the problems is in closeness and accountability. Small sociaties have them, large don't.
The first societies in the world were most likely communist by nature, people simply being to few and hard pressed for food, to allow slackers, and when there are few people, leadership needn't be formalised. Leaders would still emerge, maybe gaining the title of "chief" or something, but would in effect be democraticly elected, since they would be overtrown if they were entirely useless.
The problem lies more with the form of democracy that fits with the communism we know - the direct or the particapatory kind. those forms cease to work once critical mass is achieved.
But communism as an ideology, as a way to rule nations, doesnt work, since you cant do that using direct democracy, and the fact that the governmet is too far away, makes it too ineffecient.
However, the discussion becomes more interesting when you discuss Socialism, since its a more pragmatic form of government. Socialism-light actually has proven to work wonders in Denmark, where we have free market in some areas, but most are heavily regulated. We pay 50% or more in taxes, the top tax racket nears 70%. The public sector is huge. Yet it mostly works!! Why does it do that, when the arguments the buries communism almost all apply to that as well? Why don't more danes simply stop working, since it doesn pay that much anyway?
Manager of Protour champions 2008, Carlsberg Cycling!! (wow is it that long ago I was in the management game?)
Socialism is a whole new kettle of fish - you're spot on with communism - as an ideal it is possibly the best form of governance, but relying on trust between millions of people is sadly, nearly an impossibility in this day and age
well, the main problem is the imho NO ideologys work. Not one of them can explain and cover human behaviour.
That is why pragmatic contries, where they dont let idology get in the way of a good idea will do better than a country who has a manual for everything.
The tragedy is that most politicans become just that because they HAVE an ideology in effect disqualifying themselves from office.
This is a very danish viewpoint I know, but backed up by emperical evidence. Isnt england a nicer place to live under New labour? who afaik is very pragmatic, a mix of modern socialism with some conservatism sprinkled with a light hand?
And dont even get me started on when we start to mix religion into politics thats when in nonsensical nature of politics go insane!
Manager of Protour champions 2008, Carlsberg Cycling!! (wow is it that long ago I was in the management game?)
"Right, Bubba. Your job is to run in front of the giant angry elephanthy creaure and keeps it attention while the rest of us cheer from a afar.....go!"
Manager of Protour champions 2008, Carlsberg Cycling!! (wow is it that long ago I was in the management game?)
Oh in Denmark, we have 8-9 partys and they all want to sound like they are different, and they are on the detail level. But the difference in how they want to spend our money is perhaps 1%
Except for the local communists who are clearly insane !
Manager of Protour champions 2008, Carlsberg Cycling!! (wow is it that long ago I was in the management game?)
zutcorp wrote:
Oh in Denmark, we have 8-9 partys and they all want to sound like they are different, and they are on the detail level. But the difference in how they want to spend our money is perhaps 1%
Except for the local communists who are clearly insane !
Here are like there 8-9-10 partiest but we have center parties they are weak now reforming and Social Democratic party and Liberal left and right wing who dominate the polithics from 1990
I like how it's run in England. It's so funny to hear the debates over there. It's a very unusual way of debating -- very relaxed attitude instead of being so serious and formal all the time.
CrueTrue wrote:
I like how it's run in England. It's so funny to hear the debates over there. It's a very unusual way of debating -- very relaxed attitude instead of being so serious and formal all the time.
They are gentelmans they respect each other in public
CrueTrue wrote:
I like how it's run in England. It's so funny to hear the debates over there. It's a very unusual way of debating -- very relaxed attitude instead of being so serious and formal all the time.
Debating in the House of Commons is great TV. A minister makes a speech, then the opposing party says what rubbish that is, whilst his own party says how great it is. It's like watching children
CrueTrue wrote:
I like how it's run in England. It's so funny to hear the debates over there. It's a very unusual way of debating -- very relaxed attitude instead of being so serious and formal all the time.
Debating in the House of Commons is great TV. A minister makes a speech, then the opposing party says what rubbish that is, whilst his own party says how great it is. It's like watching children
Not really is like watching who lies and his face is saying not lying
CrueTrue wrote:
I like how it's run in England. It's so funny to hear the debates over there. It's a very unusual way of debating -- very relaxed attitude instead of being so serious and formal all the time.
Debating in the House of Commons is great TV. A minister makes a speech, then the opposing party says what rubbish that is, whilst his own party says how great it is. It's like watching children
(Sorry for the late response - hadn't seen your answer)
It's weird how they are saying "uuuuuuh" everytime their guy says something about the opposing party. You should try to watch the Danish "Folketing" (House of Commons). That's boring. People have to be silent at all times, except when allowed to speak. Also, you have to say "Mr." and "Miss" when speaking to other people. If you don't you will be shot Edited by CrueTrue on 10-10-2007 08:59
