Why the collapse of the economy would be GOOD

[Acriku]

Acriku: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.

I'm wondering, where does the money come from in socialism to fund campaigns, if the candidate does not have to pay for it?

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

Indeed.

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

Of course not. A two-major-party democracy is a better balance between stability and 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.

I see your point. But, how can a government survive the instability that doesn't seem, atleast to me, to be stopping anytime soon? People would get tired out, and I find it very confusing. Instability is a big issue, and should be lessened at the cost of some freedom. 100% freedom isn't realistic in a successful civilization.

[Edric O]

I'm wondering, where does the money come from in socialism to fund campaigns, if the candidate does not have to pay for it?

What do you mean? The candidate does have to pay for it. He receives a certain amount of money as public funding, but what he actually does with that money is his own business (as long as he uses it for political purposes, of course - you will not be allowed to use taxpayers' money to buy yourself a yacht).

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

Indeed.

That's good to hear. But it seems to me that not many of your fellow Americans see the problem with corporate government... :(

I really think American politics needs more people like you.

Of course not. A two-major-party democracy is a better balance between stability and freedom.

Okay, let's say I live in America. I'm a communist, so I strongly disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Who do I vote for?

I would be forced to vote for the Democrats not because I agree with them, but because I see them as the lesser of the two evils.

I see your point. But, how can a government survive the instability that doesn't seem, atleast to me, to be stopping anytime soon? People would get tired out, and I find it very confusing. Instability is a big issue, and should be lessened at the cost of some freedom. 100% freedom isn't realistic in a successful civilization.

Well, there's a reason why they call me an anarcho-communist... ;) 100% freedom is actually very good and desirable. But realistically speaking, it cannot be achieved at this stage in history. Simply put, we are not yet civilized enough to be able to live in harmony without government. But hopefully, someday we will be.

In any case, achieving a balance between stability and freedom is the whole reason why government was created in the first place. People give up some of their freedom in order to have stability and rule of law (this is known as the principle of the Social Contract). I agree that instability can become a major problem if it grows beyond certain limits, but I think you're exaggerating, and restricting freedom too much for the sake of stability. A two-party system doesn't leave much room for political freedom. Especially if you make it even harder for people to start a new party.

[Acriku]

What do you mean? The candidate does have to pay for it. He receives a certain amount of money as public funding, but what he actually does with that money is his own business (as long as he uses it for political purposes, of course - you will not be allowed to use taxpayers' money to buy yourself a yacht).

How will I be able to pay for it if in socialism all I receive are the basic necessities? Or is there a paycheck along with it that is equal for everyone?

That's good to hear. But it seems to me that not many of your fellow Americans see the problem with corporate government... :(

I really think American politics needs more people like you.

Yeah, it's a serious problem if tobacco companies and such are still here because politicians don't want to have to deal with the lack of their contributions.

Okay, let's say I live in America. I'm a communist, so I strongly disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Who do I vote for?

I would be forced to vote for the Democrats not because I agree with them, but because I see them as the lesser of the two evils.

Well, seeing as you're in a capitalist country as a communist, wanting radical change in the economic system will get you nowhere. Unless the people want it, of course.

Well, there's a reason why they call me an anarcho-communist... ;) 100% freedom is actually very good and desirable. But realistically speaking, it cannot be achieved at this stage in history. Simply put, we are not yet civilized enough to be able to live in harmony without government. But hopefully, someday we will be.

Ah, so the government is only a means of keeping us safe for now and of preparing us for the next step in our societal evolution? That sounds interesting. Perhaps we should start with smaller populations when trying to achieve this?

In any case, achieving a balance between stability and freedom is the whole reason why government was created in the first place. People give up some of their freedom in order to have stability and rule of law (this is known as the principle of the Social Contract). I agree that instability can become a major problem if it grows beyond certain limits, but I think you're exaggerating, and restricting freedom too much for the sake of stability. A two-party system doesn't leave much room for political freedom. Especially if you make it even harder for people to start a new party.

I just see the restriction being necessary for now. We are lazy, stupid, and egocentric - nowhere near where we should be if we are to follow your big plan.

[Caid Ivik]

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. 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.

Before you reply, read it whole without taking statements out of concept, ok? Well, we have a modern way of solving a problem. Not by creating a dehumanizing army of unioners, but by individual talking with chief. Yes, they can create a union with discussing experts on the lead, but what should we do when unions don't do nothing else than strikes? Times have changed, today we use less arms and more dialogue. Mrs Thatcher brought civilisation to employment contact - that's why she ruled for so long. As Britain is a country with one of the highest living standards in Europe, "screwing up working class" may be translated only as "screwing up now useless unions". Why should I need some leader, which will talk instead of me just because majority of my "comrades" think he will be better? Also this would enable talking about other practical problems in employment. When you have i.e. unfunctional toilettes, you won't call a strike for it, eh? I think it would be only helpful. Employees won't consider management as something "far upwards" of them, and those won't feel conceit.

[Edric O]

Acriku:

How will I be able to pay for it if in socialism all I receive are the basic necessities? Or is there a paycheck along with it that is equal for everyone?

Huh? What are you talking about? ???

The basic necessities for a decent life are guaranteed to all citizens as the bare minimum that they will always receive, no matter what situation they're in, or whether they have a job or not, etc. But you can get a lot more than just this bare minimum! There is no limit on how rich you can become through your own hard work. Socialism doesn't stop you from getting rich; it only stops you from getting rich by exploiting other people.

Yeah, it's a serious problem if tobacco companies and such are still here because politicians don't want to have to deal with the lack of their contributions.

This is the sort of problem that can't be solved at the top. Personally, I think that only a grassroots movement could put the necessary pressure on tobacco companies and political parties.

Well, seeing as you're in a capitalist country as a communist, wanting radical change in the economic system will get you nowhere. Unless the people want it, of course.

Okay, let's say I'm not a communist, but I still completely disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats. So who do I vote for?

Ah, so the government is only a means of keeping us safe for now and of preparing us for the next step in our societal evolution? That sounds interesting. Perhaps we should start with smaller populations when trying to achieve this?

In a nutshell, yes. That is how I see the role of government. A legitimate government is a tool of the people, which exists only as long as the people need its help in order to ensure stability and rule of law. Or, in other words, government is a crutch that we need to use until we can stand up by ourselves. This is the view shared by most marxists.

But as for starting with smaller populations, I'm not sure that would work. We would be at the mercy of our much larger neighbors. You can't restrct a higher stage of civilization to only a small portion of humanity, with "barbarians" all around it. Look what happened to the Roman Empire.

I just see the restriction being necessary for now. We are lazy, stupid, and egocentric - nowhere near where we should be if we are to follow your big plan.

Like I said before, I completely agree. We only disagree on the matter of how much restriction is necessary - you want more, I want less. I think a two-party system is far too restrictive, especially since there are plenty of prosperous civilized countries with more than two major parties.

[Edric O]

Caid:

Nice of you to repeat the exact same thing you've said before, but I've already replied to it the first time. So let me give you a quick recap:

1. Without a strong union to back you up, how exactly can you have an "individual talk with your boss" and convince him to give you a raise out of the kindness of his heart? Without unions and laws to protect workers' rights, you're screwed. Your boss could give you a wage so small that you could just barely survive out of it, and there would be nothing you could do about it.

2. As I said before:

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.

[Acriku]

Huh? What are you talking about? ???

The basic necessities for a decent life are guaranteed to all citizens as the bare minimum that they will always receive, no matter what situation they're in, or whether they have a job or not, etc. But you can get a lot more than just this bare minimum! There is no limit on how rich you can become through your own hard work. Socialism doesn't stop you from getting rich; it only stops you from getting rich by exploiting other people.

Ok, sorry about that. But anyway, I see what you're saying.

Okay, let's say I'm not a communist, but I still completely disagree with both the Republicans and the Democrats. So who do I vote for?

Go run yourself if you don't like the candidates. Nothing or no one is stopping you from running.

In a nutshell, yes. That is how I see the role of government. A legitimate government is a tool of the people, which exists only as long as the people need its help in order to ensure stability and rule of law. Or, in other words, government is a crutch that we need to use until we can stand up by ourselves. This is the view shared by most marxists.

And what of the people that exploit the lack of government against the people "fit" for that society? Surely there's some way to stop them from taking over.

But as for starting with smaller populations, I'm not sure that would work. We would be at the mercy of our much larger neighbors. You can't restrct a higher stage of civilization to only a small portion of humanity, with "barbarians" all around it. Look what happened to the Roman Empire.

I just see starting big is a bad way to go about it, because that's a lot of people you have to trust to get everything working.

Like I said before, I completely agree. We only disagree on the matter of how much restriction is necessary - you want more, I want less. I think a two-party system is far too restrictive, especially since there are plenty of prosperous civilized countries with more than two major parties.

And prosperous civilized countries with just two major parties (US and England).

[Caid Ivik]

Caid:

Nice of you to repeat the exact same thing you've said before, but I've already replied to it the first time. So let me give you a quick recap:

1. Without a strong union to back you up, how exactly can you have an "individual talk with your boss" and convince him to give you a raise out of the kindness of his heart? Without unions and laws to protect workers' rights, you're screwed. Your boss could give you a wage so small that you could just barely survive out of it, and there would be nothing you could do about it.

. As I said before:

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.

Times have changed, today you have a right to anything without being shot. But today we have more education, chiefs are much closer to workers, in fact, real proletariate doesn't fully exist. When my boss has under him 5 people, do you think he won't have time for me? Such chief can be easily my friend, if we show respect and honor. And if I have a good argument, for example that income of firm is rapidly increasing, I would be able to discuss even raising of wage. But as I've said, this solves much more than just payment questions.

[Edric O]

Times have changed, today you have a right to anything without being shot. But today we have more education, chiefs are much closer to workers, in fact, real proletariate doesn't fully exist. When my boss has under him 5 people, do you think he won't have time for me? Such chief can be easily my friend, if we show respect and honor. And if I have a good argument, for example that income of firm is rapidly increasing, I would be able to discuss even raising of wage. But as I've said, this solves much more than just payment questions.

Okay, so if your boss is in charge over a small number of people and if he's the friendly type and if he likes you and if he thinks your arguments are good, he might give you a raise...

Sure, it makes perfect sense to use that as official policy. ::)

[Edric O]

Ok, sorry about that. But anyway, I see what you're saying.Go run yourself if you don't like the candidates. Nothing or no one is stopping you from running.

Wait a second, didn't you say this was a two-party system? And doesn't that involve some sort of restriction or inherent disadvantage for third-party candidates?

And what of the people that exploit the lack of government against the people "fit" for that society? Surely there's some way to stop them from taking over.

Of course. Such a society requires a reasonably high level of education for all the people, so that they are able to recognize any attempt by a certain group to take over political power or exploit the system for their own benefit. Once their cover is blown, that group will be rendered powerless by the fact that no one will listen to them any more.

I just see starting big is a bad way to go about it, because that's a lot of people you have to trust to get everything working.

I don't think we should "start big" as in trying to get large numbers of people to form one big commune. I think we should "start big" as in trying to get large numbers of people to form many small communes.

But before we can start anything, we need to already have a social and economic system that provides a high standard of living to all people and encourages them to care for each other. That's what socialism does. And in doing that, it paves the way for communism.

And prosperous civilized countries with just two major parties (US and England).

Actually, Britain has 3 major parties... But I get your point.

However, you should keep in mind that a country's economic prosperity and military power doesn't have much to do with the freedom of its citizens. Just look at Nazi Germany. Or Stalin's Soviet Union for that matter.

[Acriku]

Wait a second, didn't you say this was a two-party system? And doesn't that involve some sort of restriction or inherent disadvantage for third-party candidates?

If you play the game right, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Declaring yourself Democrat or Republican does not stop you from making policies to better instill your idea of government, just don't expect to get re-elected ;)

Of course. Such a society requires a reasonably high level of education for all the people, so that they are able to recognize any attempt by a certain group to take over political power or exploit the system for their own benefit. Once their cover is blown, that group will be rendered powerless by the fact that no one will listen to them any more.

I meant more of a militia takeover, since there would be no government to protect the citizens and thus an easy takeover. Unless you require everyone to learn kungfu ;)

[Edric O]

If you play the game right, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Declaring yourself Democrat or Republican does not stop you from making policies to better instill your idea of government, just don't expect to get re-elected ;)

*imagines the US President addressing people as "comrades"*

*dies laughing* ;D

But anyway, I see your point. However, it seems to be based on the idea that it's okay to lie to the people about what you intend to do once you're in office... Now, I'm not saying that politicians are the most honest people on Earth, but pretending to be a liberal when you're in fact a communist (for example) is going too far.

I meant more of a militia takeover, since there would be no government to protect the citizens and thus an easy takeover. Unless you require everyone to learn kungfu ;)

Well, actually, everyone will have the right to bear arms, so a small group of armed thugs won't be able to take over anything.

[Acriku]

If you play the game right, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Declaring yourself Democrat or Republican does not stop you from making policies to better instill your idea of government, just don't expect to get re-elected ;)

*imagines the US President addressing people as "comrades"*

*dies laughing* ;D

But anyway, I see your point. However, it seems to be based on the idea that it's okay to lie to the people about what you intend to do once you're in office... Now, I'm not saying that politicians are the most honest people on Earth, but pretending to be a liberal when you're in fact a communist (for example) is going too far.

Well, as they say, entering into the world of politics, morals and values are left at the doorstep.

Well, actually, everyone will have the right to bear arms, so a small group of armed thugs won't be able to take over anything.

I don't think you are understanding me, as any planned takeover will not be a "small group of armed thugs," these are educated people - remember?

[Caid Ivik]

Times have changed, today you have a right to anything without being shot. But today we have more education, chiefs are much closer to workers, in fact, real proletariate doesn't fully exist. When my boss has under him 5 people, do you think he won't have time for me? Such chief can be easily my friend, if we show respect and honor. And if I have a good argument, for example that income of firm is rapidly increasing, I would be able to discuss even raising of wage. But as I've said, this solves much more than just payment questions.

Okay, so if your boss is in charge over a small number of people and if he's the friendly type and if he likes you and if he thinks your arguments are good, he might give you a raise...

Sure, it makes perfect sense to use that as official policy. ::)

Your last statement brought the point: official policy. I thought you have grown up from communistic idea of total control of every point of your life.

[Edric O]

Your last statement brought the point: official policy. I thought you have grown up from communistic idea of total control of every point of your life.

And I thought you had grown out of your "let's take a word out of context and change the subject" debate strategy. Looks like I was wrong...

Communists never wanted to control any aspects of anyone's lives. Those were the stalinists, who cared more about personal gain than any ideals or principles.

But that's not what we were talking about. I was pointing out the gaping holes and absurdities in your ideas about employer-worker relations. As I said, your whole system is based on a long string of IF's. You're only thinking about the best case scenario, when anyone with common sense can tell you that you should be thinking about the worst case scenario. You have no backup plan, nothing to guarantee a fair deal for the worker. In your system, a person's entire career depends on the mood of his employer. He might decide to be generous, or he might not...

The only way for workers to be able to negotiate with their employers from an equal footing is if they are members of a union. The employer has vastly more power than a single worker.

[Edric O]

Well, as they say, entering into the world of politics, morals and values are left at the doorstep.

In most cases, yes. But not always. There are those of us who fight for Humanity, not for themselves. Of course, I can't really speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. Without my morals and values, I have nothing.

I don't think you are understanding me, as any planned takeover will not be a "small group of armed thugs," these are educated people - remember?

Yes, but the people they are trying to subdue are equally educated and equally armed...

[Caid Ivik]

Not took from the point. Problem is that state itself defines this communication, altough it should be fully in hands of objects - employer and employee - which form they'll choose. I am more for individual debates between them. Natural communication system. You prefer unions, which are at core a typical form of jacqueristic democracy, or communist view on life, if you want. Minimalising power of individual and seeing power only in masses. But in fact, THIS brings power to those employers. When they see only impersonal masses against them, how can even think about being close to them? State by supporting them in fact creates unions, and trough it helps deshumanization of communication. And thus division.

[Edric O]

This is not a matter of idealistic theory, Caid. I prefer unions because they work, while individual talks don't work. Unions are the pragmatic solution. They ensure a balance of power between workers and employers.

And as for "employers being close to their employees" - please, Caid, is this a serious political discussion, or are we here to talk about our feelings? ::)

You only confirm what I already said: Your entire system of employer-worker relations is based on the absolute best case scenario, in which the employer is a friendly and generous guy who can relate to his employees and feel close to them. But what if he's NOT? "Closeness" cannot even be measured, let alone guaranteed!

There is a word for the kind of system you're advocating: arbitrary rule. And history proves that arbitrary rule can bring only corruption and power abuse. That's why people invented something called rule of law. I want rule of law, and a balance of power between workers and employers (as long as we have to live under capitalism). You want arbitrary rule, and you want to give all power to the employers on the assumption that they'll decide to be nice and use it with restraint.

[Caid Ivik]

It seems you fully lost idea what is whole legislative for. Unions are separate organisations which terorize both employer and employee. Employers by strikes and thus lowered production and employees by abusing them for own intentions. Unions are demagogical political parties, some kind of junior class of various oppositional parties. They are needed in large companies with simple hierarchy, like those done in times of communism here (ZTS, VSZ, Duslo, Slovnaft etc.), but in economically progressive country, such firms are not. Everywhere is hierarchy wider and one person gives direct orders to only few men under him. Unions are only to disrupt this system and bring back polarisation of society.

[Edric O]

Heh, what a brilliant example of 19th century rhethoric... But you're a bit behind the times, my friend. Unions were the main reason why things like child labour and sweatshops were abolished in the western world. And it is only thanks to them that we now have social security and minimum wage laws. Unions work - the vast majority of your fellow conservatives have accepted this reality. Now they try to buy off union leaders instead of fighting the unions directly.

And by the way, it was a union - the Solidarity (in Poland) - which began the struggle against stalinism in Eastern Europe. You don't like unions? Then go join the other people with similar views: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...

I really don't know why you hate stalinists so much, seeing how many things you have in common.

Also, you should realize that banning unions effectively means taking away people's right to free association. Pretty soon you'll start banning political parties too... And you know what that path leads to.

[Caid Ivik]

In 19th century. But now? How they do work? Solidarnosc was powerful because it became a political power. KOZ in Slovakia is powerful because it is backed by Fico's Smer party. Are you blind? I would say, not to ban them (by the way that I never have said), just stop financial support. If state would support cartels of "capitalist pigs", would you like it? Everywhere where state creates an artificial senseless group, it is only matter of time until it will be abused by carrierists.

[Edric O]

Has human nature magically changed since the 19th century? If not, then why do you expect today's capitalists to be all warm and fuzzy? If given the same freedom to do whatever they want with their employees, they will act just as their 19th century predecessors did. That is why we need unions today just as we needed them 100 years ago.

If the state went about creating "artificial senseless groups", then you might be right. But unions are created by the workers themselves, in order to protect their rights. Unions are free associations of free citizens. And historically speaking, the state has been very hostile to them (until recently).

[Caid Ivik]

With such thinking I can say the human thinking was same about 70 years ago, when people elected Hitler. Today it isn't as popular to "die for the others", like then. People are rather content with this system and its improvements. Isn't that also a communist program, to have manager at same position as worker?