Capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy etc.

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy etc.

This isn't really banter but I didn't know where else to put it. 

Conversations about Taiwan and Cuba have brought forth some discussion on whether or not democracy is better than communism but as I understand it these are not mutually exclusive. Is there some reason why only one communist party can exist per country? It makes more sense to contrast communism/capitalism and democracy/authoritarianism. These are the wikipedia definitions I am working from. 

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophicalsocialpolitical, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classesmoney,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism. Communists agree on the withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communizationrevolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state.[7]

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulationcompetitive markets, a price systemprivate property and the recognition of property rightsvoluntary exchange and wage labor.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by owners of wealth, property, ability to maneuver capital or production ability in capital and financial markets—whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7]

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country's inhabitants have generally been included. Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assemblyassociation and speechinclusiveness and equalitycitizenshipconsent of the governedvoting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

Socialism is a politicalsocial, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises.[8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be publiccollectivecooperative, or of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[8][15]

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of lawseparation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3]

kropotkin1951

The reason why communism cannot be elected relates to September 11. The Venezuelan, Nicaraguan and Bolivian people have also tried to achieve socialism through the ballot box and we know how well that is going for them. In response to the majority of the people in Nicaragua voting for the Sandinista's Canada is imposing further and deeper sanctions on the people. Every time that people try to implement communism/socialism it is declared illegitimate by the colonial rulers. Morales is a prime example. A guiding light for peaceful transition to an eco-socialist future and he was taken down by the US's OAS pit bull, Canada.

Pondering

I mean why can there not be more than one communist party in a country? 

If living under communism is so wonderful why can't it survive free speech?

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

I mean why can there not be more than one communist party in a country? 

If living under communism is so wonderful why can't it survive free speech?


Canada has two 'communist" parties. Venezuela has varying types of socialist parties that make up the ruling coalition. Most European countries have at least two different types of communist parties that run in elections. In Taiwan, the Ukraine and Poland for instance however there is no communist party because they are not allowed to run. In Taiwan people used to get executed for just being suspected of being a communist sympathizer so there is no surge of people trying start a a communist party.

Pondering

Why can't China have more than one communist party?

If Taiwan feels that strongly against communism it explains why they are so against reunification and so determined to keep their independence. 

kropotkin1951

They already do. Why don't you do some basic research about the Chinese government before you deem it appropriate to pontificate.

List of Political Parties in China

KMT Revolutionary Committee: – This is one of the eight registered Minor Political Parties, which is in addition to Communist Party of China in the People’s Republic of China. This is a Left Wing Party which ideally believes in Left-Wing Nationalism, [for fun I took the political views test on this site https://china.isidewith.com/en/parties/ and this party is closest to my views]

Chinese Unification
Progressivism and
Chinese Nationalism.

Democratic League: – The party was established in 1941, and took its present name in 1944. The party is also one of the eight registered legally recognized political parties in the People’s Republic of China. The basic ideology of this party is

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,
Progressivism,
Patriotism, and
Social Democracy.

Democratic National Construction Association: – This is one of the eight legally recognized political parties in the People’s Republic of China, which is directed by Communist Party of China and is members of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Ideology includes,

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Socialist Market Economy and
Patriotism.

Association for Promoting Democracy: – Formed on December 12, 1945, this is one of the eight legally recognized political parties in the People’s Republic of China. The ideology followed is of

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Patriotism
Chinese Unification
Progressivism and
Social Democracy

Peasants and Workers Democratic Party: – This is non-communist party which is legally recognized political parties in People’s Republic of China and takes instructions from Communist Party of China. Ideology followed is of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Xi Jinping Thought
Chinese Unification
Patriotism
Progressivism and
New Democracy.

Party for Public Interest: – The political positioning of this Party is of Left-wing. One of the eight legalized political parties in People’s Republic of China. The party has a huge length of ideologies,

Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Reunification
Patriotism and
Federalism.

September 3rd Society: – Also named as Jiusan Society, is one of the eight legally recognized political parties in the People’s Republic of China. The left-wing party follows instructions of Communist Party of China and is members of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. They have a long list of ideology of,

Marxism-Leninism
Mao Zedong Thought
Deng Xiaoping Theory and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Xi Jinping Thought
Patriotism and
Progressivism.

Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League: – The party is legally recognized in the People’s Republic of China, which was formed in Hong Kong on November 1947 by Members of the Taiwanese Communist Party. Ideology followed is,

Marxism-Leninism
Maoism
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Chinese Unification
Autonomism of Taiwan
New Democracy
Chinese Nationalism.

Pondering

They already do. Why don't you do some basic research about the Chinese government before you deem it appropriate to pontificate

.I do my best. I am not a student of World History or of Politics or even geography.  It has some benefit in that I do research rather than assuming I know everything. It is misleading to suggest that China is multi-party when they are all subordinate to the CPC.. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_China

China, officially the People's Republic of China, is a one-party state under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Despite this, eight minor parties officially exist alongside the CPC in a United Front similar to the popular fronts of former Cold War-era Eastern European countries such as the National Front of the German Democratic Republic, or the modern-day Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea in North Korea. The CPC's CGTN committee officially states that the Communist Party acts as the ruling party but cooperates with the eight minor parties.[1]

Only the CPC can win even though the other parties are also communist. 

Does communism require authoritarian rule to survive? That is, would communism always fail a fair vote?

 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Does communism require authoritarian rule to survive? That is, would communism always fail a fair vote?


The people of Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Honduras have all tried to elect communist governments. Communism always fails because every time the people win the US and its lap dog Canada scream that the election was not free and fair. The people of Nicaragua just voted for the socialists and we responded by sanctioning them.

The people of Venezuela keep voting in their socialist government and the people of Bolivia, despite being shot down in the streets during a Canadian sponsored coup against their eco-socialist government immediately voted them back into power. The real question is are people around the globe allowed to elect communists without foreign interference in their internal affairs.

"The anti-democratic nature of Canada’s position has grown starker with time. Recently, Bolivia’s coup government postponed elections for a third time. After delaying elections initially set for January, the “interim” government has used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to put off the poll until mid-October. However, the real reason for the latest postponement is that Morales’ long-time finance minister, Luis Arce, is set to win the presidency in the first round. Coup president Jeanine Áñez, who previously promised not to run, is polling at around 13 per cent and the main coup instigator, Luis Fernando Camacho, has even less popular support. To avoid an electoral drubbing, the coup government has sought to exclude Morales’ MAS party from the polls.

After ousting Morales the post-coup government immediately attacked Indigenous symbols and the army perpetrated a handful of massacres of anti-coup protesters. The unconstitutional “caretaker” regime shuttered multiple media outlets and returned the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to the country, restarted diplomatic relations with Israel, and joined the anti-Venezuela Lima Group. It also expelled 700 Cuban doctors, which has contributed to a surge of deaths related to COVID-19. In a recent five-day period, Bolivia's police reported collecting 420 bodies from streets, houses, and vehicles in La Paz and Santa Cruz."

https://ricochet.media/en/3240/canadas-support-for-bolivian-coup-deserve...

Pondering

 I know a little about the Lima group which is all I need to know that Canada shouldn't be a part of it. The US and Canada,and I imagine the rest of the western world has been violently exploitative in S.A. 

Without getting too deep you seem to be equating communism and socialism ....

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195....

In both communism and socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. ...

Key Differences

Under communism, the people are compensated or provided for based on their needs. In a pure communist society, the government provides most or all food, clothing, housing and other necessities based on what it considers to be the needs of the people. Socialism is based on the premise the people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. Effort and innovation are thus rewarded under socialism.

Pondering

None of these systems ever seem to have existed in pure form so they seem to be more academic models to discuss different approaches to government rather than practical systems that people would willingly live under. 

It's difficult to discuss political systems without referencing existing systems now and in the past so they will naturally be a part of the conversation but I am trying to stay away from the relationships between countries and who is doing what to whom. I would rather examine what is working within countries and what isn't. In some cases that will be because of interference by other countries so it has to be noted but it doesn't mean the countries themselves have not make mistakes.

An aspect of Venezuala I haven't discussed here because I have thought it impossible is the corruption that happened under Chavez. The intent is not to condemn socialism but rather examine where weaknesses lie to see if there are solutions. 

If communism means Crown Corporations in areas where either a monopoly or public service makes sense then I am all for it. If it means authoritarianism I am all against it. 

If socialism means nobody can own a food truck or sock factory then I am against it. If socialism means medicare and pharmacare and no fault car insurance and even things like socialized internet services I am all for it. 

If direct democracy means I have to be involved weekly or monthly or risk having random neighbours make the decisions then I don't want it. I don't want to run things I want to hire people to do that and I want a say in who gets hired.

At the same time I don't like our current democracy either. We don't get enough say in what the government does in our name. 

Canada is not going to give Ottawa back but I want Canada to be negotiating in good faith and that isn't happening. All Canadians might not want that but I believe most do. I believe if people knew the truth they would want TMX stopped. So as you have pointed out, our democracy is limited. 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

What corruption under Chavez? That's the spin that was provided by the US. If you want reliable information on Venezuela, I suggest you read Venezuela Analysis. It's an excellent online news source.

Pondering

I have read Venezuela Analysis. 

It would be astonishing to the point of unbelievable to claim that all corruption in Venezuela ended when Chavez was elected. Maybe I am cynical because of the level of corruption in Quebec but I just don't believe that Chavez or any other person could transform a country that fast. That is especially true in a country accustomed to corruption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Venezuela#Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_(1999%E2%80%932013)

In early 2000, Chávez's friend and co-conspirator in the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts Jesús Urdaneta was appointed head of Venezuela's intelligence agency, DISIP. Urdaneta began receiving reports that Chávez's allies, Luis Miquilena, leader of the National Assembly and José Vicente Rangel, Chávez's foreign minister, were keeping public funds for themselves. Urdaneta brought this to Chávez's attention, but Chávez ignored his advice saying that he needed the political experience of both men in order to establish power.[40]...

Maletinazo scandal[edit]

Main article: Suitcase scandal

PDVAL affair[edit]

Main article: PDVAL affair

But I don't want to get drawn off track. Venezuala made truly astonishing gains in literacy and medical care and I am sure other things as well under Chavez. He was a great leader but he also made some mistakes. He was a human-being not a god. 

PR isn't perfect but no one will admit it has any faults so it kills discussion. 

I do believe strongly that democracy is the only valid choice but I accept that it is far from perfect. There are many valid criticisms of various forms of democracy and no perfect examples. They all have flaws. 

But I am supposed to believe that communism and socialism are flawless incorruptable systems. 

kropotkin1951

But I am supposed to believe that communism and socialism are flawless incorruptable systems. 

Please point me to anyone on this site or in the known universe that holds that view?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

But I am supposed to believe that communism and socialism are flawless incorruptable systems. 

Please point me to anyone on this site or in the known universe that holds that view?


I dare you to criticize them, or PR without instantly adding but they are better than...

kropotkin1951

How can one criticize theories? Tell me which communist or socialist government you hare talking about. I for one have a very hard time thinking that the present Chinese government is communist because in the last two generations it has moved away from its demand economy into a market economy. However the central government in China unlike in Canada still controls its capital. Calling China a communist country is a misnomer as is calling the US a democracy.

The terms socialism and communism are not interchangeable but almost.

Pondering

You can't criticize theories? I think you are just playing word games. I want to discuss not debate.

I find socialism and communism to be very different. It seems to me communism is much more authoritarian and controling. All power is gathered in the hands of the government. Socialism puts power more directly in the hands of the people, at least in theory.

In their pure form I think all these systems have flaws but that in combination they can be highly successful. I think we can find things to praise and to criticize in every country in the world. The trick is to adopt the best from all while remaining aware some things might not translate due to cultural or other differences. 

Even authoritarianism has its strengths for which Trudeau was condemned for joking about.

Looking at a real life example I've been learning a lot about recently, I read that China allowed capitalism or expanded it, or something to that effect. I'm guessing this is being credited with the miracle of rescuing millions from poverty. 

Is this a feather in capitalism's cap or might this miracle have been achieved in other ways?

 

kropotkin1951

I find that socialism and communism are too broadly defined terms to discuss or debate their relative merits. If by communism you mean Stalinism then I am opposed to it. If however you mean the Bolivarian revolution in South America then I am totally in favor of it.

My preferred style of development are worker controlled businesses functioning in a market economy that is highly regulated to ensure it is not monopolistic and corrupt. Mondragon to me is a very interesting business model.

'MONDRAGON is the outcome of a cooperative business project launched in 1956. Its mission is encapsulated in its Corporate Values: intercooperation, grassroots management, corporate social responsibility, innovation, democratic organisation, education and social transformation, among others."

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/

Pondering

My understanding of the terms is their simplist definition but I think you get to the heart of the matter with worker controlled businesses. 

I don't feel like we can have direct impact on what China and the US high level politicians and business people do in terms of international relations.

Workers connecting internationally could eventually have a significant impact regardless of the political system under which they are working. 

NDPP

Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire

https://michael-hudson.com/2021/10/3rd-edition-super-imperialism/

"...Forensic detail reveals how the world's core economic functions were scuplted to preserve US financial hegemony. Difficult to detect at the time, these problems have since become explicit as the failure of the international economic order has become apparent..."

Pondering

NDPP wrote:
<p><strong>Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire</strong></p>

<p>https://michael-hudson.com/2021/10/3rd-edition-super-imperialism/</p>

<p>"...Forensic detail reveals how the world's core economic functions were scuplted to preserve US financial hegemony. Difficult to detect at the time, these problems have since become explicit as the failure of the international economic order has become apparent..."</p>

This is terrific NDPP. Exactly the sort of thing that crosses my mind once in awhile and confuses me.  I did wonder about what ending the gold standard was all about. 

his highly respected study of U.S. financial diplomacy explores the faults built into the core of the World Bank and the IMF at their inception. Forensic detail reveals how the world’s core economic functions were sculpted to preserve US financial hegemony. Difficult to detect at the time, these problems have since become explicit as the failure of the international economic order has become apparent; the IMF and World Bank were set up to give aid to developing countries, but instead many of the world’s poorest countries have been plunged into insurmountable debt crises.

The book became famous for detailing how the removal of the gold standard left the world’s central banks with only one alternative vehicle: to hold their international reserves in U.S. Treasury securities.

The result was a self-financing circular flow of U.S. military spending and the investment takeover of foreign economies. The larger America’s balance-of-payments deficit grew, the more dollars ended up in the hands of central banks and sovereign wealth funds. Machiavelli could not have planned it better. By participating in this circular flow, nations in effect financed their own economic and military encirclement.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I find that socialism and communism are too broadly defined terms to discuss or debate their relative merits. If by communism you mean Stalinism then I am opposed to it. If however you mean the Bolivarian revolution in South America then I am totally in favor of it.

My preferred style of development are worker controlled businesses functioning in a market economy that is highly regulated to ensure it is not monopolistic and corrupt. Mondragon to me is a very interesting business model.

'MONDRAGON is the outcome of a cooperative business project launched in 1956. Its mission is encapsulated in its Corporate Values: intercooperation, grassroots management, corporate social responsibility, innovation, democratic organisation, education and social transformation, among others."

https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/[/quote]

I am a huge fan of the Mondragon model. Right before and during the Spanish Civil War, there were many impressive left movements that included Communism, Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism - Mondragon adopted the best of many concepts to build an amazing corporate entity that is successfully operating in the Capitalist world with a healthy stock market presence.

NDPP

Re: #20 - More...

Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire with Economist Michael Hudson (and vid)

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/19/super-imperialism-economist-michael-h...

"Economist Michael Hudson discusses the update of his book 'Super Imperialism': The Economic Strategy of American Empire' and the financial motivation behind the US new cold war on China and Russia."

kropotkin1951

I think this is a great thought provoking video. Andy works in Chinese media inside China and is originally from New Zealand so his comments on how many places don't directly elect their leaders applies equally to Canada.

This is an excellent and short explanation of how the Chinese political system works. If one's view of China is framed by the US media machine then one would believe that the government is nothing but arbitrarily wielded corrupt power. The Chinese people believe they live in a structured modern society with real laws made through a political system that has the legitimacy of the people's consent and participation in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9gspYfdR2o

Pondering

That is an excellent video. I appreciated the brevity but it was also lacking in important information. The voter turnout is very impressive and strongly suggests the people believe their votes make a difference.

In doesn't change my mind on the lack of free speech and authoritarianism but I agree balanced information is required to avoid demonization. 

You are wrong to think me completely bamboozled by the MSM. Commonsense logic and trusting your gut can take you a long way even if you don't know a lot of history. They have a very old extremely refined civilization. Education and respect for elders seem to be valued qualities that are broadly embraced culturally. They don't seem to have an anti-intellectual anti-science don't trust smart people population leading people to support the likes of Ford, Trump and even Trudeau. 

kropotkin1951

Lack of free speech is relative. It is my understanding that China has a thriving internet culture where people bitch about petty bureaucrats all the time. If you go after their ruling elite they have put in place laws and internet oversight to protect themselves.

If I try to post on Facebook that I think the government of Canada is to blame for the COVID virus I will be shut down and banned. If I try to accuse a 1%'er of anything I will hear from their lawyers and FB telling me to cease and desist. In the US a former President and many of his followers are not allowed on any of the major internet platforms run by the US 1%. I personally think that is worse than a government making the rules and enforcing them.

I try to compare countries to each other not to some ideal democratic standard.

JKR

Peng Shuai: How China censored a tennis star; By Kai Wang and Wanyuan Song; BBC Reality Check; 20 November 2021

--------

Shortly after Peng Shuai, one of China's most popular tennis players, levelled allegations of sexual assault against a former senior politician on social-media site Weibo, her personal feed was censored.

That was on 2 November, and since then concern over her well-being and whereabouts have persisted.

We've looked at the timeline of events to understand the online censorship techniques used against Ms Peng.
--------

NDPP

See also the current and previous President of the USA...

https://twitter.com/TaraReadeTruth/status/1463406152885096452

kropotkin1951

They start with the premise that China is capable of and likely to do something extra legal against a top tennis star because of an embarrassing personal matter. Once you jump that shark it gets easier to buy the spin put on this sad but mundane story. The BBC has lied about China over and over and over again so I classify them as fake news the with FOX and CNN. The 5Eyes media seem to have many outlets that spew NATO propaganda to beat the war drums to convince people in "democracies" that they need to send US arms manufacturers billions and billions of dollars. Its such a transparent con.

Pondering

Until now I have been fairly confident that while the news might be biased and they might get the occasional fact wrong but I am shook over the Rittenhouse case. He isn't guilty, but even if he were guilty that wouldn't justify the lies and misrepresentations when it was so easy to know the truth. 

kropotkin1951

Here is video that touts the CPC view of woman's rights. They start from the premise that the right to life is the highest priority. So is a Indian woman freer than a Chinese woman because she can vote for a parliamentary representative once every few years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5oVcVv06A

Pondering

I didn't watch the video because I am still trying to watch the myth of the stupid savage. 

However, it isn't that parlimentary democracy is so great, it is that we have the power to change it to whatever we want it to be.  That we don't use our power indicates that collectively we are relatively satisfied. 

It is up to those of us who are unsatisfied and believe there is a better way to convince the majority that we are right. 

kropotkin1951

However, it isn't that parlimentary democracy is so great, it is that we have the power to change it to whatever we want it to be.  That we don't use our power indicates that collectively we are relatively satisfied. 

Bullshit. Tell Trudeau that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkwYAI6KhQ

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

However, it isn't that parlimentary democracy is so great, it is that we have the power to change it to whatever we want it to be.  That we don't use our power indicates that collectively we are relatively satisfied. 

Bullshit. Tell Trudeau that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkwYAI6KhQ

There is nothing stopping us from taking over the Greens and from there the country and turning it into an ecosocialist dream come true. All we need is enough people who agree with us. We are completely free to try to convince them that we are right. We even have access to mass media and the potentiality of messages going viral if we are smart enough.

Any revolutionary in most countries would feel blessed to have our freedom despite the limitations of representative parliamentary democracy.

kropotkin1951

Any revolutionary in most countries would feel blessed to have our freedom despite the limitations of representative parliamentary democracy.

You really do believe this pap. Tell this nice bedtime story to the people of Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua where they have been trying to build a revolution inside liberal democracies . Then there are the countries whose revolutionaries built one party states that provided for their people like Iraq,  Syria and Libya.  Those "limitations" you summarily dismiss are velvet handcuffs that people don't feel because they don't dig in they merely restrain you while they tickle your senses.

You constantly ignore the function of advertising and propaganda in our media dominated society. There is no change possible in Canada's electoral system no matter how deluded most Canadians are about freedom.

Pondering

I didn't say any liberal democracy I said our democracy. Yes the MSM has a massive impact. We still have the ability to communicate freely. 

People in prison are fed and clothed. The homeless still don't want to be in them, or often times even in shelters. Should we pick them all up and throw them in prison because they will be better off there? 

kropotkin1951

WTF does your rant have to do with anything I posted. Canadians have the freedom to sleep in the park, until evicted and line up at food banks all day long if they chose. Indigenous women in Canada are especially blessed since almost 90% of women in our federal prisons are indigenous women being fed and clothed for free. Now that is real freedom.

JKR

Authoritarianism and the right to vote can work together and judging by the world today they do.

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

Authoritarianism and the right to vote can work together and judging by the world today they do.

This is a good precise of Martin Jacques's thesis in this short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiKUslRWsWI

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WTF does your rant have to do with anything I posted. Canadians have the freedom to sleep in the park, until evicted and line up at food banks all day long if they chose. Indigenous women in Canada are especially blessed since almost 90% of women in our federal prisons are indigenous women being fed and clothed for free. Now that is real freedom.

Indigenous women calling Xi a racist would not end well in China. I am glad I have the freedom to say that if Quebec or any other province desires independence it should be respected. The same cannot be said for defending Taiwanese right to independence.

The issue in Canada isn't lack of democracy it is complacency. Most people value what they have enough not to want to risk it or are simply preoccupied with their day to day lives. They don't see a need for a revolution. They see flaws but don't want to throw the baby away with the bathwater. They don't see a better alternative. Certainly not China or Russia or even Cuba's form of communism.

Our problem is not lack of freedom. It is our inability to convince Canadians that we are being ripped off and we could use that money to improve everyone's lives.

JKR

The fact that Indigenous women are vastly over represented in Canadian prisons is an indictment of our political system. I'm not sure what bringing up China has to do with our dismal failures here in Canada. Indigenous women should not have to depend on "complacent" Canadians to provide them with fairness and justice. Justice should not depend on getting enough votes at the ballot box.

Pondering

The thread is about different forms of government. Communism is being compared to representative democracy, and representative democracy is being presented as undemocratic. My contention is, as long as we live under democracy we have the option to change it. 

Let's put it this way. If Canada were a communist country I don't think indigenous women would be doing better. I think they would be just as abused with even less hope. 

 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Let's put it this way. If Canada were a communist country I don't think indigenous women would be doing better. I think they would be just as abused with even less hope. 

 

The voice of Western liberalism. Please read something about Bolivia and Cuba let alone China itself. All of those varying kinds of communism have better records than Canada, when it comes to the treatment of their indigenous populations. As for your obsession with Taiwan please read something about the US Civil War so you can understand how separation movements play out in real life.

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

The fact that Indigenous women are vastly over represented in Canadian prisons is an indictment of our political system. I'm not sure what bringing up China has to do with our dismal failures here in Canada. Indigenous women should not have to depend on "complacent" Canadians to provide them with fairness and justice. Justice should not depend on getting enough votes at the ballot box.

I think that it arose from Pondering's non response to this video that I posted that contrasts Indian and Chinese women and poses the question what should be the hierarchy of rights.

Here is video that touts the CPC view of woman's rights. They start from the premise that the right to life is the highest priority. So is a Indian woman freer than a Chinese woman because she can vote for a parliamentary representative once every few years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5oVcVv06A

Pondering

I am all videoed out. 

What you are promoting is the old-fashioned argument of why it is better for women to be married than single because married we would be looked after. I don't want to be looked after and I bet the indigenous women of Canada don't want to be looked after either. 

If Trudeau had the power of Xi I don't think we would be better off. 

Ken Burch

It's disturbing that most of the discussion in this thread seems to have been a debate on "socialism with Chinese characteristics"(a model which strikes me neither as socialists nor, if we include Taoism as part of the Chinese tradition, all that Chinese, but rather simply opportunist) vs conventional mundane bourgeois democracy as it exists in Canada and the U.S.

There are other models...in particular, the non-statist socialist models being developed in places like Rojava, the indigenous areas of southern Mexico, and in the ideas revived by Occupy- models based on people's assemblies for local governance and cooperatively owned and democratically-managed workplaces.

Those, to me, are where the next Left needs to go.

Ken Burch

It's disturbing that most of the discussion in this thread seems to have been a debate on "socialism with Chinese characteristics"(a model which strikes me neither as socialists nor, if we include Taoism as part of the Chinese tradition, all that Chinese, but rather simply opportunist) vs conventional mundane bourgeois democracy as it exists in Canada and the U.S.

There are other models...in particular, the non-statist socialist models being developed in places like Rojava, the indigenous areas of southern Mexico, and in the ideas revived by Occupy- models based on people's assemblies for local governance and cooperatively owned and democratically-managed workplaces.

Those, to me, are where the next Left needs to go.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I agree with Ken. There are many manifestations of socialism and communism to be examined. I would add that none is perfect but when you do examine deficiencies of various systems, I do think all the purely capitalist systems fail worst for taking care of the working and underpriviledged classes.

Pondering

I don't understand why being against communism seems to be interpreted as being against socialism. 

It seems like democracy and capitalism are paired and socialism and communism are paired. 

I'm looking forward to reading The Dawn of Everything over Christmas, or starting it at any rate. I expect it will be heavy going but we'll see. 

It grabbed my attention because he talks about a different history in which we lived in peace and how that contradicts what we are told is the nature of man. 

In my view while there are an infinite number of variations on democracy there is no non-democratic system that I would deem better even if it provided better for its people. That doesn't mean I think Canada's particular form of democracy is adequate. I don't think PR is particularly good either. The system I want doesn't exist.

Democracy doesn't guarantee everyone will be sheltered, fed and clothed. It doesn't prevent it from happening either. Government corruption can happen within socialist governments. 

Different forms of democracy make change difficult but it still boils down to the will of the people. It is up to those of us who want change to convince the majority that it's a good idea. 

I think pure capitalism and free market capitalism are destructive forces but I don't think all capitalism is bad. I would say anything we all need should be socialized or provided through crown corporations. All workers should be entitled to profit sharing and representation on the board of all incorporated businesses. 

To me if a system doesn't mesh with democracy then it means people are being forced to live under it. If people have to be forced to live under it then I don't see how it can be considered superior. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

I am all videoed out. 

What you are promoting is the old-fashioned argument of why it is better for women to be married than single because married we would be looked after. I don't want to be looked after and I bet the indigenous women of Canada don't want to be looked after either. 

>


That is not what I said or the video says. Oh well it is always the way with you, when your arguments fall apart you retreat into victim hood.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Let's put it this way. If Canada were a communist country I don't think indigenous women would be doing better. I think they would be just as abused with even less hope. 

This is a piece of white settler bullshit. You refuse to look in the mirror and blithely project our genocidal practices onto other cultures. Canada is the model that was used for apartheid and the genocide is ongoing especially against indigenous women but you think other systems would have to be worse because we are good people and those commies, especially the yellow ones, are evil. You are the poster child for what aboutism.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2017/july04.html

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/robert-pickton-case

JKR

Pages