Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Government is only a reflection of society. No system is good for a bad society.

Arguably, the tyranny of the majority IS "an angry fascist policeman".

Hell yeah that's great. I''m definitely gonna use that one.

Let me clarify: I am not saying the Communists States were/are nice places to live. I am saying that they had a few (VERY, VERY few) good laws (on paper, anyway) mixed in with a whole lot more oppression. And I'll be the first to admit, those good laws were often flat out ignored. It is worth noting that if the Soviet Union had followed its constitution--which I doubt the Party ever intended to do, mind you--they would have had, in my opinion anyway, quite a good system set up. But of course they didn't follow it. And the constitution would have made the nation democratic, so we're back to just seeing democracies as the places with decent human rights.

As for your point about people who are not rich not knowing how to run a country. Regardless as to whether that is true or not, saying that only rich people should be in high government positions is essentially saying that governments should be an oligarchy. And my point was that essentially that's what the USA is. I said nothing about whether that is good or bad, only that that is the case. So you did nothing to refute my point, you only tried to justify what I described to be true. And to be honest, that seems to conflict with your second point. You're saying that nobody know's whats best for everyone (which I agree with) but that rich people are the ones who have the knowledge necessary to make decisions in running a country.

@Astrogeek:

I think that the oppression experienced in soviet Russia was a direct result of the principles of Communism. There is no 'right way' to make Communism work. Communism is an ugly, disgusting beast that is just as undesirable 'on paper' as it is in reality. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying don't give Communism undue credit. Anything good that happened in Soviet Russia happened in spite of Communism, not because of it.

My point wasn't to stress that only rich people are fit to run the country. What I was trying to express is that managing vast sums of wealth makes someone more qualified for a position of leadership within our gov't. It is not because they know what's best for everyone; it is because the act of accumulating vast sums of wealth requires the same type of discipline and dedication to principles that are required of a world leader.

The USSR constitution does have a lot of rights on paper, including right to a job, housing, etc. But I don't like Communism either. Ultimately though, I think what led to the failure of the USSR's 'good' principles is the Russian Civil War that the USSR was born from. It led to militaristic types taking control of the government, and their outlook reflected the direction the USSR took

@Vigilans:

Good point about the influence of militarism.

In my opinion, the contents of the Soviet constitution have no bearing on the reality that was Communism.

Yes, you were granted the right to a job, but not a job that you would want to pursue based on your own interests. Not only were you given a crappy job, but you could be imprisoned for up to a year for being 5 minutes late.

Yes, you were granted the right to housing, but that housing usually consisted of one room of the house that your family occupied before the revolution,
while the gov't granted the right to the other rooms that used to be yours to other families. That is the inevitable result of a society that grants is its citizens the right to the products of the effort of others. While they preach that everyone has a right to a home, in actuality becomes every one has a right to YOUR home.

sorry, denmark is a very socialist country compared to the us at least.
if done right then one can actually make a pretty good redistribution of wealth, based on your effort in part but still redistributing.
if you look back ten years denmark had almost no finacial inequality compared to today, and all of that came when we tried adopting some of the more "liberal" policies, now our students can barely live for the money the state pays them.

You make good points of course. Understand that I am not saying the way the Communist Party ran the USSR was a good thing AT ALL. Certainly the ways of assigning labour are not only undesirable but don't make much economic sense--if someone is good at making shoes, why would you tell them that they have to work in a coal mine? But the USSR's constitution actually got a lot of praise in the West (when they naively hoped that it would actually be followed). I think that the constitution was fine--or at least a whole lot better than how the USSR was actually run. It's just that it was written in a system where it would never be followed. In short, yes the constitution didn't have any effect on how the system was run. I was making a point about the constitution taken on its own. As Vigilans wrote, the Civil War etc. caused the system to be way too militaristic. That wouldn't have been the only thing contributing to the problems of Communism, but it certainly didn't help. If communism had been arrived at by the people electing a socialist party which SLOWLY instituted reforms while keeping a democratic government then it probably would have worked out much better. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't call it communism. It would be democratic socialism then. So you see, I certainly view democracy as the only system where you tend to get good human rights etc. Democracy is a royal pain at times, but it seems to be the best we've got.

Also, original my point was not to argue that Communism was a good thing, because it isn't. I think many of its ideas are good (a personal opinion), but I don't think Communism was good. My original point was just tossing examples of the very few times I could think of when a non-democratic government did anything remotely good. And it was a very bad example, as JCW pointed out. I wasn't thinking enough about the history as a whole.

@Oodain: I'd tend to agree with you that socialism can be a good thing, if done properly (which seems to require democracy). But I get the impression JCW doesn't like socialist policy. I think that redistributing wealth is a good thing. Many people disagree. No point in arguing about it, because neither side will convince the other.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

-Winston Churchill

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

-Margaret Thatcher

To be fair, Churchill was hardly infallible (despite me quoting him earlier ); Gallipoli (WWI) was his brainchild after all and Thatcher's brand of economics is not universally admired
Those are their individual opinions but practical socialism, such as what we have in Canada, is hardly a sharing of misery

Amen.

As a fellow Canadian, I heartily agree! Contrary to what Americans seem to believe, the majority of Canadians would rather have our "socialized medicine" than the American system. In my mind you could probably go a bit farther even (as long as you went slowly) without "Sharing misery." But that is a good description of socialism in the USSR. Something I said explaining the Soviet Union to my brother was "It wasn't so much the sharing of wealth as the equalization of poverty." But it doesn't have to be that way. That's just what happened there.

Honestly, I don't think we can be so quick to condemn socialism, because there has been no major attempt at it in a democratic country. (Or did they try it in India? Of course, India started out in poverty, which would have made it harder.) Chile tried, but the USA helped kick off a military coup. A few European countries seem to be on the right track though.

The only thing that keeps the Canadian system from turning into the abomination that was Soviet Russia, is the capitalism that is blended with socialism to create the system. The amount of misery experienced is directly proportional to the degree of the influence of socialism on a society. Eventually, the wealth of the upper class will be fully distributed to the masses, then the middle class will start feeling the pinch. You can't have freedom, when your choices are dictated by someone else's finances. The freedom we experience in the US has nothing to do with democracy. Any freedoms we experience flow from our status as a republic (I try to avoid the term republican, to avoid the well earned negative connotation), and the protections granted in the Bill of Rights. Democracy's only value is as an electoral system.

Here is an article I just came across that I think is relevant to this discussion:

http://drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose- ... ional.html

Your healthcare system isn't sustainable though.



Actually, we can rightly condemn socialism. Anything that punishes success and glorifies failure and the government is supposed to take care of you is a disaster waiting to happen.