Political Change

[armyclonk 0]

Hi,

I am currently in a disscusion with a guy from my school. He states, that most people actually want a radical change of the political order in their country. And with radical he means for example the change from democracy to lets say anarchosydicatism (which is a kind of decentral communism without real autority). My opinion is, that most people are happy with the order, no matter if they are in favour of the currently leading party.

So I started a poll which give you these two opinions as basis for the poll alongside with a third "i don't care" option.

Please vote so I can see what you think.

Click here to get to the poll

(The poll-script is in german, but i guess you'll understand it anyway. If not, ask. Oh, and if i made some mistakes in formulating the question ect. please let me know. English is my third language so I most likely have made some mistakes.)

Thanks in advance... and now: discuss !

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

ask the middle class of the nation.  There the people who are most likely to be politicaly active.  I hasten to guess most would say they were content with the current system. But Democracy/Capitalism wont be everlasting. Feudalism lasted alot longer so far, do you really believe this is the system we will have till the end of human-kind?

[armyclonk 0]

no, i dont believe that. but i believe, that currently most people are satisfied with the basic system (democracy). it will change, but not too soon. not in my lifetime and most likely not right after it.

[AfrographX 0]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

[Necromancer- 0]

I believe democracy is currently the best system. However different parties have different issues and have the option to vote for one party. The problem is that a political party has issues you agree on, but also has issues you disagree.

I believe democracy works better if the people can vote directly on the issues, this works better than a majority multi-party formed coalition.

In the current system the problem is that the majority of the people do not really know what issues a party has. They are too uneducated to make a vote.

[Spokesperson 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)).

[AfrographX 0]

Of course there is no freedom without money. There never was a time in history and there probably never will be a time when people can survive without producing something of worth for the society they live in.

What's real democracy for you? Granting everyone the freedom to do what he wants, even if he chooses not to be a productive part of society and just enjoy the nice side of life?

[armyclonk 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.

ad 1: democracy was an example for a current system. if you don't consider you current system as democracy you may chose yes, i want radical change.

ad 2: democracy does not mean the dictatorship of the majority, it means the rule of all people. for this rule complete consens between all people would be necessary. as this is impossible there are different forms of "democracy", like representativ democracy in germany. communism is not necessarily democracy.

[Spokesperson 0]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all. No slaves, no masters. Adding a voting system makes it a democracy as there is no oppression and everybody is free.

But it's nothing we can get overnight. Probably it will take hundreds of years before we can get that far from here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

Democracy is not about consensus, it's about majority decisions. Therefore its definition is the dictatorship of the majority. The majority rules.

[armyclonk 0]

Democracy is not about consensus, it's about majority decisions. Therefore its definition is the dictatorship of the majority. The majority rules.

this, good sir, is wrong.

democracy, in it's very meaning, is the rule of the people. for this rule you need the volonté générale.

read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Political_theory

of cause this isn't possible with more then lets say 10 people. that why there are other types of more or less democratic systems, but none of them is realy democratic.

today we say democracy to institutionel and representativ democracy, but in it's very meaning this is wrong.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all.

There is no living example of a class less communist society.  Members of the Communist Party in the soviet union lived lives of luxary,  Generals in Cuba share a similar treatment,  and dont even make me go in to the 'class less' societys of the 'communist' south east asia nations.

I understand in theory its meant to be equal. But even marx recognised the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian in the early stages. Once you give people that sort of power, unless they have a heart of gold, there not going to swap it in for a life among the masses.

[Akira 0]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean lack of all government.

Many theories of anarchy merely call for an end to borders and states and other forms of un-natural divisions of humanity. A form of "statelessness" if you will.

Many also understand the need for a form of government, but that the government would be disbanded after its business done (and reformed if business is needed). The government would not be a permanent entity, nor would it be controled by career politicians.

I voted that a radical change is needed, and in my view some form of stateless socialism would be the best. In my view capitalism does far more to divide humanity than it does to bring us together. I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

Course realistically I know that won't happen anytime soon, nor any other form of change. As through most of human history, some form of cataclysmic event would have to proceed any radical cultural change as that.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Quote[/b] ]I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

I agree that the extremes of such behaviour (and all forms of pure materialism) is to be abhorred, but to work to better one's own standing and amass value for oneself is human nature.

Dystopic, but truthful.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

I agree that the extremes of such behaviour (and all forms of pure materialism) is to be abhorred, but to work to better one's own standing and amass value for oneself is human nature.

Dystopic, but truthful.

I agree, but there are numerable examples in other cultures around the world where that is accomplished by other means than monetary and physical object collection.

Does getting a Porsche really increase one's standing or add value to your life? Oh I know there are some out there that would yell "Yes" but they are sad shadows of what humanity can and should be.

It is the culture that has driven into our heads that you have to have a big house to be happy and that small pieces of paper are important and hold disproportionate value. And this culture is brought about by capitalism, and because of it humanity has stagnated and divided itself.

[chops 111]

Who cares? I want to go shopping .

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean lack of all government.

Many theories of anarchy merely call for an end to borders and states and other forms of un-natural divisions of humanity. A form of "statelessness" if you will.

Many also understand the need for a form of government, but that the government would be disbanded after its business done (and reformed if business is needed). The government would not be a permanent entity, nor would it be controled by career politicians.

I voted that a radical change is needed, and in my view some form of stateless socialism would be the best. In my view capitalism does far more to divide humanity than it does to bring us together. I also find the sole purpose of life being to collect and amass wealth to be nonsensical at the least and contemptible with the extremes that some people go to.

Course realistically I know that won't happen anytime soon, nor any other form of change. As through most of human history, some form of cataclysmic event would have to proceed any radical cultural change as that.

indeed, anarchy is one of the most mis-understood politiocal ideologies.  People seem to automaticly assosiate it with 17 year old kids who have mohawks and masturbate over the sex pistols, or rogue nations like Afganistan prior 9/11.  Neither is true anarchy compared to Proudhon's anarchaic principles.

I think capitalist anarchists are quite fun.  They believe everything will be run through capitalism, so basicly the private sector is everything.  For example the Police would be a privatly run company, and would operate similar to recovery companies like the AA, you would have to be a member.  Also every piece of road would be privatly owned and tolled, meaning there would be no need for a central 'road agency' etc etc...

[Spokesperson 0]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all.

There is no living example of a class less communist society.  Members of the Communist Party in the soviet union lived lives of luxary,  Generals in Cuba share a similar treatment,  and dont even make me go in to the 'class less' societys of the 'communist' south east asia nations.

I understand in theory its meant to be equal.  But even marx recognised the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian in the early stages.  Once you give people that sort of power,  unless they have a heart of gold, there not going to swap it in for a life among the masses.

Of course there is no example of a class less communist society at this very moment. In the same way there was no example of modern day "democracy" 200 or 2000 years back. That doesn't mean that "democracy" is impossible, but who thought it would be?

Even if you think it's impossible, what stops you from improving the situation by working for a class less society? We can do better than this. But it's not in the current ruling class' interests, so they work against everything that will abolish their privileges and power. They spread lies about socialist countries like Cuba, they invade them, coup them, do acts of terrorism (like blowing planes and shooting tourists from the sea), they murder and silence people who know too much and pose a _real_ threat against them, and so on. You're free to say what you want as long as you want as long as what you say poses no danger to them.

The Soviet Union was no communist country, they never claimed it to be either. USSR is Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Communism is no where to be found in that name. The liberal press which the ruling class owns has journalists that don't know what they are talking about, they are paid to spread lies (Like those who were on the CIA payroll in the Miami Herald), and the news centrals focus on antisocialist news-items. How often do you hear about Haiti and the US mil intervention there, or maybe the dictatorship Saudi Arabia or Thailand? Compare that to the articles about Cuba and Venezuela and you'll find that the proportions are very "odd".

The dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx thought it would be means nothing else than the dictatorship of the majority. It's meant to maintain the revolution against reactionaries. In the early USSR all workers and peasants had voting rights while priests didn't for example. Dictatorship of the proletariat is that the working class rules instead of the bourgeoisie.

We live in the dictatorship of the owners, the bourgeoisie.

Communism is only possible when the whole world is socialist. First socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat), then communism.

Also, It's not anarchy but anarchism. They want the class less society without any socialist transition stages. Which is naive in my opinion.

Anarchocapitalists are worse than nazis. They don't care if people starve or die of a lack of health care. They say it's free to choose between death and slavery. That's a choice which isn't very free.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anarchocapitalists are worse than nazis. They don't care if people starve or die of a lack of health care. They say it's free to choose between death and slavery. That's a choice which isn't very free.

well i would disagree, i would argue its brutally free.  Make your own way in life or perish.  Its freedom to the extreme.  But its a political view i could never believe in, but i dont think there worse than Nazis,  Not caring if people starve is not as bad as purposly starving them.  Millions of people die in africa from starvation,  and many people in developed countries dont really care, but i wouldnt say they were Nazis, just pretty ignorant.

Personally i think if communism is ever to get a proper grip there needs to be absolutely massive international economic crash.  Otherwise there too much for people to loose out of it.  That includes myself,  im not rich by any means, but i quite like the car i bought through my labour so i would quite like to keep it.  However we have also seen from history that economic crashes turn people to the right aswell as the left, so to me there will always be a pointless a futile struggle neither side will win. It will only bring death and destruction, for a percieved view of freedom.

[Spokesperson 0]

The anarchocapitalist "freedom" includes the one to own a private security force. With it anyone could eliminate competitors or opposition. It's no freedom taken to extreme in my opinion. It's no freedom at all for those who got no money. And most people definately don't have the chance to get that money, so it's not about people who "fail" or "succeed".

Your car story just reflects the liberal propaganda in our current society. Private property will be abolished yes. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to own a car, a home or a toothbrush. Private property = means of production. Factories, big machines, industries, raw natural resources, woods, streams, oil etc. It's a common misconception.

Yes many people will turn to the extreme right and to the left in economic crises. The extreme right are the ones who are sponsored by the capitalists (to keep their grip on society, but now in a fascist manner like under Hitler, Pinochet, Franco) and who are driven by racism, nationalism and/or religion.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well i disagree on the capitalist anarchist, again i see it slightly different, its not really a set ideology but there will be people who see it like you do, and people who do not. I just take an interest in it becuase its a really qwerky ideology and seems a bit contradictory when you first see it. Personally i dont really believe it is a form of Anarchy. The only similarity is the call to rid of the state.

My car example, what i mean is not owning a car, but purchasing a car of a certian quality.  I dont want to be bogged down in the car the state distributes to me.  I want the freedom of choice to go out and buy a expencive car,  because to me thats important.  I think in certian respects communism stops people being what they want to be.  Ofcourse all idiologys do this, they have to.  

Also just to set thing straight, im not talking like i know everything,  and i know what is right,  i dont.  Im just giving how i see it. I take an interest in your views and fully respect them.  That in my view is the only way to deal with politics in order to prevent angry confrontation.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]My car example, what i mean is not owning a car, but purchasing a car of a certian quality. I dont want to be bogged down in the car the state distributes to me. I want the freedom of choice to go out and buy a expencive car, because to me thats important. I think in certian respects communism stops people being what they want to be. Ofcourse all idiologys do this, they have to.

I would say that nothing would stop you from doing so. If there is a need for cars of a certain quality they will naturally be produced.

Just because the Soviet Union and DDR had cheap cars all citizens could afford (that's better than in the west) it doesn't mean future socialist societies must have the same quality. After all DDR was an agrarian country before the war and after it was completely ruined + the remains of the industry was taken to the USSR (to compensate for industrial losses). It was very well done of such a country to even produce an own car model. Same thing goes for USSR. In 1920 the country was agrarian, two decades later you had one of the worlds most powerful industrial states that managed to battle the nazi industry.

There were other cars too. Better cars, but not that many, and not of western quality (of several reasons, but not due to the system).

[armyclonk 0]

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

after waiting fifteen years for it

[Spokesperson 0]

Well, yea your parents ordered one when you were born. You got it when you turned 18. That's better than in the west.

[armyclonk 0]

no, thats not how it worked... and anyway, what if you crash your car with 19? the next time you have a car is with 34 then. just great .

[Spokesperson 0]

Sure, but it would be wrong to compare the 15 million, agrarian country with big West Germany with its Ruhr and Marshall help.

How many cars does Greece produce?

It's astonishing that DDR was able to do so much with so little.