. Really, its not. You say people will stop working hard under communism. People stop working hard under capitalism when they realise that they still get the same shitty pay whatever they do.

When mankind grows up it will be ashamed how it could have allowed such injustices to go on.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Probert@09-22-2003 08:37 AM There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Communism. Communism is not about brainwashing, or everyone being the same. It's about state ownership of essential industries - water, gas, public transport, electricity. In its most extreme state, when the Russians were starving, it extended naturally to food production and distribution. The reason Communism does not work is because of human greed. Not the reasonable desire to make a profit, but the excessive desire to control ALL the electricity in a country, or the water supply - compare that to private enterprise turning a 100% profit margin on the manufacture of fashion shoes! Democracy in its current Western states (globalisation) has been stolen by organised crime, which is its own failing. The concept of elected leaders is great, but falls down when greedy businessmen buy their way into power so that they can better control the country, using it as their own factory.

Probert, that is not communism. That is one brand of socialism. Under communism there is no state, thus state control of industries is not possible.

[Geoff332]

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about Communism

True.

Communism is not about brainwashing, or everyone being the same.

True.

It's about state ownership of essential industries - water, gas, public transport, electricity.

False.

What is communism about? Well, let's see how some people define it:

Originally posted by The Communist Manifesto ...an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Note that he is very clear that commodities are physical objects, but they are not tied to essential services, but to anything that a person wants (in economic terms, they encompass wants and needs).

Communism is not about the State ownership of essential services, it is about the abolition of private (individual) property, and the establishment of collective property.