Europe is too much of a soft touch

[walrus]

Hold on let me think about that.........hmmmm.........na, I'm right.

Hence my point that the US are making the same mistakes of past...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

[El Kabong]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

[walrus]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

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.

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

In general terms, yes.

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

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.

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.

As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.

[walrus]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

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.

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.

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.

[Britkid]

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.

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.

Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...

[walrus]

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.

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.

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?

[Britkid]

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.

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.

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?

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?!

[walrus]

If I was a hundred percent sure it was the right person I probably would. As far as the government using torture, if you could guarantee me they had the right person and could save lives I'd be all for torture. Unfortunately, I don't have the faith government will get it right. For the same reason I'm against the death penalty, the government does convict the innocent plus I don't think the government should have the power to take life. It just seems to me britkid, and I say this with respect as you are obviously not an idiot, but you have too much faith in government. I think communism and socialism invest more power in the government which I don't see as a good thing.

I don't know if you've read it across the pond but the past mayor of New York actually outlawed large sized soda and certain saturated fats in NYC. That to me is a travesty, what is worse is this idiot Bloomberg was 're elected. That in itself should be considered an abuse of power. Damn, that one pisses me off.

[Britkid]

If I was a hundred percent sure it was the right person I probably would. As far as the government using torture, if you could guarantee me they had the right person and could save lives I'd be all for torture. Unfortunately, I don't have the faith government will get it right. For the same reason I'm against the death penalty, the government does convict the innocent plus I don't think the government should have the power to take life. It just seems to me britkid, and I say this with respect as you are obviously not an idiot, but you have too much faith in government. I think communism and socialism invest more power in the government which I don't see as a good thing.

I don't know if you've read it across the pond but the past mayor of New York actually outlawed large sized soda and certain saturated fats in NYC. That to me is a travesty, what is worse is this idiot Bloomberg was 're elected. That in itself should be considered an abuse of power. Damn, that one pisses me off.

I struggle to have faith with the Government, hence my want for ultimately micro governance through direct democracy.

But the examples you gave are two good reasons for state control. There is an obesity problem in the Developed world, the size of drinks in the UK are ridiculously big, so banning them would make sense. Also in the use of certain saturated fats; particularly when in the UK the state pays long term for your healthcare, there does need to be a personal responsibility to look after yourself, at least to a basic level, and if you cannot do that then the state does need to get involved.

But I do recognize a lot of Americans have a different outlook on these things, and indeed I would be very naive to think my general views are anywhere near a majority in the UK, indeed, that they are are even on the mainstream political landscape.

[walrus]

If I was a hundred percent sure it was the right person I probably would. As far as the government using torture, if you could guarantee me they had the right person and could save lives I'd be all for torture. Unfortunately, I don't have the faith government will get it right. For the same reason I'm against the death penalty, the government does convict the innocent plus I don't think the government should have the power to take life. It just seems to me britkid, and I say this with respect as you are obviously not an idiot, but you have too much faith in government. I think communism and socialism invest more power in the government which I don't see as a good thing.

I don't know if you've read it across the pond but the past mayor of New York actually outlawed large sized soda and certain saturated fats in NYC. That to me is a travesty, what is worse is this idiot Bloomberg was 're elected. That in itself should be considered an abuse of power. Damn, that one pisses me off.

I struggle to have faith with the Government, hence my want for ultimately micro governance through direct democracy.

But the examples you gave are two good reasons for state control. There is an obesity problem in the Developed world, the size of drinks in the UK are ridiculously big, so banning them would make sense. Also in the use of certain saturated fats; particularly when in the UK the state pays long term for your healthcare, there does need to be a personal reasonability to look after yourself, at least to a basic level, and if you cannot do that then the state does need to get involved.

But I do recognize a lot of Americans have a different outlook on these things, and indeed I would be very naive to think my general views are anywhere near a majority in the UK, indeed, that they are are even on the mainstream political landscape.

Yes, your views are quite unique, and many have merit but on one hand you want the government to have increased power and on the other you call for direct democracy. So the people have to wait until the government seizes more power until democracy kicks in. When the government gets into what types and sizes of food we eat, we in the US call that a nanny state. Now if you have a direct democracy and the people vote for smaller drink portions, which would be ridiculous, I can deal with that. I find it interesting you are so versed in Marx and Lenin and yet mention direct democracy. If I'm not mistaken, I believe ancient Greece did have a direct democracy but I say that only having heard it in discussion. Do you know direct democracies that have existed throughout history, I'm going to Google it to see if I'm right.

[El Kabong]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

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.

So.....mob rule is best?

In general terms, yes.

Mob rule is how individuals of a minority status be it economic, race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc get demonized to the point where the majority see no harm in killing off the "non-believers" those who do not assimilate. That's how you get your Holocausts, your Holomodors, your Great Leap Forwards, that's how you get leaders that say "1 death is a tragedy, a million deaths are but a statistic".


Rule of Law, property rights, limited government, liberty...those are very important concepts that direct democracies/mob rule do not value.


And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

[walrus]

Good point el kabong, I was looking into the founding fathers debates on direct democracy. One of the reasons they were against it was to protect the minority from the majority or as Franklin said, the tyranny of the majority. Strange as we had slaves who weren't even regarded as humans at the time but that is how it was in the day. Apparently, Switzerland has a few aspects of direct democracy which at one tome prevented almost 90 percent of laws being passed. Switzerland borrowed many aspects of our constitution especially during the late 1800's