|
On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
|
On June 06 2009 10:52 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
Imagine how much more footage there would be of this if it had happened today. Cell phones and all that
you underestimate the power of the umbrella
|
On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
|
On June 06 2009 14:50 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +
- China cannot work as a democracy, the population is far too segemented and popularized from the north to the south and west to be able to mutally agree on an elected leader. Now this may be a hard concept to understand for anyone who has no travelled around to the many different regions of China where "foreigner" pretty much means you weren't born in the local village.
Who said it can't work as a democracy? Is it because people are different? Isnt the whole point of democracy bringing different people together? The EU is 20+ countries working together in a democracy. The only reason I see why China wouldnt work as a democracy right now is because of lack of respect for it's own people. Show nested quote +
- China will never be a democracy and does not want to be a democracy PERIOD. People like to say that the population has been brain washed and surpressed behind an iron curtain or something or that is at least how the western media like to portray it.
The people benefiting from the current rule would never want it to be a democracy. The people who arn't in the majority or being neglected rights for other reasons want democracy, if they know of it as an alternative. I wouldn't have botherd writing in this thread if it wasnt for my chinese neighbours. Wonderful people in every aspect but they lack any sort of ciritical thinking when it comes to politics. Even though I love China, I'd love for the Chinese people to be educated about democracy in a proper way and get several sources of information to learn critical thinking.
You imply that China is simply uneducated in the field of democracy, and if they simply understand it, they would want it. That is the utmost ignorance in culture, demographics, and conditions in the country.
First of all, there is and has been a cultural difference between the West and East, especially China. Chinese society is bound by responsibility and the reliability of morals, while something like "Western democracy" is bound by promotion of self-interest and law. The important idea is that not only does this culture contrast with democracy, but also communism (why cultural revolution happened).
Demographics. You want to extend right of the vote to 1.6 billion people. Give something practical or stfu.
Conditions. Democracy cannot be supported by a country that needs infrastructural improvement such as housing conditions, railroads, and industrial development in many areas. A lot of African countries are democracies, and they work great right? Perhaps in the future democratic POLICIES and laxer rule may happen when the wealth that is held by the top trickles down, but for the next 40-50 years there is no/limited extension of democracy in China.
People are not uneducated about democracy; they only seem non-chalant about it simply because most normal people don't have a need to write anti-government writing or talk shit about a government official. If they are going to talk shit, it would be in private and over dinner. So pragmatically, the limit of their daily freedom does not differ from that in the United States. Except for the few exiles, Chinese people do not immigrate to other countries because they want to speak their mind, but rather because there are better economic opportunities abroad.
Don't assume that because you enjoy political discussions and pretending that you have a know-how and influence in a massive government that another culture develop on literature radically different from that you're used to think the same way.
|
On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy. I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
thats a retarded argument
|
I'm actually enjoying this discussion at the moment since there's a lot of interesting opinions. I just hope people keep things civil and NOT spill personal bias and propaganda from /both/ sides. I honestly do NOT think democracy and capitalism perpetuate each other nor think they're both the best system for all by any means. The idea that collectivism perpetuates corruption while democracies do not is just baffling. Especially since one of the primary supports of socialism/Marxism is that nations who tends towards it are often those who are sick of government corruption in the first place. (Study Russian/Chinese history for blatant examples of these, ie Nicholas II, Chang Kai shek, etc)
|
On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy. I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
1) Weak Argument on my end here, but we have more then one party and there are a lot of independent members on state legislators just not on the federal level.
2) Each Party goes through a primary vote which weeds through tons and tons of potential congressmen/president so just because it is 2 party in label, the amount of people we get to choose from is at least a big pile of idiocy.
3) Our Courts don't recognize themselves committed to a party - a judge might have conservative or progressive values but they have no bound to a party ruling.
4) We've had more parties in the past - they die off and the have to re-align themselves with the majority, in fact we're witnessing it right now.
Edit: It is hard to take anyone seriously in a real political debate when they refer to china as "classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general" ie Communism - they haven't been Communist since the Bill Clinton era
|
On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy. I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging.
|
On June 06 2009 17:02 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote:On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy. I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China. No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors. The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging.
they have to take the middle ground - Americans are so equally polarized on both ends, to not cater to the majority of either side would be undemocratic. The other side of the coin in mob rule which is just as bad.
|
On June 06 2009 16:20 Creationism wrote:
You imply that China is simply uneducated in the field of democracy, and if they simply understand it, they would want it. That is the utmost ignorance in culture, demographics, and conditions in the country.
First of all, there is and has been a cultural difference between the West and East, especially China. Chinese society is bound by responsibility and the reliability of morals,
The actions of the Chinese Communist govt. since it came into power are some of the most immoral of all time.
So much for reliability of morals.
|
On June 06 2009 17:06 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 17:02 HeadBangaa wrote:On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote:On June 06 2009 15:10 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 14:10 Macavenger wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote:
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more. A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy. I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China. No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors. The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging. they have to take the middle ground - Americans are so equally polarized on both ends, to not cater to the majority of either side would be undemocratic. The other side of the coin in mob rule which is just as bad.
Here is an essay that explains it pretty well.
Here in Georgia, the gubernatorial race is about to get moving towards the election of 2010. The reason I bring this up is that Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal has just announced his intention to run for Governor. He makes a good example for this essay.
Mr. Deal was a lifelong Democrat...that is, until 1995. He had been elected to the Congress as a Democrat in 1992. Then, when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1994, Deal had some kind of epiphany. He switched parties and became a Republican. I cannot say whether his switch was for political expediency or whether it was truly philosophical. However, a look at his voting record would show that political expediency seems to be the leading indicator of his motives.
Actions speak louder than words.
Now, he will run for Governor as a Republican in a heavily Republican state.
Politics is defined by negotiation and compromise. As an insurance adjuster, I have been a professional negotiator for many years. The negotiations that I undertook were based upon the premise accepted by both parties that there was coverage under the terms and conditions of the policy. We were simply negotiating the settlement.
But, when it came to matters of coverage, there was no compromise. Either coverage existed or it didn't. If there was a dispute on coverage between the policyholder and insurer, it had to be settled in a court of law.
American politics is comprised of a political party system. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution are all names for political parties in America. The two biggest parties, the Republican and Democrat, ignore the others for the most part, as the other parties have little power.
Republicans and Democrats are negotiators and compromisers, just like in insurance claims. They have already accepted the reality of politics, which is that government will grow and tax revenues will be spent. Sessions of Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, are simply the negotiations and compromises about where the money goes.
Rarely does the "coverage issue" arise for today's politician. What I mean is that politicians seldom if ever take a position that government should not grow, that laws should not be passed, and that tax revenues should not be spent. The debate in Congress and state legislatures is customarily only WHERE the money is spent.
In the USA, there are only two real philosophical positions that can be taken. The first is the position that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that all Federal Government action must be controlled by it. Lawmakers guided and governed by loyalty to the US Constitution would concentrate on Constitutional issues. In the parlance of insurance, they might say "Is this legislation covered...by the Constitution?" If authorization could not be found, the action would die before enactment.
These lawmakers would NEVER negotiate or compromise the Constitution. This first philosophical position guarantees maximum freedom for US citizens.
The second position is every other belief system that runs contrary to the first.
The US Constitution was enacted as the supreme law of the land. ALL actions of the three branches of US Federal Government should be bound by the strictures in the Constitution. But reality is that almost no one in the three branches of US Government recognize the authority of the Constitution anymore.
Curiously, every elected official must swear an oath of office in which he or she vows to support, protect and defend the Constitution. For most politicians, the oath is simply a formality with no force of law.
But actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.
This second position, taken to its natural conclusion, guarantees the greatest governmental burden and least freedom for US citizens.
Therefore, I contend that the two-party-dominant political system in America is in essence only one party...with two main heads. Both heads of the snake agree in principle on the foundation of negotiation and compromise. They mostly reject the constraints of the Constitution upon their actions.
The ONLY way to save this nation is to return to the Constitution at the state level and force the Federal Government to obey the law.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Americas-Two-Party-Political-System---A-Two-Headed-Snake&id=2298248
I'm simply saying, the fundamental issue of "coverage" (not right vs left), as this author puts it, is not discussed anymore in politics; it is taken for granted. This will be a major premise of the next American revolution.
|
It's a political landmine. That's why the CCP don't want to talk about it.
Think watergate, korean ex-president sucide and any other scandals but x1000.
The TS wasn't just a demonstration for progress, it was also an arena for some political score-settling.
I do feel for the students tho, they, however naive, died for the welfare of the nation. They, just like the GMT soldiers in the 8 years war, will never be properly acknowledged.
|
On June 06 2009 17:28 HeadBangaa wrote:
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
All democracies have a "1 party system that comes in multiple flavors", more or less.
The crucial difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state is the complete embrace between politics, media and the military/police aligned along the axis of arbitrary exercise of power.
No amount of rhetoric changes that.
|
On June 06 2009 17:35 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 17:28 HeadBangaa wrote:
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
All democracies have a "1 party system that comes in multiple flavors", more or less. The crucial difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state is the complete embrace between politics, media and the military/police aligned along the axis of arbitrary exercise of power. No amount of rhetoric changes that.
I was alluding to the mutual rejection of constitutionally-defined scope ("coverage") by the 2 major parties, as outlined in my second post.
I suppose I was being too cryptic, saying such a thing with no context. It was opportunistic and non-sequitur on my part. Totally off-topic, yes, but an important clarification.
In response to you, the ideal 1 party system would be case#1 of my second post, that which respects constitutional government. Case#2 leads to the totalitarian state as you have described. It is a matter of perspective when enumerating. In America, case#1 is not championed by either major party. And thus both parties walk hand-in-hand towards totalitarianism, embracing case#2. A 1-party implementation, still, propped up with the complicity of mass media.
|
You can hardly say people are educated about democracy and just don't want it when you restrict their sources of information heavily. To say they are not ready for free information or the truth about what happened on the Tiananmen square is one of the most degrading opinions I can imagine.
To think some of you defend shooting on civilians as the lesser evil makes me want to puke.
|
On June 06 2009 17:58 silynxer wrote:
You can hardly say people are educated about democracy and just don't want it when you restrict their sources of information heavily. To say they are not ready for free information or the truth about what happened on the Tiananmen square is one of the most degrading opinions I can imagine.
To think some of you defend shooting on civilians as the lesser evil makes me want to puke.
From a utilitarian perspective, if cooperation via communism is the only way to keep 1.3 billion fed and clothed, it is a no-brainer to shoot-down the 2,600 people standing in the way.
The average US citizen uses this same philosophy to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed MANY more people.
Food for thought.
|
Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case.
However, I still fail to see why democracy shouldn't be able to work in China: India and the European union are diverse places as well, and here democracy seems to be working, albeit with a few (minor/major?) flaws. 1.6 bio. is a lot of people, granted, but if you do it the Indian way (7 election rounds in different parts of the country) wouldn't that work?
|
TBH, I'd rather be forced to do what the majority of the people want me to do than be forced to be a puppet of 0,000001% of the population that's widely known to be corrupt >_>
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 06 2009 20:29 Hans-Titan wrote:
Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case.
What's your definition of scholarly? o.o
|
On June 06 2009 21:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 20:29 Hans-Titan wrote:
Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case. What's your definition of scholarly? o.o
Scholarly superiors just sounded good to me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
