About your avatar commander....
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8645
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
George Washington had his troops slaughter Hessian soldiers in their sleep, but it's ok because it was war? hmmmmm........ We took offense when the Japanese did the same thing in Pearl Harbor. I'm not passing judgement either way, I'm only saying there's more to any given story than what you see on the outside.Sabarai wrote:That was in a war time, he executed Prisoners of War. Those are men who surrended already, then they were imprisoned, and then SHOT for no particular reason? Oh yeah, except they are the enemy... That would be like American soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq shooting POW's from a distance. You know what kind of hell broke out when photo's of US soldiers having some "fun" on Iraqi POW's were released? And they didn't even shoot the Iraqi's, what if they did? US would be kicked out of Iraq by the UN or be abandoned by the rest of the world...Lucifer wrote: What people seem to forget about the American Revolutoin (yeah, I know, you're not american) is that George Washington and company snuck into the enemy camp and slaughtered numerous Germans while they were sleeping. He's a hero. Why? Because he won. Che lost, that's all.
What you guys are conveniently ignoring is that Communism got its start with nothing but good intentions. There's a part of humanity, a large part, that strives towards an ideal society. We know that pragmiatically any ideal society can't exist, but we still have the lessons learned. The idea that a man is worth what his skills, talents, and so forth make him worth, and that his purpose is to increase such things is a pretty noble idea and worth working towards. Capitalism doesn't achieve that goal. I agree that Capitalism is so far the best of what's been tried in that it gives everyone an opportunity, no matter how slim, to become better than what they were. But what about people who don't measure their self-worth with money? That's where capitalism falls down. Communism tried to address that specificall, and in its tunnel-vision failed. Finding something in the middle (socialism) both works and doesn't work, as n54 pointed out.You must know that over 15 communist countries already collapsed? You have the block of eastern Europe and of course the Sovjet Republic. Only China lives on, since they have over a billion inhabitants PLUS they allow religion in their dictature. North Korea survives as well, but not for long anymore, the NATO has put some pressure on them. If China didn't help them in the first place, it would be one Korea like South Korea. Also, China has had help from other countries, capitalist countries.
Maybe what really matters is the struggle itself, huh? With each iteration we become better as a people than we were before. I'm thinking that what's happening is that capitalism is slowly but surely getting its edge taken off and turning into a system that is more rewarding than anything that's existed so far. I guess I'm saying I'm curious how capitalism is ultimately going to evolve and what it'll look like.
The basic problem with these other systems is capitalism's great strength, actually. Capitalism follows basic laws of nature, of physics, and so forth. The other systems try to impose order on a chaotic system, and capitalism's strength is that it works by being chaotic. So to have a system that removes material gain as its only way of measuring a person's worth and replaces it with more "human" metrics this hypothetical system would still have to be chaotic and provide some accurate model of nature. The jungle, you know. Welcome to the jungle? Right.
Aha, do you see that I"m not proposing a government, rather I'm musing on where government/economic philosophy is going to take us next?So a government with influence from the communism, capitalism and a president (communism and capitalism don't mix anyway) will always pull to the central; which is more socialism than liberalism and central democrats as I believe... So the government you are proposing is completely out of the question...
Ah, a political debate! How intriguing.
n54 and lucifer have both excellent points. Although I am far from a radical commie and have my doubts about the "the right implementation of communism will be found" lore, you have to remember what happened to the first implementations of democracy/republic ( after those of ancient Greece that don't fully count because only "citizens" were allowed to vote ) after the French revolution: they turned quickly into dictatorships because the implementations were unstable, without "checks and ballances", and the men put in power were easily corrupted by it. I must admit that history is one of my weak sides, but I remember a) under Robespierre, terror reigned the country, and that Napoleon Bonaparte later tried ( and mostly succeeded ) to conquer all of Europe as an Emperor. It took almost a century to truly establish the republic. So, while it is of course naive to see all these failed attempts to implement communism and simply try again, it is also stupid to push that possibility aside. One of the reasons the last attempts failed was simply the economic pressure from the outside: Trade between communist and capitalist countries was under heavy restrictions, and the capitalists outnumbered the communists. ( Just to clarify: I am happy that the terribly oppressing political systems, including the former GDR, are gone. )
And do I have to remind you of all the capitalistic/liberalistic failed experiments that the free trade evangelists continuously ignore? The world bank has forced strict rules on states, mostly emerging economies, before it granted/extended loans. Those conditions always include that the public sector ( Water, electricity, roads ) has to be opened to the market and privatized. The clubbed-to-death argument here is that obviously, a privately operating firm will handle the situation better than a state bureaucracy. In every single case those formerly public enterprises were taken over by big corporations from abroad. In the following years, the prices for water and electricity rose and the quality of service decreased. Argentina is the example where this is most striking ( hope my facts are right... ). The problem here is that the market is only operational for the big corporations, but the average citizen who just wants clean drinking water has no open market. He has to take what the new water plant owner offers him. In effect, huge monopolies were created that way. There are some areas where market liberalization just does not work, and water supply is one of them. ( Other former state monopolies like telephone and electricity work well as opened markets, on the other hand, because it's technically possible to switch providers for both. But you can't change the quality of the water by switching the water company. )
And let's not mix systems of economy and government ( Sabarai, that means you
). Communism, socialism and capitalism describe the economy. Monarchy, dictatorship, republic and democracy the form of government. You basically can mix and match them as you like. Liberalism and fascism are combinations; as I see it, liberalism is extreme capitalism + more democracy than republic ( the state controls as little as possible ), and fascism/totalitarism actually is dictatorship combined with socialism ( the state controls everything ).
In an ideal system of government, the decisions are made by people who know what they are doing and by people to whom the decision matters. This ideal system has not yet been found. In a republic, you elect people who then make the decisions; you hope they know what matters to you. In a democracy, everyone takes part in decisions, but I can't imagine everyone would be up to the task. Remember that, depending on how elite you feel, up to 99% of the general populace is stupid
The ideal economic system would give everyone what he needs and encourage initiative and effort. Communism fails in the second aspect, capitalism in the first. Mind you that in the last century, the situation in the industrialized countries changed: 150 years ago, you did not need much initiative to work your ass of. If you did not, you starved, end of story. Or you were an aristocrat ( with head still between your shoulders ) or just rich, but most people weren't. There simply weren't enough resources to feed those who did not want to work. Today, we have the resources, and this creates this whole new problem that you need to motivate people to work, otherwise most won't. In a capitalistic society, the status you gain by having a high paid job and thus the money to buy a big offroad car you don't really need gives many the motivation to work harder than needed just to eat. See the chain? "Work hard -> much money -> ( unneeded ) goods -> status". I say: We should, and I bet we will someday, eliminate the middle two steps here. It should be just "Work hard ( and smart and well of course ) -> status". Today, if you just work hard and you don't get money for it ( say, you develop an open source game... ), those SUV owners laugh at you. But it should not be this way. Additionally, the original chain is flawed. It also works like "Inherited tons of cash accumulated because our grand-grandfather worked hard and build a flourishing company -> goods -> status", as Lucifer complains about.
I'm not saying work should not give you and your children economic benefits. It should. But that should not be the source of your motivation. You should be motivated by the good things you accomplish at your work, even if you're just a garbageman. I have high respect for our garbagenmen, they do what has to be done and what I would not want to do. A pure change in the economic system won't do that, a change of society is needed here.
Well, before we can go there, I guess we first have to figure out how to feed everyone on this planet. If you want to do a first step in that direction: no steak today!
Aaarg, I fear I started rambling about two paragraphs ago. Somebody please stop me!
Just one side note/nitpick: How exactly does the fact that Hitler got elected ( btw. his pary only got 30 percent or so ) democratically say anything about communism? It can happen anywhere and anytime. Totalitarian movements are creepy and dangerous and come in many disguises.
And sorry for pointing out some things Lucifer said in his last post, he posted it while I was writing.
n54 and lucifer have both excellent points. Although I am far from a radical commie and have my doubts about the "the right implementation of communism will be found" lore, you have to remember what happened to the first implementations of democracy/republic ( after those of ancient Greece that don't fully count because only "citizens" were allowed to vote ) after the French revolution: they turned quickly into dictatorships because the implementations were unstable, without "checks and ballances", and the men put in power were easily corrupted by it. I must admit that history is one of my weak sides, but I remember a) under Robespierre, terror reigned the country, and that Napoleon Bonaparte later tried ( and mostly succeeded ) to conquer all of Europe as an Emperor. It took almost a century to truly establish the republic. So, while it is of course naive to see all these failed attempts to implement communism and simply try again, it is also stupid to push that possibility aside. One of the reasons the last attempts failed was simply the economic pressure from the outside: Trade between communist and capitalist countries was under heavy restrictions, and the capitalists outnumbered the communists. ( Just to clarify: I am happy that the terribly oppressing political systems, including the former GDR, are gone. )
And do I have to remind you of all the capitalistic/liberalistic failed experiments that the free trade evangelists continuously ignore? The world bank has forced strict rules on states, mostly emerging economies, before it granted/extended loans. Those conditions always include that the public sector ( Water, electricity, roads ) has to be opened to the market and privatized. The clubbed-to-death argument here is that obviously, a privately operating firm will handle the situation better than a state bureaucracy. In every single case those formerly public enterprises were taken over by big corporations from abroad. In the following years, the prices for water and electricity rose and the quality of service decreased. Argentina is the example where this is most striking ( hope my facts are right... ). The problem here is that the market is only operational for the big corporations, but the average citizen who just wants clean drinking water has no open market. He has to take what the new water plant owner offers him. In effect, huge monopolies were created that way. There are some areas where market liberalization just does not work, and water supply is one of them. ( Other former state monopolies like telephone and electricity work well as opened markets, on the other hand, because it's technically possible to switch providers for both. But you can't change the quality of the water by switching the water company. )
And let's not mix systems of economy and government ( Sabarai, that means you
). Communism, socialism and capitalism describe the economy. Monarchy, dictatorship, republic and democracy the form of government. You basically can mix and match them as you like. Liberalism and fascism are combinations; as I see it, liberalism is extreme capitalism + more democracy than republic ( the state controls as little as possible ), and fascism/totalitarism actually is dictatorship combined with socialism ( the state controls everything ).In an ideal system of government, the decisions are made by people who know what they are doing and by people to whom the decision matters. This ideal system has not yet been found. In a republic, you elect people who then make the decisions; you hope they know what matters to you. In a democracy, everyone takes part in decisions, but I can't imagine everyone would be up to the task. Remember that, depending on how elite you feel, up to 99% of the general populace is stupid
The ideal economic system would give everyone what he needs and encourage initiative and effort. Communism fails in the second aspect, capitalism in the first. Mind you that in the last century, the situation in the industrialized countries changed: 150 years ago, you did not need much initiative to work your ass of. If you did not, you starved, end of story. Or you were an aristocrat ( with head still between your shoulders ) or just rich, but most people weren't. There simply weren't enough resources to feed those who did not want to work. Today, we have the resources, and this creates this whole new problem that you need to motivate people to work, otherwise most won't. In a capitalistic society, the status you gain by having a high paid job and thus the money to buy a big offroad car you don't really need gives many the motivation to work harder than needed just to eat. See the chain? "Work hard -> much money -> ( unneeded ) goods -> status". I say: We should, and I bet we will someday, eliminate the middle two steps here. It should be just "Work hard ( and smart and well of course ) -> status". Today, if you just work hard and you don't get money for it ( say, you develop an open source game... ), those SUV owners laugh at you. But it should not be this way. Additionally, the original chain is flawed. It also works like "Inherited tons of cash accumulated because our grand-grandfather worked hard and build a flourishing company -> goods -> status", as Lucifer complains about.
I'm not saying work should not give you and your children economic benefits. It should. But that should not be the source of your motivation. You should be motivated by the good things you accomplish at your work, even if you're just a garbageman. I have high respect for our garbagenmen, they do what has to be done and what I would not want to do. A pure change in the economic system won't do that, a change of society is needed here.
Well, before we can go there, I guess we first have to figure out how to feed everyone on this planet. If you want to do a first step in that direction: no steak today!
Aaarg, I fear I started rambling about two paragraphs ago. Somebody please stop me!
Just one side note/nitpick: How exactly does the fact that Hitler got elected ( btw. his pary only got 30 percent or so ) democratically say anything about communism? It can happen anywhere and anytime. Totalitarian movements are creepy and dangerous and come in many disguises.
And sorry for pointing out some things Lucifer said in his last post, he posted it while I was writing.
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8645
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
I'm not going to get too much into it again so soon after the last time (have to give some of you slow pokes a chance to read ), but there were a couple of things I thought worth pointing out.
Thanks to greedy capitalism, people are starving when there's food available.
), but there were a couple of things I thought worth pointing out. Actually, I think it was Alan Dean Foster who wrote about a system that used status as a currency. If your status was at a certain level, you were automatically entitled to certain things, food, water, a certain size home, and so forth. Your job was part of it, your history, and so forth. A computer kept track of your status. Money was still part of the system, but it wasn't based on gold anymore, it had a much more direct tie-in to value of work. I forget if the author was Alan Dean Foster or not, but the book is called "The Man who Used the Universe", and it's an excellent read. Short, too.z-man wrote:See the chain? "Work hard -> much money -> ( unneeded ) goods -> status". I say: We should, and I bet we will someday, eliminate the middle two steps here. It should be just "Work hard ( and smart and well of course ) -> status".
I'm glad you mentioned this. I get asked a lot why I work on open source software when I won't get paid for it. I don't have an answer because I don't measure my self-worth by how much I get paid to do something. Consider the amount of rabid zealotry that exists in open source and how much of it is slanted towards capitalism, I'm really curious to see what happens if it gets to a point where society really has to stop and take notice. MOre importantly, the ideals that attract people to open source software (for whatever reasons) are starting to permeate society in other places. I'm really curious to see where it goes.... (now I'm back where I started, somebody else say something!)Today, if you just work hard and you don't get money for it ( say, you develop an open source game... ), those SUV owners laugh at you. But it should not be this way.
Actually, the way I understand it, we don't have a production problem, we have a distribution problem. It's cheaper, makes more money, generates jobs, and so forth, for us to throw away whatever surplus we have that doesn't get used than it is to send it to parts of the world that need it. This is one area where capitalism is falling flat on its face.Well, before we can go there, I guess we first have to figure out how to feed everyone on this planet. If you want to do a first step in that direction: no steak today!
Thanks to greedy capitalism, people are starving when there's food available.I'm having a hell of a time trying to get my father in law to understand that. He's basically said that we don't have the resources to feed everyone on the planet, so why bother trying. I might be paraphrasing that a little and making it sound harsher that he would like, but that's what's he's saying ultimately.Lucifer wrote:Thanks to greedy capitalism, people are starving when there's food available.
My philosophy has been stripped down to an extremely simple thought. *Take care of every individual, not just the majority.* Communism tries to do that. Capitalism doesn't. Go to Cuba. Nobody is hungry or homeless. And that with a rather oppresive giant on their shoulders.
I had a big discussgument with my father in law the other day. The core of where he goes wrong is in his concept of money, and the worth of people, resources etc. I have to eat supper right now, but would be happy to elaborate on this topic another time. Instead, I ask you this for the moment.
Where does money come from?
now things are getting interesting (and damnd complicated lol my poor brain) 
*proper capitalization mode on*
I'll go somewhat in reverse here, first about food & hunger:
Hmm I think I need to try to dig up this stuff or noone here is going to believe me
*found it* it's Dr. Amartya Sen who got an Nobel prize in economics in 1998.
Ok everything under the subtitle "Welfare of the Poorest" in this Nobel page link explains it: http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureat ... press.html
I feel fairly confident in believing that food shortages is not actually the major problem causing famines! How's that for counter-intuitive!
So much for greedy capitalism in the west being the cause imo (not that I think we shouldn't help out - we absolutely should, both with food and (sensible) advice). Oh and I find the food surplus stockpiles that are being destroyed absolutely morally and ethically (as well as economically) disgusting but we should fix that more for our own sake than for anybody elses... It's super-inefficient and stupid (at least we should convert what is posssible into B100 biodiesel << business idea for anyone with money or guts I guess - if they are allowed to buy it that is *evil eye at the EU*)
Onto the rest, privatization:
I couldn't agree more that privatization isn't always the correct choice. It's a typical example of how when something works exceedingly well in one area of human existence it gets carbon copied in true "monkey see monkey do" style to everything else without much of a second thought.
The thing to watch out for is commodities consisting mostly of capital i.e. commodities where efficiency is a result of economics of scale in capital (I use the economic definition of capital here: equipment, infrastructure etc.). Typical examples of this are:
- railroads
- pipelines
- fibre/ict infrastructure
Now this depends a lot on the overall size of development (needed), sometimes it can be privatized, sometimes not, depending on country and region & other factors (this is the WMO/WB mistake). A few examples of stupid mistakes concerning privatization in Norway:
- they privatized the telephone market but left the old telephone monopoly with ownership of all the groundlines/fibre/ict infrastructure. In practice they created a private monopoly situation which severly negated any gains from privatization. Since Norway is far too small a market and far too geographically spread out to attract the creation of a massive parallel system by competitors what they should have done was to let the state retain ownership of the actual wires in the ground. As it is competitors have to lease groundline use from a monopolistic private entity which severly inhibits competition.
- they privatized the norwegian railroad system doing exactly the same mistake: creating a monopolistic private corporation. In addition they did it one worse since there is absolutely noone interested in trying to create a competitor as it would demand massive investement without any prospect of near-future profit.
Other examples abound but the rule is straightforward: if privatization just replaces a state monopoly with a private monopoly then don't do it (e.g. waterworks infrastructure in "developing" nations etc.).
Next, beware of any isms:
I don't believe any ideologies hold "the truth" (and this is part of my extremely anti-communistic stance). If one looks closely at established democracies it doesn't take much to see that they are a potpurri of different styles/thoughtpatterns concerning solutions for all the various problems: I believe in pragmatism (but not unconditionally as that too is an ism hehe).
This is the great strenght of democracies: diversity.
No single democracy (not even the US or more appropriately Switzerland) is a 100%, or even 90% or 80% for that matter, laizzes-faire (free-market capitalism/extreme economic liberalism) and absolutely none of them are even 50% "state capitalist" (communist/facist) systems. And this is just on the economics, we all know how diverse the parties and elections are (and no, counting just the major parties would be wrong in this respect, even for the US). Even more important is the diversity among the population, after all we are the state and the rest is just decision-making/enabeling structure...
Now what we really need more of in absolutely every democracy is more transparency (and believe me Norway is pretty bad at this, the US and the EU are a lot better although the EU is too undemocratic at the top (no elections etc.)). And more focus on individual rights as the basis for services instead of the other way round where the services and the bureaucracy of those services form the basis of the individual rights (the US is leading the way on this one).
Free software = Free society
It's a t-shirt (an EFF one I think) and it has a very good point: the goal should be a society as open and free and transparent as Open Source is (and OS is a good starting tool for it). It won't be a silver bullet as it's not a 100% attainable goal, but it sets the standard to aim for, forever.
And I'd like to chip in that everything that makes OS more of a success in every way helps this aim, and that includes games. Anything, as long as it's OS becasue it spreads the thought. That thought wont always be the correct or appropriate one for a solution but that's not the point, the point is that it is actually there and can be considered as a solution.
Btw since I've bashed communists:
I'll now bash some liberals (or let's call them libertarians if it evades confusion - i.e. not socialist or anything like that but those who believe in practically no state).
They imo do many similar mistakes as the communists do:
- they believe a free market and greed will be totally selfregulating, and in a sense it will but only in regard to pure monetary economics, and with no control of the ramifications on all the non-monetary values like poverty, health, environment etc. So in practice their belief is just as bad as the communists in its consequences. This is why no country allows itself to be 100% laizzes-faire - not even Singapore, Japan or Switzerland.
- somewhat similar to the communists they believe that some righteous balance will be created if every individual is totally free in a stateless society (anarchy) which is utter crap (sorry if I offend, don't take it personally). Why is it crap? Because of cooperation at higher and higher levels will in effect form new states over time, cooperation is a human trait which wont disappear (just like communism wont eradicate greed and misuse of power). How will it happen? Most likely using violence: we'll just be repeating our history from cavedwellers onwards all over but this time with the newest weaponry.
Actually the most rabid libertarians can scare the shit out of me worse than a communist (but those rabid libertarians are few and far between in comparison). Luckily for all of us any person is more than just his/hers political and/or religious beliefs
And like the example mentioned about using status as currency extreme libertarian stances begs the question of what about those who in some way are disenfranchised/statusless? How do we take care of them while allowing them opportunities and freedom? The suggestions are way too simple on their own.
Just as believing in solidarity doesn't make me a communist (or even a socialist), I've over the years realized that believing in a high degree of personal and economic freedom doesn't make me a libertarian. Both isms are too simple and prone to abuse.
I'm not denying that some of the thought-patterns and ideas enshrined in communism and liberalism hasn't made the world a better place - they absolutely have, but only in moderation. The problem starts when one attributes some sort of divine insight to them and their champions.
Ok, a little more critique of communism after all
Btw communism didn't start with all good intentions, it started with planning violence and then executing it. Yes it was all supposed to work out for the greater good in the end but even Marx talks about establishing the "facist tyranny of the worker" as a necessary prelude to the stateless communist system. That would never be possible without violence and he (or any other communist) never said how the actual transition from this facist workers state to the communist system was supposed to happen against all odds. Communists could (and some do) argue that this is their core defence: they simply did not have time enough to get to this point. But if that is the case and them trying again entails the ressurection of all that misery once again (and for god knows how many decades) then I really think we're better off trying to improve what we have already instead.
wow I must have spent hours on this so far
*blames brain*
Last topic: Hitlers election
My point was just that (as with parliamentary communism) a democratic election is no insurance against catastrophical abuse and misuse of power when the ideology is insane enough. Yes it can happen anywhere and anytime, I agree totally. So it does say something about parliamentary communism as well as any other ism or political belief, but even more so for communism and fascism as both of those ideologies are intrisically anti-democratic in their ideals, theory & practice.
*core shut down imminent*
hope i didn't bore the socks off you all
and titnass & sabarai: sorry but it's tuesday
i can't help it
*proper capitalization mode on*I'll go somewhat in reverse here, first about food & hunger:
Hmm I think I need to try to dig up this stuff or noone here is going to believe me
*found it* it's Dr. Amartya Sen who got an Nobel prize in economics in 1998.
Ok everything under the subtitle "Welfare of the Poorest" in this Nobel page link explains it: http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureat ... press.html
I feel fairly confident in believing that food shortages is not actually the major problem causing famines! How's that for counter-intuitive!
So much for greedy capitalism in the west being the cause imo (not that I think we shouldn't help out - we absolutely should, both with food and (sensible) advice). Oh and I find the food surplus stockpiles that are being destroyed absolutely morally and ethically (as well as economically) disgusting but we should fix that more for our own sake than for anybody elses... It's super-inefficient and stupid (at least we should convert what is posssible into B100 biodiesel << business idea for anyone with money or guts I guess - if they are allowed to buy it that is *evil eye at the EU*)
Onto the rest, privatization:
I couldn't agree more that privatization isn't always the correct choice. It's a typical example of how when something works exceedingly well in one area of human existence it gets carbon copied in true "monkey see monkey do" style to everything else without much of a second thought.
The thing to watch out for is commodities consisting mostly of capital i.e. commodities where efficiency is a result of economics of scale in capital (I use the economic definition of capital here: equipment, infrastructure etc.). Typical examples of this are:
- railroads
- pipelines
- fibre/ict infrastructure
Now this depends a lot on the overall size of development (needed), sometimes it can be privatized, sometimes not, depending on country and region & other factors (this is the WMO/WB mistake). A few examples of stupid mistakes concerning privatization in Norway:
- they privatized the telephone market but left the old telephone monopoly with ownership of all the groundlines/fibre/ict infrastructure. In practice they created a private monopoly situation which severly negated any gains from privatization. Since Norway is far too small a market and far too geographically spread out to attract the creation of a massive parallel system by competitors what they should have done was to let the state retain ownership of the actual wires in the ground. As it is competitors have to lease groundline use from a monopolistic private entity which severly inhibits competition.
- they privatized the norwegian railroad system doing exactly the same mistake: creating a monopolistic private corporation. In addition they did it one worse since there is absolutely noone interested in trying to create a competitor as it would demand massive investement without any prospect of near-future profit.
Other examples abound but the rule is straightforward: if privatization just replaces a state monopoly with a private monopoly then don't do it (e.g. waterworks infrastructure in "developing" nations etc.).
Next, beware of any isms:
I don't believe any ideologies hold "the truth" (and this is part of my extremely anti-communistic stance). If one looks closely at established democracies it doesn't take much to see that they are a potpurri of different styles/thoughtpatterns concerning solutions for all the various problems: I believe in pragmatism (but not unconditionally as that too is an ism hehe).
This is the great strenght of democracies: diversity.
No single democracy (not even the US or more appropriately Switzerland) is a 100%, or even 90% or 80% for that matter, laizzes-faire (free-market capitalism/extreme economic liberalism) and absolutely none of them are even 50% "state capitalist" (communist/facist) systems. And this is just on the economics, we all know how diverse the parties and elections are (and no, counting just the major parties would be wrong in this respect, even for the US). Even more important is the diversity among the population, after all we are the state and the rest is just decision-making/enabeling structure...
Now what we really need more of in absolutely every democracy is more transparency (and believe me Norway is pretty bad at this, the US and the EU are a lot better although the EU is too undemocratic at the top (no elections etc.)). And more focus on individual rights as the basis for services instead of the other way round where the services and the bureaucracy of those services form the basis of the individual rights (the US is leading the way on this one).
Free software = Free society
It's a t-shirt (an EFF one I think) and it has a very good point: the goal should be a society as open and free and transparent as Open Source is (and OS is a good starting tool for it). It won't be a silver bullet as it's not a 100% attainable goal, but it sets the standard to aim for, forever.
And I'd like to chip in that everything that makes OS more of a success in every way helps this aim, and that includes games. Anything, as long as it's OS becasue it spreads the thought. That thought wont always be the correct or appropriate one for a solution but that's not the point, the point is that it is actually there and can be considered as a solution.
Btw since I've bashed communists:
I'll now bash some liberals
(or let's call them libertarians if it evades confusion - i.e. not socialist or anything like that but those who believe in practically no state).They imo do many similar mistakes as the communists do:
- they believe a free market and greed will be totally selfregulating, and in a sense it will but only in regard to pure monetary economics, and with no control of the ramifications on all the non-monetary values like poverty, health, environment etc. So in practice their belief is just as bad as the communists in its consequences. This is why no country allows itself to be 100% laizzes-faire - not even Singapore, Japan or Switzerland.
- somewhat similar to the communists they believe that some righteous balance will be created if every individual is totally free in a stateless society (anarchy) which is utter crap (sorry if I offend, don't take it personally). Why is it crap? Because of cooperation at higher and higher levels will in effect form new states over time, cooperation is a human trait which wont disappear (just like communism wont eradicate greed and misuse of power). How will it happen? Most likely using violence: we'll just be repeating our history from cavedwellers onwards all over but this time with the newest weaponry.
Actually the most rabid libertarians can scare the shit out of me worse than a communist (but those rabid libertarians are few and far between in comparison). Luckily for all of us any person is more than just his/hers political and/or religious beliefs
And like the example mentioned about using status as currency extreme libertarian stances begs the question of what about those who in some way are disenfranchised/statusless? How do we take care of them while allowing them opportunities and freedom? The suggestions are way too simple on their own.
Just as believing in solidarity doesn't make me a communist (or even a socialist), I've over the years realized that believing in a high degree of personal and economic freedom doesn't make me a libertarian. Both isms are too simple and prone to abuse.
I'm not denying that some of the thought-patterns and ideas enshrined in communism and liberalism hasn't made the world a better place - they absolutely have, but only in moderation. The problem starts when one attributes some sort of divine insight to them and their champions.
Ok, a little more critique of communism after all
Btw communism didn't start with all good intentions, it started with planning violence and then executing it. Yes it was all supposed to work out for the greater good in the end but even Marx talks about establishing the "facist tyranny of the worker" as a necessary prelude to the stateless communist system. That would never be possible without violence and he (or any other communist) never said how the actual transition from this facist workers state to the communist system was supposed to happen against all odds. Communists could (and some do) argue that this is their core defence: they simply did not have time enough to get to this point. But if that is the case and them trying again entails the ressurection of all that misery once again (and for god knows how many decades) then I really think we're better off trying to improve what we have already instead.
wow I must have spent hours on this so far
*blames brain*Last topic: Hitlers election
My point was just that (as with parliamentary communism) a democratic election is no insurance against catastrophical abuse and misuse of power when the ideology is insane enough. Yes it can happen anywhere and anytime, I agree totally. So it does say something about parliamentary communism as well as any other ism or political belief, but even more so for communism and fascism as both of those ideologies are intrisically anti-democratic in their ideals, theory & practice.
*core shut down imminent*
hope i didn't bore the socks off you all
and titnass & sabarai: sorry but it's tuesday
i can't help it
-
Sabarai
- The Former Man of Cheese
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: 52°09'30.24"N 5°18'48.17"
The Netherlands have always been a republic every since Napoleon Bonaparte. I don't know about the rest of Europe.z-man wrote:after the French revolution: they turned quickly into dictatorships because the implementations were unstable, without "checks and ballances", and the men put in power were easily corrupted by it. I must admit that history is one of my weak sides, but I remember a) under Robespierre, terror reigned the country, and that Napoleon Bonaparte later tried ( and mostly succeeded ) to conquer all of Europe as an Emperor.
Napoleon tried to take over Europe, he came all the way to Moskow, as an emporer because he WAS an emporer; he wasn't elected by the people... He just did some smart thinking and meant a great deal as a general in the Revolution army so he took over the position from the one who wanted France to become a republic/democracy.
Lol, no; communism is a way of governing a country... It says that everything belongs to the state and you have no private things. It also says that the companies no longer have different kind of employees; only the worker; the rest is controled by the government. Fascism is not combinable with socialism; that's what Hitler actually tried but he failed big time; that's when he cut of socialism and just became "fascismish". Liberalism and fascism both say that economy should be dealt with by normal people, not by the goverment. Fascism goes a step further and says that the government should only take responsibility for guarding the people.z-man wrote:And let's not mix systems of economy and government ( Sabarai, that means you
Mind you that all of the richer countries are actually capitalist countries, thank you...z-man wrote: The ideal economic system would give everyone what he needs and encourage initiative and effort. Communism fails in the second aspect, capitalism in the first. Mind you that in the last century, the situation in the industrialized countries changed: 150 years ago, you did not need much initiative to work your ass of. If you did not, you starved, end of story. Or you were an aristocrat ( with head still between your shoulders ) or just rich, but most people weren't. There simply weren't enough resources to feed those who did not want to work. Today, we have the resources, and this creates this whole new problem that you need to motivate people to work, otherwise most won't. In a capitalistic society, the status you gain by having a high paid job and thus the money to buy a big offroad car you don't really need gives many the motivation to work harder than needed just to eat. See the chain? "Work hard -> much money -> ( unneeded ) goods -> status". I say: We should, and I bet we will someday, eliminate the middle two steps here. It should be just "Work hard ( and smart and well of course ) -> status". Today, if you just work hard and you don't get money for it ( say, you develop an open source game... ), those SUV owners laugh at you. But it should not be this way. Additionally, the original chain is flawed. It also works like "Inherited tons of cash accumulated because our grand-grandfather worked hard and build a flourishing company -> goods -> status", as Lucifer complains about.
I'm not saying work should not give you and your children economic benefits. It should. But that should not be the source of your motivation. You should be motivated by the good things you accomplish at your work, even if you're just a garbageman. I have high respect for our garbagenmen, they do what has to be done and what I would not want to do. A pure change in the economic system won't do that, a change of society is needed here.
z-man wrote:Just one side note/nitpick: How exactly does the fact that Hitler got elected ( btw. his pary only got 30 percent or so ) democratically say anything about communism? It can happen anywhere and anytime. Totalitarian movements are creepy and dangerous and come in many disguises.
In the first elections Hitler got 2.5%, that was in 1923. The elections after that (1930) he gets 18.3% of all votes... In 1933 there were elections again; this time it was 37.3% for Hitler and the NSDAP... From then on they were the biggest party in the country... The Von Hindenburg make Hitler his prime-minister (something he never wanted to do; I quote: "I will never let him be prime-minister, that will only happen when I'm DEAD!!" (But thn in German)... A month after that Hitler wants re-elections. Before that there's the "Reichstagbrandt". The building where the government is, is being lit on fire. The nazi's claim that they found a Dutch communist fanatic with matches; he has been killed. Then Hitler puts all communists in prison. Then the re-elections actually happen. Hitler gets 44% (81 communists chosen though).n54 wrote:Yes it can happen anywhere and anytime, I agree totally.
A month after that he makes the "machtegingswet"; it says that the parlemaint doesn't have anything to say anymore. The commies weren't there and the catholics were persuaded.
Then, in 1934 Von Hindenburg died --> Hitler gets full power in Germany.
On the second topic on the elections.
Chance for a dictator ONLY occurs when the country (indeed, anyplace) is in a critical phase. Read --> German war damage depths. Germany had to pay MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of gold-marks to the allied forces (mainly to Belgium, since almost whole the WW 1 had been fought in Belgium). And in the '30s the stocks dropped very very very low, so there was an economical crisis. So the crisis and the war depths resulted in the fascism as leader. It was Hitler, but if he didn't rise, it would have been someone else...
Hehe, i sure belive that it took some time 2 type all of this, lol[/quote]z-man wrote: And sorry for pointing out some things Lucifer said in his last post, he posted it while I was writing.
Last edited by Sabarai on Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sabarai
- The Former Man of Cheese
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: 52°09'30.24"N 5°18'48.17"
Distribution is indeed the problem. But since the companies want to make profit, as much as possible, the distribution to third world countries goes only via charities.Lucifer wrote:Actually, the way I understand it, we don't have a production problem, we have a distribution problem. It's cheaper, makes more money, generates jobs, and so forth, for us to throw away whatever surplus we have that doesn't get used than it is to send it to parts of the world that need it. This is one area where capitalism is falling flat on its face.Well, before we can go there, I guess we first have to figure out how to feed everyone on this planet. If you want to do a first step in that direction: no steak today!
(is via an english word? if not, it's dutch... www.freetranslations.com)
-
RUDEBOY!
- Match Winner
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:32 am
- Location: deep in the heart of oil country
Ok, heres the deal with fascism. Fascism was created by a former socialist (Mussolini) and obviously certain ideologies from his socialist upbringing carried over. Fascism DOES NOT Believe in the economy being delt with by by normal people. In a fascist government the state controls the economy completely. They also believe in rule by the elite, not some poor proletariate worker. Fascism is a system of complete control where the state is valued completely over the individual. It is an ultra-nationalist view. Hitler directly structured the nazi party after Mussolini's party, the socialist element was only in name, Hitler never attempted to restructure the Fascist view, he just used Mussolini's views and those were inherently flawed and already contained the socialist elementsLol, no; communism is a way of governing a country... It says that everything belongs to the state and you have no private things. It also says that the companies no longer have different kind of employees; only the worker; the rest is controled by the government. Fascism is not combinable with socialism; that's what Hitler actually tried but he failed big time; that's when he cut of socialism and just became "fascismish". Liberalism and fascism both say that economy should be dealt with by normal people, not by the goverment. Fascism goes a step further and says that the government should only take responsibility for guarding the people.
-
Sabarai
- The Former Man of Cheese
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: 52°09'30.24"N 5°18'48.17"
... In a book of mine, which i use for school, is written what i said about fascism. It's a right wing way of thinking, and that way it's for free-economy, taken care of by normal ppl, not ppl from the government.RUDEBOY! wrote: Ok, heres the deal with fascism. Fascism was created by a former socialist (Mussolini) and obviously certain ideologies from his socialist upbringing carried over. Fascism DOES NOT Believe in the economy being delt with by by normal people. In a fascist government the state controls the economy completely. They also believe in rule by the elite, not some poor proletariate worker. Fascism is a system of complete control where the state is valued completely over the individual. It is an ultra-nationalist view. Hitler directly structured the nazi party after Mussolini's party, the socialist element was only in name, Hitler never attempted to restructure the Fascist view, he just used Mussolini's views and those were inherently flawed and already contained the socialist elements
What u r mentioning is the way hitler make fascism speak. The now-aday's fascism is what i just told...
Hitler didn't want the goverment to contral all firms/corporations, he let that part to the inhabitants of his country. The ideology of the arians which u r mentioning as well, is just another way of thinking of hitler; rascism...
-
RUDEBOY!
- Match Winner
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:32 am
- Location: deep in the heart of oil country
Sabarai wrote: ... In a book of mine, which i use for school, is written what i said about fascism. It's a right wing way of thinking, and that way it's for free-economy, taken care of by normal ppl, not ppl from the government.
What u r mentioning is the way hitler make fascism speak. The now-aday's fascism is what i just told...
Hitler didn't want the goverment to contral all firms/corporations, he let that part to the inhabitants of his country. The ideology of the arians which u r mentioning as well, is just another way of thinking of hitler; rascism...
Fascim does not value individual, it values the state over all. Mussolini who founded the fascist movement stated "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" Meaning the state and its well being is more important than any individual. Fascism is very much opposed to free economy, the elite class and conglomerate corporations control the economy. The reason it is far right is because it values money over people.