About politics (Honor)

[WangyJohn]

Ok, I allways try to stay out of political debate on the internet, because I have bad experience in it. I'm not very well represented, as english is not my first language (bad exuse, but true, I can't really phrase everything like I would like to). Going against Honor is basicly a kamikaze mission against solid rock. But still, I need to get this off my chest.

Now, for starters. I AM NOT A COMMUNIST.

By definition through Marxist theory, a communist is someone who activly (usually also violently) tries to move forward the Dialectic history. Well, that I am not. For starters, I'm a pacifist. By definition, I'm more a Democratic Socialist, but seeing that (Social Democratic Party) here is currently overrun by centrists and semi-rightwingers, I vote more to the left, as well as because the current party I support has a program more near to me.

Do I thriwe socialism? No, not except maybe in the long run, somewhere in the future. the Capitalist Democracy, with still a strong goverment that regulates the capitalism, is a good, functioning system. But it's not perfect. For example enviromental, sexual and human rights issues are getting ignored. But it's a reality, that the enviroment is burdened by the current culture. The need to consume, created by capitalism, has created the rich north-west (€U$A), that uses way beyond it's limits of the recources of the world. The ice-caps are melting, the forests cut don in size, it's reality, and has to be dealt with. Consumerism only limited by wealth, a virtual idea, is not sustainable. The limits must be set.

It's a reality, that women get paid less. In €U$A, a womans dollar/euro is, from 75 to 80 cents. That's the difference in pay for the same work. That's not rethoric, it's a statistical fact. It's a reality, that there are sexual minorities. You (Honor) should know it, you belong in one. Their rights are surpressed in the conservative system. The Democratic parties in €U$A are part of this movement, they are also reluctant to work for change. Like the blacks in the 60's in USA, the GLBT community should at least give some credit to the left, as alongside greens, we're of the few who defend you outside (and sometimes within) your ranks.

It's a reality that human rights and social equality are not fullfilled worldwide, even though the UN Agreement of Human Rights is allready over half a century old. People cannot pursue their dreams because they are restricted by society by theirrac, religion, ethnicity or class. The capitalist democracy let's this happen, passivly, sometimes activly (eg. weapons trade with dictatorships in production-countries; Iraq recieved large military and economical aid from USA, mainly for the war against Iran). What should we do? Stop supporting the bastards. Not let weapons manufacturers trade with maniacs. When they run out of guns and ammos, they'll have a hard time retaining the multitudo, if a brief loan from Empire is allowed.

Social justice. Is it right that people are doomed to live in complete poverty, without a job, without even as much as HOPE for a job, due to a rap-sheet, which came from having to feed oneself. Sure, some can get a job, sure, there's plenty of jobs. But they don't really employ. Therefore social security is needed. Sure, it'll create people who will live on the dole and other benefits, on the cost of the working people, but tell you what, I'd rather pay for someone than be mugged by someone. I might have problems with my facial figure, but I don't want plastic surgery, especially not the kind one gives with a bare fist, or a lead pipe. Health, home, food, education, job. Things everyone should be able to have. Still, there are people, even in €U$A without them, while there are people who live in mansions. Now, I remind you, that I do not oppose private enterprise, or competition. I do not like the current form, but applied right, it's allright. Now, the current system, with improvements, I want to protect it. If we let a large lower than low class be born, with plenty of available firearms, we're laying the plans for destruction.

So in short. I do not want to destroy the market economy, I want to stop capitalism, which is the hunt of profit über alles. Market economy is about providing everyone quality to life through competition. Democracy is basicly competition. The parties give promises, and the people "buy" them. If they are not pleased, they vote otherwise. What needs to be done, is, that no individual has too high a power (ie. no corporate funding to parties, politicians or the likes; No over-centralisation of power, President/King/whatever, would rather be a figurehead than a real leader, true power to the house of representatives). And the number one consern for politicians should not be how their decisions will effect their funding, or even ratings, but how will it affect the people, the nature, and the world as whole.

[WangyJohn]

NOTE:
I made this topic, because this argument was building up, off topic all around the place.

Now still on communism, briefly. Yes, it's not the best in the world. But at a time, for many, it seemed the only right thing to do. So did National Socialism in the 1930's germany, probably seem the best. But communism is not based on mindless violence against one group (except the blindly rich, and even that depending on the viewpoint), as well as communism, in the end, wanting the good of all people, not one limited group of people. When I refer to myself as a communist, I do not refer to soviet commuism, but rather to Euro-communism, the movement that emerged during the cold war, mainly in france. An independant (of the socialist countries) left wing, that didn't try to destroy the democratic system, but instead improve it. And in that sense, I am a communist.

[Tellner]

All Right Thinking People were against equal rights for women, civil rights for Blacks, an end to quotas for Jews and things like workman's compensation and the NLRB. Capital was all in favor of fascism. Businessmen could get along with efficient executives like Mussolini and 'Dolf and His Amazing All-Boy Marching Band. Communism was pretty much the only alternative. So a lot of well-meaning people and a whole slew of early women's, Black and Jewish rights supporters, labor activists and anti-fascists supported the Party in different countries. To their credit, most of them knew nothing about the realities of Stalinism and abandoned the Party when they found out.

But for a long, long time if you were for a lot of things we now take for granted the Communists were just about the only organized group that fought the good fight.

[Honor]

I can't believe you created another thread... I'll probably come back and read it after work, though.

[Honor]

GIANT, IMPENATRABLE SOLID BLOCK OF TEXT

Which begins with an assertion that the word "communist" should not be used to describe "communists", but rather, from now on, "communist" should mean "violent revolutionary".

(well, right after "I'm not a <strike>crook</strike> communist!" (I could have sworn you called yourself a communist in a previous thread, but I'm not going looking...))

Dude... Edit for whitespace and paragraphs, pretty please?

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

I read that whole brick of words and I still can't wrap my head around it. It jumps around every which way. Good luck to anyone who gives it a shot; it's like reading a compass in a magnet factory.

[Orwell]

If/once it all settles in I'll have a reply that's a bit better than this. I hope.

Suicide bombers ftw.

In the mean time I look forward to Honors post.

[Frombork!]

I AM NOT A COMMUNIST.

...I am a communist.

Well, you've got all your bases covered then!

Derision aside, was there, like, a question or something that can be responded to in those posts? The only non-rehtorical question I could find was "How do I shoot web?".

[The Oblivion Man]

Read it, got the gist of it, though there were a few phrasings that I had to work out based on the context they were used in. As for an actual question...it sounds to me like he layed out a summery of his beliefs on government, economics, and civil rights, drew and line in the sand with his foot, and dared Honor to find anything within said bullet points to critisize. I suspect I might be oversimplifying things again though.

[Honor]

I'm not very well represented, as english is not my first language (bad exuse, but true, I can't really phrase everything like I would like to)

Well... Some may think of it as a less than valid excuse, but it's not. Being able to get your point across at all in a foreign language is something to be applauded... It'd be crazy for someone to think they could fault you for any minor linguistic mishaps.

Going against Honor is basicly a kamikaze mission against solid rock.

*blush* You're so sweet...

Don't worry... I'll be gentle. *wink*

By definition through Marxist theory, a communist is someone who activly (usually also violently) tries to move forward the Dialectic history.

That Marx felt that a transition from capitalism to communism could not be acheived without revolution does not mean that "communist" = "revolutionary".

Perhaps, if we're going to discuss the relative merits of communism and capitalism, we should first agree on what those two terms mean. Here's my take:

A communist is someone who supports the socio-political economic model of communism. Communism being that socio-political economic system in which all means of production, trade, industry, and all commercial/economic assets should be co-owned by the people as a whole (read: the state) and that all members (the people) should contribute to and receive from that economy according to their needs and abilities.

A capitalist is, likewise, is someone who supports the socio-political economic model of capitalism. Capitalism being that socio-political economic system in which all means of production, trade, industry, and all commercial/economic assets should be owned and controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

A revolutionary is simply someone who is trying to bring about change, usually by violent or illegal means... They can be communist, capitalist, rightist, leftist, religious, secular, or whatever.

It should also be noted that there is no country in which pure capitalism or pure communism is practiced... In every case, some "industry" is privately controlled, and some is controlled, at least partly, by the state. The health industry is an excellent example... Even in the US there are state run hospitals, and even in the most communist country, there are private healers.

the Capitalist Democracy, with still a strong goverment that regulates the capitalism, is a good, functioning system. But it's not perfect.

Agreed, but kind of meaningless. No socio-political economic system created by and for and populated with human beings will ever be perfect. Even if someone could craft a perfect system on paper, which I have my doubts is possible, the addition of real human beings would almost certainly foul it up over time.

For example enviromental, sexual and human rights issues are getting ignored.

True, but also irrelevant. This is not a function of capitalism, nor of communism. Communist nations have a worse track record with human rights, but capitalism has plenty of black marks as well. Capitalism has a worse history with environmental stewardship, but that's primarily because it's taken communist countries longer to catch up industrially... Arable farm land in China is being paved over for factories and shopping centers at an alarming rate right now.

(several paragraphs on human rights and social justice, all, sadly, quite true)

Again... No argument. It's bad, and it oughtn't be. But that's not capitalism or communism. That's just people not being very nice to one another, and governments not insisting that they be so. Governments of every kind.

I do not want to destroy the market economy, I want to stop capitalism, which is the hunt of profit über alles.

No... Capitalism is the idea that most industry should be privately owned and managed. The quest for profit over all else is just greed. And that same greed is abundant in communist societies as well... It merely takes a slightly different form since cash holds a different position. Every communist society has it's own set of 'haves' and 'have-nots'. Communist greed expresses itself as a ruthless yearning for power, special priveledge, and higher status... Same as in capitalism, except that we buy these things with cash.


I think you've probably read enough of what I write here to know that I favor a form of capitalist society in which there is ample social liberties and equality, industrial regulation, and unobstructed social services to make most any uneducated american call me a socialist (because they don't kow what the hell that word means). Nothing in any of this is contrary to capitalism...

Capitalism can be environmentally responsible, if the government is serious about environmental protection. Capitalism is just as friendly to the concepts of social equality and human rights as is communism, because social equality and human rights are legal issues, not economic issues. In fact, it could be argued that capitalism is more vested in it's interests in social equality and human rights, because the perfect customer / consumer is a free person with a good job and plenty of discretionary income...

I'm probably going to get argument on that, with people citing economic oppression by the rich and big business... But that's symtomatic, not causative. Some people (and businesses are just artificial people) are going to be short-sighted, asocial, or greedy. It's the responsibility of society, through the instruments of government and law, to keep those tendancies in check and punish the offenders.

[Tellner]

I agree with most of what you say, Honor. I do think that the rise of corporations post-Civil War changed things. Before then corporate charters were granted or rescinded at least in part to the extent that they served the greater good however that was defined. After the 1873 decision that gave them the rights of artificial persons and the enshrinement of the idea of "a fiduciary duty to maximinze stockholder equity" above all else things changed. In essence, wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of potentially immortal entities with the morals of a sociopath.

When capitalism results a positive feedback loop of the concentration of power and wealth as we see in the United States, Latin America and China without some corresponding force pushing for the interests of labor things can get pretty sucky.

[WangyJohn]

Capitalism can be environmentally responsible, if the government is serious about environmental protection.

Yes, but isn't that *gasp* goverment control? As stated, capitalism is about as least goverment control possible.

Capitalism is just as friendly to the concepts of social equality and human rights as is communism, because social equality and human rights are legal issues, not economic issues. In fact, it could be argued that capitalism is more vested in it's interests in social equality and human rights, because the perfect customer / consumer is a free person with a good job and plenty of discretionary income...

Yes, capitalism needs equality to get more consumers. BUT capitalism usually tags along with conservative values and conservative politics.

Also, sweatshops.

Now, few notes:
Sorry about the brick of text, I was tired when i wrote this, I'll fix that.

The communist/revolutionary thing, for all I know, the definition I know is that Communist is someone who attempts to create utopia (Communism, stateless world, complete collectivism, no authority) through revolutionary process, which would first go through socialism. Anarchist attempt to get to the utopia straight away, without the socialism-phase.

Social Democrats rely on non-violent measures, through elections, and only crave to get to the socialism.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

The communist/revolutionary thing, for all I know, the definition I know is that Communist is someone who attempts to create utopia (Communism, stateless world, complete collectivism, no authority) through revolutionary process, which would first go through socialism. Anarchist attempt to get to the utopia straight away, without the socialism-phase.

Social Democrats rely on non-violent measures, through elections, and only crave to get to the socialism.

I don't think you should qualify communism as utopia. I can't picture a world without authority that I would like to live in unless I was the only person in it.

What I mean to say is that while we are using mostly subjective terms, and I think Utopia is too much a word dependant on opinion.

[Honor]

Capitalism can be environmentally responsible, if the government is serious about environmental protection.

Yes, but isn't that *gasp* goverment control? As stated, capitalism is about as least goverment control possible.

No. It's not. Anarchy is about the least government control possible. Capitalism is about private concerns owning and operating engines of trade and industry. No more, no less.

BUT capitalism usually tags along with conservative values and conservative politics.

That depends entirely on the social environment that capitalist concern exists in. "Conservative" simply means someone who believes "let's keep things the way they are". "Liberal" or "Progressive" means someone who believes "We need to change some things."

If you're in old Soviet Russia, and you think private ownership of business is a good thing and should be implemented, you're a liberal, while, if you think communism rocks (socialism, actually) and that we should stay the course, then you're a conservative.

The statement makes it sound as if you're confusing "capitalism" and "private business". They are not the same thing. "Capitalism" is the socio-political and economic system that allows private business to exist. Private business 'tags along with' consverative politics, -if- the status quo is good for profit.

Also, sweatshops.

Really? That's just a matter of law and government regulation. If you think sweatshops are unique to capitalist societies, visit modern China, or examine the history of Soviet Russia.

[RantinAn]

Really? That's just a matter of law and government regulation. If you think sweatshops are unique to capitalist societies, visit modern China.

Well if you;re goign to set up a target like that honor, how can oyu expect me to not hit it.
China is as comunist/socalist/colectiveist/whatever as a Southern baptist is christian.
Both claim a title, both have a book of instruction which they ignore, and both are infact about concentraiting power into the hands of the already priveleged.
True, china dosn't allow for unrestricted trade, and is in no way shape or imagining truely capitolist in nature. But china also does not provide equal distribution of wealth, universal access to governmental services or the like, and infact makes even less of a pretense at any of these than stalinst russia did.
So China certianly aint comunist.
But getting back onto topic, the location of sweatshops is clasicly tied to power imbalances whereby someone who controls exceptional quantities of work deliberately exploits a situation of mass poverty. Given that the chinese sweatshops (or for that matter cambodian ones if you want to talk about a nakedly and unashamedly facist military dictatorship) usualy exist to produce western consumer goods, marketed by and profited on by laarge, multinational corporations, the conclusion can be drawn that it is in fact capitolists who create the demand for sweatshops in the first place,
not to mention the funding to build hte buildings even if they are owned by the Tam Po Yam company of cambodia.

Please dont be making withthe counter arguement that its good to have mony going into those countries. sweatshops in indonesia and cambodia both recently have made minor news in australia because they WILL FIRE femal staff who ask for a break in their 12 hour shift to change their sanitary napkin.

[Honor]

Really? That's just a matter of law and government regulation. If you think sweatshops are unique to capitalist societies, visit modern China.

Well if you;re goign to set up a target like that honor, how can oyu expect me to not hit it.

Aww... You got me all excited! With an opening line like that, I thought you were going to give me a serious argument.

China is as comunist/socalist/colectiveist/whatever as a Southern baptist is christian.

Well... Since Southern Baptists are undeniably Christian, I guess I can't argue with that. Southern Baptists may not meet with your approval as Christians, and as much as I'm sure they lie awake at night weeping over that shortcoming, hell, as much as I may agree with you (and I do), the fact is that neither you nor I are charged with establishing and enforcing standards of True Christianity... In fact, the only person qualified to define a "true christian" has been dead a very long time.

Similarly, China may not meet with your approval as Communists. The latest in intelligence breifs released by the US Freedom of Information Act reveal that they do, indeed, lie awake at night weeping over that shortcoming, also. At least "true" theoretical Communism is much more clearly defined... And while China doesn't meet it, neither has any other culture in the history of mankind. Nor will they.

...China also does not provide equal distribution of wealth, universal access to governmental services or the like...

Nothing about Communism requires or promises these things. Communism aspires to distribution of the benefits of trade and industry - "wealth" - according to need. So, I, as the foreign minister, need a large mansion, for entertaining and meeting with foreign dignitaries... Anything less would reflect poorly on the dignity of our nation. I also need the finest imported foods and drink, a luxurious, aromoured limousine, a maid, a butler, a valet, a chauffeur, five secretaries, three personal assitants, a dacha on the black sea, a walk in closet full of tailor made suits, and so on. As a factory worker, you need public transportation, coveralls, and a one room apartment.

You may disagree with my assessment of the "needs" involved, but there's nothing in that distribution that is contrary to the ideals and tenets of Communism.

...the conclusion can be drawn that it is in fact capitolists who create the demand for sweatshops in the first place...

Granted... The capitalists provide the demand for the modern ones. (The same cannot be said for soviet russia, which had plenty of sweat shops of it's own.) Still... No matter where the tennis shoes are going, the corporations are just the mid-level customers. The Government is the force that allows for the creation and maintainance of the sweatshops in the first place.

Please dont be making withthe counter arguement that its good to have mony going into those countries. sweatshops in indonesia and cambodia both recently have made minor news in australia because they WILL FIRE femal staff who ask for a break in their 12 hour shift to change their sanitary napkin.

Well... I wasn't going to, but since you mention it... Yes, it absolutely is good to have money going into those countries.

Your dismissal is like saying "Don't say it's good to give a starving man chicken! It's not steak! And he has to eat it off a dirty plate!!"

First, just for the record, Cambodia is a multi-party democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

As to the 'sweat shops' there, in China, or anywhere else, there are two ways to look at this... The bleeding heart liberal way (which I prefer) and the hard-nosed realist way (which is, sadly, more realistic).

Bleeding Heart: Business, whose only real responsibility is to turn a profit, says "Hey, little government. Do you mind if we come in and ass rape your people with a chainsaw?" and government, whose responsibility it is to see to the best interests of it's people, says "Heck no! Slip me a tenner and I'll hold 'em down for you!"
Fault: Government.

Hardnosed: Business, whose only real responsibility is to turn a profit, says "Hey, little government. Do you mind if we come in and pay your people ten times what they're currently making?" and government, whose responsibility it is to see to the best interests of it's people, says "Heck no! Slip me a tenner and I'll look the other way if you violate what few labor laws we have!"
Fault: Government.

No, sure... We'd like to be able to say "But business should have a responsibility to the planet! and to the environment! and to the fairies and unicorns! and to be nice to everyone and help build parks and libraries and schools!"

And sure, from time to time, there is actually a company who is remarkably good, when compared to their fellows. But the fact remains, it's the job of government to do these things... To regulate and require and keep people and businesses in line.

What the governments of these little countries should have said was "Well... You'll have to pay a pittance and a half, rather than a half a pittance. You'll have to treat our workers fairly. And no, slipping us a tenner won't change it."

If these governments demanded (in a unified manner), say, half as much for thier workers as Americans would get, and that the workers be treated fairly, and the governments in question took even half of that in income taxes and built infrastructure, it would still be an attractive enough deal that the corporations would lap it up, and both the workers and their countries would be enriched for it.

Don't blame the corporations because the governments aren't doing their jobs.

[Tellner]

I note that while the US has done its level best to eliminate workers rights since the Reign of Saint Ronald the Faultless, China is passing a fairly tough one. Of course, the business press hates it and forsees the fall of the Chinese economy if it opts out of the global race to the bottom.

[RantinAn]

"First, just for the record, Cambodia is a multi-party democracy under a constitutional monarchy. "
Oh crap i was thinkign of burhma, not cambodia.. sorry to all the cambodians.


Grin. and you just finished off my arguement nicely too.. i admit i was to goddamned lazy ass to do a proepr job this morning.

Fault: government. Cause capitolisim AS IT IS CURRENTLY.
I never said that the governmetns in quesiton were not at fault. I simply said that the Capitolisim was the direct cause

This is like blaming weather patters for drought.
Its 100% true. but its not adressing a moer importan quesiton, which is is ther any concievable economic system which isint based on sheer exploitation?
Guess i was more awake than i thaught, i slipped you a primed grenade and i missed it. thanks for pulling the pin

I dont blame a whore for being a whore. But I blame a john for being a john. Espicaly if htey are the sort to beat up the whore and then throw her out on the pavement afterwards.

Capitolisim at hte moment shows all the restraint of a john who has bribed the local cops. But thats cause its ot real capitolisim afterall. whatever it is we live in it's pritty removed from adam smith's ideals.

You say that it has no sence of right and wrong built in and that the only responsibility of a corporation is profit.. Well pardon me, but my reading of wealth of naitons didnt gie that impression at all. As long as profits are in turn spent, invested, or otherwise re directed it shold work. and it would work, probalby somewhat better than it does.
when you get down to the brass tacks, its government as it currently exists that is at fault forhte problems. No i dont havea solution, if i did i;d be chasing it.

heres some basic points tho. Corporations currently behave like spilt teanagers. If they behaved like responsible adults, ancd considered the consiquences of their actions in terms of more than next years profits, then i'd have a lot less to bitch about.
You Simply cant just blame a government for being corrupt either. Why are they corrupt? define the sort of power inbalance you haev between a third world country and a multinational in terms ofthe power imballance between to individuals and we're talking rape and slavery. This is seen at tis worst wiht tobaco companies,.

Yeah im on to tobaco companies. No im not talking bout the regulation of smoking in terms of ager, restriciton or on where or weh nyou can or cant smoke, oh no
im talking about the deliberatley criminal conduct of tobaco companies.
when a good 16%(estimated) of a tobaco company's (phillip morris, 1998) output simply goes missing (source: french documentry), you have to wonder whats up. When an amount of cigerates similar to that amount arrives, with all the aproprate merchandizing accessories in a thrid world country that has been trying to tarif cigerets to pay for hte health problemsthey cause, aquired by smugglers, sold by street vendors, in a tax free fashion, it doesent take a lot of effort to work out where the gcigs have gone now does it?

What is most teling of all:

No large scale cigerette theft was reported by philip morris or it;s distribuitors.

the 16% figure was worked out by EU investigators, who noticed a discrepency between tax revenues, PM's profits and expenditure.

In this particular case, african country attempted, despirately to stop cigerette smuglers. Suddenly the smugglers has better firepaower thanteh army. sugest anything? no it couldnt be... could it?

[Putaro]

Corporations currently behave like spoiled teenagers. If they behaved like responsible adults, ancd considered the consequences of their actions in terms of more than next years profits, then i'd have a lot less to bitch about.

Public corporations don't look past this quarter's profits. My wife and I own our own corporation and we definitely look to the long term to maintain our investment (and jobs for that matter!). We don't have the option of selling out whenever things look dicey, though, as investors in a public corporation do.

Own any stocks? Sold any because it dropped a little? Well, that's why corporations are managed to this quarter's profits.

"I shouted out WHO KILLED THE KENNEDYS but after all it was you and me"

[RantinAn]

Corporations currently behave like spoiled teenagers. If they behaved like responsible adults, ancd considered the consequences of their actions in terms of more than next years profits, then i'd have a lot less to bitch about.

Public corporations don't look past this quarter's profits. My wife and I own our own corporation and we definitely look to the long term to maintain our investment (and jobs for that matter!). We don't have the option of selling out whenever things look dicey, though, as investors in a public corporation do.

Own any stocks? Sold any because it dropped a little? Well, that's why corporations are managed to this quarter's profits.

"I shouted out WHO KILLED THE KENNEDYS but after all it was you and me"

Glad oyu asked me that. Yes i own shares. I also vote them, every time, aginst short term cashing and in favour of long term gain.

yeah im funny likethat.