Western democracies vs. One-party capitalist governments

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[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.

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?

oscarBravo wrote: »

How?

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

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?

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).

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?

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.

[Deleted User]

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).

China has come on board with climate change because their environment is nasically wrecked.

Colleagues were in China a few years ago and a smog as thick as a soup hung round the city some days. Theres nothing like it in Ireland.

The Wild Goose

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just look at Trump and his denial of climate change.

Maybe Trump has seen Ivar Giaever's (Nobel laureate in physics) talk entitled "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Worth checking out.
Incidentally, when did it morph from 'global warming' to 'climate change'?
Maybe around the same time e were all freezing our asses off in the snow last March?

The Wild Goose wrote: »

Maybe Trump has seen Ivar Giaever's (Nobel laureate in physics) talk entitled "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Worth checking out.
Incidentally, when did it morph from 'global warming' to 'climate change'?
Maybe around the same time e were all freezing our asses off in the snow last March?

I've noted that he's not a nobel laureate in, say, climate science...

No, it's gone well past the stage where you can engage in climate change denialism and expect to be taken seriously. You may as well have rocked up and started going on about the elves that live in your garden.

The ignorance contained within these two sentences...

Incidentally, when did it morph from 'global warming' to 'climate change'?
Maybe around the same time e were all freezing our asses off in the snow last March?

... demonstrates that you haven't even the vaguest notion what you're on about.

The Wild Goose

Gbear wrote: »

I've noted that he's not a nobel laureate in, say, climate science...

No, it's gone well past the stage where you can engage in climate change denialism and expect to be taken seriously. You may as well have rocked up and started going on about the elves that live in your garden.

The ignorance contained within these two sentences...

... demonstrates that you haven't even the vaguest notion what you're on about.

And there was me thinking that 'climate change' has been happening for the last 4.5 billion years or so, when in fact it is only a recent phenomenon.
Silly me, and silly dinosaurs too for imagining that cold snap.
If only they had CNN at the time...they would've set the record straight.

I didn't realise at the time of replying to your post (but should have given your Trump bashing) that I was again engaging the previously encountered Gbear.
Had I been aware I would of course have avoided crossing swords with one of such superior intellect, be it political, economic, meteorological or otherwise. Your grasp of all things truthful is only matched by that other bastion of knowledge, CNN.
Now if you'll excuse me I have a 10am meeting with some elves at the bottom of the garden