Kenny Olav; You've taught me to rethink socialsim. Understand though, I'm born and bred American. We were gifted a democracy. Something we've broken and we need to fix. Probably the best part of what you said was
(I'd use those cute little paste quote things except I don't know how to get back to here) something about "Norway isn't perfect but it runs FOR the people".
You are right, we have allowed our once nobly envisioned democracy to run for power. While we can learn from some great aspects about socialism, still, I'd rather have a democracy that works as intended. Socialism would be great if the people had in place a good plenty of failsafe detterents of elitist corruption. Evidently, Norway has yet to confront those what ifs.
personally id rather a system that values people equally over profit.
You would would hate the States.
im not a fan of your government but the rest of the country isnt too bad.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Kenny Olav; You've taught me to rethink socialsim. Understand though, I'm born and bred American. We were gifted a democracy. Something we've broken and we need to fix. Probably the best part of what you said was
(I'd use those cute little paste quote things except I don't know how to get back to here) something about "Norway isn't perfect but it runs FOR the people".
You are right, we have allowed our once nobly envisioned democracy to run for power. While we can learn from some great aspects about socialism, still, I'd rather have a democracy that works as intended. Socialism would be great if the people had in place a good plenty of failsafe detterents of elitist corruption. Evidently, Norway has yet to confront those what ifs.
Well then, you may be the first person here I've ever convinced to rethink anything!
I hope you don't think socialism and democracy are two things that must be separate from each other. In fact, I would argue that true socialism is democracy at its best. In Norway, the ruling Labor Party (a social-democratic party) was elected by the people of Norway, but they don't have an overwhelming majority and must work with centrist and conservative parties in the Norwegian parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Norway With their multi-party parliamentary system, Norway has a constitutional democratic republic that represents their people very well.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,090
Are socialism and democracy mutually exclusive or compatible? And if we isolate any system and ourselves from the rest of the planet as a whole, what have we gained?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Are socialism and democracy mutually exclusive or compatible? And if we isolate any system and ourselves from the rest of the planet as a whole, what have we gained?
you need to ask yourself what the purpose is of democracy. if it to give every person a voice then it is failing. many peoples voices do not get heard and this is because the democracies we live in are capitalist societies where money talks. we should also remember that even athenian democracy, which is often touted as the awesomest thing ever! andfrom which our own democracies were spawned, was a little bit bullshit cause not everyone had their voice heard. you had to be male for starters.
if you decide a democracy is a society where everyone is free, then you must define 'free'. are they free to do whatever they choose? are they free to exploit whomever they want for their own means? are they free to be exploited? are they free to pursue the life they want? of course the answer to all these questions is yes... but there are limitations. even the declaration of independence goes only as far as offering the pursuit of happiness. and thats all a society can do. however what happens when someone elses pursuit of apparent happiness infringes upon anothers pursuit of the same? who is likely to come out on top? and how free does that make any of us if our liberties are curtailed? i think we also need to check our definition of happiness and how we measure it in this capitalist consumer society we live in.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,090
Are socialism and democracy mutually exclusive or compatible? And if we isolate any system and ourselves from the rest of the planet as a whole, what have we gained?
you need to ask yourself what the purpose is of democracy. if it to give every person a voice then it is failing. many peoples voices do not get heard and this is because the democracies we live in are capitalist societies where money talks. we should also remember that even athenian democracy, which is often touted as the awesomest thing ever! andfrom which our own democracies were spawned, was a little bit bullshit cause not everyone had their voice heard. you had to be male for starters.
if you decide a democracy is a society where everyone is free, then you must define 'free'. are they free to do whatever they choose? are they free to exploit whomever they want for their own means? are they free to be exploited? are they free to pursue the life they want? of course the answer to all these questions is yes... but there are limitations. even the declaration of independence goes only as far as offering the pursuit of happiness. and thats all a society can do. however what happens when someone elses pursuit of apparent happiness infringes upon anothers pursuit of the same? who is likely to come out on top? and how free does that make any of us if our liberties are curtailed?
No, sadly neither definition is working. Everyone has a voice? No way. Everyone is free? Not in terms that make sense. Maybe we should look at a discussion of "new tribalism".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Are socialism and democracy mutually exclusive or compatible? And if we isolate any system and ourselves from the rest of the planet as a whole, what have we gained?
you need to ask yourself what the purpose is of democracy. if it to give every person a voice then it is failing. many peoples voices do not get heard and this is because the democracies we live in are capitalist societies where money talks. we should also remember that even athenian democracy, which is often touted as the awesomest thing ever! andfrom which our own democracies were spawned, was a little bit bullshit cause not everyone had their voice heard. you had to be male for starters.
if you decide a democracy is a society where everyone is free, then you must define 'free'. are they free to do whatever they choose? are they free to exploit whomever they want for their own means? are they free to be exploited? are they free to pursue the life they want? of course the answer to all these questions is yes... but there are limitations. even the declaration of independence goes only as far as offering the pursuit of happiness. and thats all a society can do. however what happens when someone elses pursuit of apparent happiness infringes upon anothers pursuit of the same? who is likely to come out on top? and how free does that make any of us if our liberties are curtailed?
No, sadly neither definition is working. Everyone has a voice? No way. Everyone is free? Not in terms that make sense. Maybe we should look at a discussion of "new tribalism".
i think what people need to realise is no matter how democratic they think their capitalist society is the people that make up that so called democratic society are not all equal. though we should then ask, are they meant to be? in a capitalist society it isnt possible. so feel free all you like.. its just an illusion. only an egalitarian society is just and a capitalist society is far from that. oh sure there are a truckload of opportunities in a capitalist society were told.. but for capitalism, where profit is king, to work someone needs to be exploited. someone needs to do the 'manual' work and someone needs to be the master. and lets all think about this... without slaves it is doubtful the american economy( the fuel for the so called greatest demcracy on earth) wouldve gotten off the ground.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,090
you need to ask yourself what the purpose is of democracy. if it to give every person a voice then it is failing. many peoples voices do not get heard and this is because the democracies we live in are capitalist societies where money talks. we should also remember that even athenian democracy, which is often touted as the awesomest thing ever! andfrom which our own democracies were spawned, was a little bit bullshit cause not everyone had their voice heard. you had to be male for starters.
if you decide a democracy is a society where everyone is free, then you must define 'free'. are they free to do whatever they choose? are they free to exploit whomever they want for their own means? are they free to be exploited? are they free to pursue the life they want? of course the answer to all these questions is yes... but there are limitations. even the declaration of independence goes only as far as offering the pursuit of happiness. and thats all a society can do. however what happens when someone elses pursuit of apparent happiness infringes upon anothers pursuit of the same? who is likely to come out on top? and how free does that make any of us if our liberties are curtailed?
No, sadly neither definition is working. Everyone has a voice? No way. Everyone is free? Not in terms that make sense. Maybe we should look at a discussion of "new tribalism".
i think what people need to realise is no matter how democratic they think their capitalist society is the people that make up that so called democratic society are not all equal. though we should then ask, are they meant to be? in a capitalist society it isnt possible. so feel free all you like.. its just an illusion. only an egalitarian society is just and a capitalist society is far from that. oh sure there are a truckload of opportunities in a capitalist society were told.. but for capitalism, where profit is king, to work someone needs to be exploited. someone needs to do the 'manual' work and someone needs to be the master. and lets all think about this... without slaves it is doubtful the american economy( the fuel for the so called greatest demcracy on earth) wouldve gotten off the ground.
Well said, Catefrances. And we seem to take all this in stride in the dominant culture. It's seen as the way things are supposed to be. Yet, on the whole, we are so unhappy.
What you say here reminds me of this:
"Any political, economic, theological, or philosophical system that in practice rewards production over life is illegitimate because , tautologically enough, it does not value the lives of its citizens over the needs of production. Such is sufficient to define illegitimacy. No other measure is needed. The same is true-- for the same reasons, because the results play out the same-- for any system that is unsustainable."
Derrick Jensen, A Language Older Than Words pp368-369
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
had to look up tautological.
"Tautology may refer to: Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because ..."
so redundant terms used to discribe (in this case) governing systems.
US is cap-democracy. In order to sustain humanity -- production reigns over taxing, (ie..the makings behind all goods & commodities) thereby minimizing the need for high taxation and heavy governance.
Socialistic-democracy. In order to sustain humanity -- taxes reign over production; doled out then to pay for societal needs by large governed body.
If I've got this right then, as we can't deny the fact that we are a communal, consuming species & therefore can't seperate the need for production and governance, then it's just a matter of measure. How much of one dominance over the other. This brings me back to why I stated earlier (passionately believe this & anyone's gonna have a hard time budging me on this) that our system is broken and needs fixed dammit!
We have an imbalance going on. Mr. Olav is right. socialism/democracy could be seen as redundant terms when functioning as intended but: its a matter of degrees.
I see our species at a crossroads. A one step up two steps back juncture. Fundamentally, less is better with regards to governing so long as this species pushes humanity towards a healthier, ever-more individually responsible mass-mindedness adaptation and I think push is the key word here. We don't easily embrace change which is why it's been a one step up two steps back jig. Full blown socialsim simply rings backwards to me; thwarthing our drive to keep adapting in responsible ways so long as our reliance on governing bodies increases.
However, back to that matter of degrees: WE are the ones who've allowed corp power to dimish ours turning our democracy into a semblance of. Coming out to vote now and again just ain't gonna cut it. We are now reading more & more about where our system is headed and the term used is Oligarchy.
DEF: "1.small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes. Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) ; from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "a few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command") 2. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique.
Hate to be such a broken record here but if it makes you feel any better, I harp on this over & over in Dancing Partners & every forum I visit and will continue to do so until I die or else get plum sick of hearing myself!! We need to stop whining about corp power and start unifying our own damn power! Otherwise, we have no one to blame but ourselves and we will keep doing that two steps back jig off towards full blown Oligarchy or make a slight diversion and head toward full blown Socialsim. And, before you think Socialsim is the less of two evils just remember -- backwards will always be just that.
Have a fine day but please consider doing me a favor and take a minute to consider where WE are at and where WE want to go. Then, consider who WE is. thanks!
Comments
im not a fan of your government but the rest of the country isnt too bad.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
:wave:
Well then, you may be the first person here I've ever convinced to rethink anything!
I hope you don't think socialism and democracy are two things that must be separate from each other. In fact, I would argue that true socialism is democracy at its best. In Norway, the ruling Labor Party (a social-democratic party) was elected by the people of Norway, but they don't have an overwhelming majority and must work with centrist and conservative parties in the Norwegian parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Norway With their multi-party parliamentary system, Norway has a constitutional democratic republic that represents their people very well.
This is what mainstream modern socialism looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
you need to ask yourself what the purpose is of democracy. if it to give every person a voice then it is failing. many peoples voices do not get heard and this is because the democracies we live in are capitalist societies where money talks. we should also remember that even athenian democracy, which is often touted as the awesomest thing ever! andfrom which our own democracies were spawned, was a little bit bullshit cause not everyone had their voice heard. you had to be male for starters.
if you decide a democracy is a society where everyone is free, then you must define 'free'. are they free to do whatever they choose? are they free to exploit whomever they want for their own means? are they free to be exploited? are they free to pursue the life they want? of course the answer to all these questions is yes... but there are limitations. even the declaration of independence goes only as far as offering the pursuit of happiness. and thats all a society can do. however what happens when someone elses pursuit of apparent happiness infringes upon anothers pursuit of the same? who is likely to come out on top? and how free does that make any of us if our liberties are curtailed? i think we also need to check our definition of happiness and how we measure it in this capitalist consumer society we live in.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No, sadly neither definition is working. Everyone has a voice? No way. Everyone is free? Not in terms that make sense. Maybe we should look at a discussion of "new tribalism".
i think what people need to realise is no matter how democratic they think their capitalist society is the people that make up that so called democratic society are not all equal. though we should then ask, are they meant to be? in a capitalist society it isnt possible. so feel free all you like.. its just an illusion. only an egalitarian society is just and a capitalist society is far from that. oh sure there are a truckload of opportunities in a capitalist society were told.. but for capitalism, where profit is king, to work someone needs to be exploited. someone needs to do the 'manual' work and someone needs to be the master. and lets all think about this... without slaves it is doubtful the american economy( the fuel for the so called greatest demcracy on earth) wouldve gotten off the ground.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well said, Catefrances. And we seem to take all this in stride in the dominant culture. It's seen as the way things are supposed to be. Yet, on the whole, we are so unhappy.
What you say here reminds me of this:
"Any political, economic, theological, or philosophical system that in practice rewards production over life is illegitimate because , tautologically enough, it does not value the lives of its citizens over the needs of production. Such is sufficient to define illegitimacy. No other measure is needed. The same is true-- for the same reasons, because the results play out the same-- for any system that is unsustainable."
Derrick Jensen, A Language Older Than Words pp368-369
"Tautology may refer to: Tautology (rhetoric), using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because ..."
so redundant terms used to discribe (in this case) governing systems.
US is cap-democracy. In order to sustain humanity -- production reigns over taxing, (ie..the makings behind all goods & commodities) thereby minimizing the need for high taxation and heavy governance.
Socialistic-democracy. In order to sustain humanity -- taxes reign over production; doled out then to pay for societal needs by large governed body.
If I've got this right then, as we can't deny the fact that we are a communal, consuming species & therefore can't seperate the need for production and governance, then it's just a matter of measure. How much of one dominance over the other. This brings me back to why I stated earlier (passionately believe this & anyone's gonna have a hard time budging me on this) that our system is broken and needs fixed dammit!
We have an imbalance going on. Mr. Olav is right. socialism/democracy could be seen as redundant terms when functioning as intended but: its a matter of degrees.
I see our species at a crossroads. A one step up two steps back juncture. Fundamentally, less is better with regards to governing so long as this species pushes humanity towards a healthier, ever-more individually responsible mass-mindedness adaptation and I think push is the key word here. We don't easily embrace change which is why it's been a one step up two steps back jig. Full blown socialsim simply rings backwards to me; thwarthing our drive to keep adapting in responsible ways so long as our reliance on governing bodies increases.
However, back to that matter of degrees: WE are the ones who've allowed corp power to dimish ours turning our democracy into a semblance of. Coming out to vote now and again just ain't gonna cut it. We are now reading more & more about where our system is headed and the term used is Oligarchy.
DEF: "1.small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes. Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) ; from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "a few", and ἄρχω (archo), meaning "to rule or to command") 2. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique.
Hate to be such a broken record here but if it makes you feel any better, I harp on this over & over in Dancing Partners & every forum I visit and will continue to do so until I die or else get plum sick of hearing myself!!
We need to stop whining about corp power and start unifying our own damn power! Otherwise, we have no one to blame but ourselves and we will keep doing that two steps back jig off towards full blown Oligarchy or make a slight diversion and head toward full blown Socialsim. And, before you think Socialsim is the less of two evils just remember -- backwards will always be just that.
Have a fine day but please consider doing me a favor and take a minute to consider where WE are at and where WE want to go. Then, consider who WE is.
even though you do. Atheists really dislike that but I'm not sure why.
What's it to um? :P