Politics - Which party are you siding with?

[Willmeister]

China as unsuccesful. Hardly. China is probably the epitome of stability, provided the leadership continues to uphold Confucian values. Even as harsh as the current leadership, it's actually more free than under some of the old emperors. One thing you'll notice if you do any reading on Chinese Imperial history is how nicely most Communist ideals fit into the Confucian ideal. After all, China went from one centrally-controlled quasi-autocratic system to another with an aborration called Mao in-between. China today is probably freer in most respects than in it's past, and increasingly so.

Anyways, captialism is as much reliant on faith as all the other human management systems are. If people don't believe in the system, or the system works against it's interests, it's fate is sealed.

 

[Legion]

China as unsuccesful. Hardly. China is probably the epitome of stability, provided the leadership continues to uphold Confucian values.

Which is to incourage them from being communistic. The confucians would be as supportive of modern communism as they would have been of Wu Ti's position in the Salt and Iron Debate The very reason they have become more successful is do to their opening up to free markets and allowing for more public control. They indeed aren't stable. Their government will eventually be replaced if they follow said confucian values. I wonder what the Confucians would think about China's forced abortions.

Even as harsh as the current leadership, it's actually more free than under some of the old emperors.

Which all failed for the very reasons i stated communist idealism does. They were over bearing, controling, and completely indifferent to the suffering of their populas they helped cause. The very reason for their change was do the changing of the times. It is becoming more and more difficult for them to maintain control. This would happen regardless of the communist parties value system. I am rather confused why you mentioned this as it doesn't help to serve your point. How does this statement jive with your previous statement of China being the epitome of stability? China now is some how less controlling of its enslaved populas ergo its the epitome of stability?

Communist China used to be far worse. Now that it has opened itself up more it is having less problems. Another example of what i have stated about the nature of systems. Chinese "communism" is harldy ideal communism. They still have a hell of a way to go. On a side note, i wonder about the effects of public brainwashing has had on the populations.

One thing you'll notice if you do any reading on Chinese Imperial history is how nicely most Communist ideals fit into the Confucian ideal.

You apparently didn't do much reading on the Salt and Iron Debate.

After all, China went from one centrally-controlled quasi-autocratic system to another with an aborration called Mao in-between. China today is probably freer in most respects than in it's past, and increasingly so.

Which is of course both contrary to the concept of ideal communism as well as supportive of what i have said about systems. The more free a system becomes the more successful it can be. As China moves away from ideal communism and becomes more free the more successful they can be.

Anyways, captialism is as much reliant on faith as all the other human management systems are. If people don't believe in the system, or the system works against it's interests, it's fate is sealed.

Capatalism isn't a political system. Under such philosophies people have much more freedom then under communism. The failure of communism is just that. The nature of how controlling it is. Hense the reason ideal communism never works.

 

[Willmeister]

Their government will eventually be replaced if they follow said confucian values.

You obviously don't see how the recent successive Communist leaders have been returning to Confucist ideals without admitting to it. China, in fact, is much more stable than a lot of other nations. Regionally, China is certainly much more stable than India. After all, India is having racial riots every other week it seems, and all over the country.

 

[Legion]

You obviously don't see how the recent successive Communist leaders have been returning to Confucist ideals without admitting to it.

No, rahter you clearly do not see how they were forced to be the changing times. For example, Confucian values do not support government control of business or the brainwashing and manipulation of the populas. To say they do is simply ridiculous.

China, in fact, is much more stable than a lot of other nations.

the majority of whom are socialistic . This doesn't validate their government system Willmeister. This is a rather weak argument to make. I don't think any of the mass murders in Africa compare to the volumes of dead Chinese communism or for that matter Lenin/Stalin Communism has created. Do you?

Regionally, China is certainly much more stable than India. After all, India is having racial riots every other week it seems, and all over the country.

And India is recovering from post colonial crapola as well as the failures of its last socialist leadership. Whats your point?

 

[Willmeister]

The more free a system becomes the more successful it can be.

So, if 'freedom' is the key to success, why weren't the natives of North America the most 'successful?' First of all, you have to define exactly what successful actually means. What type of success? You also have to define free?

(Free has got to be the most abused word in the English language)

 

[Legion]

So, if 'freedom' is the key to success, why weren't the natives of North America the most 'successful?'

How do you judge their successfulness? Did i say freedom was the "key" to success? Its a factor.

First of all, you have to define exactly what successful actually means? What type of success?

I would assert any form of success would be directly impacted by the welfare of the populas and their personal rights.

 

[Legion]

(Free has got to be the most abused word in the English language)

No, its the most distorted.

 

[pax]

I thought I had mentionned it before that I had ran in the last provincial election last June. MIght not have I was pretty busy. The NDP has fiscally very few policies that are different from the liberals. They do have staunch socially progressive policies tho. Its easy to label the NDP socialist or communist sabastian but are you really familiar enough with the election platform of the ndp or of actual policies enabled by them while in power to say they are such?

Name me some policies that can seriously be labelled communist or socialist that hasnt been implemented by progressive conservatives and liberals provincial govs elsewhere across the country.

As for the NDP losing about 10 years ago in Ontario after only one term my memory serves me right it was CUTBACKS by the NDP that got it kicked out of office. They were trying to reduce the debt too. And in the process alienated the unions and middle class support. Bob Ray if you read about his term in power would reveal himself about the same as a Jean Chretien... Spoke from the left and ruled from the right.

I cant think of any NDP gov that significantly created new programs or drasticaly increased spending while in office... They are very much center left...


Now for the federal NDP if you ask me it has 10x more spine than the liberals or PC's and hopefully would renegotiate some of the more scam like parts of the free trade deals we've signed and have been shafted into... This isnt socialism. Its good business sense. The free trade deals fuck the country more than they help. And there are dozens of firms in the country who opposed the deal including the privately owned multinational food processing McCain Corporation right here in NB.

As it stands other than reinvesting in universal healthcare which is currently grossly underfunde interms of the Nort American market. And improve post secondary education. I dont expect a federal NDP to to much more in the way of new programs than try to enable somekind of a national daycare program for kids...

My intention was never to get elected but merely give a chance for people to vote NDP. And that means the county needed a rep. I dont know if you have had probs with the auto insurance as many have had 100-300% increases in premiums in the last couple years but the NDP went up pretty well this election vs last in terms of vote count. But again the Liberals took much of the wind out of that longstanding policy of having a public rate paid system as has existed successfully in Manitoba for 30 years with rates a fraction of what they are in the private sector here. They promised a public system in a few months had they won and had the private sector not stopped the cartel like practices it was experimenting with in our small province. A clear attempt at testing the political waters to see if the rest of the country could be scammed the same way.

Liberals came within a hair of winning too... Liberal and NDP vote clearly slammed the neo cons...

 

[Willmeister]

As for the NDP losing about 10 years ago in Ontario after only one term my memory serves me right it was CUTBACKS by the NDP that got it kicked out of office. They were trying to reduce the debt too. And in the process alienated the unions and middle class support. Bob Ray if you read about his term in power would reveal himself about the same as a Jean Chretien... Spoke from the left and ruled from the right.

'Rae Days' is what cost him.

You also remember how much the press went after everything the NDP ever did. Kind of like how the 'liberal' US press continually hounded Clinton. Basically, Bob was screwed no matter what he did. The press crucified him for doing something or crucified him for not doing the opposite. Just remember all of the deficit concerns at the time and the need to balance the books they inherited. Then when he cut, all you heard was how Rae was breaking campaign promises.

Bob was also trounced because rural Ontario felt slighted by Toronto and voted it that evil scum from North Bay...

 

[Willmeister]

Speaking of auto insurance in this province, my sister's went from $1700 to $3900 in October. Same company, same exact plan. And this is after the election.

 

[pax]

Yeah the media was a bit hard on him... it slammed him for making cuts then celebrated Mike Harris the neo con who succeeded him for making... cuts...

Go figure...

I certainly didnt think any cuts were necessary... Had Bob only not increased spending, if he felt that was necessary, the 90's boom would've taken care of the debt. Canada has great fundamentals and with a bit more liberal approach to immigration we can grow this country out of its debt easily over time. No massive cuts necessary...

 

[pax]

Man if my auto insurance had gone up that much Id be driving without insurance plain and simple. Beware my rusty fender you neo con morons who voted this gov back in!

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

Is this the political thread?

 

[oi]

And democracies don't? What of these ideals? Man nor the system are perfect! These ideals could never be met.

Uh, are you implying that socialistic systems can't have democracy? That's almost as funny as epicstruggles signature. Being a democracy doesn't have anything to do with if the country is left, right or center oriented. You seem to think that this is a discussion about dictatorships vs democracy, and that socialism and communism has to equal dictatorships - which isn't the case.

No it means it failed. It affectively achieved the opposite of its ideals.

If "it" equals Hitler, then yes.

Likewise, you seem to think nazi socialism proves socialism can be used to build up countries rapidly.

No, it means that I think that socialism is a usable system, which the nazi leaders also happened to think. However, the fascism that they added into the mix is not a requirement for socialism to work, and neither is dictatorship. Socialism doesn't require you to go out on a crusade in quest for world domination, nor perform ethnic cleansing. There is a reason it's called nazi-socialism and not socialism. This is all just as easy to understand as the fact that democracy doesn't have to equal a free market or liberalism and what not. Democracy simply means (going by todays standards, not the original meaning) that the power should be in the hands of the people, either through direct participation or representatives. If the people chose to put socialistic or communistic people in power, that would be just as democratic as if they put liberal people in power.

I'm not for the nationalistic nazi-fascist-socialism nor marxists-leninism, but I find the other line of marxism (Bernstein? I don't quite remember who started it..) that evolved into todays social democratic parties (which currently are the biggest parties in Sweden and Germany, to name some) is quite acceptable.

 

[Legion]

Uh, are you implying that socialistic systems can't have democracy?

I am implying that the level of state control could lead to corruption of the state. We have seen much of this throughout history, one example being the Wu Ti government of China which became China's first taste of aristocratic communism. Needless to say it fell.

That's almost as funny as epicstruggles signature. Being a democracy doesn't have anything to do with if the country is left, right or center oriented. You seem to think that this is a discussion about dictatorships vs democracy, and that socialism and communism has to equal dictatorships - which isn't the case.

Actually you seem to arguing along the lines that capitalism is a kind of political system which it is not. Capitalism can't exist under Communism or socialism.

If "it" equals Hitler, then yes.

His and his party's ideals.

No, it means that I think that socialism is a usable system,

A tyrannical theocracy can be a usable system.

which the nazi leaders also happened to think. However, the fascism that they added into the mix is not a requirement for socialism to work, and neither is dictatorship.

Some level of fascism must exist within Socialism. The very principles behind it incourage such (ie control of public business).

Socialism doesn't require you to go out on a crusade in quest for world domination, nor perform ethnic cleansing. There is a reason it's called nazi-socialism and not socialism. This is all just as easy to understand as the fact that democracy doesn't have to equal a free market or liberalism and what not. Democracy simply means (going by todays standards, not the original meaning) that the power should be in the hands of the people, either through direct participation or representatives.

again i am not making a Democracy vs Socialism argument.

I'm not for the nationalistic nazi-fascist-socialism nor marxists-leninism, but I find the other line of marxism (Bernstein? I don't quite remember who started it..) that evolved into todays social democratic parties (which currently are the biggest parties in Sweden and Germany, to name some) is quite acceptable.

Again i disagree with these politic/economic systems as they take away public control of various economic entities.

 

[oi]

Actually you seem to arguing along the lines that capitalism is a kind of political system which it is not. Capitalism can't exist under Communism or socialism.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion since I didn't even mention capitalism once. But no, I wouldn't say capitalism is a political system, rather a political influence.

I won't bother replying to the rest since we're both trapped by our own discourses anyway.

 

[Legion]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion since I didn't even mention capitalism once. But no, I wouldn't say capitalism is a political system, rather a political influence.

I was never apposing communism and socialism on the grounds they aren't as free as democratic states. I don't know how this became a democracy vs socialism/communism argument.

I won't bother replying to the rest since we're both trapped by our own discourses anyway.

Alright then.