 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 02:19 pm  Would anybody like to join my anti communist league? its not capitalist, just as long as you're anti communist you can come and join me whether you are a democracy, dictatorship or a kingdom for example.
| |
| Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 02:21 pm Or a fascist state, aristocracy or theocracy.
| |
| Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 08:41 pm James i am currently not in a fed on LU, i use my simple LU country for econ but when the time comes i could provide some defense.
| |
| Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 05:48 pm I'm a communist in the trrue sense of the word. I think many leaders have given communism a bad name but I've never liked the anti-communist propaganda in the West. Communism needs good leaders not power hungry dictators.
| |
| Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 04:41 am It never will get the good leaders it needs as it is a dangerous and poisoning ideology where people will never have any kind freedom in private ownership like properties or businesses. It only benefits the useless low lifes and for those who have nothing, owns nothing and never will own nothing, this is all just jellousy towards the higher and better classes of society. God help Great Britain if Ed Milliband of the labour party ever gets into power, as he is a well known Leftist/Marxist as well as his brother and father who are also involved in politics too.
| |
| Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 02:59 am The "higher" and "better" classes drive up property prices, forcing small businesses out of business and people to live in poor quality housing, pay morally wrong smaller proportion in taxes than the very poor. Without the people at the "bottom", the rich could not be rich. They need the people to exploit as employees and then to buy the goods/services.
| |
| Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 07:33 pm After reading this, I'm becoming a communist. I'd love to see the "higher" and "better" classes try to grow their own food, or build their own mansions, or manufacture their own luxury products, and deliver them to all their other "higher" and "better" friends. The only thing "higher" and "better" about them is that they're carried on the shoulders of everyone else.
| |
| Saturday, September 24, 2011 - 04:28 am When I say the "higher" and "better classes" I mean the ones who earns a decent living by working for an employer, or running their own little businesses (like I have myself). Also those who generally own their own properties or at least paying a mortagage. Not the ones who live away in big huge mansions from reality, dining in complete snobbery and accent with all their fancy knives and forks on the table, I never liked anyone whos shows off their wealth that way as I concider it arrogant, nor do I like the fucking the damn low lifes who take drugs like weed and crack on a daily basis, who live in rent free council houses just because they have a kid aged under 3, I know one who does exactly that and this is in the hundreds of thousands of people who live in this country.
| |
| Saturday, September 24, 2011 - 04:38 am I thought you were a communist David anyway, why the hell would you care about small businesses? i'm against big international commercial business just like you are. I thought you would have been for the "workers" type or those who are in the "Unions". But just remember if a country ever went communist, it means such as all businesses, Properties and cars, big or small would all be owned by "the State". No way would I want my home and car to be owned by the country as thats just pure oppression of the people.
| |
| Saturday, September 24, 2011 - 04:41 am I supposed after what i've said, I would probulary fit in somewhere in the middle of the social ladder? like everyone else should be, hardly no low lifes or rich people to the seen, that would be a dream come true.
| |
| Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 05:51 am first of all weed is not bad at all u cant die from it.I never herd anyone getting kill in a car crash by smoking pot. never herd anyone who got cancer from smoking pot .cigars beer kills an it leagal. u only get relaxed from smoking weed (high)never herd any not wanting to relax dude stop talking about pot like its bad its been on earth every since the big bang so was tobacco fact
| |
| Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 06:42 am LOL... funny!
| |
| Sunday, September 25, 2011 - 08:19 am I'm true communist not one you hear aboutin Russia or China. I believe in people power not state power. In terms of small businesses, I believe the local community should own the buildings and then decides upon the use etc. That mean no unscrupulous landlords. There would social entrepreneurs but not driven by profit. Everybody would have the opportunity to contribute and thus have a home and provisions. There'd be no unemployment and thus no institutionalised underclass. I'm an accountant by trade but I'd rather account for the good done in a community than the number of people exploited. Depower the state and empower communities.
| |
| Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 05:00 am Can I join and help stomp out communism from this world?
| |
| Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 05:16 am BTW, with out the people at the top, the "higher" and "better" people of this world, there would be no one to purchase the mansions, invest in farms, and buy all the luxury goods. That means those "poor people" working to make them those items will be with out a job. When all things are equal, quality of life of all will revert to the lowest common denominator, Cambodia is a prime example. Plus history has proven, in order to enforce the equal rights and belongings, requires a brutal regime to enforce the status quo. A form of socialism in a communal setting works as long as each member knows and interacts with each other. A community garden is a perfect example. Members can enforce the rules one on one, minimizing waste and abuse, but once people are just merely 1 of millions, proper enforcement does not work. Im not once of those rich people, but I would one day wish to be one.
| |
| Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 01:20 pm Theres far too many rich people in this world as well as many too poor, only the the rich people such as the monarchy and the aristocrats in a country should be rich who would only make up 1% of the country anyway if not less than that. But i'm sure the number of people who consider themselves rich in my country for example is something like 10 to 20%, thats far too many, and the number who consider themselves poor is something like 25 to 30%, far too many again but all I do know is, is that theres awful lot of people who live in poverty in my part of the country. So to be right the number of people who consider themselves to be rich or poor should be no more than 5% each, as for all the rest of the population they should be somewhere in between. We all know that it will never get anywhere near that without a proper organised incorruptible national government getting elected into power. Just like you say David. Depower the state and empower communities.
| |
| Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 02:36 pm A Syllogism All institutions are created by human endeavors Humans are imperfect Therefore, All institutions are imperfect. These are my basic assumptions about institutions such communism, capitalism, the free market, religion etc. There may be a kernal of truth and hope embedded in them but they are all imperfect in their implimentation. And some are worse than others. Since this thread is about communism, let's focus on it. Communism has as it's primary thesis that capitalism is oppressive to the workers and thus should be overthrown by violent revolution. But that revolution isn't exclusive of the rich. We see in the Soviet Union that Stalin executed millions of peasants along with the captalists and middle class. The same holds true in China where upwards of over 20million were killed, most of whom were peasants. Mao excuse, "oh we've got lots of peasants so the end justifies the means." On the other hand the French revolution after a short period of orgasmic murdering of the aristocracy and middle class eventually ended up with a more or less parlimentary process of government and did not destroy captialism or the means of production. but it wasn't communism. the point of this is that it's very hard to start a revolution based on murder and mayhem and then abruptly change and say,"oh, now that all the dissidents are gone we're going to be a democracy of the people". it just doesn't work that way.
| |
| Wednesday, September 28, 2011 - 05:43 pm To aspire to greater things is human nature. You can never legislate against, or oppress, that.
| |
| Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 01:02 am Parsifal, a short insightful piece. Your last sentence is particularly poignant and important.. Violence doesn't win a revolutiuon of the minds and neither does propaganda. I'm fighting to win the local control of land and buildings by buying up property with community funds and placing them into a trust to prevent them from being sold and only being used for the benefit of the community. The community will have the right to decide even in a capitalist system. I have support from the poor to the well-off. I always felt that as an accountant my office cleaner was worth no less than I. I think people are euqual and if working a full-time week should get full-time benefits and not to one's supply/demand value. I have serious health conditions and volunteer my time on community projects and work as many hours as the doctor allows. My own government in the UK: Has cut my monthly support by £50 pm Has frozen my working credits (keeping me in work) for 2 years at least losing ave of £18 pm Will cut monthly support by another £200 pm next year If my my government completes its plan, it will cause the eviction of someone that is working and volunteering from their cheap, nasty quality rented home. To move I'd be driven into hospital, forced to give up work and volunteering and the council would have to condemn the propoerty I live in. As an accountant of the private sector, I can say this is not human economics but it is economics driven by financical markets and greed and is highly inefficient for the better provision of the population at large. Give communities a chance and I think they'll thrive. People will continue to die in the West if we don't.
| |
| Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 05:11 am yours is a very compelling story. I'm a community organizer here in the states. I work with the poor to help them organize for power. It's a bottoms up approach to organizing people who are marginalized. There are some books that you might be interested in: Effective Organizing for Congregational Renewal, by Michael Gecan and anything on Appreciative Inquiry by David Cooperrider el al. They both use a narrative methodoligy getting people in groups to tell their story like "what are the pressures on you and your family" It then moves towards identifiying leaders, then making a power analysis of who can make decisions for change and then the group makes a plan to implement actions to bring about change. Good luck to you and I have a lot of respect for what you're trying to do. And I believe it can be done.
| |
| Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 09:28 pm I wish you well in your work and hope you get good results. It's the best wayt for the poor to fight back, is to organise and be pro-active, but it can be difficult with low morale. Thanks, I've noted the books. They sound interesting.
| |
| Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 09:32 pm Here, here Crafty! No matter the law, no matter the country's obssession with money, one's mind is free to think and collaborate. Labour is ultimately free at the end of the day and used in the right way can create alternatrive systems within a country for the benefit of the communities they serve.
| |
| Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:03 pm Or maybe there should be policy where individual businessmen are only allowed to get so big and stop them from getting out of control such as 1) Up to how many properties or businesses a landlord is allowed to own 2) Or a maximum wage cap of how much people are allowed to earn. For instance (Bank Managers) I could go on and on with this.
| |
| Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:13 pm the problem is not necessarily about size. it's about ethics. i know small landlords who are the biggest slum lords and most unethical person imaginable. i also know large landlords who conduct themselves with great ethics. competition can actually eliminate a lot of the greed by forcing people to adhere to the market. Houston does not have zoning and it works well. There are other ways the city controls development but in inner city slums gentrification is taking place. of course, this creates other problems of displacing the poor, often into the suburbs where transportation is crappy.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 12:42 am If you anti-communist, you are always capitalist.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 01:15 am http://international-proletariat.webs.com//PdAI%20Mani.pdf Here is something I wrote, a while back. I invented my own economic system that does away with the idea of currency, altogether; no money or bartering or trade in any form. You are probably wondering how it works, then. If you want to find out, you should read the pdf file in the url, above because it takes too long for me to explain in 1 post, and this file does a good job of describing it. The first section of the manifesto is all about ripping capitalism a new asshole. The second section rips on communism, and the third rips on socialism. Finally, the fourth introduces my own system, which doesn't have any of the flaws of capitalism, nor communism. Anyway, this document is brain-candy for any of you political philosophers out there, so I am just putting out my idea here.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 03:12 pm SP-- i've read your manifesto and it has the same weaknesses that all other systems have. it's man made and thus has the weaknesses that we humans have which is a "will to power". You have not answered all the same questions that are not answered by all the other systems. Who will make the rules? Why do you think that your system will not have the same weaknesses of the other systems? You have presented an economic system. It may be that we need to start with a political system. In my opinion the most perfect political system was devised by Jefferson, Adams, et al who took their ideas from the French and English philosophers. Even though this system which is now embraced by much of the western world has evolved since its inception over two hundred years ago, but it remains the template for democracy and the way we live together. Once you have established the rights and responsibilities of the people it doesn't make much difference what the economic system is. Why? Because there is no pure economic system. Economic systems evolve into commercial partnerships between enterprise and government. The trick is to get the economic system to balance with the political system. The political system, in order to work has to have participation of the electorate. And it's important that the electorate be educated in order to make prudent decisions about the course that country will take. So education becomes the most important element in making the system work. But as you might guess you come back to the problem of who and what will be educated. Lack of participation by the electorate is biggest detriment to the whole system, thus back to the human element.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 09:13 pm I said in the manifesto that it would be democratic. It would be no different than any other democratic nation from the political end of things. This system is an economic doctrine, not a political doctrine. The state controls everything, and the people control the state, therefore, the people control everything, therefore it is democracy. The only difference is that it isn't capitalist democracy. The people make the rules. It doesn't have the flaws of capitalism. There will be no "market crashes" in my system, because indeed, there is no market. There will be no political corruption, because corruption depends on money...there is no money. There will be no crime, because crime revolves around money. No money, no organized crime. No more bank robberies, no more drug dealing, no more poverty, only freedom, labor, and an opportunity for all to achieve greatness. Oh, and no more TV advertisements, nor internet advertisements, nor any advertisements...exploitation would be illegal. It doesn't have the flaws of communism. A dictatorship cannot function at all in my system, because it would place so much strain on the dictator. It is too much for one person to control everything. My system works because everybody controls everything. It is still democracy. It doesn't have the flaws of socialism. Socialism has the problems of both capitalism and communism. My system's only flaw is the fact that it is merely theoretical. It has never been tried. However, I think it's worth a try, because the government would not be limited by a budget. That means that there is theoretically NO LIMIT to the industrial and military power of such a state. The economic system does matter.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 09:39 pm but therein lies the problem. if the country is democratic the people might say, we don't like your plan of there being no money, and that the means of production are owned by the government. we want something else.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:05 pm I liked a lot of what SP wrote but it is the politics of that questions the viability. With states of millions of people, the average person feels powerless whatever system. People with vested interests will always get involved for obvious reasons. To me, states should be protecting our rights as communities and individuals, such as, the right not to be murdered and the right to be free from state control. Much of what the state does can be undertaken by communities (town, villages etc.) so they're autonomous. With communities, people will be able to see the fruits of their work and labour, and see an actual path to getting involved and being productive with it. With this, it means some communities might choose to be ultra-capitalist but this is the freedom that it is important. As a side note, I personally think that these communities that decide to be capitalist would realise without the people to exploit, they won't be able to make large profits and be compelled to make their own goods. States should be made up of communities and not directrly elected leaders or parties. Communities would feed up from the bottom to a kind of senate of communities, to ensure basic civil liberties. When people are in human-scale and manageable communities, they tend to be less competitive and more co-operative as they see the consequences of decisions and can more readily see other people's problems. With this kind of politic setup, I believe this would bring out the best from people and less advesarialism and greed. If a community needs economies of scale, it can work in partnership with other communities. The community organisation I run aims to do this within the capitalist system we have in the UK. I shall buy land and buildings in the local community and protect them in a trust for use by the community, not for resale. Money would be reduced as this become less meaningful over time as the community controls the means of production and distribution, while remaining close to the realities of living with one another. To summarise, the state should only be there to protect against aggressive animal instinct (such as power and violence) and communities should be free to encourage the loving animal instincts (care for the vulnerable and team play).
| |
Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:38 pm
Phail in the making.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:39 pm There is a built-in economic safeguard against capitalism's return. The decades or centuries of overproduction will crash the market and stop capitalism before it ever starts.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:44 pm And are you realistically envisioning communities or collectives of such could operate a space program? a massive engineering project like dams or motorways? run multi-trillion banking systems? airlines? the power grid? etc etc... I am getting the feeling some of you would like to take us back to pre middle ages. We are a global economy now, no getting away from it. We have to be competetive with other countries hence we have to have entrepeneurs and investors et al. and thats the govts job to run this collective of 'communities'. If you dont like the way they are doing their job, then fortuneatly we have the freedom to vote.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:46 pm I envision a whole nation doing what you are suggesting, not communities.
| |
| Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 10:52 pm I get it, none of you have an open mind (except David) to my idea. You capitalists are all tyrants. You think your system is always the best, and you bash everyone else down. I understand, I know how you function. That's ok. And look at the USA's economic situation right now...14T in debt, bad job market, bad housing market, some wars...you capitalists are just stubborn. Your system, just like all others, will fall. It is only a matter of time. Of course, my system offers a solution to all the USA's problems, but you are all too stubborn to try it. Well, that's your own fault.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 12:56 am SP==then we'll make you dictator so you can run it like you want. right? if it's democratic then it would evolve rather than be forced on people who are stubborn. dude you're digging your hole deeper and deeper.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 01:01 am See? You are a capitalist, and like all capitalists, you just want to crush any system that isn't like your's. You are just proving my point.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 01:05 am http://international-proletariat.webs.com//GloryWorkers.pdf Death to capitalist tyranny!
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 01:13 am you're making assumptions about my economics. you have very little idea where i stand on economics or where others who may disagree with your proposed system stand. there is no pure form of capitalism. and in todays world economy there are many variations in the way of doing business. are the Chinese communists or are they capitalists. in a world of over six billion people you seriously want to create a system that has no international units of exchange. the closest model for your system are the Amish who isolate themselves from the world primarily for religious reasons. they attempt to live Godly lives giving up worldly things. their focus is on being true to their idea of God and they recognize humanity's sinfulness and tendency to "will to power"
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 02:01 am That is correct, sir. I do want to create a system with no unit of exchange. Currency only serves to limit the power of the working classes and of the people and the state. It only makes the rich men richer, and the poor men poorer. Whenever you assign a price tag to anything, all you are saying is "anyone who is too poor to afford this good, must go without it". Who ever decided that a loaf of bread was worth two dollars? Whose idea was it to make housing so expensive that many people go homeless? Nobody deserves to be homeless. Even the poorest of the poor are human beings! You might say that if they are poor, it is because they don't work, and they deserve it. That is not true at all! If you are poor, you were probably born into poverty. Most people can't help it. Capitalism doesn't give them the opportunity to gain respect, it just exploits their situation and keeps them in poverty! Everyone who is middle class wants to be rich, but chances are that they will never be rich. People who are born rich will always be rich; most of them don't even deserve their wealth. Are you all telling me that you don't see anything wrong with this?
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 02:06 am One of the roots of the problem economically in the UK is that theres far too many key industries and companies that are foreign or foreign owned such as energy companies, as such as them are just sucking the wealth out of our country as those companies will be paying out most of their tax back in their home countries or tax heaven countries but not in ours, yet the government can't seem to understand why they're not gathering enough tax from them, we've litually been sold out to the highest (usually foreign) bidders. If you think about it Crafty or green paws, think about how many big foreign global companies we have in our country in a number of different industries.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 04:18 am A big problem that faces any change to any system of things if a way to implement the changes and to enforce the rules. Every one assumes making a decision in a Democratic way is the way to go. But as Parsifal brought up is humans are flawed and thus any political system would carry the same flaws. Problem with democracy, once people realize they can vote them selves money, they will continue to do so until it brings an end to the nation. That is why America made great pains not to set up a democratic country, but yet set up a republic. A Representative government with the assumption that these people would rule in the best interests for the country, which would in turn take care of the people. Again, as Parsifal mentioned, these same humans are flawed. Once a full on democracy is established "the mob" would be herded by people of influence to vote in the interests of those people. You will never have a perfect system or government until you can take the human factor out of it. Until then its best to eliminate restriction and obstructions to those who pursuit that idea of prosperity. Not Everyone achieves success, but its they drive of humanity to pursuit it.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 04:25 am Oh and Supreme Proletariat, this is the best example of what you would run into in a democratic society. there are those out there that you will never convince and never get to cooperate. Thus having to force those that will not go along with the plan into joining this community. Rather than lashing out at those who do not share your view, you should discuss in a civilized manor. "You capitalists are all tyrants" and "Death to capitalist tyranny!" immediately shuts down the debate and makes you look the fool.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 02:40 pm Sup Pro-- there is no doubt that capitalism is not perfect and there are many examples of it being responsible for marginalization of persons. But it also has been responsible for the increase in much of the world's standard of living and innovation. Truly there needs to be checks and balances but to throw it out, putting all the means of production in the hands of government is not realistic. And to say that you're also going to do away with a world wide medium of exchange is totally unrealistic. It's like saying we're going to make cows fly. Here are some questions that you have left unanswered: 1. How do you install such a system worldwide? 2. Are you going to stop all bartering and individual means of trade between individuals, coops etc. 3. How will nations determine the value of their trade items such as oil for wheat and corn etc. 4. Who will determine people's needs and what if the people want more than you're willing to give them? these are just a few of the issues that must be considered and worked out. what say you?
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 09:32 pm Parsifal, to answer your questions: 1. I am not sure any system will ever grow to become worldwide. 2. Yes. 3. No numeric economic value will be assigned to goods of any kind. The workers produce the goods, and the goods go to the state. The state would then figure out who needs that good, and whoever needs it would get it. This would especially be true on the industrial level, where one factory needs "x" number of car engines; the workers at a car engine factory would make the car engines, and send them to the state. The state would relay them to the factory that needs them. The factory that makes the car engines, in turn, might need "x" amount of steel, "y" amount of power, and "z" amount of coal. Then, three facilities, producing steel, power, and coal respectively, would send their production to the state, who would then relay it to the car engine factory, and so on. It would be a circular system. On the individual level, a worker would be rewarded based on a set of standards that would be established democratically by the Supreme Proletariat (hence, my name). 4. As stated above, the democratically elected members of the Supreme Proletariat would be comprised of retired workers who were elected directly by the people. They would be responsible for legislative matters, while the Marshall of the Army of the Proletariat would be responsible for the executive functions of the state.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 09:50 pm This is how I get around all of capitalism's problems. There is no starvation, because even if you don't work, you will only have your bare minimums met; you would probably get a 2-room house, and enough food for 1 person. The food would not be the best quality because you would need to work if you want a better life, but at least you wouldn't starve or go homeless.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 10:09 pm i think it interesting that all countries except Cuba have/are moving towards a free market economy. they realized that they couldn't get the production they needed to feed the peasants and they were wanting more freedoms. also, i think it's interesting that people from underdeveloped and communistic countries are beating the doors down to move to the US and Western democracies. Hmmmm....I wonder why?
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 10:26 pm Sup Pro-- here's another system that you might consider. in the biblical old testament, when Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt they wandered around for 40 years. When the came to Sinia Moses went up on the mountain and was given the ten commandments. Before this the Hebrews had no law or economic system because they had been freed from Pharoah and could start over again. they could now create their own system. The beginning of that system was the ten commandments which would lead them towards the common good. This was predicated on them forming a covenant with God who promised to provide if they kept His commandments. The law evolved with such things as providing for all the poor,orphans, widows and aliens. And every seven years all loans were forgiven and the land was returned to the original owners. This worked for a long time until the Israelites decided they wanted a king like Egypt. They wanted to be a world power. And that was when the prophets said to the king that had come to the throne of Israel-- you will be thrown into bondage because you have broken the covenant. And so it was. It was not so much God reaching down and punishing them but it was their own stupidity and greed and their thinking they could it better than God. That's what humanity does when it breaks covenant with the Creator of all things by exploiting people and the earth when we decide that we want to be God instead of creating neighborly community. Pretty revolutionary huh. But we keep trying to come up with our own "will to power" answers. and that's true not only for the economic and political creations but also for religion. But God will reign with or without us.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 10:27 pm Oh, would thing you didn't answer SP. AND this is very important. How do you propose to install this system?
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 11:33 pm How do all systems get changed? The only way to do it is through revolution.
| |
| Sunday, October 2, 2011 - 11:37 pm I guess the other way to do it is by infiltrating an already existing government...either way, it's highly risky and illegal.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 12:59 am yes, which is a flaw. supposedly it's going to result in a democracy but history shows that it ends up being just another form of tyranny. in the case of the soviets, china, north korea, etc. they never get finished purging those who they don't think agree with them. and you end up with a dictatorship.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 01:22 am The system has a safeguard against dictatorship though. One person cannot manage all the millions of factories controlled by the state. There is a governmental pyramid that I saw once, and it shows that there are three layers of a government. They are, from top to bottom: 1. Cultural Layer - least important in a government, the cultural layer is defined by the People's overall philosophy or values. 2. Political Layer - Politics is where most of the action happens. It all depends on who gets elected, or who is in power (in the case of a dictatorship). 3. Economic Layer - This is the most important layer. Nobody can do anything unless the economy works in their favor. Politics can *sometimes* affect what is happening on the economic layer, but usually, it is the other way around. Politicians are slaves to the economy, as we all are. All of my system's safeguards against capitalism and against dictatorship, exist on the Economic Layer, unlike communism, whose safeguards are merely political or cultural. Capitalism has very few safeguards to begin with. The few safeguards it does have are all cultural. As for your bible story, yes I've read it many times when I was forced to go to sunday school. I don't believe in God, I am an atheist. Anyway, my system is a lot more idiot-proof than that.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 01:32 am My system's only theoretical flaw is making the transition from one system to mine. It's possible, but very difficult.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 04:42 am so how do you think that Stalin and Mao were able to stay in power? Both were tyrants and they stayed in power until they died. in the process millions were murdered, few of which were capitalists. i'm still waiting to hear why millions of people keep trying to get into the US and western European nations that have as their economic system some form of democratic capitalism? could it be freedom?
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 06:38 pm The freedom of capitalism is an illusion. Indeed, it draws many, but the truth is that capitalism is a lot less forgiving to the poor. In capitalism, everything is based off of exploitation. Everybody just wants your money and your servitude. People take advantage of your situation all the time. The role of currency is solely to keep the rich in power, and to make sure that the workers remain poor. Capitalism imprisons you in a jail cell, and surrounds you with a false sense of freedom and opportunity. You think you could someday be rich, so you immigrate to a capitalist country, and everyone just exploits your situation and forces you to work. If you don't work, they foreclose your home, repossess your belongings, and garnish your wage. On top of all that, you still remain poor as long as you live. Do you really call that "freedom"? Please don't tell me that you are really that naive.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 09:51 pm you still haven't answered--why are people beating the door down to come to the US and Western Europe?
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 09:59 pm Because those people are fooled by capitalism's illusion of freedom.
| |
| Monday, October 3, 2011 - 11:13 pm Freedom is an illusion. U try to voice your opinions here In the US. U try to use your freedom of speech to warn people about the corruption at the federal reserve. The corruption in the govt. The fact the the president is a puppet. U say these things to wake people up but their ignorance is the only thing holding the people of this country back. U get called a nut,crazy,unAmerican. U now are faced with a choice. Become a slave or stand up to them. The choice is yours but there will be a day when its to late. When they come out of the shadows and reveal themselves to the world on that day the message they send to u will be clear. HERE WE ARE FIGHT US NOW. But by then you won't have any cash,no guns,and your hunger will say give in. The time is now to do something but you people are to busy listening to the govt tell u what to do but u forget we are ones who should be telling the govt what to do. Turn to politics before politics turn on you. The choice has always been yours lay down and let these people take your rights and freedoms away or stand up and do something about it. Remember fear is the path to the darkside. Light up the darkness.  the truth will set u free.
| |
| Tuesday, October 4, 2011 - 01:08 am i think you need to rethink your system.
| |
| Wednesday, October 5, 2011 - 04:15 pm +1 SirSmokesAlot My system is better than capitalism.
| |
| Friday, October 7, 2011 - 07:45 am ...When did we stop recruiting for a fed?
| |
| Friday, October 7, 2011 - 11:18 pm roflcopter. When I entered the conversation?
| |
| Saturday, October 8, 2011 - 12:08 pm + Demon Eater Mmmm whats the hoot about folks
| |
| Monday, October 10, 2011 - 05:04 am SP, your system would have the same problem that any other system has while being established. Take the bolshevik revolution for an example. It was the revolution that toppled the Czars. It was millions of the working class striving from the brutal oppression of their leaders. Now those millions where able to be steered by a select few, such as Lenin, that saw this revolution as their opportunity to take control. They used the masses, the democratic movement, to push them selves into power. Once they voted them selves into power, they casted off the people that they rode to power on. And this is when the purges began. They very people that began the revolution, soon became its victims. This is one example of many that demonstrates the eventual fate of your system. Unless you expect to purge the unbelievers your self your system will not get off the ground. Plus, unless you have a camera in every home, a snitch around every corner and a military police force to enforce the rules, you cannot stop humans from individual barter. They will continue to put a price on every thing, and strive for more than what they have. That's human nature.
| |
| Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 12:47 am Kag-- he won't listen to you. he wants to be the dictator in democratic clothing. according to him it has no flaws since it wouldn't have a medium of exchange.
| |
| Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 09:04 am that's the fault in many people of aspiration. Arrogance. Arrogance to think they are better than the countless others that came before and failed. Arrogance to think that people are mere pawns, to perform the will of those of power. Arrogance to think that they possess no flaws, and it is god that is imperfect to call him an imperfect being.
| |
| Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 02:42 pm very thoughtful comments.
| |
| Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - 05:59 am Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. - Mao Zedong A good system places limits on political power. A good system makes it so no majority, no minority, no community, no dictator, no democratically-elected leader, and no individual can exercise political power or its brute counterpart, a gun, on any citizen except in those cases where an individual is attempting to exercise such power on another. A good system's goal is to protect a man's life, his liberty, and the product of both, his property. That some men are more successful, intelligent, wealthy, lucky, healthy, or privileged than others is an issue that cannot be solved by the system without resorting to the use of political power against life, liberty, or property. To attempt to do so contradicts the goal of a good system. As such, a good system does not attempt to resolve these inequalities. That some men attempt to deprive others of life, liberty, and property through the use of force or fraud is contradictory to the goal of a good system. As such, a good system does not tolerate such actions. That some men attempt to exercise political power in contradiction to the goal of a good system is intolerable. As such, a good system's laws cannot allow for any justification of the deprivation of life, liberty, or property other than as it is required to enforce such laws. That some men convince other men to throw away their freedoms through democratic elections or violent revolutions is unfortunate. No system can prevent this. A good system is inefficient, weak, slow, and resistant to change in case such foolishness is only temporary. Capitalism, specifically Laissez-Faire Capitalism, is such a system. If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be. - Yogi Berra
|
