Quote:
|
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.
|
What views are not being represented?
Quote:
|
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.
|
First of all, you are assuming that news organizations can control our thoughts...they cant. They may be biased in one direction or another, but that is true of
every news source.
Second, we have access to sources outside the country. Monopolies cant control everything...it costs almost nothing to put up a website or print your own newspaper.
You could make the argument that the larger organizations are more likely to be heard, but there is a very good reason for this; more people want to know what they have to say. They DO have choices...but people would still rather watch CNN than listen to NPR, even though NPR is completely free and widely available.
Your system, by contrast, would heavily censor what people could say. They could not say anything pro-bourgeoise. Am I wrong?
Quote:
|
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.
|
That is false. They can easily get access to newspapers or any number of websites. All the local public libraries in Denver, without exception, offer free internet access to view websites.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Give me an example. What ideology is out there that doesnt have a media presence of some kind? Even if it is just a website?
They arnt there not because they have been "shut down", but because no one wants to hear what they have to say.
Quote:
Me: 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.
|
So I could start up a station and spout pro-bourgeoise? If not, your society already has fewer options than what we have now.
And if they are restricting my pro-bourgeoise speech, then that means someone has to be in charge of defining what pro-bourgeoise is. Who gets to do that?
Quote:
|
If one or two news organisations exist, then only one or two opinions can exist in the public domain.
|
I agree. Fortunately, that is not even remotely the case.
Thousands of news organizations exist. The only ones you seem to feel "count" are the big ones. But they dont exist in a vaccum.
Quote:
|
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.
|
...because most people want to vote for the two major parties.
But they are not the only choices. Even on the ballot itself they are not the only choices.
Quote:
|
You are a conservative, are you not? Look at the Republican manifesto. Do you agree with all of it?
|
For all intents and purposes, yes. I agree with more of it than any other ideology I have seen so far.
The only alternative is to become a politician myself. Since I do not want to be a politician (for many reasons) I choose to compromise and support them, even though I might only agree with 80% or 90% of what they stand for. They are closer to what I want than anyone else.
Compromise is a
choice. Choice is good.
Quote:
|
In an ideal world would you not pick and choose your best bits from each?
|
How would that be different from what I have now? Give me an example on how it would improve the situation I already have now.
Why would I vote for someone that agrees with me on one issue but opposes me on 20 more?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Probably. But we have more than two parties. Most people simply choose not to vote for them.
Quote:
|
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.
|
How do you plan to implement this without resorting to totalitarianism?
Thats pretty much my entire point. Communists can see the utopia in the distance, but they cant find a road to get there. Until they do that, it is reasonable for us to assume a road does not exist.
And again, before you can make plans against the bourgeoise, someone has to define what the bourgeoise is. Who gets to do that?
Quote:
|
Once the rule of the proletariat has been established, three economies would exist; private capitalism controlled by the state, state capitalism, and communism.
|
But there would be inequities; some people would gain more than others. This would re-introduce classes into your pristine classless society. Other items of barter would replace money. Favors, better living conditions, better food, rare items (or access to rare items), more attractive mates, whatever. It will never be completely equal. Some people will always have more than other people.
And the people in power (the ones who get to make the decisions) will always have more control.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I have to ask, because the "how" is the key to making it work at all. If there is no "how" there is no communism. You end up with what happened to the Soviets.
"Trust me, we'll figure something out" is not a sufficient reason to change from a system that we
already know works.
Quote:
|
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.
|
How do you know they dont?
Quote:
|
We all have social norms that are effectivley imprinted on us that prevent us doing certain things (i.e. rape, murder etc).
|
Some people are not bound by these norms. That is why we have laws to deal with them. It is an outgrowth of our survival instincts. Greed is natural. Violence is natural.
Quote:
|
In a communist society, the social contract is so well advanced that people see others as themselves (the true ideal of love thy neighbour).
|
Or at least you
assume so. What evidence leads you to believe this is possible? You dont believe there will be people with a genetic tendency towards violence? A genetic tendency towards lack of self control?
Quote:
|
These will be implemented by general consensus.
|
Or as much consensus as you
allow...because there can be no "consensus" in favor of the bourgeoise, right? What other choices will you restrict? And who gets to decide what is restricted?
Quote:
|
Please don't infer from this that all people will be robots with no individual identity.
|
On the contrary, I believe the entire society will, at best, degenerate into anarchy over time. At worst, the stronger ones will re-establish totalitarian rule of some kind.
Quote:
Me: 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.
|
So the answer is: you dont know. You just assumed.
Quote:
|
I am not inferring this, and am sorry if you believe I am. The Founding Fathers are important to all Americans
|
They are not terribly important to me. They were morally inferior to us in almost every way. They oppressed women and minorities. Why would I want to emulate them?
They were intelligent and were not short sighted. They created a form of government superior to all the existing governments of their time. Thats all I credit them for. In all the ways that matter though, they had very little in common with us.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Do you think it is reasonable for people to dismiss communism until you find this answer?
If someone made a similar argument to you regarding capitalism or fascism...would you take their word for that as well?
Quote:
|
You said capitalist countries, not democracies.
|
Ok...I usually consider them one in the same. I did mean democracies.
Quote:
Me: And if they arent [convinced]...they SoL? Explain to me how that is different from totalitarianism.
Firstly, what is SoL
|
Sh:t Outta Luck.
Quote:
|
Secondly, you are daily persuaded that your capitalist lifestyle is best through advertising.
|
I am aware of the alternatives though...something that would not be permitted in your society. I know of communism, have access to communist media if I want to learn more...yet still prefer capitalism. And I can articulate
in detail exactly why.
Quote:
|
Although advertising is not a direct comparison against communism, it is indirect by the fact that they are promoting one lifestyle over any other.
|
Wouldnt communism be doing the exact same thing? The differnece is that I get exposure to the alternatives under this system. Under your's I would remain ignorant.
Quote:
|
Do you live in a totalitarian society?
|
No, because I elect my leaders. I have choices.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And you know this because...?
Quote:
Me: And if it is not self evident? What then?
To put it bluntly, society collapses and they have only themselves to blame.
|
In other words...they are SoL?