Quoting:
This is a hard question to anwser. I often see the value in both sides. For example, I like the republican idea of keeping what you work for. At the same time, I like the liberal ideas that all people should have free health care, that this is a basic human right and should not depend on wealth. So, how do you get free health care without tax? Maybe the anwser is in who gets taxed and how much. I think what is wrong with America is a very small number of people exploit the system. Take the Enron executives. They walk away millionairs and all the regular workers lose their pension. I hate republicans who think that is just the cost of buisness in a free marketplace. If I was made president tommorrow, I think I would raise the tax rate on the top 5% to cover the cost of health care for all and to reduce the cost of college tuition for everyone. I think everyone has a right to education and money should not be a barrier. I would also like to see the United States stay out of foriegn conflicts like Yugoslavija.

Probably a bad anwser considering your original question. I will think about it more and try to make a more intelligent post.
End Quote

Yes, I agree that your post is a bit of a digression, but intelligent nonetheless.  

On taxes, sure, nobody likes to pay them, especially when we "little people" know that the "fat cats" can find numerous loopholes even without the Bush tax cuts.  But I think you will agree that if the tax system was fair it certainly would be right for all of us to pay to support public education, road, sewer and water services, health care for all, and numerous other services that we all have come to rely on.  What rankles is that so many REALLY rich people and corporations can evade paying their fair share.

I'll ask again, though, how do people define themselves politically, and what do you all mean by that definition.

Quoting:

I don't believe in ownership of corporations. I believe companies should be owned by the workers and the profits should go to them. The workers should be trained to act as their own owners. I don't think this buisiness structure should be forced on anyone, but I think if workers got together and did this, I'm sure they would produce superior products since they reap the direct benifits of their work.

End Quote

Yes! I agree with you 100%. It is the workers that make the product or provide the service, so they should have some ownership. It would also provide a good check against the greed of a CEO or a few managers. Human greed needs to be managed.

Quoting:
I think politics should work for everyone. I also think politics is where the good of the people should be what is done.
End Quote

I think you need to ask "which people?".  And I will expand now on my own beliefs.

It seems to me that there is a myth in this country that we are (+/-) a classless society, or at least that people are where they should be in a meritocracy, and that we should all accept our place because we have gotten what we deserve.  I don't buy it.  Class (in the classical Marxist understanding of class) is much closer to the mark.  Just as example, it seems to me that today politics IS serving the people (those who have lots of $$$).  The question is, as your example (deleted for brevity) implies, should the needs or advantages of the few superceed the needs of the many?  Your post suggests that they should not.  We must, in fairness, also ask to what extent the advantages of the few should be sacrificed for the needs of the many?  THese are not easy questions.  James Madison grappled with them in "The Federalist # 10" in The Federalist Papers and others have also.  In part, its the age-old question of the individual vrs the collective.  In war it is relatively clear.  In other areas, less so.

Quoting:
I'm not very good at politics, Don Carlos.

I would like world peace, security and my loving family around me. I have needs and wants which I need/would like to be fulfilled. I would like a chance for people to achieve equality and self respect.

I have no idea what this is but it sums me up.


End Quote

Sounds like very simple desires, very basic desires, that we all share.  Your last sentance suggests that you want these things for all people.  So there you identify a political perspecive, or at least inclination (and one I personally like, if that matters).  Can you go deeper?  My bet is that you can.

Quoting:

I am against murder, however, I am for capital punishment.

End Quote

The reason I am against capital punishment is because it is not applied fairly. The way our legal system is, where people with money get the best lawyers, there is no way for the "working stiff" to get a good defense. Should a guilty OJ get off free because he spent 10 million dollars on lawyers, but some innocent guy who works for 10 bucks an hour to get convicted because he got stuck with a public defender. I am against capital punishment because i think it is better to let 10 guilty people live in jail the rest of their lives, rather than accidentaly kill one innocent person.

**I just used OJ as an example, I am not saying he is guilty**

Quoting:
Whoa, this is really a deep subject...I'm not up on too much politically...

First off, I am a Christian. I believe that people, for the most part, are selfish and self-serving. I agree with your concentric circles analogy but for me I try to put God first, then my wife, then my son, then friends and neighbors and then the rest. I say try, because often I want to put me first. I believe that is human nature. I agree also that I am my brother's keeper, which can be difficult when my "brother" want's me to mind my own business (which, BTW, I do). ;D

What do I want?
I guess ultimately I want a closer relationship with God and to do His will in all areas of my life. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Way easier. I would love to see world peace, but my focus is on doing what I can in my little corner of the world. It is also my belief that world peace will never be attained until the coming of Christ...

I am against murder, however, I am for capital punishment.

I agree with you about starvation, it is a sin for people to be without food when so much is thrown out.

I agree that everyone has the right to determine how they live. However, when people live under harsh dictatorship, they are denied that right. I believe that if a nation such as the US has the power to stop the mass killing of the people of another nation under such a dictatorship then something should be done. It is the same as the starvation scenario. I am not saying the US has always made the right decisions in regards to "policing" the world, but I think that sometimes it is necessary to intervene in these circumstances.

I agree that people can do better, but am uncertain that they will do better. There is so much corruption in high places and I am not sure things will ever change.

I am a simple, working man. I have no power to change the world for the most part. However, Don Carlos, you have inspired me to do better at changing my world. So, yes, I am commited to a better world, as in "the world around me".
End Quote

Two things:

First, no one can ask more of you regardless of what motivates you.

Second, I was wondering if you are familiar with Liberation Theology?  It is a tendency within the Catholic church which, to be brief, believes that when Christ said "the meek shall inherit the earth" that is EXACTLY what he meant.  You might find their thoughts interesting regardless of your denomination.

Quoting:


The reason I am against capital punishment is because it is not applied fairly. The way our legal system is, where people with money get the best lawyers, there is no way for the "working stiff" to get a good defense. Should a guilty OJ get off free because he spent 10 million dollars on lawyers, but some innocent guy who works for 10 bucks an hour to get convicted because he got stuck with a public defender. I am against capital punishment because i think it is better to let 10 guilty people live in jail the rest of their lives, rather than accidentaly kill one innocent person.

**I just used OJ as an example, I am not saying he is guilty**

End Quote

I agree!

Quoting:


Two things:

First, no one can ask more of you regardless of what motivates you.

Second, I was wondering if you are familiar with Liberation Theology?  It is a tendency within the Catholic church which, to be brief, believes that when Christ said "the meek shall inherit the earth" that is EXACTLY what he meant.  You might find their thoughts interesting regardless of your denomination.
End Quote

Thanks Don. I am in fact not familiar with Liberation Theology but will read up on it when time permits.

I do believe that when Christ said "the meek shall inherit the earth" that is EXACTLY what he meant. But I may interpret meekness a little differently than some. Strong's Concordance says this: "Gentleness or meekness is the opposite of self-assertiveness and self-interest. It stems from trust in God's goodness and control over the situation. The gentle person is not occupied with self at all.".

One who is meek is not one who is cowardly. Jesus described Himself as meek yet He was not afraid to stand up to the religious leaders of His time and "let them have it" so to speak. He knew the consequences yet He did not fear what they could and would do to Him. He did what was right in every situation regardless of what others thought. I'm sure you could describe many of your revolutionary heroes as meek in that they fought for the common good of mankind rather than thinking of themselves or what may happen to them as a result of their speaking out.

Lastly, let me qualify my statement about capital punishment.
I believe in capital punishment if and only if there is irrefutable proof of guilt. If there is a shadow of a doubt, then the death penalty cannot be given. But there are several cold-blooded killers on death row that are beyond doubt guilty of heinous crimes and deserving of death. How many times has our justice system released murderers back into society only to have them kill again. The justice system has a responsibility to future victims to do what they can to prevent this from happening.

Quoting:


Thanks Don. I am in fact not familiar with Liberation Theology but will read up on it when time permits.

I do believe that when Christ said "the meek shall inherit the earth" that is EXACTLY what he meant. But I may interpret meekness a little differently than some. Strong's Concordance says this: "Gentleness or meekness is the opposite of self-assertiveness and self-interest. It stems from trust in God's goodness and control over the situation. The gentle person is not occupied with self at all.".

One who is meek is not one who is cowardly. Jesus described Himself as meek yet He was not afraid to stand up to the religious leaders of His time and "let them have it" so to speak. He knew the consequences yet He did not fear what they could and would do to Him. He did what was right in every situation regardless of what others thought. I'm sure you could describe many of your revolutionary heroes as meek in that they fought for the common good of mankind rather than thinking of themselves or what may happen to them as a result of their speaking out.

Lastly, let me qualify my statement about capital punishment.
I believe in capital punishment if and only if there is irrefutable proof of guilt. If there is a shadow of a doubt, then the death penalty cannot be given. But there are several cold-blooded killers on death row that are beyond doubt guilty of heinous crimes and deserving of death. How many times has our justice system released murderers back into society only to have them kill again. The justice system has a responsibility to future victims to do what they can to prevent this from happening.
End Quote

I have no problem with anything you said here.  Although I'm not a believer, if I'm wrong, than I'm sure God will smile on you.  That is my wish in any case.
I'm glad to hear that you are open to checking out Liberation Theology.
I have thought for a long time that socialists and Christians had much in common.  Your views only reinforce that belief.
"Keep the faith baby!" And I say that with much respect  ;D

Quoting:
Here is my respons to the peace part: I dont know how to word this or I dont know if I'm going to sound rude, and I just want everyone to know that I'm not trying to sound mean, or rude.....and if I do I apologize.

I really dont want Major peace. If we had nothing but peace...this world would be boring. Killing...no. but like if your neibor hits your dog or you dont like them....you dont really want to talk to them right? then to me thats okay...but violence..yes that is something I would like to stop . Like bombings,shottings, stabbings. Just argue with your enimies....just dont go overboard and kill them. if we had absolute peace, everyone would agree with each other and stuff.
End Quote

I guess I have a problem with how you define "peace".  It certainly DOES NOT mean conformity or lack of disagreement.  It means, as you suggest, that we find non-violent ways to resolve our diffences.  I think we, as a spiecies, need to stop maximizing our differences and focus on those things the unite us.  To repeat, as Pete Seeger said, "We are all cousins".

Quoting:
Cat's food shelf experience is, I think, something to keep in mind.  I hope those people who go there remember to vote.  Unfortunately, there is a very close correlation between voting and wealth.  The richer you are, the more likely you are to vote.  And lets not forget the role of the rich in selecting who is running. End Quote

At one time they had a "tax" to vote or some test which must be passed to vote. What we now consider unacceptable from slave times is still happening. Bush, in a primary against McCain, shut down voting places in black areas because he feared blacks would select McCain.  

Modified to add: the reason South Carolina was so important to Bush was because it was an early primary, and the outcome there can effect how much money a candidate can raise.

Quoting:
So I agree with everything she said, and she was once a Republican  :'(  ;)  She is recovering  ;D
End Quote

OH MAN!!!! Why did you have to tell everyone that?  :-[  ;) (No offense to any Republican here-I'm just joking.)



Cat

Quoting:


I guess I have a problem with how you define "peace".  It certainly DOES NOT mean conformity or lack of disagreement.
End Quote

sorry but I thought thats what you meant sheesh shoot me why dont you  :D just a little joke    ;)

Quoting:
I believe that people should have to work for what they earn.  I like the Idea of capitalism, and I believe that many wealthy people have earned their money through our capitalist system. I don't believe that wealth should be redistributed through social programsEnd Quote

What about redistributing wealth by doing nothing more than being born into the right family? I have never done a study, but I would bet you that most of the wealth in the US is concentrated in a small number of families and it has been that way for some generations. I would bet that in a country with a longer history like England, that you would see more consistancy in retaining wealth in familys over generations. And I would bet that over half the wealth (50%) is in under 5% of the population. So if you are for the middle class, then you must be opposed to this.

As for the "work for what you get", I agree with you. That is why it ticks me off when CEO's who do not work, yet get 100 times the pay of the guy on the loading docks. I am all for work, and I think the worker should be treated with humane standards which starts with a livable pay rate.

Quoting:


sorry but I thought thats what you meant sheesh shoot me why dont you  :D just a little joke    ;)
End Quote

No problem, and welcome to the discussion.

Quoting:
Here is my little rant:
(#) indicate inserts
 I have always considered myself a republican.(1)  I believe that people should have to work for what they earn.  I like the Idea of capitalism, and I believe that many wealthy people have earned their money through our capitalist system.(2) I don't believe that wealth should be redistributed through social programs, but I do believe that certain programs are a benefit (education lottery, pell grant).  

(3) One thing I can't stand is the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party.  They are wealthy, yet they claim that the working class needs to dump more into their socialist programs that mainly benefit people that don't work.  They’re the ones who never had to work a day, why don't they give some of their money to the poor? (4)  Sometimes people get screwed, but I believe that these companies are only a small percentage.  If you are rich and productive, I have no beef with you, but if you are rich by birth, and trying to take my money for your perceived higher cause, than forget it.

(5)  Another thing I can't stand is seatbelt law.  Who in their right mind would think these are a good Idea?  They opened the floodgates. Now the government thinks it has a right to get into my car.  I don't care how many lives these laws saved.(6)  I also think that the current police force is oppressive.  I don't think Police should be allowed to set up DUI check points (AKA bug the innocent points).

(7) I also believe that you have a right to own a gun.  I don't like to hunt, and I have never owned a firearm; however if someone wants to, why should someone else tell him or her they can't?(8)  No smoking laws are another attack on freedom.  Who am I to tell a complete stranger they can't smoke?  I can in my house, but I shouldn't be allowed to do it in a public place. After all a public place is just as much mine as it is theirs. If a restaurant owner wants to allow smoking in his private establishment, he should be allowed to. If you don't like smoke, Protest with your pocket book, and don't go to his establishment.

End Quote

(#) indicate insertion

(1) OK lets see.  I can think of only one of the richest people in the world who actually earned his fortune himself - Bill Gates, and he supports the inheritance (so called death) tax.  The overwhelming majority of really rich people inherited their money from their ansestors - Rockefellers, Fords, Duponts, Morgans.  And corporations don't die, so they just keep amassing.  They "earned" their $$$ by pay starvation wages to their workers, selling defective weapons to the Gov't (Morgan during the Civil War), watering stock etc.  Now if your talking about the honest small business guy or the hard working factory worker, then I agree.

(2) I don't know about where you live, but here, there are very few folks who don't want to work if they can.  Laid off people come into our food shelf every day.  Should we let them starve?  And what of their kids?  We CAN have a vibrant capitalist economy AND a social saftey net at the same time.  And who benefits most from our tax $$$ support of roads and bridges?  I use them, but most of the traffic is commercial (just ride cross country on the interstates, and those 18 wheelers do much more damage than my little car)

(3) Everyone who holds political office is (almost) by definition rich.  Sure the Senate is a millionaire's club with few exceptions.  I personally would rather have Pat, Jim, and Bernie advocating for my interests than the people who ran against them advocating for the rich.  And although you could define Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as "socialist", my guess is that at some point, you will be glad they are around - if they still are.

(4) Like Enron, Workcom, Imclon.  For their investors devistated might be a better word.  I would suggest that you also need to consider Adam Smith's laws of supply and demand and the source of profits (which is, I believe, the unpaid labor of the work force).

(5) There is a principle of the greater social good which transends personal liberty.  Frankly, if you choose not to wear seat belts and get crippled or wipped out in you car (the same applies to motor cycle helmets) that's fine with me, as long as my car insurance rates don't go up as a result of your insurance company having to pay for your long term care or funeral etc.  So, if you sign a waiver exempting your insurer from liability if you don't wear your seat belt, go for it.  If you don't, than it effects me and that's not ok.

(6) Again, I have to disagree.  If it is illeagal to drive under the influence than the cops have the right to inforce those laws.  And given the number of innocent people killed by druck drivers, a few minutes of inconvienience is worth getting them off the roads.  Again, its  matter of the greater good transcending my personal interests.  Now if they are storming into my house to investigate my sexual practices, that is another matter (just resolved by the Supreme Court).

(7) Here I agree.  All of the other 9 Bill of Rights amendments refer to individual rights, and I am convinced that the 2nd amendment does too (student papers last semester forced me to change my view - see, I CAN be convinced to change my mind).  I do agree with efforts to stop felons from getting guns though, even if they don't always work.

(8) Again, this is a conflict between the greater good, the public interest, and individual rights.  I am a smoker (I'm lighting up  right now) but there is no question that second hand smoke is bad for everyone's health.  So why should my addiction to tobbacco be allowed to compromise the health of others?  As I said above, what I do in my own home is my business.  What I do in the public domain is the public's business. In other words, as they say in Vermont "just don't scare the horses".

Please don't take any of this as confrontational.  My aim here is to provoke thinking and discussion, not controversy and discord.  I look forward to your reasoned response  ;D

Quoting:


At one time they had a "tax" to vote or some test which must be passed to vote. What we now consider unacceptable from slave times is still happening. Bush, in a primary against McCain, shut down voting places in black areas because he feared blacks would select McCain.  

End Quote

Yes, poll taxes and literacy tests.  Blacks couldn't pay them and culd never pass them - no matter how lierate they were.

And the beat goes on, even in this country of "honest" elections.

Quoting:
I dont really agree even 80% with either side.Everything is a mess-Healthcare,Medicare,Social Security,Capital Punishment,on and on ad nauseum

While all this is going on,Our president wants to run the world.Or "help" them or "save them"(on false pretenses so far).Our president also likes to put his foot in his mouth.Holy war-Jihad-all he does is give speeches and praise his God and  his Lord and says we will win.....????Somethin aint right there.

Special Interest groups on the other side of the coin,are not my cup of tea but I am not the only one.To believe something radical is right for you is no reason to deface property,riot,burn laboratories,shoot doctors,etc.Just because they wont do it YOUR way.At least not mine-to borrow a line "he cant even run his own life,i'll be damned if he runs mine"

Our own country is in crisis over everyday expexctancies and needs.What my parents had I doubt I will ever have.
End Quote

I'm going to make an assumption here, because your profile doen't include your age, but your reference to "your parents" suggests that you are young.  Your confusion and doubts are, I think well founded, as is your apparent distrust in leaders (see my avitar).  But please don't dispair.  With thought, consideration of what's going on, and reading, you will be able to make sense of it all.

Quoting:


What about redistributing wealth by doing nothing more than being born into the right family? I have never done a study, but I would bet you that most of the wealth in the US is concentrated in a small number of families and it has been that way for some generations. I would bet that in a country with a longer history like England, that you would see more consistancy in retaining wealth in familys over generations. And I would bet that over half the wealth (50%) is in under 5% of the population. So if you are for the middle class, then you must be opposed to this.

As for the "work for what you get", I agree with you. That is why it ticks me off when CEO's who do not work, yet get 100 times the pay of the guy on the loading docks. I am all for work, and I think the worker should be treated with humane standards which starts with a livable pay rate.
End Quote

Right on John!

Quoting:
Im towards the right, not radical, but I stand by my beliefs.  Keep in mind, Im still in high school, and I have a good sight on politics.  
End Quote

Keep watching, reading, and thinking about where you and your family stand in all of the political manuverings - who wins, who loses.  

Quoting:
Oh yes, and Don Carlos, don't take this the wrong way, but i think it's kind of interesting that you have 'Question Authority' underneath a picture of Che, an advocate of the most authoritarian form of socialism. :)

And i like CatWoman's quote from Don Camilo Helder, that's going with the rest of my quotes...
End Quote

I like Dom Camilo Helder's quote too.  In facr I have it on a tee shirt.  That's where Cat got it.

As to Che, and Cuba, you are spouting the party line.  Sorry, but there is nothing in either his writings or has actions that bears this out.  Quite the contrary.  In fact, the reason Cuban Socialism survived the fall of the USSR and the collapse of its economy in the early '90s is that it is NOT an authoritarian state, but a relatively open and democratic one and enjoys wide support among its people.  Che was an important contributor to building it.

Quoting:
Erm...which party's line? :)
End Quote

What I meant was this is what you read in the press, what polititians say, what we have heard for 40 years, and very few people are allowed to go there to verify any of those accusations.  Before the war we could go to Iraq (why I don't know) but not to Cuba.  And a few years ago the Cuban U.N. rep was denied permission to come to my campus after we invited him.  I wonder why?  Is our gov't affraid for us to even hear the other side of the story?

Quoting:
As to Che, and Cuba, you are spouting the party line.  Sorry, but there is nothing in either his writings or has actions that bears this out.  Quite the contrary.  In fact, the reason Cuban Socialism survived the fall of the USSR and the collapse of its economy in the early '90s is that it is NOT an authoritarian state, but a relatively open and democratic one and enjoys wide support among its people.  Che was an important contributor to building it.
End Quote

Can you tell us a little about him and his life? While I was at Barnes and Noble this weekend, I saw a book with a cover which looks like your avatar. I picked it up and skimmed it. From what I could tell, he was killed while still young. I would be interested in learning a bit more about him.

Quoting:
Marxism?

A failed system.  As is Communism.  It just brings oppression.
End Quote

Eh? I thought there was a lot of debate on what exactly the differences are between Communism and Marxism. Isn't Communism an interpretation of Marxism and some Communist systems are referred to as Marxism? And the same with *ists?

Quoting:
Capitialism brings oppression but anyone can see it is a better system then the evils of communism.
End Quote

OK. Personally, i think Capitalism is no worse than Communism. If anything Capitalism is worse - especially if you take them both as theories.

Personally, i agree with the Academy Morticians on the subject of Capitalism:

You may think Utopias can't exist
But anything must be better than this

Quoting:
I think Castro is a good guy. He has free health care, and from what I hear it is as good as what we have in the United States. I think I even saw some statistic which said they have more doctors per capita than we do in the US. Cuba also has free education. People there appear to be happy. Hemingway, who was rich could have gone anywhere to live out his life, and he picked Cuba. I guess the only thing the US has more of than Cuba is lawyers.

** Okay, that might have been overboard, but I bet it is less biased than what we get from our government **
End Quote

John, this is all true, but Cuba has had problems since the collapse of the USSR.  Lots of doctors, for example, but medical suppies are in short supply.  For a while, even food was hard to get.  Fidel's answer was to support the basic concepts of the revolution, like equality, socialist democracy, and human rights, and compromise with capitalism.  A solution that one writer called "principled pragmatism".  Not ideal, but it saved the essence of the revolution.  My reading is that most Cubans are in favor, and show it in their votes and in opinion polls cunducted by outside organizations.  Its not utopia, far from it, its an underdeveloped country (a mouse) threatened by the world's elephant, and hanging on to its independence and sovereignty through great adversity.  Something we would all admire if we understood.

Quoting:
(1)I don't know about getting that idea from the media, but i was talking about Communism in general...i see it as the more authoritarian form of socialism -(2) but that may be explained by the fact most of my reading on Communism comes from an Anarchist perspective.

(3)Touching on what you said, Don Carlos, what i don't understand is America's trade-embargo on Cuba; don't get it at all.

(4) By the way, i thought Americans could still get to Cuba but have to basically fly to another country like Canada or Bermuda and take an unconnected flight from there.

In response to what John Seminal said - (disclaimer  :P ) and i know people can get a bit sensitive when people start throwing labels about when it's uncalled-for, so i'll point out now i'm not suggesting you personally are left-wing, John, when i say this,

(5) The left tend to have this habit of over-romanticising places like Cuba. A group the left like to cite quite often when pointing out the problems with right-wing and/or American-supported governments is Amnesty International - and granted, in as far as i can see, all of them have much worse records - but when it comes to Cuba they like to ignore the human rights abuses A.I. have documented in that country.

On the otherside of this, you do get, in them  common 'Communism doesn't work' debates, the people arguing for Communism dismissing Cuba - and China & the old U.S.S.R. of course - as not 'true' Communism.

But i do agree with you - and especially in the Third World - the countries with the best healthcare and education systems seem to be the places that either have, or have had, socialist governments.
 
End Quote

(2) Aah, the black flag.  Have your read Bakunin?  I don't mean to be rude,or condescending, but you refer to anarchism, so I wonder how deeply you are into it.  I've not read much in that area, so would like to hear why you think it is attractive.  I'm ignorant in this area, and admit it, so fill us in.

(1)  There is always a danger in defining others as they define themselves.  GWB defines himself as "compassionate", do you think he is?  Do you think he gives a rat's butt about the average joe?  As I said before, Marx never thought that the revolution would start in underdeveloped, feudal societies with no tradition of "bougeois democracy".  How could Russia's docile, mostly illiterate masses create democracy?  Cuba has a more developed idea of democracy, relected in their electoral seystem.  You can't get blood from a stone, or democracy from feudalism.

(3) My read is that the U.S. has lusted for Cuba since the days of Jefferson, and now this upstart island has been thumbing its nose at us for over 40 years.  Its an insult to our gov't's pride, and they make great rum and great cigans too  ;D

(4) Yes, you can get there that way.  Go to Canada or Mexico, visit the Cuban embassy, and get a visa.  When yoiu return to the states you could be arrested and subjected to a $50,000 fine, unless you had State Dept. approval for your trip.

(5) See my response to John.  The reality needs no romanicizing, its pretty darn impressive on its own.

Quoting:
(1) Marxism? A failed system.

(2) As is Communism.  It just brings oppression.

(3) Capitialism brings oppression but anyone can see it is a better system then the evils of communism.

I am a social leftist.  And a fiscal conservative.  I also strongly support the labor movement.  It is not perfect but the labor movement gave us the weekend!  Live better!  Work union!

Dig?  People have basically the right to do what they want.  As long as it doesn't harm anyone else.  Or if I have to pay for it.


End Quote

(1) Marxism is a form of analysis based on dialectical reasoning and historial materialism.  As such one might describe it as a system, but as such, it has NOT "failed".

(2) When communism gets here, than maybe we can make this assertion.  So far, it has not appeared.  When it does, I hope I'm around to see it.

(3) You mean everyone who has become habituated to its horrors, and convinced by its ideological hegemony that "capitalism is great".  Marx called the "false consciousness".

Quoting:
(2) When communism gets here, than maybe we can make this assertion.  So far, it has not appeared.  When it does, I hope I'm around to see it.
End Quote

How would you put in place a check so that one person or a group of people do not gain too much power? I would have been interested to see what would have happened with the USSR if Stalin never came to power and the politburo had some teeth to it. Too bad lenin was shot.

Quoting:


Can you tell us a little about him and his life? While I was at Barnes and Noble this weekend, I saw a book with a cover which looks like your avatar. I picked it up and skimmed it. From what I could tell, he was killed while still young. I would be interested in learning a bit more about him.
End Quote

Sure, but briefly.  Che was born into a middle class family in Argentina, was asmatic, so he studied at home until university, where he became an MD.  Traveled by moped throughout Latin Am. and was in Guatemala in 1953 when Jocobo Arbez was overthrown in the first CIA "covert action".  He was radicalized, bummed around, met Fidel in 1954 or 55, and joined the group.  Was a real military hero in Cuba, became Minister of Finance and Pres of the Central Bank for a time, and favored rapid industrialization over export lead development.  Went to Angola and led the Cuban volunteers there.  Went to Bolivia to create a new gurrilla "foco".  Screwed up there in many ways, was surrounded by CIA lead Bolivian troops, captured, and murdered (no charges, no trial, no judge, no jury, just a shot in the head).  A hero?  A fool?  An egoist?  A martyr?  You chose.  Certainly an icon.  

Quoting:


Aah, the black flag.  Have your read Bakunin?  I don't mean to be rude,or condescending, but you refer to anarchism, so I wonder how deeply you are into it.  I've not read much in that area, so would like to hear why you think it is attractive.  I'm ignorant in this area, and admit it, so fill us in.
End Quote

Heh. I've read bits and pieces of Bakunin; a lot of quotes, but i'd be lying if i said i'd read an entire book of his or anything.  I'm not that seriously interested, it's just listening to Punk you often heard bands advocating Anarchism and at the time i equated Anarchy with chaos (as many people do), just literally no state, no form of regulation, nothing.

But one time i met an old punkfan in a chat room and they said they'd given up on the whole punk thing (dressing up, listening to loud obnoxious music and being rude to old people :p ) but they were still an 'Anarchist'. So, i asked how that would work exactly, and wouldn't they be killed straight off or at least become a slave or something.

They told me Anarchy didn't just mean chaos, it was an actual political theory and they directed me to a website (workshop or something, i've since lost the link) with a text file you could download called Anarchy FAQ - a thousand or so page (as i remember) document, all organised into specific sections dealing with different issues and different types of Anarchism.

After reading up on that, i was more convinced of anarchy being a valid system, but i didn't and haven't since really thought it could actually work: like a lot of socialist things, it depends on people being honest and altruistic etc. (although it did talk of Altruism through Egotism or something :-/ ).

Basically, the idea of anarchy (remember this is a very simplified view of it and just how i remember it) seemed to be rule from the bottom up. You'd have a small group of people - say of factory workers or something - and they'd run their workplace themselves and they'd have meetings where everyone their would have their say on the running of the factory. If there were disagreements it would have to be debated until something could be sorted out - failing that, the smaller group who disagreed with the majority could break off and form their own group.

For larger issues, involving a network of factories or whatever - the group would delegate someone to represent their views at a larger meeting. This delegate would meet up with delegates from the other factories and they'd try to reach an agreement - but even when an agreement was reached, the delegate would have to return to the factory and ask if he'd accurately represented the group and whether or not the agreement was satisfactory.

And this is also the system used outside the workplace, for instance villages and neighbourhoods would have a group and they'd send delegates to meetings for the county or the town or the city and then a delegates would go from these town or county meetings to meetings for larger areas. And so on and so forth up to national level.

Now, the common criticism for this is that it would take far too long, but in their defence, that's always the argument against 'democracies': i can't exactly quote but didn't Hitler talk of how things would be taken care of quickly under Nazism? And i'm sure it's the same in America as it is over here when the Right-wing parties mention 'bureaucracy', 'paper-work' and 'red-tape' when talking about how Left-wing parties tend to run the  country.

*shrugs*

Sorry, i got a bit carried away there. Should try to be a bit more succinct :-/

Quoting:


How would you put in place a check so that one person or a group of people do not gain too much power? I would have been interested to see what would have happened with the USSR if Stalin never came to power and the politburo had some teeth to it. Too bad lenin was shot.
End Quote

Not to be a stickler for detail, but Lenin died of a stroke - at least that's the mainstream wisdom, and I have never heard of it being challenged.

As I said above, I think it was inevitable that the USSR would degenerate into totalitarianism since it had no tradition of democracy to expand on.  In addition to that, the western powers (U.S. included) invaded Russia after WWI to destroy the revolution, and, that having failed, did everything they could to isolate and destroy it by other means.

Lenin also made mistakes, like trying to adopt Taylorism, or "Scientific Management" to Soviet industrialization.  It is a disempowering system, but for a socialist economy to work, you need to empower the working class.  Otherwise you wind up with "state capitalism", a left wing version of fascism.

Quoting:


Heh. I've read bits and pieces of Bakunin; a lot of quotes, but i'd be lying if i said i'd read an entire book of his or anything.  I'm not that seriously interested, it's just listening to Punk you often heard bands advocating Anarchism and at the time i equated Anarchy with chaos (as many people do), just literally no state, no form of regulation, nothing.

But one time i met an old punkfan in a chat room and they said they'd given up on the whole punk thing (dressing up, listening to loud obnoxious music and being rude to old people :p ) but they were still an 'Anarchist'. So, i asked how that would work exactly, and wouldn't they be killed straight off or at least become a slave or something.

They told me Anarchy didn't just mean chaos, it was an actual political theory and they directed me to a website (workshop or something, i've since lost the link) with a text file you could download called Anarchy FAQ - a thousand or so page (as i remember) document, all organised into specific sections dealing with different issues and different types of Anarchism.

After reading up on that, i was more convinced of anarchy being a valid system, but i didn't and haven't since really thought it could actually work: like a lot of socialist things, it depends on people being honest and altruistic etc. (although it did talk of Altruism through Egotism or something :-/ ).

Basically, the idea of anarchy (remember this is a very simplified view of it and just how i remember it) seemed to be rule from the bottom up. You'd have a small group of people - say of factory workers or something - and they'd run their workplace themselves and they'd have meetings where everyone their would have their say on the running of the factory. If there were disagreements it would have to be debated until something could be sorted out - failing that, the smaller group who disagreed with the majority could break off and form their own group.

For larger issues, involving a network of factories or whatever - the group would delegate someone to represent their views at a larger meeting. This delegate would meet up with delegates from the other factories and they'd try to reach an agreement - but even when an agreement was reached, the delegate would have to return to the factory and ask if he'd accurately represented the group and whether or not the agreement was satisfactory.

And this is also the system used outside the workplace, for instance villages and neighbourhoods would have a group and they'd send delegates to meetings for the county or the town or the city and then a delegates would go from these town or county meetings to meetings for larger areas. And so on and so forth up to national level.

Now, the common criticism for this is that it would take far too long, but in their defence, that's always the argument against 'democracies': i can't exactly quote but didn't Hitler talk of how things would be taken care of quickly under Nazism? And i'm sure it's the same in America as it is over here when the Right-wing parties mention 'bureaucracy', 'paper-work' and 'red-tape' when talking about how Left-wing parties tend to run the  country.

*shrugs*

Sorry, i got a bit carried away there. Should try to be a bit more succinct :-/


End Quote

This was +/- the idea advanced by the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) around the turn of ther century, and it has some appeal to me too.  

Quoting:
Yeah. The Industrial Workers of the World got a fair few mentions in the FAQ as i remember.
End Quote

A few years ago, we saw a folk singer who sang a lot of Wobblies songs. He told us that today (at least it was a few years ago) there are 500 members of the IWW-300 are folk singers and 200 are history professors.  ;)



Cat

Quoting:
Castro?  A good guy?

(1) He brutally murdered three people recently who WANTED TO SIMPLY LEAVE THE COUNTRY!

(2) He locked people up who spoke out against his government.  He's a brutal thug plain and simple.

But I guess as long as he offers free health care he can't be all bad, huh?  That is all any murderous thug needs to be embraced by the left.  He needs to be a socialist who offers free health care.

(3) Who cares if he is a dictator?
End Quote

This is... no, I will reserve my initial reaction.  

(1) Castro didn't "murder" anyone.  Three criminals were condemed to death by the Cuban courts and executed for their  crimes.  A rare occurance in Cuba, unlike Texas alone, which, over the last 40 years has executed far more people than all of Cuba, and that is JUST ONE STATE.  And they weren't executed because they wanted to leave, but because of the crimes they commited in the process.  Their trials were public (unlike those about to start in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station), and they were presumed innocent until proven guilty.  How is that murder?

(2) Actually, there is a good deal of desent in Cuba.  People openly complain all the time.  One visitor reported that a stranger told him "F... Fidel, he's an idiot" within hearing of a cop.  The freedom of expression Cubans enjoy is mirrored in the way they are received at international film festivals, in their music, in their art.  Cuba is far from Eden, but it is not a repressive society as you would have it.  There has never been a "state of seige" proclaimed by the Cuban Gov't.

(3) And "dictator".  What is your definition of that word?  Castro was elected, over his own objection, to the Presidency of the Cuban Republic through Cuba's constitutional processes.

Maybe you should learn the facts before you spout off.

Quoting:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6274378%255E401,00.html

Enjoy the above link the see the details of your favorite thug Castro.

He is a filthy murderer plain and simple.  Even idiotic Castro defenders are now seeing this.

Castro was elected?  Oh, sure, fair and square huh?  That's a real joke.  These men were brought to their so called trial, convicted, and then murdered for trying to leave Cuba.  Simple as that.

He's a disgusting murering pig.  You can dress up his crimes with double talk and socialist foolishness but the facts are the facts.

Maybe YOU should read something other than the latest Marxist tripe before you let Fidel "The Murderer" Castro off the hook.

But then again, you could have video tape footage of Castro killing innocents morning, noon and night.  And you and your communist kind would still defend him.

Sad really.
End Quote

You have to understand that the U.S. trys to paint Cuba and Castro in the most unflattering light-sometimes this means leaving out certain information and distorting the facts. It has been like that since Castro entered office. I am always skeptical of what I read or see in the media-especially about Cuba. It is called propaganda and it works. Most people are distrustful of Castro because of the fact that he has been smeared in the U.S. media rather than trying to find out for themselves what really goes on there.

BTW, everything you wrote about Castro, the same could be said about Bush.



Cat  

Quoting:
If you think Bush is worse than Castro might I suggest you move to lovely Cuba and enjoy life under the Marxist bootheel you hold so near and dear to your Bolshie heart, sweets.
End Quote

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if you do not agree with it.

That said -

There was no reason for this show of disrespect, zippo.

I will suggest one last time you read the Forum Guidelines:

http://www.inthe80s.com/rules.shtml

Specifically this part:

You may not use the forums for:

*Harassment

Harassment occurs when a user targets another individual to cause distress, embarrassment, unwanted attention, or other personal discomfort. We do not condone harassment in any form. While you may disagree with someone's point of view, personal attacks, or attacks based on a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. If you have a disagreement with someone's point of view, address the subject, not the person.

Quoting:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6274378%255E401,00.html

Enjoy the above link the see the details of your favorite thug Castro.

He is a filthy murderer plain and simple.  Even idiotic Castro defenders are now seeing this.

Castro was elected?  Oh, sure, fair and square huh?  That's a real joke.  These men were brought to their so called trial, convicted, and then murdered for trying to leave Cuba.  Simple as that.

He's a disgusting murering pig.  You can dress up his crimes with double talk and socialist foolishness but the facts are the facts.

Maybe YOU should read something other than the latest Marxist tripe before you let Fidel "The Murderer" Castro off the hook.

But then again, you could have video tape footage of Castro killing innocents morning, noon and night.  And you and your communist kind would still defend him.

Sad really.
End Quote

The Associated Press, and in fact the entire U.S. media establishment has followed the Gov't line since 1959.  If that is your source, all I can say is ho hum, NOT impressed.  

As to Castro being elected, he has been, and last time, begged NOT TO BE.  Their elections are more honest than ours (like in Florida, remember Jews for Buchanan?).  

But then. I guess you just are not interested in understanding Cuba, just in condeming it.  I don't know why I even both responding.

Quoting:
You could say the same about Bush?

Oh, so that makes it alright what Castro does?

If you think Bush is worse than Castro might I suggest you move to lovely Cuba and enjoy life under the Marxist bootheel you hold so near and dear to your Bolshie heart, sweets.


End Quote

She was just pointing out that it might be "the pot calling the kettle black"

And as to you suggestion, I thought "America, love it or leave it" was a dead issue.  Why should she leave her native land?  Because YOU disagree with her?  Who do you think you are?  Try saying something intelligent on your next posts, maybe there will be things we can discuss.

Quoting:


Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if you do not agree with it.

That said -

There was no reason for this show of disrespect, zippo.

I will suggest one last time you read the Forum Guidelines:

http://www.inthe80s.com/rules.shtml

Specifically this part:

You may not use the forums for:

*Harassment

Harassment occurs when a user targets another individual to cause distress, embarrassment, unwanted attention, or other personal discomfort. We do not condone harassment in any form. While you may disagree with someone's point of view, personal attacks, or attacks based on a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. If you have a disagreement with someone's point of view, address the subject, not the person.


End Quote

Thanks Hairspray.  This needed to be said. ;D

Quoting:
Thanks Hairspray.  This needed to be said.End Quote

You're welcome.

Quoting:


Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, even if you do not agree with it.

That said -

There was no reason for this show of disrespect, zippo.

I will suggest one last time you read the Forum Guidelines:

http://www.inthe80s.com/rules.shtml

Specifically this part:

You may not use the forums for:

*Harassment

Harassment occurs when a user targets another individual to cause distress, embarrassment, unwanted attention, or other personal discomfort. We do not condone harassment in any form. While you may disagree with someone's point of view, personal attacks, or attacks based on a person's race, national origin, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disablement or other such affiliation, are prohibited. If you have a disagreement with someone's point of view, address the subject, not the person.


End Quote

And it's too bad that you had to step in because everyone was playing so nice up until this point.  This was really a good discussion.

Quoting:
Sounds like very simple desires, very basic desires, that we all share.  Your last sentance suggests that you want these things for all people.  So there you identify a political perspecive, or at least inclination (and one I personally like, if that matters).  Can you go deeper?  My bet is that you can.
End Quote

Thanks for responding, Don Carlos. I didn't realise you had until 10 days later.  :)

Now the thing is, in all my adult years, I have never voted because I honestly believe that it doesn't matter. To me, it's like choosing which brand of butter to spread on your bread. I was brought up in a religious environment as well which discards politics so that, at the very least, squashed any interest I could have had in it.

I'll give it a shot. I like the idea of everybody being equal so would that suggest communist leanings? In Britain we have three major parties (Labour more left wing, I think - who are in power at the moment, Conservative - Right wing and Liberal Democrats - I don't know about these). I would be more inclined to vote for Liberal Democrats and that is because they haven't proved themselves in the hot seat, so to speak.

I don't vote because I would be more likely to vote against someone rather than for them. That, to me, is a waste of energy so I choose not to.

After all this, Don I still don't believe I've answered your question but I hope it has given you a little insight into my mind-set.

What I do ask, and this has not been brought up to my knowledge, is how would the world be governed via a Theocracy (God governed)?

Quoting:
What I do ask, and this has not been brought up to my knowledge, is how would the world be governed via a Theocracy (God governed)?

End Quote

Who's god? Allah? Budda? Johovah? Diana? Venus? Zeus?
Which theology?


Cat

Quoting:


Who's god? Allah? Budda? Johovah? Diana? Venus? Zeus?
Which theology?


Cat
End Quote

Oh dear! I might have trodden on the proverbial land-mine here. You mention Johovah and, well, I did attend meetings for Jehovah's Witnesses for a long time (don't worry I don't 'bible-bash'). It was from them that I understood what a Theocracy was.

I don't believe it is right for me to say which God you choose. I wanted to twist the subject and get ideas from you, the good people on the board.  :)

Quoting:

Now the thing is, in all my adult years, I have never voted because I honestly believe that it doesn't matter. To me, it's like choosing which brand of butter to spread on your bread.

End Quote

I like this analogy and i'm agree with it but i believe in voting for the lesser-evil.  Plus, they don't really let us participate in politics in any real way, so i feel i have to vote.

Quoting:

I was brought up in a religious environment as well which discards politics so that, at the very least, squashed any interest I could have had in it.

End Quote

That's probably why we differ.  I was raised very liberally.  Whenever i'd ask about something my parents would just tell me what they knew about it and let me make my own conclusions.

Quoting:

In Britain we have three major parties (Labour more left wing, I think - who are in power at the moment, ...).

End Quote

I'd have to disagree with you here.  Since Labour became New Labour and started preaching the 'Third Way', they've gone more toward the right (Public-Private Patnerships, privatisation of national services, university fees, quarrels with the unions).  

Personally, i think they are at least definitely on the Right - they always avoid answering this in interviews: Are they leftwing? Are they socialist?  They just say they prefer the term 'progressive'.  And quite possibly on a par with the Tory Party.  The only difference being that they are socially liberal.  They really shouldn't be called the Labour Party: it's like calling the Conservatives the Asylum Seeker's Party.  Maybe they should be called the Neo-Liberal Party. :-/

Quoting:

I don't vote because I would be more likely to vote against someone rather than for them. That, to me, is a waste of energy so I choose not to.

End Quote

That's exactly what i do.  My mate, rather sardonically, calls it 'tactical voting'.  Basically, i'd rather not have Labour in power; locally or nationally.  So i try and vote for the runner-up in most cases; usually LibDem or Plaid Cymru.  And, yes, if push came to shove, i'd vote Tory over Labour.

Quoting:

What I do ask, and this has not been brought up to my knowledge, is how would the world be governed via a Theocracy (God governed)?

End Quote

There are, at least in name, theocracies in the Muslim world.  It'd basically where the Church (or equivalent) has either a lot of control over the state; or basically is the state.

Also, there are a strange breed called Christian Anarchists, who believe certain passages in the bible suggest (or say explicitly) that God should be the only authority.  Now, to me, that wouldn't be Anarchy; that would be Theocracy.

I for one would not like to live under a system like those, because it would force non-believers to adhere to the relevant religion - you'd lose your freedom - what freedom you had. :(

Quoting:


Oh dear! I might have trodden on the proverbial land-mine here. You mention Johovah and, well, I did attend meetings for Jehovah's Witnesses for a long time (don't worry I don't 'bible-bash'). It was from them that I understood what a Theocracy was.

I don't believe it is right for me to say which God you choose. I wanted to twist the subject and get ideas from you, the good people on the board.  :)
End Quote

The point I was trying to make is that there are many different religions in this world. I am not of the Judeo-Christian religion. In fact, I am a Pagan and many Christians believe that I am going to burn in hell for my beliefs. Do I want a government run by the Christian faith? I really don't think so-just as I am sure that Christians wouldn't want a government run by Pagans. That is why I believe that the seperation between church and state is VERY important. That way freedom of religion can be practice-BY ALL!!!!! I have always felt that religion is very personal. I wouldn't want anyone to tell me what to believe just as I don't tell anyone what they have to believe. I can only tell people what I believe.

(FYI-My Goddess is Venus. That is what the "V" in my name stands for.  ;))


Cat

Quoting:
That's the Roman god of Love, right?  Am i missing something here?
End Quote

Roman GODDESS.  ;)  No, you didn't miss anything. I was just saying a lot of people worship different deities. I was just specifying which one I worship. Therefore, the idea of having a theocracy would not be a good idea IMO.


Cat

Quoting:
The point I was trying to make is that there are many different religions in this world. I am not of the Judeo-Christian religion. In fact, I am a Pagan and many Christians believe that I am going to burn in hell for my beliefs. Do I want a government run by the Christian faith? I really don't think so-just as I am sure that Christians wouldn't want a government run by Pagans. That is why I believe that the seperation between church and state is VERY important. That way freedom of religion can be practice-BY ALL!!!!! I have always felt that religion is very personal. I wouldn't want anyone to tell me what to believe just as I don't tell anyone what they have to believe. I can only tell people what I believe.

(FYI-My Goddess is Venus. That is what the "V" in my name stands for.  ;))
End Quote

Thanks for sharing your religious views Cat. I thought the 'V' in your name was to do with the roman symbol for 5. I was trying to work out the reason for this - one of them, forgive me, was that you had five children as in 'Catwoman of 5'. Hah! That shows how stupid I am!   :)

When I mentioned a theocracy, I was talking perhaps in a conceptual way. What I wanted the people on the board to do was imagine that their god was ruling the earth as a government would. Then they can describe how this would make them feel - it was just a spiritual excercise on my part, nothing more. I feel quite brave talking about religion on the boards.   :D

Quoting:


Thanks for sharing your religious views Cat. I thought the 'V' in your name was to do with the roman symbol for 5. I was trying to work out the reason for this - one of them, forgive me, was that you had five children as in 'Catwoman of 5'. Hah! That shows how stupid I am!   :)

When I mentioned a theocracy, I was talking perhaps in a conceptual way. What I wanted the people on the board to do was imagine that their god was ruling the earth as a government would. Then they can describe how this would make them feel - it was just a spiritual excercise on my part, nothing more. I feel quite brave talking about religion on the boards.   :D
End Quote

In that case, if MY Goddess ruled, there would be no wars, no hunger, education and health care would be paid for, and everyone would live by the Wiccan Creed "Do what you will, harm none." That would be a cool place.  ;)  

(Actually, I am the last out of 6 kids so would that make me CatwomanofVI?  I always said that my parents saved the best for last.  ;)  Just so you know, I am not offended in anyway.)


Cat

Quoting:
Roman GODDESS.  ;)  No, you didn't miss anything. I was just saying a lot of people worship different deities. I was just specifying which one I worship. Therefore, the idea of having a theocracy would not be a good idea IMO.
End Quote

Yes, I was interested in Greek and Roman gods a few years back (though I dare say you would be offended if I called it 'mythology' - this indicates that they are all stories). What I found interesting was that the Greeks and Romans had similar beliefs (gods were personifications of planets etc) and ideas. Here are some I remember . . .

Mercury                    Hermes         Thieves,communication
Mars                          Ares           war
Venus                      Athrodite       love
Saturn                      Chronus        time
Jupiter                        Zeus          leader
Neptune                    Poseidon       sea
Pluto                         Hades          underworld

I've forgotten the Greek equivalent for Uranus and what he was a god of.

Quoting:
In that case, if MY Goddess ruled, there would be no wars, no hunger, education and health care would be paid for, and everyone would live by the Wiccan Creed "Do what you will, harm none." That would be a cool place.  ;)  

(Actually, I am the last out of 6 kids so would that make me CatwomanofVI?  I always said that my parents saved the best for last.  ;)  Just so you know, I am not offended in anyway.)

End Quote

Erm. The Wiccan Creed. Sounds like an hippocratic oath. I don't think it matters what religion you are the sentiments expressed in it are very good.  :)