Communism III

[knowltok2]

Tell me a little more about the Swiss system. How is it that people have these discussions? Are these informal discussions at the local pub, watch-shop, bank, park, etc., or are they more structured?

Also, for background's sake what is the demographic make-up of Switzerland? Race, ethnic group, religion, etc.

 

[Pongui]

knowltok2: "Greadius, we aren't going to get anywhere because despite the evidence, they don't want to believe that everyone won't willingly cooperate for the common good. "

Why leave democracy and law enforcement out of this? I persist in working from the example of my own country AS IT IS NOW, which is part of the evidence we have to look at. Why can't you look at it and admit that it's working very well? Can you not admit that by any objective measure this country with public intervention has brought about a higher quality of life than it's neighbour to the south has with an anti-democracy, free-for-all "system"? It seems I have to flaunt this at the Americans reading this thread, which is impolite. Try to understand that people don't think, behave, or prosper the same everywhere as in your neck of the woods.

"If human nature wasn't like it is, I'd fully support communism. Unfortunately, there are enough people who look out for themselves first and foremost, and are always looking to be better than those around them. You can shout that that isn't right, isn't fair, and shouldn't be all you want, but until you can change it, a system based upon everyone cooperating towards what everyone agrees are common goals, isn't going to work."

But we have changed, and we'll go on changing. I'm not exacty a lone protester standing in the rain. My government is, for the most part, doing what I want it to do, and I'm confident that Canadians will continue to make changes. How many times do I have to repeat this for it to sink in?

Your argument that one can't change the system is an attack on democracy and government in general (including law-enforcement!), not communism. Since I believe communism should only evolve out of fair democratic process, then, perhaps some countries aren't ready to begin moving in that direction.
But I'd like to think there's something you can do for Americans, especially those in need. What sorts of social programs are being debated in the 'States right now?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Why leave democracy and law enforcement out of this? I persist in working from the example of my own country AS IT IS NOW, which is part of the evidence we have to look at. Why can't you look at it and admit that it's working very well?

Working well for whom (avoid a speaking for the people type response)? Ever hear of the Canadian brain drain?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Can you not admit that by any objective measure this country with public intervention has brought about a higher quality of life than it's neighbour to the south has with an anti-democracy, free-for-all "system"?

Wha wha what?? What objective measure says Canadians have a higher quality of life?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
It seems I have to flaunt this at the Americans reading this thread, which is impolite.

Flaunt your imaginary superiority. If you weren't Canadian, you'd make a great American.
Let me guess, you think American's are too full of themselves?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Try to understand that people don't think, behave, or prosper the same everywhere as in your neck of the woods.

Which is why they reach to socialism in a desperate attempt to achieve our standard of living?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Your argument that one can't change the system is an attack on democracy and government in general (including law-enforcement!), not communism.

There is a difference between can't and shouldn't. And keep in mind, tinkering with one part is likely to affect another, and if certain portions are working as well as can be humanly expected, tinkering with a related policy is likely to throw the first one off its course.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Since I believe communism should only evolve out of fair democratic process, then, perhaps some countries aren't ready to begin moving in that direction.

Hopefully, someday, a great leader will deliver us from the plight of being fat, dumb, and happy and lead us to true happierness through having less. But I'll be as equally poor as my neighbor, so I won't be jealous off all he doesn't have anymore! Go Communism

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
But I'd like to think there's something you can do for Americans, especially those in need. What sorts of social programs are being debated in the 'States right now?

I don't believe policy should reflect the lowest denominator in society, nor do I believe that equality of result is a desirable goal. A culture that promotes failure of an individual to succeed as being the measuring point of society is doomed to fail, as they have in the past.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
knowltok2: "Greadius, we aren't going to get anywhere because despite the evidence, they don't want to believe that everyone won't willingly cooperate for the common good. "

Why leave democracy and law enforcement out of this? I persist in working from the example of my own country AS IT IS NOW, which is part of the evidence we have to look at. Why can't you look at it and admit that it's working very well? Can you not admit that by any objective measure this country with public intervention has brought about a higher quality of life than it's neighbour to the south has with an anti-democracy, free-for-all "system"? It seems I have to flaunt this at the Americans reading this thread, which is impolite. Try to understand that people don't think, behave, or prosper the same everywhere as in your neck of the woods.

Admit it? Admit what? That you are one of the very few Canadians that I have come in contact with that thinks that everything is good and what is needed is more government and more taxes. That I will admit. If even 40% of the Canadians on this board thought the way you do, I might admit that there was something to your notions, for Canada. That is not the case as far as I can tell. I personally don't have enough experience with Canada to proclaim it a worker's paradise or damn it as a currupt mess. I figure it somewhere inbetween, but I'll not admit to anything based upon the unsubstantiated statements of one person on the internet.

"If human nature wasn't like it is, I'd fully support communism. Unfortunately, there are enough people who look out for themselves first and foremost, and are always looking to be better than those around them. You can shout that that isn't right, isn't fair, and shouldn't be all you want, but until you can change it, a system based upon everyone cooperating towards what everyone agrees are common goals, isn't going to work."

But we have changed, and we'll go on changing. I'm not exacty a lone protester standing in the rain. My government is, for the most part, doing what I want it to do, and I'm confident that Canadians will continue to make changes. How many times do I have to repeat this for it to sink in?

Repeat that people change? Yes, I think I have that. Repeat that people are ready en mass to live as one big collective with fair and trustworthy people at every level of the mangagement of your collective? Keep going.

Your argument that one can't change the system is an attack on democracy and government in general (including law-enforcement!), not communism. Since I believe communism should only evolve out of fair democratic process, then, perhaps some countries aren't ready to begin moving in that direction.
But I'd like to think there's something you can do for Americans, especially those in need. What sorts of social programs are being debated in the 'States right now?

My arguement is nothing of the sort. If the people want to vote in a communistic government and control the economy, that will be their choice. I may leave, or I may stay and exploit the system. Since I don't consider it much of a possibility at this point, I haven't thought about it much. Checkist has a nice ring to it.

Healthcare, social security, welfare, education reform....that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Sean I am annoyed with you - I half support you, I believe in some state controls to deal with market failures especially on products whihc have high social cost and to provide some basic services and stop people dying and I believe that can be done well.
However statements like this will evolve into communism is what scares alot of people into voting right wing rather than liberal - because they see it as communism which it isn't and it isn't going that way.
Bismarck, Keynes and later advocates of supply side policies have all been pro more state control but were all against communism - they wanted it to work within the capitalist society - somewhere like canada procves this works

 

[Pongui]

Knowlok2. There is some difference in the amount of government our two countries possess. I'm not claiming to speak for all Canadians, but I think it's very obvious that Canadians as a group have done differently than Americans, as a group. Our existing system is not a fluke. We worked for it.

Of course people aren't "...ready en mass to live as one big collective with fair and trustworthy people at every level of the mangagement..." that would be weird. You're refering to some impossible revolution, again. My being a communist doesn't mean I want instant change. We've been moving in that direction, which is different.

Your stated deference to the will of your fellow voters shows a healthy attitude towards your political system (though, on that point, obeying any new laws is about the same as liking them). I hope we can avoid the red herring of bloody revolution (unless some revolutionary comes along for me to debate). The fact that people and democratic governments change over time is good enough for my ends.

 

[Pongui]

I like taxes, and I like subsidies. I like state-ownership. The more, the better. A flock of economists may peck my eyes out for saying that. If I could be adequately compensated for my work, an income tax of 100% would be fine with me.

Not tomorrow. I should just copy and paste that at the end of each post.

 

[Pongui]

Maybe, Graeme the mad, I shouldn't voice any long term goals, and just say "I'm kindof left-wing"?

 

[Graeme the mad]

'Maybe, Graeme the mad, I shouldn't voice any long term goals, and just say "I'm kindof left-wing"?'

Yes that would be good - thats what I do and see know problem with that.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Tell me a little more about the Swiss system. How is it that people have these discussions? Are these informal discussions at the local pub, watch-shop, bank, park, etc., or are they more structured?

Also, for background's sake what is the demographic make-up of Switzerland? Race, ethnic group, religion, etc.

People can launch refenda(initiatives) by recolting 100,000 citizens'signatures(which is very easy)within 18 months and referenda about laws that were voted in the parliament by recolting 50,000 citizens'signatures within 6 months.Then comes a votation day.During the campaign(for months),there are debates in the medias.This can be applied at the cantonal scale too.

65% of the pop speaks swiss german(differing largely from standard german),20%french,10%italian,0.6%rumantsch(a latin language). Catholics 46%,Protestants 40%,10%atheist,4%other.

History:In the early 13th century,the 3 primitive cantons(Uri,Schwyz,Unterwald) were given the title of imperial free territories under the direct protection of the emperor(the emperor's authority was only nominal)-many cities in other parts of the empire were given privileges-Unique fact:the 3 cantons set direct democracy:Once a year(end Apr generally),everybody used to gather on a public place in the canton n vote by raise of hand about many issues.Those popular assemblies were called Landsgemeinden(still present in some cantons).
When the hapsburgs came to power,they wanted to assert their power on Switzerland,on the 1st of August 1291,the 3 cantons swore assistance to each other on the Rütli plain.This was the Rütli's oath(Rütlischwur),the birth of the CH, and a text asserting that oath called the Bundesbrief(league's letter)kept in Schwyz was written.
The confederates,using conscription,defeated all their enemies and new communities became confederates(most of em adopting the Landsgemeinde system).Some cantons(in western CH) remained patrician but as citizens were armed,the patricians consulted people for some decisions and the conditions in CH remained way better than in the rest of Europe.In the 14th n 15th centuries,CH had the most powerful army in Europe and were not defeated until 1515(Marignan's battle)because of artillery n firearms.Patrician dominated in the 17th n 18th centuries.
In 1798,Napoleon's troops entered CH,the only resistance that they met being the Berner(people from the canton of Bern led by patricians).Swiss saw these troops as freeders but quickly saw that they were not n kicked em in 1803.CH remained a sister republic until 1815.In 1815,the old system was restored.
In 1830 started the regeneration,many cantons adopted democratic n liberal constitutions.
In 1848,after a 26-day civil war causing less than 200 victims between the federal troops n some catholic separatist cantons,the whole confederacy was fully democratic(the federal troops won).In 1848,CH was united with a real federal govt n a federal constitution(the referendum was in).
In 1874,it was written that no change to the constitution could be made without a refendum.Education became mandatory n free.In 1891,people were granted the right to launch refenda(cantonal constitution n customs such as Landsgemeinden gave those rights way earlier actually).

Institutions:the executive power is held by the federal council constituted of 7 ministers elected by the parliament for 4 years depending on the results of the legislative elections(since 1959,2socialists,2liberals,2conservatives,1member of the agrarian party,the most conservative party).2 places are left for french-speakers and 1 place for italian speakers.The president is chosen by the parliament for 1 year from that fed.council n continues to care about his dept.
The legislative power is held by 2 chambers.The national council is constituted of 200 members elected proportionnaly and per canton.The States'council is constitued of 46 members(2 per canton).No law can be passed without the approval of both chambers.federal Referenda gotta have a popular majority n a cantonal majoority.

 

[Damien]

From 1848 to today,there were 500 votations at the federal level(not talking about the cantonal ones).There are usually 3 or 4 votations/year dealing about 2 to 4 issues.

 

[Pongui]

Thank you Damien. Very interesting.

We have national, provincial, and municipal referenda in Canada. The latest one in the province of BC was on the Native-land-claims issue, launched by the leading party, and hopelessly biased against Natives. People didn't know what to do with it, it was so bad. To make a long story short, that referendum was a massive "abstain" vote, with people publicly spoiling their ballots. I think that easy launching by citizen petition, as in Switzerland, would work better.

"The national council is constituted of 200 members elected proportionnaly and per canton."
There's a movement over here for "European style" proportianal representation. I actually signed a petition for it the other day, then regretted that because I was in a hurry and didn't really know what I was signing. I don't know how proportional representation would work better than our existing system of constituencies. Could you explain proportional representation?

 

[Damien]

one canton=one constituency.
The size of one constituency is therefore not depending on the pop.Proportional means that the% of votes for a party in a canton(each canton has its own branch of the party)=the% X the number of seats granted for that canton.One person=one vote.
1/6 of the pop live in the canton Zürich.1/6 X200=33,333...(it must get 33 seats).let's imagine that the socialist party gets 33% in the next elections,the Zürcher socialist party would get 11 seats.In Switzerland,there are communal issues too.Each Swiss has 3 citizenships:communal,cantonal and national.

 

[Pongui]

Can this system work in France?

Oh. Don't answer that. We're off topic.

I should ask, "How can this system facilitate communism?", or, "How can this system facilitate communism in other countries?" (France, for example).

 

[Damien]

This system gives one person one vote and preserves the communities.In France,there's the proportional system since 1986 (one constituency=100,000 people)but constituencies were drawn for the right wing(in my dept the left wing got 2000 votes more n yet,it'll send 6 right-wingers n 5 left-wingers to the national assembly,the only one in France) and the problem comes more from the majoritarian system(doesn't exist in Switzerland):
In France,12.5% is required for a party to go to the second round.It eliminates the little parties n weakens the opposition.
The president's party got 44% n about 360 seats/577 n the socialist party 36% n about 150 seats.3 other parties got seats(the greens 2 seats,the communists 20 seats i think n the liberals other seats.)Moreover,there's no counter-power.Citizens can't launch referenda.Only the president can.
Be careful when u hear about proportional system.Is it about constituencies or electoral system?In CH it's both(each canton getting seats depending on its pop),in France it's only about constituencies.

 

[amadeus]

This is exactly why you guys got to adopt the same legislative procedures as the United States.

Yes, we don't get anything done, but we sure as hell do it faster!

 

[knowltok2]

Sounds like a decent system that works for you. I don't think it would fit in with the culture and size of The US, but if it is working for you, that is what is important.

Knowlok2. There is some difference in the amount of government our two countries possess. I'm not claiming to speak for all Canadians, but I think it's very obvious that Canadians as a group have done differently than Americans, as a group. Our existing system is not a fluke. We worked for it.

Of course people aren't "...ready en mass to live as one big collective with fair and trustworthy people at every level of the mangagement..." that would be weird. You're refering to some impossible revolution, again. My being a communist doesn't mean I want instant change. We've been moving in that direction, which is different.

Your stated deference to the will of your fellow voters shows a healthy attitude towards your political system (though, on that point, obeying any new laws is about the same as liking them). I hope we can avoid the red herring of bloody revolution (unless some revolutionary comes along for me to debate). The fact that people and democratic governments change over time is good enough for my ends.

Never claimed that your system was a fluke. Others might, not me.

I don't mean to be referring to a revolution, I guess it is a difference in time perspectives and our beliefs on how much people will or will not change and how long it may take. Also I think there may be some mix up between when I am responding to Damien's ideas and your own. Damien seems to have a system all worked out and ready to go. You on the other hand seem to have more in the way of eventual principles. It seems much like what ComradeDavo says, and I can't dispute that because it is a matter of faith. I don't hold with it, but it is not something that can be disproven when it is looking generations into the future.

In the here and now, I would think that it is possible that greater expansion of capitalism on the current western model would lead to your eventual communism faster than most other possible routes. Prosperity as opposed to poverty.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Sounds like a decent system that works for you. I don't think it would fit in with the culture and size of The US, but if it is working for you, that is what is important.

Yes,it would work everywhere since the basis of the swiss system is not the nation but the community.(here the canton n even for some issues the commune).And my system doesn't bring poverty but wealth.

 

[sloppycoder]

just wanting to say a few things.

first: "The U.S.A won't take no flak, Here comes another air attack! Yackety Yak! Bomb Iraq!"

do you have the mai ly (sp?, and thats vietnam) incident on video? do burning children fascinate you? is pain somehow comical to you? because that isnt funny. why not celebrate bomb a poor starving child day!

second: communism will never work, the population enjoy fighting amongst themselves too much for it to ever work. the very existance of this thread is testimony to that simple fact.

third: capitalism can never work. money=power, power corrupts. no not always, but you only need it to happen once to destroy everything.

fourth: capitalist theory cant work. it nessesitates that all are born totally equal so that the money you earn in your life is nothing but a measure of how hard you have worked. this can never happen. even if internationaly there was no difference in wealth, and even if you took all the children and started them off parentless and with identical education, there would still be inequality and descrimination. a black man will still earn less than a white man on average. a woman will still earn less than a man on average.

 

[Pongui]

Sloppycoder,
Nothing works perfectly, except progress. I've never seen progress fail to progress, except when hit by bombs from people like rmsharp. It appears to exist wherever people are, whatever their government does to help or hinder. Not to say we're all going the same way, at the same rate. What really works is the people, not the theories which claim to run the show. Neither capitalism nor communism ever worked an honest day in their lives! Both get a free ride from human nature.

What you said about equality is true, but I won't give up trying. I see human equality as a central misunderstanding between capitalists and communists. Capitalists believe we start equally, then strive for inequality. Communists believe we start UNequally, then SHOULD strive for equality. One requires no conscience, the other does. Well, that's how I think, anyway.

Glad you posted.