[Zerkezhi]

Originally Posted by zergonipal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Am British, actually. How does Germany manage to support so many parties? In our system a party that doesn't have a majority can't get anything done - coalitions, though we have one at the moment, are very rare. People going into politics have a choice - join a main party and perhaps one day have a shot at power, or join a little party and resign yourself to perpetual heckling. And no one votes for the little parties, even if they'd like to, because they don't want to 'waste' a vote that could be used tactically to keep out whichever main party they dislike most. That in turn is a result of the FPTP voting system. Political logic results in a concentration of power in two parties and a functionally two-party state. Is your government usually/always a coalition one? Doesn't that make campaigning awkward? "We promise to lower taxes and build thirty-eight new hospitals...unless we end up in coalition with the Green party, in which case we'll probably have to raise taxes and build some wind farms. Vote for us!"

Oh my god...the German political system. Probably one of the most complicated things in the world. For one we start by 'not' giving the winner of a local election the votes of those against him. (from what I heard from our politics-teacher your system works like that? Party1 has 40% of the votes, Party2 has 60...then it's later on considered as if they had a 100%? I'm not too familiar with the British system anymore
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Well to answer your question: Yes, we pratically always have some coalition of some sorts. (most popular example: CDU/CSU (acutally 2 parties that count as 1)+FDP (the real second party))
And it works out quite fine actually. We have citiziens vote on a local layer. (we are a federal state as you probably know)
Means that a state of Germany might be mainly SPD-controlled whereas its neighbour is controlled by the CDU, etc. (you may look it up if you want to know more about that minor aspect)
We also vote who gets into the Bundestag, which consists of 598 seats, sometimes more. (so called overhang seats, which can arise in elections when a party is entitled to fewer seats as a result of party votes than it has won constituencies.) In the last election we had 24, making it a total of 622 seats. These seats are distributed between the parties according to the votes for the different parties.
A citizien has a first and a second vote; in one he directly votes for a candidate from a party who'll enter the Bundestag regardless of the second vote. These candidates are locally elected and differ from place to place.
The second vote votes for a party, which is the more important one. The more a party gets the more seats they get. Thus the Bundestag is assembled, often from 5 different parties. (the usual ones are CDU/CSU, SPD [the 2 strong ones], Grünen, Linken, FDP [the minor ones who usually end up in a coalition with the big fishes]) The coalition which often works out something like x1=40% + x2=11% (not actual results), giving them the majority to rule. (they usually planned these coalitions in advance and agreed on the main points they wish to pursue)
The other parties form the opposition, which also has political power and can ruin some of the coalitions' plans. (also: the member of any party do not necessarily 'have to' vote in accordance to the rest of their party, allowing the opposition to gain the majority of votes sometimes) If one party of the coalition wants to do something but the other party does not, then they have to rely on the votes of the other parties' members to vote for their cause. This (tries to) ensures a theoretically maximum consensus between what the people want and what they get. (though it seldom works like that, it's politics after all)
The Bundestag then elects a Bundeskanzler (technically the "Big Boss"), usually from the party who has the most votes. (like Angela Merkel from the CDU) Though this is not a technical requirement as the people in the Bundestag can elect whoever they want regardless of allegiance (secret ballot), though almost noone votes against his party.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If the coalition is dissolved before the term of the Bundeskanzler ends, (s)he'll usually get trouble trying to govern the administration. (in which case he can cast a vote of confidence which practically reinstates his powerlevel, like Gerhard Schröder did)
The Bundesversammlung (which is created entirely for the purpose of electing a Bundespräsident; it consists of the Bundestag and an equal number of state delegates selected by the state parliaments) elects a Bundespräsident (who is quite similar to your Queen :-) mainly representative, but has some power over legislation (approving laws) and the Bundeskanzler).
So you could say we vote for the Bundestag and they do the rest.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


But this is a VERY rough sketch of the political system. (not to mention having completely omitted the powers and limitations of the several bodies of government, etc.) I could go on for at least 4++ posts about the election of the Bundestag alone)
Suffice it to say that it's so complicated that it's fair enough for even minorities to have a vote or two.

So: No! It doesn't make campaigning all that awkward. We're used to it anyway.

	Originally Posted by zergonipal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Europe in the 90's and 00's was quite social democrat/liberal, if I remember correctly, but things do seem to be drifting more to the right now.

Do they? I always hear people complaining about how "left" the EU is supposed to be (and the EU is, well, a critical factor in shaping European politics)...a future autocratic communist state or some stuff like that. (but then again, it's usually just the usual trolling with some conspiracy theorists in the mix)
On a different, but not unrelated topic: What is your stance to the EU? I've been given to understand that many British are against, or at the very least are suspicious of it? (despite all the freedoms the other states allow Great Britain in comparison)

[Munglik]

Isn't a multy party system standard in Europe?
Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany,... All have this.

A two party system is retarted IMO. The more political party's the more free choise.

[thod]

	A two party system is retarted IMO. The more political party's the more free choise.

The counter argument is that with a multiple party system, no group is able to gain enough power to initiate change. Thus the state remains locked in stasis by the various vested interests represented by the various parties. An outright winner enables necessary changes since it can ignore the shouts of the vested interests.

Thus you do not get more choice since you will always have the status quo.

[Munglik]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The counter argument is that with a multiple party system, no group is able to gain enough power to initiate change. Thus the state remains locked in stasis by the various vested interests represented by the various parties. An outright winner enables necessary changes since it can ignore the shouts of the vested interests. Thus you do not get more choice since you will always have the status quo.

I just find it stupid that it can result in: During party A the economy is bad so during the next election people vote for party B. Party B than reverses the decisions of party A and vica versa.
Fresh ideas are hard to implement in a 2 party system I believe.

[thod]

Party A is wedded to it's ideas and is unwilling to try things that fall outside it's ideology. These things are not sacred to Party B who changes them. When Party A returns to power, it can see that what Party B did, worked. It then does the same to the sacred cows of Party B.

What matters is not style or system of governance, it is changes of governance. Evolution works by changes and it finds solutions that central planning does not. Fresh ideas are never tried at all in a multi-party system because agreement on what changes to make can never be reached. Instead you get consensus.

[Munglik]

Both ways are flawed, I'm just more used to multi party systems.
I think it depends on the country which one is best.
I would never see a two party system work in Belgium for example.

[zergonipal]

Originally Posted by Zerkezhi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh my god...the German political system. Probably one of the most complicated things in the world. For one we start by 'not' giving the winner of a local election the votes of those against him. (from what I heard from our politics-teacher your system works like that? Party1 has 40% of the votes, Party2 has 60...then it's later on considered as if they had a 100%? I'm not too familiar with the British system anymore To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

Originally Posted by Zerkezhi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do they? I always hear people complaining about how "left" the EU is supposed to be (and the EU is, well, a critical factor in shaping European politics)...a future autocratic communist state or some stuff like that. (but then again, it's usually just the usual trolling with some conspiracy theorists in the mix) On a different, but not unrelated topic: What is your stance to the EU? I've been given to understand that many British are against, or at the very least are suspicious of it? (despite all the freedoms the other states allow Great Britain in comparison)

...you're right, that's insanely complicated XD but it sounds like a great system - fair and proportional. I like how you've managed to both have PR and a constituency link, and the 'electing leader by secret ballot' thing. It looks like a system that was designed to be as democratic as reasonably possible, not to keep certain parties in power forever. *covets*

Ours is simpler, I suppose. Britain is divided up into 650 geographical constituencies. Anyone can contest a seat, so long as they register as a party and put down £500 deposit, but in practise most go to either Labour or the Conservatives. You vote for one candidate, and the candidate who gets the most votes, wins. Quite simple, but also quite flawed. You only need more votes than anyone else, you don't need, for example, 50%+ of the vote, meaning you can be an MP even if a majority of your constituents did not vote for you. Large parties are disproportionately over-represented; small parties are disproportionately under-represented. In the last election, for example, UKIP polled about 10% of the vote nationwide, but they didn't come out top in any constituencies, so there are no UKIP MPs. (and some like this, since it v effectively keeps fringe parties away from power)

Anyway, the seats are totalled and the party with the most number of seats is invited to form a government, with the leader of that party as the Prime Minister. Usually this will be a majority - 326+ MPs - meaning the government can pretty much do what it wants in terms of passing legislation. The second-largest party forms the Opposition. Their job is to criticise the government. Smaller parties sit with the opposition, but really, no one - on either side - listens to them.

(It's a bit more complicated than that; there are the devolved administrations, and local councils, but it serves as a rough guide)

Oh, and re the EU, I'm pro. Our tabloids love to criticise it as a source of unnecessary bureaucracy, but the economic benefit it's brought us has been immense (though we're feeling the pain of it now - your economic woes are very much our economic woes) and whatever deal we negotiated was extremely favourable to us - we got all the trade benefits but kept control of our own currency and I don't think we've had to contribute financially as much as the rest of you.

People who dislike the EU are often still living in a fantasyworld where we're still the respected, feared Imperial power of times past and were able to pretty much do what we wanted. Being associated with the EU means listening to others and sometimes acting in their interests, not our own, but some people just don't see any reason why we should do this. They are blind to political reality.

[Rexus]

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Both ways are flawed, I'm just more used to multi party systems. I think it depends on the country which one is best.

OK. What do you think works best in postcommunist state with very live and vivid (and never
really resolved) memory of both ultra-right and ultra-left violence in the past?

So much of this old, stale bad blood poisons everyday politics, that it sickens me.
And frankly, I really don`t know what to make of multi party system here. Because it works like two party system when elections are near. And one party system in-between elections.

So people like me want nothing of it. But a bunch of analphabetic, uneducated and drunk idiots will be bought with cheap demagogy and free beer/wine.

That`s democracy on Balkans for you.

[Zerkezhi]

	Originally Posted by zergonipal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...you're right, that's insanely complicated XD but it sounds like a great system - fair and proportional. I like how you've managed to both have PR and a constituency link, and the 'electing leader by secret ballot' thing. It looks like a system that was designed to be as democratic as reasonably possible, not to keep certain parties in power forever. *covets* [...]

Aah, politics, never simple. Sometimes I believe they create systems so complex that nobody knows what's right and what's wrong on purpose.
Tried my best to explain it anyway.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your system sounds interesting, too. (and I guess it works considering how long it's been used) But I prefer ours, no offense.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(though I suppose most prefer the system they grew up in) Nice to see, you're pro-EU. It's fascinating how people like to gossip and generalize things. If you ask most Germans (and people of other nationalities) it seems like the British are a bunch of stand-offish buggers, who only complain and want to opt out of everything but don't leave. (no offense, that's just the stereotype [concerning the EU])
Yet the Germans complain about the EU as well, saying that we are the ones who always have to pay the most, or pay for other countries. (which is actually largely true) But the gains we have far outweigh the losses we make. I believe I read a figure that we take in at least 3x as much money as we loose. (as a rule of thumb) And that's a LOT of cash.

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now now.... You can't expect Americans like Ray to understand the difference between Communism and the SUGGESTION of something as being Socialist.... Their friends who died in Vietnam had to have died for something rite?

Those who dismiss older Americans as paranoid or out of the loop would do well to revisit these views. The older folk have seen and lived a time you have never seen and have never lived in. They remember a time before Daniel Patrick Moynahan's destructive research under the name, "The Negro Family and a Case for National Action" which effectively laid the groundwork for making it impossible for an average family in America to support itself on one income. This unfortunate research was instrumental in convincing Lyndon Johnson to launch his ill-fated "War on Poverty" and subsequently "The Great Society" which changed America forever and set it on a road that in all likelihood will make it a third world country.

Moynahan, like a lot of pompous intellectuals, saw things as not happening fast enough without the iron hand of government intervention. He observed that blacks were living a chosen lifestyle that was not bringing them to true equality with the rest of society. The poorly thought out policies of the war on poverty and the great society gave rise to the "Aid to Famlies With Dependent Children" AFDC, which set the stage for single parenthood, the metastisization of the behavioral underclass to white culture and the massive growth of government that redistributed incomes precluding the possibility of intact families surviving on a single income.

Although Moynahan realized the error of his thinking and later freely admitted it, the genie was out of the bottle and the destruction of American culture was rampant, continuing to this day. As is the case with many scholastically decorated intellectuals, Moynahan was never held accountable for his incompetence and was later lavished with promotions and ambassadorships.

Although Obama's pedestrian intellect does not put him in the same league as Moynahan, his seed has sprouted from the same poisoned soil. His roots are in the statist notion that the people must be manipulated from the top down because the masses lack the sufficient qualities to make their way and control their individual destinies in a free society. Obama is neither intellectual nor communist, he is just a cog in the machinery with a pretty face that makes him the man of the hour. He's not a threat to reintroduce a new world order, he's just a flash in the pan that will quickly be relegated to a footnote in history.

The world is becoming a much smaller place due to the advent of satellite technology and the World Wide Web. What began as a creeping phenomenon is becoming a tidal wave that is quickly spreading to encompass every corner of the planet and it carries with it the debris of modern society to be deposited where it never existed before. The issues being bandied about on this forum by international parties with no more effort than the click of a mouse would have been science fiction a mere twenty years ago.

In order for communism to come back from the dead or maybe from the throes of death, it would have to deal with the unrestrained flow of information that is as ubiquitous as oxygen in the atmosphere. If Reagan hadn't taken down the commies with the almighty dollar it surely would have been vanquished by the internet which is Radio Free Europe on steroids. If communism were to throw its hat back into the ring it would have to begin by turning the web dark. If this happens you can start to worry.

[zergonipal]

Originally Posted by Zerkezhi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Aah, politics, never simple. Sometimes I believe they create systems so complex that nobody knows what's right and what's wrong on purpose. Tried my best to explain it anyway. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Your system sounds interesting, too. (and I guess it works considering how long it's been used) But I prefer ours, no offense. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well. 'Works' is debatable. It's very good at concentrating power in the hands of the few. But it does the job, I guess.

	Originally Posted by Zerkezhi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nice to see, you're pro-EU. It's fascinating how people like to gossip and generalize things. If you ask most Germans (and people of other nationalities) it seems like the British are a bunch of stand-offish buggers, who only complain and want to opt out of everything but don't leave. (no offense, that's just the stereotype [concerning the EU])

Well - the British like to complain. It's something of a national sport. And we have a very vibrant and diverse media that fills hours of broadcast and miles of column-inches doing nothing but complaining, and the EU is an easy target. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

	Originally Posted by Zerkezhi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yet the Germans complain about the EU as well, saying that we are the ones who always have to pay the most, or pay for other countries. (which is actually largely true) But the gains we have far outweigh the losses we make. I believe I read a figure that we take in at least 3x as much money as we loose. (as a rule of thumb) And that's a LOT of cash.

I was wondering about that - I keep hearing about the (frankly frightening) amounts of money Germany is having to throw into the bottomless pits of Greece and Italy and Portugal and wondering why the German people aren't rioting on the streets. Why should the surpluses and money you've built up with your own skill and industry be used to bail out feckless and irresponsible countries who gambled and lost? But I guess if you still, net, make back more money than you spend, it makes sense. And everyone loses if Europe implodes (though I very much fear this will happen anyway).

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Both ways are flawed, I'm just more used to multi party systems.

Both have strengths and weaknesses. Two-party systems can be more responsive, can pass legislation quickly - but they do tend to ossify and become beholden to vested interests. Also, they become quite politically similar, since both have to fight for the 'centre' ground, where the majority of votes are. In multiparty systems everything is a negotiation, and this can slow things down, but they're arguably more representative of the spectrum of views in society.

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would never see a two party system work in Belgium for example.

Didn't Belgium have no government for most of a year? And it was fine, the civil service handled everything? Makes you wonder...

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order for communism to come back from the dead or maybe from the throes of death...

I don't entirely disagree, except on one point - the future is not the past and will not look like the past. I have no doubt whatsoever that totalitarianism will return, somewhere, sometime, and sooner than we'd like. In some ways we're well down the path towards it already. But it isn't going to obligingly stick a shiny 'communism' sticker on its manifesto. It won't necessarily look like Bolshevism or Maoism. It'll be something new and different and will probably, in fact, point to it's divergence from those old failed philosophies as its justification. If we continue to argue about the irrelevancy that is 'communism' we may miss the true danger when it comes.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those who dismiss older Americans as paranoid or out of the loop would do well to revisit these views. The older folk have seen and lived a time you have never seen and have never lived in.

....Vietnam, race riots, and LSD?

[Munglik]

Didn't Belgium have no government for most of a year? And it was fine, the civil service handled everything? Makes you wonder...

We still have no government. And I don't know what you mean with the civil service but Belgium is still governed by the old government and the regional governments.
If this goes on we won't be able to enact the necessary econimical and political reforms though.

[Purgatid]

I much prefer a multi-party system. It doesn't lead to "no changes." It leads to compromises. The big flaw is that some ideologies demand a straight line of consistent decisions, which is absent. I mean - it's a flaw if that's what someone wants. I don't. I much prefer compromises. Sometimes, these compromises go from left to right, or from several minorities toppling the bigger parties. It is, in my eyes, more democratic since it's invariably always the majority of the people who get their idas through, so to speak.

If MP, FP, C, SD and V agree on something, then it doesn't matter if M disagrees in Sweden, they'd be forced to implement the changes anyway. Unless of course S sides with them, but that hasn't happened yet.

[JTG]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The counter argument is that with a multiple party system, no group is able to gain enough power to initiate change. Thus the state remains locked in stasis by the various vested interests represented by the various parties. An outright winner enables necessary changes since it can ignore the shouts of the vested interests. Thus you do not get more choice since you will always have the status quo.

I could see it being less efficient overall (in the "getting stuff done" sense, not in the "accurately representing the people" sense) but there are only two ways to vote, right? Yes or no.

If an issue comes up, it seems unlikely that, through proper debate and shaping of policy, a law cannot be written in such a way as to receive a majority of votes.

My awkward grammar aside, i basically think that more voices = more noise, but in the end, i don't think that poses a realistic danger to getting things done

[zergonipal]

	Originally Posted by Munglik To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Didn't Belgium have no government for most of a year? And it was fine, the civil service handled everything? Makes you wonder... We still have no government. And I don't know what you mean with the civil service but Belgium is still governed by the old government and the regional governments. If this goes on we won't be able to enact the necessary econimical and political reforms though.

Ah, I didn't realise the old government was still functioning. But about political reforms, I remember hearing that Belgium - because of the government situation - was one of the few eurozone countries that hadn't yet put in austerity measures, and that (be it correlation, causation or coincidence) it is now one of the few eurozone countries that still has any decent economic growth. Is that true?

[Haumea]

	Communism though was never achieved. Nor were there communist states.

So in other words, it was a wonderful theory on paper and a disaster in practice.

Kinda like a lot of Obama's policies.

The issue isn't whether Obama is a communist or not (really crypto-communist) -- one certainly can't falsify the notion with reference to his policies -- the American political system being what it is, even if a crypto-communist were elected, there'd only be so much he could do.

So, again, this notion that Obama is not a communist because he hasn't nationalized private property and because his realpolitik resembles the Euro center-right is frankly naive and absurd.

The issue is, given the political constraints involved, what exactly would a crypto-communist do differently than Obama has?

[rm773]

I think Obama is working for a power higher than himself.......and it's no longer a capitalist agenda. It's definitely more logical than saying Obama has no clue what he's doing, or that he is solely responsible for messing things up. Or that Ben Bernacke is doing a poor job in the Federal Reserve. These guys aren't so stupid that they can't figure things out.......there's just a different agenda that we aren't privy to.

[Snowdragon]

Your friend must be a "tea-bagger" (member of the tea party "movement")
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rexus]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So in other words, it was a wonderful theory on paper and a disaster in practice.

Well socialism was only a stage on the road to communism. A society with no classes, no injustices and plentiful resources fo everyone. And, non-existence of the state.

But yeah, I think Marx rolled in his grave quite a few times when Stalin started his collectivisations and forced industrialisation, to name one example...

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The issue is, given the political constraints involved, what exactly would a crypto-communist do differently than Obama has?

Nationalize EVERYTHING.

Next question?

[PThaPhenom]

	Originally Posted by Rexus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well socialism was only a stage on the road to communism. A society with no classes, no injustices and plentiful resources fo everyone. And, non-existence of the state. But yeah, I think Marx rolled in his grave quite a few times when Stalin started his collectivisations and forced industrialisation, to name one example...

Or when Mao introduced his form of totalitarianism as well. The average American can't name 10 Asian countries let alone understand government policy and ideology. Expecting them to understand what communism really is would be like expecting them to understand the difference between their politicians' promises and actions. I should know, I've went to school and worked with them all my life. America is a very reactionary nation and the majority of citizens aren't compelled to take the time to get an understanding of different types of ideologies. Citizen's would just rather take politicians' word for it and then panic when things fall apart. Truth is we can't get anything accomplished until we find a suitable plan. Anything but what we've been doing the last 10 years. We've wasted money on an unnecessary war(Iraq) and excessive bailouts for Wall-Street while cutting funding for public servants (teachers) who are responsible for the future of our nation (the children). That is looking real bleak considering that education gaps amongst kids with from upper class families and kids from the other classes are growing farther apart. If things keep going at this rate, 20 years from now we will be a nation where the majority of citizens are undereducated criminals (crime goes up when jobs disappear/ people make less when they are less capable) turning more neighborhoods into urban war zones while only a handful of people will live in the safety of their gated communities. Did I not mention that most people will have to work till they die? We will have no social security, no medicaid for the elderly, and a dwindling job market because corporations are exporting them with tax breaks overseas. The only good thing that might come of this is that maybe people will die far before they have to suffer years of paying absorbent health fees because they're old. What a Brave New World we have ahead of us.

[Rexus]

Originally Posted by PThaPhenom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or when Mao introduced his form of totalitarianism as well. The average American can't name 10 Asian countries let alone understand government policy and ideology. Expecting them to understand what communism really is would be like expecting them to understand the difference between their politicians' promises and actions. I should know, I've went to school and worked with them all my life. America is a very reactionary nation and the majority of citizens aren't compelled to take the time to get an understanding of different types of ideologies. Citizen's would just rather take politicians' word for it and then panic when things fall apart. Truth is we can't get anything accomplished until we find a suitable plan. Anything but what we've been doing the last 10 years. We've wasted money on an unnecessary war(Iraq) and excessive bailouts for Wall-Street while cutting funding for public servants (teachers) who are responsible for the future of our nation (the children). That is looking real bleak considering that education gaps amongst kids with from upper class families and kids from the other classes are growing farther apart. If things keep going at this rate, 20 years from now we will be a nation where the majority of citizens are undereducated criminals (crime goes up when jobs disappear/ people make less when they are less capable) turning more neighborhoods into urban war zones while only a handful of people will live in the safety of their gated communities. Did I not mention that most people will have to work till they die? We will have no social security, no medicaid for the elderly, and a dwindling job market because corporations are exporting them with tax breaks overseas. The only good thing that might come of this is that maybe people will die far before they have to suffer years of paying absorbent health fees because they're old. What a Brave New World we have ahead of us.

And the cold gaze of the Big Brother shall regard us from every wall with a screen

A rather orwellian outlook, but yeah that`s about it. The downward spiral.

And, communism is a very diversified ideology with many branches. My ex-home country, SFR Yugoslavia had a very peculiar variation implemented. But explaining it would involve so much of marxist-leninist meta-lingo that everything would turn out to be rather incomprehensible.

Difference is, in the US, the communism is not regarded as an modernist ideology (that it is), but as a negative stereotype. And I know how obstinate can people be around such irrational generalizations (that`s why they are so atrractive, clean cut black-and-white scheme, us angels vs them, devils) if you try to break it down for them and provide a rational explanation.

Interesting how this topic mutated to the very problem of interpreting just what communism is in the eye of the Americans.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Party A is wedded to it's ideas and is unwilling to try things that fall outside it's ideology. These things are not sacred to Party B who changes them. When Party A returns to power, it can see that what Party B did, worked. It then does the same to the sacred cows of Party B.

Historically, this isn't how things normally work.

Clinton reformed welfare and passed NAFTA. Nixon opened up China. Bush gave us TARP and originated the stimulus bill. The way things normally play out, but not always as in rare instances control over exists, is that in a two party system only a President who takes a stance against his party can get things changed. I think this is because the President is likely to pull votes out of loyalty.

Usually when a party "comes to power," they don't really come into the power to do whatever they want. Normally, they come into simply more power (and frequently slightly more) than they had before.

I do agree with your point about evolution finding unseen paths and differentiating it this way from central planning.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So in other words, it was a wonderful theory on paper and a disaster in practice. Kinda like a lot of Obama's policies.

Give an example of a disastrous Obama policy, and i'll likely point out how either a) it's an improvement over how things were before, or b) how it's not actually disastrous.

Do you actually believe your hyperbole?

	Originally Posted by rm773 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	These guys aren't so stupid that they can't figure things out.......there's just a different agenda that we aren't privy to.

Zeitgeist conspiracy theory, or is this something new you're referencing?