Let us dispose of the tradtional view of tyrrany from here on out. For that view is outdated, at least in terms of our present society. Tyrrany, for the colelctive purpose of this arguement is nothing but the oppression of the common man. Let us not waste time mincing words and deffinitions about a single word. Let it represent its basic meaning, which is, oppression. We cannot hold to the idea of a tyrant in our society in the true sense unless we wish to say that out tyrant has the ability to fall only to be replaced with a new tyrant whenever the people decide. No, while the notion is absurd in some regards, it is not wholly inaccurate, however, it cannot serve as a true foundation for this argument at hand.
Democracy is indeed the perfect form of tyrrany because of its subtlety. How does the ruling party stay in power? How does the opposition gain power? Fearmongering to a mass population of, for the most part, uneducated working class members. It is with this fear that there is control. One may argue that anyone with the education can become a president or a prime minister, however, by the time that the person in question has reached such a lofty height they are no longer who they first were. Indeed they have been changed by society itself into the shape that power in our society must take. And that is someone who will not always be around. Someone who the people can remove if they so wish it. However, this is but an illusion in some regards. In a traditional state of tyrrany you have the tyrant. The tyrant is a visible force of oppression. Something and someone that is a symbol of all the suffering and troubles of the society in which he rules over. However, in thos senario the common man can only be pushed so far until he eventually wakes up to realize that there is more of him than there is of the tyrant and the tyrant's ruling class. Once the tyrant is removed however, society either creates a new visible tyrant on one of subtler nature, something more...democratic. In democray it is true that a party can rise and fall at the whims of the people. Or so it seems. The people are largely undereducated on the politics and policies of the opposing parties and often vote either out of habit, coercion from surrounding individuals, or the fearmongering campaigns launched by the parties. Often the former and latter situations are the most prevailent. So with this in mind then the commonality is caught in a blissful illusion of power that is fueled by the politicians themselves. However, it is the rich and powerful who pull the strings by feeding the commonality with the deceit and lies that are required to either stay in power or remove their foes from the power they covet. Let us take a look at our ecomonic system.
A small upper class A medium middle class A large lower class
This hierarchy provides the balance the ruling class needs to maintain its grip on society. Often times the poor are uneduacated in many regards and thus fear and the idea of salvation from this fear are key motivators. While the middle class is educated to a decent extend in some regards they still lack, largely, the political education required to make informed choices, this is in fact a form of oppression. The oppression of knowledge. Many will argue the internet solves this, however, the key motivator is still fearmongering. The threat of an enemy either real or imagined, or simply blown our of proportion will do the work for the politicians and rich. This system has created a society based around the idividual wants and needs of the person, not the collective needs of the community. Thus we suffer from apathy, a lack of morality and the chains of debt and poverty, yet we would call it freedom. Had I the ability I'd bring this system crashing down and replace it with an ideal form of society. True equality, where no one leads and other help eachother for the morality of it instead of the self serving interests we see today. However, I know this ideal is nothing short of impossible unless humans change fundamentally in a social manner. Also, how does one take down such a system as this? Oh I have my solution, however, it is once more, another impossibility.
Compared to China, Tibet, Africa, etc, we are lucky. Dubya proved that our system works, we only had to suffer the idiot just short of a decade.
Should I mention the exploitation that the Westen powers condone in such countries? All hail democracy, the system that binds a man in the chains of his own making.
I am not arguing that democracy is the worst form of government, I am arguing that it is the most subtle form of tyrrany. All other forms are much more visible, they require no illusions, yet it is the illusions that give democracy it's power. In a strange way that is highly ironic.
Just because a problems is occurring withing a system doesn't mean that the problem is necessarily a result of the system.
Let's go back to the days of slavery in America. You could look at slavery and state that it exists within a capitalist system. You could then assume that the capitalist system caused slavery and therefor can not exist without slavery.
Today, we live in a capitalist society without slavery, so we now know that it's just untrue. You can easily have a capitalist society without slavery. Slavery is not a requirement to achieve capitalism nor is it an unavoidable result.
When you look at democracy, you need to decide whether or not a problem exists because of democracy or if it merely exists in spite of democracy.
There are many other variables that must also be taken into consideration when you link democracy, or anything, to a problem. However, you should always wonder if there's a possibility that the problems caused are a result of something else.
Well, yes and no. Capitalism did result in slavery (arguably), but it has been proven that capitalism can run without slavery. You don't need slavery for capitalism to work.
It's the same reason why a lot of businesses like illegal aliens, a low paid hard worker who can't complain is worth more then a highly paid worker with full benefits.
It is absolutely and utterly ridiculous to compare immigrants to slaves.
1. Immigrants choose who they work for and where they go. 2. Many immigrants make a decent wage. 3. It's hard to find a good job if you're an illegal immigrant. Nobody wants to hire someone who is living in America illegally.
There are many issues with immigration due to government laws. Capitalism deals with the economy, the market. Immigration laws exist at a completely different level.
Another example is that you can blame capitalism for having crappy immigration laws. However, you can let all the immigrants you want in or keep all of them out. Either way, you will still live in a capitalist nation.
Well, yes and no. Capitalism did result in slavery (arguably), but it has been proven that capitalism can run without slavery. You don't need slavery for capitalism to work.
Actually slavery has existed since time immemorial. Humans (and other socially advanced animals) have been forcing others into servitude long before the advent of the capitalist economic system.
Actually slavery has existed since time immemorial. Humans (and other socially advanced animals) have been forcing others into servitude long before the advent of the capitalist economic system.
Yeah, I was going to bring up the fact that slavery has existed in numerous systems. The reason I said arguably is because the system did have some form of an impact.
I mean, arguably, you can blame good farming conditions for slavery. The soil was good enough to plant tobacco and cotton on that you needed more people and the best way to get people was to bu ya slave.
So yeah, I don't blame capitalism for slavery by any means, but I wont deny that that there was some sort of impact, but the impact is negligible.
My point was, capitalism kept slavery going in the US in the south,
Ugh. It wouldn't matter if it was slavery under a socialist system or a communist system. No matter what the system was, that system would have "helped keep slavery going." But let's suppose capitalism did keep slavery going. Why doesn't slavery exist today? In a capitalist society, slavery did eventually die out.
much like how machines are displacing workers now.
This argument is plain wrong. When we create machines to replace people, the people who are replaced find new jobs.
Let's go back into my time machine.
"You created a machine that will plow my fields for me? You say it will allow one man to plow at the rate of 20 men?! This is horrible! The 20 men working on the fields will lose their jobs! What will they do?!"
Technology has constantly been used to replace people. Every time a person is replaced with a machine, more jobs have been created.
In a capitalist society, slavery did eventually die out.
It died out here because after the Civil war, we basically just ripped slavery out from the south. Or at least tried pretty hard.
Technology has constantly been used to replace people. Every time a person is replaced with a machine, more jobs have been created.
I very much agree with this. Just think, with new machines, you will need people to maintenance them, therefore opening up opportunities for work. Plus, this new technology could create the opportunity to create types of jobs never before seen.
machines dont fix themselves... people have to do that, theres one new job... a lot of machines need people to operate them... thats a job... machines need parts... people make parts, and mine the materials to make those parts
but there has to be an end, mining will become automated, the parts will become automated, there will be machines to fix the machines that fix the machines. this is where its headed.
It died out here because after the Civil war, we basically just ripped slavery out from the south. Or at least tried pretty hard.
Just because slavery existed under a capitalist system does not mean that capitalism causes slavery or that capitalism can't exist without slavery. Seriously, there has been slavery throughout all of human history under many different systems.
If you say capitalism caused slavery, then you MUST admit that every other system caused slavery as well. Which in that case, it sounds like slavery doesn't come from the economic system.
but there has to be an end, mining will become automated, the parts will become automated, there will be machines to fix the machines that fix the machines. this is where its headed.
Computers can not think for themselves. They must be programmed by humans. Many jobs will likely never be replaced by robots, because it's just easier to use humans. Examples would be restaurants where humans cook the food and take part in washing dishes. Human beings work on art and design, something a computer program can't do alone without code from an artist. If an artist creates code so the computer can create art, the code will always be limited. Humans will still be the ones interacting with others at banks, because it is easier to talk to a versatile human than a static machine.
Thanks for the thread! My father and I were discussing this earlier.
The united states has been built upon layers and layers of blood shed and wars. I give the united states credit for making a near perfect government by learning from other governments mistakes, for listening to Hobbes and all those other guys. The united states government has been so well built that the people of the united states are hooked. They back up their cause 100% no matter what, this government is basically impenetrable because of the checks and balance system and the 3 branches of government.
Communism, Democracy, Totalitarian Autocracies... All these could be argued to be ideal. The problem is than none of them exist in reality, only in theory. Reality consists of no absolutes. We can only each pick what we want to follow, to believe in, and try our best to stick to it.
"Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It's knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do." - spoken by Atticus Finch, by Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
