Marxism can elimimate global poverty

[Lonewulf]

Maybe rich in ideas or in thoughts.

Without relevant technology or science, ideas and thoughts are useless.

Going into the backwoods is just that; a regression, a back-step.

 

[yinyinwang]

Without relevant technology or science, ideas and thoughts are useless.

Going into the backwoods is just that; a regression, a back-step.

Without ideas and thoughts, technology and science makes more sins than benefits.

 

[Lonewulf]

Without ideas and thoughts, technology and science makes more sins than benefits.

Without any ideas or thoughts, technology and science don't exist.

You can't do math if you don't think at all.

It's actually "ideas and thoughts", ideologies in particular, that have done the most damage.

 

[bigred]

See several hundred involuntary economic experiments from last century. It's no longer a viable theory.

It never was. It's hopelessly pie-in-the-sky unrealistic to implement. But like most things, human beings had to find out the hard way...

 

[yinyinwang]

Without any ideas or thoughts, technology and science don't exist.

You can't do math if you don't think at all.

It's actually "ideas and thoughts", ideologies in particular, that have done the most damage.

Without democracy ideology, the world could be much darker.

 

[Lonewulf]

Without democracy ideology, the world could be much darker.

And with a democracy ideology, the world could be much darker too.

If democracy was blindly followed as an ideology, much harm to the minority from the majority would result. It would be two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. It would be a vast majority of racists voting on what to do about the blacks. It would be... well, you get the point.

America is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic Republic, a mixture of checks and balances between a single leader (executive), the courts (judicial), and the people's choices (legislative).

 

[yinyinwang]

And with a democracy ideology, the world could be much darker too.

What kind of better world do you imagine without democracy?

If democracy was blindly followed as an ideology, much harm to the minority from the majority would result. It would be two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. It would be a vast majority of racists voting on what to do about the blacks. It would be... well, you get the point.

America is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic Republic, a mixture of checks and balances between a single leader (executive), the courts (judicial), and the people's choices (legislative).

The present situation is far from perfect, but if you can't get along with it, you definitely have other options like China, Cuba, Iran or North Korea maybe your best choice. If you live in democratic country and decry, you are nothing, not even a hypo, just plain liar.

 

[Lonewulf]

Wow, you really misunderstood my post.

If you think that America has an Athenian Democratic System, you are completely and entirely wrong.

What kind of better world do you imagine without democracy?

That was not what I said. Blind faith in an ideology is much worse than an ideal that also takes into account human behavior and social necessities. A democratic republic is not a pure democracy. If you think it is, then please, go educate yourself.

The present situation is far from perfect, but if you can't get along with it, you definitely have other options like China, Cuba, Iran or North Korea maybe your best choice.

I actually have my own ideals as far as government goes, but that's neither here nor there. I never stated that there was anything wrong with the American system, or most democratic republics.

Athenian Democracy (rule of majority) != Democratic Republic (Checks and balances of power between alternate groups).

Just in case you misread that, "!=" means "Does Not Equal" in C++ language.

America relies on a liberal democracy that has a constitution and other "rules of law" that provides it's citizens with inalienable rights under the philosophical idea of Natural Law. With guaranteed liberals and due process, added to checks and balances between different political and interest groups, you have a system that actually is capable of stability for long stretches of time (but not infinitely, naturally).

The United States has a constitution that cannot be removed even by the majority. This breaks a pure Democratic Ideology, if by "democratic" you mean "rule of the majority". The ideal wasn't to have the majority rule anything, but instead to have checks and balances between differing powers, each of which could influence one another, but were diversified. The will of the majority is not the only ideal in a Democratic Republic, making the "Democracy" title somewhat of a misnomer.

If you live in democratic country and decry, you are nothing, not even a hypo, just plain liar.

That's cool.

And you obviously have no reading comprehension, so I guess we'd both have our faults, then.

Also, seriously? If you want to be taken seriously on the interweb, learn some grammar and spelling skills plz.

First of all, I'll assume that "hypo" means "hypocrite", and not "hypodermic needle" as I'm used to seeing it be used. Also, you forgot to insert an "a" between "just" and "plain". Just some advice.

Also, I'll have to assume that when you say "and decry", you mean, "And decry it", or "and decry [a democratic country]". You also forgot to put "a" between "in" and "democratic".

Though, considering these grammar errors, I suppose it's safe to assume that English is not your first language; which is cool, and in which case, just take it as some lingual advice.

 

[yinyinwang]

Wow, you really misunderstood my post.

If you think that America has an Athenian Democratic System, you are completely and entirely wrong.

Why would I take America as Athenian copy?
Can you find anything in what I said that has any hint that I assume that?

That was not what I said. Blind faith in an ideology is much worse than an ideal that also takes into account human behavior and social necessities. A democratic republic is not a pure democracy. If you think it is, then please, go educate yourself.

Why are you so obsessed with "pure" democracy? Would you stop breathing if there is no pure air?
10% democracy is better than nothing.

I actually have my own ideals as far as government goes, but that's neither here nor there. I never stated that there was anything wrong with the American system, or most democratic republics.

You think it is not pure, don't you? If not being pure is not anything wrong, why do you wast time mentioning it?

Athenian Democracy (rule of majority) != Democratic Republic (Checks and balances of power between alternate groups).

Just in case you misread that, "!=" means "Does Not Equal" in C++ language.

So what? Do you mean that since we can not get 100% pure water, we should stop drinking water at all?

America relies on a liberal democracy that has a constitution and other "rules of law" that provides it's citizens with inalienable rights under the philosophical idea of Natural Law. With guaranteed liberals and due process, added to checks and balances between different political and interest groups, you have a system that actually is capable of stability for long stretches of time (but not infinitely, naturally).

The United States has a constitution that cannot be removed even by the majority. This breaks a pure Democratic Ideology, if by "democratic" you mean "rule of the majority". The ideal wasn't to have the majority rule anything, but instead to have checks and balances between differing powers, each of which could influence one another, but were diversified. The will of the majority is not the only ideal in a Democratic Republic, making the "Democracy" title somewhat of a misnomer.

By that we call the thing from a tap water is also "misnomer", because it is not pure anything.

That's cool.

And you obviously have no reading comprehension, so I guess we'd both have our faults, then.

Also, seriously? If you want to be taken seriously on the interweb, learn some grammar and spelling skills plz.

First of all, I'll assume that "hypo" means "hypocrite", and not "hypodermic needle" as I'm used to seeing it be used. Also, you forgot to insert an "a" between "just" and "plain". Just some advice.

Also, I'll have to assume that when you say "and decry", you mean, "And decry it", or "and decry [a democratic country]". You also forgot to put "a" between "in" and "democratic".

Though, considering these grammar errors, I suppose it's safe to assume that English is not your first language; which is cool, and in which case, just take it as some lingual advice.

This is pure trash I always ignore.

 

[Lonewulf]

Why would I take America as Athenian copy?
Can you find anything in what I said that has any hint that I assume that?

Athenian democracy is the closest thing to the ideal of democracy, I.E., rule of the majority. I personally do not consider rule of the majority to be "ideal". If you do, that is nice, but personally I prefer the democratic republic.

Why are you so obsessed with "pure" democracy? Would you stop breathing if there is no pure air?
10% democracy is better than nothing.

I'm explaining my point, which you continually miss. To blindly follow the democratic ideology, we head towards a rule of the majority instead of the system we actually have in place in America, Canada, England, etc. They are not democracies, they are a democratic republic.

If you blindly follow the "democratic ideal" (instead of what we currently have), you will lead to more harm than good. I do not see why you do not understand this, unless you truly believe that a system where the majority have complete and total control is truly the ideal. If you do, then you may very well be in the minority on this. Ironically enough.

So what? Do you mean that since we can not get 100% pure water, we should stop drinking water at all?

This is 100% a strawman. I never once stated that we should not have a democratic republic. At all. Quote me if I did.

Until you decide to actually read what I'm saying, this conversation will go nowhere, and I have completely wasted my time. I ask you to give me those few hours of my time back trying to explain this to you.

By that we call the thing from a tap water is also "misnomer", because it is not pure anything.

So you don't blindly follow the democracy ideology? Which is preferable; a society in which majority rule over the minority without any restraints, or the liberal democracy, where there are checks and balances of power? The two are fundamentally different, and I would choose the latter over the former anyday. I do not consider a society where the majority can do whatever they wish to the minority to be an ideal society. I guess you do, but I don't.

A democratic republic is only barely a "democracy". It is mainly focused on the republic, depending mostly on elected officials, with some exceptions. Personally, I agree with American Democracy, and I definitely agree with most of the American founding fathers. I do not like the system we are getting now, however, what with there only being two political parties that have to polarize everything...

This is pure trash I always ignore.

What, grammar corrections are pure trash? I shall not endeavor to try to correct you again, then.

I'm beginning to think that you I should ignore, too. Until you actually try to read and comprehend what I'm saying, this conversation will go nowhere. You do not understand the first thing about what I am saying. You are drawing conclusions that do not exist. You are constructing strawmen and misconstruing every single sentence.

Until you even try, this is going nowhere.

Good day.



ETA: I looked back at some of your responses. I think that I'll attempt to clear up this misconception:

There are two systems; the 90% to 100% democracy, in which majority rule over the minority, and the 10% Democratic Republic (going by the 10% you claimed). I prefer the latter, as it has checks and balances of power, and while the people end up usually getting what they want, it allows room for Civil Rights of minority groups, it allows the country to protect business and economic interests, etc.

The latter is preferable to the former. In no way do I wish to deconstruct America or the other countries, though I would like them to head more towards their ideal than away from it. However, I do not follow the "ideal of democracy", as these are democratic republics that, really, are only sorta democracies. An actual country that fit more the "ideal" of democracy, I would not wish to live in.

I would much rather live in a country that grants me civil liberties through a Constitution. I would rather live in a country where my interests, even as a minority (such as, say, an atheist that believes that his lack of religious belief shoul be protected, even in a country where the majority are evangelical Christians), can be protect. I would much rather live in a country where the common rabble do not have complete control over a system that they do not fully understand; I sure as hell wouldn't trust my next door neighbor to know how to lead an army, much less vote as to what an army should do.

I prefer the Democratic Republic. If you do not, that's okay. But I do not follow the "ideology" of democracy, but instead of the democratic republic.

(Though I have my own political theories that somewhat diverge from the democratic republic, but that's neither here nor there, nor is it a topic of the discussion).

 

[Earthborn]

... in America, Canada, England, etc. They are not democracies, they are a democratic republic.

"England" is not a democratic republic, and neither are Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Those are all democratic monarchies, just like a lot of other countries.

 

[Lonewulf]

"England" is not a democratic republic, and neither are Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Those are all democratic monarchies, just like a lot of other countries.

But the Monarchy has no real power to speak of, do they? I was under the impression that the UK was far more a republic than it was a monarchy.

 

[D'rok]

"England" is not a democratic republic, and neither are Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Those are all democratic monarchies, just like a lot of other countries.

Ditto for Canada. A constitutional monarchy is very different from a democratic republic (although both are liberal democracies). Parliamentary Supremacy and Responsible Government (as in "responsible to parliament for its actions" not as in "good") are the linchpins.

The American experiment is fascinating for a political philosophy junkie like myself. It is one of the few examples of a conscious effort to form a regime from scratch based on specific philosophical principles. Most systems of govt organically evolve from previous regimes, adding and jettisoning as need be. That the American Republic has lasted as long as it has and has thrived is quite noteworthy.

IMHO, the biggest test for American Republican virtue is the quest for empire. Any attempt to universalize a particular system of governance - especially through military might - is always going to end up changing things at home. Pursuing imperial expansion - even "soft" empires like America's - always lead to tyranny-creep on the homefront.

This trend is the same for liberal democracy as it is for Marxism - i.e. systematizing it universally results in tyranny and oppression. Plato set a limit of 5000 citizens in his virtuous republic. America has tried to expand that limit with some success, but its reach is going to exceed its grasp.

 

[D'rok]

But the Monarchy has no real power to speak of, do they? I was under the impression that the UK was far more a republic than it was a monarchy.

Republics have presidents as their heads of state. Constitutional monarchies have monarchs. They have very real power in theory, but in practice they are only symbolic. They exercise their power only at the request of the government.

However, it is an important and useful symbol. The monarch represents the "State" and the prime minister represents the "Government". In republics, the head of state is the same person as the head of govt - i.e. the prez. All kinds of things result from this arrangement, but one of the most interesting is that in a constitutional monarchy, you can oppose the govt without opposing the state. In other words, pissing on Tony Blair is not pissing on England. It is an institutional mechanism that enables reasonable dissent without rabid accusations of lack of patriotism or treason.

 

[yinyinwang]

Athenian democracy is the closest thing to the ideal of democracy, I.E., rule of the majority. I personally do not consider rule of the majority to be "ideal". If you do, that is nice, but personally I prefer the democratic republic.

If by "ideal" democracy you mean involving every one in every decision making concerning public affairs, that is not technically possible. No one would be that insane to pursuit it or even think about it.

Having said above, you still have not given a single reason for what could go wrong with "ideal democracy" except for operational difficulties mentioned by me above.

 

[yinyinwang]

What, grammar corrections are pure trash? I shall not endeavor to try to correct you again, then.

I'm beginning to think that you I should ignore, too. Until you actually try to read and comprehend what I'm saying, this conversation will go nowhere. You do not understand the first thing about what I am saying. You are drawing conclusions that do not exist. You are constructing strawmen and misconstruing every single sentence.

Until you even try, this is going nowhere.

Good day.

E

If you are obsessed with pure grammar, how about doing some homework on this very piece above.

I am trying hard to find out why the world could be darker with democracy ideal, a claim you made before.
If you only give results with no reasoning in between, you can't blame others for not understanding what you are talking about.

 

[Lonewulf]

If by "ideal" democracy you mean involving every one in every decision making concerning public affairs, that is not technically possible. No one would be that insane to pursuit it or even think about it.

No one except someone that blindly pursues the ideology... keep up with the conversation, would you? That was my point from the beginning.

And I said "majority", not everyone. Do you know what majority means? If not, click on the word. It leads to something called a dictionary.

If the majority of people decide that a lesser population should die, or have their civil liberties taken away, then you have a system that commits crimes against minority groups. You consider this ideal? I didn't know that about you. Do you see nothing wrong with bigotry, even against a minority population? Or a minority religion? Or a minority ethnic group? You see absolutely nothing wrong if a majority decides to take away the rights, priviledges, and even lives of the minority?

Having said above, you still have not given a single reason for what could go wrong with "ideal democracy" except for operational difficulties mentioned by me above.

Oh?

Okay.

A majority of racists wants to take away the rights of a minority group. That's majority will vs. a minority group. Do you get something as simple as that, Wang?

I am trying hard to find out why the world could be darker with democracy ideal, a claim you made before.
If you only give results with no reasoning in between, you can't blame others for not understanding what you are talking about.

Read above. I believed that it was self evidence why you don't want to give the majority the power to inflict crimes against the minority. I see now that I was wrong in your case.

To most people I talk to, it's self-evident. Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Do you understand that simple concept, Wang?

Here's a tip: Wolves don't prefer grass. Do you understand that?

This is just the simple stuff. I'm not even going to go into the details of a majority of people that are ignorant on a subject voting on it, and their vote carrying more power than actual experts on the subject that actually know what the hell they're talking about. But I don't want this to go over your head or anything.

 

[Lonewulf]

Republics have presidents as their heads of state. Constitutional monarchies have monarchs. They have very real power in theory, but in practice they are only symbolic. They exercise their power only at the request of the government.

However, it is an important and useful symbol. The monarch represents the "State" and the prime minister represents the "Government". In republics, the head of state is the same person as the head of govt - i.e. the prez. All kinds of things result from this arrangement, but one of the most interesting is that in a constitutional monarchy, you can oppose the govt without opposing the state. In other words, pissing on Tony Blair is not pissing on England. It is an institutional mechanism that enables reasonable dissent without rabid accusations of lack of patriotism or treason.

My head hurts, but thanks for the information. You seem very well informed.

It seems to me that it's mainly just semantics and a bit of foolery, really.

 

[Schneibster]

A majority of racists wants to take away the rights of a minority group. That's majority will vs. a minority group. Do you get something as simple as that, Wang?

Read above. I believed that it was self evidence why you don't want to give the majority the power to inflict crimes against the minority. <snip>

To most people I talk to, it's self-evident. Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

This problem is called "the tyranny of the majority." It's why the most important laws in a democracy are those that limit the power and potential actions of the government. In the US, we call those laws "The Constitution." Most successful democracies require something like this. They won't work otherwise, unless you kill or kick out everyone who's different; and we all know where that ends up.

 

[Lonewulf]

This problem is called "the tyranny of the majority." It's why the most important laws in a democracy are those that limit the power and potential actions of the government. In the US, we call those laws "The Constitution." Most successful democracies require something like this. They won't work otherwise, unless you kill or kick out everyone who's different; and we all know where that ends up.

Right, which is what I'm trying to explain.

To have a "democracy that works", you have to remove some of the things that make it a democracy; you have to give people civil liberties that cannot be voted away, even by will of the majority.

And even within a democratic republic as we have, we have checks and balances, a system of different powers; the majority vs. an oligarchy vs. a monarch/executive (aka, the President), each of them sharing their own bit of the pot of power. Many of them get elected into power by the people, sure, but once they're elected, as long as they follow the law, they then can exercise their power.

In my view (and I may be wrong, I admit), the Democratic Republic isn't really a democracy, it's a mish-mash of different concepts pulling together to, ideally, carry out a form of government that best serves it's people. But it isn't rule by the majority of people, which is what I believe the traditional (as in, "old time") meaning of democracy is all about; a majority vote and the like.