Thoughts about democracy...

[Pirog]

Tolomus>

The fact is, even though in some ways Democracy doesn't always work, it remains the least worst government in reality.

But is it really?
The communistic experiment has never really had a chance to work.
Look at the horrible things that happened before democracy came thru...the Jakobines after the French revolution etc.
Theu could have used the same arguments against democracy then that we do about other governments now.

Meh>

Well, the idea of a world revolution isn't very novel...democracy pretty much came as a world revolution to, often very bloody.
And if you think from the perspective of someone who believes that communism works, the righteousness of an "invasion" would be as justified as the democracy that is now forced on Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist...but in conflicts between communistic and democratic countries I think the democratic sides have more often been the agressor. And if you see in conflicts where American troopes have defended countries "under attack" from communistic ones the sole goal has been to make sure that the communistic ideals will never get a chance to work.

I think democratic leaders are still afraid that communism actually might work somewhere, and during the Cold War the fear must have been a hundred times worse.

Has any of you seen the French movie "La Heine"?
(I believe it is called Hate or something in USA)
They have a good point about the state the western democracies are in.
During the movie they tell a joke about a man falling of the roof of a skyscraper, and for every floor he falls he keeps repeating to himself "so far everything is good, so far everything is good...", and at the ending of the film it becomes obvious that the state of the Western societies is the same way...we know we can't live like we do, but instead of changing we keep repeating "so far everything is ok...", even if we know that in the end we are going to hit the pavement if we don't face the real problem.

I'm sure none of you Americans have seen it...it's in French and black & white...much to cultural for you!

[Tolomus]

Pirog>

communistic experiment has never really had a chance to work

Um yes it did, quite often. It has had chances all over the world, let alone in Russia, Cuba, China, etc, but also in many European places, and even Britain, though it obviously never came into power here. The fact is, Communism has mostly been taken apart from the inside, not externally. The environment that a Communist government generates is self defeating. Not only does it encourage a stagnant economy and workforce, once the initial 'fire' has burnt out, but it allows personalities that have a negative affect to thrive, such as Mao Tse Tung (sp). He used Communism to consolidate his strength, and used it at first for good in unifying China, but the corrupting influence that Communism had caused him to get obsessed and paranoid, leading to many needless deaths.

George Orwell would agree. If anyone here has read 'Animal Farm', you would see an accurate, though simplified, version of what Communism does. As they said, 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'.

Communism also breeds a Dictatorship; I can't think of a Communist government which has been anything else. For a vision of what a world that runs on Dictatorship, see 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. NOT a very nice picture of a world.

As to Democracy, I'm not saying it is perfect, but in realistic terms I would call it a better alternitive to other forms of govenment, especially Communism.

[Pirog]

Tolomus>

Yes, I know there has been many attempts...but communism has always been seen as a threat and thus fought against from the very start.

True communism doesn't even have governments, so I don't see why it would always turn into dictatorship.

I personally don't think people are ready for a communistic society.
We have been caught up in the capitalistic way for so long that we have a hard time even thinking about a society that wouldn't have money as it's main focus.

But I'm not sure that communism wouldn't work, and if the majority of the population in a country want to give it a try I think it is wrong if other countries interfere.

It also sounds a lot like propaganda when you say that Mao was corrupted by the communism, when it was he who corrupted the communism. It wasn't like he was a good guy from the start who suddenly turned evil after being exposed to communistic ideals.

In the long run, a society functioning under communistic ideals, or principles of the same nature, is probably the only thing that can save us.
If you read about the true meaning of communism, not the perverted results of dictators who have claimed power under it's name, there is very healthy ideas about how to run a society...and how to make it efficient, not by having huge industries where people work themselves to death, but by having happy people that can change work if they don't like it.

As I said before...I don't think we are ready for such a society yet, but I would very much like to see social democracies as a path to take for people to gradually overcome the greed we now live after.

>>a reflection<<
I am not a religious person, but those who are and live after the 10 commandments (spelling?) in a capitalistic society should pretty much consider themselves screwed since there is hardly a single person in USA or Europe that can't be considered greedy.

[grayjaket]

I agree that communism will never work. It would only work in a perfect non seflish society...otherwise well, it will just fail. And I don't get your reflection thing...why would someone who follows and lives by the ten commandments be screwed? Just cuz everyone else doesn't? Maybe I need to go read the rest of this topic....

[Pirog]

Jake>

I meant that the way we live in USA and Europe EVERYONE is greedy as hell...religious people included.

But I don't get how you can just disregard communism as an impossible thing. Sure, a lot would have to be changed...but almost every great thing seems totally impossible before it is done.
For the people in the medieval times the idea of a communistic society where everyone would live selfishless and care about eachother would probably sound much easier to acomplish than putting a people on the moon, the idea of computers and things like that...

[west]

Human nature indicates that communism on a large scale doesn't work, because it's typically imposed and not self-selected. Kibbutzes are basically small-scale communes and they work perfectly well...it's a self-selected group.

Small, self-selected groups are the only ones in which communism has an alter boy's chance at a NAMBLA convention.

[Pirog]

Human biology makes it impossible for us to fly...still we do it a lot faster then birds nowdays.

Of course it must be self-selected. That is why I don't think it could work now, or within the near future...but that is also a bit of the point with the topic...the democracy that the American army forces on people in "liberated" countries aren't self-selected for everyone there.
The Iraqi people probably have much more faith in their priests etc. then for the democracy that they of course connect with the western society.

[grayjaket]

Jake>

I meant that the way we live in USA and Europe EVERYONE is greedy as hell...religious people included.

Oh yeah defintly...everyone's greedy, no argument there. Human Nature. Look out for yourself(doesn't mean it can't be changed, and it does)...that's why it's hard for a communist society to work, like you said, because no one wants to do something for the everyone else. I'm not sure which colony this was, but in the settlement of America, some colony had everyone take there food that they grew to a communal storehouse. 'course all it took was a couple of lazy people who didn't do anything but ate anyway to throw that off....

[Pirog]

Yes, but to a large part what we see as natural human behavior is really just normes that we have been taught.

If most people chipped in and noone recieved more food/stuff than they needed there would be enough to support even a couple of freeloaders.

Look at the medieval days.
1/3 of the year was dedicated to different forms of festivities and holidays, because the idea of hoarding wealth wasn't a common ideal back then.
Nowdays even the richest people can't afford to party away a third of their life...

[west]

That's because parties are a bit more complicated these days...

Cheap ale and another dead cow aren't as expensive as hard alcohol and drugs, or even a good DJ.

[Meh]

Meh>

Well, the idea of a world revolution isn't very novel...democracy pretty much came as a world revolution to, often very bloody.

But the original documents that comunism is based call for the world revolution. Irregardless of what happened that was always the intent of communism. Take over everything then set everything free.

Democracy did not intend to spread in that way but did nottheless.

And if you think from the perspective of someone who believes that communism works, the righteousness of an "invasion" would be as justified as the democracy that is now forced on Iraq.

This whole "forcing democracy" is getting pretty old. Should another despot been put into power? That is the tradition in the region. Should untried "brewhousetalk" experiments be done on a foreign nation? You say "forcing democracy" as if there is an alternative. Problems stated with no solutions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a communist...

Right. Your an Anarchist but haven't come to accept it. Communism is no path to Anarchy.

but in conflicts between communistic and democratic countries I think the democratic sides have more often been the agressor. And if you see in conflicts where American troopes have defended countries "under attack" from communistic ones the sole goal has been to make sure that the communistic ideals will never get a chance to work.

I think democratic leaders are still afraid that communism actually might work somewhere, and during the Cold War the fear must have been a hundred times worse.

The only place communism or rather anarchy would work is in isolation from the rest of the world with well adjusted people.

So this "never have been given a chance" is like saying that "toast has never been given a chance to not get soggy in a rainstorm".

To give what you call comunism a chance you have to stop the world and the world is too large to take on all at once like that. And peice by peice doesn't work either.

It is important that you understand that your ideals are of Anarchy not Communism. Communism plainly doesn't work. Has been tried again and again and again and again. Still doesn't work. Anarchy would work in isolation with well adjusted people.

What is the solution to get there?

The real challege of the western democarcies is purely economic.

As it take less people to produce the goods for the people unemployement rises.

The question is do these unemployed get
1) a free ride
2) a path towards no health care, hunger and death
3) an oppirunity to serve society

One would hope that the wealth is available to become more socialistic while still provding incentive.

One would fear that walls will just go up between the haves and the have nots and anytime you get alot of havenots you get big changes in the goverment some good, some bad on a historical scale of bad.

[rklenseth]

[/img]

[Tolomus]

Pirog>

communism has always been seen as a threat and thus fought against from the very start.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has always been fought against. During the Cold War, fine, then was the real fear that Communism was gaining too strong a hold. When it was just starting out, people generally treated it with apathy.

Whether 'True' Communism is 'supposed' to have a government is irrelevant; true Communism is an unrealistic way of life. You could never get a population to coordinate with each other without some form of central authority, which assigns laws, tells people how and when to work, etc. If there was no such authority, you can hardly trust everyone in Society to pull their own weight, and even if they did the coordination required for work to be productive needs to have some source, hence a government.

I personally don't think people are ready for a communistic society.

Nor do I, nor can I ever see people being 'ready' for it. Human nature makes it, IMO, necessary for some form of class division. I do not mean to the extent that class division has sometimes been taken to, but as I have said there has to be some orginisation to run things. If everyone was equal in all things, i.e. wealth, status, etc, as it would be in a 'True' Communist society, the people who were not running things would wonder why some run the country, and some do not. This attitude would lead to discontent. I know that if I lived in a society where everyone was indistinguishable in their ways of life, I would want to be a part of the decision process in the country. If everyone thought like that, nothing would ever be done. I just cannot see an entire population functioning selflessly in this 'True' Communism.

As to Mao, I would say that at the start he was doing good for the country, and perhaps even had the country's best interests at heart. Communsim, however, made it possible for bad aspects of society to thrive, which was almost certainly the source of Mao's eventual paranoia, which led to many 'purges' of people he believed were against him.

communism, not the perverted results of dictators who have claimed power under it's name

This implies that it is the leaders who have perverted Communism. I agree, but the environment that Communism generates also contributes to the leaders.

Capitalistic Democracies, in the sense that they encourage growth of economy, etc, seem fine to me. I agree with equality of people in their value AS people, and free speech, etc. Also, the 'greed' you mention is present in all Communist area's, as well as Democracies. At least Democracy allows some people to use what they gain for the benefit of others.

As to the ten commandments, I do not instinctively like the idea of such strict religious rules. I prefer to take a person's life as a whole to see if they are 'good' people or not. Religion, to me, is a good idea taken to seriously and, in some cases, rigidly. I do not consider myself religious in a standard way, i.e. I don't go to Church, etc. However, I believe in God, I try to live my life without doing evil to others, cause suffering, etc, and I believe that, on a whole, I am a 'good' person. Greed, if you do not screw other people to get there, can also be harnassed for good.

[Pirog]

Meh>

Democracy did not intend to spread in that way but did nottheless.

But a world revolution doesn't have to mean a bloody carnage around the world. The communists pretty much counted on the rest of the world following willingly if they could see a couple of successfull revolutions as examples.

But I agree that for communism to work pretty much every country would have to become communistic, or the communisti countries would have to isolate themselves.

You say "forcing democracy" as if there is an alternative.

Well, perhaps it is not the democracy in itself that is forced...it's just the way that the western societies becomes a model in these new parts, with huge corporations exploiting everything they can, that bothers me.
And it isn't true democracy either, because the Americans would never allow the elections to be deciding if the Iraqis voted an anti-American as their leader.

Right. Your an Anarchist but haven't come to accept it. Communism is no path to Anarchy.

Well, no. I actually believe in democracy, but since I don't share your paranoia and fear of communism I can still critize how our democracies work and leave an opening for a better way in the future...

The only place communism or rather anarchy would work is in isolation from the rest of the world with well adjusted people.

Well, I share that view. That is one of the reasons I don't think communism would work in our present situation. But who knows what happens further on?

So this "never have been given a chance" is like saying that "toast has never been given a chance to not get soggy in a rainstorm".

No, I see it more like you saying "toast always get's soggy, when you keep eating them under water." The western societies have made very sure that communistic countries never had a real chance of functioning, mainly because our leaders have been scared shitless of losing power.

To give what you call comunism a chance you have to stop the world and the world is too large to take on all at once like that. And peice by peice doesn't work either.

I think you are still focusing to much about how the world works at the moment. Much can change in the future...if people would WANT communism, it wouldn't have to be impossible.

Communism plainly doesn't work.

I don't believe in putting things like that.
You can express your view, but you are in no position to tell an absolute truth.

The real challege of the western democarcies is purely economic.

Well, it's such ideas that makes me lose hope in the western societies.
You are so involved in the capitalistic thinking that you can no longer see a society based on different ideas than money.

west>

You are not serious about that, right?

[Pirog]

Tolomus>

true Communism is an unrealistic way of life.

Well...if you consider from the view of a neanderthal man, our current way of living doesn't seem very realistic either, right?
Everything not yet invented seems unrealistic...otherwise we would allready have discovered it.

but as I have said there has to be some orginisation to run things.

Well, yes...but the organisation doesn't have to be in the shape of a "council" of people making decisions for others.
There are many diverse ideas about how a society could work under communitic, or similar, ideas.
One person I find interesting is Charles Fourier, but as I said I would have to leave it to you to find their deas out by yourself.

Their main ideas is how much more efficient a society becomes by having happy workers. These ideas are slowly being tried, for example:
In Sweden some factories have tried 3 shifts, where people work 6 hours instead of 9, but still get payed for the 9 hours.
It hardly sounds very efficient economically, but it has been shown that by reducing the burden of the workers, they work so efficiently - and the abscense related to diseases or people being burnt-out has decreased so much - that the third shift of people get's payed from the benifits of the efficiency.
If such a system could come in effect we could probably wipe out unemployment all together...and at the same time people would get a lot more free time on their hands, so that they have power to do more than crash in front of the TV when they come home from work...

This implies that it is the leaders who have perverted Communism. I agree, but the environment that Communism generates also contributes to the leaders.

But how could anyone know that, when every attempt to form a communistic society has either failed miserably by itself in it's early stages or been defeated by the armed forces of western democracies?

If George Bush would suddenly seize power in USA and form some hideous dictatorship democrats around the world would claim that the democracy in itself can not be blamed for such events...but when the same people look at communism they see the Stalin version of communism as real communism...it's quite hypocratic.

Capitalistic Democracies, in the sense that they encourage growth of economy, etc, seem fine to me. I agree with equality of people in their value AS people, and free speech, etc.

But that is no longer how it works.
Do you actually think president Bush consider himself equally worth to the average guy on the street?
Does white people see themselves equal to black people?
(some, even many of course does, but far from everybody.)
The focus on making money in the capitalistic democracies is what makes us so selfish. In the grand scale of things we no longer help our "brothers" if we don't think we can end up earning som money for it at the end.