What is Digg?161 Comments
- speerross, on 11/13/2007, -4/+35If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. ~Emma Goldman
- speerross, on 11/13/2007, -3/+28What I feel needs to be noted here is that this is not just a battle of demoracy vs non-democracy (i.e. what Madison envisaged) but it's a battle of Capitalism and Socialism. I'm sure I'll be dugg down for use of the Devils Word, but that's how it is. As Chomsky (and notque) said the framework of the USA was not built to give democracy to everyone but to ensure that the responsible (the rich) had the power, that the landowners kept their land. Bring power to the ordinary working man, shed this 'one party state', instating real democracy is a message to Capitalism: No more oppression of man by man, no longer will a few own the many.
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them. ~Karl Marx - notque, on 11/13/2007, -7/+32"The main designer, furthermore, was an astute political thinker James Madison, whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that if elections in England" were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "secure the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights.
Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that "the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power (Lance Banning). The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today.
In public discussion, Madison spoke of the rights of minorities in general, but it is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent." Modern political theory stresses Madison's belief that "in a just and a free government the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded." But in this case too it is useful to look at the doctrine more carefully. There are no rights of property, only rights to property that is, rights of persons with property. Perhaps I have a right to my car, but my car has no rights. The right to property also differs from others in that one person's possession of property deprives another of that right if I own my car, you do not; but in a just and free society, my freedom of speech would not limit yours. The Madisonian principle, then, is that government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners.
Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over time because of the increase in "the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." They might gain influence, Madison feared. He was concerned by the "symptoms of a leveling spirit" that had already appeared, and warned "of the future danger" if the right to vote would place "power over property in hands without a share in it." Those "without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights," Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who "come from and represent the wealth of the nation," the "more capable set of men," with the general public fragmented and disorganized..." - inactive, on 11/13/2007, -4/+18A++
- lucidguru, on 11/13/2007, -9/+22I'd like to point out like the article says... the presidential election was STOLEN... why didn't America care?
- da_bradler, on 11/13/2007, -2/+11are you actually arguing against the fundamental idea of socialism that we should live in a society that is designed to be equal that people be treated equal, that everybody strives for the greater good?
The Problem with all western Democracies(to an extreme the united states) is everybody wants to get rich, everybody wants to get to a point where they are better then everybody else. So everybody argues for a completely open system, no taxs, no government controls, free market, everybody for themselves. And this is how the extremely rich want you to think. The more they convince you that one day you could be rich like them, the more you convince yourself that you should be in favor of things that benefit people like them, because one day you could be just like them. The problem is the more the rich are aloud to operate unrestrained, the wider the gap becomes between rich and poor, but everybody convinces themselves there going to fall on the rich end, when in reality 98% of the population is going to be in the not super rich portion.
I mean they would like you to think that you work hard and then you win, but that's not how it works, becoming rich is basically a matter of circumstance and luck. look at all the small business owners, people that are self employed are the key to seeing how balanced a civilization is. The system is setup in such a way now that it is basically impossible to become wealthy starting from scratch. Look at the one space where you see people becoming wealthy from humble beginnings, the internet the internet has only been around for a decade or so, but already it's closing in, becoming very controlled. The key to dominating a market is getting in early and then raising the price of admission to the highest point that you can. wanna get into the web business? well not unless you have a team of engineers and a lot of capital to back you up. Wanna get into retail? not unless you can compete with massive big box stores and there supplier contracts.
I mean think about it, look at the things we pride in our society, if I'm in danger the police will help me(the police is a basically a socialist institution there is no competing free market alternative) If my house catches on fire the fire department will help me. If I break my leg the hospital will help me(excluding the united states). These are the types of things that bring comfort to a society, but look at how the rich want to destory these things, the police are not enough for them so they hire private security, the hospitals are not fast enough so they build private hospitals. and you figure that these people have the right to privately pay if they can get better, but the problem is they will pay for themselves but then when there told they still have to chip in for everybody else's care they get angry, even though there massive wealth is supported by people who want and need those services they lobby government to undermine.
People need to start releasing that humans are designed to live in a society and the One for all no social responsibility of capitalism is only going to push the divide to a point where everything with come tumbling down - notque, on 11/12/2007, -5/+13Because as speerross brought up, does it really matter which of the oppressing class will be doing the repressing?
The media chooses our candidates, we can't decide. They pick them, talk them up, people who are generally uninformed are told they are the front runners, and that is that.
So what is there to care about? Corporations decide the options for president, and we have no say. - 3th0s, on 11/13/2007, -6/+13Great find. Always controversial, Chomsky fleshes out some great points.
Read Hegemony or Survival by him if you want a good vantage point on American globalization and empirism. - tucsonsun13, on 11/12/2007, -1/+8go away
- speerross, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6It's socialized, its not socialist. Socialist = means of production in the hands of the working class
- SuperMoses, on 11/12/2007, -3/+9"They were supposed to vote on what are called qualities, not issues. Like, do you like the guy? Do you want to be with him"..sad by true.
- otakushark, on 11/12/2007, -0/+6They make this thing called "Google". Try it.
- Janizzary, on 11/12/2007, -1/+6Chomsky said no such things. I strongly suggest you research more on him before stating such fallacies...
- atdigg, on 11/12/2007, -4/+9How about East Germany?
- nkassi, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5He said that it is foolish to think that 9/11 was an inside job because the amount of secrecy needed to pull something like that is impossible to get and someone would have slipped and said something. There is a video on yo tube of him saying this. http://youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM
- TLAKABM, on 11/12/2007, -2/+6People look after their own interests. No *****.
That's the argument for democracy: government by the people, not the few who, as you pointed out, will ultimately look after their own interests. - wpi97, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5Any military is a dictatorship. It cannot function in any other way.
- Tooltucker, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5The sad thing about democracy is that paranoid retards like Zenas, who've never really thought their 911 conspiracy theories through but fervently mouth them, get the same vote as the fireman who risked their lives trying to save people from that crumbling building.
Kneejerk anti-establishment cynicism is entertaining enough, but be careful when you're straddling that fine line between accusing George Bush of being a sinister mastermind and a bumbling nincompoop that you don't fall into the trap of being an even bigger nincompoop.
I want you to consider the extent of the conspiracy you're buying into. How many people would have to remain silent to have engineered that building collapse in the way the Michael Moores want you to believe. Maybe Bin Laden wasn't behind it, but he's happy to take credit for it. No-one yet has stepped forward with any credible claim or surreptitious leak that some other group was involved. And it's not as if there haven't been a procession of disgruntled intelligence agents spilling the beans on less interesting topics. Time to Move On. - Bamborzled, on 11/12/2007, -2/+6I don't see how Diggers are qualified to talk politics either. You're buried.
- deltaclipper, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5A short clip on the role of Education and Mass Media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wphncn58kdU
Also, check out Noam Chomsky on video.google.com on the illusion of democracy - Manufacturing Consent - wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3It seems to me that American Socialists are very naive people, who do not realize that their beliefs inevitably lead to State Socialism. Many who participated in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 were similarly naive, right up to the time when they were declared "enemies of the people".
- wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4"The western view of socialism is so skewed. " Is there an "eastern" view of socialism? Correct me if I am wrong, but Karl Marx did live in *Western* Europe, did he not?
"Exactly! |Commun|ism or most other forms of socialism are based on very small communes (100-1000)."
Good, we agree on that. And in the US people are free to form such communes, e. g. the Amish. Also things like stock options or profit sharing are also designed to give workers a stake in their company. However, applying socialist practices to an entire country would be disastrous.
On the other hand I entirely disagree with you on the point of efficiency. Collective ownership dilutes responsibility. In a privately owned business, there is an owner with a vested interest in the success of his company, who is ultimately responsible for it. If everyone is the owner, then nobody really is the owner, because the blame gets spread around. Not to mention that a single owner can react and make decisions much faster than a committee, which is crucial in most industries. - wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4Lenin's best intentions resulted in horrendous civilian casualties during the civil war (13 million, according to wikipedia), and they have paved the way for Stalin's rule, that killed tens of millions more.
"it was a popular revolution of the people of Russia." The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was a coup that overthrew the provisional government, that had at least tried to create some semblance of democracy, and totally destabilized the country. You seem to see it as a unified movement of the Russian people, while in fact it was a mess with multiple factions fighting each other: the "reds", the "whites", the "greens", all sorts of nationalists, various foreign troops, and just plain thugs.
""I don't understand what you mean by "state-capitalist"."
A state that controls industry and drives it to make a profit, not directly for the benefit of people"
The Soviet state did not try to make a profit. It simply used up the resources of the country to arm itself, and maintain control over the population. The Soviet state was not like a corporation. A corporation has to produce and sell something to other entities, i. e. people and other businesses. The Soviet state was more like a feudal landlord, taking away food from the peasants to feed his knights.
I do not believe trade unions make much sense anymore. They did make sense 100 years ago, when there were towns in the US owned by a railroad company or a mining company. Then the unions rightfully demanded an 8-hour work day, better pay, job safety, etc. Since then, however, practically all of these demands have been incorporated into labor laws, while the unions became more and more corrupt.
The Spanish Revolution lasted for 3 years and failed. If you advocate a political ideology, you need an example of it working in peacetime, not failing during war time.
"That's still a means to an end. Socialism wants to create communism which means no state and maximizing of personal choice (so personal freedom)."
Communism, as I have been told since my early childhood, means "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". So, who decides what my needs are? Who decides what my abilities are? And how are you going to make everyone work to their full ability, without taking away their freedom?
You really should read "Moscow 2042" by Vladimir Voinovich. It does not seem that you have lived in the USSR, so you may not get many of the references, but it will give you a different perspective on Socialism and Communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_2042 http://www.amazon.com/Moscow-2042-Vladimir-Voinovi ... - noremorse1, on 11/12/2007, -2/+5Noam is the kind of knowledge we need in our leadership. Imagine if we were run by these people, not those with power and a political/fiscal agenda?
- wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5Did you notice how I actually haven't made any specific statements about the USSR? All I said is that people on this thread do not seem to have the relevant experience to discuss the relative merits of socialism and capitalism. So far I have provided no evidence as to whether or not I actually know anything about the subject. Yet, you decided to attack my "ignorance" of the nature and the history of the USSR, without knowing anything about me. What does that say about your analytic abilities?
FYI, I was born and raised in the USSR, and I am old enough to have watched Brezhnev's funeral on live TV (no pun intended). I have first-hand experience of living there. My parents have lived there throughout most of their lives. My grandparents lived through the War and Stalin's cult of personality, and my great-grandparents lived through the revolution and the civil war. Oh, yes, and I have read plenty on the history. In the original. Both versions: the propaganda before perestroyka, and the actual facts afterward.
Now that I have stated my credentials, I can tell you that in my opinion the "betrayed revolution" argument is *****. It was Lenin, not Stalin, who outlawed all political parties except the Bolsheviks, thus eliminating political freedom. A dictatorship of one party naturally lead to a dictatorship of one person. The huge bureaucracy is also a natural result of one of the main principles of socialism: state ownership of the means of production. Not to mention, that Russia has had a long tradition of autocratic rule and all-powerful bureaucrats. If you follow the news from Russia, you will see that this tradition is very much alive today.
I don't understand what you mean by "state-capitalist". A capitalist wants to make money, while a socialist state bureaucracy is only interested in perpetuating its own power. Big difference. Also, I think that a "Libertarian Socialist" is an oxymoron. Libertarians are for personal freedom, and for keeping the government as small as possible, so that it stays out of people's lives. Socialists are for making the government large enough to provide all sorts of services, which leads to the government taking more of your money and regulating more aspects of your life, thus reducing your personal freedom. - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/12/2007, -5/+8Are you serious? How about Venezuela? How about those millions of socialist countries in Latin America? How about the Scandinavian countries. Come on.
- kag9000, on 11/12/2007, -0/+3Dumb? We'll see.
Gordon Brown, talking about a British Bill of Rights a couple of days ago, stated that people should also have responsibilities and duties to government and the state. Doesn't that mindset stink of Marxism? In a liberal democracy, surely the government and state have a duty to the people not the other way round?
Indeed our economy is not yet a textbook socialist centrally managed one. But China also has privately owned business, so what would you call them now? I'm not saying Britain is like China - yet, just that the classical political systems don't need rigorous adherence to be classed as either fascist or communist, which in reality are both the same.
The control model is the same as a socialist state. Only the methods are different. Granted we are allowed to vote once every five years, for parties that are essentially no different from each other on the main issues, and those main issues are managed in such a way as there can be no proper debate in a meaningful way with the voting population. We are currently in effect voting in a one party system.
If our government wanted to stop authoritarianism, as you say they are, then why did Gordon Brown sign away our Constitution the other week for what I've all ready described as a USSR style European Government? A system, by the way, that will put an end to trial by jury and implement Corpus Juris,which as another consequence means that anyone who works in, or for, the EU Government will be above the law. Just read the 2008 Treaty, its all there to see.
Then of course there's they monitoring of population, whether it be with ID cards the ID database, CCTV, DNA databases, RIPA, the coming European databases and legal system, the boxes in our ISP's that have a connection straight to MI5, sure thats authoritarian. I'd also say that our right to privacy, which is willfully ignored by our government smacks of marxist social control. - wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3CNF - yes. He should have stuck to that.
- PricklySponge, on 11/12/2007, -2/+4Though I tend to disagree with Chomsky, I enjoy watching his speeches.
- cbuddha42, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2*sigh* The argument is rich people who have more to lose and less basic needs take better care of the state, not of poor people. Rich people want a government that protects the status quo so they can continue to make money and live well. Poor people want welfare. I agree that poor people would take better care of the poor people, but I disagree that is what the state should be concerned with. And yes, it's hard to rationally consider economic policy when you are freezing to death with nothing to eat.
- wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3Here's another one for you: Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism have arranged a meeting. Socialism was running late. Finally he arrives and says: "Sorry, I was standing in line for sausage." "What's a line?" says Capitalism? "What's a sausage?" says Communism.
- notque, on 11/12/2007, -5/+7If the people do not have the power, that is a problem. State Socialism hasn't worked.
Now, Libertarian Socialism has, and is the option that makes sense. Chomsky is for Libertarian Socialism, not State Socialism which he rightly despises, as do I. - kag9000, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Damn this new digg comment system...
Thanks for your response speerross, despite the personal insult.
'in Marxism a socialist state has a clear duty to the people.'
But in reality it isn't and never has been.
'Some kind of state-capitalist/semi-capitalist state'
Ah so you can think-on-your-feat and make stuff up to fit your argument, good job but not quite full marks. China is probably now a Corporate State or to give it the old name, a Fascist State. (see where I'm going with this?)
'Now I do see your dumb. They're opposing ideologies, they're not nearly the same thing'
They are not opposing ideologies - although have clashed - they both manifest as tyrannical, they both have state control of the economy so therefore are both authoritarian. Forget all the blather about property rights and the means of production, only the elites and their followers have the comfort of due process of the law in these systems.
'Marxism is not necessarily authoritarian - some have just interpreted it that way, but Marx didn't call for strict authoritarianism.'
Isn't a command economy strict authoritarianism? It is the elites that plan the economy not the 'empowered worker' in his field. The Manifesto states: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." - kag9000, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2'in Marxism a socialist state has a clear duty to the people.'
But in reality it isn't
'Some kind of state-capitalist/semi-capitalist state'
Ah so you can think on your feat and make stuff up to fit your argument. - notque, on 11/13/2007, -3/+5There isn't a functional democracy on this planet. Not as a large government in power. There are functional democracies as co-operatives, and the like.
- bruenig, on 11/14/2007, -3/+5Recounts made later by organization show gore winning the votes that were casted. And that doesn't even take into consideration the katherine harris craziness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris#2000 ...
- notque, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3It isn't a contradiction. Libertarian Socialists created the term! State Capitalists libertarians took it later.
You people are hilarious. - goffy59, on 11/13/2007, -5/+7Karl Marx is a genius!
- Bamborzled, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3Don't blindly follow the truthers. Take into account other views, like this. I personally think it wouldn't have mattered because even if 9/11 never occured, the Bush Administration would find another way to invade Iraq. The grand scheme of things is what people need to look at, not one event.
- ggfobster, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3P.S. With good reason.
- aeoo, on 11/12/2007, -1/+3The public doesn't care because like Noam already explained, both parties are the same party, the pro-elite, pro-big-business interests party. So if some Democrat got elected, we could expect, roughly, more of the same *****.
The only real difference might be made by only a very few principled people and not people like Kerry or Hillary, who even though they are "Democrats" do not represent us.
The issue is about public influence (or lack thereof) on the politics of the country. Who gets to be the president is not a big issue compared to that. - theone3, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3I have to disagree. I live in a functional democracy. We are democratic capitalists. It's not an oxymoron, it's quite common around the world. Take a look at the issues in Australia's federal election coverage for proof. ( http://www.abc.net.au/election ) Canada and the UK are other examples of functional democracies, where the issues Chomsky discusses are fundamental to winning elections.
- YKKonMyZipper, on 11/12/2007, -5/+7I would like to see this get at least 5000 digg.
- speerross, on 11/12/2007, -2/+4"I live in a state-socialist authoritarian country called the UK"
I'm from the UK, and I'll agree with the authoritarian part. Our 'democracy' is a constant annoyance to me and I actively work against it, but state-socialist?! are you dumb? It's a capitalist country, the means of production are still privately owned, the Socialist parties in this country work to reform our democracy in to proportion representation with recallable representatives - they want to stop authoritarianism! For the record they also oppose the EU becuase it is a Capitalist organisation. - jonathansoeder, on 11/13/2007, -2/+4You are putting the cart before the horse. With political power in the hands of the wealthy, they have more to take, that they would otherwise not be able to take if people had a say in the matter. With political power they can pay workers less, charge consumers more, spend more tax dollars on private vs public interests. They can do these things in direct proportion to the weakness of public political influence.
The highly sophistic argument you are making that they have more to lose, and are therefore more responsible, in the same sense as someone who owns a house vs somebody who rents is such an oversimplification. Because the wealthy own our land, our homes, our means of employment, our means of feeding and educating ourselves provides no indication or reason to believe that they will use this ownership as a reason to take better care of us!
History has already proven the error in your despicable if not malicious line of thinking in draconian fashion. The wealthy have not used their unchecked ownership of public life as a reason to take better care of us but to fleece us even more and do so more efficiently and without any resistance. They've used it to exploit and destroy with impunity.
This fact was already an indisputable facet of history when the workers rose up at the beginning of the 20th century. It remains a basic banality now. The elites do not relate to us, other nations, or the enviroment as, benevolent, responsible, and wise care takers but as parasitic, destructive, and short sighted con men. They need less political power not more. - sparf, on 11/12/2007, -2/+4A braver man is he, who, in the face of adversity, stands his ground, fighting for what he believes in.
Flee the country... bah. - charlie55, on 11/12/2007, -2/+4it should be noted that andrew jackson is widely considered by historians to be the worst president ever. his administration was a total failure, and impossibly corrupt. jackson himself wasnt necessarily a criminal, but he was a very weak leader and his administration was a disaster.
- charlie55, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1it is a contradiaction. if you favor liberty, you cannot get it by socializing things. liberty means individual freedom, not being a part of a collective social unit. the libertarian wants to not be controlled by the government, or his fellow man. the socialist wants to join his fellow man to control themselves and the government.
- wpi97, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1My comment referred to this: "but there are other methods that are becoming increasingly popular for taking apart Capitalism (and thus everything chomsky finds fault with)."
And you are buried for jumping to conclusions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is