Quote:
Me: The "bourgeoise stranglehold on the media" is there with the consent of the masses though. Your only solution seems to be government control of the media, which most people will (rightly) see as much worse.
The consent of the masses?
|
Yes. They can choose to watch whatever they want...even foreign sources. No one is forcing them to watch Fox or CNN...which seems to be your implication.
Quote:
|
What part do the masses play when Fox or CNN or any other media giant decides to consume yet another small, independent news organisation?
|
They choose to watch it, and therefore (indirectly) make them wealthier. Thats the part they play. And it is a part they play willingly.
Fox and CNN are not even free...they have to PAY to be able to watch them.
Quote:
|
a large number of independently owned news organisations that are not run by their sponsors is the best way to ensure transparency of the government in a capitalist democracy.
|
So who decides what "unbiased" is?
Quote:
|
You seem to define 'class' as 'different type of job'.
|
No, I define class as a different socio-economic bracket. No matter how egalitarian you try to make your society, there will always be differences to some degree. There will always be, for example, places to live that are more in demand than others. You cant make everything completely equal, therefore, it is not classless.
This goes for politics as well. Some people will have more power to make decisions and change things than others. Therefore you will have classes there as well.
So I ask again...how will it be different from what we have already?
Quote:
|
These representatives would get the same benefits from the communist society as everyone else, except their election by the proletariat would not be subject to the same money-related and contact-related influences that are part of todays democratic system.
|
Well...that and they would also get more power to make decisions than everyone else.
You make the assumption that money is the only way they can become corrupt. Since everything is not perfectly equal, other things will replace money as a form of barter (better living conditions, better food, more attractive mates). Not every place will be equally desirably to live. Not all food will be of the same quality. Dont fool yourself...money will just exist in a different form.
Quote:
|
Do you think Bush would have gotten to the White House without financial support from so many coorporations and his father's contacts?
|
Maybe. Who would have been a better choice?
How did you determine that Bush's success was due to his money and exposure, and not his political positions?
Quote:
|
These people will have no power over others.
|
Yes they would. They would be the ones making the decisions, right? Otherwise, what is the point of electing them?
Quote:
|
Representatives from our current capitalist democracy are able to do pretty much what they (*)(*)(*)(*) well please and get away with it. The greater amount of democratic involvement and greater transparency of the government would prevent that in a communist democracy.
|
What do you mean by transparency of government? Do you mean the masses will have to vote on every little issue?
Quote:
|
The bourgeoise maintain their position as the ruling class by conditioning the populous to believe that they way they are living now is the best possible manner of existence, that they way they live now is 'natural' for humanity.
|
How do you know they are not right though? Who determines what is "bourgeoise" conditioning, and waht is the real will of the masses? It sounds to me like a flavor of totalitarianism; someone decides up front what the masses are and are not allowed to change.
Quote:
|
Do you not idolise freedom?
|
Yes. I am not afraid of what the "bourgeoise" have to say. Why are you? If people are as easily led as you seem to believe, how do you knwo the exact same thing wont happen under communism?
Quote:
|
Did the Founding Fathers not write "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
|
Even as they said that, they designed the government with expandability in mind. Ther is NO law that cannot be changed. None. Every single facet of our government can be changed if the masses will it.
That is not true under communism according to you. There are things the masses CAN'T change. So essentially, they are allowed on those choices that whoever sets up the system allows them. Right?
btw - It is a mistake to assume that because I am a neo-con I idolize the founding fathers. I dont. I consider their culture primitive and inferior to the one we have now. I pretty much feel that way about all the previous versions of America. When I say we are better than everyone else, I mean previous states of our own evolution as well.
Quote:
|
Are these rights achieved under conditions of suppression, as under capitalist rule, or under conditions of freedom, as under communist rule?
|
How is it supressed under capitalist rule? Unlike your communist society, we can change any unjust laws as we see fit. By contrast, our options are more limited under your system...there are things we CANT change, even if everyone agrees they should be changed.
This is an example of why communism wont work. It goes against human nature. Capitalism simply channels human nature.
Quote:
|
I would have thought the definition of 'reverting back' would be obvious. If communism is a classless society where there exists no money and all wealth is shared out equally, then surely any perversion of this, in which money continues to exist and becomes concentrated in the hands of the few as in capitalist society, would be 'reverting back'?
|
I dont share your assumption that it would remain classless. But if you are so certain that it could be done, why are you afraid of giving the masses the option?
Quote:
|
THERE ARE NO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES!!! How many times do I have to say this?
|
Fine...expalin to me how you know standards of living would be better if they dont exist? What evidence are you basing your assumption on?
You seem to expect everyone to share your assumption that everything will work out perfectly as planned...but you dont really know that.
Quote:
Me: And, just like the antagonisms within classes in a country, they dont necessarily lead to war. In fact, they almost never lead to war. How often has one capitalist nation attacked another over economic issues?
Most of 18th/19th century European history is a history of war over economic issues.
|
So am I correct to assume you cant think of any examples in the last 100 years? The only example I can think of at all is the Faulklands "war". 1 minor war between democracies in a century...not a bad record huh?
Not that I would necessarily even count the 18th/19th centutries, since those nations were not democracies by our standards today.
Quote:
|
What you are basically saying here is that class antagonisms resulting from unequal distribution of wealth will lead to strife. Yes, that is true. However, that is capitalism, not communism. However you want to put it, ANY DIFFERENCE IN WEALTH whatsoever is not communism.
|
Therefore communism could not realistically exist (according to you), because there will always be inequities, however minor...right?
Quote:
|
People will have to be convinced that collectivism is a better way of life than individualism.
|
And if they arent...they SoL? Explain to me how that is different from totalitarianism.
So if I was to say to you "communists will have to be convinced that capitalism is a better way of life than communism in order for capitalism to work", how would you react to that statement?
Quote:
|
It will become self evident once people realise that sitting around doing nothing means that they are harming the growth and development of themselves and their community.
|
And if it is not self evident? What then?