Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Political Talk Political Talk Forum - Discuss and debate politics


Thanks Tree6Thanks
  • 1 Post By ubertubered
  • 2 Post By roastpork
  • 1 Post By ubertubered
  • 1 Post By Franklin
  • 1 Post By roastpork
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 8th, 2016, 10:55 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
ubertubered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 306
Is corruption something we just have to deal with?

We live in a world where the IMF and the World Bank suck hundreds of millions out of some of the poorest nations in the globe annually and in the US corporations receive more in subsidies than the working class does in public welfare. With the emergence of the Panama Papers I think it's definitely a question worth asking. Could things really be better if we just liberalized the world's economies more? I don't think so, but I also believe this is besides the point. When a state uses it's power to pander to corporations this is viewed as 'corporatism' or 'crony capitalism' separating it from regular capitalism or even implying it isn't capitalism at all. People may blame the world's problems on too many regulations, a lack of regulations, the wrong government or whatever but they never blame the system. Even if said system is the most successful and far-reaching method of production in history. After all, we all know there is no alternative to private enterprise.

But absolving said system of any responsibility like this is more than a little dishonest. It reminds me of left-leaning people who claim 20th century Communist Party dictatorships did not represent a true form of socialism. But how did our capitalist globe become so corrupt? I think to answer this it's worth looking at how our political systems developed. For most of human history democracy was demonized as the worst form of government. It was, after all, the greatest threat to our world's master classes before the emergence of communism. But it was always widely known that elections had nothing to do with democracy. In the 19th century though the definition of democracy changed, it now meant citizens could elect members into a parliament. The fact that this coincided with the replacement of manorialist property rights with capitalist ones I'm sure is pure coincidence.

This form of government is now known as liberal democracy. If humans were a better species we wouldn't be able to hear such a phrase without cracking up a bit. Isn't this really the ultimate embodiment of the power of propertied interests? The few are always most interested in the needs of the few, and I can think of no better way for them to represents themselves than a modern parliament. We've been falsely led to believe that what protects us from the kind of Stalinist tyranny seen in the USSR is our 'democracy' and not instead our high living standards. As if the American state couldn't or wouldn't have been able to commit the same actions seen in 1930's socialist Russia merely because of a few elections. This is implied in spite of all the torture-states created in the name of US imperialism in Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam etc. etc.

In the 20th century every government that used a party-state bureaucracy or parliamentary/presidential elections has become hopelessly corrupt quite literally within a few short years. I have become utterly convinced that these forms of government are completely and 100% unworkable and cannot be reformed in any meaningful sense. These systems were both incredibly popular on both sides of the Cold War and they both failed miserably, corruption was at a fairly equal level. With that in mind it's worth sharing an interesting argument for absolute monarchy I've heard before. That being that a king does not make himself a king, which reminds me of something.

Quote:
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
As I said, the tyranny inherent to elections used to be quite universally acknowledged. It is well-known that the slaver class that formed these United States loathed democracy as a threat to their economic influence and total control over the political system which lasted until their destruction in the later half of the century. Indeed, they never even bothered claim the US was a democracy. They knew it's actual definition quite well, so they preferred the term 'republic'. They feared their wealth from their property would simply be voted away. With this in mind is socialism, that being the common ownership of the necessities of production, not a natural extension of democracy? Is the popular control over productive property not a necessity for the emancipation of the human race over the tyranny of global capital and selfish bureaucracies?

Quote:
the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy
Marx and Engels seemed to agree in following the traditional definition of democracy. To them it was practically synonymous with their form of socialism. I'm not a big fetishist of democracy, I will be the first to tell you that people don't vote rationally. Partly because they're smart enough to know their individual vote is worthless, and partly because they're pitifully uneducated. But where is the alternative? I am wholly convinced there is none. If we want to live in a society that serves the many, we must create a society that is controlled by the many.
Thanks from Pilgrim
ubertubered is offline  
Old April 8th, 2016, 12:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,366
The problem with that is that "The Many" for the most part are not all that intelligent, honest, or willing to work for what they need.
Thanks from Franklin and coke
roastpork is offline  
Old April 8th, 2016, 02:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
ubertubered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by roastpork View Post
The problem with that is that "The Many" for the most part are not all that intelligent, honest


If you know of an intelligent, honest, and incorruptible clique of rulers then I'll drop the idea of democracy in a heartbeat and advocate for their dictatorship. Somehow I doubt they exist though.

I am convinced that anyone still advocating for elections at this point simply underestimates the astounding ease with which such a government will degenerate. When I said a few years in my OP I wasn't kidding. If you put a few in charge of a country they will always be concerned chiefly with themselves, term limits don't change that and any right to recall will be scarcely used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roastpork View Post
or willing to work for what they need.
Oh boy, it's the Reagan welfare queen myth again. That's nice. In reality though you should be more concerned with the greed, envy, and laziness of the propertied instead of the propertyless. This post is nothing more than an apology for plutocracy.
Thanks from coke

Last edited by ubertubered; April 8th, 2016 at 07:16 PM.
ubertubered is offline  
Old April 8th, 2016, 06:31 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Franklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertubered View Post
If we want to live in a society that serves the many, we must create a society that is controlled by the many.
You mean like this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQb7Y5QVO8
Thanks from coke
Franklin is offline  
Old April 9th, 2016, 09:09 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
ubertubered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franklin View Post
Not really but what you're obviously referring to is the Venezualan government's questioning the logic of capital by setting up a heavily state-capitalist economy with price controls. Not really interested in a purely economic debate here though, that wasn't the point.
ubertubered is offline  
Old April 12th, 2016, 11:52 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertubered View Post
If you know of an intelligent, honest, and incorruptible clique of rulers then I'll drop the idea of democracy in a heartbeat and advocate for their dictatorship. Somehow I doubt they exist though.

I am convinced that any one still advocating for elections at this point simply underestimates the astounding ease with which such a government will degenerate. When I said a few years in my OP I wasn't kidding. If you put a few in charge of a country they will always be concerned chiefly with themselves, term limits don't change that and any right to recall will be scarcely used.



Oh boy, it's the Reagan welfare queen myth again. That's nice. In reality though you should be more concerned with the greed, envy, and laziness of the propertied instead of the propertyless. This post is nothing more than an apology for plutocracy.
A Reagan myth eh. Here you go.https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ahrwpluit...0Girl.wmv?dl=0
Thanks from coke
roastpork is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk

Tags
corruption, deal



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More IRS Corruption excalibur Current Events 7 January 20th, 2016 11:47 AM
not a smidgen of corruption? webguy4 Current Events 39 April 29th, 2014 03:46 PM
Isn't This Corruption? RNG Americas 0 July 11th, 2013 04:46 PM
Now THIS is what I call corruption... tadpole256 Politicians 4 July 23rd, 2010 07:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.