 |
| |
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrFell
'1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.'
A lot of the things in there are not neccessarily part of the government. Suppression of the opposition is not necessary for fascism to exist, and racism was more a nazi creation than a necessary product of a fascist government. I'm not sure what the true ideal fascist government would look like (don't have time to look it up right now), but I doubt it's anywhere near as bad as it was in real life. |
The Fascist philosophy is that the leader is the one true source of the Will of the state or the people or the race. BY DEFINITION, all contradictitory views are opposed to the will of the people and must be suppressed, by one means or another.
Why is it that the real fasciest governments can't be accepted as the true ideal? They had absolute power to achieve their ends, seventy years and infinite resources in the case of the Soviet experiment. They did in fact achieve their objectives, which was socialism, it's simply that the reallity of that achievment is ugly indeed. No one wants to face that so instead we keep trying to 'balance the game'. And just because a Facist state is militarily aggressive, does not mean that it is militarily competent. The WWII Italian military record speaks for itself.
In contrast, Capitalism never claimed some altimate struggle free utopia, and required no perfect man. It's the ultimate ugly duckling. The American ideal was limited government whose purpose was protection of individual freedoms. This was achieved the minute the ink was dry. All our (US) failures derive from ignoring this simple principle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
Why? We have one here in Canada, and our economic structure is almost identical to yours. Granted, we have a few problems at the moment, but we also don't have anyone losing everything they own just because they get sick. As long as health care is in control of private interests, there will always be the problem of "cherry-picking" It's inherent in the system. All they're concerned with is profits, and they will always cut corners in order to ensure those profits. |
In principle stealing from one group to benefit another, no matter the noble purpose, is intrinsicaly bad. The easy way is always to try to use force to dictate an outcome.
Yes they are concerned with profit and effeciency, if you condem this, then lets just go to a government run economy. The problem, I believe, is the playing field encourages 'cherry picking', and the rules of the game need to influence the desired outcome. The American system is to establish an incentive structure and allow the players to meet the needs based one their self interest. But there is a limit as to the resources we can throw at people before they have to fend for themselves. Remember also that the US is a Federal system, and each state is fully capable of initiating its own program.
I don't want to dwell on this cause it's really tangent to this thread, but if you take from each according to his ability and give away according to need your nation will go bankrupt fast.
Between doing nothing at all and a state run system I'd restructure the industry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Yes they are concerned with profit and effeciency, if you condem this, then lets just go to a government run economy. |
Well that's the point I've been trying to make, there are ways to combine public and private enterprises effectively. Unfortunately, your government is so paranoid about the whole concept of socialist precepts that they never consider conducting any social experiments in that direction. In your culture's eyes, the issue is black & white, whereas in Canada and in most of the European nations, there's a lot of room for some gray in between.
Consider your first response. You said that public health care would be a disaster in the US, yet when I ask you why and even cite a working example, you don't give me any reasons other than those of principle. BTW, our health care is administered by the provinces, the federal government only provides guidelines and financial assistance. There's absolutley no reason why the US can't do the same. Aside from the fact that medical business establishment no doubt has many of your politicians in it's pocket.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
Willem: I still don't understand what you meant. Would the 'socialist' government (the one you attributed to some European counties) also be similar to Canada? I mean, is in your opinion the ony difference between democracy as we know it from civ and the government type you wanted to add, that the last one has a social policy and a stronger govenment?
In that case, wouldn't it mean you make a new government type for all democratic countries except the USA?
If so, I guess it would be better to make a special government type for America instead. |
Yes, in many ways I see Canada trying to work towards a democratic model that more closely resembles the European democracies. What I see happening is a divergence of the Democratic ideal. On the one hand, there is the US model of a laissez-faire government, that allows the individual as much free reign as possible, with minimal interference from the government.
On the other hand there is a more socialist approach, involving issues like public health care, social welfare etc., which Canada, and in particular the European nations, are trying to incorporate into their vision of a democratic state. It's not a Communist approach as such, however it does extend the Democratic principle in a way that it begins to resemble Socialist ideals.
I guess the best way to describe the differences would be to call one Mercantile Democracy and the other Social Democracy. However, from a game standpoint, it's easier to just call these two forms, Democracy and Socialism. And your probably right, but allowing only the Americans to use a particular form of Democracy would be rather limiting in the game, and make it very hard to balance everything out.
BTW, at the moment, there is a great deal of debate happening here in Canada on which vision we should adopt. Being so close to the US, we are under a great deal of pressure to conform to their ideal, and several provincial governments have chosen to pursue their approach. I sincerely hope that when the dust settles, my country's political system will resemble yours more than it does that of the US. My opinion.
Last edited by Willem on 24-02-2002 at 01:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
Finally I understand what you meant. And I basically agree with your idea about making two democratic govenments, although I still think there should be found a better name for it.
|
Well one part of the problem is that to create the "Socialist" gov, I'm using the communal corruption model, the same one that Communism uses. So I don't think that having Social Democracy as the name would be entirely appropriate. Plus I want to avoid using double word gov names, so just calling it Socialism would be better from my standpoint. It doesn't really describe it completely, but it keeps things simpler.
quote:
BTW, how would you call your political position then? Are you a for example a socialist, a social-democrat, a social-liberal or a green-leftist (just to mention those ideologies represented by the different left-wing parties in the parliament of my country)? |
Well in my younger days, I was definitely a Socialist. If a revolution would have broken out then, I would have joined up against the "capitalist pigs". However, now that I don't see things in terms of black & white as much, I would probably consider myself a Social Democrat. I feel that everyone should be free to pursue their livelihood as they see fit, but that there should be some definite brakes placed on the rampant greed I see occurring in the US, and in my own country. Although I sympathize with the Green-leftists to a certain extant, I feel that many of them go to far, and don't have realistic ideas for a pluralistic, industrial society.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fresno
|
 |
Europa
Sep 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Well one part of the problem is that to create the "Socialist" gov, I'm using the communal corruption model, the same one that Communism uses. So I don't think that having Social Democracy as the name would be entirely appropriate. Plus I want to avoid using double word gov names, so just calling it Socialism would be better from my standpoint. It doesn't really describe it completely, but it keeps things simpler. |
Well, in that case you're right. As long as you for yourself know what it means... 
quote:
However, now that I don't see things in terms of black & white as much, I would probably consider myself a Social Democrat. I feel that everyone should be free to pursue their livelihood as they see fit, but that there should be some definite brakes placed on the rampant greed I see occurring in the US, and in my own country. |
That's indeed a bit like most social-democratic parties here in Europe think. At least, used to think. Currently, they are facing a growing right-wing majority though - so most of them are acting more and more like they were conservatives. That also has to do with the fact that since 9-11 there is much more racism and hatred versus Muslims among the voters.
quote:
Although I sympathize with the Green-leftists to a certain extant, I feel that many of them go to far, and don't have realistic ideas for a pluralistic, industrial society. |
I guess they are different in every country. Here, they are (that is, in my opinion) the only realist party which is trying not to take part in the warlike spirit against foreigners I just mentioned. They are also the only leftist republican party (the Netherlands are still a monarchy), which is why I'm going to vote for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
I guess they are different in every country. Here, they are (that is, in my opinion) the only realist party which is trying not to take part in the warlike spirit against foreigners I just mentioned. They are also the only leftist republican party (the Netherlands are still a monarchy), which is why I'm going to vote for them. |
Well here in Canada, there really isn't such a thing as a Green Party, I believe that's what 's called there, it's more of a fringe ideal. They keep trying to enter candidates in the various elections, mainly the provincial, but they never get any votes, and have virtually no support. It mainly appeals to such groups as vegetarians, or animal rights activists etc. There has been some discussion within our main stream left party, the New Democratic Party, to embrace some of the issues that your Green Party does now, especially in the area of globalization. They haven't been doing very well in the past few elections, they're just barely an official party at the moment, so they are looking at new options to their approach.
quote:
That's indeed a bit like most social-democratic parties here in Europe think. At least, used to think. Currently, they are facing a growing right-wing majority though - so most of them are acting more and more like they were conservatives. That also has to do with the fact that since 9-11 there is much more racism and hatred versus Muslims among the voters. |
This lean to the right seems to be a world wide trend these days, we're seeing the same thing here. I figured it was because of our proximity to the US, but I guesss it goes further than that. As for 9-11, we haven't had those problems with Muslims that you mentioned I'm pleased to say. There were some problems shortly after it happened, but everything has settled down now. Unfortunately though, it's given the bigots here the justification to spout off, but most people don't take them seriously anyway.
Although there has been a lot of discussion about our immigration policies, and the rules have been tightened considerably. Some say we've gone to far, some say not far enough. I don't know enough about the new rules to be able to judge for myself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fresno
|
|
Europa
Sep 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
Well here in Canada, there really isn't such a thing as a Green Party, I believe that's what 's called there, it's more of a fringe ideal. They keep trying to enter candidates in the various elections, mainly the provincial, but they never get any votes, and have virtually no support. It mainly appeals to such groups as vegetarians, or animal rights activists etc. There has been some discussion within our main stream left party, the New Democratic Party, to embrace some of the issues that your Green Party does now, especially in the area of globalization. They haven't been doing very well in the past few elections, they're just barely an official party at the moment, so they are looking at new options to their approach. |
That sounds very different from the green here indeed. GreenLeft (that's how the party here is called) currently gets 8,2% in the polls; if it's still so high when the elections are hold that could make them the 4th party in the parliament. 
quote:
This lean to the right seems to be a world wide trend these days, we're seeing the same thing here. I figured it was because of our proximity to the US, but I guesss it goes further than that. As for 9-11, we haven't had those problems with Muslims that you mentioned I'm pleased to say. There were some problems shortly after it happened, but everything has settled down now. Unfortunately though, it's given the bigots here the justification to spout off, but most people don't take them seriously anyway.
Although there has been a lot of discussion about our immigration policies, and the rules have been tightened considerably. Some say we've gone to far, some say not far enough. I don't know enough about the new rules to be able to judge for myself. |
Well, most immigrants in the Netherlands come from Muslim countries, so the immigration debate and the anti-Muslim debate are hard to separate here.
Our neighbour countries Germany and Belgium have already got a big problem with right-extremism for a long time; for example, they are the biggest party in Antwerp. Here those parties never became very big; now it's different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
No, that's not it. Racism is coming up now, but we used to have much less as in the USA for many years. And we've been an immigration country since the 1960's, so I guess they should be used to it by now.
I think it has more to do with the world wide lean to the right you already mentioned. A few years ago, all world leaders were social-democrats (except Clinton, but as a democrat he probably was still much better as most republicans). So you could say it was a lean to the left which has changed by now. Now all social-democratic leaders have electoral problems, and conservatives are very keen to take their place.
This process of politics moving to the right also means right wing extremism is coming up, even in places where they never had it. |
Well it seems to be a problem that most of the industrialized nations are having to deal with I think. There's such a disparity between the have and the have-not nations now, that more and more people are leaving their countries, and using whatever means necessary to get into the more developed nations. The last several years, we've seen a large increase in illegal aliens and people applying for refugee status.
A couple of years ago, we found 2 boatloads of Chinese who had been smuggled into our waters and were discovered before they had a chance to land. There was over 200 people on board who had paid ridiculuos amounts of money in order to come here. Smuggling aliens has become big business in the black market, I hear stories about it all the time now, some of them rather gruesome. And as long as the third world nations have to struggle with their poverty, there's going to be lots of people who are willing to pay everything they have for the opportunity of a better life.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2002 21:42
|