Letting all these asylum seekers in giving them free meals and free housing they're coming from every country imaginable. What a bunch of rubbish. Europe is being rubbished by design. This is nothing short of communism. What a bunch of b*******
Printable View
Letting all these asylum seekers in giving them free meals and free housing they're coming from every country imaginable. What a bunch of rubbish. Europe is being rubbished by design. This is nothing short of communism. What a bunch of b*******
'They Don’t Respect Our*Law’: German Police Union Chief Says Force Is ‘Overwhelmed’
There's quite a bit of difference moving from war torn shithole into a nice country that has rule of law...this is going to be difficult for years to come
If only it was Communism; sadly it is not even Socialism. Europe is drifting more and more to the right, and scarily, more authoritarian to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
How???Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidIf only it was Communism; sadly it is not even Socialism. Europe is drifting more and more to the right, and scarily, more authoritarian to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
In the UK, Ministers this week, have signed a pledge that does not recognize international law. The Tories also this week stripped thousands of pounds off each of the poorest working class with families, by removing tax credits. They also enforced a law stripping the rights of over a hundred MPs to debate and vote on certain bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongHow???Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidIf only it was Communism; sadly it is not even Socialism. Europe is drifting more and more to the right, and scarily, more authoritarian to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
In France the National Front are polling second and with the Conservative party, are hot favourites to contest the next Presidential election, as the Socialist President Hollande struggles to have influence.
In Spain the right are firing themselves up to make sure the Catalan left do not get the opportunity to have a vote on Independence.
In Italy the far right are the leading party.
Both Austria and the Netherlands have strong far right parties with charismatic leaders.
In Germany the far right are for the first time in seventy years are gaining mainstream press and appeal (all be it limited at the moment).
Greece's Anarcho Alliance has been broken by German financial muscle.
1. A) What parts of international law? Or international law in general? Wouldn't you the average British citizen be better served by your government which YOU had a hand in electing rather than some hodge podge of Star Trek Federation wannabes? I mean not everyone at the UN has your best interests at heart...and quite a few of those international politicians are corrupt as shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
B) The Tories no doubt did this to spite the "working class"...by the way I LOVE that English people say "working class" like there is some sort of a caste system in place.
C) Ah they enforced a law....meaning it was already on the books....those scoundrels!
2. So Hollande has failed as a leader, people are looking for answers, is it wrong to look at Hollande's detractors seeing how they've been correct about his inability to lead?
3. Oh so you believe Catalan should have the right to peaceful secession do you....interesting that
4. "Far right" which would be what party? Brothers of Italy? Conservatives & Reformists? New Centre-Right? What party??? What is their platform?
5. Oh no, how dare a party at odds with Socialism and Communism have charismatic leaders
6. Well I guess perhaps people aren't too pleased with the leadership the Center or Left or Center Left have provided?
7. Greece is in dire straights and they can either keep going down the road that got them where they are today or they can try something different.
I don't see why the "evil right wing" is a problem...Canada just elected a Socialist Mimbo as PM, The United States has had a lefty as President for going on 7 years. people can and do get tired of the same old shit especially when the results they're seeing and feeling are poor.
In theory no parts of International law.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Well unlike you, our leader is not elected, nor is our upper house. So I would say there still is a class struggle here. You could one day be President of the USA, I could not be King of the UK.Quote:
B) The Tories no doubt did this to spite the "working class"...by the way I LOVE that English people say "working class" like there is some sort of a caste system in place.
A poor use of words on my part. They will now enforce the law they voted in yesterday.Quote:
C) Ah they enforced a law....meaning it was already on the books....those scoundrels!
Yes they do not want Socialism, they are going to the right, hence my point.Quote:
2. So Hollande has failed as a leader, people are looking for answers, is it wrong to look at Hollande's detractors seeing how they've been correct about his inability to lead?
Actually I believe in direct action, not necessarily peaceful succession...Quote:
3. Oh so you believe Catalan should have the right to peaceful secession do you....interesting that
The Northern League and the Five Star MovementQuote:
4. "Far right" which would be what party? Brothers of Italy? Conservatives & Reformists? New Centre-Right? What party??? What is their platform?
Indeed! Good to see we are on the same side here.Quote:
5. Oh no, how dare a party at odds with Socialism and Communism have charismatic leaders
As mentioned my point is they are turning to the right.Quote:
6. Well I guess perhaps people aren't too pleased with the leadership the Center or Left or Center Left have provided?
Hence they voted in an Anarcho Alliance.Quote:
7. Greece is in dire straights and they can either keep going down the road that got them where they are today or they can try something different.
You do realize on the political map, Obama is further to the right than the right leaning mainstream parties of Europe, and arguably more authoritarian too?!Quote:
I don't see why the "evil right wing" is a problem...Canada just elected a Socialist Mimbo as PM, The United States has had a lefty as President for going on 7 years. people can and do get tired of the same old shit especially when the results they're seeing and feeling are poor.
ooh, bummer. Worst US Prez of all time.
You do know that authoritarian politicians can be either left or right?
Do I need to give a list of authoritarian lefties?
Do I have to tell everyone who's behind this? How about the same people who are funding Isis.
North korea eh! kim wrong chongQuote:
Originally Posted by mrbig1
hahaha i agree its soft
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=ZiyDsgkodwQ
All politicians want to be authoritarian, it is what they signed up for. It is that Obama leads an executive that executes its authority using a Constitution written over two hundred year ago, and that has had what a mere seventeen amendments added?! That makes his job seemingly that bit more authoritarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
I think that if he, and every other president (and Congress) of my lifetime, at least, operated within the confines of the US Constitution, there would be far less authoritarianism in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAll politicians want to be authoritarian, it is what they signed up for. It is that Obama leads an executive that executes its authority using a Constitution written over two hundred year old, and that has had what a mere seventeen amendments added?! that makes his job seemingly that bit more authoritarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
:rolleyes: #1 Not exactly who I had in mind #2 The Constitution declares what the government CANNOT do and to that point grey is correct, if the Constitution was actually followed there would be far less authoritarianism in the Legislative and Executive branches of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAll politicians want to be authoritarian, it is what they signed up for. It is that Obama leads an executive that executes its authority using a Constitution written over two hundred year ago, and that has had what a mere seventeen amendments added?! That makes his job seemingly that bit more authoritarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution, 26 really seeing how the 21st undoes the 18th.....if you're going to take digs at the Constitution at least take a fucking second to understand it or study it....who knows, maybe you'll find it interesting instead of just taking it for granted and assuming a lot of bullshit about it.
It is over 200 years old and yet including the original ten there have been only 27 amendments...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong:rolleyes: #1 Not exactly who I had in mind #2 The Constitution declares what the government CANNOT do and to that point grey is correct, if the Constitution was actually followed there would be far less authoritarianism in the Legislative and Executive branches of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAll politicians want to be authoritarian, it is what they signed up for. It is that Obama leads an executive that executes its authority using a Constitution written over two hundred year ago, and that has had what a mere seventeen amendments added?! That makes his job seemingly that bit more authoritarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution, 26 really seeing how the 21st undoes the 18th.....if you're going to take digs at the Constitution at least take a fucking second to understand it or study it....who knows, maybe you'll find it interesting instead of just taking it for granted and assuming a lot of bullshit about it.
That truly is ridiculous, Constitutions need to change with the times, or else you are stuck with an ancient Conservative system. The US once claimed leadership of the 'free' world, but as the world has opened up, its Constitution has eroded its influence, and has now in some measures been overtaken by China in both economic size and hegemony, and in due course India will overtake the US too.
It is exactly the same arrogance that cost my Country hegemony; the refusal to change with the times, to use powers other than military to get the job done, it is so disappointing and frustrating, as the US was supposed to be different...
The idea of the constitution is to limit the power of government. They found ways around that but fortunately they can't get around the amendment process. Do you think more amendments would make things better? The less it is screwed with the better. India and China will continue to grow in influence but you will see a drastically different approach which will make the US look like a brilliant place.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidIt is over 200 years old and yet including the original ten there have been only 27 amendments...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong:rolleyes: #1 Not exactly who I had in mind #2 The Constitution declares what the government CANNOT do and to that point grey is correct, if the Constitution was actually followed there would be far less authoritarianism in the Legislative and Executive branches of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAll politicians want to be authoritarian, it is what they signed up for. It is that Obama leads an executive that executes its authority using a Constitution written over two hundred year ago, and that has had what a mere seventeen amendments added?! That makes his job seemingly that bit more authoritarian...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And there are 27 Amendments to the Constitution, 26 really seeing how the 21st undoes the 18th.....if you're going to take digs at the Constitution at least take a fucking second to understand it or study it....who knows, maybe you'll find it interesting instead of just taking it for granted and assuming a lot of bullshit about it.
That truly is ridiculous, Constitutions need to change with the times, or else you are stuck with an ancient Conservative system. The US once claimed leadership of the 'free' world, but as the world has opened up, its Constitution has eroded its influence, and has now in some measures been overtaken by China in both economic size and hegemony, and in due course India will overtake the US too.
It is exactly the same arrogance that cost my Country hegemony; the refusal to change with the times, to use powers other than military to get the job done, it is so disappointing and frustrating, as the US was supposed to be different...
That is where the US has got it wrong. As Marx showed Capitalism needs to be controlled by the State. That the US executive cannot do this unlike say China, is a big disadvantage. The US has in recent years been a one trick pony, granted the trick is awesome (its military force), but still it has lost more and more kudos and the Government with its hands tied by that Constitution can do little about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Hold on let me think about that.........hmmmm.........na, I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidThat is where the US has got it wrong. As Marx showed Capitalism needs to be controlled by the State. That the US executive cannot do this unlike say China, is a big disadvantage. The US has in recent years been a one trick pony, granted the trick is awesome (its military force), but still it has lost more and more kudos and the Government with its hands tied by that Constitution can do little about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Hence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Yes, and China is what, seven years away from out doing the ussr in length of communist rule, but how much communism is in China. Where are the workers rights, are stocks and property being flipped, are there great divides in social classes. Is England charging money to visit Marx grave. Where is communism. Why did Marx buy a private grave in England instead of having the party provide one. What happened to the great Marx. It seems he has become a capitalist in death. Have you paid the pounds to visit his grave. How much communism is left in China, and if it didn't move away from communism in its financial sector, it probably already would have imploded. You pine about Spain, exactly how long did the commies prevail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidHence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Did he? And who did he show that to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Where is Marx's perfect Communist/Socialist utopia? Is it Cuba? Is it North Korea? Is it China? Was it the USSR? Was it Nazi Germany? Was it East Germany? Was it one of the Soviet satellite states like Romania or Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia? Is it Vietnam? Cambodia?
I hear tell of how brilliant Marx was and how he revolutionized politics and economics and how people have tried to implement his ideas but they just go astray for one reason or another...maybe it's from Capitalist meddling, but you guys never seem to have the perfect formula. And to that end, if Communism and Socialism are such fragile little things as compared to Capitalism which can withstand the centuries and see it's poor even have access to luxuries the average commie couldn't afford....why is it seen as "more fair" or "more just" or "more perfect"? Because from where I sit....Marx's work looks like the fevered dream of an ideologue, nothing more.
Brook, what you gonna do about it :)?
http://www.n0.se/f/n/1aaf8_654212dba98e8700.jpg
I am going to ululea and jonkoping and gothenborg and and I am kicking ass and kicking out all Middle Eastern immigrantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Xwetie
To me Communism is dead, the Communist Manifesto is a flawed document, Marx's strength is as a critique of Capitalism, not his (and Engels) solution. As you alluded to, what is happening in China is a further development in Communism, an interesting social experiment, that seems thus far to be working, at least economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYes, and China is what, seven years away from out doing the ussr in length of communist rule, but how much communism is in China. Where are the workers rights, are stocks and property being flipped, are there great divides in social classes. Is England charging money to visit Marx grave. Where is communism. Why did Marx buy a private grave in England instead of having the party provide one. What happened to the great Marx. It seems he has become a capitalist in death. Have you paid the pounds to visit his grave. How much communism is left in China, and if it didn't move away from communism in its financial sector, it probably already would have imploded. You pine about Spain, exactly how long did the commies prevail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidHence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for Spain, although not winning the popular vote in the Republican sector to at first a coalition of the left (which they were involved in) and then finally the Anarchists, the money the Soviet Union was pumping in meant the Communists were the de-facto power for almost all of the nearly three years of the Civil War.
Marx's strength is as a critique of Capitalism, I am with you over the Communist Manifesto, I do not agree with it as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongDid he? And who did he show that to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Where is Marx's perfect Communist/Socialist utopia? Is it Cuba? Is it North Korea? Is it China? Was it the USSR? Was it Nazi Germany? Was it East Germany? Was it one of the Soviet satellite states like Romania or Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia? Is it Vietnam? Cambodia?
I hear tell of how brilliant Marx was and how he revolutionized politics and economics and how people have tried to implement his ideas but they just go astray for one reason or another...maybe it's from Capitalist meddling, but you guys never seem to have the perfect formula. And to that end, if Communism and Socialism are such fragile little things as compared to Capitalism which can withstand the centuries and see it's poor even have access to luxuries the average commie couldn't afford....why is it seen as "more fair" or "more just" or "more perfect"? Because from where I sit....Marx's work looks like the fevered dream of an ideologue, nothing more.
As stated in the past, I think the answer is Anarcho Syndicalism for the Developed Capitalist powers. To get to that position I believe initially Socialism would be a good starting point.
Marx: a Spectre is haunting Europe...... The specter of communism
But a mere critique is not what he meant. Mao chastised Kruschev for dismissing Stalin saying the only way to get back to where things should be is further study of Marx and Lenin. Mao believed he had the perfect communist utopia, how many did he kill, estimates range from 40 to 70 million, of his own people of course. So Mao thought Stalin was a good communist. China is not a good example of a communist country making change, it was corrupt and torturous from the beginning and remains that way today. If you think Marx intent was to merely critique capitalism, you are missing his point. One can critique capitalism saying the well being of man is in none of its economic indicators but when you search countries around the world to see where proper food and water is available 8 out of ten are in capitalist countries. Economist point to the Chinese economy as being a paper tiger ( Mao called the US military a paper tiger) some economists predict the wheels will fall off. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the Chinese economy to say one way or another. I've been to China numerous times and found the people to be wonderful. They complain about their government much as we do here. I wouldn't say all aspects of socialism are bad, I think too much government can be a bad thing, which is what the constitution is supposed to do, limit the powers of government to allow freedom to the republic. I'm sure communism has some noble ideas but the only thing that can be proven is that it has failed. There is socialism in communism just as there is socialism in democracy. Norway models itself as a socialist state where the government controls much of industry, or at least oil industry and gives money from that industry to the people. However, cracks are beginning to show in that system. If you want to use communism to critique capitalism, go right ahead, but let recent history show not just the critique, but reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidTo me Communism is dead, the Communist Manifesto is a flawed document, Marx's strength is as a critique of Capitalism, not his (and Engels) solution. As you alluded to, what is happening in China is a further development in Communism, an interesting social experiment, that seems thus far to be working, at least economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYes, and China is what, seven years away from out doing the ussr in length of communist rule, but how much communism is in China. Where are the workers rights, are stocks and property being flipped, are there great divides in social classes. Is England charging money to visit Marx grave. Where is communism. Why did Marx buy a private grave in England instead of having the party provide one. What happened to the great Marx. It seems he has become a capitalist in death. Have you paid the pounds to visit his grave. How much communism is left in China, and if it didn't move away from communism in its financial sector, it probably already would have imploded. You pine about Spain, exactly how long did the commies prevail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidHence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for Spain, although not winning the popular vote in the Republican sector to at first a coalition of the left (which they were involved in) and then finally the Anarchists, the money the Soviet Union was pumping in meant the Communists were the de-facto power for almost all of the nearly three years of the Civil War.
Again you are missing my point about Marx in this debate. The Communist Manifesto is not what I look at when I read Marx. (Das) [K]Capital is the main tool for the critique of Capitalism I am discussing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusBut a mere critique is not what he meant. Mao chastised Kruschev for dismissing Stalin saying the only way to get back to where things should be is further study of Marx and Lenin. Mao believed he had the perfect communist utopia, how many did he kill, estimates range from 40 to 70 million, of his own people of course. So Mao thought Stalin was a good communist. China is not a good example of a communist country making change, it was corrupt and torturous from the beginning and remains that way today. If you think Marx intent was to merely critique capitalism, you are missing his point. One can critique capitalism saying the well being of man is in none of its economic indicators but when you search countries around the world to see where proper food and water is available 8 out of ten are in capitalist countries. Economist point to the Chinese economy as being a paper tiger ( Mao called the US military a paper tiger) some economists predict the wheels will fall off. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the Chinese economy to say one way or another. I've been to China numerous times and found the people to be wonderful. They complain about their government much as we do here. I wouldn't say all aspects of socialism are bad, I think too much government can be a bad thing, which is what the constitution is supposed to do, limit the powers of government to allow freedom to the republic. I'm sure communism has some noble ideas but the only thing that can be proven is that it has failed. There is socialism in communism just as there is socialism in democracy. Norway models itself as a socialist state where the government controls much of industry, or at least oil industry and gives money from that industry to the people. However, cracks are beginning to show in that system. If you want to use communism to critique capitalism, go right ahead, but let recent history show not just the critique, but reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidTo me Communism is dead, the Communist Manifesto is a flawed document, Marx's strength is as a critique of Capitalism, not his (and Engels) solution. As you alluded to, what is happening in China is a further development in Communism, an interesting social experiment, that seems thus far to be working, at least economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYes, and China is what, seven years away from out doing the ussr in length of communist rule, but how much communism is in China. Where are the workers rights, are stocks and property being flipped, are there great divides in social classes. Is England charging money to visit Marx grave. Where is communism. Why did Marx buy a private grave in England instead of having the party provide one. What happened to the great Marx. It seems he has become a capitalist in death. Have you paid the pounds to visit his grave. How much communism is left in China, and if it didn't move away from communism in its financial sector, it probably already would have imploded. You pine about Spain, exactly how long did the commies prevail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidHence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for Spain, although not winning the popular vote in the Republican sector to at first a coalition of the left (which they were involved in) and then finally the Anarchists, the money the Soviet Union was pumping in meant the Communists were the de-facto power for almost all of the nearly three years of the Civil War.
Capitalism in its initial stages has shown to have benefits in the development and structure of a state. And then when combined with Socialism as was the case even in the States to a point after WWII, can bring incredible benefits. But Capital is potentially infinite, so sooner or later will be corrupted. The Working class of the Developed World have not received a real terms pay increase with the exception of a brief period in the 90s, since the 70s. The time has come, Capital is corrupted, a huge warning sign of this occurred in 2007-09, we have had the benefits of Capitalism, there is a need for change, a need to develop further...
....I'll never ever understand why anyone would believe in socialism or communism...unless they had absolutely no skills at all or absolutely no motivation at all.
So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAgain you are missing my point about Marx in this debate. The Communist Manifesto is not what I look at when I read Marx. (Das) [K]Capital is the main tool for the critique of Capitalism I am discussing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusBut a mere critique is not what he meant. Mao chastised Kruschev for dismissing Stalin saying the only way to get back to where things should be is further study of Marx and Lenin. Mao believed he had the perfect communist utopia, how many did he kill, estimates range from 40 to 70 million, of his own people of course. So Mao thought Stalin was a good communist. China is not a good example of a communist country making change, it was corrupt and torturous from the beginning and remains that way today. If you think Marx intent was to merely critique capitalism, you are missing his point. One can critique capitalism saying the well being of man is in none of its economic indicators but when you search countries around the world to see where proper food and water is available 8 out of ten are in capitalist countries. Economist point to the Chinese economy as being a paper tiger ( Mao called the US military a paper tiger) some economists predict the wheels will fall off. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the Chinese economy to say one way or another. I've been to China numerous times and found the people to be wonderful. They complain about their government much as we do here. I wouldn't say all aspects of socialism are bad, I think too much government can be a bad thing, which is what the constitution is supposed to do, limit the powers of government to allow freedom to the republic. I'm sure communism has some noble ideas but the only thing that can be proven is that it has failed. There is socialism in communism just as there is socialism in democracy. Norway models itself as a socialist state where the government controls much of industry, or at least oil industry and gives money from that industry to the people. However, cracks are beginning to show in that system. If you want to use communism to critique capitalism, go right ahead, but let recent history show not just the critique, but reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidTo me Communism is dead, the Communist Manifesto is a flawed document, Marx's strength is as a critique of Capitalism, not his (and Engels) solution. As you alluded to, what is happening in China is a further development in Communism, an interesting social experiment, that seems thus far to be working, at least economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYes, and China is what, seven years away from out doing the ussr in length of communist rule, but how much communism is in China. Where are the workers rights, are stocks and property being flipped, are there great divides in social classes. Is England charging money to visit Marx grave. Where is communism. Why did Marx buy a private grave in England instead of having the party provide one. What happened to the great Marx. It seems he has become a capitalist in death. Have you paid the pounds to visit his grave. How much communism is left in China, and if it didn't move away from communism in its financial sector, it probably already would have imploded. You pine about Spain, exactly how long did the commies prevail there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidHence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for Spain, although not winning the popular vote in the Republican sector to at first a coalition of the left (which they were involved in) and then finally the Anarchists, the money the Soviet Union was pumping in meant the Communists were the de-facto power for almost all of the nearly three years of the Civil War.
Capitalism in its initial stages has shown to have benefits in the development and structure of a state. And then when combined with Socialism as was the case even in the States to a point after WWII, can bring incredible benefits. But Capital is potentially infinite, so sooner or later will be corrupted. The Working class of the Developed World have not received a real terms pay increase with the exception of a brief period in the 90s, since the 70s. The time has come, Capital is corrupted, a huge warning sign of this occurred in 2007-09, we have had the benefits of Capitalism, there is a need for change, a need to develop further...
Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
So.....mob rule is best?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
You can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongSo.....mob rule is best?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
In general terms, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongSo.....mob rule is best?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Anarcho Syndicate is generally built on a form of a 'Federal structure'. But yes it could be described as a confederacy, but I tried to avoid that term, as I suspect it has 'loaded' meanings to Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYou can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongSo.....mob rule is best?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.
After the revolution and prior to the civil war our first form of government was a confederate. Didn't work out well. If you read our history you will see there were a few presidents before Washington, Washington was the fist under the constitution. So a confederate was tried here in the US and was not sustainable. I believe Switzerland is a confederate, don't know how many other confederate countries are out their. No American should take issue with you using the word confederate especially when discussing forms of government. None of us are advocating slavery, although I know you commies are big on that in your gulags and what not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidAnarcho Syndicate is generally built on a form of a 'Federal structure'. But yes it could be described as a confederacy, but I tried to avoid that term, as I suspect it has 'loaded' meanings to Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusYou can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongSo.....mob rule is best?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.
Yes Communism liked its gulags; the UK invented the Concentration Camp and the US advocates torture... Changing the system will not resolve that aspect of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...
We only advocate torture when we really want to know something and someone won't tell us. But seriously, I'm against torture but it must be tempting when you have a known terrorist in front of you. If you caught the guy who had your family somewhere, would you torture him to find where they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes Communism liked its gulags; the UK invented the Concentration Camp and the US advocates torture... Changing the system will not resolve that aspect of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...
Advocating torture is almost a norm in world society generally. As I said, I think no matter what the political model that is not going to change anytime soon. As for your question, I would like to think I would not, but I cannot say for certain, who could?!Quote:
Originally Posted by walrusWe only advocate torture when we really want to know something and someone won't tell us. But seriously, I'm against torture but it must be tempting when you have a known terrorist in front of you. If you caught the guy who had your family somewhere, would you torture him to find where they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidYes Communism liked its gulags; the UK invented the Concentration Camp and the US advocates torture... Changing the system will not resolve that aspect of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...