Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Legal Briefs

View
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

7. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 29, 2017, 14:16 jdreyer
 
@Scheherazade

I'll agree with most of that, but at least in America there's somewhat of a counterbalance to the massive power government wields: tension between the three branches, tension between the states and the feds, and a general agreement among all parts to adhere to the rule of law in many cases. This is far preferable to most other governments in the world that have the trappings, but not the substance of this. The US government still has many, many abuses, but it's far preferable than the vast majority of other countries.
 
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 29, 2017, 11:12 Scheherazade
 
Simon Says wrote on Sep 29, 2017, 00:09:
LittleMe wrote on Sep 28, 2017, 23:39:
Redeye9 I'm not sure what you mean. In a communist system you can not sue your employer. Corporatist system is similar in that regard. jdreyer was correct in his label.

There is no employer in a communist system... It works like socialism, you have decentralized as much as possible decisional powers in the form of small local cooperatives run by the workers who vote when a choice must be made. There is no hierarchy below or above that.

People like Noam Chomsky and some center to left wing libertarian for a free market anti capitalist system call that an "Industrial democracy".

The only difference between communism and socialism in this regard is that in a communist system, there is no currency, money or trade. Wherehas in socialism, money, currency and trade remains.



Socialism, communism, democracy, etc, are generally hollow words.
They have with them associated ideologies, but in practice they are never followed.
What use is a label for a system where in practice it isn't followed?



There are a number of applied socialism cases.
Some are leftist (power to "the people" - but in practice the government), some are rightist (power to the "state" - but in practice the government).

Even the nazis were fashioned as "socialist", but they were about as far right corporate-partnership-fixes-everything as things can go.

Gererally, no nation ever that has fashioned itself as socialist, has actually been socialist.
Same is true for communism and democracy.




The only governing case where what you describe as communism ever took place, was in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war, where there was an anarchist "government", where people ran industry by popular vote, and abolished "money". You would get an "I worked voucher" from work, and you would show it to any establishment you went to, and that establishment would serve you for free. Local popular consent was how all decisions were made.

Unfortunately for them, the communists invaded and took over, because they needed the Catalan industry for their war effort. It's hard to put up a resistance when every military action is by volunteers that vote among themselves about what to do. Reaction times are slow and indecisive.





The classical cases of applied communism are rather nationalist. From the British civil war, to the French commune, it was not what we think of today.

The modern interpretation of communism happened for a good reason. It comes from a situation where people in industrialized nations worked 16 hours a day since childhood, weekends didn't exist, you made enough money as a family to cover rent [for a hole in the wall apartment] and buy some clothes and some food (not as much as you needed), no money for a doctor, you could be fired on a whim, and there were no morality based protections (eg. "Hey girl, fuck me or you're fired"). The owners never had a hand in the factory day to day operations. So naturally, people were tired, upset, and knew that the very existence of their bosses was patently unnecessary for the day to day operation of their industry.

However, that circumstance never played out. The labor movement in industrialized nations managed to get enough concessions from the powerful to de-pressurize the angst. Largely thanks to the success of communism in less industrialized areas, causing power brokers within industrialized nations to realize that they could be replaced if they refused to yield.

Within less industrialized nations, communism was more in tune with the idea of a republic. I.e. A state that is 'the people', not 'the crown', not 'the land', etc. Where the people own the land, rather than the entire country being the private property of a monarch (or some 3rd party entity).




Russian communism was the people taking the country from the monarchy, much like the U.S. revolution.
(The U.S. constitution has more "what people today think of as communist" (but is actually "republican") stuff in it than people like to think. Eg. People are the state, the state owns all the land - the very reason why 'eminent domain' is 'eminent').
The government that the people of Russia established in their revolution was designed to fix the problems that they saw in society : overworked, underpaid, no job security, no one to help you.
So they demanded a system that fixes that. Less hours, livable wages, inability to be fired, a safety blanket for when you're sick or disabled or old. And that's what they got. And it worked - until newer generations took it for granted and abused it.



In the USSR, people said that they were "striving to achieve communism", and that they were _not_ living as communists yet. But that they themselves are people were "communist".

The crux of applied communism in the USSR was that : You could not own your own business (*unless you had friends in high places). You could only be a state employee.

In practice, the USSR did have state run corporations. The low level workers did not run the facilities. Day to day operation was similar to normal corporatism, however the heads of the operation were not the owners of the corporation. In fact, nobody and everybody was the owner. No people running the corporations would be cutting checks to the employees from any personal account. The state would pay everyone.

This was the fundamental flaw. No one within a corporation had anything to lose. It wasn't their money, they were paid regardless, and they couldn't be fired. From management to the hands-on people, no one had any stake in things.
In fact, there were laws against being of working age, able bodied, and not working. You literally had to show up for work, but you didn't have to do anything once you were there (because nobody above you even cared).

As a sole proprietor (think : farmer on his own land), what you produced would be sold to central distribution, and would be sold on to state owned shops, which were ran by state employees.





In China, "communism" is like a joke title. As a person, you were basically on your own. No safety nets.
You basically got the shitty restrictions, but none of the benefits.

One of the reasons why male children are favored under the 1 child policy was because of the lack of a state provided safety net. Males would usually inherit the parent's property and bring their wife. So when you're old, your son and daughter in law would help you at home. If you had a daughter, she would end up moving in with her in laws, and you would be left old and alone.

Their initial motivations, again, were more republican than communist. They didn't want a monarchy. They didn't want a foreign established puppet government. They didn't want a foreign military government. The people wanted their own country with their own government (for better or for worse).





Cuba was simply people one day finding themselves living on an island where the foreigners owned all of their land, all of the businesses, and effectively owned the government. They wanted their stuff back, and wanted a system that would not allow that situation to happen again. Again, more republican than communist.





Democracy as a label has been equally irrelevant. To be a democracy, the people have to be in charge of the laws.
Representative democracy exists for practical reasons. You can't fit the entire population inside the house and senate, so you send messengers that represent the people (senators, etc).

Note that democratic election is irrelevant. How you choose your representatives doesn't matter. They could be elected, they could be randomly selected, they could be born into the role. So long as the representatives relay the people's law demands to the legislature, and the legislature enacts those laws (and ONLY those laws), there is a functioning democracy.

In practice, every democracy on earth has the legislature going off on its own. The only time it ever considers what people want, is during an election cycle. And even then, it's only to pander and forget as soon as the election is over. The people lack the legal/procedural ability to criminally punish their representatives when they create laws that aren't representative. Hence the hollow title.

In the U.S., the only directly democratic counter to non-democratic laws that the people have is jury nullification.







All government on earth basically boils down to this :

As the government, do what you want, to maximize your own power and opportunity.
Temper your actions enough to not upset people so much that they either hurt your progress, or hurt your self.
To your people, always maintain the appearance of a moral actor, regardless of the reality.


One of the things that I love about history, is that you can read about corporate cronyism, people suing each other over dumb shit, insider dealing, etc, going back even before the roman empire.
You an pull up court cases from 700 years ago, recorded on scrolls, where one farmer in England is suing another farmer in England because one put a fence post too close to an inter-field easement. (Did you know there were over 10'000 laws on the books in England back then? About as many as apply to the average person any given place you are standing within the U.S.)
People like to think that things have changed a lot... but they really haven't. Not with the people themselves. We're the same as we've ever been.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 29, 2017, 11:33.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 29, 2017, 09:54 RedEye9
 
RedEye9 wrote on Sep 28, 2017, 22:36:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 28, 2017, 21:55:
Welcome to the corporatocracy.
You don't sound like a commie sometimes but the jury is still out.

Won't be be able to sue a doctor for malpractice before much longer either.
Did i really need to add a /s to the above comment. Thanks Obama!
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andy-borowitz
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 29, 2017, 00:09 Simon Says
 
LittleMe wrote on Sep 28, 2017, 23:39:
Redeye9 I'm not sure what you mean. In a communist system you can not sue your employer. Corporatist system is similar in that regard. jdreyer was correct in his label.

There is no employer in a communist system... It works like socialism, you have decentralized as much as possible decisional powers in the form of small local cooperatives run by the workers who vote when a choice must be made. There is no hierarchy below or above that.

People like Noam Chomsky and some center to left wing libertarian for a free market anti capitalist system call that an "Industrial democracy".

The only difference between communism and socialism in this regard is that in a communist system, there is no currency, money or trade. Wherehas in socialism, money, currency and trade remains.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 28, 2017, 23:39 LittleMe
 
Redeye9 I'm not sure what you mean. In a communist system you can not sue your employer. Corporatist system is similar in that regard. jdreyer was correct in his label.


 
Avatar 23321
 
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 28, 2017, 22:36 RedEye9
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 28, 2017, 21:55:
Welcome to the corporatocracy.
You don't sound like a commie sometimes but the jury is still out.

Won't be be able to sue a doctor for malpractice before much longer either.
 
Avatar 58135
 
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andy-borowitz
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Sep 28, 2017, 21:55 jdreyer
 
Welcome to the corporatocracy.  
Avatar 22024
 
Stay a while, and listen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >




Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.



footer

Blue's News logo