Democracy and Republicanism
Originally posted by crimvelvet
You missed the vital parts of Collectivism.
First what is the actual opposite of Collectivism? The opposite is not capitalism or Christianity it is individualism.
For an individualist, government derives its power, not from conquest and subjugation, but is given its powers by the people. This means the state
does not have any legitimate powers unless given by its citizens AND (big and) the citizens CAN NOT give the state powers that they themselves do not
have in the first place! In other words if it is immoral and unethical for me to rob a person than the government, derviving its powers from me does
not have that right either.
Perhaps one of the major misnomers is the reference to modern Republics as "democracies."
"All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the (Athenian) Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the Athenian citizenship
was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their "military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this excluded
women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / metoikoi) and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were
citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of
Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.
Governments in the world today are either dictatorships or various forms of republics; in a republic where the legislature is elected, the legislature
can pass various laws which are against the public interest and which are unpopular, and in presidential republics the president usually has certain
powers to do things, such as wage war, even if the majority of the legislature objects. The "powers" that politicians have are generally given to them
by themselves, not by the population of their electorate.
In Britain the Latin motto which translates as ""My God and my Right" hangs above the head of judges in courtrooms. We usually refer to our "rights
(plural)," such as the right to political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc, but the head of state has no such rights and needs no
such rights; she only needs one singular right, the right to rule, and she is entirely above the law and cannot be prosecuted for any reason
whatsoever. Since the head of state and technically the head of the army, this forms part of the legal argument in the UK that the Iraq and Afhan wars
were "legal.," which of course is an entirely different matter to being "moral."
My tyrant does not rule by "my" consent or by the consent of the people or by the consent of parliament. In a Republic, the legislature pass laws and
give themselves and their president powers without the consent of the people. The idea that the powers of the government come from "the people" is a
"democratic" idea, but it is not a republican idea, though certainly those who are elected in Republics tend to "try" to be popular with the
Neither Republics nor Democracies would produce an ideal state if it was not a state of ideal people. Iran is much more of a republic than the UK, and
in Iran there are no unlected mullahs (Islamic clerics) in the legislature (in the UK we have unelected Bishops in the House of Lords), but since the
mass of the population are Muslims, they tend to vote for Islamic candidates who then pass laws whch reflect Sharia Law. In a nation of religious
fanatics, even a democrary or a republic can still produce hell on earth where people's basic rights are violated, such as the right to sexual
freedom, freedom of the press and so forth.
In Egypt there is a currently an uprising for "democratic" reforms, but this simply means the replacement of a dictator who is an ally of the US and
Israel with a "republic," which in a nation which is predominately Islamic, would mean handing over the largest army in the region to the Muslms. Not
all "republican" revolutions are thus necessarily progressive; some can be entirely regressive and seek to institute ancient religious laws.
A pure democrary would simply be "mob rule;" if the masses were racists and religious fanatics, they could pass laws calling for the internment,
expulsion or even execution of different races and they could pass religious laws imposing punishment for religious crimes. Ideally a democracy would
only work well on a very small scale with a modern educated population, which is essentially the Anarchist ideal. Since the vast majority of Americans
are Christians, I can only imagine what kind of hell on earth they would turn America into if it's constitutional republic was "democratically"
Communists are generally "not" democrats in the Athenian sense; they are both technocrats and constitutional Republicans. In a technocracy one cannot
elect a medical doctor to design a nuclear power station, nor an nuclear physicist to perform open heart surgery, and one simply could not elect a
Capitalist to run a contitutional Communist Republic.
Perhaps the biggest difference in beliefs is that individualists believe everyone has equal rights, where as collectivists think the "group" has more
right than the individual. This allows laws to be applied differently to different people. There is no equality under the law.
So where does that belief the "group" has more right than the individual, aka "Mob Rule" lead us?
The loss of liberty can always be justified as necessary "for the greater good"
The ultimate group of course is the State, Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice individuals if it is to the benefit of the government.
This mindset of the collectivist leads to this:
“The Collective Farm Policy was a terrible struggle, Ten million died. It was fearful. Four years it lasted. It was absolutely necessary."
Probably the most common "straw man" argument made by anti-Communists is to attempt to label all Communists as Stalinists, whereas almost all modern
Communists share Trotsky's view that Stalin was a tyrant who betrayed the revolution; Lenin and Trotsky were of course also collectivists, but
anti-Communists often tend to conveniently forget that there was hunger and starvation in Tzarist Russia and that the Bolsheviks were attempting to
address such problems; to collectivise the largest nation on earth was no simple matter.
or if you prefer - Bill Clinton's legacy Manufacturing the food
...global food prices rocketing by 83% in the last year, and causing violent conflicts in Haiti and other parts of the world,”
” reports African Energy News. ”Food riots have also taken place in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia,
Indonesia, Mauritania, Madagascar and the Philippines in the past month“ (and in Pakistan and Mexico, too).
Unable to afford food, hungry Haitians are now eating “cookies made of dirt, vegetable oil, and salt.”
“International Monetary Fund (IMF) President Dominique Strauss-Kahn has warned that hundreds of thousands of people will face starvation if food
prices keep rising.”
Millions of poor people in the Third World now risk being evicted from their homes and becoming homeless
Do NOT try to tell me this was cause by "Capitalism" because it was not. It was the deliberate policy of collectivists. If people are unhappy then
collectivists can move in with their sugarcoated poison and take over the government.
This is just a typical "straw man" argument. You are portraying "the Capitalists" and anti-Communists as collectivists, when they are in fact
The agricultural industry is Capitalist not collectivist, and Monsanto is certainly not a "collectivist" corporation, it is a Capitalist corporation.
Since US farmers receive farming subsidies, the lower the price of their crop on the markets, the more money the government has to give them, and most
farmers in the world depend upon "high crop prices."
If too many people are growing the same crop, the price of a crop will fall, and even if there is a demand for that crop and there are hundreds of
millions of people starving, since they do not have the Captial to purchase that crop, farmers will stop growing that crop and produce something else,
such as rapeseed, which is grown all over Europe to produce biofuel.
In the Capitalist world, people go hungry and die of malnutrition, not because of a global shortage of food, but because food is considered to be a
Capitalist commodity, and the poorest people among humankind have no Capital to purchase food. Much of the crop produced in the world anyway goes to
feed livestock in order to supply meat to the wealthy First World, while children in the Third World die for just the lack of some corn and basic
In Capitalism the shortage of a commodity for which there is a demand is directly related to the rising price of that commodity, and if there is
overproduction of a commodity the price falls, however production is geared to what can be sold on the market at the highest prices; it is geared to
the demands of Capitalists, not to the demands of people who are starving and impoverished because of the absence of Capital.
If you ASK those in the third world countries that the collectivists are trying to "help" they will tell you bluntly, "GO AWAY and leave us to
direct our OWN destinies"
You can see this starting at the post post
Hues and Cries Of People Living In Third World Countries !
Collectivism has been tried again and again. It failed in the USA in the collectivist experiment of 1621,
failed more recently in Soviet Russia and many other places.
When you take all the appeals to "saving the poor and helpless" away you find the wolf under the sheep's clothing as depicted in the
Fabian society Stainglass window
These are simply justifications for Capitalism and the continuation of world poverty. A modern technological Collectivist society simply cannot be
created overnght, Cambodian style; probably the most successful collectivist experiments are the Kibbutz and Cuban models, especially the Kibbutz
model where after almost a century of Iraeli collectivism, many of the Kibbutzim many Kibbutzim are like 5 star hotels and their residents enjoy a
much higher standard of living than the US working classes.
David Rockefeller . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity
during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. [/v]The supranational sovereignty of
an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
auto-determination is a government derived from the individual. What the collectivist want, once all the do-gooder facade, is torn away is a return to
feudalism. No individual rights, no individual freedom, a privileged ruling class in complete control of everyone and everything.
Feudalism was not collectivism; it was simply a form of lifelong slavery where farmers had to work land which belonged to a Feudal Lord; it was really
no different to the kind of slavery practiced in the US with African slaves. David Rockerfeller is one of the Capitalist elites who is part of the
"International Dictatorship of Capitalism" establishment; I find it rather hypocritical that Capitalists who oppose the rule of other Capitalists
often portray their opponents as a "Communist" enemy, when they are in fact just fellow Capitalists; it is a typical "straw man" fallacy.
As H L Mencken said "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
I have no personal ambitions to "rule" over anyone; I merely believe that the only hope for the children of the future world to avoid lifelong
suffering and impoverishment is collectivism along the lines of the Israeli Communist model, prior to the recent Capitalist reforms in the Kibbutzim.
A relative handful of collectivists in the desert farms of Israel are still profitably dumpng millions of tons of produce from their desert farms onto
the European supermarkets, while European farmers are subsidised and paid to leave their fields barren in a world of hungry and impoverished people.
Global agricultural revolution using the the collectivist model is the only practical solution I can forsee to resolve this.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis