Thoughts about democracy...

[The Hunter]

Everything not yet invented seems unrealistic...otherwise we would allready have discovered it

Gotta love that one...

Anyway, Democracy isn't the only solution.
(Yep, that's all I'm going to say in this thread).

[Meh]

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.

Plainly untrue.

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...

It is not paranoia and fear you detcted. It is the same realisation you have that it will not work at the moment.

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.

So the arguement is that the world would have to turn over a new leaf. Sure fine. In Utopia anything is possible. How do you get from reality to there? What are the steps? What is the plan?

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.

Correction: Communism has plainly never worked and there is no plan to alter to present realities to make it so it can work.

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.

Say what you will about long dead thories like communism and spontanous generation but know that communism was a politcal AND ecomonmic solution. Economics is not capitalistic. Economics is not solely about money. Economics is about meetings peoples needs and wants. Ignoring ecomonmics is ignoring reality.

[Tolomus]

The Hunter>
No, but IMO it's the best, realistic solution.

Pirog>

Well...if you consider from the view of a neanderthal man, our current way of living doesn't seem very realistic either, right?

Yes, but the difference is neanderthal never had a concept or thought of 'our current way of life', as of the massive differences between the technologies that make our way of life possible. We, however, have a concept of 'True Communism', and are generally more educated than neanderthal.

In Sweden some factories have tried 3 shifts, where people work 6 hours instead of 9, but still get payed for the 9 hours.

I have never heard of that, how long was this kept up? It could well be that it was a shortish experiment, in which case the better results, or at least part of them, could be explained by the novelty of the shorter working day. If that was kept as the norm perminantly, future generations would consider that normal, and it's effects may not be as obvious. Also, these 'happy workers' still had some form of higher authority to tell them what to do and when to do it. The best form of this is generally a 'council' of sorts.

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?

One can know that because every Communist government has produced some of the worst people in history. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, who killed like 3 million people, etc.

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...

The operative word if IF; it won't. Even if Bush is a bit on the thick side, he does genuinely believe in Democracy. Also, even if it did happen, that would be one case of Democracy doing this, Communism did it all the time.

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.

I would go so far as to say that. Of course, it is true for some, but many people and orginisations are completely non-profit, and do things for no other reason than to help.

[west]

Actually, nobody does anything without some sort of personal benefit...
whether it's self-satisfaction for helping somebody, or some less obvious benefit, everyone gets something out of it--if they do it of their own free will, that is.

No such thing as altruism.

[Tolomus]

Of course, self-satisfaction does play a role, but I think that is a good thing, when compared to profiting from it financially, etc, which affects other; self-satisfaction is completely personal and doesn't affect others.

[Pirog]

Meh>

Plainly untrue.

Oh, really? So if the Iraqis voted Bin Laden as their president (not a big chance ) America would just accept it and leave?
Wow...that's having a lot of faith in democracy.

In Utopia anything is possible. How do you get from reality to there? What are the steps? What is the plan?

Well, obviously I don't have an answer to that...but the world wouldn't have gotten this far if people just gave up hoping whenever they didn't find immeadiate solutions.

Correction: Communism has plainly never worked and there is no plan to alter to present realities to make it so it can work.

Well...there are plans, but the failed experiments so far makes people afraid of even listening to them.
But we need to face something. Stalin, Pol Pot etc. were are horrible people, but to other parts of the world Bush, Blair and other western leaders are equally hated. Nothing has killed so many people as the imperialism of Europe and America.

Ignoring ecomonmics is ignoring reality.

You are right...I misunderstood what you wrote.

[Pirog]

We, however, have a concept of 'True Communism', and are generally more educated than neanderthal.

I actually don't think that many people have a good concept about true communism, because if everybody had it we could make it work today.
A lot of people thinks communism stands for a dictatorship that decides the production of a country and where the people have no power.

In I think that if humanity still exists in a couple of hundred years we will probably not stand out as very educated in their view.
(Of course we would in comparion to a neanderthal man, but I was simply trying to make a point about how everything seems realistic until it is proven.)

I have never heard of that, how long was this kept up?

It is still working in the factories that tried it, but as usual people are afraid to try new things...so the larger political parties doesn't want to implement it in their programs out of fear of losing voters.

One can know that because every Communist government has produced some of the worst people in history. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, who killed like 3 million people, etc.

But if the communists had been on the winning side we wouldn't have known them as such horrible persons.
There are many European and American leaders that has done equally horrible things, but politics works in such a way that you keep those things from the history books.
Keep in mind that you American live on occupied land from the indians, and that the European colonialism has f*cked up a huge part of this world forever, by drawing boundries on the world map by rulers...

Even if Bush is a bit on the thick side, he does genuinely believe in Democracy.

Well, I'm not saying that Bush would do such a thing...I said it to prove a point. And it would hardly be the only case where democracy fails. Look at countries like Russia...or hell, even look at your own last election.

Of course, it is true for some, but many people and orginisations are completely non-profit, and do things for no other reason than to help.

Yes, I know there are many kind hearted people out there.
But most donations are for PR purposes, and many are for very selfish gains. Like much of the American aid to third world countries, where you give them genetically altered food that isn't properly tested and/or makes the people dependent on the companies that donated them.
I know most of you Americans have a hard time believing that, but it is true.

[Pirog]

west>

That is just a theory that I personally don't believe in.
People who die for others doesn't have any personal gain from it...unless you are cynical enough to imply that they do it because they want to be remembered as heroes. (not meant as an accusation)

[Tolomus]

In I think that if humanity still exists in a couple of hundred years we will probably not stand out as very educated in their view.
(Of course we would in comparion to a neanderthal man, but I was simply trying to make a point about how everything seems realistic until it is proven.)

I realise that, but the difference between neanderthal and us now is rather more than a 'couple of hundred years'.

Keep in mind that you American live on occupied land from the indians, and that the European colonialism has f*cked up a huge part of this world forever, by drawing boundries on the world map by rulers...

For one, I'm a Brit. Also, I'm not saying that Europeans have never done wrong, etc, but it just seems the worst massacres and tragedies have occured in places such as Communist countries, amongst others.

Like much of the American aid to third world countries, where you give them genetically altered food that isn't properly tested and/or makes the people dependent on the companies that donated them.
I know most of you Americans have a hard time believing that, but it is true.

As I say, I am not American. Also, I am under no illusions about how the world works. As to the dependancy, that is innevitable when 'giving' them food. However, work has been in many such countries to help them sustain themselves. An example of which is IT (Intermediate Technology
), which builds sustainable aid systems in countries in Africa. Not only is this for no significant gain on their own part, but also will eventually make it possible for African people to help themselves, and not rely on foreign countries.

[Pirog]

I realise that, but the difference between neanderthal and us now is rather more than a 'couple of hundred years'.

Yeah, forget about the neanderthal...it was a stupid example from me.
Just take someone who lived a couple of hundred years ago...

For one, I'm a Brit. Also, I'm not saying that Europeans have never done wrong, etc, but it just seems the worst massacres and tragedies have occured in places such as Communist countries, amongst others.

Sorry, thought you were American.
But what you said about the communists isn't true.
Look at how the colonial powers acted in Africa and Asia.
Just the way the European countries has killed eachother has no match in human history.

[rklenseth]

Yes, Pirog. But we are talking about full fledge democracies not European History. During the Colonial Age, European countries were still ruled by a king or queen or some such emperor with perhaps a smal fledging parliament that had little power.

World War I was started and fought by kings and emperors over other wars thathad ended over 50 years ago.

World War II was started by a maniac dictator that rose to power by using thug tatics.

Yes, America has done some terrible things but nothing to compare to the millions of people killed by Stalin under his regime.

[Tolomus]

Sorry, thought you were American.

Don't insult my intelligence

But we are talking about full fledge democracies not European History. During the Colonial Age, European countries were still ruled by a king or queen or some such emperor with perhaps a smal fledging parliament that had little power.

Thank you, Badger (rklenseth). I was just going to say that.

Yes, America has done some terrible things but nothing to compare to the millions of people killed by Stalin under his regime.

Again, perfectly true. This is not to mention others, such as Mao, Pol Pot, as mentioned before.

[Pirog]

Badger>

Yes, Pirog. But we are talking about full fledge democracies not European History. During the Colonial Age, European countries were still ruled by a king or queen or some such emperor with perhaps a smal fledging parliament that had little power.

Most European colonial powers had colonies even after WW2...

World War I was started and fought by kings and emperors over other wars thathad ended over 50 years ago.

Where did you learn that?

World War II was started by a maniac dictator that rose to power by using thug tatics.

Well, that is true...but a big reason for Hitler coming to power was the apallingly bad peace treaty Germany was forced to sign after WW1.
They really didn't have much other choices that to start another war.
(Don't take this as a defence of Nazi Germany)

Yes, America has done some terrible things but nothing to compare to the millions of people killed by Stalin under his regime.

So the mindless slaughter of the indians wasn't really a big deal then?
Dropping the atom bombs over Japan when the war was practically over was no big deal?
Constantly supporting armed conflicts around the world with millions of dead as results are no big deal?

Stalin was a horrible person indeed, but there has been similarly ruthless people on the European and American side.
The commanders during WW1 who sent millions of people to meaningless deaths where as bad as Stalin. They didn't kill as many people, but they could have if they would have gotten the chance.

If Bush could, I think he would have little problem nuking a large part of the Middle East...

[Bran-Muffin]

"So the mindless slaughter of the indians wasn't really a big deal then?
Dropping the atom bombs over Japan when the war was practically over was no big deal?
Constantly supporting armed conflicts around the world with millions of dead as results are no big deal?"

Not everyone agrees with how the indians were treated, but dont just target that on america, that sort of thing has taken place all over the world, it is how most countries have been made, out with the weak in with the strong.

We did not drop an atom bombs on japan when the war was practically over. Dropping the atom bombs on japan saved millions of lives on both sides, if americans had to invade the mainland it would have resulted on millions more dieing on both sides. We dropped one bomb they still say 'we will fight to the last man, we will never surrender' we drop another and then they decide ok america is powerful we cant take another hit like that.

Supporting armed conflicts around the world resulting with dead on everyside, that means american lives to. Americans back then were afraid of the spread on communism and wanted to help the nations being invaded from it.

And i agree with who you took that quote from, those three things do not compare to stalin/hitler/saddam.


"The commanders during WW1 who sent millions of people to meaningless deaths where as bad as Stalin. They didn't kill as many people, but they could have if they would have gotten the chance"


How was it meaningless? It was meaningless to send troops into germany and other Nazi occupied countries to repeal the nazi advance and stop the murder of jews? I dont see how that is meaningless and i dont see how that is bad, and what people are you talking about that they killed? Americans killed nazi soliders and their allies what other people are you talking about?


Hope that makes sense and is on track with what you were saying.

[kroner]

"The commanders during WW1 who sent millions of people to meaningless deaths where as bad as Stalin. They didn't kill as many people, but they could have if they would have gotten the chance"
How was it meaningless? It was meaningless to send troops into germany and other Nazi occupied countries to repeal the nazi advance and stop the murder of jews? I dont see how that is meaningless and i dont see how that is bad, and what people are you talking about that they killed? Americans killed nazi soliders and their allies what other people are you talking about?

World War I man. WWI was fought for no reason what so ever except that Germany wanted to flex it's military muscle because it felt under appreciated, then there was whole bloody stupid alliance system. All in all it was completely pointless and the governments on all sides can be blamed for the mindless slaughter of several million people as well as the destruction of large parts of Europe. Then there's Versailles, which paved the way for WWII. You can blame it on Hitler or what ever you want, but someone like that could only come to power in the sort of environment created by the tremendous war reparations and other provisions meant to keep Germany down.
Now on to the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. It was indeed the end of the war. Japan was all but defeated. Although it may have been they never would have surrendered, was it justified to kill .2 million people, most of which were civilians? The mere demonstration that such a weapon existed would have been enough to prove to Japan that they would be destroyed if the war continued. Then the obvious target would be military bases... but no, it was two large cities.
Interestingly enough, there's a direct parellel here to terrorism. At this point, the US's military power is so strong that no one can stand up to it with conventional armies. Instead, people who feel that US advancement into their territory and their culture is a threat, use the last effective weapon they have, the killing of civilians in order to weaken US morale. Similarly, the US wanted to stop Japanese advancement and saw it as a threat, so when it felt that conventional armies would nolonger be efficient, they killed large numbers of civilians in order to destroy Japanese morale. Basically the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombings of German cities are no different from the terrorism that's been going on more recently, except in WWII it was on a much larger scale. Take that as you will to determine what I think of all of those events. Obviously I support American values over those of Nazi Germany more than I support Ilamic fundamentalism over American values so from a practical standpoint I support one over the other, but it's impossible to justify condemning one on principle and supporting the other.