Log in

View Full Version : A true revolution is here. The rest is futile "palace coups".



Nicholas Popov
2nd December 2010, 17:35
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

The final goal of capitalism is clear: concentration of capital leads to a caste of "chosen by God" loafers, with unlimited possibilities, who use all others only as work horses. But the enormous quantity of what the rich, the people who run the mill, see as "unnecessary" people demands expensive social conditions, creates environmental problems, and even traffic jams.
But it is also socially highly explosive. So how do they get rid of humans whom they see as a waste, since machines have totally replaced them? Male sterilization? Step-by-step degeneration through unhealthy genetically modified food sold to the people via powerful advertising? Entrapment in local wars? Or Hitler-style death camps?

"We must increase the inequality between people by putting up impenetrable barriers. There will be the class of masters and below them there will be an anonymous mob, always the lowest ones.. Still further down, there will be the defeated modern slaves, the foreigners . And above all these will rise a new aristocratic class of which I can say nothing yet."
- Adolf Hitler

But can it make sense for mankind to reject capitalism and money as a source of fraud, to claim that it is only a case of false superiority and oppression of one biological individual by another after the example of "communist' Pol Pot[1] in Cambodia? A six-time convicted criminal, Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) had right away understood what possibilities the MONOPOLY of a " religion for the sheep" called "communism' opens for the Power maniacs: "The Great Helmsman" Mao, "The Master of the House" Stalin; enthusiasm in spite of eternal poverty and millions of victims deemed "enemies of the People" by "Communist tin gods" - emperors who were presumed to be the guardian angels of people's needs and desires? Or was it illusions?

"When war is declared in palaces, it will get to the huts a bit later." - E. Sevrus

Whose egoism is humane?

The common man will remain an abandoned and defenseless orphan under the uncontrollable domination of ANY caste of "god-like" rulers: whether they call themselves capitalists or communists. As long as the interests of the voter, namely some effect resulting from his or her political vote, are not secured through the strongest motivation in the competition for survival, through a political system with several independent parties, indifferent and self-serving parties will instead compete for the sympathies of the voters within the limits of the monopolistic government. And the voters will continue to be ignored.

However, independent parties in any coalition government can gain the sympathy of voters through honest work done on their behalf without deceptive promises and false pre-election advertising. Only under this condition, can political parties not rule, but actually work for the people.

That is why in the political coup of 1991 the deceived and pauperized Russian people turned away from the communist "Fathers of the Nation", who had severed the "umbilical cord" of voter feedback. The dinner party called 'The Victory of Communism' had turned out inevitably to be only for the elite, the ones who called themselves the "unselfish fighters".

"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." - Hegel

Lenin's errors (and not only his):

1. Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of "The Supreme priest' and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively.

2. The monopoly idea creates an imbalance in the society, and retention of its domination demands regular disinformation (the lie) and physical violence in Soviet Russia, such as the Kronstadt rebellion[2] , the Gulags, Novocherkassk - June 1962'[3], Prague-68, the Iron Curtain, among other flagrant examples of rebellions dealt with in a horrendously repressive way.

3. Self-preservation of a monopoly and social privileges of the 'high priests' require the suppression of new ideas. The lack of renewal and of healthy competition leads to degeneration.

4. The unipolarity which controls autocracies leaves the possibility for shadow protectionism; corruption[4] destroys the state from within.

5. The traditional pyramid of power is too dependent on the personal qualities and political orientation of the leader and his "cheerleading group": in Soviet Russia, from authoritarian Stalin, who built a socialist super state based on criminal rules, to shortsighted , idle talker Gorbachev[5], who betrayed the fates of millions by one weak-willed phrase to the kulak[6] werewolf and drunkard Yeltsin. That this pyramid is unstable and vulnerable was thus proved!

6. A new society begins with a reform of the means of power. Lenin was to have bequeathed not a successor, but an innovation in management: 'the development spiral' returns to an obsolete level without a new system of management. So Russia returned to the monarchic National Emblem, a two-headed clownish mockery of modern Russian 'democracy'.

Political takeovers will occur as long as the egoism of one dominant point of view continues to strengthen the paranoia of a suppressed opposition through its arbitrariness or indifferent inactivity and pompous lack of talent. Today's Russian marauders-swindlers were hatched out of the 'moss-covered' taboos and 'bedsores' of the communist Monopoly.

The concentration of power in any single hands is dangerous. Under whatever tempting fetish: communism, the rule of Big Money the super-nation according to Nazism, or the any other 'ism', will you entrust your future to the next charismatic, power-hungry maniac who will turn your reason into a zombie, and, with "bats in his belfry", dispose of your destiny and life as it pleases him? - The traditional pyramid of autocracy allows it!

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7565/85754099.jpg

Racial, religious, economic and social speculative barriers and prejudices oppress and break the constructive potential of all society and lead to decadence. Generally speaking, is it wise to let the destiny of the entire society be predetermined by only one party, which has frequently come to power by means of buffoonery, empty promises or fraud at the moment of the citizens' very serious choice?

Finally, the reckless and speculative confrontation of the two ideological monopolies, imposed by the vanity of power-hungry men, call the survival of our entire civilization into question through the deadliness of modern weapons.

The "Big Red Button" should not be in single hands!

The means to prevent this lie in a system of checks and balances which must be institutionalized within the power structure, consisting of several independent participants without the "divine right" of an all powerful "king of the world", but rather with a center of joint decisions, which is subject to change at any time.

Communists say that there is no democracy under capitalism, and capitalists have the same complaint about communism. So what is true democracy? Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them.

The real revolution, as an innovation and a new stage of development, is here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html The rest are futile "palace coups" within the confines of the outdated and dangerous concept of undivided authority and the domination of one political idea.

"And the battle is eternal [between you and me?]! We can only dream of peace?" - Alexander Blok

Wisdom begins with the multi-polarity of views, and the true road is between the ideological extremes.

With thanks to Siv O'Neall (France), Mac McKinney (USA) and Nicolas Mottas (Greece).

Сделано в России Nicholas Popov 2010
________________________________

Notes:


The leader extreme-left Khmer Rouge Pol Pot has won the power in Cambodia in 1975. For accelerated transition to a fully classless society and "total equality" uncontrolled Pol Pot issued a decree on the abolition of money and blew up the national bank, so in one moment destroyed the entire economy of Cambodia. Cities as nurseries of evil, and the ancient culture were destroyed also. Political dissent and opposition were not permitted. Priests, doctors, scientists, teachers and all educated people were murdered. He entered an order that all residents must leave the city and move to the province to engage in agricultural activities. The "equal among equals", using the unlimited power, deceitand the violence, it forced other "equals" to the slave labour for two bowls of rice soup per day and to dig their graves themselves. The combined effects of backbreaking toil, malnutrition, poor medical care, and perverted executions resulted in the deaths, according to different sources, from 20 to 40% of the Cambodian population. It's the price of ideological speculation. The monomania complicated by paranoia + autocracy creates a dangerous mixture.
The Kronstadt rebellion was an unsuccessful uprising of Soviet sailors, soldiers and civilians sparked by the reduction of bread rations, deterioration of an economic situation at the War Communism, the privilege and domination of Bolsheviks against the government of the early Russian SFSR in March 1921. Revolt has been suppressed, and its participants are executed or subjected to repression.
The Novocherkassk's riots were a direct result by Nikita Khrushchev doubling the prices of meat and butter and reducing pay rates, as well as of shortages of food and provisions and the poor working conditions in the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Factory. This led to mass protests. In clashes with the authorities 25 people killed and and seven people received a death sentence.
Corruption can be minimized by means of cross-checking of several competing parties.
With stubborn disregard of the needs of ordinary people by the ruling elite in pre-Gorbachev's Russia the problem of price stabilization at incessant shortage of the goods had resolved by means of sale of highly profitable vodka. That accustomed population to hard drinking but withdrew away from him the "unnecessary" money and maintained the appearance of stability and wellbeing of the economic system. Gorbachev's "well-meaning" antialcoholic campaign has strongly pressed on this perverted way of stabilization of economy without pre-emptive compensation by means of other goods.Thievish directors of shops and trading depots to took advantage of sharp growth of the amount of money in hands of the population and, under impotence of the weak leader and corrupted power, have aggravated deficiency of the goods by means of concealment and the subsequent reselling goods an exorbitant price. Clandestine manufacture and sale of false vodka from industrial alcohol also did a lot of money. That has redistributed money in society in favor of sticky-fingered people.Brezhnev's corruption and economic decline; the loss of ideals; as well as aggravation of lack of goods and deterioration of life of the simple people and growth of the shadow capital provoked by Gorbachev's one-sided, ill-conceived decisions have completed disintegration of political system and have dethroned verbiage, fruitless Gorbachev himself.
"kulak" - In pre- and post- revolutionary Russian village "kulak" called the wealthy peasant received a riches on the enslavement of his fellow villagers and which has hold of the whole rural community in one's fist (depending on itself; the fist "tight-fisted" = "kulak" in Russian). They earned money by means of assignment of another's work, resale and usury on enslaving terms. For disobedience and debts poor folk were punished by a fist the law. Yeltsin, the Kulak's son, carefully concealed his social origin when joining the communist party. After resolute Yeltsin came to power against the background of Gorbachev's helplessness, he carried out a fraudulent privatization of national patrimony and turned "comrade" into "mister", as well as tried to ban the Communist Party and has replaced communist monopoly with the kulak bandit monopoly.
One more utopia has ended. Is it for a long time?

Blackscare
2nd December 2010, 17:43
Ahem, what?

khad
2nd December 2010, 17:50
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7565/85754099.jpg

I spot Piglet and Eeyore.

FtVVRuy1T9c

Revolution starts with U
2nd December 2010, 18:24
Be adaptable, I think is the message.

Dean
2nd December 2010, 18:36
Finally, the reckless and speculative confrontation of the two ideological monopolies, imposed by the vanity of power-hungry men, call the survival of our entire civilization into question through the deadliness of modern weapons.

The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology. Some of the points you make about the USSR are lucid, I think, because the material conditions of that regime are no longer an issue of ideological debate, so we can all see - more or less - what needs to be critiqued there.

The contemporary parties, however, are driven by two different sectors of the economy:

First is the capital-intensive (low need for labor-hours), which prefer democrats (since they spur growth and domestic spending, which raises demand, expands the market for their products).

Secondly, we have the Republicans - largely supported by the labor-intensive corporations. Any expansion of labor rights, compensation or OSHA style conditions (which the Dems mildly support while the republicans heavily oppose) is more expensive to these industries at a rate relative to the magnitude of their labor:capital ratio.

I plan on making a post about this soon, but I don't have the right sources yet.

http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/

Nicholas Popov
2nd December 2010, 19:32
The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology.
... , which prefer democrats ... Secondly, we have the Republicans ...
Incidentally, about "absence" of ideology and about political stunt: two-party pre-election 'football' is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the one who pays actors, that is in favor of the Big Money. http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/playingball.gif

"Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, ... The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders." http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html)

Honest contest is only here.

Havet
2nd December 2010, 20:12
http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/

Watching this now, thanks for sharing

milk
3rd December 2010, 01:23
The leader extreme-left Khmer Rouge Pol Pot has won the power in Cambodia in 1975. For accelerated transition to a fully classless society and "total equality" uncontrolled Pol Pot issued a decree on the abolition of money and blew up the national bank, so in one moment destroyed the entire economy of Cambodia.

Nope. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1936483&postcount=382)

Nicholas Popov
3rd December 2010, 09:29
Nope. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1936483&postcount=382)


"He blew up the national bank in the capital, Phnom Penh, with the currency fluttering in the street." www.thesocialistparty.org/spo/.../Kampuchea.html

"The Khmer Rouge abolished money and blew up the National Bank building in Phnom Penh." http://books.google.ru/books?id=5_d9sWUZz9MC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Pol+Pot+%22blew+up+the+national+bank%22&source=bl&ots=leqR8w6cKo&sig=Xesw6nLhNpatBvZGA-1JKh0sz-Y&hl=ru&ei=Trb4TPeYNaOP4gb996n1Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Pol%20Pot%20%22blew%20up%20the%20national%20bank %22&f=false

"John Pilger : His work as a correspondent in ... Burma and other countries where human rights were being violated ...
Many of the photographs capture the political climate of the country in question through focusing on the suffering of the individual. A Cambodian child holds bank notes to the camera, collected after the Khmer Rouge blew up the national bank - but, as Pilger explains, this is no fortune. The poor street urchin will use the paper to heat a pot of roots and leaves." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77790265.html

The Soviet bureaucracy has accused weather conditions, CIA accused communists, Hitler has been disappointed in the German nation... This breed of people doesn't happen guilty.

Jalapeno Enema
3rd December 2010, 10:48
But the enormous quantity of what the rich, the people who run the mill, see as "unnecessary" people demands expensive social conditions, creates environmental problems, and even traffic jams.those bastards! I've spent half my adult life on the Poplar Street Bridge!


Step-by-step degeneration through unhealthy genetically modified food sold to the people via powerful advertising?as a healthcare professional and aspiring biologist, you'll have to do better then that for me. Want to argue about the inefficiencies of HYVs? I'll join you. As a vessel for genocide?. . .:bored:


The common man will remain an abandoned and defenseless orphan under the uncontrollable domination of ANY caste of "god-like" rulersI'll agree wholeheartedly; been there, done that.


However, independent parties in any coalition government can gain the sympathy of voters through honest work done on their behalf without deceptive promises and false pre-election advertising. Only under this condition, can political parties not rule, but actually work for the people.I like that idea. Unfortunate for anybody not in a coalition government, though; the theory won't be tested here soon.


"The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." - HegelI've learned some pretty-sounding but meaningless quotes.


Generally speaking, is it wise to let the destiny of the entire society be predetermined by only one party, which has frequently come to power by means of buffoonery, empty promises or fraud at the moment of the citizens' very serious choice?. . .if it's not one of the parties that "came to power by buffoonery, et al", why not?
A good party would be more desirable then a bad multi-party. Can't a coalition government fall into decadence as well?

. . .damn it, you've convinced me to give anarchy another look.


Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them.. . .:confused:. . .they work together to oppose one another?

We're all in this together, but why should I help somebody out who wants to bend me over (well, unless they're a real cutie)

I think I'll call this the "own goal" theory of democracy.


The real revolution, as an innovation and a new stage of development, is here: (url) The rest are futile "palace coups" within the confines of the outdated and dangerous concept of undivided authority and the domination of one political idea.Thanks, but I've been sitting here reading and typing quite long enough without clicking links.

I probably agree with about 1/3 of what you say, and I feel the post uses flowery language at the cost of clarity, however I'll still thank you for forcing me to really think about these issues (and does thinking hurt after all these years)

Nicholas Popov
3rd December 2010, 19:28
... , and I feel the post uses flowery language at the cost of clarity, ...
In Russian, the text is concise and fairly tough for the Russian even. This style by Mayakovsky. The 'flowery language' is influence of the French translator. I am dependent in this respect. But it is important that you understand sense.

Friends, I am glad that this theme excites you. Everyone has one's own life experience and belief. Please, be tolerant and civilized.

In my article I wanted to show that the problem consists not in bad people which come to power, but whether that the autocracy system allows their arbitrariness of any political color. The one-man rule has become outdated and dangerous.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/five.gif It is necessary to find compromises and general benefit! http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/knuddel.gif

Nicholas Popov
4th December 2010, 08:38
"Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them."

. . .:confused:. . .they work together to oppose one another?


The constructive rivalry is built into my idea.
For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties. But the scheme does not allow to do it constantly. See "The Idea of a Self-Balancing Power" http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html. Reducing the number of seats for the ruling parties in the next government creates competition among them.

ComradeMan
4th December 2010, 11:19
The constructive rivalry is built into my idea. For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties. But the scheme does not allow to do it constantly. See "The Idea of a Self-Balancing Power" http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html. Reducing the number of seats for the ruling parties in the next government creates competition among them.


For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties

Welcome to Italy.... :lol: Welcome to chaos- as many governments in as many years since WWII!!!

"Party coalitions" sets alarm bells ringing for me, it seems you just swap one evil for another. Nothing ever gets done, they are in a constant state of "electioneering" and at the drop of the hat someone disagrees with a policy or someone resigns and the government collapses. It is not a good system in my opinion. The other risk is that minority and fringe parties get brought into government in order to bolster a majority, then the main parties have to implement their bullshit policies and ideas in order to stay in government. Politics can make strange bedfellows at the best of times, but I don't think your idea on this point is without problems. In theory it sounds good but in practice it is a nightmare.

Nicholas Popov
4th December 2010, 16:47
For the purpose of retention of power the ruling political parties are forced to continually improve the own individual rating in a society. To do this they must earn points in the course of work and must enter into a interim coalitions with other parties

Welcome to Italy.... :lol: Welcome to chaos- as many governments in as many years since WWII!!!

"Party coalitions" sets alarm bells ringing for me, it seems you just swap one evil for another. Nothing ever gets done, they are in a constant state of "electioneering" and at the drop of the hat someone disagrees with a policy or someone resigns and the government collapses. It is not a good system in my opinion. The other risk is that minority and fringe parties get brought into government in order to bolster a majority, then the main parties have to implement their bullshit policies and ideas in order to stay in government. Politics can make strange bedfellows at the best of times, but I don't think your idea on this point is without problems. In theory it sounds good but in practice it is a nightmare.

Comrade, I don't offer anarchy and Brownian movement. And it's not parliamentary "bla-bla-bla" of many voices. Idea SB Power is rigidly organized scheme from 5 parties in which leadership remains behind 2 greatest parties, and 3 the least performs a stabilizing function because they are more vulnerable according to the scheme. But they have an opportunity a choice of the preferences.
In addition, this five are deprived possibility of the following election campaign. And behind "gate" other pretenders expects. Sympathies of voters can be earned only by means of good work.

Nicholas http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/lollypop.gif

ComradeMan
4th December 2010, 17:10
Comrade, I don't offer anarchy and Brownian movement. And it's not parliamentary "bla-bla-bla" of many voices. Idea SB Power is rigidly organized scheme from 5 parties in which leadership remains behind 2 greatest parties, and 3 the least performs a stabilizing function because they are more vulnerable according to the scheme. But they have an opportunity a choice of the preferences.
In addition, this five are deprived possibility of the following election campaign. And behind "gate" other pretenders expects. Sympathies of voters can be earned only by means of good work.

Nicholas http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/lollypop.gif

Well Comrade Popov, you have some interesting ideas...

But...

How would you guarantee the 5 party system would work and not split into infinite factions?

What would happen if the 2 main parties had 23 % each, but the other 3 parties had 18% each. Thus the 2 main parties had the biggest individual levels of support but the 3 others had the majority?

Nicholas Popov
5th December 2010, 02:39
Well Comrade Popov, you have some interesting ideas...

But...

How would you guarantee the 5 party system would work and not split into infinite factions?

What would happen if the 2 main parties had 23 % each, but the other 3 parties had 18% each. Thus the 2 main parties had the biggest individual levels of support but the 3 others had the majority?
I was inexact because of evening weariness. 5 leaders (5 persons) makes decisions; here are no fractions! This is not a parliament. This is the council of five leaders.
Compact "retinue" for each performs an advisory function only. By the way, the argumentation here demands highly skilled experts. http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/fight.gif
The traditional principle of personal attachments will be the loser.
Nothing prevents the party members re-elect their leader. http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/damnmate.gif

"A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable." http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-and-communism-t145148/index.html

Nicholas Popov
13th December 2010, 08:54
I spot Piglet and Eeyore.

FtVVRuy1T9c
Yes, it is a joke, but in which life experience!

ComradeMan
14th December 2010, 20:05
Yes, it is a joke, but in which life experience!

And not a very funny one at that.
:rolleyes:


Could you go on with your explanation please.

I'd like to know more about your 5 party idea.....

balaclava
14th December 2010, 21:17
The final goal of capitalism is clear: concentration of capital leads to a caste of "chosen by God" loafers, with unlimited possibilities, who use all others only as work horses. But the enormous quantity of what the rich, the people who run the mill, see as "unnecessary" people demands expensive social conditions, creates environmental problems, and even traffic jams.


Reading through what you have written it looks like a dissertation required to earn x number of credits in Politics 101. As a piece of academic exploration it interesting but so is the theory on extra-terrestrial life. It puts me in mind of the old saying about not being able to see the wood for the trees? But that supposes we are looking for the same piece of wood!

I see lots of angry young men on the streets and I hear lots of complaints about how the ruling elite got it wrong and I read the occasional theory about why another form of communism or anarchy would work getter but I am not sure what the goal is to create that system for its own sake or the improve everybody's quality of life. Is the goal to identify a system that will produce a utopian society where everybody is of equal status, where wealth is shared equally and where everybody gets the opportunity and freedom to do what ever they want to do. The problem is that all involves people and people are imperfect and one mans freedom denies another man his freedom.

I know this is a RevLeft forum and its all about discussing the finer details of what Lennin could have done to make it work but is the any part of anyone here that considers the possibility that the strong will always rule the weak; there will always be wolf and sheep; intellect, ability and hard work will always triumph over anarchy? And, does anyone ever ask the question, which system has produced the most improvements in the quality of life for the majority of it citizens and how could that system be improved and made a model for all the countries whose systems have failed to bring prosperity to its citizens?

In short was Churchill not right when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

ComradeMan
14th December 2010, 21:21
The problem is that all involves people and people are imperfect and one mans freedom denies another man his freedom.

Well if we are going to do stale aphorisms,

No man is truly free until all men are free.

balaclava
14th December 2010, 21:38
Well if we are going to do stale aphorisms,

No man is truly free until all men are free.

Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before the will of barbaric and atavistic forces.

Manic Impressive
15th December 2010, 15:14
I see lots of angry young men on the streets and I hear lots of complaints about how the ruling elite got it wrong and I read the occasional theory about why another form of communism or anarchy would work getter but I am not sure what the goal is to create that system for its own sake or the improve everybody's quality of life. Is the goal to identify a system that will produce a utopian society where everybody is of equal status, where wealth is shared equally and where everybody gets the opportunity and freedom to do what ever they want to do. The problem is that all involves people and people are imperfect and one man’s freedom denies another man his freedom.
Communism is not Utopia, we do not think that by introducing equal labour relations and destroying class hegemony that rainbows and butterflies will fill the skies and rain will suddenly become golden drops of honey. But a classless society would help to eliminate many of the social ills which plague exploitative systems. Although I agree that everyone can't do whatever they like, they still have responsibilities to their community.



I know this is a RevLeft forum and it’s all about discussing the finer details of what Lennin could have done to make it work but is the any part of anyone here that considers the possibility that the strong will always rule the weak; there will always be wolf and sheep; intellect, ability and hard work will always triumph over anarchy?
This sounds like the human nature argument which time and again has proven to be bollocks. Yes people do have different aptitudes for different things and in a system where children got the same opportunities we would produce an abundance of educated and skilled people to progress society.


And, does anyone ever ask the question, which system has produced the most improvements in the quality of life for the majority of it citizens and how could that system be improved and made a model for all the countries whose systems have failed to bring prosperity to its citizens? So far capitalism has brought the most improvements in the swiftest time and I think we all acknowledge that, Marx certainly did. But just as feudalism was destroyed by capitalism don't you think that there will come a time in societies development where capitalism will be replaced by a better and more progressive system?



In short was Churchill not right when he said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

We reject the notion that universal democracy has ever existed and cannot exist under a bourgeois class hegemony. So yes he was wrong, but if you replaced the word democracy with capitalism then he would be correct.

p.s. nice to see you talking about something other than race or Islamic extremism for a change.

balaclava
15th December 2010, 20:27
in a system where children got the same opportunities we would produce an abundance of educated and skilled people to progress society.

Oh I see – you mean like Cuba !


p.s. nice to see you talking about something other than race or Islamic extremism for a change.

T Y, that’s damn decent of you to say so (that said I was playing with the idea of highlighting how similar the crescent moon is to the sickle - coincidence - kinda spooky eh)

Manic Impressive
15th December 2010, 20:37
Oh I see you mean like Cuba !
Cuba isn't a communist society but they do have the highest ratio of doctors and dentists per person in the world.



T Y, thats damn decent of you to say so
np, to think for a minute that I thought you were a one trick pony:rolleyes:


(that said I was playing with the idea of highlighting how similar the crescent moon is to the sickle - coincidence - kinda spooky eh)
oh wait.....................:blink:

ComradeMan
15th December 2010, 21:00
Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before the will of barbaric and atavistic forces.

It's usually large groups of organised mankind united in constabularies that actually cause barbarism and threaten peace.

Look, I don't want to push my own ideology here too much... "mydeology"- but it's simple.

The current socio-economic system in the world is a bad system that is causing:
1) social harm- divisions, strife and so on
2) environmental harm

It cannot go on, all the rest is just detail.

balaclava
15th December 2010, 21:38
Look, I don't want to push my own ideology here too much... "mydeology"- but it's simple.


Indeed how to rule the world is a complex problem

I have never professed to have anything but a smattering of knowledge of the arguments on political systems and in my time on this forum have avoided discourse on the subject for fear of showing my ignorance. That said I have done a little reading and a lot of thinking and I have formed the view that democracy doesnt work (doesnt work well).

I had a near Damascus moment a few weeks back as a drove down the M6 and was corralled into the lane taking me onto the toll road. I am paying taxes, and fuel taxes and road fund taxes and all that and I have to pay to get around Birmingham, that cant right!! I understand that taxes are necessary and more tax is necessary but it cant be cost effective to have to administer so many different taxes under different names why not scrap them all and put all the tax duty on fuel so that the more miles you do the more tax you pay. That makes absolute sense but the reason it cant be done is because any government doing it would be thrown out never to be elected again democracy doesnt work. If we had a totalitarian soviet regime they could do what was right not what was popular. After that my mind formed various models and every model fell down for various reasons not least because every model had to have a mechanism to get rid of a leader who was failing to achieve and how do we do that without elections?

#FF0000
15th December 2010, 21:42
I have never professed to have anything but a smattering of knowledge of the arguments on political systems and in my time on this forum have avoided discourse on the subject for fear of showing my ignorance. That said I have done a little reading and a lot of thinking and I have formed the view that democracy doesn’t work (doesn’t work well).


It just doesn't work in class society, guy.

#FF0000
15th December 2010, 21:46
Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before the will of barbaric and atavistic forces.


Holy value judgements batman

ComradeMan
15th December 2010, 21:50
Holy value judgements batman

Already dealt with. That makes you Robin.... :lol:

Nicholas Popov
16th December 2010, 08:53
Friends, the Future is fine, but it demands higher organization of a society, fresh idea in the capacity of 'spermatozoon' with unprecedented genetics. http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/stupido.gif