Thinking as a society

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

See, thats the thing. Democracy is totally different than capitalism. Just like a dictatorship is totally different than communism.

 

 

 

what we need is democratic communism, so that the basic framework of democracy stops people from gaining power like what happened in Russia, but have an economic situation that doesn't encourage selfishness and corruption.

 

A democracy cannot have a government-controlled, "fair" economy. Democracy must be paired with capitalism.

[llamster]

 

See, thats the thing. Democracy is totally different than capitalism. Just like a dictatorship is totally different than communism.

 

 

 

what we need is democratic communism, so that the basic framework of democracy stops people from gaining power like what happened in Russia, but have an economic situation that doesn't encourage selfishness and corruption.

 

A democracy cannot have a government-controlled, "fair" economy. Democracy must be paired with capitalism.

 

 

 

Who says?

[meol]

 

See, thats the thing. Democracy is totally different than capitalism. Just like a dictatorship is totally different than communism.

 

 

 

what we need is democratic communism, so that the basic framework of democracy stops people from gaining power like what happened in Russia, but have an economic situation that doesn't encourage selfishness and corruption.

 

A democracy cannot have a government-controlled, "fair" economy. Democracy must be paired with capitalism.

 

You're just a closed-minded liberal...

 

In order for a free market exists, where people and their enterprises are rewarded according to their work/abilities, there must be some government measures that stop the biggest companies from building monopolies and crushing all kinds of competition.

 

In fact, some historians say that what happened in the USSR was nearer State Capitalism rather than actual Socialism.

 

Capitalism doesn't mean freedom, and socialism/communism don't mean totalitarianism.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

You're just a closed-minded liberal...

 

Capitalism is actually the conservative viewpoint as it encourages smaller government involvement.

 

 

 

 

In order for a free market exists, where people and their enterprises are rewarded according to their work/abilities, there must be some government measures that stop the biggest companies from building monopolies and crushing all kinds of competition.

 

There already are measures in place. Don't you remember the Microsoft trial a while back?

 

 

 

 

In fact, some historians say that what happened in the USSR was nearer State Capitalism rather than actual Socialism.

 

Capitalism doesn't mean freedom, and socialism/communism don't mean totalitarianism.

 

Capitalism does mean freedom. You compete against others in a free market. What could be more free than that?

 

 

 

You are right that socialism/communism don't automatically mean totalitarian rule. However, it requires a sacrifice in political and economic freedoms that contradicts the definition of democracy.

 

 

 

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

[meol]

I guess you are right, I think I misused the word liberal here. I gotta go and get better informed before I speak.

 

 

 

There already are measures in place. Don't you remember the Microsoft trial a while back?

 

I was thinking more about companies going to other countries and (for example) practising dumping, when free-market laws support their actions; more in an international point of view.

 

 

 

Capitalism does mean freedom. You compete against others in a free market. What could be more free than that?

 

 

 

You are right that socialism/communism don't automatically mean totalitarian rule. However, it requires a sacrifice in political and economic freedoms that contradicts the definition of democracy.

 

 

 

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with

 

it.

 

You would also have to take social freedoms (gay marriage, drug legalisation) into account. Democracy just means "rule of the people/majority". Capitalism means "strive for wealth". I'm not saying capitalism restrains other types of freedoms, but it doesn't necessarily support them, and is not directly tied to democracy.

 

My point is that neither do socialism or capitalism automatically mean totalitarianism; economic politics and social politics aren't directly linked to each other. Why would you require a sacrifice in political freedoms for socialism?.

 

 

 

[Edit] Gregor Gysi (a German socialist politician) explained exactly my point of view in a recent interview.

 

(The translation was made by me, so don't rely on its accurateness).

 

"...I think that we have done more refurbishing work since 1990 than any other Party. This was also necessary, because we had to reform ourselves in every aspect [the Left Party] towards a democratic way. We had to draw the appropriate concussions and say: State Socialism failed, namely because it was unproductive and because it didn't guarantee Democracy and Freedom - which doesn't mean that it also didn't give social achievements. But we have to face this criticism, and then we must say: A dictatorial, authoritarian socialism won't ever be considered again, but rather only a more democratic one..."

 

Original text (in German)

[llamster]

 

You are right that socialism/communism don't automatically mean totalitarian rule. However, it requires a sacrifice in political and economic freedoms that contradicts the definition of democracy.

 

 

 

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

 

 

Socialism/communism doesn't automatically mean totalitarian rule, but capitalism automatically means democracy?

[Zonorhc]

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta.

[IGoddessI]

Please, wave your wand and produce an ideology that everyone in the world is content with :P

[Hume]

It's commonly refered to as 'The General Will' and is the basis of Rousseau's political ideology. In his system he kept the idea of democracy but changed the rules. The voting was public so people voting against the general will could be shunned into doing so - which undermines democracy. The general will is nothing more than a legitimate justification for tyranny of the majority. Neglecting the minority is just as big a crime as neglecting the majority, in a liberal state all opinions should count no matter how radical, vile or oppressive they may be. It's the basis of epistomology - to gather all the infomation we have and make a reasonable judegement.

 

 

 

So no, I don't beleive voting for the general will is a valuable system and as previously said, it's only a justification for tyranny of the majority.

[Defender2516]

Society itself is going to hell. And yes, I do see the 100's of refutes coming my way saying "na" to it.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Satenza]

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta.

 

 

 

Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today.

[BlueLancer]

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta.

 

 

 

Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today.

 

 

 

Ancient Sparta/Greece is probably the closest mankind will ever get to true democracy in the history of this planet's lifespan, and they also had a thriving free market that was open to local & foreign citizens. Even common men and slaves had a say in the running of things locally and on a bigger level.

 

 

 

You, like most people, are automatically assuming selfishness and greed are "bad". I used to have the energy to argue these things, but I just don't anymore.

 

 

 

Since we assume ourselves to be more intelligent than bare animals, why'd we choose to act like them?

 

 

 

The thing dividing us from animals is the ability to put ourselves in other person's shoes figuratively, and help other people not within our circle of biological family.

 

 

 

You can care for your and your family's interests and still not be selfish and greedy. Point a gun at my head; I swear if it saves the lives of 10 innocent kids, I'll suck it up. My life isn't worth 10 lives. Me personally living has no benefit on the planet, nor does my survival.

 

 

 

I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that instead of building a swollen ego in a world where the only thing that matters is "me, me, me, screw all those generous and caring hippie liberals".

[TotalTalker]

I dont think society is right really.

 

 

 

We should do more natural things, society was made.

 

 

 

People fight because its in their nature, and animals fight because its their nature, and they live in the wild.

 

 

 

When the human race began, we didnt have houses to live in that were already made. If we lived out in the wild, then we would adapt to it and survive. Maybe we were made more intelligent than animals so that we can survive then by using our minds, not so we can do research, etc...

[kelem_ryu]

 

Capitalism does mean freedom. You compete against others in a free market. What could be more free than that?

 

 

 

Not having to compete for example.

 

 

 

Maybe we were made more intelligent than animals so that we can survive then by using our minds, not so we can do research, etc...

 

 

 

Well maybe we were made, maybe we evolved... however.. we got that mind and can do whatever with it. We can also use our teeth to rip down womens underpanties and teeth definitely weren't designed for that.

[BlueLancer]

If we lived out in the wild, then we would adapt to it and survive. Maybe we were made more intelligent than animals so that we can survive then by using our minds, not so we can do research, etc...

 

 

 

"Society" is a natural extension of the "right of the strongest". The moment a man realized he can use sharp objects, fire and stones as weapons against his fellow men and subjugate them, taxing, raids, slavery was founded.

 

 

 

When he realized he can use his subjugated group of people to pillage even more people and get rich himself without having to work, you get "feudal system".

 

 

 

It's human nature to abuse power and violate others (sadly). No matter how much you tried to make people better, there would be always a few ruthless individuals crushing all efforts for peace.

 

 

 

Think, it's still the same today. What is power based on, in every single country? That if you don't obey the power, violence will be used against you (literally, or your freedom will be violated by throwing you into a jail etc.) These days, it's just not warlords using that power on you, it's the organized army and politicians you elect.

 

 

 

You can't have power without holding the ultimate tool of violation, which is violence. Such as controlling the army or the police who can legally use violence. It's the only universal punishment to keep people in check, the thing all people understand to fear.

[Satenza]

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta.

 

 

 

Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today.

 

 

 

Ancient Sparta/Greece is probably the closest mankind will ever get to true democracy in the history of this planet's lifespan, and they also had a thriving free market that was open to local & foreign citizens. Even common men and slaves had a say in the running of things locally and on a bigger level.

 

 

 

 

No it definatley was not. Slaves, women and foreign people were not able to have a say in any political decision. The only people who could vote were athenian men which made up a small amount of the population.

[TotalTalker]

"Society" is a natural extension of the "right of the strongest".

 

 

 

Who would win out of a fight between Gordan Brown and Amir Kahn?

 

 

 

We werent made to be intelligent about who deserves what in life. Around the times of the cavemen, they could build their bodies up until their muscles exploded because they were already there, but their intelligence wasnt good enough to think like politicians do now-a-days.

[underu2000]

In other words, capitalism is directly tied to democracy, but socialism is not. So if you want a democracy, you must have capitalism to go with it.

 

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta.

 

 

 

Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today.

 

 

 

Ancient Sparta/Greece is probably the closest mankind will ever get to true democracy in the history of this planet's lifespan, and they also had a thriving free market that was open to local & foreign citizens. Even common men and slaves had a say in the running of things locally and on a bigger level.

 

 

 

 

No it definatley was not. Slaves, women and foreign people were not able to have a say in any political decision. The only people who could vote were athenian men which made up a small amount of the population.

 

Yup. Not only was Athens a limited democracy (as opposed to a direct one), the rest of Greece were either theocracies or monarchies (how exactly does KING Leonidas' Sparta qualify as a democracy?).

 

And Rome was a republic, not a democracy. It may have had some voting involved, but for the most part it was just representatives. Oh, don't forget the Caesar.

 

Sorry for going off topic here. :mrgreen:

[Zonorhc]

No it definatley was not. Slaves, women and foreign people were not able to have a say in any political decision. The only people who could vote were athenian men which made up a small amount of the population.

 

Didn't I say Sparta?

 

 

 

Oh, of course I did. You might consider that I deliberately did not say Athens, and even then, your argument fails because:

 

 

 

1) As in today's democratic states, only citizens can vote.

 

2) "Citizen" was simply defined differently in those societies.

 

 

 

Yup. Not only was Athens a limited democracy (as opposed to a direct one), the rest of Greece were either theocracies or monarchies (how exactly does KING Leonidas' Sparta qualify as a democracy?).

 

The Demos in Sparta (free citizens) was responsible for raising and ratifying political decisions in the Assembly, which was made of citizens over a certain age. The two kings of Sparta acted in a largely ceremonial and religious role in society, and did not have any actual political power beyond the sort that a priest would have, that is, symbolic.

 

 

 

And Rome was a republic, not a democracy. It may have had some voting involved, but for the most part it was just representatives. Oh, don't forget the Caesar.

 

A republic, by definition, follows democratic processes.

 

 

 

Hell, the USA is a republic.

 

 

 

And note that I said pre-Imperial Rome, which precludes the Emperors.

[Hume]

Sparta was no true democracy. Firstly it had near enough the same regulations on who could vote as Athens. Democracy as a political system doesn't mean "rule by the citizen, for the citizen" infact that legitimises any sort of tyranny by the bourgeoisie as we have seen in the past through misuse of the word. Democracy is distinctly "rule by the people for the people" so things like taking away someones vote can not be done on those grounds. Today you have to be a citizen but it's meaning has not changed, it has simply got new criteria in your country. The criteria in those times did not include women, slaves and people who were foreign. Selecting people who can vote and who can't isn't democracy it's tyranny of the minority/majority.

 

 

 

All of which can also be said also for pre-imperial rome's 'democracy' except they were more leinient on letting some foreign people vote.

[underu2000]

The Demos in Sparta (free citizens) was responsible for raising and ratifying political decisions in the Assembly, which was made of citizens over a certain age. The two kings of Sparta acted in a largely ceremonial and religious role in society, and did not have any actual political power beyond the sort that a priest would have, that is, symbolic.

 

Sparta only had traces of democracy. For the most part, Sparta was a theocracy and an oligarchy, where a small, rich group of men took care of things. And it was a militaristic state, further limiting democracy.

 

The only reason I said "king Leonidas" was to make the point that Sparta wasn't a true democracy.

 

And Athens would be a better example of democracy than Sparta anyway.

 

 

 

A republic, by definition, follows democratic processes.

 

 

 

Hell, the USA is a republic.

 

 

 

And note that I said pre-Imperial Rome, which precludes the Emperors.

 

No, a republic, most commonly follows democratic processes. China is a republic, and a communist state at the same time (as goes for Vietnam, USSR, North Korea, etc). The republic has more to do with representing the people than with allowing the people to actually rule themselves. This is why Rome was also a republic, albeit the Emperor held ultimate power.

 

 

 

Get it straight, the USA is a democracy AND republic. Ever notice we fight for democracy, but not to make republics? It's because being a republic doesn't ensure democratic processes and individual rights; it merely allows representation of the masses but not the power to vote.

 

 

 

And pre-Imperial or not, Rome was never an actual democracy. Republic, yes, but only for the rich and powerful. And even before that, Rome was ruled by a monarchy (Etruscans), as well as after its golden age, and other dumb government ideas like the triumvirate and splitting of the empire.

 

Once again: Rome's government was a Republic, not a true democracy.