Marijah appears from behind!

Oh Kenzu you make me blush
I am very glad, too.

After frequent comments to my avatar:
Well, I like it, too and yes, I played this game and even the sequel. Warren Spector is Karl Marx of game development

At the end of the game, you have to make a decision. Will you join the Illuminati and rule the world from behind the scenes, or fusion with a A.I and be a godlike Observer, care for and command mankind, or destroy communication nexus and throw mankind back to little villages, who administrate itself?

@stos
"Why doesn't the majority want change? "
Half-heartness and ignorance, that is the problem. Maybe fear to lose small things they got. And they're to lazy to move forward.

"How do you plan to make small reforms in fascist and single-party states?"
Sorry, I cant surely translate this german phrases, but i try.
Do you think reforms are "Tropfen auf einen heißen Stein?" = "Drops on a hot stone?
"Ein einmal gedachter Gedanke kann nicht zurück genommen werden" =
"You cant redeem an idea, once its out" Ideas of freedom and democracy in Germany 1848 were rejected and supressed by facist goverment and later by Bismarck, but the ideas survived and made it possible for USA to turn us Germans to democrats.
Iraq had no small steps, no ideas of freedom before, and USA failed to make a total democracy.

Yes, USA did revolution, not reforming. But revolution without reforming will fail. And reforms can reduce the bloodshed.
Look at the end of DDR. It was a nearly bloodless revolution, without big bloodshed. People like Franz Joseph Strauß, Gorbatschow, Johannes Paul II, and other reforms made it possible.


@zealot
Don't be too confident with my english. ^^
It already helps, thanks a lot.

Your point with the trade chain reminds me (of/on?) the south park episode "wall mart". People finally destroy it and go all to a small store which grows and grows till they destroy hit again. "We wont make this misstake again. Let's all buy at Jerry's little market!"

You are right, but remember I am a reformist ^^. I dont want all stop buying at chains and suddenly go to my bookstore. The scale, again, is most important. I just want to prevent this old store from going bankrupt, not growing growing growing. On the other side, trade chains are important for many people who simply dont have the time or the money to buy anywhere else. Yes, they would fire lots of workers, even more than regulary.

Responsible implies saving both, I just wanted to say old and little shops need actually more help than chains

Marijah wrote:

@stos
"Why doesn't the majority want change? "
Half-heartness and ignorance, that is the problem. Maybe fear to lose small things they got. And they're to lazy to move forward.

"How do you plan to make small reforms in fascist and single-party states?"
Sorry, I cant surely translate this german phrases, but i try.
Do you think reforms are "Tropfen auf einen heißen Stein?" = "Drops on a hot stone?
"Ein einmal gedachter Gedanke kann nicht zurück genommen werden" =
"You cant redeem an idea, once its out" Ideas of freedom and democracy in Germany 1848 were rejected and supressed by facist goverment and later by Bismarck, but the ideas survived and made it possible for USA to turn us Germans to democrats.
Iraq had no small steps, no ideas of freedom before, and USA failed to make a total democracy.

And later for the US to turn Chile into a fascist dictatorship, of course.
Also, there are no democratic countries, and Germany is not democratic. It's technically probably a republic, and inevitably a plutocracy. For that matter, you can hardly compare Iraq and Germany and say it's because of some 'small steps' (more like ideas, and ideas are bulletproof), because there are loads of extra factors in play here, from religions to surrounding countries to the fact that Iraq had never taken over most of Europe, or the Middle East.

Also, you seem to be taking the somewhat Leninist view of saying that the people won't revolt because they're 'lazy' or something. The people are hardly lazy, they're mostly workers. If they're ignorant, it's not because of not enough 'small steps' taking place, certainly, revolution in Sweden seems as unlikely as revolution in the US, but because of capitalist propaganda. Either way, capitalism will eventually collapse, small steps or not, and thus these reforms aren't sustainable, and you go back where you started from.
Also, metaphors and similes are not arguments. I'm not really concerned about water and stones. De Leon used his famous 'Trimming the Poodle' metaphor to illustrate reformism, but he didn't say, "it's still a poodle, even if you trim it. Poodles suck, and thus reformism sucks," as his argument.

Also, your English is generally quite accurate, good job. I'm monolingual, unfortunately.

moneys democracy, more money = more power, lol a man with much money is man with more democracy he count for more people. moneys are like tickets maybes.

Tyrlop wrote:

moneys democracy, more money = more power, lol a man with much money is man with more democracy he count for more people. moneys are like tickets maybes.

That's plutocracy.

whats that? and i dont like you comment my stuff saying : thats this that that, thats idiotcy that dumbness that onmubusminus. that plamtoniskmusk. thats bivows. that lolmom. that moronness. that caputsituationes. etc those kind of comments kind of point me out. and people dont like to be pointed out just becaus a post, say what you mean isntead of pointing out. your this ur that.

Tyrlop wrote:

whats that? and i dont like you comment my stuff saying : thats this that that, thats idiotcy that dumbness that onmubusminus. that plamtoniskmusk. thats bivows. that lolmom. that moronness. that caputsituationes. etc those kind of comments kind of point me out. and people dont like to be pointed out just becaus a post, say what you mean isntead of pointing out. your this ur that.

What you said is plutocracy. That's the word for the system you described.

Plutos=rich in greek. Kratos=power

"The power of the rich"

lol.. im feel dumb.

Tyrlop wrote:

lol.. im feel dumb.

Don't Lack of knowledge is not stupidity

Zealot would you say the US is a plutocracy? A lot of people do.

Liche wrote:

Zealot would you say the US is a plutocracy? A lot of people do.

They do because it is.

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot would you say the US is a plutocracy? A lot of people do.

They do because it is.

Yes, but some disagree. I for one think it is, I was just wondering Zealots stance on this topic.

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot would you say the US is a plutocracy? A lot of people do.

They do because it is.

Yes, but some disagree. I for one think it is, I was just wondering Zealots stance on this topic.

The thing is people can't disagree on wether a fact is a fact or not.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot would you say the US is a plutocracy? A lot of people do.

They do because it is.

Yes, but some disagree. I for one think it is, I was just wondering Zealots stance on this topic.

The thing is people can't disagree on wether a fact is a fact or not.

it is for sure a plutocracy, with a bit of an oligarchy thrown in there
am i the only one that believes representative democracy leads to oligarchy?

beatnikzach wrote:

am i the only one that believes representative democracy leads to oligarchy?

me and my brother talk about that all the time.

Liche wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

am i the only one that believes representative democracy leads to oligarchy?

me and my brother talk about that all the time.

welll, your stance?

beatnikzach wrote:

Liche wrote:

beatnikzach wrote:

am i the only one that believes representative democracy leads to oligarchy?

me and my brother talk about that all the time.

welll, your stance?

that it is bound to happen eventually.

Welcome, but....

Quote :

I think we need small smaaall steps, not revolution. Revolution will end in chaos, anarchy, war, destruction.

watch what you say. Revolution cannot end in anarchy, as anarchy is not an end, but a theory. Revolution can end in anarchism, a form of society. Revolution cannot end in chaos, because chaos cannot sustain itself, and it cannot be sustained by others, therefore it is not and end, but at most a temporary situation. Revolution cannot end in war, but is the only means to end all war. Revolution can, and if it is successful it will, destroy, but destruction promotes reconstruction, which is necessary in order to significantly change society. And destruction is not necessarily physical, but social. The institutions of society, as we know them, must be done away with in order to exact change.

I was waiting for you to come and comment on that statement.

Thanks for the new welcomes! ( even hox, who seems strange to me )

My school started 3 days ago, and I am still busy, I found barely time to breath. Noneless I will try to get deeper into the forum.

Democracy or Plutocracy?
Why do you think we have no democracy, only plutocracy? USA, for an example. I am not sure yet, so I want to ask you without certain stance. Is it because of the many lobbyists? And / or the expensive elction campaigns? I only know rich presidents till now, but Obama is different. He had a lot of sponsors, and probably he brings change.

Economy is ruled by money, that is true, but politics? Corruption isn't over yet, but reduced hardly compared to other countries. And don't forget many people voted right, for a strong economy. I am not happy with that, but isn't it the decision of the people, is it?
I am afraid to confound my opion of peoples wishes with their true wishes if I judge current democracy-called states to hard. Am I wrong?

Revleft
I try to watch what I say, and if a word slipped and I misstook it, I am sorry.
I did not want to bring out results of revultion ( anarchy/anarchism?, chaos, war ) as a constant status. You said what I want to, it's a temporary situation. I said revolutions end not lead, because I wanted to describe, the progress of revolution is over. I wouldn't like to take revolution and it's following bloodshed as one. A godlike revolutionist could prevent all negative results, but we are only human.

Revolution cannot sustain chaos. That is right. Revolution is a progress, it can't do anything on its own Revolutionists behind it start chaos. Torture, terror, persecutions are done by Robbespierre, a co-revolutionist of the Frenchs 1789. He sustained a terror authority till 1794. That is no theory, that is a fact.

Same about war in history. If you mean the social revolution cannot end in war, but end all wars, I agree with you. Revolution itself lead to war countless times.

Marijah wrote:

Democracy or Plutocracy?
Why do you think we have no democracy, only plutocracy? USA, for an example. I am not sure yet, so I want to ask you without certain stance. Is it because of the many lobbyists? And / or the expensive elction campaigns? I only know rich presidents till now, but Obama is different. He had a lot of sponsors, and probably he brings change.

Economy is ruled by money, that is true, but politics? Corruption isn't over yet, but reduced hardly compared to other countries. And don't forget many people voted right, for a strong economy. I am not happy with that, but isn't it the decision of the people, is it?
I am afraid to confound my opion of peoples wishes with their true wishes if I judge current democracy-called states to hard. Am I wrong?

People are manipulated and brainwashed from birth by the capitalist controlled media, by school, etc. The capitalists control the government, the media, and society in general. Obama? He's not going to change anything, he's just a stock Democrat 'saint' to fight the Republican 'sinners'. It just goes on, and on, and on (it's Heaven and Hell?)

Quote :

Revleft
I try to watch what I say, and if a word slipped and I misstook it, I am sorry.
I did not want to bring out results of revultion ( anarchy/anarchism?, chaos, war ) as a constant status. You said what I want to, it's a temporary situation. I said revolutions end not lead, because I wanted to describe, the progress of revolution is over. I wouldn't like to take revolution and it's following bloodshed as one. A godlike revolutionist could prevent all negative results, but we are only human.

Revolution cannot sustain chaos. That is right. Revolution is a progress, it can't do anything on its own Revolutionists behind it start chaos. Torture, terror, persecutions are done by Robbespierre, a co-revolutionist of the Frenchs 1789. He sustained a terror authority till 1794. That is no theory, that is a fact.

Same about war in history. If you mean the social revolution cannot end in war, but end all wars, I agree with you. Revolution itself lead to war countless times.

Yes, but most of us do want anarchy, or something close, so that makes things simpler. Also, what does Robespierre have to do with socialism?
Also, you can't expect the bourgeoisie to just hand over power to the workers everywhere. Us De Leonists promote peaceful revolution when possible, though workplace organization will be important, as will be putting down counter revolutions after power is taken through the ballot. Of course there will be fascism and such to deal with, which will not go easily, and we will have to fight them.
However, one man can't lead a revolution. Some people can educate others about it, but that doesn't give them a right to lead it. We need a worker's majority internationally in order to succeed. Capitalists: Pacifism when convenient.

Marijah wrote:

Democracy or Plutocracy?
Why do you think we have no democracy, only plutocracy? USA, for an example. I am not sure yet, so I want to ask you without certain stance. Is it because of the many lobbyists? And / or the expensive elction campaigns? I only know rich presidents till now, but Obama is different. He had a lot of sponsors, and probably he brings change.

Is not only lobbyism, it's just that capital is what ruoles in capitalist countries. The richer you are the more power you harness, it's natural to capitalism. Depending on the law systems of the capitalist frameworks you'll need more or less subtlety to excert power by sheer wealth but after all you always can.

Marijah wrote:

Economy is ruled by money, that is true, but politics?

Capitalism is a system in which politics, when not determined by economy are in conflict with it.

Marijah wrote:

Corruption isn't over yet, but reduced hardly compared to other countries. And don't forget many people voted right, for a strong economy. I am not happy with that, but isn't it the decision of the people, is it?

Corruption is not the only way through which capitalists can excert influence on politics, they do it by all means possible including mass media.

Marijah wrote:

I am afraid to confound my opion of peoples wishes with their true wishes if I judge current democracy-called states to hard. Am I wrong?

In these "democratic" states people often vote based on ignorance. Else, often in these so called democratic nations its a minority of people who votes which means a large, moderate or even small minority rules the country. When criticizing this system it's easy to have good arguements.

It is a system that doesn't educate objectively its citicens, it is a system that often fools people into thinking political parties do represent their interests and is a system that doesn't even achieve majorities to excert their will even within this limited framework. And if that was not enough there's always the possibility of the ruling class rigging them. That said it is a totally failed system.

Marijah wrote:

Revleft
I try to watch what I say, and if a word slipped and I misstook it, I am sorry.
I did not want to bring out results of revultion ( anarchy/anarchism?, chaos, war ) as a constant status. You said what I want to, it's a temporary situation. I said revolutions end not lead, because I wanted to describe, the progress of revolution is over. I wouldn't like to take revolution and it's following bloodshed as one. A godlike revolutionist could prevent all negative results, but we are only human.

Revolution cannot sustain chaos. That is right. Revolution is a progress, it can't do anything on its own Revolutionists behind it start chaos. Torture, terror, persecutions are done by Robbespierre, a co-revolutionist of the Frenchs 1789. He sustained a terror authority till 1794. That is no theory, that is a fact.

Robbespierre... what does he have to do with a Socialist revolution? Not all revolutions are of equal nature specially the revolution we socialists propose.

While there would be disorder, fear and conflict during the revolution it would be not only temporary but its duration would depend on how well the revolution is planned. There would even be a bloodless revolution if a good enough level of organization and preparation was achieved prior to starting the revolution.

Marijah wrote:

Same about war in history. If you mean the social revolution cannot end in war, but end all wars, I agree with you. Revolution itself lead to war countless times.

Actually it's been wars which often lead to revolutions for the unstability they create.

Mike Lepore (from the deleonism.org forums) wrote:

"Dear reader, If I were to directly advocate the abrupt adoption of new way of living, the end of capitalist social relations, the classless society, production for social use, democratic workers' control of all things economic, you would be too stubborn or stupid or brainwashed to understand it. However, I think it will ring a bell with you if I make such simplistic suggestions as more leisure time and higher wages. Therefore I will lure you in by offering these less drastic sounding proposals as bait. According to the transitional program theory of how your mind works, this approach is expected to prepare you to be more receptive in the future when you hear about the complete redesign of social relations in a noncapitalist world. With this overview in mind, I present the following list of immediate demands."

That was on parties like SPUSA, as well as the Transitional Program in general.