Political Change

[armyclonk 0]

you started to compare the west and the DDR

the DDR wasn't an agrarian. i live in germany, and there are very big industry areas in the ex-DDR builded up by the nazi's, bombed down and rebuilded afterwards. the airpollution in the DDR was the highest in europe due to the industry.

and it's astonishing how the ex-DDR is stillin need of funds from the rest of germany. viva la solidaritätszuschlag...

[Baff1 0]

Half of Europe is taking funds from West Germany. Why would East Germany be any different?

I'd like radical change, but I just don't see anyway to get it.

The political system here is too entrenched. It has a life of it's own.

Do I have the energy to build it all again if my house gets burnt down in a violent overthrow. If my banks all get looted.

It's a Catch 22 situation.

I don't think it can be changed from within where I live any longer. It's a self-serving beaurocratic machine.

When I was young we would all just do things en masse. If something was wrong, we would just all not do it. Publically.

If somthing was illegal that shouldn't be, we would all do it anyway. Publically and by the thousand.

It is the single time in my life that I have seen the government here ever bow to the wishes of it's people, not just play to the political classes. It's the only way I've ever seen things change.

I no longer have the energy to organise mass civil insurrections every weekend. Too old for it.

I'm more likely to emigrate than I am to attempt to fix it.

40% emigration tax is a lower risk to me than the total revolution needed to overthrow my countries current political class.

[armyclonk 0]

Half of Europe is taking funds from West Germany. Why would East Germany be any different?

europe has about 500 million inhabitants get about 20 billion € from germany.

east germany has between 12-13 million inhabitants and gets 10 billion.

[Necromancer- 0]

People should understand that everyone is born unequal, that is the only thing that makes us all equal. Yes some shit happens in life that makes someone's life harder than someone else's life. However I'd like to point out that it is the responsibility of the person living that life on how to take care of it. Especially people giving life to others -> giving birth to children. If you die of starvation.. then yes.. you were very unlucky. Look on the bright side, your dead, no starving and you might re-incarnate, be in heaven or feel the same state before you lived.

I strongly believe that social help from either the state or your friends are pure luxury making the person living in that community simply lucky. Of course it is always nice to have it, if it is affordable for the community.

Okay.. that's how I see it from the individual self of me.

This is how I see it from a different point of view.. namely.. the human race.

We are in big trouble. 6 billion people of which we all would like to give them a "western" standard living in peace and whealth. Countries consisting less than 1 billion people are already "fighting" for their resources, either through war, diplomacy or corruption (diplomacy) and there still is not enough. I read people saying that technology would save our pretty lives of luxury in eternity... Well I tell you.. it is not. The level of technological advancement is not enough compared to the growth of our greed of sustaining the amount of luxury lives in Western countries -> resources -> most needed resources -> energy resources -> #1 energy source: oil.

Already there are shortages on refined oil in the US to fuel the entire US motorpark.

Solutions:

We need to impose birth control or we go into war with eachother. Choosing between the lesser evil.

I myself choose birth control. It works much better in the long term on controlling our greed. The biggest downside is that you pay a lot more for your own retirement fund. The result is a worldwide economic downfall for a very extended period of time.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]you started to compare the west and the DDR

No I don't think so, or did I?

Quote[/b] ]the DDR wasn't an agrarian. i live in germany, and there are very big industry areas in the ex-DDR builded up by the nazi's, bombed down and rebuilded afterwards. the airpollution in the DDR was the highest in europe due to the industry.

Initially DDR was agrarian. Sure there were big industries but not like those in the west. The engineers and scientists got better paid in the west so they moved there before the wall was erected as well. You'd have to be a socialist to stay there.

Quote[/b] ]and it's astonishing how the ex-DDR is stillin need of funds from the rest of germany. viva la solidaritätszuschlag...

United germany was a good deal for the capitalists in the west. All companies got privatized. The tax payers got to pay for improved infrastructure for the companies. And now the former communist party is the biggest in the east.

Quote[/b] ]If you die of starvation.. then yes.. you were very unlucky. Look on the bright side, your dead, no starving and you might re-incarnate, be in heaven or feel the same state before you lived.

Great, what if it were you?

Quote[/b] ]People should understand that everyone is born unequal, that is the only thing that makes us all equal. Yes some shit happens in life that makes someone's life harder than someone else's life.

Some are born slaves, some born masters. No big deal, or?

Quote[/b] ]Already there are shortages on refined oil in the US to fuel the entire US motorpark.

The US is on an economic decline. The dollar hasn't been this cheap in more than 15 years (compared to my local currency). This of course means I can buy things from your country cheap (and increase the value of the dollar).

Quote[/b] ]We need to impose birth control or we go into war with eachother. Choosing between the lesser evil.

Yes, birth controls sound good. But there will be wars in this system as long as they are profitable.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]No I don't think so, or did I?

Quote[/b] ]DDR had cheap cars all citizens could afford (that's better than in the west)

Quote[/b] ]Initially DDR was agrarian.

Nope, sorry, but that isn't true.

Quote[/b] ]Sure there were big industries but not like those in the west.

The industry was quite big. even west germany buyed tons of east german goods, because they produce it fucking cheap.

Quote[/b] ]The engineers and scientists got better paid in the west so they moved there before the wall was erected as well.

And tried to get out there some years later... but then they were trapped.

Quote[/b] ]United germany was a good deal for the capitalists in the west.

United Germany had to use the money for the pensions for the people in the east. Even today west germany pay 10 billion € for the east, EVERY YEAR!

If you ask a west german, if he want the wall back, you will most likely get the awnser: HELL YES.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nope, sorry, but that isn't true.

It is true. After the war there were no industries to talk about and East Germany (part of Prussia and its junkers) has always had good soil. In the west many industries were left intact, and weren't dismantled to compensate for western industrial war losses (as there hardly were any).

After many years they managed to build up an industry from scratch. But the country still lacked the talents, trade (with other developed countries) and the natural resources of the west.

Look at North Korea, why are they poor? They are isolated and don't trade anything. They have no oil, no oil means no tractors and very bad agricultural production. Cuba also was in that situation after the USSR was dissolved. But now they can import oil at reasonable prices (those other countries pay) thanks to Venezuela and similar countries.

Quote[/b] ]And tried to get out there some years later... but then they were trapped.

I don't see how it could be in the interests of the people to see skilled workers move. Besides this wasn't the main purpose of the wall. The USSR always wanted a german unification and a neutral germany. No US or USSR troops. But west rejected this proposal. They created BRD, as a response USSR created DDR. They created NATO, as a response USSR created the warsaw pact. They violated the potsdam agreement stating there was to be one currency, the mark, and introduced the d-mark (which westberliners used to take advantage of the generous system and prices in the east). USSR and DDR responded with a wall. It also stopped the huge flow of spies and other security risks.

Quote[/b] ]United Germany had to use the money for the pensions for the people in the east. Even today west germany pay 10 billion € for the east, EVERY YEAR!

If you ask a west german, if he want the wall back, you will most likely get the awnser: HELL YES.

At the same time your companies generate higher and higher profits. They steal work from the working people. If the USSR and Cuba can have pensions at 55 why can't Germany? Germany has the money to make life good for all, but only a few have it because they own, not work.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is true. After the war there were no industries to talk about and East Germany (part of Prussia and its junkers) has always had good soil.

They still had some big industry parks around berlin and leipzig.

Quote[/b] ]In the west many industries were left intact, and weren't dismantled to compensate for western industrial war losses (as there hardly were any).

Don't we forget they took the Saarland? and that french took away a lot out of the Ruhrpot?

Quote[/b] ]I don't see how it could be in the interests of the people to see skilled workers move.

It isn't in the interesst of the people. But with the Stasi, the limited lifequality because of bad plans (In the summers the people in the east had problems with the drinkwater, becaue the industry had no aluminium to produce bottle tops. They had the workers, the machines, but no aluminium.) and nothing but propaganda.

Besides this wasn't the main purpose of the wall.

The only purpose of the wall was to keep the people inside of the DDR. The wall was a big border system with anti-personal-mines, automatic shoot system and all that stuff. But that stuff was not situated on the west side of the wall, because they didn't wanted to stop anybody from getting to the wall from the west, it was situated on the east side, to stop the people from the DDR to get out. The DDR-soldiers along the border had the order to shoot anybody who wanted to get out of the country. Many were shoot or died from the mines etc.

Quote[/b] ]At the same time your companies generate higher and higher profits. They steal work from the working people. If the USSR and Cuba can have pensions at 55 why can't Germany? Germany has the money to make life good for all, but only a few have it because they own, not work.

Germany has got 1400 Billion € debts and try to get rid of them. The pensionfund are empty, because they were pumped into the infrastructure of the ex-DDR. The price for a workinghour in germany is one of the highest in the whole world, no matter which type of work, and because of that, a whole lot of companies move their factories from germany to china. BWe have about 4,5million people without work.

The biggest problem is, that the average woman only give life to 1,34 children, but the average lifetime is getting bigger and bigger. That means, that fewer people work, but more gat pensions. The only way tpo compensate this is to let the people work longer.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]They still had some big industry parks around berlin and leipzig.

They had industries but had to build them up themselves. By no means equal to the Ruhr.

Quote[/b] ]It isn't in the interesst of the people.

Yea, and if it's not in the interest of the people that some people who got their education paid by the rest move to other countries, they should be stopped.

Quote[/b] ]The only purpose of the wall was to keep the people inside of the DDR.

No, not at all. It was one of the purposes, but not the only and not the main.

Quote[/b] ]The pensionfund are empty, because they were pumped into the infrastructure of the ex-DDR.

Right, that's the way capitalism works. Money to infrastructure for companies rather than pensions. This is a problem in most western countries, not just Germany. And they didn't have any "east germanies".

Quote[/b] ]The price for a workinghour in germany is one of the highest in the whole world, no matter which type of work, and because of that, a whole lot of companies move their factories from germany to china.

That's what you hear in any country if you listen to the capitalist organizations. You're implying that german workers should work at chinese wages? So companies don't move? They make profits in germany, but they want more, so they go to China. Either you see all jobs disappear or you stop the companies from doing that. You build a legal wall

Quote[/b] ]The biggest problem is, that the average woman only give life to 1,34 children, but the average lifetime is getting bigger and bigger. That means, that fewer people work, but more gat pensions. The only way tpo compensate this is to let the people work longer.

That's a splendid opportunity for giving work to all the refugees and foreigners that got no jobs. But you can't because in a market economy there has to be loads of unemployed people so there's a competition about the jobs (and not about the workers). That way you stop inflation.

In a planned economy there's hardly any inflation and no unemployement. The production is at a maximum as all work and no machines stand still in economic recessions. It's a stable economic system. However, DDR and USSR only used a couple of thousand of wares in their calculations. With modern technology one could plan an entire economy with ease. Modern day companies and organizations do. A state is just a huge organization working in the interests of its citizens.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yea, and if it's not in the interest of the people that some people who got their education paid by the rest, move to other countries, they should be stopped.

But every human should have the right to go whereever he wants.

Quote[/b] ]No, not at all. It was one of the purposes, but not the only and not the main.

Yes it was. The only other reason that could be valid is the spy-reason, but the main reason was to keep the people inside.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]But every human should have the right to go whereever he wants.

I don't think you think so if you think about it. What would happen to you and your country if all companies, all engineers, doctors and scientists moved?

In Africa most doctors and similar move to Europe or the US when they graduate just because they can live better there. Why should people pay for their education then? It's in the interest of the whole continent that those who are educated there stay there.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]I don't think you think so if you think about it.

eventhough you don't think i think so if i think about it i think if i think i think so.

Quote[/b] ]What would happen to you and your country if all companies, all engineers, doctors and scientists moved?

i would either move with them, because when the educated people move they have a reason, or try to create a climate where it attractiv to the educated to live.

[Necromancer- 0]

With modern technology one could plan an entire economy with ease. Modern day companies and organizations do. A state is just a huge organization working in the interests of its citizens.

Don't forget that if you want the advancement of technological level to stay continious forever, you need to imply competition and not just a little bit.

A state should also be controllable against corruption and transparant to it's citizens. Although I find it controversial, in the US constitution it is lawed that every citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government corrupts. Somehow I find that a very good constitutional law, if the citizens aren't corrupted by indoctrination.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]or try to create a climate where it attractiv to the educated to live.

Yes I agree, but not all countries can. Africa, or even DDR for that matter couldn't afford giving people the same standards as in the much richer country USA. People get the chance to get educated (for free in many cases) in order to serve the society. It's not in the interest of the taxpayer to give away something for free for nothing.

Quote[/b] ]Don't forget that if you want the advancement of technological level to stay continious forever, you need to imply competition and not just a little bit.

The cubans do well without competition. Ten people working together achieve more than ten people competing against eachother. The needs of the people are the same no matter the competition.

[Necromancer- 0]

The cubans do well without competition. Ten people working together achieve more than ten people competing against eachother. The needs of the people are the same no matter the competition.

That depends on what motive ten people will work. If each individual have the greed/need to keep the whole reward for themselves, then they will compete. If you setup an open competition in inventing a free to use technological standard with a big substantial jackpot, I bet enough companies will try to invest money in development projects to get that prize.

In a world of capitalism companies compete with eachother in selling the best products. However that only works for a period of time, in the end sometimes the differences are minimal.

[Spokesperson 0]

Competition doesn't work as it's intended apart from in the saturday markets maybe. The prices and products are updated too slowly. Some companies like trusts better too. They don't have to be signed formally, but people get the hint when prices are almost equal.

Furthermore competition leads to monopolies in the end.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]People should understand that everyone is born unequal, that is the only thing that makes us all equal.

Afraid not.

Everyone is born equal as a human. It is the capitalist culture and the built in need to seperate the holders of production from those that hold none that make humans unequal. It is a false division.

Your reply shows the indoctrination of this culture. "Accept your place in life."

Quote[/b] ]Yes some shit happens in life that makes someone's life harder than someone else's life. However I'd like to point out that it is the responsibility of the person living that life on how to take care of it.

More capitalism and a bit of American Republicanism as well.

"They chose to be poor and have no health care."

Quote[/b] ]I strongly believe that social help from either the state or your friends are pure luxury making the person living in that community simply lucky. Of course it is always nice to have it, if it is affordable for the community.

I strongly believe it is the state's responsibility to make sure ALL of it's citizens are cared for, regardless of race, age, gender, or (imposed) economic standing.

It is the capitalist culture that has human's clinging to material positions and possessions that in the end will mean nothing. A false need that blocks out their duties to their fellow humans.

I will let 10,000 indeginous people be displaced because I want a large corporation to have access to resources to build me a luxury car. I will let 100 people die of starvation because I want my car with an MP3 player. I will let 100,000 die in a war because I want the fuel to run that car.

If you miss the ludicrousness of that situation and the moral reprehensibility of it, then you don't deserve to call yourself human.

Quote[/b] ]Okay.. that's how I see it from the individual self of me.

This is how I see it from a different point of view.. namely.. the human race.

Yes that is the problem. You see it from an INDIVIDUAL point of view. And it is a problem shared by much of the world because of capitalism. People can not look beyond wants and desires that a multi-nation corporation SAYS you want and desire. You are only looking for yourself, and by definition, that is NOT looking from the human race.

Quote[/b] ]

We are in big trouble. 6 billion people of which we all would like to give them a "western" standard living in peace and whealth. Countries consisting less than 1 billion people are already "fighting" for their resources, either through war, diplomacy or corruption (diplomacy) and there still is not enough. I read people saying that technology would save our pretty lives of luxury in eternity... Well I tell you.. it is not. The level of technological advancement is not enough compared to the growth of our greed of sustaining the amount of luxury lives in Western countries -> resources -> most needed resources -> energy resources -> #1 energy source: oil.

Again. Thank capitalism.

Nothing will save us if we don't start working together. And capitalism will always prevent that.

Quote[/b] ]Don't forget that if you want the advancement of technological level to stay continious forever, you need to imply competition and not just a little bit.

Fallacy. Corporations and the elite in charge want you to fear the stagnation of invention, that in order to have advancement you have to have large companies competing for resources and economic domination.

Ridiculous.

There could be a Einstein in Harlem or the slums of Detroit right now. We'll never know though since the division of economic position will keep them there. Look at the history of invention. Thousands of everday items used today were brought into exisistence by accident or by individuals striving on their own. That is until the corporations got hold of these inventions.

Quote[/b] ]A state should also be controllable against corruption and transparant to it's citizens.

Indeed. Capitalism ensures that is not so.

Quote[/b] ]Although I find it controversial, in the US constitution it is lawed that every citizen has the right to bear arms in case the government corrupts. Somehow I find that a very good constitutional law, if the citizens aren't corrupted by indoctrination.

Debatable and open to interpretation. Your view is the one shared by the NRA. Other view it as a necessary right for a country just starting out and one that had no standing army at the time. Thus it holds no place today.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Everyone is born equal as a human.

We arent, some are smarter/stronger/whatever then others and thus have better chances then others.

Its just the 'survival of the fittest', except that its not entirely fair (Some people were born in a better position then others, automatically making them unequal), and the 'weak' dont just die.

[Spokesperson 0]

Most normal people are born equal (those with no diseases or similar). Intelligence is what you get when you grow up, it depends on the surroundings. Strength too.

Survival of the fittest is what applies to animals who work alone as individuals. It's thanks to our societies (where we cooperate) that we have come this far.

[Akira 0]

Everyone is born equal as a human.

We arent, some are smarter/stronger/whatever then others and thus have better chances then others.

Its just the 'survival of the fittest', except that its not entirely fair (Some people were born in a better position then others, automatically making them unequal), and the 'weak' dont just die.

"Surival of the fittest" is not only highly misunderstood, but frequently mis-used as evidence in your example.

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with human social and cultural growth and adaptation. It is frequently (mis)used in an attempt for those unwilling to help those less fortunate (brought about by capitalist and imperialist beliefs) to justify their apathy.

In any case, (to humor your analogy) as evidence by the current US president, in a capitalist society being "smarter/stronger/whatever" rarely has anything to do with socio-economic standing and position. It's who you know and how much money you have. This is what makes capitalism an aberration in human development.

Undoubtedly, equality in the genetic sense of the word is not possible in the human race. But we aren't talking about genetics...we are talking about politcal/economic/social adaptation of humans.

Walking the path of equality based on genetics however leads to genocide and racism. In socialist based systems, all differences would be embraced and skill sets used accordingly. At the least, the severly handicapped can be taken care of reasonably. Capitalism sets those apart, who through no fault of their own or their parents, are genetically different (not speaking of just handicapped people).

[NeMeSiS 11]

Everyone is born equal as a human.

We arent, some are smarter/stronger/whatever then others and thus have better chances then others.

Its just the 'survival of the fittest', except that its not entirely fair (Some people were born in a better position then others, automatically making them unequal), and the 'weak' dont just die.

"Surival of the fittest" is not only highly misunderstood, but frequently mis-used as evidence in your example.

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with human social and cultural growth and adaptation. It is frequently (mis)used in an attempt for those unwilling to help those less fortunate (brought about by capitalist and imperialist beliefs) to justify their apathy.

In any case, (to humor your analogy) as evidence by the current US president, in a capitalist society being "smarter/stronger/whatever" rarely has anything to do with socio-economic standing and position. It's who you know and how much money you have. This is what makes capitalism an aberration in human development.

Undoubtedly, equality in the genetic sense of the word is not possible in the human race. But we aren't talking about genetics...we are talking about politcal/economic/social adaptation of humans.

Walking the path of equality based on genetics however leads to genocide and racism. In socialist based systems, all differences would be embraced and skill sets used accordingly. At the least, the severly handicapped can be taken care of reasonably. Capitalism sets those apart, who through no fault of their own or their parents, are genetically different (not speaking of just handicapped people).

You know i didnt mean it litteraly (Im way too left wingish to let anyone 'drown in their own problems' ), but saying that everyone is born equal isnt true (anymore..), our society *made* them unequal, even before they were born.

(I now realise i just look at it in a different way, we agree that (apart from genetic stuff, which is IMO very important but a different matter) everyone is equal, but i accept that society made us unequal while you look at it differently. Though in the US this seems to be much worse, and due the way the voting system works presidents cant really be completely independent.)

[Akira 0]

Everyone is born equal as a human.

We arent, some are smarter/stronger/whatever then others and thus have better chances then others.

Its just the 'survival of the fittest', except that its not entirely fair (Some people were born in a better position then others, automatically making them unequal), and the 'weak' dont just die.

"Surival of the fittest" is not only highly misunderstood, but frequently mis-used as evidence in your example.

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with human social and cultural growth and adaptation. It is frequently (mis)used in an attempt for those unwilling to help those less fortunate (brought about by capitalist and imperialist beliefs) to justify their apathy.

In any case, (to humor your analogy) as evidence by the current US president, in a capitalist society being "smarter/stronger/whatever" rarely has anything to do with socio-economic standing and position. It's who you know and how much money you have. This is what makes capitalism an aberration in human development.

Undoubtedly, equality in the genetic sense of the word is not possible in the human race. But we aren't talking about genetics...we are talking about politcal/economic/social adaptation of humans.

Walking the path of equality based on genetics however leads to genocide and racism. In socialist based systems, all differences would be embraced and skill sets used accordingly. At the least, the severly handicapped can be taken care of reasonably. Capitalism sets those apart, who through no fault of their own or their parents, are genetically different (not speaking of just handicapped people).

You know i didnt mean it litteraly (Im way too left wingish to let anyone 'drown in their own problems' ), but saying that everyone is born equal isnt true (anymore..), our society *made* them unequal, even before they were born.

(I now realise i just look at it in a different way, we agree that (apart from genetic stuff, which is IMO very important but a different matter) everyone is equal, but i accept that society made us unequal while you look at it differently. Though in the US this seems to be much worse, and due the way the voting system works presidents cant really be completely independent.)

Actually...if I am reading this right, we are saying the same thing.

We are both saying that it is "society" is what makes people unequal. I won't venture to say what you include or intend with "society," but my definition includes political and economic forces. These political and economic pressures to be "above others" is what leads to cultural inequality, or in my view, culturally acceptable disenfranchisement of a portion of the populace. In short, in my opinion, capitalism (and associated pressure to accumulate objects and "wealth") is what causes humans to discriminate against other humans (whether it be educationally, economomically, or most recently politically).

Whereas genetics can't be ignored, I don't think socialism puts as great as an importance as capitalism does. That is to say, socialism does not discriminate genetic differences, but accepts and works with these differences, whereas capitalism, frowns upon the "difference" of any minority from the populace (as evidenced by legislation needed to include these minorities in society).

[Necromancer- 0]

I am sorry to say that capitalism is a necessary evil of which we have to live with now, because there are (unaware) people with greed which have the power to invest and create jobs for the masses, so they can work as well and pay taxes to the (semi-socialist) state of which will be spent on people who cannot do any labor.

I believe the world will stay that way untill our technological level is high enough to sustain ourselves in a way that every human does not need to do any (slavery) labor himself.

Human greed will exist forever either poor or rich on every level, as it is infinite if not controlled. I quote Buddha (probably not correct, but it sounds like it): "What is better? To satisfy a thousand desires or controle one desire?"

[AfrographX 0]

The cubans do well without competition. Ten people working together achieve more than ten people competing against eachother. The needs of the people are the same no matter the competition.

Yes, that's why the Cubans are so eager to leave their beloved country.

Quote[/b] ]That's a splendid opportunity for giving work to all the refugees and foreigners that got no jobs. But you can't because in a market economy there has to be loads of unemployed people so there's a competition about the jobs (and not about the workers). That way you stop inflation.

That's bullsh*it. For example the reason many people in Germany are unemployed is not because it's required by the economic system. It's because most are inadequately qualified for the jobs currently offered by the economy. There are a lot of companies unsuccessfully searching for qualified personal. So in some branches there is actually competition for employees.

Quote[/b] ]In a planned economy there's hardly any inflation and no unemployement.

Quote[/b] ]The production is at a maximum as all work and no machines stand still in economic recessions. It's a stable economic system. However, DDR and USSR only used a couple of thousand of wares in their calculations. With modern technology one could plan an entire economy with ease. Modern day companies and organizations do. A state is just a huge organization working in the interests of its citizens.

Alone the effort required to replace the current range of goods offered by the market with one offered by a central agency would be gigantic. That's an utopia. This whole idea is ridiculous.

[jtec 0]

Which democracy? The "democracy" in Greece or the one in the 19th century or maybe even the "democracy" we have now?

Democracy means the rule of the people. The dictatorship of the majority. The western world is a dictatorship of the few, the wealthy, those who own money and who decide the whole economy of a country. One dollar = one vote.

There's economic democracy and political democracy. Democracy doesn't exist without them both. They are prerequisites for eachother.

The owners make you fight and vote for them, they make you work for them (say you produce a worth of X in a day, but get paid Y for it. X-Y is what they take from you in profits, your work. They steal your work and time. That's slavery.). If you refuse, strike or protest there's always the police around the corner.

Unless they screw up the economy real bad (which they do about every 15 years when there's economic recession) people won't care as they have been provided the minimum necessary means just to keep busy with religion, football or similar. And so they just pump in billions of dollars into their deceptive voting campaigns or their press, like advertising, making sure they win. People without money stand no chance. And they tell it's freedom when people are poor unemployed or homeless. Sure, sleeping outside under the stars is always free. Freedom of the capital is not the same as the freedom of the people.

We need a change to real democracy. That's communism. (I'm not talking about the system in the USSR which wasn't communism (they never claimed that either)).

Totally agree with you!