Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But you only refer to people like Stalin or Ceaușescu. They were both thieves, murderers and dictators.

But what about a Communism under the dictatorship of "Jesus Christ" as example?

Remember my bit about "there are no perfect people"?

There is no human being who should have unchecked power, not even someone so wonderful as me.

Any worthwhile political system should start with the idea "we are a rule of laws and institutions, not about loyalty to one particular individual".

Nothing about doing that prevents you from having a generous social welfare state.

But you what you really don't want is to make the personality of the ruler the key variable in your liberty. A good system can survive a bad ruler . . . a bad system can't.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Remember my bit about "there are no perfect people"?

There is no human being who should have unchecked power, not even someone so wonderful as me.

Any worthwhile political system should start with the idea "we are a rule of laws and institutions, not about loyalty to one particular individual".

Nothing about doing that prevents you from having a generous social welfare state.

But you what you really don't want is to make the personality of the ruler the key variable in your liberty. A good system can survive a bad ruler . . . a bad system can't.

I totally agree with you. That's why "I" proposed before in this topic (inspired by concepts of my native country and people like Mélanchon and Attali) this kind of mixture.
I really believe in this concept.

If you prefer to get a quote:

I believe more in a real participative democracy like in Switzerland, than a wobbly democracy like in the USA.
But there are also poor people in Switzerland. That's why I'd prefer a more Social participative democracy.

That means, an executive commitee, a legislative commitee AND an ethics commitee.
If the job of the legislative and the executive commitees fail to pass the exam of the ethics commitee, they must rewrite the law.
The ethics commitee would be constituted by high-level scientists and random selected civilian people of the younger generations.

We don't have to forget that our actions contribute to forge their future and their life.
Maybe the weight of the old generation is too weighty.

And here:

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'd refer to the final decision of the ethics commitee runned by selected scientists of very high intellectual level, who would take care of the best for the human mankind.

Wouldn't it be one of the best political system in level of ethics?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Wouldn't it be one of the best political system in level of ethics?

No, I don't believe in vesting power in a committee of experts, no matter how noble or brilliant. I'm all for soliciting policy advice from the folks who understand technical issues, but politics has to be done by political leaders. Technocracies can't maintain popular legitimacy-- being smartest doesn't equal being able to muster popular support.

Separation of powers and the often ugly process of democracy is the best guarantee against tyranny.

[AmateurEmale]

@Everyone: Thank you for your thought-inspiring quotes.

Here are some quotes about socialism and government I thought you'd like to ponder:

"The dictatorship of the proletariat will become the dictatorship over the proletariat. We could elect the most radical revolutionary to lead us, and within ten years he would be worse than the Czar himself." -- Mikhail Bakunin, Russian anarchist and opponent of Lenin

"If people are basically good, you don't need big government; if people are basically evil, you don't dare let them run one." -- attributed to a libertarian activist of the '60s

[PatentHappy]

Originally Posted by palo5

Ok... but didn't Hillary get 3,000,000 more votes than The Donald? So much for the votes -- more than half of them didn't count

I agree that it can appear unfair when comparing the US popular vote vs electoral college. But the action which nullifies the most votes is when individual states decide to give all their electoral college votes to the winner of that state ('winner take all'). Presumably, this is to enable individual states to impart a higher influence on the result of the national election (and to get more campaign dollars spent in their states). In California alone this policy nullified more than the 3,000,000 nationwide votes Hillary got over Trump in the popular vote. It's one thing for a candidate to win a state legitimately, but it's quite another to give everyone's vote to the winner to help them win a larger victory. Ironically, less campaign money is spent in California because it has become a one-party state.

As for communism, why doesn't it have enough self-confidence to give its own people the power to vote their rulers in or out? Why must communism and totalitarianism go hand in hand? Similarly, totalitarianism and capitalism share the same conflicts of interest which lead to varying degrees of corruption and abuse. People in power/money like to keep it, get more, and use it to influence their very narrow priorities. Translation: Individuals and institutions in power (or money) rarely share the priorities of the people because empathy slows/conflicts with their rate of progress. Many leaders share the trait of being conscience-free sociopaths (less baggage to carry up the ladder of success).

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

but politics has to be done by political leaders. Technocracies can't maintain popular legitimacy-- being smartest doesn't equal being able to muster popular support.

I'm surprised to read this when we read that your American political leaders often smell crap like Donald, Nixon, were naive like George W., Reagan and were corrupted like Hillary.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Separation of powers and the often ugly process of democracy is the best guarantee against tyranny.

It also was proposed to the candidates of the commitees to pass ethical tests (Sorry I forget to send this messages to you. here and here)

Like that the people could be revoked in case of tyranny or corruption.

Sweden looks great, because the politicians must be transparent. But maybe politicians don't get a real ethics.

People can be liberal or communist and have a huge sense of ethics, but also can be hidden under a flag to manipulate the population for their own benefit.

By the way... Swedish government is the first Occidental government that proposed to get a carbonfree economy.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

It also was proposed to the candidates of the commitees to pass ethical tests (Sorry I forget to send this messages to you.

Ah . . . an "ethical test". How reassuring. Here's an "ethical test" we've had -- candidates have to release their tax returns . . . until Trump decided he didn't want to . . . and there goes your "ethical test".

Here's a basic principle: words on paper don't constrain autocrats-- they do what they can, until someone stops them. Its never words.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Like that the people could be revoked in case of tyranny or corruption.

That's not how power works. When an autocrat has power, do you think he permits an investigation of his "tyranny" or "corruption"? It is only because Trump doesn't have absolute power that there are any investigations of him at all.

Note his fury at Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Clearly Trump's belief and intention was that Sessions as Attorney General would shut down any Russia investigation.

Instead, he demands an "investigation" of his political opponents. That's how your ethics, tyranny and corruption "tests" work in practice.

-- getting back to socialism. Socialist policies in a state with a strong democratic framework and constitution are fine. Socialist policies in a State which allow the Party to dominate the Constitution . . . that produces tyranny. Sometimes it can be pretty efficient-- today's Chinese Communist Party does a pretty good job-- but its always dangerous.

If you read the old Soviet Constitution, the DDR Constitution, the Chinese Constitution -- they all _say_ nice things about guarantees of freedom, but because of the system that they created, those guarantees were meaningless. Without an independant judiciary and legislature, all they are is paper.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Ah . . . an "ethical test". How reassuring. Here's an "ethical test" we've had -- candidates have to release their tax returns . . . until Trump decided he didn't want to . . . and there goes your "ethical test".

That's means that in the system "I" proposed (I write "I", because I'm sure that at least 20 millions people already had this idea), Trump couldn't be a candidate.
When I read your comments, I'm surprised to see that your justice let Trump to participate at the election.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's means that in the system "I" proposed (I write "I", because I'm sure that at least 20 millions people already had this idea), Trump couldn't be a candidate.
When I read your comments, I'm surprised to see that your justice let Trump to participate at the election.

You seem to be unaware that the skewed political system in the United States has allowed the Republican party to pack the courts with their ideologues for years. During the Obama administration, the Republican controlled Senate practiced obstructionism by simply refusing to consider his nominees and creating a crisis of understaffed and backlogged courts. Even moderate or apolitical jurists have proven to be unacceptable to the lackeys of wealth and privilege.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

That's means that in the system "I" proposed (I write "I", because I'm sure that at least 20 millions people already had this idea), Trump couldn't be a candidate.
When I read your comments, I'm surprised to see that your justice let Trump to participate at the election.

Your “system” amounts to “bad people should not be allowed” to rule or whatever.

That is, as the lawyers say, a “nice sentiment”.

Go read the Iraqi Constitution, it’s filled with nice sentiments.

Making stuff work isn’t about having some noble aim, it’s about the nuts and bolts of making it work.