Everyone is familiar with political parties; the two most recognizable being the Republicans and the Democrats. My statement; The political party idea is a double- edged sword. It is a great way to nominate candidates, and it keeps similar views in an order, but it has also caused a lot of conflict between themselves. These parties spend more time going after each other than getting down to the pressing matters of the nation. Also, it is hard to be a good president when your cabinet, and the Legislature don't agree with anything you say, because they are in a different party. My question to AG is Should we keep our parties, or should we unite again?
We shouldn't be a one-party state, but it would be better if we got rid of political parties, however I just don't see that happening.
What's wrong with a 1-party state? It circumnavigates bureaucracy and allows for more rapid advancement of society. Of course, it requires people to become logical and stop relying on their emotions...
What's wrong with a 1-party state? It circumnavigates bureaucracy and allows for more rapid advancement of society. Of course, it requires people to become logical and stop relying on their emotions...
Who is to say that the decisions of a one party state are going to be right, especially when they have no opposition, there is literally nothing stopping them from abusing their power. One party states include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China, nothing stops them from abusing their power.
It won't allow "rapid advancement of society," the rulers will keep giving themselves more and more power until there is no more power to be had, at which point the society will stay where it landed. Oppressed.
Who is to say that the decisions of a one party state are going to be right, especially when they have no opposition, there is literally nothing stopping them from abusing their power. One party states include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China, nothing stops them from abusing their power.
It won't allow "rapid advancement of society," the rulers will keep giving themselves more and more power until there is no more power to be had, at which point the society will stay where it landed. Oppressed.
Nazi Germany was actually a good state. Soviet Russia and Communist China aren't bad places. However, because of a very western bias, we assume they are. In China, communism works. In America, it wouldn't. Nazism.... well, aspects of it were good, aspects of it were bad. But again, we have a very western bias of Nazi Germany and WWII - especially the Holocaust. I won't go into detail on that because I sound like one of those conspiracy whack jobs, but I have my reasons for disagreeing with the modern "history" of WWII.
Nazi Germany was a state which worked becasue of the incentives they promised. They lowered unemployment by taking workers and constructing autobahns and other public buildings using the national labour front. However many people were unhappy because the wages never actually rose to the levels of pre depression pay in Germany. Many people were upset because they were made to work twice as hard as they had to under the Weimar government but were still not paid as much. Many people were also drafted into the German army to fight unemployment but this only served to fuel an aggressive nations militaristic aims. There were many examples of single isolated outbreaks of anger from the people but due to the fear factor of the gestapo finding out as the few workers who did complain were sent to prison or worse. The system of Autarky the Nazis imposed meant they could sustain themselves as a nation however they had far fewer luxury goods and many people were unhappy about this aswell. The production of common foodstuffs was increased but sugar was in very short supply. On top of that there were many many injustices a
In China communism works because the government did the exact same thing that the former USSR did. It opened its gates to capitalism and growth. As long as the Chinese government can keep up their peoples expectations of wealth and prosperity they will be fine. But when something bad happens like a food shortage as they have to import lots of it, there is very little stopping them from revolting. Statistics show that each year there is an average increase of workers riots showing the common people are unhappy. Despite all the economic growth they have experienced. China has no free education past primary school level as it spends most of its budget on its military and its energy stations. This leaves the majority of the popultion uneducated rural workers and the cities reap the benefits of their hard work and cheap labour. China is developing but much like 19th century britain. An extremely wealthy elite of the upper class and the cities being the centre of wealth but leaving the majority of the population living in relative poverty and squalor.
As for your interpretation of WW2 and Nazi Germany and the holocaust all i can really say is that whatever the western bias 6 millio n dead jews speaks for itself. Any regime that advocates mass killing of men women and children is definitely uncondoneable and downright evil.
As for your interpretation of WW2 and Nazi Germany and the holocaust all i can really say is that whatever the western bias 6 millio n dead jews speaks for itself. Any regime that advocates mass killing of men women and children is definitely uncondoneable and downright evil.
Actually, as the Jews in the labor camps were the main work force for Nazi Germany, the outright slaughter of them would go against German protocol at the time. And it wasn't just Jews that were killed - the Jews just complained the loudest and the longest, so they are the ones who we think of. And other reports have indicated that the total number dead from Nazi work camps is actually far lower than the 6 million - some suggest that this figure takes into account the deaths of ALL Jews and other "inferior races", not just those in Nazi death camps.
If any of you guys have ever read the Federalist Papers, it is made clear that one of the biggest fears people had in reorganizing the structure of the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation was factionalism. Madison wrote at length about how the new government system would be able to keep people from forming factions and taking over the political power in the country. And he was right... The factions ended up evolving from the government during Jefferson's (I think it was him) presidency. It was an event that, like most events in history, nobody could have ever predicted. Ideologically, we should try to return to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Or perhaps the system that we have now evolved out of necessity - it's hard to say.
I do not believe a one-party system would be a good thing, at all. A one-party system, while not destroying the country may run down the wrong path, and it can not possibly appease everybody or even much more than half of the people. The best way to do things imo would be to have no parties...but that can't happen w/o disatrous effects (damn the nature of common man...), so i'll just dream...
I am aware that other minority groups were targeted in the death camps but that does not remove from the fact that millions of people did die. There were an estimated 2 million jews that were killed by Himmlers strategem oof machine gunning them in pits. As the main army rolled through the east this death squad followed behind. Whether or not they died in camps is immaterial. The fact is they were murdered. They had the right to 'complain' as you put it. I live in a very Jewish area of north london. They were all immigrants to england in the 30s. Nearly every onne of them knows a relative who was killed. My grandmother who lived in a village in Greece during the war saw the one Jewish family be thrown into a pit and burnt alive, women and children. Even though it went against the countries ethos, the Nazis were very good at brainwashing children from a young age using the Hitler Youth system. These were the killers in the holocaust.
There are many different statistics however one of the main reasons it is so hard to credibly deny the holocausts scale is the fact that the Germans were so organised. They kept records of everything. From the amount of shoes to the number of fillings looted from the dead bodies.
The one theory is that the Americans exxagerated the figures of the dead toensure the future state of Israels existense. The main evidence behind this is taken from a French Jew who was imprisoned at Dachau who claimed he saw no burning or gassing. However people who choose to belive this must also choose to ignore the thousands of other eye witnesses to the events, and diary entries. The fact remains you cannot explain away 6 million missing people.
True, but you also can't use the Holocaust as an example for all 1-party states.
Fascist Italy would, had Mussolini not decided to form an alliance with Hitler, be one of the great powers of today. It had its flaws - reason being? Mussolini didn't stick to his original ideals - but due to Fascism Italy saw a HUGE economic growth shortly after the war.
Yes i think we went a little off topic with the holocaust thing.
However the mainreason i am against one party states is that i have little faith in peoples behaviour. When there is no opposition power gets to peoples heads. U said in another post something along the lines of that human nature is that emotion overrides logic. A one party state could work in theory if that party made all the right descisions quickly and decicively with their nations best interests at heart. However no government can be right the whole time and a common factor in many one party states present and past is that they become increasingly militaristic and controlling. The lack of free speech for instance, in China, the man in Tianamen square making a stand. Whisked away and never seen again. Germany, political activists were put into concentration camps, Russia, enemies of the state were made to be forced labourers in the gulags. Power corrupts and for me a lack of political freedoms is too big a price to pay for economic growth. Although i am sure you are correct about Italy.
Power corrupts and for me a lack of political freedoms is too big a price to pay for economic growth. Although i am sure you are correct about Italy.
America's power system is corrupt, too. All governments are corrupt, and the lack of government only leads to the formation of a NEW government. Still, we don't have it so bad here.
Freedom, in particular a free market, greatly increases growth much more so than a government controlled one. A free market sees the more efficient corporations surviving and the least efficient dying. See my posts on the Communism v. Capitalism thread. Unfortunately, right now America doesn't have a totally free market, which is causing problems.
