Why the collapse of the economy would be GOOD

[Edric O]

So, a capitalist economy cannot be a planned economy, as well? It seems like you're looking at what capitalist economies have done, instead of what they could have done.

Ummm, what exactly do you mean?

Of course that a capitalist economy can't be planned. It can be regulated, but it still remains a market economy. And if we didn't get rid of capitalist exploitation, that would defeat the whole purpose of planning in the first place (which is to allow the people themselves to control the means of production).

[SurlyPIG]

"Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members."

Well THAT's fair. ::)

That's throwing the door wide open for more political corruption than there could ever be in capitalism. That might as well actually BE a one-party system. The party that wins has the most members and uses its money to flood the public with ads, rhetoric, and propaganda, thus gaining more support, more members and more money until nobody in their right mind would waste their time opposing such a powerful party. Ridiculous! Utterly ridiculous!

[Acriku]

Of course that a capitalist economy can't be planned. It can be regulated, but it still remains a market economy. And if we didn't get rid of capitalist exploitation, that would defeat the whole purpose of planning in the first place (which is to allow the people themselves to control the means of production).

Well, yes, the market-side of the economy can not be planned, but you were referring to waste, and other things that can be fixed - with a market economy.

[Caid Ivik]

"Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members."

Well THAT's fair. ::)

That's throwing the door wide open for more political corruption than there could ever be in capitalism. That might as well actually BE a one-party system. The party that wins has the most members and uses its money to flood the public with ads, rhetoric, and propaganda, thus gaining more support, more members and more money until nobody in their right mind would waste their time opposing such a powerful party. Ridiculous! Utterly ridiculous!

Exactly true. In Slovakia state gives same support to all parties, which took in parliamentar votes more than 3% support. That will eliminate joking parties created by corruption on lower bureaus of Internal Ministry. I can't believe that a party took 50 000 subscripts to petition and then had about 2000 votes... But over 3%, everyone is equal. Let it is SDKU with 20 or KSS with 6 percents. In fact, there is already such system as EdricO presented, just support isn't commanded by law - even it is strictly limited, party can't receive more money from privates and members than a quota of about 5 millions.

[Edric O]

"Political parties will receive funding which will be proportional to their number of members."

Well THAT's fair. ::)

That's throwing the door wide open for more political corruption than there could ever be in capitalism. That might as well actually BE a one-party system. The party that wins has the most members and uses its money to flood the public with ads, rhetoric, and propaganda, thus gaining more support, more members and more money until nobody in their right mind would waste their time opposing such a powerful party. Ridiculous! Utterly ridiculous!

Oh, so you're saying that a party with LESS public support should actually get more money than a party with MORE public support?

And you really think that the best way to do things is to have the most money go to the party with the richest corporate friends? ::)

There has to be some criteria by which to determine how much funding goes to each party. And the number of members is the only fair one.

You can't give the same funding to EVERY political party. That would mean that an immensely popular organization with millions of members would get the same money as a small group of friends who decided to start their own party. Ridiculous.

And your capitalist way is even more ridiculous: The most money goes to the party which can suck up to the most corporations. So, basically, all the political parties compete for the favour of the corporations, not for the approval of the people. I doubt you can find anything more corrupt than that.

Edit: You know, come to think of it, the way described by Caid isn't bad at all. All parties with more members than a certain quota get the same funding. This would fix the problem you pointed out, Ace. No party could use that snowball effect to turn into an all-powerful "superparty", because it will stop getting more money once it goes above a certain number of members.

Thank you, Caid! :)

[SurlyPIG]

Oh yeah, the whole notion of people controlling where their money goes is just ridiculous! How absurd! OF COURSE it should be seized from them and redistributed by someone who didn't earn it without their slighest consideration! Anyone who values freedom of choice knows that!

[Acriku]

I don't think we can put the extreme burden of allocating and managing their own taxes, on people that have no checks on them, or the proper education.

[Caid Ivik]

Edit: You know, come to think of it, the way described by Caid isn't bad at all. All parties with more members than a certain quota get the same funding. This would fix the problem you pointed out, Ace. No party could use that snowball effect to turn into an all-powerful "superparty", because it will stop getting more money once it goes above a certain number of members.

Thank you, Caid! :)

It's not a quota of members, but support in election. Problem is that some people would abuse the system of state's support for parties - agreeing an a half of income from that support (not big for a large party, but enough for a single person) with one police bureau and you're in. It would be much easier if it was based on members, because it is easier to get about 100 people to make a "party" than 15 000 to reach support quota...

But in fact, state's support is minimal, parties live from gifts of privates and members. Altough here is restriction as well.

[Edric O]

Oh yeah, the whole notion of people controlling where their money goes is just ridiculous! How absurd! OF COURSE it should be seized from them and redistributed by someone who didn't earn it without their slighest consideration! Anyone who values freedom of choice knows that!

On the contrary, Ace. If you actually read everything I said, you would have noticed that I support a system in which the people decide what the government does with their tax money. They obviously can't manage every detail of it (just as Acriku pointed out), but they can tell the government the general area in which they want their tax money to be spent. Every year, the people will decide which government departments get more money and which of them get less.

It's not a quota of members, but support in election. Problem is that some people would abuse the system of state's support for parties - agreeing an a half of income from that support (not big for a large party, but enough for a single person) with one police bureau and you're in. It would be much easier if it was based on members, because it is easier to get about 100 people to make a "party" than 15 000 to reach support quota...

But in fact, state's support is minimal, parties live from gifts of privates and members. Altough here is restriction as well.

A party may have lots of members, but almost no support in elections. If the state only gives money to the parties which already have support, that prevents new parties from rising up. And that is why I think it is much more fair to give funding according to the number of members.

There are no private companies in socialism, of course (and even in capitalism they should not be allowed to get involved in politics), but a political party can always get donations from members, to a certain limit per person.

[SurlyPIG]

And you see no contradiction in a party that is politically elected being allowed to control what parties get how much money? Please, Edric. I expected something better from you. At least something that had the appearance of fairness and effectiveness.

[Edric O]

Oh, I see. You want organizations which are NOT democratically elected to be able to decide what parties get how much money.

Yeah, that makes sense. ::)

Edit: And by the way, Ace, you really should try to actually read my posts, for a change. In socialism, the government has no control over how much money goes to each party. It is written into the Constitution that all political parties receive money according to their number of members, up to a maximum quota. Therefore, the only ones who can change the amount of money received by a certain party are the people themselves, by joining that party.

[Acriku]

How about neither get the power to decide?

[Caid Ivik]

A party may have lots of members, but almost no support in elections. If the state only gives money to the parties which already have support, that prevents new parties from rising up. And that is why I think it is much more fair to give funding according to the number of members.

There are no private companies in socialism, of course (and even in capitalism they should not be allowed to get involved in politics), but a political party can always get donations from members, to a certain limit per person.

State gives the support once, after election. It is best to create a party as short time before elections as possible, to allocate small resources for campaign propaganda and less to inner party administrative. But some starting cash there has to be. And I would say, it is best if founders create even financial foundation - why should state do it?

[Edric O]

How about neither get the power to decide?

Okay... so who gets to decide, and on what criteria?

State gives the support once, after election. It is best to create a party as short time before elections as possible, to allocate small resources for campaign propaganda and less to inner party administrative. But some starting cash there has to be. And I would say, it is best if founders create even financial foundation - why should state do it?

And what if the founders are poor? Your system seems to allow only rich people to create political parties.

[Acriku]

Don't regulate how much parties can get, but how much individuals and groups can give. Also, further regulate soft money, the loophole individuals and PACs abuse.

[Edric O]

Don't regulate how much parties can get, but how much individuals and groups can give. Also, further regulate soft money, the loophole individuals and PACs abuse.

That would simply make it so that the most money doesn't go to the party with the richest friends, but to the party with the greatest number of rich friends. In other words, parties would be struggling to get the support of the greatest number of sponsors, instead of the support of the richest sponsors. I don't see how that would make any serious difference...

The only way to make things fair is to give funding to each party according to its number of members, up to a certain maximum limit. And I'd like to point out that no one has actually found any flaws with this system of funding. Ace only complained that the state shouldn't get the power to decide who gets how much money, which is something that I completely agree with. The rules about funding for political parties should be written into the Constitution.

[Acriku]

I don't see how that would make any serious difference...

I was just answering your question.

The only way to make things fair is to give funding to each party according to its number of members, up to a certain maximum limit. And I'd like to point out that no one has actually found any flaws with this system of funding. Ace only complained that the state shouldn't get the power to decide who gets how much money, which is something that I completely agree with. The rules about funding for political parties should be written into the Constitution.

Wouldn't this cement major political parties' success in their campaigns? Sucks for the minor parties that do not have the millions of members that major political parties have.

[SurlyPIG]

If you want to eliminate corporate manipulation of the political system, the solition is not to steal everyone's money and divide it up, the solution is to cap an individual's or party's campaign spending in proportion to the economic strength of the area they're running to represent (relative to the number of people in that area, of course). This way there's no grey areas as to how much an individual or a party can spend, and there's no way richies from outside districts can run in poorer districts and smoother the competition.

[Caid Ivik]

State gives the support once, after election. It is best to create a party as short time before elections as possible, to allocate small resources for campaign propaganda and less to inner party administrative. But some starting cash there has to be. And I would say, it is best if founders create even financial foundation - why should state do it?

And what if the founders are poor? Your system seems to allow only rich people to create political parties.

Many poor can find some resource. Party can't be a thing of one man, you know. And there are sponsors. And if someone is so poor that he can't even eat enough, I doubt he would try to solve it by creating a political party...

[Edric O]

Wouldn't this cement major political parties' success in their campaigns? Sucks for the minor parties that do not have the millions of members that major political parties have.

Yes, but if the people are unhappy with the current major parties, they can always join up to form another party almost overnight, and immediately receive government funding which reflects their popularity.

On the other hand, if people in a typical capitalist democracy (such as the USA) are unhappy with the major parties, there's not a single damn thing they can do about it without big corporations backing them up.

Also, keep in mind that socialism will put a maximum limit on how much money a party can get. So an absolutely huge party will not get more money than a party of average size.

If you want to eliminate corporate manipulation of the political system, the solition is not to steal everyone's money and divide it up, the solution is to cap an individual's or party's campaign spending in proportion to the economic strength of the area they're running to represent (relative to the number of people in that area, of course). This way there's no grey areas as to how much an individual or a party can spend, and there's no way richies from outside districts can run in poorer districts and smoother the competition.

I seriously doubt the effectiveness of putting limits on spending. For one thing, it's likely that they will find a legal loophole allowing them to spend money on some new type of campaigning that didn't exist when the law was written. But even assuming that something like that never happens, I don't see how political parties with no corporate support could ever compete with the ones who have corporate support. If they don't have enough money to begin with, the fact that the other guys have a limit on spending won't do them any good.

It's much better to regulate how much money each party gets, and let them spend it in any way they wish.

[Edric O]

Many poor can find some resource. Party can't be a thing of one man, you know. And there are sponsors.

Heh, this could actually be funny, if it wasn't a statement of support for a ridiculous system that basically denies the poor any access to political power.

How exactly are you going to find a rich sponsor for a party that promotes the interests of the poor?

Where the hell are you going to find a capitalist millionaire who would donate money to a communist party, for example?

As I have said before, all forms of charity are extremely unreliable, and no kind of coherent system can be based on something that might or might not happen, with no accurate way to predict it.

And if someone is so poor that he can't even eat enough, I doubt he would try to solve it by creating a political party...

Actually, that's often EXACTLY how he should try to solve it. If the reason why he doesn't have enough to eat is that he's living in an immoral and unjust system that exploits him and reduces him to near slavery, then it is his right to fight that system by any means. He should start a political party, a social movement, or even a revolution.

Oppression and exploitation cannot and should not be tolerated. I am utterly disgusted by your repeated claims that a poor starving man should just accept his fate and continue to waste his life toiling for his master, rather than stand up for his rights.

If you are a slave, the solution to your problems is not to dream about one day becoming a slave master yourself. The solution is to unite with your fellow slaves, overthrow your masters, and abolish slavery once and for all.

[Caid Ivik]

I would say, if someone has wage so low that he can't afford enough food, he shouldn't become a tool of unions or start a revolution. Best way is individual dialogue with employer - you know, Mrs Thatcher's way. That's a state for, to ensure law. And if law enables this possibility, it has to be supported. Employee can then maintain his dignity (becoming a "part of mighty collective" is rather primitive form of solving problems) and yet it ensures he will be listened. English could do it, so why not i.e.Romanians? Ok, president of a big firm hasn't time for it, but branch chief with i.e.30 people under him, there's no problem. No need for radical political movements, just effective administrative.

[Acriku]

On the other hand, if people in a typical capitalist democracy (such as the USA) are unhappy with the major parties, there's not a single damn thing they can do about it without big corporations backing them up.

The election that Bush won in 1992, and in the next election, Ross Perot didn't like what his fellow Republicans were doing and broke off and created the Reform party. He had millions of supporters, as 19 million people voted for him, 19% in the 1992 election. It could have gone a longer way, if Perot did continue to lead it and keep it going. But, the point is that it can happen, and "capitalist democracy" does not stop it from happening.

Also, if it is that easy, in your imagined country, to make political parties, it would be chaos and stagnation. Especially when you get government funds for just being a party. Italy is a good example, with many different major parties, and has consequently changed government about 8 times. It's unstable and rediculous.

[Edric O]

Caid:

I would say, if someone has wage so low that he can't afford enough food, he shouldn't become a tool of unions or start a revolution.

So your best argument to convince a desperate starving man not to rise up against his oppressors is "you really shouldn't do that"? LOL, Caid, can you get any more pathetic than this?

And I think you also need some history lessons. Unions are the reason why today we have laws protecting workers' rights. Unions have been protecting the interests of workers for almost 150 years. And in the first half of those 150 years, workers got persecuted or even killed for joining a union and standing up for their rights. It's only thanks to their sacrifices that you won't have to work in a sweatshop.

Best way is individual dialogue with employer - you know, Mrs Thatcher's way.

Riiiight... that's why she is universally known as the PM who screwed up the British working class - because her labour policies were so good and fair! ::)

And how exactly is an average worker (even a starving one) supposed to convince his employer to suddenly give him a raise? By asking really nicely? ::)

The fact is that employers only make concessions if they have no choice. And that is what unions are for. You can't base a system on the hope that employers will give their workers decent wages out of the kindness of their hearts. Maybe some employers will. But the majority won't.

[Edric O]

Acriku:

The election that Bush won in 1992, and in the next election, Ross Perot didn't like what his fellow Republicans were doing and broke off and created the Reform party. He had millions of supporters, as 19 million people voted for him, 19% in the 1992 election. It could have gone a longer way, if Perot did continue to lead it and keep it going. But, the point is that it can happen, and "capitalist democracy" does not stop it from happening.

Alright, you've made your point. The existing major parties are not all-powerful and untouchable. But that doesn't change the fact that challenging the established parties is much harder in capitalism than in socialism. While in socialism you only need to gather people's support, in capitalism you need to gather people's support AND find a source of money.

Eliminating the massive corporate sponsorships is an important step in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough.

Also, if it is that easy, in your imagined country, to make political parties, it would be chaos and stagnation. Especially when you get government funds for just being a party. Italy is a good example, with many different major parties, and has consequently changed government about 8 times. It's unstable and rediculous.

The most stable political regime is a one-party dictatorship. Is that what you want?

If I have to choose between stability and freedom, I choose freedom.

And by the way, chaos is the opposite of stagnation. I'm not saying that chaos is good, mind you. I'm only saying that a small dose of disorder can be very useful. The "political disorder" that might result from giving everyone the power to start their own party will promote change and development. The more parties, the more choices. The more choices, the greater the liberty.