youtube.com — Power resides in the hands of those that Madison called "the wealth of the nation." 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.
Nov 11, 2007 View in Crawl 4
speerrossNov 11, 2007
What 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
snypyloNov 12, 2007
Gah. The western view of socialism is so skewed. "On the other hand, all people working for the greater good is a Utopian fantasy, and it will never work on a large scale"Exactly! |Commun|ism or most other forms of socialism are based on very small communes (100-1000).The main principle of socialism is the workers owning the means of production. State ownership is not socialism. Worker ownership destroys exploitation by monopolistic property owners, creates a democratic economic situation and increases efficiency (people working together makes an organization with hard workers who can fix problems individually and easily).As for the incentive thing. Not all socialist theory advocates the sharing of the products of labor. Some rewards per hours worked, some by supply/demand, some based entirely on need. In small communes this works, (see anarchist Spain) and is quite a lot fairer than the huge money divide we have with capitalism.
chompthemanNov 12, 2007
I disagree. I live in Canada and it is, much like other "democracies", an oligarchy(<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy),">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy),</a> which isn't really a democracy at all. The only real democracies I have ever read about were the 1936 Spanish Civil War in areas dominated by the CNT and the early days of the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks came to power. These fledging democracies were crushed long before they could reach a full fruition.
kag9000Nov 13, 2007
Damn 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."
neddersNov 13, 2007
you guys realize that noam chomsky is a communist who would say anything to make you believe that the "redistribution of wealth" is a good idea, right? i know that in an age where murderous socialists like che guevara are fashion statements, considering Communism to be a dirty word is passe, but don't forget that property rights are the basis for every right you enjoy as an American citizen. here's a lecture on the constitution by a guy who actually knows what he's talking about:<a class="user" href="http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik">http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik</a>
feralvisionDec 18, 2007
I'm actually two thirds of the way through Hegemony or Survival. Fascinating yet hugely disturbing at the same time.
zygalDec 19, 2007
Oh man... I needed *that* laugh.