Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612 
February 22nd, 2008, 11:01 AM
Karrie
I'm not sure that there's a workable alternative available. When a population's choice is divided among multiple 'parties' and 'ideologies' it's uncertain that any consensus is achievable. While differences in policy and philosophy may offer the appearance of "choice", whether it's two parties or twelve parties, the dynamics of state governance will be focused by the particular dynamics involved regardless of the choices being made. In Canada and the U.S. our societies are so wholly given over to maintaining the status quo..protecting the wealth and authority of the elite, that change is extremely difficult. I'd suspect that change would be just as difficult if not more so if the complexion of the political canvas was broadened to include even more hands eager to secure a spot at the public trough....
It's a moot point and deserves careful consideration given the history of government in Canada and other democracies whether there exists even the possibility of government able and willing to live up to the tenets and ideals of a truly democratic system.
Karrie
I'm not sure that there's a workable alternative available. When a population's choice is divided among multiple 'parties' and 'ideologies' it's uncertain that any consensus is achievable. While differences in policy and philosophy may offer the appearance of "choice", whether it's two parties or twelve parties, the dynamics of state governance will be focused by the particular dynamics involved regardless of the choices being made. In Canada and the U.S. our societies are so wholly given over to maintaining the status quo..protecting the wealth and authority of the elite, that change is extremely difficult. I'd suspect that change would be just as difficult if not more so if the complexion of the political canvas was broadened to include even more hands eager to secure a spot at the public trough....
It's a moot point and deserves careful consideration given the history of government in Canada and other democracies whether there exists even the possibility of government able and willing to live up to the tenets and ideals of a truly democratic system.
February 22nd, 2008, 01:28 PM
It isnt really a two party system--anyone can run for president, you don't have to have a party affiliation. But it becomes two party because it is also a business. Millions of dollars in ads and travel require large amounts of financial backing. So people with like minds get together to fund a candidate and viola, a party.
It isnt really a two party system--anyone can run for president, you don't have to have a party affiliation. But it becomes two party because it is also a business. Millions of dollars in ads and travel require large amounts of financial backing. So people with like minds get together to fund a candidate and viola, a party.
Council Member
Posts: 1,785
Location: BC
Location: BC
February 23rd, 2008, 12:19 AM
I think Noam Chomsky summed it up best when he said that the USA had a single party with two factions. His reasoning was that the politicians often had the same backers with similar goals. So he argues, there really is no choice. And while it is possible for anyone to run for President the option isn't real since the majority of Americans would be to fearful of wasting their vote.
His argument really hit home for me when I saw an article where the US Federal government and Federal Reserve Bank proposed that they may have to invest in the private market to offset future economic corrections. The USA is the largest socialist government in the world; in terms of military complex and infrastructure they are bar none tops - though most US citizens would deny the fact; the evidence is undeniable.
The outrageousness of the proposal is that it would make the USA a communist state with a quasi-capitalist economy! Though no one would ever admit it.
I think Noam Chomsky summed it up best when he said that the USA had a single party with two factions. His reasoning was that the politicians often had the same backers with similar goals. So he argues, there really is no choice. And while it is possible for anyone to run for President the option isn't real since the majority of Americans would be to fearful of wasting their vote.
His argument really hit home for me when I saw an article where the US Federal government and Federal Reserve Bank proposed that they may have to invest in the private market to offset future economic corrections. The USA is the largest socialist government in the world; in terms of military complex and infrastructure they are bar none tops - though most US citizens would deny the fact; the evidence is undeniable.
The outrageousness of the proposal is that it would make the USA a communist state with a quasi-capitalist economy! Though no one would ever admit it.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
February 23rd, 2008, 09:23 AM
Scott Free
While I agree that the military industiral complex that is the United States appears to embrace some tenets of socialism...when as you infer the wealth of a nation is invested by its government in the largest military machine the world has ever seen....that's as far as the comparison is valid....
Haliburton,KBR, Carlyle the Vice President and the petroleum cartels that are fiddling while Rome burns aren't socialist in any way....
America is the land of multi-faceted monopolism. You might find the history of IBM interesting. Corporations in the United States aren't built around models of distributed wealth but are built on models of megalithic greed. The reason why the Rothschilds and the Vanderbuilts and the Fords and the many various American economic empires exist is because they're focus is on personal wealth and power. Only when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was there any profit to be made in the war effort so that's when America entered that violent spasm of human history. While Europe burned and millions died, America was "trading" with Nazi Germany and as long as that business was potentially profitable....well who needs to rock the boat...?
Long before one might accurately characterize "America" as "socialist" one must examine fascism....... A fascism of economics that has resulted in the enormous chasm between the wealthiest one per cent and the remainder of the American population.
Scott Free
While I agree that the military industiral complex that is the United States appears to embrace some tenets of socialism...when as you infer the wealth of a nation is invested by its government in the largest military machine the world has ever seen....that's as far as the comparison is valid....
Haliburton,KBR, Carlyle the Vice President and the petroleum cartels that are fiddling while Rome burns aren't socialist in any way....
America is the land of multi-faceted monopolism. You might find the history of IBM interesting. Corporations in the United States aren't built around models of distributed wealth but are built on models of megalithic greed. The reason why the Rothschilds and the Vanderbuilts and the Fords and the many various American economic empires exist is because they're focus is on personal wealth and power. Only when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor was there any profit to be made in the war effort so that's when America entered that violent spasm of human history. While Europe burned and millions died, America was "trading" with Nazi Germany and as long as that business was potentially profitable....well who needs to rock the boat...?
Long before one might accurately characterize "America" as "socialist" one must examine fascism....... A fascism of economics that has resulted in the enormous chasm between the wealthiest one per cent and the remainder of the American population.
