I see. What do you do with the people who disagree?
What do you do with the people who start an opposition party, in this one-party system?
Thats the whole point, there are no parties, everyone is independent and vote on case to case basis. Everyone just does what they think is best for the people and the country, rather than gang up to beat the other gang.
The more complex question is, how can that function? How can we avoid people grouping together? Thats the complicated answer.
Political reform, dedicated politicians, making parties/groupings illegal, surveillance of the political process and so on are a good beginning.
And you call the US Government Nazi's.
"On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany." - ::Nazi Germany - Dictatorship::
Your plan would put us one step closer to dictatorship, much like China.
No, because I want politics to be under surveillance by the people, and I want the one party to have no agenda, just to make a status for making multi parties illegal, and have all politicians be independent under a party that work for the people and the state.
China is a better version of political rule than the US for example. All they want is to do whats best for the people and the state, as opposed to the US where two parties bicker against each other and forget that their job is to work for the best of the people and the state.
Private job losses mount, ominous for payrolls | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters
Flash estimates say another 700.000 jobs were lost in the US in December, making a probable new unemployment rate at the end of the year 2008 of 7.3%...
How horrific..
the US unemployment has now cought up with Europe, and is predicted to race by in a hurry. Europes unemployment has for a long time been in the 7ish % area, while that in the US was as low as 3.8% at the same time..
I actually told all of you guys this some years ago, that it would happen, in some of my posts.. But no, you wouldnt listen..
Atm, I would not be surprised to see a future total economic collapse in the US, especially as a result of other bad news that your government is going to have a 2 trillion$ deficit on the federal budget next year. Tax incomes in the US are 2.6 trillion. So 2 trillion in deficits seems quite scary. People will just rush to wherever they can to have their US assets withdrawn, which will again lead to further decline..
I fear you are stuck in a bad downward spiral, which seems unlikely it will ever stop. And you are dragging other economies with you, Europe for example who is also experiencing economic setbacks, and China with slower growth, while the overall world economy will only grow around 2.5% next year.
And you call the US Government Nazi's.
"On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany." - ::Nazi Germany - Dictatorship::
Your plan would put us one step closer to dictatorship, much like China.
Right. Never mind that the conditions which allow the "best traits" are often contradictory and mutually exclusive. "Efficiency," for example, comes from a lack of deliberation and an abundance of central autocracy, both of which are antithetical to freedom and choice.
Of course, as you cite China and the EU as your top models, that probably doesn't concern you much. Besides, letting people decide too much for themselves about their lives only leads to the kinds of problems we have today, right? Best to leave that kind of decision-making to the people who know best, no?
You wouldn't be the first to think you can create a kinder, gentler fascism; you won't be the last, and it's certain that more blood will one day be spilled defeating yet another attempt, which will inevitably go the same way all the others have.
And it will probably have originated in the mind of a bored Euro who disdains the bourgeois, as it always does. Hmmm.
But I know . . . you have it all figured out, right? You know how to make it "work," right? This time, I'm SURE, it'll be different. :roll:
Harshaw, just wanted to point out that China is not a fascist nation, but a one-party rule system. There is a big difference. Fascism relies upon a single leader to call all the shots. The communist party in China still votes on things collectively, and one person does not make all the decisions.
Maximus, if you really are looking to China as a model, then you'll also want to look at how rife with corruption the Chinese system is right now. Aside from the human rights issues, there is high level embezzlement that happens all the time. It's ironic really, that embezzlement is punishable by death here, yet the top of communists with their connections to the corporate infrastructure all get a cut, routinely. It makes the system rather inefficient.
Maximus Zeebra said:One thing to snap up from the Chinese model is their one party system and "working for the nation" attitude, rather than political bickering between groups.
And who decides what the "good parts" and the "bad parts" are? How does this new system simply come into being without challenging the sovereignty of the system of states?
Their one party system provides zero representation to the public though. No one elects their leaders, so the leaders don't really have to listen to any of the peoples' qualms. It also affects the courts, and the ability of people to bring challenges to the state. For instance, after the milk contamination crisis, anyone who brought challenges to the courts were blocked. People were even detained for protesting.
The system doesn't work if people's freedom is hindered and they can't express themselves, nor does it work without a sense of justice.
Thats the whole point, there are no parties, everyone is independent and vote on case to case basis. Everyone just does what they think is best for the people and the country, rather than gang up to beat the other gang.
The more complex question is, how can that function? How can we avoid people grouping together? Thats the complicated answer.
Political reform, dedicated politicians, making parties/groupings illegal, surveillance of the political process and so on are a good beginning.
China is a better version of political rule than the US for example.
All they want is to do whats best for the people and the state
as opposed to the US where two parties bicker against each other and forget that their job is to work for the best of the people and the state.
Harshaw, just wanted to point out that China is not a fascist nation, but a one-party rule system.
There is a big difference. Fascism relies upon a single leader to call all the shots. The communist party in China still votes on things collectively, and one person does not make all the decisions.
But surely, none of this is relevant for the post we are within..
That IS the question I asked, yes. You can't stop people from gathering together in coffee houses and living rooms and deciding on a common goal and banding together for solidarity. Not without totalitarianism.
And here it is, the beginning of that totalitarianism. Government agents busting up private meetings, people being disappeared in the middle of the night . . .
Son, if the armband fits, wear it.
Sure. It doesn't let those pesky citizens with their own ideas of how they might want to conduct their own lives get in the way of things.
Even if that were true, you do realize that what's "best" for "the people" and for "the state" are often contradictory?
No, that's not their job. Their job is to make it so that people can go on with their daily lives with a minimum of interference, to maximize the fruits of liberty and individual rights. The people themselves work for their own best as they see fit.
Gridlock is good. The less the government does, the fewer laws it passes, the better off we all are.
It's Communist, which shares its philosophical roots with fascism.
That's not particularly true. The head of state in China has powers on par with any fascist dictator, and under the fascist governments, the parties still voted on the same kinds of things the Communist party in China vote on.
Besides, it's not like there's one pat definition of a fascist state set in stone. German fascism differed somewhat from Italian fascism. And their Communist cousins weren't particularly different from how they did much of anything. It's just a slightly different mix of most of the same ingredients.
On the contrary, it is absolutely relevant, because it springs entirely from the motivation you have for posting these topics.
You're not a particularly original character; you're seizing upon an economic downturn to push "revolutonary" ideas. Your kind always crops up at times like these. True, you lot gain more traction the worse it gets and the more scared people are, so you like to fan the flames. Things were particularly bad in the 1930s, so your intellectual kin were given a free reign in too many places, and Europe was bombed flat in the 1940s as a result. Among other things.
Surveilance OF the politicians BY the people(or people who represent the people and not politics)..
People in China are almost as free as people in the US. Especially now with all the decreases of freedom in the US and further state involvement. If there is any state close to being a fascist state its the US.
Thats why we should look for complex yet simple solutions, rather than half functioning simple minded but complicated solutions.
And yet, in the US people get less and less freedoms, while people in China get more and more.. So who is REALLY working for the people?
Political parties aren't made of politicians. They're made of people who come together for common cause.
Being surveilled for possible legal penalty is the same no matter who's doing it -- by the government, or by citizen informers. If it's being done to keep people from freely associating with other, it's totalitarian any way you slice it.
Nice world you envision. Don't count me in.
Id say the US for example relies MORE on one single decision maker than China
All that you refer to is the worst of all systems I mention, yet I have repeatedly said we should collect the best of every system. Nor did I say we should adopt the fascist system alltogether, like you make it sound.
But many things of fascism are pretty good, wouldnt you agree?
Then we just root out the bad and put them on the "no no list".
All thoughout this post contrary to what you believe I have called for abolishing of single leaders and decision makers, and even small such groups. Collective decision making is far superior.
Its not relevant at all.. The reason I posted this thread was because I read the news and wanted to share them with you..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?