Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

The problem is that the governments we have now are crap. They have no real initiatives, goals, or obligations. They need to be disciplined and legally forced to keep their election promises. I'm no fan of the current incarnation of democracy though, I think that it needs to be reformed so that only the people who know what's going on in the nation can vote, and there is a constitution regarding the rights of law-abiding citizens. Not only that, but government officials must be banned from lying except in matters of national security. Politicians should set an example, know what they are doing, and have a clear ideology and manifesto, which they must stick to, or announce that they have changed, and call an election. Oh how popularists would lose. Politics should not be about trickery, nor power in undeserving hands. Many measures must be taken to ensure that the people get what they want, and not sleazy propaganda.

You mean, you want to go back to the America the Founding Fathers invisioned?

Probably misinterpretation, but is that not like going back to the bad old days when only corrupt landlords and the like had the vote? Don't get me wrong, I despise anyone that'll vote in a donkey for their area (providing they've got a red OR blue rosette pinned to their backside) but I would - the mammoth cliche - fight to the death for their right to do so.

Agree about not letting criminals have the vote though.

I don't think that any perfect government can really be created and because of the difficulty in bringing together information and all of that into the place where they should be. I do not think that some ideal world will be created through governmental action. This does not mean I am a fan of democracy in its current state, but even the highest of experts cannot agree on policy, I do not think that any democratic reform will necessarily mend the patches.

And what do you conclude after suggesting there arent any perfect governments or that one probably wont exist?

That we at least come to recognize that highly government based political philosophies can end badly, really really badly and instead of looking at utopia, that we recognize that we cannot trust the government with all things, no matter how much we seek to change it. Now what one seeks to extrapolate from that point is what they choose to. It is just that too often we claim imperfect free organizations, and that these need to be fixed, however, a broken wrench may not be the ideal tool so to speak.

i agree with Awesomelyglorious but with different reasons, espesshaly as democracy was created mostly to protect business interests, what is necessary is system where all party's are responsible for there actions .... unfortunately it rarely truly works

I am not sure that democracy was created to protect business interests(although it has been guilty of such distortions) given that scholars on the left and the right have supported democracy though, I really would not consider democracy to be a partisan thing, only an imperfect thing.

i kinda meant the whole Communist manifesto ida sorry i dident really explain that too well

Socialism is Economic Creationism. (just think Evolution versus Creationism)

More like intelligent design.

One of the most highly claimed "flaws" of Socialism is that it breeds and promotes laziness. This can be easily fixed though. Give lazy people an ultimatum: work, or have your possessions and house taken away and being forced into exile.

And what of the numerous problems resulting from that? We have just given a central authority the direct power over your life. Why not exchange the term exile for gulag? That type of centralization of power WILL lead directly to the abuse of said power. The other claimed flaw of socialism is that it leads to totalitarianism and corruption and slavery, and your solution feeds very well into that claim.

Totalitaranism is normally created through revolutions.

Certain people being "too severely punished" is better than all of society being punished.

Exile wouldn't work. I've thought about this one at length myself - there's a slightly better way. Those who refuse to contribute towards society will not be punished for it... but they will not recieve support from that which they desert. So, as long as they fail to contribute, they msut feed themself, water themself, etc... it wouldn't be long before they came running back or left of their own choice. Having something as harsh as exile around will only embitter people against you - it's best saved for worst case scenarios. For example, it would be fair to exile someone if they not only failed to contribute to but also actively worked AGAINST the society.
Laws such as these maintain a nice balance of control and stability, and at the same time give the masses the illusion that they have free choice. In actual fact, if they choose to act alone... they most likely won't last long.
I used to have a socialism discussion forum, but I got rid of it a couple of years ago

Yeah I think you're right. That probably would be a bit better.