Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 01:00 / 1 edit
    What is politics, or more specifically, what purpose do political systems serve? The answer is that they are a means to organize and regulate the distribution of a nation's economic resources. Those with political power are in the preeminent position of deciding the rules governing the establishment and maintenance of a nation's economic system. To win political power, therefore, is to win the right to influence the trajectory that economic system will subsequently take. That, in a nutshell, is the primary purpose of any political system.

    With a vast inequality of wealth, however, the rich have an inordinate amount of power to make sure that an ostensibly democratic political system does not end up serving the will of the voting majority, but rather that it serves the undemocratic purpose of continuing their economic dominance. When a political system is so contrived, continued participation in it serves merely to legitimize that mode of economic dominance under the guise of popular participation. The poor, that is to say, help perpetuate their own economic servitude by giving such purely political elections legitimacy.

    The objective will be to get people to realize that effective control of a nation's economic sphere comes not through the election of one or the other pro-corporate political candidates, but through their own direct participation in, and the eventual appropriation of, the economic system itself. The way to build a more equitable economic system is not through the indirect and hopeless method of political democracy, but through the direct method of economic democracy. With that accomplished, politics will eventually become superfluous and wither away.

    Make no mistake, the evolution of democratic systems is still in its infancy. The move from absolutist monarchies to political democracies controlled and manipulated by the rich is but the first step. The next step will be the broadening of the democratic impulse to economic institutions as well as political ones. Only then will the people have a fully functioning democratic system.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    04 Aug '10 01:06
    I haven't read your whole entry, but I saw where you wrote that it's about regulation of the economy.

    I have a slightly different slant on it. I think it's about peaceful regulation of violence.

    They probably come out to about the same thing in the end.
  3. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 01:15
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I haven't read your whole entry, but I saw where you wrote that it's about regulation of the economy.

    I have a slightly different slant on it. I think it's about peaceful regulation of violence.

    They probably come out to about the same thing in the end.
    I would wager that most violence ultimately has an economic basis. After all, the poor would not be motivated to steal from the rich is the rich did not control the economy to their own benefit. Much of crime, likewise, is rooted in poverty.
  4. 04 Aug '10 03:12
    Originally posted by rwingett
    . Much of crime, likewise, is rooted in poverty.[/b]
    I disagree. Much crime that causes people to go to the big house is rooted in poverty. White colar crime is probably just as abundant than in the hood. In fact, who in Washington pays taxes?
  5. 04 Aug '10 03:14
    Originally posted by rwingett
    What is politics, or more specifically, what purpose do political systems serve? The answer is that they are a means to organize and regulate the distribution of a nation's economic resources. Those with political power are in the preeminent position of deciding the rules governing the establishment and maintenance of a nation's economic system. To win poli ...[text shortened]... well as political ones. Only then will the people have a fully functioning democratic system.
    So you are saying that creating economic spheres of influence is the answer? I say it has more to do with the morality of a nation. No matter the system in place, if a nation is amoral it matters little what form of government you have, it will fail.
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    04 Aug '10 03:18
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I would wager that most violence ultimately has an economic basis. After all, the poor would not be motivated to steal from the rich is the rich did not control the economy to their own benefit. Much of crime, likewise, is rooted in poverty.
    Flaw in your paranoia: When the poor folk do, well the rich folk do well too.
  7. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 10:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    I disagree. Much crime that causes people to go to the big house is rooted in poverty. White colar crime is probably just as abundant than in the hood. In fact, who in Washington pays taxes?
    White collar crimes are economic crimes. At either end of the spectrum, it is economic inequality which is at the root of most crime. One end due to their impoverishment and the other to preserve their affluence. Political systems are set up primarily to administer this unequal distribution of resources and punish those who break its rules. If there were a perfect equality of resources, there would be no need for a political system.
  8. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 10:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you are saying that creating economic spheres of influence is the answer? I say it has more to do with the morality of a nation. No matter the system in place, if a nation is amoral it matters little what form of government you have, it will fail.
    Nine tenths of immoral behavior finds its ultimate source is economics. You cannot have a system like capitalism which actively encourages immoral behavior and yet expect its practitioners to behave morally.
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 10:28
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Flaw in your paranoia: When the poor folk do, well the rich folk do well too.
    If the poor do well, the rich do well. That is true. But the inverse is not necessarily true. When the rich do well, the poor do not always do well. In fact, they seldom do. Your 'trickle down' theories are a grotesque sham. Very little ever trickles down of its own accord.
  10. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    04 Aug '10 10:37
    Originally posted by rwingett
    If the poor do well, the rich do well. That is true. But the inverse is not necessarily true. When the rich do well, the poor do not always do well. In fact, they seldom do. Your 'trickle down' theories are a grotesque sham. Very little ever trickles down of its own accord.
    My example: Trickle up.
  11. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 10:43
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    My example: Trickle up.
    What, exactly, is trickling up?
  12. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    04 Aug '10 11:21
    Originally posted by rwingett
    What, exactly, is trickling up?
    Wealth, all those things that make peoples lives better.
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Aug '10 11:27
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Wealth, all those things that make peoples lives better.
    Wealth is trickling up now. Or I should say that it is flooding upward in a mighty torrent. Around the world the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as wealth is inexorably accumulated at the top.

    I know that's not what you mean, but it is the inevitable outcome of your misguided policies.
  14. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    04 Aug '10 11:50
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Wealth is trickling up now. Or I should say that it is flooding upward in a mighty torrent. Around the world the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as wealth is inexorably accumulated at the top.

    I know that's not what you mean, but it is the inevitable outcome of your misguided policies.
    Given that people are free to form democratic co-operatives now but rarely do says something about your misguided policies. But hey, long as people are free to live by capitalism or sign under a co-operative no worries here, in a free society the proof will still reveal itself.
  15. 04 Aug '10 11:53
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Make no mistake, the evolution of democratic systems is still in its infancy. The move from absolutist monarchies to political democracies controlled and manipulated by the rich is but the first step. The next step will be the broadening of the democratic impulse to economic institutions as well as political ones. Only then will the people have a fully functioning democratic system.
    Assuming that such evolution ever takes place. I agree it is desirable for those of us not benefiting from the current system, but that does not mean it will happen. Despite much 'evolution' in the past, dictatorships are still common place in the world today, and dictatorships could be said to be almost a step behind a monarchy.