Left-wing discussion

[Edric O]

With all the arguing, I noticed a complete lack of any PRP topics where the people who post actually agree with each other. So this is my attempt to create one.

This is a place for all FED2k left-wingers to come together and share their ideas. Share your thoughts on what's wrong with global capitalism and what we can do about it.

Communists, socialists and social-democrats, unite!

* begins to sing "l'internationale" *

:)

[Caid Ivik]

"Posledna borba vzplala, dajme sa na pochod

Internacionala je ludstva novy zrod!"

I see 1st may had a big influence on you ;D I would be glad if leftists won't do such experiments as in 1917 and will do their work as always, that means pushing all others to care about schools, hospitals, poor and such things.

[Egeides]

Very simple. If it costs more to let the market go free (liberal), then it must not be liberal on this. An exemple would be oligopolies that hinder free competition. If they control competition, they control prices. Thus, the price is not right, like in liberal theories.

Adam Smith said this:

From the moment some companies are bigger than others, liberalism gets into trouble. For those who know about smithian theories, he's refering to his exemple where you have a whole bunch of little stores all competing with their prices. If one store gets control over others...

*runs when he hears the Internationale: I dislike hymnas and I don't believe in marxism*

[Navaros]

a Christian can not be left-wing. that's impossible. the Bible is hardcore right-wing all the way. no doubt about it.

left-wingers who call themselves "Christians" should stop being hypocrites and trying to "have it both ways"

[Egeides]

Nice to see a bunch of affirmation without a single argument to show your ideas.... Could you AT LEAST explain yourself??

Christianity promotes helping others from what i recall so I see no evidence at first sight...

[zamboe]

Back again, I don't even know if I should do this.

Ok, here are my 2 cents.

Within the Catholic Church (the one I know more and I believe in) there has been during the 70's and 80's a tendency of thinking called "Theology of Liberation" that started during the civil war in Central America and spread to Brasil and Peru mostly with two main ideologist (Gutierres of Peru and Boff of Brasil) those Vatican's experts in Canonic Law and worldwide know theologists.

This new view (theology of liberation) it was basically associated with the communist movement that took place in Central America (best case known was the priest Romero that was killed by right wing Christians, even a Hollywood movie was made based on his story). Many of the principles that the new theology supported were evidently in accordance to the communist socialists parties of the time. It was really a good theology (without judging if it was really true or not) based on several contexts of the bible, mainly in based on the books of Luke and Isaiah, I

[Egeides]

Zamboe, would you have some source so that I can explorer further the subject? Something less than 30 pages?

[zamboe]

Zamboe, would you have some source so that I can explorer further the subject? Something less than 30 pages?

I've touched several topics, which one would like more info about ?, btw, my sources are primary in spanish.

[Egeides]

I'm espescially interested in the sending of religious emissary for political purposes. If it's in Spanish, I'll give it a try anyway. In the worst case I'll use Babelfish.

[Acriku]

Well if I'm wrong Arohk just say so, but the Christians have this book, called the bible (most of the christians anyway, some do not follow the bible as Edric told me once), where it tells them all they need to know. Now, they are not allowed to change the bible, and they can see for themselves in the bible that changing the Word will result in damnation. So, they have to be conservative, never changing - which would be the liberal's case, change. I don't know how being conservative politically has to do with the bible, though. So that's all I got.

[Caid Ivik]

Jesus teached us to love others, but also strictly tell he will make only social, no political changes. That's also why many Jews haven't agreed with him as a Messias. Zamboe, please don't make Bible a commie manifest. EdricO will pass you link for one if you need so...

[nemafakei]

Hodgepodge of paragraphs; please excuse the mixture and/or repetition where applicable.

What are the basic requirements of a good government? Is it that they uphold some vague ideal or principle? Is it that the representatives embody the people they represent? Is it that those whom decisons concerned have the power? Or is it simply that the most logical decisions are made?

When most people think of an ideal form of government, a lot of them think of democracy. They often see it as an end in of itself, rather than the means to an end. We should do well to remember that democracy is merely a structure, by which, in theory, we receive decisions which are as beneficial as possible. This is too often forgotten, and so must be stressed here.

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, modern democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed or useful. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed, so that the balanced belief is supported by truth. This seems impossible. I believe it is not.

At this point, I will remind you of another political idea that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, since it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant (the members, of course, will not), but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council). Testing methods for these attributes will have to be refined. It'll be difficult at first, but will become easier in the long run.

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, a brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, if there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government. Corruption is impossible, because there is no means by which it can occur, if all money is issued by the government.

---

The basic principle of this government and system is that we co-ordinate better, as a world (if possible). That is to say, rather than working against each other in the antagonism that prevails today, causing things like poverty and its humanitarian effects, (and so catastrophes like those on 11/09/01), we would create a way by which we could work together. This will entail refocusing greed, one of the banes of modern civilisation into something constructive. That is, I would have it that the concept of making profit impossible. For profit means that someone or everyone else loses; a system by which everyone makes profit is a contradiction, since money is an expression of buying power of a percentage of the world's resources; the more money in the system, the less the money is worth. A system by which only a few make profit means that others become poor - this is unfair and immoral. We must refocus greed for the self to seek prosperity for the community that is our world.

To co-ordinate well, we must find a system that does not merely agree on a few rules of thumb and let things be - aside from being lazy, this will fail to protect people. Moreover, a government can never be based on the representation of self-interest. One village should not simply damn a river that another village relies on for a water supply. All plans must be drawn up with the intrests of all parties concerned in mind. For any dispute, negotiations are quicker and easier if the only negotiators are ones who are not involved parties. Moreover, better decisions will be created, since it is not in the interest of the negotiators to make a bad decision, the like of which happen today - especially when parties that would be harmend do not even get a lookin as to the decision.

It is not that individuals are all too stupid to decide for themselves what to do, it is that they may often be biased in their approach to a decision involving them, so arbitration must start.

To clarify a misconception.... The idea is not that people serve some hazy body called "The Government" (which would be made up by the populace themselves anyway). The people serve each other, being part of a community. No-one has the "right" to do something that is harmful to others. And inaction can be an active decision in of itself, and one which can indirectly hatm others. The government is merely an influence by which we protect each other from coming to harm, not some end in itself. However, we must make sure that it functions well, and to do this, we must help the governmental system to help each other.

However, it is not required to sacrifice everything for others - we are just as much on the receiveng end of benefit.

Let me also dissuade you from the overused notion that everyone has certain rights which are somehow paramount. The idea in the form we know today was conceived in times when people were very worried about systems which would create wars and otherwise lead to general hardship. "Rights" is one tool that was used to stop prevent oppression. However, in systems designed specifically for the purpose of the benefit for all, whereby "rights" are not needed as a check-and-balance to stop misuse of power, we can safely dispose of the notion that is pleaded as a purpose in of itself.

That is not to say that we should not be free, that we should not be allowed to speak our thoughts, that we should not be given choice as to what we do, who we talk to. Indeed, to stop people doing these things would be counterproductive. But to enshrine these ideas as something we must protect at the expense of others is not sensible. Of course, no-one can go around imprisoning, gagging, or restricting people. But before providing for luxuries, we must make sure that we put our effort into getting everyone fed, educated, and in a position from which they can maximise their potential and be useful to society.

[SpiceGuid]

EdricO, is it meaningfull to request industrial property for people if the economy is mainly driven by services?

What is communism in the context of a services-driven economy?

[zamboe]

I'm espescially interested in the sending of religious emissary for political purposes. If it's in Spanish, I'll give it a try anyway. In the worst case I'll use Babelfish.

Here you go :

http://www.nodulo.org/bib/stoll/alp06g.htm

[zamboe]

Zamboe, please don't make Bible a commie manifest.

What kind of comment is that suppoused to be ?

[Egeides]

Jesus teached us to love others, but also strictly tell he will make only social, no political changes. That's also why many Jews haven't agreed with him as a Messias. Zamboe, please don't make Bible a commie manifest. EdricO will pass you link for one if you need so...

He didn't say political changes were bad, he simply said religion is religion, and politics are politics. "Savior is not done by politics but done by the person".

It doesn't mean that the Bible says that feudal system is as good as democracy or anything.

[Tenzul]

We cancled compulsory work and what happened?

17 % people lying on the ground draining our economy with

social benefits.

[Egeides]

Not so sure it's draining your economy... Sometimes it costs less for a society to give social benefits than to take the consequences of not having them. Look at education or health for exemple.

[Tenzul]

People who usually don't want to work don't

care about education or health and spend money on

things such as alcohol.

Btw we'll have to pay for education here in Slovakia soon and one

social benefit covers 1/2 of the lowest price.

[Egeides]

People who don't want to work, this is something else... If someone wants only the benefits but no work, I say it's not correct and should therefore be adjusted.

But for those who DO want to work, I see no problem.

[AWACS]

lol, i just searched for communism on this fourm. Guess how much of that was green

[Caid Ivik]

People who usually don't want to work don't

care about education or health and spend money on

things such as alcohol.

Btw we'll have to pay for education here in Slovakia soon and one

social benefit covers 1/2 of the lowest price.

What people buy from their wages or unemployment social support, that is their problem. Education is still payed. Not by straight payments, but by huge bureaucratic aparate named Centralistic Tax System. You can't even imagine how much money vanish there.

[Tenzul]

Tell it to the people who won't be able to

study.

[Caid Ivik]

Tak dostanu stipendia, ved nejaka firma im to zaplati, budu chciet predsa novych ;)

[Edric O]

I'd like to point you all to Nema's post. It's long, yes, but I think you should read it before we go on. Personally, I completely agree with Nema's thoughts on politics. The two of us support the same framework for a political system.

SpiceGuid: No economy can be driven by services, because services do not produce anything. The base of any economy has to be production. In our countries, it may seem that the economy is driven by services, but that is only because the production is done far away, in poorer nations. We live in a global economy.