Capitalism is not evil. The true evil is believing capitalism is evil.

81 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
What I find most interesting within this group of open-minded intellectuals, is the amount of angry vitriol I have stirred up.

You flatter yourself.

And bore me to tears.

Many other than myself (though myself as well) have pointed out the flaws and conceits in your claims. You've ignored each and every one.

Shall I assume fear and cowardice on your part, as you have assumed 'angry vitriol' on the part of others?

siamdave

Catchfire wrote:

Here's what history's most famous (and best) critic of capitalism had to say about it:

.......

That doesn't particuarly sound like he's calling it "evil"--in fact, it's rather complimentary.

- Smith was talking about very small market entrepreneurship, with free interactions between a very large group of small businesspeople wherein NOBODY had the power to influence or control the whole market by themselves - he was completely opposed to any kind of corporate dominance. It is quite probable he would reguard today's corporate-financial "capitalism' with horror. As do those of us who understand it.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

When someone falls on the sidewalk,it's the moral response to reach out a helping hand and help them onto their feet...It's morally repugnant to kick them in the head while they are down.

 

And a capitalist, being amoral, will look for a way to make a buck out of the situation.

Fidel

[url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btglobalizationtradera/6... Dissatisfaction with Capitalism -- Twenty Years after Fall of Berlin Wall[/url]

BBC World Service Poll, 2009 wrote:
Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC World Service global poll finds that dissatisfaction with free market capitalism is widespread, with an average of only 11% across 27 countries saying that it works well and that greater regulation is not a good idea.

In only two countries do more than one in five feel that capitalism works well as it stands--the US (25%) and Pakistan (21%).

And I don't think we can be too sure about Pakistan.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Capitalism is carryng out a war on Planet Earth. The following recent book proves it.

The Ecological Rift: Capitalism's War on the Earth.

Form your own conclusions about whether capitalism is "evil" or not. There's plenty of evidence available.

siamdave

DaemonNice wrote:

"pointing at the good ol USSR or Maoist China or something, which were totalitarian regimes labeled as 'socialist' by the capitalist USA"

The United Soviet Socialist Republic was labeled Socialist by the capitalist USA and Mao never pretended to be a communist. Really?

- shallow. This was simply an aside - I would be much more interested in your response to the body of my reply:

"...You're reading too many capitalist fairy tales uncritically (which is what they teach you to do in their indoctrination schools and media). Capitalism is a system in which many people produce a lot of stuff, and the capitalists claim it all for themselves as 'the owners of the means of production'. Socialism is a system in which many people produce a lot of stuff, and own it themselves. There's no inherent evil at the starting gate, but when the capitalists decide that they can use massive violence to keep the workers controlled, and treat them like slaves and mushrooms, the resulting misery for the masses and opulence for the few gets pretty close to evil...."

 

Quote:

By beginning on the principle that all aspects of Capitalism is bad, you prevent yourself from using the democratic process to bring the changes you want to see. The average person does not want hear that their way of living is bad . I work in a tier one auto factory, I know these people and these are the people you gonna have to convince if you going to use the democratic process to create the change you want to see. They have been indoctrinated all their lives that Capitalism is good , Socialism is bad. They don't want to hear your vision of things if you say capitalism is bad. So, that must leave us to conclude that you don't intend on using the democratic process, which means what, a violent overthrow of the government. Violence will not achieve your end goals. It will only beget more violence. Which perhaps might explain what happened to the communist revolution of Russia.

So, if you want to overthrow the government using the democratic process, what do you do?

- more shallow arguments, this one the 'straw dog' variety. I do NOT 'begin with the principle that all aspects of Capitalism are bad'. I begin from a neutral point of view, and take a look around - a look from an unindoctrinated postion (that is, I might add to be clear - I also do NOT begin from the position that Capitalism is wonderful!, as most people have been indoctrinated to believe (have you checked a mirror lately?)). And what I see is that, indeed, pretty much all aspects of Capitalism are bad. It creates vast disparities in wealth based on opulence for the few and wage-slavery at hated, soul-destroying jobs for most people, it maintains those disparities through violence and lies and proaganda and corruption and setting the people against each other, it is completely anti-democratic, it's growth imperative has brought our entire planet to the verge of environmental destruction, it prospers greatly from war and violence and the misery of others through massive theft from weaker countries, and the armaments industry is one of its mainstays. There's not really much good to say about it.

As for your workers - well, as you say, they have been well indoctrinated, but many, many people are starting to see that there is something very wrong with what is going on in the world today, and they are slowly starting to equate those problems with the ascendent economic system - which is capitalism. Even in the face of full-spectrum dhildhood indoctrination and the 24/7 propaganda of the capitalist media, however, they are starting to wake up from their indoctrinated belief that 'capitalism is good and socialism bad - no questions asked, no debate allowed!'.

Wrong.

Your days are approaching the end, my friend.

siamdave

DaemonNice wrote:

What I find most interesting within this group of open-minded intellectuals, is the amount of angry vitriol I have stirred up.

- you seem to have a somewhat inflated opinion of yourself - whack-a-mole isn't vitriolic, it's just a diversion. The question of whether capitalism is good or eveil (in the non-religious sense of simply profoundly bad) has long been decided here. You might as well go onto the Vatican webboard and try to start a discussion about why believing in god is bad....

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Someone mentioned Mon and Pop businesses earlier and I would like to add that there were plenty of those in China when I spent some 9 weeks traveling through there. I have no idea if that kind of enterprise was forbidden in Soviet States.

In my view, these are not the enemy of the poor unless they partake in gouging them for the goods they sell. And for me, maintaining a mass of impoverished workers to sustain the life of a wealthy elite is what is wrong with the capitalist system.

siamdave

laine lowe wrote:

Someone mentioned Mon and Pop businesses earlier and I would like to add that there were plenty of those in China when I spent some 9 weeks traveling through there. I have no idea if that kind of enterprise was forbidden in Soviet States.

In my view, these are not the enemy of the poor unless they partake in gouging them for the goods they sell. And for me, maintaining a mass of impoverished workers to sustain the life of a wealthy elite is what is wrong with the capitalist system.

- it's one of the various lies thrown out there by capitalists and thier trained voodoo economists to tell everyone that "Hey! Mom and pop business are good stuff, right? And since any business is 'capitalism', then capitalism is really ok!'

A mom and pop business is not capitalism. It's a small business, period. Their few hundred bucks a week profit is no more 'capital' than the worker's paycheck is 'capital'. A 'social democracy' (strong emphasis on the *democracy* part) would, of course, have a plethora of small businesses, providing all the goods and services we all want. Their profits would be just that - profits.

By (any truthful) definition - capital is the *excess value* produced by a large number of workers in some kind of factory/large business situation, 'excess value' which is claimed by the 'owner of production'. A 1000 workers produce a million dollars worth of stuff a day, and get paid a hundred thousand dollars - the 900 thou is 'excess value', and after another couple hundred thou of expenses, becomes capital, which is then used to build more factories to exploit more people, and etc. Some of this 'profit' (before its metamorphosis to 'capital') is used to buy politicians to make sure anything that would support 'socialist' worker-owned factories, where they keep their own 'excess value' to divide amongst themselves as they choose, is strongly discouraged. And more is used to control the media to make sure everyone thinks this system is as good as it gets, no matter how many workers are suffering or hate their jobs. And yet more is used to construct great military machines to go marauding - capitalists are, after all, predators at heart, and whatever they have is not enough so they look around for weaker people to steal yet more from. And etc.

There's a lot of detail in any complex system, and pages could be filled with 'Yea, but!!' protests and questions - but the most fundamental root of capitalism should never be covered up, as they try so hard to do, or forgotten - at its root, capitalism is simply the exploitation of the largest possible number of workers, the theft of the largest possible amount of the wealth produced by those workers, and the use of the most repressive means they can get away with at any given time to increase their power and exploit more and more people.

 

 

 

 

Merowe

Siamdave, I am so digging your eloquence today!

siamdave

Merowe wrote:

Siamdave, I am so digging your eloquence today!

-  thankee muchly - 1200 more pages of it here - Green Island   http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html - my vision of a non-capitalist society, including a story wherein the capitalists come along with their little regmine-changing military and get an ass-kicking. The newworld socialists aren't sheep - they're the capitalists' worst dream.

 

Iwant Liberty

siamdave wrote:

...Some of this 'profit' (before its metamorphosis to 'capital') is used to buy politicians to make sure anything that would support 'socialist' worker-owned factories, where they keep their own 'excess value' to divide amongst themselves as they choose, is strongly discouraged. And more is used to control the media to make sure everyone thinks this system is as good as it gets, no matter how many workers are suffering or hate their jobs. And yet more is used to construct great military machines to go marauding - capitalists are, after all, predators at heart, and whatever they have is not enough so they look around for weaker people to steal yet more from. And etc.

Absolutely right.  When capitalists merge with government to serve their own interests, then the people suffer.  When any special interest group is able to garner priviledge from government, the those that don't benefit from the priviledge suffer by paying for it.  The military-industrial complex, large corporations, banks... you name it, they benefit enormouslly.  And it is wrong.

The better way forward is to reduce the power of government and ensure that they are no longer able to benefit one group over another.   However, our laws in Canada are written in a manner that give our rulers carte blanche as there are no limits imposed upon their power (certainly none that seriously stand in their way to benefit whoever they want).

When the people realize that they are getting ripped-off then things will change.  Until then... enjoy the government regurgitated drivel on the CBC and Global.

siamdave

Iwant Liberty wrote:

Absolutely right.  When capitalists merge with government to serve their own interests, then the people suffer.  When any special interest group is able to garner priviledge from government, the those that don't benefit from the priviledge suffer by paying for it.  The military-industrial complex, large corporations, banks... you name it, they benefit enormouslly.  And it is wrong.

The better way forward is to reduce the power of government and ensure that they are no longer able to benefit one group over another.   However, our laws in Canada are written in a manner that give our rulers carte blanche as there are no limits imposed upon their power (certainly none that seriously stand in their way to benefit whoever they want).

When the people realize that they are getting ripped-off then things will change.  Until then... enjoy the government regurgitated drivel on the CBC and Global.

- the thing is - if you reduce the power of government - who is going to stop the marauding corporate beast from doing even worse things to 'the people'? Right now we have a government that has, in very recent years, at least tried to regulate these modern robber barons - and yes, they have been de-regulating for awhile which is not good, but now you want to reduce that power even further? Think of the feudal system, which we seem to be heading for a return to - people with money buy up armies vie for power over the mass of peasants, and whoever has the most money buys the biggest army and becomes the local warlord - who's going to stop this without a democratic government? This is what the libertarians seem to overlook.

*Democratic* government - of, by and for 'we the people' - was instituted largely to stop this kind of warlord from running our societies. That these warlords, in their modern corporate incarnation with corporate lawyers taking the place of armored knights, have figured out how to usurp these governments to their own ends does not mean we should give up on the government - it just means that 'we the people' need to get a bit better clued in about what is happening, and take the steps necessary to get these usurpers out of *our* government. The struggle for Democracy has gone on for thousands of years in some ways, with the wannabe dictators winning some, and 'we the people' winning some. THe capitalists obviously were dominant during Dickensian England and the robber baron-mill town days of the early US - but then 'we the people' were making some good steps in the middle decades of the last century - then the capitalists decided to make a major move and have done that, with considerable success the last 40 years - now it is up to us to fight back. Or give up.

Giving up would not be a good idea, unless the idea of having Asian sweat shops spread throughout the west is attractive to you. Letting them persuade us to get rid of what should be our major weapon - a truly democratic government big enough to control these predators - would help them a lot, and hurt us a lot. We don't need to get rid of government - we need to take it back, and make it work for us, which is what it was meant for.

If your body gets infected with some disease - do you recommend shooting yourself, or fighting the disease? Cancer is a very serious disease that has infected our body politic. I say kill the cancer - not the body. To me, a democratic government is not some foreign thing - it is me, it is us, and we should control it for our own ends. I don't cut my eye out if it gets infected - I get rid of the infection. Likewise with *my* government - it has been taken over by some very bad people, and I want to get rid of them, not destroy that thing which is my greatest possession.

 

 

Iwant Liberty

siamdave wrote:

- the thing is - if you reduce the power of government - who is going to stop the marauding corporate beast from doing even worse things to 'the people'?

Ok, fair enough.  But who is going to stop the marauding government from doing even worse things to the people?  Democracies can't even stop them... look at Hitler who was democratically elected and in the name of justice slaughtered millions of innocent Jews.  I'm not saying that Stephen Harper, Ignatief or Layton are on the same plane as Hitler, but I fear anyone who wields political and military power.

siamdave wrote:

... Think of the feudal system, which we seem to be heading for a return to - people with money buy up armies vie for power over the mass of peasants, and whoever has the most money buys the biggest army and becomes the local warlord - who's going to stop this without a democratic government? This is what the libertarians seem to overlook.

I think everyone is in favour of a system of justice whereby anyone should be prevented from exercising force against someone else, including the raising of private armies.  Perhaps that is one of the roles of government that can be reasonably justified.

siamdave wrote:

Likewise with *my* government - it has been taken over by some very bad people, and I want to get rid of them, not destroy that thing which is my greatest possession.

We're both agreed there (though I don't consider the government to be mine... it's "theirs"-- the people who fund the politicians in their ascent to power).   

When I look at Harper, I ask myself, "do I trust him to run my life, does he have the answers?"  I say absolutely not.  Same with Ignatief.  Same with Layton and May.  Would you trust me as Prime Minister?  I hope not.

People are drawn to pursue political leadership for the very reasons we should all fear them:  power, control, egotism, self-aggrandisement and enrichment.  It does not matter what political colors they swear allegiance to at any given point in time, they're all scary (and necessarily incompetent for the job because their promises and tasks are always too big for any one human or group of humans to accomplish with any success).

It becomes completely frightening when you throw-in the pursuit of Utopian goals because then there will be no limit to the amount of destruction and harm that politicians and their thugs will inflict upon the citizenry to achieve their phantastic ideals.

Government is a terrible thing and something to be feared because its existence and everything it does is absolutely and solely based upon a foundation of the use of force.  Therefore, it can be trusted with only a limited power.

Preventing the rise of private armies would be one thing.  Preventing the rise of government armies would be another.  :)

 

remind remind's picture

wow that is some whack load of fearful living you are doing....I refuse to live my life in that much fear.

 

In fact I believe we should be more fearful of corporations than government. They have more power.

Fidel

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - Sir Louis S. St. Laurent

siamdave

Fidel wrote:

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - Sir Louis S. St. Laurent

?? any source for that ??

ygtbk

Fidel wrote:

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - Sir Louis S. St. Laurent

I think that's a misquote of Mussolini. I hope it's a joke.

Iwant Liberty

remind wrote:

wow that is some whack load of fearful living you are doing....I refuse to live my life in that much fear.

In fact I believe we should be more fearful of corporations than government. They have more power.

Well, ahem, yes I guess I make it sound like I live a fearful existence.  Why would you fear corporations more?  They can't fine you, imprison you, torture you, launch wars against you, and they cannot kill you.  But governments do all those things, and more.  And they do all those things with impunity.  No doubt about it, I fear government more.  I am the exception, though, I realize that.

siamdave

Iwant Liberty wrote:

.........

We're both agreed there (though I don't consider the government to be mine... it's "theirs"-- the people who fund the politicians in their ascent to power).   

When I look at Harper, I ask myself, "do I trust him to run my life, does he have the answers?"  I say absolutely not.  Same with Ignatief.  Same with Layton and May.  Would you trust me as Prime Minister?  I hope not.

People are drawn to pursue political leadership for the very reasons we should all fear them:  power, control, egotism, self-aggrandisement and enrichment.  It does not matter what political colors they swear allegiance to at any given point in time, they're all scary (and necessarily incompetent for the job because their promises and tasks are always too big for any one human or group of humans to accomplish with any success).

It becomes completely frightening when you throw-in the pursuit of Utopian goals because then there will be no limit to the amount of destruction and harm that politicians and their thugs will inflict upon the citizenry to achieve their phantastic ideals.

Government is a terrible thing and something to be feared because its existence and everything it does is absolutely and solely based upon a foundation of the use of force.  Therefore, it can be trusted with only a limited power.

Preventing the rise of private armies would be one thing.  Preventing the rise of government armies would be another.  :)

YOu have a lot of pretty extreme ideas there that are just too far out for comment, apparently libertarian propaganda (the 'chasing Utopian goals' is a dead giveaway - part of the 'great socialist plot to take over the world!!' nonsense spread by these people in the US amongst the reality-challenged tv-watchers - suggesting the current neocon/banking elite are 'socialists' is just too far out for comment ...) - but if you are actually serious about what you are saying (I did have similar shallow and simplistic Randian ideas a looong time ago in my younger, much more uninformed days after reading Atlas Shrugged), overall you're missing the central point of what I said. What we have right now is the worst of both worlds - a handful of very wealthy individuals controlling the government through their puppet politicians - the US being the prime example - not a 'democracy' in any real way at all - so it is simply a non-starter to blame the problems we see today on 'democracy', which, as Gandhi said, is a nice idea why don't you try it some day.

In a *democracy*, which has never been fully implemented anywhere, *we* would *be* the government - you and I and every other citizen. No single person, or group of people, would control anything, as they do now - there would be no elections as we currently have them, so no room for the kind of individual political dominance we now have. EVERY decision of consequence would be made by you and I and all other citizens together, in meetings where everything was openly discussed and votes taken - it would not be that difficult to arrange in a modern country like Canada with the highly advanced communications systems we have. We would hire administrators to carry out our wishes, but they would have no power to 'do as they please', anytime, anywhere - democracy is not a 'vote every 5 years' process, true democracy is part of your everyday life - we have meetings when we need to, and make decisions when we need to, and *always* keep an eye on everything, most notably senior administrators who would be most dangerous if they decided to sell out to predatory interests. This type of true democracy has never been done, and I understand, given the current retreat of 'almost democracy' to 'nowhere near democracy' why people have this mistaken idea that 'government' is always some version of *them* - but in a true Democracy - government is *us*, not 'them' - 'we the people' acting together. It's never been tried, of course - but then a few hundred years ago, the limited version of 'democracy' we have now had never been tried either - the kings ruled as they wished. Our ancestors fought them back a bit, to a 'this far and no further, King!' stage - which, of course, those who would be king have always tried to push back in their own way - and now it's our turn to push back the current push back, and after one step back take two steps forward, towards a *better* form of democracy - not giving up to a worse form.

There is no reason We the People cannot someday take the final step to true democracy, in which government *is* us, as I see it - no reason, of course, unless the wannabe-kings, and those who have bought their propaganda about 'the evil government!!!' which is part of their latest drive to reassert their traditional omnipotence, convince everyone to just give up and accept, once again, the divine right of kings to do as they wish.

Not me, for one. I want this cancer removed, not enabled. That's what Green Island is all about, that's why I fight for a Newworld Socialism - wherein We the People are informed and engaged and fully in charge of *our* Democracy, and the capitalists are seen as the evil predatory corrupting bastards they really are. And dealt with like we would deal with any other nasty disease infecting us.

- democracy on Green Island, for anyone with a few minutes to read and some curiosity about how a real democracy might work - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland/ex/pts-01.html .

 

 

6079_Smith_W

ygtbk wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - Sir Louis S. St. Laurent

I think that's a misquote of Mussolini. I hope it's a joke.

I wouldn't be so sure. Remember the pipeline debate?

(edit)

though I guess in his case it was democracy that tripped him up

 

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Well, ahem, yes I guess I make it sound like I live a fearful existence.  Why would you fear corporations more?  They can't fine you, imprison you, torture you, launch wars against you, and they cannot kill you. 

 

Do you have ostrich DNA, or are you serious?

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Democracy is the merger of state and corporate power. - Sir Louis S. St. Laurent

I think that's a misquote of Mussolini. I hope it's a joke.

I wouldn't be so sure. Remember the pipeline debate?

(edit)

though I guess in his case it was democracy that tripped him up

Mussolini? I'm not sure who said it, but I'm pretty sure it was little Louis who put us on the road to capitalist democracy in our  Northern Puerto Rico. What's ours belongs to corporate America but not vice versa as a general rule. The NAFTA traitors on this side of the border claim to have been hoodwinked, but I think they were compensated for their stoogery fairly well.

And I suppose Margaret Thatcher and John Major were not really state-capitalists or even free marketeers either. Neither the iron lady nor John could make the trains run on time no matter how many capitalists they found themselves in bed with.

6079_Smith_W

@ fidel

Here's mussolini's original quote:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Thatcher did the opposite, actually. I was trying to catch a bus between Manchester and Liverpool on the day she turned the transit system there into a bunch of little private companies. Fucked everything up and our bus never did arrive. We hitched.

(edit)

And Canada has been a corporate empire since the Rupertsland Charter.

Fidel

The thing which both capitalists and fascists alike hold great disdain for is organized labour. Both tend to attack unions from the moment they seize power. The other thing is that both tend to abuse power once they have it. It's just a matter of degree of the abuse , and I think some on the right have more potential than others. Although, I don't think we could count on the others to struggle very hard for control of the party/government once a right wing agenda was to gain momentum. Fascists and capitalists,  their political representatives all do not believe in free labour markets.

ETA: Manchester to Liverpool? That's a fair hike mate. cheers.

milo204

 what does your argument call for when you say to reduce government power?  that's a pretty general statement, but what most people are saying (and since your post was about how capitalism ain't so bad) is to reduce things like environmental regulations, social programs like EI and welfare, "red tape" (workers rights), equality,  etc.

I mean i'm all for reducing government power when it comes to things like being able to terrorize civil rights groups, spy on their citizens, suppress relevant "secret" documents, fund private tyrannies, steal land...i don't think you'd find anyone here who disagrees on that.

The other thing is that if the state as it is now didn't exist to support corporations through trade negotiations, militaries, law enforcement, diplomacy, public infrastructure, healthcare, social programs, etc, our economy wouldn't look anything like it does now...it'd probably look more like a developing country with even greater wealth disparity, lower standard of living, more violence...

lbencze lbencze's picture

Member 20660 posted a brief comment comparing capitalism to cancer. I agree with this analogy and recommend reading John McMurtry's 1999 book, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: http://www.amazon.ca/Cancer-Stage-Capitalism-John-McMurtry/dp/0745313477

Fidel

[url=http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer68.html#note-2]US author William Blum[/url] wrote:

In 2009, William Blum wrote:
In the latest example, "Russia Now", a Moscow publication that appears as a supplement in the Washington Post, asked Russians: "What socio-economic system do you favor?" The results were: "State planning and distribution": 58% ... "Based on private property and market relations": 28% ... "Hard to say": 14%.2

In 1994, Mark Brzezinski (son of Zbigniew) was a Fulbright Scholar teaching in Warsaw. He has written: "I asked my students to define democracy. Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education and housing for all. In other words, socialism."

milo204

yeah, it's like what chomsky says.  As an anarchist, his views are actually more in line with what the average american believes than what either party is saying.

in other words, most average people identify more with anarchist values than "democracy" or "capitalism".  They just are constantly told that what they believe is western democracy, so the majority who don't question or investigate any further believe it.

Iwant Liberty

siamdave wrote:

YOu have a lot of pretty extreme ideas there that are just too far out for comment, apparently libertarian propaganda (the 'chasing Utopian goals' is a dead giveaway - part of the 'great socialist plot to take over the world!!' nonsense ... What we have right now is the worst of both worlds - a handful of very wealthy individuals controlling the government through their puppet politicians...  not a 'democracy' in any real way at all...

Give me a little credit.  I started out very much like the average Canadian:  trusting in government, understand that wars happen, but not really comprehending what the government really is, or why they never seem to deliver on their promises.  I don't believe that there is a great socialist plot to take over the world.  Rather, I view the power ambitions of any special interest group as a grave threat (be it capaitalists, bankers, corporations, you name it).  I think most people would generally agree with that statement.  I wholely agree with your statement that the government is run by a vew very wealth individuals.

siamdave wrote:

In a *democracy*, which has never been fully implemented anywhere, *we* would *be* the government - you and I and every other citizen. No single person, or group of people, would control anything, as they do now - there would be no elections as we currently have them, so no room for the kind of individual political dominance we now have. EVERY decision of consequence would be made by you and I and all other citizens together, in meetings where everything was openly discussed and votes taken - it would not be that difficult to arrange in a modern country like Canada with the highly advanced communications systems we have.

Agreed... we have never had real democracy.  Your points are well taken.

siamdave wrote:

There is no reason We the People cannot someday take the final step to true democracy, in which government *is* us, as I see it - no reason, of course, unless the wannabe-kings, and those who have bought their propaganda about 'the evil government!!!' which is part of their latest drive to reassert their traditional omnipotence, convince everyone to just give up and accept, once again, the divine right of kings to do as they wish.

Ok, very interesting.  I think that when/if people do come around to view centralized government as the biggest continuing threat to their well being, then perhaps it can be brought down and the governance of each left to his own.  That would truly be a democracy worth fighting for.

Pages