| From: | Doctor Doom <JCH8169@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Doom Waxes Political III . . . now part of a College Credit Course |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Apr 1994 19:11:50 -0500 |
>You know, maybe a few years as a Communist country would cure us of many
>of our 'problems'.
If the "problems" to which you refer involve the racial and ethnic problems
American is experiencing, then I might be inclined to agree, to a point.
True, the Communists have -- check that -- DID experience considerably
less ethnically-centered unrest for the better part of their reign. Their
solution was not one that embraced any increased understanding or
reconciliation between the disparate groups of the former Russian Empire.
Taking a cue from their Imperial antecedents, they adopted a program of
"communization", if you will (borrowing from the Imperial policy of
"russification") where sedition would be quelled by a combined assault of
ideological education/indoctrination and rigorous suppression of any unrest
encountered. Their method involved martial law, political commissars, and a
secret police.
Another point which should be raised is that this motus operandi
succeeded in only putting a lid on ethnic tensions. When cracks developed in
the Soviet facade, this unrest bubbled to the surface with a vengeance. Take
the case of the the Baltic countries, the formerly-soviet Arab republics, and
not to be forgetting Yugoslavia.
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Von Fearless Leader:
>Withouth butting heads about political ideaologies, the problem is that
>in the U.S., hte power is held by those with money (the drawback of a
>capitalistic society). Those with money (and thus power) are NOT going to
>give it up without a fight. Witness the problems with getting socialized
>medicine ("Hey, I don't want to pay for preventive care!")
The cause, I feel, is not the capitalistic society; I would say that
government, by merit of the fact that necessity dictates it be a group smaller
than the populace, has a tendency towards the production of elites ( except in
cases of true direct democracy, impractical on anything higher than the town
level -- unless you favor Herr Perot's "electronic town hall" ). The Roman
Republic had its own senators, leaders of powerful and influential families,
the Roman Empire no less so. With the fall of central authority in the
Carolingian Empire (in the hands Charlemagne's bickering grandsons) the new
elite, rather than that of the Imperial Court, was local potentates, e.g.
bishops, margraves, barons, and landed knights. Hence we have the European
medieval model . . . in some ways, rather similar to the Japanese experience
with its samurai and daimyos.
America, decidedly avoiding noble trappings, established an elected
representative government. In practice, however, only those individuals
wealthy enough to afford being removed from their property for extended
periods of time could occupy public office. This trend continued, and with
the advent of large economic forces such as industrialized big business,
influence became an issue of money. Consequence: The American plutocracy.
ObTrivia: Which nation was the first to establish universal male suffrage?
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Von Herrn Falk:
> Actually, this was a pet theory of mine for a while -- here in the
>US, most people correlate Communism with the former USSR (the evil reds!)
>In theory, Communism (as described by Karl Marx) looks like a great
>system. Unfortunately, it doesn't (or, at least, isn't likely to) work
>with large groups of people -- like anything bigger than a mid-sized town.
I shall freely grant that certain elements in the communistic program are quite
endearing. The idea that all will join in pursuit of an ideal society free
from social division, where all needs shall be met, and all shall have a place
is a hard one to decry on the face of it. Communism suffers most grievously
from the phenomena of the gulf between theory and practice. It is yet another
paper concept which proves nigh unto unworkable in the realization.
In that regard, I suppose it shares some traits with direct democracy.
Ironic, eh?
> Personally, I prefer Internet-style anarchy, where if you fuck up
>everybody tells you so, and if you don't then you'll get along great.
I shall not go into what I prefer . . . I don't want all the other list
members -- those who have made it this far, anyway -- to lose their lunches all
over their terminals.
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Von the holy Entombed
>As an example, look at the Hillary Health Care farce. If the plan is so
>good, why are she and her husband excluded from having to take part
>(excludes Congress, too, I believe... and who's voting on it?)??
>Me, I like being able to choose my doctor...
What truly concerns me regarding the proposed health care plan is that it
proposes the bestowing upon government more responsibility at a time where
the political atmosphere is fraught with numerous critiques being lodged
against the government in regards to charges of mismanagement, incompetence,
inefficiency, and wastefulness. The endeavors which the government performs
well appear so few and far between, why should we wish to add to the manifest
of its responsibilities?
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Again touching upon the issue of America's divisive problems, I
previously made the case that the communist model was an unsatisfactory
solution. I feel this is partially due to 1) I find the practicality
of the economic elements of communism sorely lacking, and 2) their
methods. One certainly doesn't need a communistic government to achieve
order, as it can be achieved by less, uhhh . . . dynamic and rigorous
means, I feel. However, let us examine political alignment using a
different model from the traditional "for/against change":
Perhaps the only truly interesting material to which I was exposed in Political
Science 206 -- with the exception that with which I was already familiar -- was
what I consider to be the most valid pyridine for the differentiation betwixt
the various political proclivities of people:
Government is capable, in the broadest terms, of providing (or enforcing) three
basic services to its citizens: Order, Freedom, and Equality. It is upon
these three axes that a person's political priorities are plotted. It should
be noted that merely because a specific group places a certain service last
does not indicate that they OPPOSE it, only that they consider other issues of
greater import. Also, note that these are general trends in behavior as
opposed to rigid guidelines.
Conservatives prioritize it in this fashion: Order, Freedom, Equality. That
is to say, that generally speaking, will value the guaranteeing individual
freedom over the enforcement of Equality. However, they are typically willing
to sacrifice a measure of freedom in the name of public Order. This will
usually have the effect of revering old, traditional methods as they are
typically good stabilizers and hence tend to promote order.
Liberals prefer this method: Equality, Freedom, Order. Equality is the
paramount concern, and a Liberal will trade Freedom or Order to ensure that
all receive it. Freedom follows this, and must be made as unfettered as
possible, even if Order is threatened.
Libertarians emphasize Freedom the most, at equal expense of Order and
Equality. A Libertarian (not necessarily to be confused with the Political
Party) would agree with Liberals in favoring abortion rights, as banning
abortion would restrict Freedom. They would, however, also agree with the
Conservative opposition to Affirmative Action, as this Equality enforcement
prevents an employer's Freedom to chose employees as he sees fit.
Populists hold Equality as the highest concern, discounting Order and Freedom.
Phrases such as "Every Man A King" and "Share Our Wealth" (compliments
of Huey
P. Long of Louisiana) are typical of this particular stance. Wealth
re-distribution, easy credit, heavy social spending, and programs geared
towards universal employment are goals of the Populist.
Authoritarians are the only group not actually mentioned in the text. Order
is a must, and the government must possess any and all means necessary to
ensure it. The Authoritarian feels the government should be capable of
"making its will felt" throughout the country; if this means stepping on a
few people's toes, so be it. Freedom and Equality are but secondary, although
not discarded, concerns.
[ The Communists, I feel, took this too far in their TOTAL disregard for
freedom. ]
Now, what precedes is a far more elegant classification system than the trite
"for or against change" model, which I find misleading: Both ends of the
Conservative/Liberal continuum can be proponents or opponents of change...and
what is lost on the "Change" model is that the WHAT and the HOW are the truly
salient issues.
Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia
