Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on October 24, 2010 at 10:00pm

I've often wondered how much it really matters whether or not a society leans towards capitalism or socialism, provided the utmost extremes are avoided. Until you can get the average citizen to take on some level of political engagement and accept a certain civic responsibility, every system you put in place will probably end up as shit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Lafont on October 24, 2010 at 10:12pm

The only problem is that the average citizen of the United States is...ill educated and they are too attached to the current system. They dislike anything that goes against their norm. In order to establish The United Socialist Federal Republic, a small united group of individuals must seize control and force a change, only then can the education of the average citizen take place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on October 24, 2010 at 11:46pm

See, that's precisely how it doesn't work. Yes, they may be ill-educated, attached with the system, all that. Which is hardly new. You can't seize power "on their behalf" and "force change." A small united group of individuals is inherently elitist when over the majority. That's exactly what happened with the Soviet Union and other countries. We all know how that went. Don't get me wrong-I'm for a change. However, it must be grassroots change, from the bottom up, or it just turns into another dictatorship, whether "of the proletariat" or not. Soon it's "over" the proletariat.

If the economic recession deepens, there may be an opportunity for grassroots change. Really we have to do like the IWW said: "Build the New World in the Shell of the Old." To "be the change you want to see in the world." The means are the ends, remember. You can't have a tiny elite set up a dictatorship without participation or consent of the people they're supposedly acting for. If there is to be change, it'll have to be people themselves doing it. That's always how it really works.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Lafont on October 25, 2010 at 8:06pm

I understand that the great masses need to be behind this change in order for it to come about, and that the public needs to educated on the new system. There are more individuals out there that approve of this system.

But...

The Rich and Powerful have blinded the masses. Ultimately, the Rich and Powerful will do everything in their power to see that the masses still serve them. If a "grassroots" change will come about, it still must be headed by the small grouping of individuals who are united; because the public will be far too easily swayed and the movement will end before it even began.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on October 27, 2010 at 7:29pm

I'm not saying there will be no leaders. They cannot be dictators, though, which your post seemed to imply. It is possible for even "blinded" and "ignorant" people to wake up, as we've seen all over the world. Their leaders must be acting for them directly, not just claiming "we know what is best for you." We have enough of that "leadership" already.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on October 26, 2010 at 1:16am

I'm not an American, but aren't you the ones who brag about the wonderful democracy you have over there and which you are so keen to spread around? I'm not talking about you specifically, but about Americans in general. Anyway, THE base stone of democracy is that the people chooses its leaders. Good or bad, they are the choice of "the masses". The supposed stupidity of these people shouldn't be ground for the canceling of the system the US had since its birth. I agree that people all over the world make bad decisions after being manipulated by politicians, but that's why this system is so... maybe not good, but certainly not as bad as dictatorship. You choose bad, you suffer and the next time, maybe it'll be a better choice. And if it's not, then it's still you who has to suffer.

I agree that much better systems could exist, but dictatorship is not one of them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on October 26, 2010 at 11:46am

The problem is that America actually isn't democratic, it's a Republic. People don't actually vote for their leaders, it gets filtered through the electoral college and supervoters have more of a punch than the every day guy. If we had an actual democracy, the results of the elections I feel would be much different than what they turn out as. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of Americans are unsettled with the system. It isn't really 'Americans' that spread around that democracy shit, but conservative Christian members of American society.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on October 26, 2010 at 2:48pm

Yeah, I actually knew that about electoral colleges and supervoters (I watched Boston Legal :), but I didn't make the distinction between Republic and democracy. I guess that the principle is the same, which is that people elect their leaders, though in USA it's not always what the majority decides. I know also how they move, or moved, these areas in order to maximize their potential in their favor. It's kind of shitty if you ask me, but it still trumps dictatorship. My country came out of one just a month before I was born and, even if we are now part of the EU, the effects are clear as day.

Also, even real democracy has its flaws. The demo(s)/people is the problem. It sound nice, that we can choose our leaders and even make some important decisions about the way the country is governed by these leaders. However, people are generally... stupid; or at least simple minded. I mean, most people don't really think about the importance of politics and even how things work in this area. I remember an American woman who said she was going to vote for Obama because... well, because she thought he looked good... not like that old-looking McCain. I'm not advocating for McCain here, but her reasoning was mind-boggling. Also, in my country, 91% of the people thinks the death penalty should be implemented. Of course, it's probably a coincidence that over 91% of the people are Christians. Anyway, if it weren't for the EU interdiction of this penalty, we would probably have had it by now. That may not seem as something so bad in US, where people are "put to sleep" (you have to love these catchy, understating expressions), but in most of the rest of the civilized world it is unacceptable, hence the EU interdiction for its members. What I'm trying to say is that the people can make really bad decision, thus democracy has serious flaws. However, I don't actually know any implemented system that is better than democracy. Maybe we'll have one, but dictatorship, which was seemingly suggested by Andrew, has been tested over and over, and it's really, really bad.

Finally, I want to say that I hope things will get better in America about the way leaders are elected. It seem ridiculous that the majority may elect someone, while the real winner is actually the opposing candidate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on October 29, 2010 at 7:21am

The expression "put to sleep" is used only for animals in the US, not for humans.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on October 29, 2010 at 8:01am

OK, thanks for the info! I knew I heard it with the meaning of ending a life, but I guess I haven't realized it wasn't used for humans. Execution is certainly used and it's still an understatement. That's because any action can be executed, not just killing someone. Anyway, my point was that we often use phrases that don't reveal the whole story of actions we know we are generally opposed to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacqueline Sarah Homan on October 27, 2010 at 7:52pm

Michael Parenti summed it up the best: we have a "democracy for the few."


Someone on Huffington recently said:
"I don't think the question is about capitalism being the correct economic theory, I think the complaint is about the extreme absence of (for lack of a better phrase) noblesse oblige.

"Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities. ] In American English especially, the term has also been applied more broadly to those who are capable of simple acts to help another, usually one who is less fortunate.
In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency."
And this was my response:



Capitalism doesn't encourage "noblesse oblige", it encourages economic and social predation. Capitalism centers on the notion that wealth and unearned privilege is sacrosanct. It's a sociopathic ethos in the name of looking out for number one because "he who dies with the most toys wins."

It's a social construct based on "getting ahead" in a winner-takes-all, n-person zero-sum game. As you go up the economic ladder, attitudes of self-importance and entitlement increase. This naturally follows the rate of capital accumulation, which increases at a greater rate as one moves up the income scale. And the micro mirrors the macro. But we never talk about the culture of capitalism; the culture of greed and getting ahead at all costs that is pervasive among the comfortable classes — including well-paid blue-collar union workers and union organizational leadership, which has a white male face — who think they have a “divine right” to always come first.

We have a culture of capitalism that promotes and maintains classism. We have a capitalist society that touts greed and self-centered entitlement as a virtue. We have an architecture of aggression in which capitalism’s biggest losers (poor women) are discarded, devalued, disrespected, and unacknowledged. We’re not even seen as being human enough for harm to us to matter. The culture of capitalism is centered on the notion that only the “fittest” deserve anything and to hell with those of us who have been socially and economically excluded.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Denis C on October 29, 2010 at 2:03pm

Hi Radu . I have to respond as an american that left during the bush regime and have yet to return nor plan to. We do not have a democracy in the states as shown by the first term of the Bush crew, he lost by half a million votes and was installed against the will of the voters by the court. The second term. I am not a conspiracy theorist but the exit polls for the first time ever ran counter to the "final" count. We also had voting machines that did not issue a paper receipt so we had to trust the count with no way to verify it.
We have been selling a bill of goods to the world and ourselves , land of the free , democracy etc etc, for so long we believe our own propaganda. We cannot even entertain the idea that our system is broken or the possibility that elections are stolen.

They are. If not by rigging the count by other means like placing fewer machines in areas that are known to vote a certain way thus wearing the voters out waiting in line as happened in Ohio. The polls were kept open past time due to the lines , who knows how many people just gave up and went home .
One party was in the position to make the decision on what kind of machines to buy and where and how many to place in what area.
Another factor is a very few due to or media laws can present a picture that is in no way close to the truth and motivate the "masses" to vote against their own interests.
We are a nation of excess , we have to much and it distracts us from any meaningful discourse. So we are a nation by and large of one issue voters. Religion is playing a bigger and bigger role in our descendantcy back to the stone age.

I could beat this drum all day so I will let off here and simply say we need another system because ours is broken. We already live under a dictatorship , the banking cartels and the Federal Reserve.

Saludos ,D

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page