phyllo wrote:That's a good reason to be cautious. Someone peddling socialism might be a totalitarian in disguise.
Look at you. You call socialism any system where the government spends a lot - it could be a monarchy or a dictatorship.
That's a recipe for disaster.
I agree, though I would add the same thing can be true for someone peddling capitalism - it could be a monarchy or a dictatorship also.phyllo wrote:That's a good reason to be cautious. Someone peddling socialism might be a totalitarian in disguise.
Look at you. You call socialism any system where the government spends a lot - it could be a monarchy or a dictatorship.
That's a recipe for disaster.
I tend to agree and my reaction was similar, but I think it is good for the discussion to look at the specific concerns around power in each system - and also, I would like to add, not assume that these are the two systems and one must choose one of them.Silhouette wrote:phyllo wrote:That's a good reason to be cautious. Someone peddling socialism might be a totalitarian in disguise.
Look at you. You call socialism any system where the government spends a lot - it could be a monarchy or a dictatorship.
That's a recipe for disaster.
Who is the government?
People.
Normal regular people who are told what to do just the same as if they are in a private business. The motivation, incentive, ethic - it's the exact same for all wage labourers, whoever they work for.
Doesn't matter who your totalitarian boss is: Capitalist or public payroll, if you take what you're told for granted with no conscience, that's a recipe for disaster. That's how genocides happen, doesn't matter one bit who orders it as long as the people who get paid will do whatever they're told. Nothing to do with government or capitalist payroll, Socialism or Capitalism. Zero.
So as you look around the world now, which government do you, using your spidey sense, trust the most. Or distrust the least, might be better.phyllo wrote:Right. Develop your 'spidey sense' and use it.
The best systems available are democracies with strong limits on the powers of the government and robust tools for removing politicians.So as you look around the world now, which government do you, using your spidey sense, trust the most. Or distrust the least, might be better.
phyllo wrote:That's a good reason to be cautious. Someone peddling socialism might be a totalitarian in disguise.
Look at you. You call socialism any system where the government spends a lot
- it could be a monarchy or a dictatorship.
That's a recipe for disaster.
phyllo wrote:The best systems available are democracies with strong limits on the powers of the government and robust tools for removing politicians.So as you look around the world now, which government do you, using your spidey sense, trust the most. Or distrust the least, might be better.
So for example, increasing the length of time that a president or prime minister can serve would be strictly forbidden.
An example of robust tools, is the removal of Mussolini by the Grand Council of Fascism in 1943. When things got really got out of hand, they still retained ways of getting rid of the dictator. That significantly deduced the damage to Italy and the Italian people. (non-democratic example, I know)
Of course, if put your faith in democracy, you have to trust that the average human will do the right thing.
phyllo wrote:Of course, if put your faith in democracy, you have to trust that the average human will do the right thing.
Bob wrote:This is, of course, difficult because many people rely more on their uninformed "opinions".
Serendipper wrote:Bob wrote:This is, of course, difficult because many people rely more on their uninformed "opinions".
There is also propaganda meant to demonize academia and intelligentsia causing people to believe there is virtue in ignorance.
Yeah. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are important for a democracy.The best democracies are those where people are encouraged to have informed debates on subjects, which are completely transparent as to where the people (or the information) are/is coming from. This is, of course, difficult because many people rely more on their uninformed "opinions". I believe also that those who do have power should be held accountable, which also means that the job must be worth the hassle.
It has more democracy than a lot of places.The people have excellent spidey sense, but the US does not have democracy.
Bob wrote:Serendipper wrote:Bob wrote:This is, of course, difficult because many people rely more on their uninformed "opinions".
There is also propaganda meant to demonize academia and intelligentsia causing people to believe there is virtue in ignorance.
Yes, there is an ongoing attack on academia, but the counter-attack seems to be falling into the trap that ideologies on both sides fall into. If you give your opposition what they've been giving you, you could adopt your own system of ideology and be in danger of being just the other side of the coin. I get the feeling that people know that the right-wingers are doing this, but are not aware that left-wingers tend to use the same strategy. You know when someone on the right oversteps the line of being beyond an appropriate reaction. Do we know when the left overstep?
I think the Orwellian warning is valuable in assessing the present situation because there is a tendency to confuse the whole issue, so that simple working people are left trying to work out what on earth is going on. There are many people who regard themselves as left-orientated who have now become confused when looking at the battlefield. It is hard to find the people you actually agree with.
phyllo wrote:It has more democracy than a lot of places.The people have excellent spidey sense, but the US does not have democracy.
You guys don't appreciate what you have.
Serendipper wrote:phyllo wrote:It has more democracy than a lot of places.The people have excellent spidey sense, but the US does not have democracy.
You guys don't appreciate what you have.
All I have that you don't have is sunshine... and the ability to go out and waste ammunition anytime I want. Canada tops the US in almost ever measure except prisoners and number of people thinking the devil is real.
Canada ranks 7th in happiness, the US ranks 18th.
Canada ranks 13th in life expectancy, the US 32nd
Canada ranks 4th in freedom, the US 53rd.
Canada ranks 6th in democracy, the US 25th.
phyllo wrote:Once again, only focusing on the negative. Focusing on what "the other guy" has. No appreciation of what you have.
Suit yourself. It's your life.Serendipper wrote:phyllo wrote:Once again, only focusing on the negative. Focusing on what "the other guy" has. No appreciation of what you have.
Once again, only focusing on relative prosperity "well wage slavery is bad, but be thankful you're not a real slave, so let's not aspire for more, but be happy with what we have." Focusing on what the other guy has to justify your own suffering. No motivation to prosper, but only motivation to perpetuate suffering in the name of appreciation.
Chomsky talked about the proliferation of religion as a means for people to take their focus off of this world and concentrate on the other. "Well don't worry about this place or bettering yourself, just focus on the next world."
Don't worry about this world...
Be thankful for what you have...
Now bend over and grab your ankles!
No thanks, I don't want that philosophy.
Silhouette wrote:The "Fallacy of relative privation"
I gave him a link to the Democracy Index and he knows that the US ranks 25th out of 167 countries. He still makes this bizarre statement: " ... but the US does not have democracy."The "Fallacy of relative privation" is the dismissal of arguments due to the existence of more important arguments. Saying the US doesn't have it as bad as other countries seems to fit this, especially in response to the argument that the US could have it better. The US having room for improvement isn't a failure to appreciate what it does have.
Various forms of democracy, communism, fascism, monarchy, etc have been tried and tested.In short, you have to wonder how much politics is just smoke and mirrors, and how much it's all really to do with resources, infrastructure, trade agreements and reputation. To phyllo, I'm not flatly saying it's all the same anyways, but the degree to which it is all the same anyways is not to be underestimated. The ways in which it's not all the same anyways - that at least seems to matter in theory, and I would like to test whether it actually does.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users