capitalism/communism/political ideology

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Baud

Anzac and Juantoo3, it seems that both of you researched your subjects intesively and that you agree that there are flaws in both communism and capitalism. In order to push the discussion constructively forward, could I offer you a challenge?

You have been arguing about the merits and drawbacks of both systems. Could you now come-up with proposed improvements to each system (or a new system altogether) that in your opinion would work better?

I have been studying political systems for a while, and I would be very interested in your views.

Thanks for the lively debate.

Baud

Kindest Regards to all!

I hope I am not jumping the gun by not waiting for Anzac's next post, I would still be interested in what s/he may have to say. But to begin a challenging discussion such as Baud suggests, may I ask that he too participate, please, as moderator if nothing else?

It would seem wise to me to first lay out what it is we hope to accomplish with such a discussion. I believe it to be a formidible task, I made a similar challenge in the exploitation thread.

I suppose a good place to start would be in defining the purpose of governmental power, such as why it exists and to what ends. If we understand why we need something, we can then understand better what it is we need to construct to serve those needs. I am wide open to suggestions.

Thank you for this challenge.

[Susma Rio Sep]

For me the best economic-political system is communism. Is that the system that is founded upon the ideal that from everyone what he can and to everyone what he needs?

I practice that ideal in my own family and home, and I am the head thereof.

But it is not easy on human nature, being by its own biological heritage selfish, i.e., that of human nature, and self-concerned and aggrandizement obsessed. And thus it failed, communism that is or more correctly was subverted by capitalistic interest blocks.

Did someone say survival of the fittest? But are we not supposed to be transcending above that crude law of animal life, to arrive at the cream of civilization?

Susma Rio Sep

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

For me the best economic-political system is communism. Is that the system that is founded upon the ideal that from everyone what he can and to everyone what he needs?

I practice that ideal in my own family and home, and I am the head thereof.

But it is not easy on human nature, being by its own biological heritage selfish, i.e., that of human nature, and self-concerned and aggrandizement obsessed. And thus it failed, communism that is or more correctly was subverted by capitalistic interest blocks.

Did someone say survival of the fittest? But are we not supposed to be transcending above that crude law of animal life, to arrive at the cream of civilization?

Susma Rio Sep

Kindest Regards, Susma,

Actually, I think you're a tad late to the party. (oooh, bad pun...sorry)

We're trying to move on. If you really wish to discuss communism, please read the previous posts.

At this point, some of our respectable elders (forgive the age connotation, I could think of no better term) are persuading us to move on to discussing how to either fix what is, or develop a new model.

So that we may have a starting point, what purpose does government serve?

[Baud]

Excuse me for being a little late in the reply. Yes, I will participate, time permitting. Juantoo's first proposal as to "what purpose should a government serve" is a very good start. Let me push you in some directions. Here are a servies of questions that can help the discussion. I'm not saying that each question should be answered one by one, of course.

Overarching theme 1: The purposes of government.

- Should the government be resonsible for ensuring the secutity of the citizens (both internal, within the bounds of the community; and external, from outside threats)?
- Now that we talk about citizens, should the government have the responsibility of defininig who is a citizen? To impose conditions on citizenship? To exclude people from belonging to society?
- Should the government be responsible for the administration of justice? If not, what alternatives are there?
- Should the government be responsible for the sharing of wealth? Using what model? Should this be limited to preventing abuse, or also include redistribution of assets?
- Should government own real property? All the real property?
- Should government own personal property? All the personal property?
- Should the citizens be "owned" by government? Only some of them? (yeah, I agree it is a strange question)
- Should the government be responsible for the definition of the organisation of society (classes, castes)? For avoiding that society becomes organised?
- Should the government be responsible for the provision of public services (electricity, fire brigade, roand repairs, ...)? Should it merely regulate the provision of such services? Should it bother at all?
- Should the government act as a "safety net" for poorer or unlucky people? How?
- Should government have anything to do with religion? Should it regulate religion?

Overarching theme 2: The structure of government (questions will come later).

Baud

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Susma,

Actually, I think you're a tad late to the party. (oooh, bad pun...sorry)

We're trying to move on. If you really wish to discuss communism, please read the previous posts.

At this point, some of our respectable elders (forgive the age connotation, I could think of no better term) are persuading us to move on to discussing how to either fix what is, or develop a new model.

So that we may have a starting point, what purpose does government serve?

What purpose does government serve? This late in the day.

First, government is better than no government.

Second, democracy is the system to adopt for an enlightened society.


Now, we who are in a democracy, we who are enlightened, we who are not in the government, our preoccupation and role is to keep a tight watch on the government, but focus on the people in the government, starting with the topmost figure and going down to the street patrolman.

Keep track of government people, see who are doing disservice and who are in a-service mode*.


Then you will have the answer to the question: What purpose does government serve? But more useful and tangible answers to the now and here concerns of society.

Recommendation for the study of the question: What purpose does government serve? Keep to the specific and concrete issues of disservice and a-service* of government people; begin for example with the Iraq war.

Susma Rio Sep

*a-service -- no service (from Susma's glossary).

[juantoo3]

Thank you, very much, Baud, for agreeing to participate!

You have laid out some very important issues to address.

I would like to begin by saying my question as to the purpose of government was intended on a far more elemental level. I have long thought the best form of government was a benevolent king. Of course, the worst form is a tyrannical king. And since kingdoms run across the spectrum, there is no guarantee the people will have either a good, bad or mediocre government. So kingdoms in my mind are not generally suitable for modern society.

The purpose for government it seems to me, is to provide for a secure and stable society. Anarchy, by its nature, cannot provide for a stable society. Society is necessary to provide the best opportunity for each individual under given circumstances. That is, one lone individual against the elements (not to mention the rest of the world), stands little chance of survival. That individual must be not only able, but proficient, in acquiring food, shelter, water, health, sanitation, clothing, tools (weapons), and a host of other incidental necessities. A lone individual would then have to be a master gardener and/or hunter/fisher, fire builder, cook, shelter builder (with every thing that entails), water purifier, doctor, sanitary engineer, textile weaver or hide preparer, tailor, and tool/weapon manufacturer, likely involving metallurgy from casting to milling and finishing. And in the grandest sense, be able to accomplish these things with a toothpick and dental floss like McGiver (the TV show character who used to make wonderful contraptions out of bits and pieces of junk). I have intentionally belabored this to make a point, it is far too much for any person to hope to master in a lifetime, let alone be proficient in a survival setting. This is where society comes in.

In a society, individuals can specialize, and allow for the greater opportunity for all to thrive. Nothing in life is guaranteed. Even in a social setting, individuals can flounder and perish. But their odds are greatly increased when dealing with the elements. An individual can be a gardener/farmer, and provide vegetable food for a society. A hunter/fisher can gather flesh food for a society. A fire starter can build fire for warmth, safety and industry. A chef can cook, etc. Some individuals can master multiple talents, a cook may learn to start their own fires for instance. But likely there is one or some within a given society that can accomplish these necessary tasks, and can teach others in order to continue that knowledge.

In order to develop a working hypothesis, let us surmise how society may have been in prehistory. A group of like-minded individuals gathered around a strong protector for survival of the group. For the sake of discussion, let us call him the "chief." The chief then would provide of his talents for the protection of that society from outside and internal threats. The others, now relatively free to prosper without serious concern of threats, can then invest their energies into their respective talents. If a threat was serious enough from outside, the group could then rally behind the chief to face the threat. Internal threats pose their own problems, and for the sake of brevity I will forego those considerations.

What we can see then is that government, "chief", allowed for relative peace and stability that few if any individuals could accomplish alone. Because of the energy expended in security, the lone individual hasn't the opportunity to flourish and thrive. A group however, interacting amongst themselves, could very easily prosper and thrive because of the division of labor, provided they had sufficient security. Government then, provides for the security and stability of a society, in order that the individuals that make up that society can flourish and thrive. This becomes crucial when one considers that non-essential knowledge, "technology", can only come about when a society's physiological and safety needs are met (to borrow from Abraham Maslow). That is, while it can be said that necessity is the mother of invention, technology comes about from free time gathered from the division of labor. Writing, for instance, is not a survival skill. It is not necessary for existence. Yet writing was able to be developed because that society was able to not only meet, but exceed their physiological and safety needs. Stated another way, if you are cold and hungry, your thoughts are of getting warm and fed. Idle thoughts at such a time are wasted energy, a very precious commodity in a survival situation. It is only when you are fed, and fed well, with no thoughts of your next meal, and warm and safe with no threat to those concerns, that your mind can be free to exercise. Government provides for the safety and security of society.

To this point, I have discussed government at an elementary level. While the basic premise remains, it is compounded (confounded?) by size. It seems so easy at a tribal level, but when governing millions or billions of people, the infrastructure to provide that stability and security becomes extremely complex. Enter bureaucracy and red tape. Add to that the definitions of stability and security expand and compound as well. Security is no longer only from a tiger or a snowstorm or a rival tribal raid. Security is now from guns and bombs and WMD's. Stability is no longer behind a single strong man, it is behind a collection of supposedly wise elders and bureaucratic red tape.

It is also important to note that government only comprises one aspect of society. Other aspects involve religion, economics and education. For the time being, these aspects must be considered only peripherally for the sake of brevity. However, these aspects have become crucial to society as well, and government is the instrument that seeks to tie these things together and form a functioning whole out of it all.

[juantoo3]

Overarching theme 1: The purposes of government.
- Should the government be responsible for ensuring the security of the citizens (both internal, within the bounds of the community; and external, from outside threats)?
- Now that we talk about citizens, should the government have the responsibility of defining who is a citizen? To impose conditions on citizenship? To exclude people from belonging to society?
- Should the government be responsible for the administration of justice? If not, what alternatives are there?
- Should the government be responsible for the sharing of wealth? Using what model? Should this be limited to preventing abuse, or also include redistribution of assets?
- Should government own real property? All the real property?
- Should government own personal property? All the personal property?
- Should the citizens be "owned" by government? Only some of them? (yeah, I agree it is a strange question)
- Should the government be responsible for the definition of the organization of society (classes, castes)? For avoiding that society becomes organized?
- Should the government be responsible for the provision of public services (electricity, fire brigade, road repairs, ...)? Should it merely regulate the provision of such services? Should it bother at all?
- Should the government act as a "safety net" for poorer or unlucky people? How?
- Should government have anything to do with religion? Should it regulate religion?

Now, we can get into the good stuff, because we have a foundation laid.

Should a government do any of these things, or not? Which provide for the most stable and secure society, in order to benefit the most individuals in order to insure the perpetuation and promotion of that society? Keeping in mind the aspects of religion, economics and education, fundamental to the health and improvement of that society, and mental health and sanity of the individuals within that society. What form provides the greatest possible good for the most? THAT, is where we are, and it is to that end that we seek.

In recognizing that humans are fallible, it is reasonable to assume that no one way of governing yet devised is perfect. A society is only as secure and stable as the institution that governs it. In my mind then, it is the struggle to achieve the lesser of evils. Since societies are dynamic, a system that is inherently static will ultimately fail. Yet a fully dynamic system of government is unstable. Therefore, a government with a strong foundation, but able to adapt as need arises, seems best in my view.

[juantoo3]

Thank you Susma, for being a good sport!

First, government is better than no government.

Agreed, for the reasons mentioned above.

Second, democracy is the system to adopt for an enlightened society.

Tentatively, I agree. But for the sake of discussion, is there any other system that can satisfy the requirements of providing a stable foundation while allowing dynamic change as required?

Now, we who are in a democracy, we who are enlightened, we who are not in the government, our preoccupation and role is to keep a tight watch on the government, but focus on the people in the government, starting with the topmost figure and going down to the street patrolman.
Keep track of government people, see who are doing disservice and who are in a-service mode*.

And why do we watch our government? Surely it is not idle or morbid curiosity. We watch in order to help insure that government is acting in the interests of the many, and not at the expense of the few, while insisting that it adapt to changing conditions. This is possible only in governments that allow participation of the masses. Forms of government that preclude the participation of the masses, do so I suspect for reasons of holding and consolidating power, and over time tend to be static. Examples would be kingships and autocracies. Likewise, fully dynamic systems, whether with full or partial participation of the masses, are unstable. Examples would be warrior and conquering tribes (hordes).

Then you will have the answer to the question: What purpose does government serve? But more useful and tangible answers to the now and here concerns of society.

Yet for all of the seeming evils of power, government is necessary. Even greater evil comes from lack of government. So we come to Lord Acton's lament, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Do we invest the total power in one chief, or do we spread the potential for evil across many chiefs? Do we have one absolutely corrupt chief, or do we have many lesser corrupt chiefs? Can a system be devised that limits the corruptibility of any and all chiefs, given human faults and weaknesses?

Recommendation for the study of the question: What purpose does government serve? Keep to the specific and concrete issues of disservice and a-service* of government people; begin for example with the Iraq war.

Ah, but this skirts the issue. Besides, there are other threads here that deal with such matters. I promise, you do not want to get me started, and as a courtesy I have deliberately avoided those threads. Dragging peripherally related issues into this clouds the original discussion, avoiding the original intent of the exercise. The matter is not whether or not a government should be in any specific war, more rather, should a government be prepared and able to do any war, in order to secure the stability and security of its society? I might add whether or not a government should be prepared, willing and able to war with violent internal dissent? Such as crime.

Respectfully submitted, and open for discussion. Thank you for engaging me in this.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Allow me to congratulate the main posters of this thread: Juan and Anz. And please forgive me if I appear to arrogate to myself the rostrum to award congratulatations. But honestly your erudition and skill of exposition are impressive; it is human nature to admire were merits are obviously present in a gathering.

I have learned many things on communism, capitalism, and political ideology from the contributors here, all including Phil and Baud. I really feel confused in the face of such patience on the one hand and generous sharing on the other.

Pretty soon, I feel that maybe Juan and Anz, you can summarize your respective positions in clearly formulated propositions on this multiplex topic; so that at least I for one can leave the thread with the knowledge that there are wise and learned and well-exposed people who propound issues on economics and politics in their respective sympathies.

Thanks in advance.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Allow me to congratulate the main posters of this thread: Juan and Anz. And please forgive me if I appear to arrogate to myself the rostrum to award congratulatations. But honestly your erudition and skill of exposition are impressive; it is human nature to admire were merits are obviously present in a gathering.

I have learned many things on communism, capitalism, and political ideology from the contributors here, all including Phil and Baud. I really feel confused in the face of such patience on the one hand and generous sharing on the other.

Pretty soon, I feel that maybe Juan and Anz, you can summarize your respective positions in clearly formulated propositions on this multiplex topic; so that at least I for one can leave the thread with the knowledge that there are wise and learned and well-exposed people who propound issues on economics and politics in their respective sympathies.

Thanks in advance.

Susma Rio Sep

You know, I used to be in a Catholic university and had to study Catholic theology. There I acquired the habit of consulting the Index of Condemned Propositions (something like that if I remember right) -- Catholics from academic circles know about this work which I think is still on-going. I am now a postgraduate Catholic, though.

In the Catholic Church which has an intellectual history of sorts but very weighty just same, for this Church is still the mother of Western civilization whatever the opprobria hurled against her, there would be long-lasting controversies going on for centuries. But the Vatican would eventually step in and come out with a list of propositions each ending with Anathema sit,* for siding with each of them.

If a proposition is condemned, then I know what all other positions which are opposite or different are allowed. Not that I am taking the condemnation seriously, though; well, not now, anyway.

No, I am not saying that I am inviting the proponents here to state their positions in propositions so that I can condemn them or oppose them, but so that I can be clear and precise about their advocacies, after all so much words have been expended on them.

So, may we eventually come to the presentation by each contributor here of his propositions?

Thanks in advance again.

Susma Rio Sep

Anathema sit -- Let him be damned (from Susma's glossary).

[juantoo3]

No, I am not saying that I am inviting the proponents here to state their positions in propositions so that I can condemn them or oppose them, but so that I can be clear and precise about their advocacies, after all so much words have been expended on them.

So, may we eventually come to the presentation by each contributor here of his propositions?

Thank you Susma, for your thoughtful musings!

I feel it best at this point to defer any specific suggestion on my part, in order to allow opposing views and/or corrections to what I have just posited.

One more thing, quickly,

...the Catholic...Church is still the mother of Western civilization whatever the opprobria hurled against her...

I sincerely mean no offense to any Catholic individual, I know many throughout my life to be decent people. And I am in agreement the influence the Catholic church has had as an institution, religious, political, and otherwise, on Western society and culture. To deny such would be to deny 2/3 of European history since the Catholic church received political sanction. Of course, included in that history are some of the darkest moments any culture or society could be forced to face. Political power, and the abuse thereof...

[Susma Rio Sep]

Juan writes:

I sincerely mean no offense to any Catholic individual, I know many throughout my life to be decent people. And I am in agreement the influence the Catholic church has had as an institution, religious, political, and otherwise, on Western society and culture. To deny such would be to deny 2/3 of European history since the Catholic church received political sanction. Of course, included in that history are some of the darkest moments any culture or society could be forced to face. Political power, and the abuse thereof...

I can't be more in agreement with you.

As a matter of fact, I am myself a postgraduate Catholic. And I think the Catholic Church should go into postgraduate mode.

Do you notice that where it used to hold suzerainty over everything in Europe, it is now a museum institution there. But it's making headways in Africa, where the peoples there still have the innocence of children -- and their unruly lack of self-restraint. No offense to our brothers in Africa, though.

Some Africans are pretty smart. Consider those already classical Nigerian financial con artists of internet scale.

Again, please no offense to Africans, just an academic observation. And I stand to be corrected.

Susma Rio Sep

[Anzac]

Sorry to not have responded sooner - haven't had the time to be able to reply - and I still don't (on totally unrelated matters).

I'll post my alternative on at a later date and can ask where the Catholic Church enters into the equation? (seems to be floating in the last few threads). As for the Catholic Church being responsible for western growth, look at Sunni (or Shia for that matter) Islam during the same time period and look at the differences in progression - it is my OPINION on the subject that they held them back - but that's another story.

Anyway, expect a reply soon.

[Baud]

So here are my two cents.

I think that the purpose of government should be "to help maximize, whenever possible, the well-being of the people and land under its responsibility" and I am tempted to add "while refraining as much as possible from injuring the well-being of others".

You will notice that this definition of purpose does not refer to any type of government structure (democracy, communism, etc.). I think we should talk about structure only after defining the purpose.

Some explanation:

- "Maximize the well-being" covers all aspects one could imagine: negative aspects (guarantee external and internal security, removing threats, etc.) and positive aspects (encouraging initiative, redistribution of wealth, promoting trade, etc.).
-Why to "help" maximize? Because I think that the primary responsibility for well-being is an individual responsibility. The government should not be the sole provider of well-being.
- "Whenever possible" means that it is impossible to maximize the well-being of each and everyone together. There must always be compromise between conflicting interests.
- "Of the people and land" because government does not only have a responsibility for human beings but also for for sustainable development, nature preservation, and natural resources management.
- Who is "under its responsibility" could be for the government to decide, but not always. Asylum seekers should be protected as well as citizens. You will notice also that I didn't refer to nation, territory, boundaries or ethnicity. So a government could be resonsible for people well outside its boundaries (theoretically, my definition would not see any specific or necessary link between government and territory).
- Refraining from hurting others should be implied, but I add it anyway because it shows that government could not maximize the well-being of 99.9% of its citizens to the detriment of 0.1% without having to care. Likewise, government should not be authorized to maximize the well-being of its citizens while pludering someone else's riches (see our discussion on rich nations exploiting or not the poor ones).

Now it is clear that this does not reflect the actual purpose of a number of past and presnet governments, but as we agreed we were trying to define a better form of government...

And to answer all my questions in one paragraph, based on this purpose, yes the government should probably consider all of them in some form or other. The key would be to do this with the purpose in mind. Obviously, it would not be an easy task.

Baud

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, and thank you Baud!

I think that the purpose of government should be "to help maximize, whenever possible, the well-being of the people and land under its responsibility" and I am tempted to add "while refraining as much as possible from injuring the well-being of others".

If I read you correctly, we are saying in essence the same thing. The primary difference I see is that you believe a government's "sphere of influence" should reach beyond its borders. Morally, I agree with you. Technically, logistically, culturally and fundamentally, there are some problems when dealing with other governments. If there were only one government in the world, an idea I am not fully in agreement with, these problems would be presumed to be resolved. But since we are dealing with a world containing something like 200 distinct recognized governments, with all that entails (religions, economics, cultures, languages, etc.), it seems to me improper for each and every one of those governments to meddle in the internal affairs of all of the others.

Stated another way, should the US, Britain, Russia and China all have a say in how France conducts its internal affairs? Likewise, does France have the wherewithal and resources to meddle in the internal affairs of each of these other governments? Not only are competing interests at stake, but if there is any form of nationalism remaining, that meddling may be with the covert intent of destabilizing that government. In effect, this would be waging "bloodless" war.

Should governments be more responsible in the effects of their actions on other governments and societies? In my view, certainly. But expanding the direct (rather than ambassadorial persuasion) power into other regions as a rule rather than exception would seem to me to create more problems than it would solve.

Just some thoughts.