Quote:
|
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.
|
You are correct. No-one is forcing them to watch it. However, every time one news organisation is enveloped by another there is less choice. In the end, there are so few news organisations that they effectively have a monopoly over all political thought, so people will have no choice but to use a news organisation that expresses only very limited views. Please note; I did not use the word 'force'; people are not forced to watch it, but they have no choice other than watch it and get some information or not watch and get nothing. Also, you could argue that people could set up their own news organisations. However, if someone did do this, expressing a view contrary to the news monopoly, it would be shut down by its competitors very rapidly.
Quote:
|
So who decides what "unbiased" is?
|
No-one. If many news organisations exist then the probability is they will have a large range of opinions. If one or two news organisations exist, then only one or two opinions can exist in the public domain. Obviously this cannot fully cover the range of opinions that can/do exist.
Quote:
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?
|
In today's capitalist democracy very little democracy actually occurs. You vote for your leaders, they take this as a mandate that all their ideas are the same as your ideas. Going back to the thing about news organisations; only 2 major parties exist. You are a conservative, are you not? Look at the Republican manifesto. Do you agree with all of it? Is there some that you disagree with? Look at the Democrat manifesto. Is there not something on there that you agree with? In an ideal world would you not pick and choose your best bits from each? This is what I mean by the abscence of true democracy and the problem of a central elected government; the political view points of the populous cannot be expressed by 2 parties.
OK, this is going to sound weird and might contradict what I've already said. Please bear in mind my study of communism is in it's infancy, and that my ideas and understanding are developing constantly, which is why I am enjoying this debate, as a matter of fact.
A government would only exist as a transitional form during the movement from capitalism to communism (i.e. during socialism). It would 1) protect workers from attempts by the bourgeoise to revert back to capitalism 2) implement the 10 points identified by Marx (I can post what they are if you want) and 3) control the economy during the time that capitalism is superseeded by communism. This comes from an interesting idea I have found. Once the rule of the proletariat has been established, three economies would exist; private capitalism controlled by the state, state capitalism, and communism. The communist economy would start off small and disorganised, but would grow and develop and eventually be able to absorb both state and private capitalism. Please don't ask me to explain how, I'm still studying that.
Once the communist economy takes over there would be no need for the government and it would dissolve. After all, what is the government? A means of conveying authority over society. Once the communist mind-set has taken hold (please see the point I made about collectivism; again I can post more info if you want) there would be no need for the government to exist. Let me explain further. Let us use an example; Big Brother (sorry, its the best I can think of, believe me I loathe that programme). These 12 (?)idiots spend a long period of time in a house with no one constantly directing their actions. Let us remove the ability of the network to intervene even in serious circumstances. These people live together. Do they kill each other? Do they rape or attack each other? Do they deliberatley vandalise one another's property? No. Even with no-one influencing their lives they do not do these things. Why? We all have social norms that are effectivley imprinted on us that prevent us doing certain things (i.e. rape, murder etc). It is how society is able to function; a 'social contract' that we have with one another that allows society to function. In individualistic society, it is necessary for a government to exist to maintain and administrate these rules and make examples of people who break these rules because of the relatively primitive nature of the social contract. In a communist society, the social contract is so well advanced that people see others as themselves (the true ideal of love thy neighbour). This advanced state of the social contract extends even to economic measures; people will (almost) instinctively know what economic policies will best advance themselves and their community. These will be implemented by general consensus. There will be no need for an administrative body to tell them what to do. Please don't infer from this that all people will be robots with no individual identity. There will of course be indivualism in a communist society. That is truly part of human nature. However, this individualism will not extend to a situation where people harm each other to show their individualism, due to the advanced social contract.
Quote:
|
How did you determine that Bush's success was due to his money and exposure, and not his political positions?
|
Oh come on, I know you're conservative but do you really think Bush would have got anywhere without the money he inherited and was then ploughed into him? That is just an ostrich mentality gone haywire.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I am not inferring this, and am sorry if you believe I am. The Founding Fathers are important to all Americans, and that the stuff they wrote is the FOUNDATION for today's America, that was what I was trying to say.
Quote:
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.
|
No, you are correct in the fact that
I myself do not know the answer to this question. However, like I say, I am still studying communism, and I am sure that I will find an answer to this.
Quote:
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.
|
You said capitalist countries, not democracies. I was thinking of editing it to include the 20th century but then I realised I couldn't be bothered. Now, what wars between capitalist countries have occured in the last 100 years?
http://home.earthlink.net/~wagc/hisrecon.htm#1900-2000
I'm sure there is more than one capitalist-capitalist war here. Please remember between capitalists, not democracies.
Quote:
|
And if they arent...they SoL? Explain to me how that is different from totalitarianism.
|
Firstly, what is SoL
Secondly, you are daily persuaded that your capitalist lifestyle is best through advertising. Although advertising is not a direct comparison against communism, it is indirect by the fact that they are promoting one lifestyle over any other. Do you live in a totalitarian society?
Quote:
|
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?
|
I would say that if a communist society was turning into a capitalist one, this comment would be true. However, if it was a true communist society, that situation would never arise.
Quote:
|
And if it is not self evident? What then?
|
To put it bluntly, society collapses and they have only themselves to blame.[/quote]