Western democracies vs. One-party capitalist governments

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.


1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.

We live in Vietnam where not one of our Vietnamese friends care about politics, and they really are happier for it. They just see their country getting better and this general idea that things are good is very under-rated.


3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.


4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.


5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.




I'll get a lot of hate for this post. But what we talked about made sense. We're surrounded by the consequences of Brexit etc. and stressed out, while our Vietnamese friends don't give a toss about anything political. Our cost of democracy is angst.

My made up solution this evening was for TDs to have longer terms. Long enough that the end result of decisions they make are visible. Stop short-term goals and make them accountable. Or have one political party and referndums on all social issues.

I'm not politically astute, obviously, so no need to go hell for leather on me. I just like living in a society where pretty much everyone is on the same page.

badtoro

Deleted User wrote: »

5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

Stuck at home under the weather, literally just saw a Vietnamese contributor to the Ken Burns series on the Vietnam war say Vietnamese people are more split now than ever before.

badtoro

badtoro wrote: »

Stuck at home under the weather, literally just saw a Vietnamese contributor to the Ken Burns series on the Vietnam war say Vietnamese people are more split now than ever before.

Spilt on what? The only thing I've witnessed here is a split on Ho Chi Minh. The country itself is fine on the country's direction, with the South China sea being the big issue.

Vietnam isn't really my point here though. It's far from ideal.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but isn't that a succinct definition of fascism?

The Wild Goose

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

James Brown

The Wild Goose wrote: »

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

I agree it's not sustainable, but sure what's another crash? Just nature taking it's course.
FYI: currently largest number of children homeless in the state, record breaking. More than ever before, but y'know something for nothing, Brexit and that.

Amirani

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree it's not sustainable, but sure what's another crash? Just nature taking it's course.
FYI: currently largest number of children homeless in the state, record breaking. More than ever before, but y'know something for nothing, Brexit and that.

How many homeless people do you reckon there are in Vietnam?

Bet they're not even able to count "homeless" in the way that we can, as the concept of emergency accommodation via hotels etc. doesn't exist.

James Brown

Amirani wrote: »

How many homeless people do you reckon there are in Vietnam?

I have little to no clue about Vietnam. I have however seen the Rambo's and have a poor view of their camp commandants keeping POW's long after said conflict.

CrabRevolution

The Wild Goose wrote: »

Could it be that the Vietnamese people are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than politics?
You see here in the west we're living in the land of plenty. Nobody goes hungry. The supermarkets are all chock full of food available at unbelievable prices... literally. The price of food is ridiculously low.

You'd probably have to go back to the 1940's to when the world was at war and everything was in short supply as our last time of real austerity and hardship.
Which means that there are few people alive here today who have ever experienced real hunger.

So food isn't a problem here. And don't worry, cause you don't even have to earn it. No job? No problem, the state will provide all you need.
And the state will even provide for the other peoples of the world too, so come on in and enjoy the party of plenty. Need a house? Sure thing.
Need education, need medical? Absolutely, whatever you want and it's all free.

Except....it's a totally unsustainable model.
We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!
So at some stage western civilization is going to crash and burn.
And how are we going to survive if the safety blanket of the state is taken away?
Most won't. People in general have lost the ability to do anything for themselves, and that includes most who work as well.
Being creative in Excel is going to be of little use in putting food on the table, nor is selling insurance, selling flat screens or hiding in a civil service office. A recent survey found that 30% of 18-35yo males couldn't change a light bulb!

We're on borrowed time here in our little western utopia, but people are too busy wondering which colour car would look best in their driveway, or where to find a safe space because someone displayed micro-aggression by disagreeing with their opinion.
Western civilization is reeling on the ropes right now...we just don't know it yet!

Who is? Ireland's Budget defecit was €630 Million euro this year.

Unless your "opps" refers to your own mistaken info?

The Wild Goose

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Who is? Ireland's Budget defecit was €630 Million euro this year.

Unless your "opps" refers to your own mistaken info?

Unless I'm reading your table incorrectly (which is possible as I'm not an economist) the very last line reads:

General Government Debt, per cent of GDP = 64%

The figures for 2018 aren't yet available as we're still in 2018.
However, according to tradingeconomics.com, the GDP for Ireland was $333.73 billion US dollars in 2017.
This would put our General Government Debt for 2018 in the region of $213 billion , or roughly €186.51 billion.
Am I incorrect?

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000

Amirani

The Wild Goose wrote: »

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000

That figure is completely irrelevant without netting off assets. Even at that, it's still an abstract figure that doesn't really mean much.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll get a lot of hate for this post.

You wish.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

Mayhaps after a long period of stagnation following a brutal and devastating war things are either going to improve or get worse whatever the system.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.

Easy when all the opposition are slaughtered or re-educated.

We live in Vietnam where not one of our Vietnamese friends care about politics, and they really are happier for it. They just see their country getting better and this general idea that things are good is very under-rated.

If it was a democracy it could still get better.

3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.

Our system could certainly improve but there's an element of low-hanging fruit in poor and underdeveloped countries when it comes to building infrastructure.

4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.

Smog in Chinese cities is horrendous, they're still building coal-fired plants and using CFCs illegally. But they "own it". Please. America's uselessness in some of this area doesn't excuse China's.

5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

As above, kill, re-educate and suppress all opposition and yeah, it's less likely there'll be great divisions. Hardly groundbreaking.

James Brown

The anti-democracy idea of one party perpetually would never fly and rightly so. We in the west prefer the illusion of democracy, (the lesser or more popular of two evils) and the subtle wave of being owned by international financial cartels, (owning a home is 'entitlement' for example) washing over us as we give out about minorities.

The Wild Goose

Amirani wrote: »

That figure is completely irrelevant without netting off assets. Even at that, it's still an abstract figure that doesn't really mean much.

Well we've no oil, coal or gas reserves, no gold or diamond mines and no crown jewels to sell off, so what assets are we talking about?
We could sell off the land but then we'd all be tenants...been there, done that.

Personally if I owe some dude in China €800,000 I wouldn't consider it irrelevant, but then that's just me. And I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on a chart that claims it can predict 5 years into the future?

All civilizations end, and ours is passed it's sell-by date IMO.
Virtually no-one can do anything tangible anymore. We've lost the ability to look after ourselves, and presume someone will step in and do it for us.
We've also lost the ability to think logically and solve problems.

Think about it, what major inventions have we as a civilization come up with in the last 50 years? Enhancements yes, with Japan leading the way (who last time I checked had a national debt of 240% of GDP..Wow)

It won't take much for it to tip over the edge either.
A few inches of snow in March and people were virtually stabbing each other over a loaf of bread.
Imagine how quickly it would deteriorate if there was a real problem?

There's an old saying which is very apt for all civilisations:

Strong men make good times
Good times make weak men
Weak men make bad times
Bad times make strong men

In case you were wondering...we're at line three

CrankyHaus

Replace multi-party democracy with single party capitalism and you just move the level of power exchange above the electorate to factions of the powerful vying for control within the single ruling party, basically oligarchy.

Personally I prefer our imperfect system of accountable democracy. Arguably single party state capitalism works better in more cohesive collectivist Asian societies that deliver prosperity under this model but even they may eventually seek democratic accountability, such as in South Korea in the late 1980s.

rossie1977

Just back from China and the air quality issue especially in Beijing is getting worse not better from the last time I was there.

Gbear

I think when people complain about democracy they tend to do so either unaware or dismissive of why democracy is an effective system of government.

It isn't about efficiency or absolute levels of wealth or thriving, it's about stability and diffusion of power.

Any time you give people power a large proportion will abuse it if they think they can get away with it, whether it's putting their hand in the till if they're working a cash register, or they have unilateral control over a police state.

What we've seen in recent events in the UK and the US, is that functional democracy hasn't been found wanting, but rather that a poor set of democratic systems had their weaknesses exposed.

The lack of representation in both countries has led to disenfranchisement and an ability for the far right in both countries to hold power well above their support, and this has meant they don't have to actually fulfill any kind of mandate.

They can ignore actually making people's lives better, focus on lining their pockets, or, if you're being generous, execute absurd, poorly thought out pseudo-libertarian political fantasies, and have been safe in the knowledge that they could still clutch onto power because of the shoddy job their democratic systems do at representing the actual people of the country, particularly in the face of rampant propaganda they control, and a puzzling tendency for humans to, when faced with periods of want, immediately jump on the weakest, rather than targeting those directly responsible for their worsening conditions.

A more slanted system, all the way up to it's logical conclusion - a fascist one-party state, would be worse in this respect.

Benevolent dictatorships are a nice fantasy, but that's all they are.

abcabc123123

Deleted User wrote: »

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.

Doesn't surprise me to read this. You're not the only one:

In 2016 a survey found that more than half of young Americans no longer support capitalism.

Only a third of Americans under 35 say that it is vital they live in a democracy; the share who would welcome military government grew from 7% in 1995 to 18% last year.

I don't think you're American but I expect you'd see similar trends here.

1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

That's very charitable towards single party states. Looking at history, they certainly tend to be wary of revolt, but sensible and steady, long term planning isn't something you generally associate with them. It generally starts with silencing dissent and gets worse from there when that doesn't work.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.
/
5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.

It's hard to be split on things when you're not allowed have a different opinion. I'm thankful we haven't had much Irexit bull**** here but I'd still much rather have that than live somewhere talking out of turn results in a knock on the door.

3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.

4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.

Given the most prosperous countries on the planet are still countries with pluralistic democracies, I think this is false (3). I don't know much about China's emissions but I'd imagine being able to bypass large parts of the industrial revolution by being late to the party helps.

I'll get a lot of hate for this post. But what we talked about made sense. We're surrounded by the consequences of Brexit etc. and stressed out, while our Vietnamese friends don't give a toss about anything political. Our cost of democracy is angst.

Angst is a pretty tiny cost to pay I would have thought.

My made up solution this evening was for TDs to have longer terms. Long enough that the end result of decisions they make are visible. Stop short-term goals and make them accountable. Or have one political party and referndums on all social issues.

Referendums are incredibly divisive. You yourself said Brexit wasn't worth it. Personally, I think referendums are a bad idea and should be avoided wherever possible.

I've not formed an opinion on TD terms. Anyone?

I just like living in a society where pretty much everyone is on the same page.

Sounds kind of bleak to me.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We in the west prefer the illusion of democracy, (the lesser or more popular of two evils) and the subtle wave of being owned by international financial cartels, (owning a home is 'entitlement' for example) washing over us as we give out about minorities.

Left wing populism is dangerous as well.

The Wild Goose

Gbear wrote: »

What we've seen in recent events in the UK and the US, is that functional democracy hasn't been found wanting, but rather that a poor set of democratic systems had their weaknesses exposed.

The lack of representation in both countries has led to disenfranchisement and an ability for the far right in both countries to hold power well above their support, and this has meant they don't have to actually fulfill any kind of mandate.

They can ignore actually making people's lives better, focus on lining their pockets, or, if you're being generous, execute absurd, poorly thought out pseudo-libertarian political fantasies, and have been safe in the knowledge that they could still clutch onto power because of the shoddy job their democratic systems do at representing the actual people of the country, particularly in the face of rampant propaganda they control, and a puzzling tendency for humans to, when faced with periods of want, immediately jump on the weakest, rather than targeting those directly responsible for their worsening conditions..

I'm sorry, but are you referring to Trump?
Trump won a democratic election, despite most of mainstream media being controlled by the far left, along with the movie industry and the mogul's who control all of social media.
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are all controlled by the left, as evidenced by the fact that they all have been systematically closing down conservative accounts, while leaving radical left extremists accounts untouched.
Most US universities are also controlled by the left, resulting in extreme left-wing bias being indoctrinated into the youth by leftist professors.
Yet he won the election. Why?
Because ordinary people are tired of the fanaticism of the left.
They're tired of being force-fed that there 32 genders, tired of being told that they should feel guilt for their 'white privilege', tired of the left trying to take away their 1st and 2nd amendments, tired of the Clinton foundation with it's €600 million in its coffers, tired of Hilary and her 98% erasure of emails required for evidence, and tired of being sold a pup under the guise of all-inclusiveness but which is really a cover for globalisation.

He was voted in by ordinary people who want nothing more than to raise a family and work for a living. Last time I checked the US unemployment rate was at it's lowest level in 29 years. That's what the ordinary people want.

sink

I think authoritarian regimes only work in developing countries because they have a road map to follow. They are following a well beaten path of economic development trough trade liberalisation and investment in education and infrastructure. The problems with authoritarian regimes will become apparent when they are at a high level of development and there are no easy paths to growth. The regime will lose legitimacy and will inevitably turn to repression in order to maintain power, this will further damage growth. Only countries that manage to transition from authoritarianism to democracy will maintain the upwards trend and join the top level of development.

rossie1977

The Wild Goose wrote: »

I'm sorry, but are you referring to Trump?
Trump won a democratic election, despite most of mainstream media being controlled by the far left, along with the movie industry and the mogul's who control all of social media.

The far left controls the media in the States..are you serious? Name even one progressive candidate who got any airtime on a US network before they won an election or started putting up a major challenge to someone in the establishment let alone someone on far left.

The us media gave Trump hundreds of hours of free advertising during the campaign while ignoring his rivals. CNN and other networks aired Trump's empty podium https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are all controlled by the left, as evidenced by the fact that they all have been systematically closing down conservative accounts, while leaving radical left extremists accounts untouched.

Facebook and Twitter played a big role in Trump's victory. Twitter failed to shut down the thousands upon thousands of obvious Russian bot accounts in time and Facebook distributed a multitude of fake news stories on Clinton and of course the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The accounts shut down by Twitter were inciting violence. If you feel there are radical left extremist accounts inciting violence against their opponent's then they should be shut down too. However in the last decade 73% of terrorist attacks in the US were far right and 3% far left it's obvious there is a much bigger problem on one side of political spectrum right now.

Most US universities are also controlled by the left, resulting in extreme left-wing bias being indoctrinated into the youth by leftist professors.
Yet he won the election. Why?
Because ordinary people are tired of the fanaticism of the left.

Actually fanaticism is mostly on the right. There isn't many on the left currently blowing up clinics/places of worship or running over protestors or sending bombs to media outlets and celebrities.

They're tired of being force-fed that there 32 genders, tired of being told that they should feel guilt for their 'white privilege', tired of the left trying to take away their 1st and 2nd amendments, tired of the Clinton foundation with it's €600 million in its coffers, tired of Hilary and her 98% erasure of emails required for evidence, and tired of being sold a pup under the guise of all-inclusiveness but which is really a cover for globalisation.

On this week of all weeks you bring up Hillary's e-mails..

He was voted in by ordinary people who want nothing more than to raise a family and work for a living. Last time I checked the US unemployment rate was at it's lowest level in 29 years. That's what the ordinary people want.

US economy was losing 800,000 job a month when Obama took over, he turned that around to 75 months of consecutive of job growth or go from 10% in October 2009 to 4.7% in December 2016.

Trump has done nothing for the ordinary person on the street. His economic policies as expected are there to benefit himself, the top 1% and huge corporations. He doesn't even try to hide it.

Obama was a corporatist but the guy living in the huge tower with his name in gold letters sitting on a golden throne is a man of the people..

The Wild Goose

I clicked the BBC online news service a month or so ago.
I don't remember the exact headline but it was along the lines of "White House staff disobey Trump", the gist of it being that staff thought Trump's policies so bad they weren't obeying them.
Bear in mind that this was the main headline on the BBC news service!

When I delved into the small print, it turned out that it was in fact taken from an editorial in the New York Times, which quoted an 'unknown source'.
The headline wasn't even in quotation marks.

So this is the depths to which mainstream media has fallen, this BBC headline news story was based on someone's opinion quoting an unsubstantiated source?
But there's more...

I decided to make a complaint to the BBC on the grounds that this was not in fact documented news even though it was presented as such, but merely one persons opinion, then proceeded to jump through all the hoops required to make a complaint.
And guess what?
When I got to the end and clicked 'report', it disappeared, and I was returned to the beginning of the process.

So I don't know where you're getting your news sources from, but if you're expecting true news from either the BBC or our leftie friends in RTE, well good luck with that.

When Trump got elected, presenters and reporters on CNN and MSNBC were crying ... literally crying!
This demonstrated two things, firstly where their loyalties lay, and secondly how infantile they are that they can't even conduct themselves properly in front of the camera.
Every single day for the two years since his election, both these 'news channels' run derogatory reports and commentary about Trump, and they'll clutch at anything at all no matter how insane or ludicrous it may be to try and undermine him.

Recently they had an "expert" in the studio trying to show that Trump 'could be' in the early stages of dementia because of the way he was holding a water bottle at a news conference? I mean, come on? This is news reporting?

It's been two years of this drivel, surely after two years it's time to move on and report some actual real news? Trump calls them fake news for good reason.

CNN have been caught out multiple times, and not just in relation to him but generally. Like when the two reporters were reporting from different locations, except they were really standing in the same parking lot because the same cars were passing by in the backgrounds of both. Or when the reporter was shoulder deep in the floodwater...until two people walked by in the background showing that he was really on his knees. Some would call this "Fake News".

I checked out your tagged report regarding free election airtime.
Firstly, this relates to free coverage.
So if CNN featured a 3 hour report on Trump for example, attempting to demonstrate he was a male chauvinist pig, that would show as 3 hours of free airtime for Trump.

So it relates to all free coverage, positive and negative.
Did you happen to notice that Trumps negative coverage was almost double that of Clinton?

It's also obvious that a 'personality' who was not previously a politician, shoots from the hip and doesn't use the same worn out political speak is going to get more media coverage, both positive and negative but mainly negative, than a lifetime politician.

Secondly, Trumps campaign was clever. He knew he was facing a leftist mainstream media and had to think of alternatives so he used Twitter, a platform available to everyone and not subject to the same political censorship as mainstream media (well not yet, but for how long?).
Also, I would hazard a guess that if you were to exclude Twitter from that report and concentrate solely on mainstream media, the negative portion of Trumps free publicity would jump to 80-90%.

Thirdly, that report emerged from a company in Portland and we know what that's famous for recently, so there's every possibility the figures could be 'massaged'.
Portland in case you're not aware is a leftist-controlled city where the police were ordered to stand down while masked Antifa rioted for three days.

Ah good old Portland and the rest of the west coast of America, bastions of democracy and supporters of the democratic party.
Except of course in places like San Francisco, where the left-wing governors of the city have instructed it's citizens NOT to uphold federal law?

Have you any idea how stupid some of these people really are?
The west coast universities are turning out a generation who know nothing, literally.
Check out Mark Dice on youtube if you don't believe me. He asks simple questions out on the street, questions like:

"What does the 4th July celebrate?" "Who was the city of Washington named after?"
"What was the last book you read?" "What year did we gain independence from China?"
The Obama educated generation literally haven't a clue.
They know nothing of their own history, they don't read books, but they can go to a rally and shout "Trump out". When asked why, the usual response is that "he's a racist" When asked for one racist thing he said, the response is "Aw, I donno..he just is!" They go through a university system and come out the other end with nothing except the ability to chant meaningless slogans.

This ideology and education system is coming to a school near you too.
We're already on that path ourselves. I have a friend who's a primary school teacher.
She can't spend enough time on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic because over 90% of her class of infants can't speak English. There's no mention of Christmas allowed in the school, and all food must be halal. That's in a Dublin school.

It's only a matter of time before there are areas of Dublin under sharia law.
You think that's crazy right?
Well tell that to the people who live in or near these places in UK, France, Belgium, Sweden etc.. Tell it to the people who actually report on the ground from these places.

If I see footage of someone walking down a street in their own city being stopped by police and told "You can't go down there because you may offend someone, and if you attempt to we'll arrest you", then I believe them when they report that it's a no-go area for westerners.

Forget about mainstream media who are pushing their own agenda and investigate and observe yourself. Don't just accept government facts and figures. See if what they say actually conforms with your real world view.
If you see with your own eyes or through the lens of someone who's actually there, then give that more credence than someone sitting in a studio.
If you start off with the assumption that all news has been corrupted by the messengers ideology and then work backwards, you'll eventually get to the truth.

James Brown

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Replace multi-party democracy with single party capitalism and you just move the level of power exchange above the electorate to factions of the powerful vying for control within the single ruling party, basically oligarchy.

Personally I prefer our imperfect system of accountable democracy. Arguably single party state capitalism works better in more cohesive collectivist Asian societies that deliver prosperity under this model but even they may eventually seek democratic accountability, such as in South Korea in the late 1980s.

What we currently have is the illusion of accountable democracy. We simply switch one team for the other with (sometimes) differing factions of the powerful vying for control backing them, rewarded through inappropriate behaviour with sweet deals and the like.

I don't even remember starting this.. And I'm embarrassed. Keep it going if you like.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't even remember starting this.. And I'm embarrassed. Keep it going if you like.

I read your OP to a friend and prefaced it by saying I assumed you were pissed out of your head when posting it. :P

johnnyskeleton

I think the obvious solution is to encourage people to value long term planning and sensible government over short term gains.

I saw a faint flicker of hope for the last budget when the Taoiseach came out and said that he believed the budget would be more or less balanced. I was then dissappointed to see that we were still deficit spending. In bizzaroland of 2018, running a deficit of less than 3% is more or less balanced!

What I would like to see is a world where a politician who promises to increase taxes, cut current government spending, pay off our debt and invest in infrastructure or (since it's a political hot topic at the moment) state owned utilities is a viable candidate for election.

Imagine over the next hundred years' time, the parties that promises to give everyone a little bonus come budget time (i.e. every current party in Ireland and most non-fringe parties in Europe and North America) were never in government, and we went from servicing nearly €200bn in debt at a cost of a few billion per year, we had no debt and NTMA assets of €200bn that provided a return of a few billion per year.

In my view, something like this should be the long term goal - move away from the deficit spending constantly seeking growth model, and focus on building a financially stable state.

Sadly, if you said that to most people these days they'd think you're insane. Ah well, back to the old more hospital beds vs lower taxes debate!

EDIT: Just in case it wasn't clear, the idea of a one party state is absolutely abhorrent, and as much as I'd love to see long term planning, I'd sacrifice it any day for democracy. What I would like to see is a change of voters views over the long term!

johnnyskeleton

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What we currently have is the illusion of accountable democracy. We simply switch one team for the other with (sometimes) differing factions of the powerful vying for control backing them, rewarded through inappropriate behaviour with sweet deals and the like.

Indeed, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill*, democracy is the worst system of government in the world; apart that is from every other kind of government!




*might not be a Churchill quote, but is often attributed to him.

James Brown

I think what we see here is a race to improve the economic numbers. It should, but does not, equate to more prosperity and better services for all. It's akin to working over time and cutting back on maintaining your house to make your bank account grow so you've money to spend on servicing problems rather than fixing them or spending on any issue that you take a fancy to.
It came up on a thread a while back, as regards the OP, sometimes I think leaving the day to day running of the state in the hands of administrators is a way to go, leaving any policy moves to politicians. There'd be no more parish pump anyway.

Victor

The Wild Goose wrote: »

We're spending around 18 billion a year more than we're taking in... opps!

Are we? This would seem to suggest we approximately break even (up by one measure, down by the other).

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2019/Documents/White%20Paper_Estimates%20of%20Receipts%20and%20Expenditure%20for%20Year%20ending%2031%20Dec%202019.pdf

The Wild Goose wrote: »

This would put our General Government Debt for 2018 in the region of $213 billion , or roughly €186.51 billion.
Am I incorrect?

$/€ values vary. The NTMA put it at €190 billion. http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/

If I am in fact correct though, that means that every man, woman and child in this country owes €840,000[/QUOTE]About 4.784 million people

€190 billion / 4.784 million = €39,716.

Franz Von Peppercorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but isn't that a succinct definition of fascism?

There are millions of definitions of fascism these days. He’s actually describing China or Vietnam both nominally communist.

Franz Von Peppercorn

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Replace multi-party democracy with single party capitalism and you just move the level of power exchange above the electorate to factions of the powerful vying for control within the single ruling party, basically oligarchy.

Personally I prefer our imperfect system of accountable democracy. Arguably single party state capitalism works better in more cohesive collectivist Asian societies that deliver prosperity under this model but even they may eventually seek democratic accountability, such as in South Korea in the late 1980s.

As far as I know though the communist Chinese system does in fact allow competitive elections at local level, but only between communist party members or affiliates.

This may not seem that much choice but in fact there can be ideological divisions between the candidates and the voter can vote for the best possible politician, which allows them to kick the bums out.

Contrast that with the US and the U.K. where most people’s vote doesn’t count in most constituencies because people vote by tribal political party loyalties and leave many constituencies as guaranteed safe seats.

The hatred between these broadly similar parties, particularly the republicans and democrats is as significant as their policies are similar.

Gbear

The single party corporatist totalitarian state might be the end-point of the state in fascism, but that's not all fascism is, and fascism had different implementations under different regimes.

A single party state sounds pretty fascistic, but there are other elements that have typically been found in fascist states, including revolutionary traditionalism - the idea of recapturing a past glory through reactionary political movements back to traditional gender, sexual, religious and social mores, imperialism - the natural right of the strong, morally pure state to seize resources for its own betterment, cults of personality, the creation of an enemy who poses threats real and imagined that must be combated to achieve victory for the people (see Jews, immigrants, etc), and so on.

Not all of these are necessarily the end point but rather the means of toppling the democratic order, or of maintaining the one-party state, but implicit in a one party state are systems like this to maintain control. You couldn't really have a voluntary one party state. People aren't solicitous enough nor are they unified enough in their outlook.

I don't know enough about China or fascism to speak authoritatively on it, but maybe you could argue that China has shifted a bit towards fascism with it's shift to more corporatism and state managed capitalism. However, I think, with the likes of the Uighurs you see a different sort of ethnic cleansing than you would expect in a fascist system - there seems to persist a more globalised vision for their ideology of control that focuses more on aligning people into good little communist drones, rather than purging or displacing those who do not meet the criteria for ethnic, cultural or religious purity.

The cosying of Putin up to the church to lend him moral authority, attacks on minorities such as the LGBT community, yet more examples of Russian expansionist aggression in the Ukraine just yesterday, the relatively subtle peddling of Putin as a shirtless man's man who wrestles bears to build a less ostentatious cult of personality, on top of the oligarchal system of plundered natural resources, stolen elections and political oppression would suggest that Russia is a fully fascist state as far as I understand it.

The right wing of the modern US engages in the revolutionary traditionalism, the demonisation of others, vote manipulation, and they certain fetishise the military to an obscene degree, and the likes of John Bolton certainly tick the expansionist and imperialistic boxes, while a cult of personality has arisen around Trump based on violent and fascistic rhetoric about minorities and the free press. I don't think you could call the US a fascist state yet however, because there is still enough force being exerted by the democratic system, such as it is, to prevent the genuinely fascist Republican party from making the US a one-party state.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gbear wrote: »

The single party corporatist totalitarian state might be the end-point of the state in fascism, but that's not all fascism is, and fascism had different implementations under different regimes.

A single party state sounds pretty fascistic, but there are other elements that have typically been found in fascist states, including revolutionary traditionalism - the idea of recapturing a past glory through reactionary political movements back to traditional gender, sexual, religious and social mores, imperialism - the natural right of the strong, morally pure state to seize resources for its own betterment, cults of personality, the creation of an enemy who poses threats real and imagined that must be combated to achieve victory for the people (see Jews, immigrants, etc), and so on.

Not all of these are necessarily the end point but rather the means of toppling the democratic order, or of maintaining the one-party state, but implicit in a one party state are systems like this to maintain control. You couldn't really have a voluntary one party state. People aren't solicitous enough nor are they unified enough in their outlook.

I don't know enough about China or fascism to speak authoritatively on it, but maybe you could argue that China has shifted a bit towards fascism with it's shift to more corporatism and state managed capitalism. However, I think, with the likes of the Uighurs you see a different sort of ethnic cleansing than you would expect in a fascist system - there seems to persist a more globalised vision for their ideology of control that focuses more on aligning people into good little communist drones, rather than purging or displacing those who do not meet the criteria for ethnic, cultural or religious purity.

The cosying of Putin up to the church to lend him moral authority, attacks on minorities such as the LGBT community, yet more examples of Russian expansionist aggression in the Ukraine just yesterday, the relatively subtle peddling of Putin as a shirtless man's man who wrestles bears to build a less ostentatious cult of personality, on top of the oligarchal system of plundered natural resources, stolen elections and political oppression would suggest that Russia is a fully fascist state as far as I understand it.

The right wing of the modern US engages in the revolutionary traditionalism, the demonisation of others, vote manipulation, and they certain fetishise the military to an obscene degree, and the likes of John Bolton certainly tick the expansionist and imperialistic boxes, while a cult of personality has arisen around Trump based on violent and fascistic rhetoric about minorities and the free press. I don't think you could call the US a fascist state yet however, because there is still enough force being exerted by the democratic system, such as it is, to prevent the genuinely fascist Republican party from making the US a one-party state.

So if the Republican Party are fascists for sure, where does that leave the democrats?

Gbear

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So if the Republican Party are fascists for sure, where does that leave the democrats?

I think the two party, winner-takes all system breeds fascism, and they are part of that system, but they don't tick any of the boxes around cult of personality, traditionalism, othering, violent rhetoric, and on issues such as expansionist foreign policy, they're a mixed bag, but at the very least, far more reserved than the Republican party, and at the very least, if they engage in war for realpolitik reasons, they're not accompanying that with the sort of pro-war expansionist rhetoric you would expect to find in a fascist party.

If you want to call them bad, you'll have to use another word than fascism.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gbear wrote: »

I think the two party, winner-takes all system breeds fascism, and they are part of that system, but they don't tick any of the boxes around cult of personality, traditionalism, othering, violent rhetoric, and on issues such as expansionist foreign policy, they're a mixed bag, but at the very least, far more reserved than the Republican party,

That’s absurd. They are at least as imperialistic if not more so. And the left in the US does in fact engage in violent rhetoric and othering albeit of supposedly privileged groups.

and at the very least, if they engage in war for realpolitik reasons, they're not accompanying that with the sort of pro-war expansionist rhetoric you would expect to find in a fascist party.

They engage in war for the same reasons as the republicans - American supremacism.

If you want to call them bad, you'll have to use another word than fascism.

I’d argue that you should do the same with the republicans. Or even putin.

In fact I’d restrict the term to historical parties who declared themselves fascist.

Gbear

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s absurd. They are at least as imperialistic if not more so. And the left in the US does in fact engage in violent rhetoric and othering albeit of supposedly privileged groups.

The party who began the war on terror to the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, trillions of dollars spent to achieve nothing and actually increase the threat of terrorism, has torn up a nuclear disarmament deal and repeatedly threatened to attack Iran is less imperialist?

The Democrats have a shameful record in foreign policy by any standard, but it is utterly delusional to think that they're worse than the Republicans.

As for the violent rhetoric, the difference here is that on one side you have the orthodoxy of the Republican party having fully absorbed the extremist fringe elements of their support, from Christian theocrats, to naked racism. They've just about managed to stop short of openly espousing overt nazis, while accidentally allowing some of them to run as Republicans in the house elections in places like North Carolina and Illinois.

And then their man in the White House is a racist who openly attacks the freedom of the press, declares his nationalism and tries to equivocate about whether or not the Nazis were the bad guys in Charlottesville. He also, without any evidence, has repeatedly undermined the democratic system, including declaring that if he lost, it would be illegitimate and because of a rigged system.

The Democrats are not the purple-haired loonies you find on college campuses. Those voices are not driving the party, unlike the corporatists attempting to dismantle the state, open racists winning primaries and theocrats who want to reinstitute traditionalist gender and sexual roles while running roughshod over human rights, all of whom have found a home not just voting for the republican party, but winning seats in the houses of government.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They engage in war for the same reasons as the republicans - American supremacism.

Everyone engages in wars for the same reason - self-interest. The degree to which countries are willing to go to war, the lengths to which they're willing to go, the reasons they have for doing so are hugely important.

It behooves people to criticise things that ought to be criticised. Obama's tenure was a massive disappointment, although I would temper my criticism of him based on a variety of factors, from the mess he inherited to the lack of support from other branches of government. Clinton was a pretty awful president, and Clinton number 2 wouldn't have been anything to celebrate.

It is not, however, rational or intellectually honest to pretend things are equivalent when they are not.
One of the key weapons in the arsenal of the fascist demagogue is just this kind of equivocation, that serves to muddy the waters and hide the extent of the damage of they or their side's policies.

I mightn't be a fan of getting shot, but if given a choice, I'm not going to hum and haww over whether I get shot in the foot or shot in the head. Clearly one is worse than the other.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I’d argue that you should do the same with the republicans. Or even putin.

In fact I’d restrict the term to historical parties who declared themselves fascist.

Ultimately that's a semantic question. It is useful to have a term to link modern fascistic governments, or governments with fascistic tendencies, if only so that lessons from history can help us to avoid making the same mistakes.

Like I indicated, I'm not an expert on fascism. If someone is, and I've erred, feel free to outline where the statements I've made are specifically incorrect and how the rise of the modern far-right differs to the rise of fascism, and we can have a debate about whether I'm right, wrong, or the differences are a question of splitting hairs, or semantics.

rossie1977

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s absurd. They are at least as imperialistic if not more so. And the left in the US does in fact engage in violent rhetoric and othering albeit of supposedly privileged groups.

Really? Pretty much every time a new Republican president is elected the first thing they do is talk about a big increase in military spending because previous Democrat president ignored modernizing it.

One of the big complaints against Jimmy Carter from those on the right was that he wasn't tough enough on terrorism. Reagan and Bush Jr didn't need massive uprisings to happen or the allies to strike first before invading a country..

Which party are more nationalistic.. Republicans or Dems?
Which party turns more a blind eye to human rights abuses?
Which party constantly views Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, immigrants, socialists as enemies?
Which party views the military as more supreme?
Which party more condones sexism?
Which party view the press as the enemy?
Which party are more obsessed with national security?
Which party wants religion to play a role in government/schools?
Which party protect corporate power more?
Which party suppresses labour power more?
Which party has more of a hatred for the intellectuals and the arts?
Which party is more obsessed with policing and punishment of crimes?
Which party is more likely to be involved in cronyism and corruption at highest level?
Which party is most likely to try and win elections by fraudulent means?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gbear wrote: »

The party who began the war on terror to the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, trillions of dollars spent to achieve nothing and actually increase the threat of terrorism, has torn up a nuclear disarmament deal and repeatedly threatened to attack Iran is less imperialist?

They all signed up, one senator excepted, to fight the war on terror in congress on sept 18th 2001. The AUMF was the act that legitimised many subsequent wars including Yemen. Both presidential candidates ran on threats against Iran. Trump on the other hand did want to withdraw from Afghanistan. Hillary pushed the Libya invasion. Obama escalated the Yemen war, recently escated again by trump. The democrats are strongly Russophobic and therefore are gung ho for wars that threaten Russia like Syria. It’s all a continuance. As significant as the difference between Disraeli and Gladstone. There were differences but not much, neither was going to dismantle the British empire or oppose “necessary wars”.

The Democrats have a shameful record in foreign policy by any standard, but it is utterly delusional to think that they're worse than the Republicans.

As bad I’d say.

As for the violent rhetoric, the difference here is that on one side you have the orthodoxy of the Republican party having fully absorbed the extremist fringe elements of their support, from Christian theocrats, to naked racism. They've just about managed to stop short of openly espousing overt nazis, while accidentally allowing some of them to run as Republicans in the house elections in places like North Carolina and Illinois.

The republicans are also a wider church than you imagine - one of the few consistent anti war politicians is Rand Paul. Economically a libertarian (which I oppose) he’s good on war. Another member of the anti war party is democrat Tulsi Gaddard. That’s about it. Ocasio seems to concentrate on internal affairs.

And then their man in the White House is a racist who openly attacks the freedom of the press, declares his nationalism and tries to equivocate about whether or not the Nazis were the bad guys in Charlottesville. He also, without any evidence, has repeatedly undermined the democratic system, including declaring that if he lost, it would be illegitimate and because of a rigged system.

His supporters would say that the dossier was an attack on the democratic system

The Democrats are not the purple-haired loonies you find on college campuses. Those voices are not driving the party, unlike the corporatists attempting to dismantle the state, open racists winning primaries and theocrats who want to reinstitute traditionalist gender and sexual roles while running roughshod over human rights, all of whom have found a home not just voting for the republican party, but winning seats in the houses of government

Although ocasio is pretty ok, the activist democrats seem to be either corporatists or the swivel headed loons of the college movements.

Everyone engages in wars for the same reason - self-interest. The degree to which countries are willing to go to war, the lengths to which they're willing to go, the reasons they have for doing so are hugely important.

Most countries don’t go to war at all.

behooves people to criticise things that ought to be criticised. Obama's tenure was a massive disappointment, although I would temper my criticism of him based on a variety of factors, from the mess he inherited to the lack of support from other branches of government. Clinton was a pretty awful president, and Clinton number 2 wouldn't have been anything to celebrate.

Your support of the Democrats is so much triumph of hope over so much experience. Obama gets a by in a way that trump doesn’t. However, except for Iran, trump didn’t in fact engage in his campaign on imperial expansion but the reverse; however in office he does what he’s told, as did obama who hardly attained power just to kill Yemeni, but did it anyway.

It is not, however, rational or intellectually honest to pretend things are equivalent when they are not.
One of the key weapons in the arsenal of the fascist demagogue is just this kind of equivocation, that serves to muddy the waters and hide the extent of the damage of they or their side's policies.

Did you just call me a fascist? The differences in foreign policy between the democrats and republicans is slight to non existant. Certainly since 2001. As I’ve explained.

I mightn't be a fan of getting shot, but if given a choice, I'm not going to hum and haww over whether I get shot in the foot or shot in the head. Clearly one is worse than the other.

Nothing is going to happen to you either way but I doubt a Yemeni child cares if she is starved by a blockade supported by the Democrats rather than the republicans. Or vice versa.

Ultimately that's a semantic question. It is useful to have a term to link modern fascistic governments, or governments with fascistic tendencies, if only so that lessons from history can help us to avoid making the same mistakes.

Like I indicated, I'm not an expert on fascism. If someone is, and I've erred, feel free to outline where the statements I've made are specifically incorrect and how the rise of the modern far-right differs to the rise of fascism, and we can have a debate about whether I'm right, wrong, or the differences are a question of splitting hairs, or semantics.

Fascism is really used as a term of abuse and wasn’t itself all that coherent. If you aren’t the expert why throw it about so much.

Another problem with its overuse is that it exempts other political systems from scrutiny. Not just communism, but militaristic messianic imperialistic democracies - generally the worst kind for people outside the tent.

demfad

Deleted User wrote: »

After a prolonged discussion this evening with a friend, we jointly came to a conclusion that one-party control over a capitalist system is, while less than ideal, the best way for a country to excel.


1. Instead of parties fullfilling short-term politcal goals, the party needs to aim towards long-term goals, or risk revolt.

2. Societal issues that split a country are way more severe for the populace than are usually accounted for. Neither of us thought Trump or Brexit were worth the damage done.

We live in Vietnam where not one of our Vietnamese friends care about politics, and they really are happier for it. They just see their country getting better and this general idea that things are good is very under-rated.


3. Stuff gets done. Things that may take a generation happen because there isn't a revolving door of politicians.


4. Environmental impact. The Chinese government owns its awful air quality. Who fixes it? They are actively doing that (they're 1/4 of the US per/capita in emissions). Who fixes California's drought and fires? No one.


5. Unity. People aren't split in Vietnam. Some are oppressed because this is how this type of government has to operate nowadays, but overall, it's a country together.




I'll get a lot of hate for this post. But what we talked about made sense. We're surrounded by the consequences of Brexit etc. and stressed out, while our Vietnamese friends don't give a toss about anything political. Our cost of democracy is angst.

My made up solution this evening was for TDs to have longer terms. Long enough that the end result of decisions they make are visible. Stop short-term goals and make them accountable. Or have one political party and referndums on all social issues.

I'm not politically astute, obviously, so no need to go hell for leather on me. I just like living in a society where pretty much everyone is on the same page.

Present-day fascism promises to solve problems by providing a more efficient way to coordinate efforts. This comes with the upfront cost of being oppressive.

Silencing dissent is an inherent inability to detect and correct mistakes. As a result, fascism promises to solve some problems but sooner or later inefficiency prevails. In other words, fascism merely appears to solve the problems in question, but really postpones them without resolving them allowing them to grow out of control.

This has inevitably led to disaster every time fascism has been tried: war, mass oppression, holocaust.

Gbear

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They all signed up, one senator excepted, to fight the war on terror in congress on sept 18th 2001. The AUMF was the act that legitimised many subsequent wars including Yemen. Both presidential candidates ran on threats against Iran. Trump on the other hand did want to withdraw from Afghanistan. Hillary pushed the Libya invasion. Obama escalated the Yemen war, recently escated again by trump. The democrats are strongly Russophobic and therefore are gung ho for wars that threaten Russia like Syria. It’s all a continuance. As significant as the difference between Disraeli and Gladstone. There were differences but not much, neither was going to dismantle the British empire or oppose “necessary wars”.

As bad I’d say.

There's a difference for signing up to it and executing it.

With the senate resolution to attack Iraq, 1 Republican voted no, while 21 Democrats did.

Under Obama's tenure they prosecuted numerous illegal drone strikes within the borders of other sovereign countries - I don't think the murder of Osama Bin Laden was legal, even if it was ultimately just that he die.

However, these strikes have been expanded by the Trump administration.

In Libya it was a different case, and bears little resemblance to something like Iraq. A UN security council resolution to implement a no-fly zone to prevent massive civilian casualties was being enforced.

You can debate the merits of the resolution or how the war was prosecuted, but it is fundamentally different from the entirely fabricated premise for invading Iraq.

Again, one is worse and that is not really debatable when you look at the facts of wars engaged in and casualties from administration to administration.

If the Democrats were being compared in a normal political spectrum, they would stand quite far apart, or at the very least elements of the party would, as being right wing, even in comparison to the likes of the Tories, but they're on a spectrum that includes neo-nazis and fascists openly running as Republican nominees.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The republicans are also a wider church than you imagine - one of the few consistent anti war politicians is Rand Paul. Economically a libertarian (which I oppose) he’s good on war. Another member of the anti war party is democrat Tulsi Gaddard. That’s about it. Ocasio seems to concentrate on internal affairs.

We're not talking about a few oddballs being part of the Republican party. We're talking about a party whose central platform is science denialism, voter suppression, misogyny and militarism.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

His supporters would say that the dossier was an attack on the democratic system

They can say what they like. Backing it up with evidence is another matter.
At any rate, this is whataboutery.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Although ocasio is pretty ok, the activist democrats seem to be either corporatists or the swivel headed loons of the college movements.

Seem?
Do you actually know?

I'm not really fussed about the activists, I'm fussed about the central party position. What do the democrats stand for? Do you honestly think it's similar to the Republican platform? Do you think it's truly represented by trivia like transgender bathrooms?

Or, is it actually relatively (and I am stressing relatively), reasonable.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Your support of the Democrats is so much triumph of hope over so much experience. Obama gets a by in a way that trump doesn’t. However, except for Iran, trump didn’t in fact engage in his campaign on imperial expansion but the reverse; however in office he does what he’s told, as did obama who hardly attained power just to kill Yemeni, but did it anyway.

My "support" for the Democrats is a recognition that despite being garbage, they're qualitatively different and better than the alternative. Clinton was the standard sort of overbearing, mealy mouthed statist that's fully embedded within a corrupt and non-democratic system of government, which I loathe, but when the alternative is a fascist demagogue, albeit one who arrived at it through ignorant and brazen self-interest rather than any particular ideology, and his leash is being held by people of little better quality but with far more competence, the decision should be easy for any sane, rational person.

Fascists are all about peace in their rhetoric, except when they're not. They're all about empathy, sometimes. Fascism uses populism with total cynicism and must always be comfortable lying through its teeth.

Ultimately, I do believe that there is an ideology broadly held by the Democrats and their voters that wants to provide for people as a whole at play with policies such as universal healthcare or some watered down version thereof, and as we've seen in the recent elections, where the democrats campaigned on issues such as this, when you get down to practical matters their ideas are coherent, implementable but also, importantly, popular.
The Republican party tell people what they want to hear but what they implement is entirely limited to self interest or expansion of power.

There's a cost to paid in corruption in all political systems. There's a difference between a few leeches infiltrating the system to install cronies or line their pockets, cynical efforts to buy elections with populist policies, or any government's desire to extend their own power, which are universal, and a systematic effort to undermine norms and laws designed to protect the integrity of the system itself, and further entrench the position of the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the poor.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Did you just call me a fascist? The differences in foreign policy between the democrats and republicans is slight to non existant. Certainly since 2001. As I’ve explained.

No, I presume you aren't. However, this Enlightened Centrism shtick, that both sides are the same is a popular tactic among those seeking to spread disinformation, whether it's deliberate as with Russian propaganda, or simply caused by wishful thinking, as seen with Brexit or Anti-Vaccination gibberish.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Fascism is really used as a term of abuse and wasn’t itself all that coherent. If you aren’t the expert why throw it about so much.

Another problem with its overuse is that it exempts other political systems from scrutiny. Not just communism, but militaristic messianic imperialistic democracies - generally the worst kind for people outside the tent.

Nothing exempts anything from scrutiny. Warranted criticism is never a bad thing, but equivocating the bad with the appalling, whether through ignorance or through cynicism must be challenged.

At any rate, you have not actually made any case against the Republicans being a fascist party. I say I'm not an expert to invite someone who is, who might have a clearer insight into it, or who can raise a fundamental point that I have overlooked, in order so that what I assume is the purpose of this board can be fulfilled - to actually increase understanding of an issue.

I'm not a history or politics PhD, so I don't claim to have some particular authority beyond my arguments, but I'm still entitled to make those arguments, the core of which you've not really addressed.

demfad

demfad wrote: »

Present-day fascism promises to solve problems by providing a more efficient way to coordinate efforts. This comes with the upfront cost of being oppressive.

Silencing dissent is an inherent inability to detect and correct mistakes. As a result, fascism promises to solve some problems but sooner or later inefficiency prevails. In other words, fascism merely appears to solve the problems in question, but really postpones them without resolving them allowing them to grow out of control.

This has inevitably led to disaster every time fascism has been tried: war, mass oppression, holocaust.

I am very drunk again, and finally had the balls to read some this thread, but this wasn't what I was imagining.. What I'm talking about doesn't exist. I just thew out parellels to Vietnam and China in terms of a population's opinions.


Call me mad (and drunk), but 200 years from now, governments will be made up from the best a nation has to offer. Not political parties trying to please certain voter bases. In my opinion, that's the only way the world will deal with its severe issues, such as global warming or AI etc.

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am very drunk again, and finally had the balls to read some this thread, but this wasn't what I was imagining.. What I'm talking about doesn't exist. I just thew out parellels to Vietnam and China in terms of a population's opinions.


Call me mad (and drunk), but 200 years from now, governments will be made up from the best a nation has to offer. Not political parties trying to please certain voter bases. In my opinion, that's the only way the world will deal with its severe issues, such as global warming or AI etc.

The problem is you started talking about post communist countries and the thread moved onto fascism rather than deal with some problems democratic societies might have in the future (planning, environmental fixes, fighting climate change, gun control in the US, to etc being obvious ones) that could probably be better handled outside the democratic system.

oscarBravo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

...problems democratic societies might have in the future (planning, environmental fixes, fighting climate change, gun control in the US, to etc being obvious ones) that could probably be better handled outside the democratic system.

How?

Franz Von Peppercorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

How?

Well climate change is an example of where democracy is failing. In the US.

oscarBravo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well climate change is an example of where democracy is failing. In the US.

Sure, but is a single-party populist government really going to tackle climate change?

Franz Von Peppercorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but is a single-party populist government really going to tackle climate change?

The comparison the the op was with the Chinese and Vietnamese. China has recently come on board on climate change and doesn’t have to worry about the general population as much (obviously they do a bit).

oscarBravo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The comparison the the op was with the Chinese and Vietnamese. China has recently come on board on climate change and doesn’t have to worry about the general population as much (obviously they do a bit).

Is totalitarian government a price you're happy to pay to combat climate change?

What happens when the totalitarian government's aims disagree with yours?

Franz Von Peppercorn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is totalitarian government a price you're happy to pay to combat climate change?

What happens when the totalitarian government's aims disagree with yours?

Well totalitarian government no. Authoritarian yes. Anyway the theory isn’t personal, it’s basically what kind of government might work, not where I would live.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Call me mad (and drunk), but 200 years from now, governments will be made up from the best a nation has to offer. Not political parties trying to please certain voter bases. In my opinion, that's the only way the world will deal with its severe issues, such as global warming or AI etc.

That is achieveable, but the way to achieve it is for the best a nation has to offer to put themselves forward and then for people to want to vote for them.

It's not that the system needs to change, it's that people need to change (or not, as the case may well be).

James Brown

The trouble is look at the U.S. and Russia. They are as close to that as we've seen in a large power and both have only personal interests at heart. Just look at Trump and his denial of climate change. So although more might get done under such a rule it's no guarantee of good works.