June Brough said:
>All the attempts at "communism" have resulted in totalitarianism.
>Pre-Gorbachev USSR was not a democracy, although they had "elections"
>(with only communist organisations allowed to nominate candidates).
>China isn't exactly my idea of a democracy either. People seem fairly
>desperate to get away from Cuba too.
so, are you saying that England, the US, and/or Australia are democratic?
I say they are not. We all believe that its the majority that make the
decisions as we elect representatives for us but do those representatives
actually do what we vote them in to do? I will use Australia as it is what
I am most familiar with. Polititians here are voted in on their policies.
Recently (last 10 years) more so than before polititians have been getting
away with reneging on thier promises and we can't do a damn thing about it.
We have in effect a two party system. Both almost indistinguishable from
each other. What choice do we have? As it costs money to put oneself up
as a candidate and even more to run a campaigne - do we have a democracy
for the rich? I do not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting
elected to government because I will never have that kind of money. It's
got nothing to do with what the majority ofthe people want. People vote on
the information that they receive. This is mostly from the popular press.
The press are owned by rich people (by definition). They are extremely
biased and only report what they want. Where I live (WA) there is only one
daily newspaper. At a recent election they refused to publish any of the
Aust. Democrates press releases. As a result the Aust Dem lost most of
their deposits.
How is this democracy?
>I wish it wasn't the case, but - look at the former Yugoslavia, and
>the bloodbath happening right now in central Africa, not to mention
>Mozambique, Chechenya - do you need any more evidence? If people
>want or need something badly enough they will fight for it. I am not
>saying that socialism automatically means physical violence, but any
>system that has to be imposed forcibly on human society is unstable.
And our system does no violence? How do you define violence. Surely
leaving 10-20% of the population to starve is doing violence to them.
Surely (in the US) allowing people to rot with gangrene and die, because
the 'democratically' elected government won't provide adequate health care
is doing violence? Surely allowing children to die from abuse (in the UK)
because the govt won't provide enough support and social workers to deal
with this domestic problem is doing a violence? Or am I the only one who
is appaulled and considers these things violent?
Yes, I'm emotional on this topic. But I have lived (past) in the
underclass. IE Homeless, and getting heaps of police attention. So I know
first hand that the police are there to protect the interests of the middle
class and the status quo.
On that other subject with which we disagree, June, I'd like to know why
you say some work should be paid more than others. For example, should a
doctor be paid more than a janitor? Is this because you think that
erstwhile doctors would all be janitors? And should people who work in the
caring profession get less than people who are in business and say employ
lots of people. What's your criteria of worth?
Respectfully,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
but you imprison those who employ it privately."
Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
