Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kaiwren-;43143005]"[I]even[/I] fascism" I dunno, Mussolini's pre-war Italy wasn't actually that bad, and received international praise for how things were being run there. Fascism is only perceived as a bad thing because people told in schools that the Nazis were fascists (they weren't - authoritarianism != fascism) and anything associated with Nazism is terrible.[/QUOTE] no please dont please

[QUOTE=Swilly;43142963]It sounds great, but I'd rather work on improving democracy and applying socialist tendencies to public policy so that the quality of life is assured to the many and that all have an equal chance of success in their own work. Maybe then we could start pushing toward your framework, but until we get an even playing field, your system will literally blow up in your face.[/QUOTE] if we switched to anarchism overnight, it would immediately devolve back into statism because workers are not currently able to take on the role of self-management immediately. that's why catbarf can point to instances where collective self-management fails, sometimes spectacularly. we need to learn how to take on the role of manager in the workplace. we also need to collectively redefine our concepts of "justice" and "equality". we need to breed a powerful skepticism of authority in the minds of the masses(something that is has actually been happening for centuries already). it isn't an overnight thing. it's a very difficult process. it's like how you can't just snap your fingers and take patriarchy away; it's only through an aggressive campaign to constantly challenge the concept of patriarchy that we can gradually undermine the gender structures that hold us down.

[QUOTE=Kaiwren-;43143005]"[I]even[/I] fascism" I dunno, Mussolini's pre-war Italy wasn't actually that bad, and received international praise for how things were being run there. Fascism is only perceived as a bad thing because people told in schools that the Nazis were fascists (they weren't - authoritarianism != fascism) and anything associated with Nazism is terrible.[/QUOTE] Nazis were fascists. You can't have fascism without authoritarianism.

PLEASE NO.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43143016]Nazis were fascists. You can't have fascism without authoritarianism.[/QUOTE] But you [I]can[/I] have authoritarianism without fascism... [QUOTE=Swilly;43143017]PLEASE NO.[/QUOTE] What are you people shouting "please no" even talking about?

[QUOTE=Kaiwren-;43143020]But you [I]can[/I] have authoritarianism without fascism...[/QUOTE] I read it backwards, my mistake.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43142999]but who decides that authority is legitimate? what if i say that authority isn't legitimate to me and have nothing on me?[/QUOTE] well you would have to ask noam about that. he's speaking in more broad and idealistic terms. however, in my opinion, it's sorta the duty of collective groups and individuals to both assess the authoritarian structures in their life and dismantle them when they don't meet that "burden of proof". i would say 90%(being conservative) of the authority we see in our lives is not legitimate and should be dismantled.

im not gonna be in a thread where a dude is gonna argue how fascism wasnt that bad im out

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43143033]im not gonna be in a thread where a dude is gonna argue how fascism wasnt that bad im out[/QUOTE] Well it wasn't, for the fascists. Until they were thrown out of power. :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43143044]Well it wasn't, for the fascists. Until they were thrown out of power. :v:[/QUOTE] Usually with a bang.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43143033]im not gonna be in a thread where a dude is gonna argue how fascism wasnt that bad im out[/QUOTE] And do you simply refuse to share space with everyone who says something you don't want to hear, or is it [I]just[/I] fascism that gets your knickers in such a twist?

I don't hold the same opinion as you yawmen about authority, mainly because we have plenty of departments in the US that actually do what they need to and do very well. We have the NSA and we have ill-trained police force, yes. We have a congress and senate that have been [I]elected in[/I] as dysfunctional. But to say that people don't have power is ridiculous, if everyone were to just not vote on the next presidential election, it would break the entire system, or at least confuse people.

the only good thing mussolini did was get himself shot.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43143065]the only good thing mussolini did was get himself shot.[/QUOTE] Hence the bang.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43143065]the only good thing mussolini did was get himself shot.[/QUOTE] And, you know, implement welfare policies that effectively improved the general Italian standards of living.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43143063]I don't hold the same opinion as you yawmen about authority, mainly because we have plenty of departments in the US that actually do what they need to and do very well. We have the NSA and we have ill-trained police force, yes. We have a congress and senate that have been [I]elected in[/I] as dysfunctional.[/QUOTE] but our congress is dysfunctional in principle. at best it is inefficient and overly partisan. at worst it is opaque, authoritarian, and breeds political apathy. people don't become knowledgeable on issues or want to be overly invested in politics because they don't feel a sense of duty to it. this is, in large part, because we elect people to do it for us. if we participated directly in government, then people would be more inclined to learn about the ways our government works because they would feel they actually had influence on the outcomes. we are stuck in a two party state and almost NO ONE really supports either party. people just continually vote for the person who they think isn't going to make their life completely "hellish", and hope to god they are right. we don't have any reason to participate or maintain this broken system. it must be dismantled in favor of something better. i would even consider a move towards a parliamentary system to be preferable to trying to reform the system and hope people become more involved. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] a major problem, though, is when people say "well we can fix the system as is if we just to x and y". it's apologizing for the broken system and failing to see it for the rotten structure it is. we need to stop looking at congress as "fixable" and just say "this republican experiment that the founding fathers conducted over 200 years ago was a failure, we are going to try something new now".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43143096]but our congress is dysfunctional in principle. at best it is inefficient and overly partisan. at worst it is opaque, authoritarian, and breeds political apathy. people don't become knowledgeable on issues or want to be overly invested in politics because they don't feel a sense of duty to it. this is, in large part, because we elect people to do it for us. if we participated directly in government, then people would be more inclined to learn about the ways our government works because they would feel they actually had influence on the outcomes. we are stuck in a two party state and almost NO ONE really supports either party. people just continually vote for the person who they think isn't going to make their life completely "hellish", and hope to god they are right. we don't have any reason to participate or maintain this broken system. it must be dismantled in favor of something better. i would even consider a move towards a parliamentary system to be preferable to trying to reform the system and hope people become more involved.[/QUOTE] The two party system does suck, which needs to change. However, I'm gonna need sources on the you're initial claims as the general idea behind the Senate, Congress and the larger system as a whole was to slow down change to a grinding halt at best so that the people could have proper time to get their opinions to congress and the senate. Also, I don't buy the idea that by giving people a direct influence on their government that they're going to somehow make the right decisions. If they're not properly educated, they're going to make horrendous decisions. I don't trust 75% of Americans with Foreign policy, and I don't trust 98% of them with energy policy.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43143127]The two party system does suck, which needs to change. However, I'm gonna need sources on the you're initial claims as the general idea behind the Senate, Congress and the larger system as a whole was to slow down change to a grinding halt at best so that the people could have proper time to get their opinions to congress and the senate.[/quote] source on what claim, specifically? [quote]Also, I don't buy the idea that by giving people a direct influence on their government that they're going to somehow make the right decisions. If they're not properly educated, they're going to make horrendous decisions.[/QUOTE] opposed to having uneducated or malicious representatives making horrendous decisions on our behalf? at least we will have a bit more accountability. when we fuck up we can stop saying "well it's really just this elected official's fault let's elect this other guy who is 90% the same", we can say "hey, we fucked up let's try something new next time".

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43143140]source on what claim, specifically? opposed to having uneducated or malicious representatives making horrendous decisions on our behalf? at least we will have a bit more accountability. when we fuck up we can stop saying "well it's really just this elected official's fault let's elect this other guy who is 90% the same", we can say "hey, we fucked up let's try something new next time".[/QUOTE] That's not how it will work, at all. They'll end up blaming each other, or the other percent of people who didn't go with it. And the claim that its opaque, authoritarian and breeds political apathy.

The thing about most politics - American ones in particular - is that none of the elected representatives are actually [I]sincere[/I]. Nobody means anything they say, and everyone has some sort of ulterior motive - either that or they're just being paid off. I know it sounds edgy as fuck or whatever but I honestly have no faith in American politics anymore whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Kaiwren-;43143154]The thing about most politics - American ones in particular - is that none of the elected representatives are actually [I]sincere[/I]. Nobody means anything they say, and everyone has some sort of ulterior motive - either that or they're just being paid off. I know it sounds edgy as fuck or whatever but I honestly have no faith in American politics anymore whatsoever.[/QUOTE] They're not getting paid off, they can barely PAY for their campaigns. Add to the fact that congressman have to serve 2 year sentences means they're CONTINUOUSLY campaigning. Its a career path they're looking for, change doesn't happen instantaneously but bad shit happens all the time. Also, a lot of the congressmen and senators are completely sincere about what they're doing, which is why shit is so dysfunctional now. Because they're actually sticking to their ideals, morals and guns like radicals do.

Well, exactly. They [I]have[/I] to get paid off to continue campaigning because it's basically "oh, do this and this for us as a way of paying us back for all the money we donated to your campaign and maybe when you're done doing all these favors for us you'll have time to do whatever you actually wanted to originally once you got here, and if you do a good job we'll pay for your next campaign too." Congressmen are basically an investment for businesses that can afford professional lobbyists. If they show themselves as "bad investments" (not cooperating with lobbyists), then the business doesn't "invest" in them again by refusing to fund their next campaign, etc.

No, its more like, "Alright I was just elected...and I have to start campaigning next year. Shit." Change will never happen through that unless you're really sure you can make it in. Its why nothing really gets done is because they want to keep their job. If you get evaluated every two years for any sort of minor fault of character, wordplay or mistake which could cost you your job, you'd probably start saying something about rights or become a zombie. Because you want to keep that job.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43143145]That's not how it will work, at all. They'll end up blaming each other, or the other percent of people who didn't go with it. And the claim that its opaque, authoritarian and breeds political apathy.[/QUOTE] the opacity can be shown in the "secret dealings" of the senate. especially regarding things like security and defense.[1][2] the authoritarian nature of it is pretty much obvious due to the way congress works. they write bills which the executive signs into law. they don't have to follow public opinion[3] or really have to follow the constitution[4] unless a law is specifically challenged in the supreme court.[5] i can't really source the political apathy part. i would assert that it is a natural progression. when people become disillusioned with the system and feel like there is no way to properly change it, they tend to stop participating altogether. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa_n_3403389.html [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_session_of_the_United_States_Congress [3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act [5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Case_selection

So what about European parliamentarian systems?

[QUOTE=Swilly;43143209]So what about European parliamentarian systems?[/QUOTE] "Voter turnout varies considerably between countries. It tends to be lower in the United States, Asia and Latin America than most of Europe, Canada[citation needed] and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54% since 1945.[36] The differences between nations tend to be greater than those between classes, ethnic groups, or regions within nations. Confusingly, some of the factors that cause internal differences do not seem to apply on a global level. For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. There are two main causes of these international differences—culture and institutions—although there is much debate over the relative impact of the various factors." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout[/url]

That's not what I'm asking, voter turn out doesn't mean shit. You can abstain from voting and still give your voice.

it can be said that the usa has one of the lowest voter turnout systems, and also one of the systems where a voter has least power over elected representatives. it isn't necessarily a 1:1 causal link, but to dismiss any link would seem too dismissive. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;43143226]That's not what I'm asking, voter turn out doesn't mean shit. You can abstain from voting and still give your voice.[/QUOTE] then please elaborate on what you are asking.

The US has actually always held a consistent 60 to 70 percent voter turn out rate last I read.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43143242]The US has actually always held a consistent 60 to 70 percent voter turn out rate last I read.[/QUOTE] 48% according to wikipedia. huffpost said 36% but i think it was a blog source.