What's your political affiliation, and why?

Actually, Vyass, I don't know whaere to go. And if I do, it obviously doesn't spring immediately to mind... :wink:

 

Anarchism and communism were the same movement until the II International when these two divided. Both had as a goal the breakdown of the State. The transition phase was a latter invention by the bolshevist party to maintain their power in Russia, as they couldn’t spread their revolution; communism was incompatible with the idea of one isolated country. Many anarchists were massacred during this period.
During the Cold War appeared many communist movements that aligned neither with URSS neither with the US and were repressed by both. These movements had a strong anarchist influence and at the same time most anarchist movements were being influenced by the syndicates, becoming the anarcho-syndicalist movement. To sum it up the idea of not having a State isn’t contradictory with communism, and many communist label themselves as libertarians. Also democracy isn’t solely (or doesn’t need to be) about elections. In a broader meaning it’s also about limited power, real freedom of speech, transparency of power relations, citizens’ rights etc.

As with democracy, the concept of communism also changes with time. Today’s ideals are not the same they were centuries ago. American democracy in the Independence War was based on slavery, both in theory and in practice. Today it is unthinkable to defend this idea (in theory not in practice). To accept the idea of difference between people is one of today communism’s ideals (at least in some versions). In capitalism there is an effort to create needs, via propaganda movies etc, directly or indirectly; and the effort to create clones to meet the marketplace standards. Although differences can be tolerated the most important concept is mass market.
The idea of consumerism, very common these days, makes me remember what Rousseau said in 1748: “They tell us to think about the consumer. What does this mean? That a French is equal to ten Algerians? I don’t care about the consumer, I care about the citizen.� Yes, this idea is that old, although modern economists claim it’s a great novelty.

Edit: the Marxist idea of a Proletarian Dictatorship is a bit misunderstood. If we read his work there is no meaning in the existence of a State inside a class-less society, as there isn’t proletarians when there isn’t the bourgeoisie (as classes they are inter dependent). He uses dictatorship in the Greek sense, a very short lived situation.

 

IRC man. And I will ignore the Vy ass comment for now, we need bright minds like you in my Regime and far, far away from that of the Corrupting hands of Jarinor.

 

I am not talking about someone being considered inherently better able to make a decision. I'm talking about people convincing others that they are the most capable for the job through an effective electoral system.

Ideally, the financial experts making financial decisions would act in the best interest of the people they represent. I realise this is not the case, but then any other system is unlikely to reach its ideal either.

I have several concerns about throwing voting open to all.

• Anonymity, enabling people to vote in ways they'd never own up to because they feel it is anti-social. Eg. racist bills getting through.
• Credulity. The liberal party has consistently lost out over here in recent years to tactical voting. Tories say a vote for liberal is a vote for labour. laboyur says a liberal vote is a tory vote. The public believe them both and refuse to vote liberal in case it "lets the Tories in" or "Lets Labour in." If allowed to vote on every issue, what would stop the voters being led around by the nose by poiliticians/media using such ridiculous claims?
• Apathy. Numbers are daunting. Knowing you're one of 40 million voters convinces many people that their vote doesn't count. Thus, many people with typical views don't vote, making the votes by extremists (who all fanatically turn out) count for more, proportionally. The voting is not representative.
• Time. Most people barely take the time to find out who their MP (representative in Parliament) is. How are we going to get the point where people take the time to learn about the issues on which they would vote, rather than watching Big Brother? Isn't it more likely they would just open their favourite tabloid and vote whichever way it tells them?

Don't get me wrong. I think our current system stinks and suspect yours does, too. I like the idea of everyone having a vote. I also do not believe myself better than anyone else; I don't think the electorate are any mroe idiots than I am. However, I do believe people are easily swayed, inclined to blame others when the going gets tough, lazy and badly educated. Fixing those things would be come above allowing people to vote on whether to go to war on my list of things to do. That's assuming they can be fixed, of course.

Yes, Capitalism tends toward wide divisions of status, with a privileged few at the top. Clearly, they may be less inclined to put power in the hands of the masses of people worse off than themselves.

Communism, however, only has less conflict if it comes around through consensus, rather than being imposed by a minority group who feel they know better than everyone else. That puts it a long way off unless Nike plan to do an AirTrotsky and create a fad for red.

 

I went a bit over my head, as you can see I am pissed of by the economics experts. I agree with you but to do this transparency, debates and hard education must be the focuses.

As I am still pissed of, I must add this. Our president’s campaign was paid by the banks. Our Central Bank’s president, a guy called Arminio Fraga (a great financial expert), was George Soros’ right hand. They really act in the best interest of the people they represent (I know that's not what you meant).

You point important problems, which can be condensed here (I think most of the others are consequences):

We have an enormous productivity in the world today. At the same time never in world’s history famine was so intense and constant. Unemployment raises at the same time that people overall works more for less. Famine in the middle ages occurred when crops went bad, they were product of a poor infrastructure; not that the middle ages was a paradise, I am just pointing that it had a different logic. Today, famine occurs because it’s not economically viable to feed people. The Capital’s interests are way more important than human’s. We are pressed daily by our jobs (those who have it), constantly worrying that we might loose them. It consumes so much that almost no one has the stamina to do anything else. It’s this logic that I am against, as they produce (among other things) the problems you listed.

In the few anarchies communities I studied, people were obliged to study constantly and to participate in the political meetings. Obviously, this is a bit utopist, since these communities had only a few thousands habitants; but I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

Couldn’t agree more. Although consensus will not be clear, the idea of an enlightened minority disgusts me. I hope I have not given a different impression.

:lol: Brilliant! :lol:

 

Ferretts idea wouldn't work... if you select someone at random, you could get a psyco or a revoloutionist. people would dodge the system,give all their stuff to their wife (or whoever). All the people who want the job won't get it, tthe people who don't will.

 

I call that corruption. Most systems falter in the face of corruption. Certain systems encourage corruption (ones with inadequate accountability checks), but then so can cultural factors.

I dunno about all this. Some points I would like to make:

• In the middle ages, the feudal lords were not the ones to starve under any circumstance, and the starvation of peasants occured in times of plenty as well as hardship.
• I suspect your claim that famine is more intense than ever depends on how famine is measured. The population is in the billions now.
• Do you believe capitalism has given rise to famines that would otherwise not have existed, or that we are now failing to prevent famine
  that would have existed anyway, even though we have the means?
• Are the places where people are starving the places with high productivity? I would have thought not, but could be wrong.
• Countries have never taken full responsibility for the welfare of people in other countries. Clearly, this is partly due to desire for sovereignty on both countries. I'm not sure how closely this relates to captilasim, rather than nationalism. I do not believe a nationalist communist country would be any more inclined to feed foreigners than a nationalist capitalist country.

How were people "obliged"? People in England just sit on their bums in front of the TV after a day's work. It may be the pressure of their jobs but I doubt that accounts for all of it or even most of it. People are lazy. Modern life encourages lethargy and ennui.

Also, let's be honest, politics is pretty dull. How many HoLers are reading this? How many of those are amazed that you and I aren't boring ourselves rigid? Is it fair to force people to learn about politics when they may have other interests and be quite satisfied with the way the country is being run without their input?

 

i hate politics. however, no matter how boring this discussion gets, i feel obliged to read, just so i don't remain ignorant.

 

I love politics - it's something i can be good at since everyone else hates it. i don't understand most things but i'll learn.
We should help the poor countries famine, perhaps if we do that maybe when their a computer run superstate and we're starving, they'll help us.
If you think that theses starving countries don't deserve to be fed then nor do you.

 

I agree with EA. But even though there is a global food surplus, the main reason why we cannot give the less well-off countries our food is that we have no means, as yet, of transporting it quickly enough, and in large enough quantities, for it to be good enough to eat. Yes, we can probably fly food over there, but will a few kilos of food be of any noticeable use to a whole country of starving people?

 

We can infact(We referring to America) send alot of food over to other coutries. In WW2, Communist Russia was amazed by the amount of equipment and food America sent over to them as a sign of friendship(trying to negotiate a cease fire). While we may not be able to actually feed a whole country, we can get them back on their feet with funds. However, we won't. Many economic experts see this as a waste. Unless we get something in return.

Egypt relies completely off U.S aid, without it, the country would be destroyed. But Egypt also keeps the peace in the Middle East(I use the term peace *very* loosely, however they can start an all out nuclear war if they play their cards right) America knows this, therefore we give them as much aid as possible. I think that by Egypt backing Arafat, they are trying to put some pressure on the U.S, trying to bargain for something, what that something is is beyond me.

Sheriff:I find your talks with Dennis interesting, however, being a mere highschool student I don't understand everything that you are saying, mostly because I have no ideas of your respecitive countries' policies. But keep at it, like I said, your insights provide me witha wealth of knowledge and are dare I say it, FUN to read..Yes, it's official..I'm a loser. w?ait, wasn't that official long ago? Oh well..

 

What are you doing in here? Shoo! Go post something in the DM2 thread before it turns rancid.

Have you considered that the reason you don't understand everything I say is because I talk a lot of nonsense?

 

About the feudalism x capitalism, what I said is that during feudalism there were mechanisms in the society to prevent and control famine. Unless there was a problem with the corps (a very common occasion) most peasants didn’t starve. In the worst crises even the nobles were affected. Today’s mechanism places thousands of people in famine even if all is going fine, just because there is no profit in feeding them, as their work isn’t worth anything to the economy. Land productivity isn’t that awful in many parts of Africa, but there as isn’t any profit in investing in these lands neither their government neither their local elites do anything about it; they just keep control of these lands as patrimony and means of political control. I may be wrong in this since the literature I have in mind is a bit old.

That’s not true. Among the richest countries US has the greater famine rate. It has increased a lot these past 30 years at the same time it’s economy grew. I believe these two facts are interconnected, and reveal the formula these countries are using to achieve development, sacrificing human lives for an economic growth (a questionable one because of that). Brazil has a very big economy; at the same time something about 30% of its population lives in constant famine.

These are the ties that I make with capitalism: the logic of the Capital’s goals.

This is partially true. In many cases it is completely so, we just need to remember that the Nazi party was National-Socialist. Also the old URSS’ politicians are now either liberals (in the “all for the free-market� sense) or National-Communists (sounds familiar?); that in my opinion show them as power-hungry. But you are forgetting that through political influence there are financial gains. Brazil (until it hits the fan) has a big consumer market. All foreign agencies are screaming “Chaos� to the fact that the Labor’s Party candidate is ahead in the election. “If he wins there won’t be any investment, IMF will cut relations…� and the guy is very far from radical. Many people had a great profit with Argentine, both its political elite and foreign capital. It has followed IMF’s orders to the letter.

There is nobody else here. Yep, I guess you are right, it’s boring. :frownyes: Let’s give it a rest then.

 

Uh oh! But S_F, I understand most of what you say...! :cry:

 

I'm sorry Ferret, you are obviously insane, the insane have little value in my Utopia..However you are an insane *genius, you will live.








*Knower of Many useless facts

 

I'll drop it soon, but first, I really need to understand some of what you said:

Could you explain to me how you define "famine" please, and possibly indicate same rough figures for how many people in the US are suffering from it?

Could you explain this a little to me, please? I don't think I understand the point you're making.

It seems to me the IMF exists only because of nationalism, rather than capitalism. With a single, global economy, unfractured by national boundaries, there would be no lending between countries. Having all countries as communist, but firmly behind their national boundaries, how could we expect one country to act in the best interest of another at their own expense?

 

They wouldn't. That's why Germany never acted for anyone except themselves and their little Aryan Race. I think Dennis is trying to tell us all(Ferret, rosie, Fatman, and myself) for the most part, the governemnt does everything for its people. We just can't relize it. And therefore, we don't like it.

 

At Uni they used to call me 'Genius' because I seemed to know everything about anything. Boy were they wrong! - The secret is to know a few interesting, (but completely useless), things about most subjects, thereby fascinating your friends into submissive awe!

 

While I know many useful facts and skills that no one outside of school recognizes and I am (usually) deemed mentally impaired by Rosie. She said that gamenut's intellect was greater than mine. This is nothing short of an untter outrage. His intellect basks in the shade of my enormous Intelligent Quotient. Not to emntion my enormous ego, and other "enormous" parts of my body....:hump: that comes to mind..

 

Yes, but your facts are useful and boring and that makes you mentally dull annd thus Rosies' whipping boy!

I do infact have a fairly high IQ - we had a 'test the nation' national IQ test recently and I scored pretty darn high....