Classical liberalism....

[Arizal1]

Honestly, I had no idea the LGBT situation in Jamaica was that bad. I live in a country (no, not a country, a place) where people I encounter are rather open to them/us. I am aware that in some countries, this is terrible, but I didn't tought Jamaica was one of the country where it was bad.

That said,

Another problem with liberal democracy: populism trumps people power.

How would "the people power" avoid populism? Who should decide when the "people power" is speaking and when what is said is bullshit populism? Democracy is the power to the people. I agree that the current state of many nominal democracies in the world is not that great (including the USA, Canada and many other countries), but probably not for the same reasons than you.

[Siggon Kristov]

Honestly, I had no idea the LGBT situation in Jamaica was that bad. I live in a country (no, not a country, a place) where people I encounter are rather open to them/us. I am aware that in some countries, this is terrible, but I didn't tought Jamaica was one of the country where it was bad.

I doubt you know much about Jamaica at all.

That said,

Another problem with liberal democracy: populism trumps people power.

How would "the people power" avoid populism? Who should decide when the "people power" is speaking and when what is said is bullshit populism? Democracy is the power to the people. I agree that the current state of many nominal democracies in the world is not that great (including the USA, Canada and many other countries), but probably not for the same reasons than you.

When I talk about Democracy, it's not just in a sense of opinions and political blah blah; it's also about economics. Liberal Democracy seems obsessed with asserting the presence of elections as evidence of Democracy. Elections can be so easily manipulated by wealthy persons who bankroll political campaigns. Elections become about populism, and some odd political version of celebrity culture.

Economics is where Liberalism fails to be democratic. I think that asserting collective well-being is better than just spouting things which are nice or popular. I also think that, if there was more socio-economic equality, people would be less frustrated and stop finding crazy things to blame their economic problems on.

There are people who genuinely believe that the possibility of the advance of "the gay agenda" in Jamaica is what causes the country to be in such a bad economic situation. They also deny that poor LGBT people exist, which seems ironic considering that most/all violence is directed at poor LGBT citizens while the middle class and upper-middle class LGBT citizens are fine; I could go on into the politics of existence and non-existence, because that's a thing in Afro-Caribbean studies, but I don't want to get sidetracked. While there is the idea that poor LGBT don't exist, there is the idea that being LGBT is a thing that rich people cause because there are rich gay men who go around using money to convert other people. To keep up this illusion, i.e. because Jamaicans believe that LGBT people belong in a specific class and other people belong in another class, the LGBT people in the appropriate class are unharmed while the poor ones are subject to violence.

Apart from believing that LGBT people control all the money, they also believe that God is punishing the island for allowing the advance of "the gay agenda" to be possible in the future.

-

It's really difficult to get anything done in a country where it can easily be reversed in the next election - I say this not only in reference to advancing rights, but also in reference to other projects. When everything becomes about winning elections, a government focuses on ensuring that the ruling party can win the next election (and the opposition party's only interest is taking power from them by providing a populist alternative). In a country where the performance of the government is not what people use as a basis to vote, there is no motivation to really serve the people, just to remain popular.

For example, there is the politics of road-building in Jamaica. The government doesn't benefit from having durable roads, or from support from motorists who appreciate fixed roads. The government benefits when it pays people to fix roads, because it gets votes from those people. The government is therefore disinterested in sustainable or long-term development, as it prefers to build roads that easily get damaged so that they can pay people to fix it again. Having durable roads won't help you to win an election in Jamaica, because durable roads mean less jobs.

[Arizal1]

I doubt you know much about Jamaica at all.

You are right. Probably as much as you know Canada or Quebec.

When I talk about Democracy, it's not just in a sense of opinions and political blah blah; it's also about economics. Liberal Democracy seems obsessed with asserting the presence of elections as evidence of Democracy. Elections can be so easily manipulated by wealthy persons who bankroll political campaigns. Elections become about populism, and some odd political version of celebrity culture.

Economics is where Liberalism fails to be democratic. I think that asserting collective well-being is better than just spouting things which are nice or popular. I also think that, if there was more socio-economic equality, people would be less frustrated and stop finding crazy things to blame their economic problems on.

I can totally accept that if the people wished to abolish money and distribute equally between everybody, such a choice would be democratic. However, making this choice permanent (impossible to reverse) would be against the right of the people to decide. It wouldn't be democratic at all. You can talk about economic democracy, but in my opinion you must also respect the expressed opinion the people gave in the political system, as lacking you find it to be. (Or if you cannot respect the system, you can also wish to do a violent uprising to try to destroy it, but then don't be surprised if you feel oppressed. Every being tries to protect itself.)

When you are talking about the government, however, I see a curious thing. On the one hand you see an all powerful government as the protector of the people, and on the other hand you admit that this government can be corrupted. Do you think elections corrupt the government? I would rather think that staying in power for too long can corrupt people. If you ask for no longer elections, no longer alternance of power, you are asking for a dictatorial State which could only be defeated by a violent insurrection. At least, the current system allow us to oust a party which has been here for too long. (sorry for the French expression) Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc? Perhaps, but there are some changes with the years. The Jamaican LGBTs didn't see those changes, I see that. But in some places, they happened. And those places where they happened, even if they are populated by rich people from some standards, can contribute to increase awareness to those issues and to solve them.

I happen to think that humans have a natural craving for power, and that power unchecked can be very harmful. You seem to believe socio-liberals (and liberals) only keep alive the poors so that they can exploit them. This is a truly frightening idea which I hope isn't at 100% true. Because if it is true, unless socialists are some kind of demi-gods, as they are also humans, they could very well act in this way too after they come in power. In fact, as I said, if their power is unchecked, it is much possible that their situation of absolute power lead them to have this attitude, while they are believing to work for the people.

[CanadianEh]

I happen to think that humans have a natural craving for power, and that power unchecked can be very harmful. You seem to believe socio-liberals (and liberals) only keep alive the poors so that they can exploit them. This is a truly frightening idea which I hope isn't at 100% true. Because if it is true, unless socialists are some kind of demi-gods, as they are also humans, they could very well act in this way too after they come in power. In fact, as I said, if their power is unchecked, it is much possible that their situation of absolute power lead them to have this attitude, while they are believing to work for the people.

This is what I always tell Communists, but they never seem to answer. I agree with your prior post 100%.

[Siggon Kristov]

I doubt you know much about Jamaica at all.

You are right. Probably as much as you know Canada or Quebec.

Actually, I might know slightly more about Canada more than you know about Jamaica. I make the effort to keep up with things in other countries.

On the one hand you see an all powerful government as the protector of the people, and on the other hand you admit that this government can be corrupted. Do you think elections corrupt the government? I would rather think that staying in power for too long can corrupt people.

You're ignoring what I'm saying, missing my point, and applying your foreign/first-world understandings to the issue. Elections don't corrupt the government, but they cause the government to have misplaced priorities. Each party, when in power, is only interested in keeping itself popular to be re-elected again. In your nice first-world country, that can be a good thing. In Jamaica and some other places in the Caribbean, it is not. A popular policy may not be in the interest of the people, and a policy in the interest of the people may not be popular. I gave an example with road-building.

Some people (the articulate minority, really) complain that the government does not make durable roads. In reality, if the government makes durable roads, it has no reason to keep hiring people to fix it over and over again. It is in the ruling party's interest to make shitty roads that need constant fixing, even if it is more expensive, because it is a way of securing votes. The people who vote the most are the disenfranchised poor and the lower-middle class (i.e. the Black middle class). Most voters don't drive. They don't care about good roads. They want money, and money flows to them whenever there are roads constantly being fixed.

If you ask for no longer elections, no longer alternance of power, you are asking for a dictatorial State which could only be defeated by a violent insurrection.

I'm a Leninist/Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. It is no secret that I support Socialist dictatorship.
It's called "Proletarian dictatorship" not "Liberal paradise for white fuckboys"

And no, I'm not asking for "No elections" because I do believe in elected representatives. However, under Liberal Democracy and how Liberal Democracy works, income disparity gives the wealthy more influence, and the wealthy have pushed this idea of trickle down economics (which is why some poor Jamaicans love this whole road-building model where the government has its favoured contractors who get rich and pass on some of the money to them).

Liberal Democracy also usually has party politics. It's party politics that is the problem with our elections, not the elections themselves, albeit I argue in some works that our electoral system causes party politics to be successful.

At least, the current system allow us to oust a party which has been here for too long.

Political competition can sometimes ruin the effectiveness of the state. One party rolls out some long-term strategies, and then another party steps in and ruins everything.

there are some changes with the years. The Jamaican LGBTs didn't see those changes, I see that.

Well yeah, because no party wants to be pro-LGBT when it knows that it will cause it to lose the next election. A pro-LGBT move may make the ruling party very unpopular, and the opposition can easily sweep victory in the next election by campaigning on an anti-LGBT platform. Losing the election is not only a disincentive for the ruling party to be pro-LGBT; even if the ruling party does successfully make pro-LGBT moves, you can very well expect the other party to reverse those moves after winning the next election.

But in some places, they happened. And those places where they happened, even if they are populated by rich people from some standards, can contribute to increase awareness to those issues and to solve them.

Are the rich people in Jamaica pro-LGBT? Not really. One of our wealthiest persons, Butch Stewart, is a homophobe. His hotels don't allow 2 adults of the same sex to share a room. He bankrolled the campaign of the JLP, and his media outlet (a newspaper called The Observer) constantly publishes anti-LGBT propaganda. In my last posts, I was not saying that rich people are pro-LGBT; I was saying that many Jamaicans have the misconception that being LGBT is "a rich people thing" and they believe that rich people are spreading "the gay agenda" - Jamaicans would not be receptive to efforts to "increase awareness" even if the rich people here cared enough to try to do it.

But your Liberalism sickens and disgusts me. I don't want to have to wait on wealthy people to like something before it can be promoted. This is what we have in Liberal Democracy; the ideas of rich people spreading easily. Rich people sponsoring campaigns and influencing policies.

I happen to think that humans have a natural craving for power, and that power unchecked can be very harmful. You seem to believe socio-liberals (and liberals) only keep alive the poors so that they can exploit them. This is a truly frightening idea which I hope isn't at 100% true. Because if it is true, unless socialists are some kind of demi-gods, as they are also humans, they could very well act in this way too after they come in power. In fact, as I said, if their power is unchecked, it is much possible that their situation of absolute power lead them to have this attitude, while they are believing to work for the people.

I didn't say that I support unchecked power. Avoid stretching what I say. As a Socialist, I have always admitted that a problem with state power being centralised is that the party can be infiltrated by non-Socialists who don't have the interests of the masses as a priority. We saw how Yeltsin was able to be in the Communist Party in the USSR, and how Russia and Mozambique eventually became neoliberal.

And yes, I believe that privileged young naive white Liberals only care about the poor in a feeling of benevolence. "I'm better than them, and it feels a little wrong... let me help them out of pity" (Assata Shakur sees Liberals this way as well).

Other, more serious Liberals who actually read Liberal theories instead of just reading some news articles and watching white people talk on TV, only believe in stuff like Welfare Liberalism to keep workers alive. They don't believe in achieving equality; they don't just don't want the working class to die off because it looks bad and the labour supply would be gone. Even if they don't consciously say it, their policies and actions result in the strengthening of a system which keeps the proletariat alive for their exploitation. I explain this in my essay, which you still haven't read. It's annoying to have to say it here when there's somewhere that I already said it.

This is what I always tell Communists, but they never seem to answer. I agree with your prior post 100%.

It's funny you say that; it gives me the impression that you have never really spoken to many real Communists. You still barely have a clue about what Communism is, so please spare us the bullshit. At least Arizal specified "Socialists" and not "Communists" like you did more than once.

There are Anarcho-Communists who, unlike Socialists, are critical of the state as an institution in general, and do not believe that centralised state power is a good idea because of what it can lead to. I identified as Anarcho-Communist once. Anarcho-Communist criticisms of Socialism are still constantly in my head, so Anarcho-Communism is a big part of my ideology, however I find it to be impractical and would much prefer Socialism. Socialism isn't perfect, which is why I still apply some Anarcho-Communist criticisms to it. Believing in Socialism does not mean that I think that it is perfect, but I do not think that anything else is both practical and better.

EDIT: Fixed link.

[CanadianEh]

white fuckboys

Wow, I didn't know this term had gone international.

It's funny you say that; it gives me the impression that you have never really spoken to many real Communists. [url]=http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5847&start=50#p87891You still barely have a clue about what Communism is[/url], so please spare us the bullshit. At least Arizal specified "Socialists" and not "Communists" like you did more than once.

There are Anarcho-Communists who, unlike Socialists, are critical of the state as an institution in general, and do not believe that centralised state power is a good idea because of what it can lead to. I identified as Anarcho-Communist once. Anarcho-Communist criticisms of Socialism are still constantly in my head, so Anarcho-Communism is a big part of my ideology, however I find it to be impractical and would much prefer Socialism. Socialism isn't perfect, which is why I still apply some Anarcho-Communist criticisms to it. Believing in Socialism does not mean that I think that it is perfect, but I do not think that anything else is both practical and better.

It doesn't matter if I mis-associated the term to a very similar ideology with just more radical views, it's an ideology that exists and it would generally harm the general populace instead of enlighten it which would have been the original goal. The result is a society that is much worse than a Capitalist one. That sounds a little silly to you doesn't it?

[Siggon Kristov]

It's funny you say that; it gives me the impression that you have never really spoken to many real Communists. You still barely have a clue about what Communism is, so please spare us the bullshit. At least Arizal specified "Socialists" and not "Communists" like you did more than once.

There are Anarcho-Communists who, unlike Socialists, are critical of the state as an institution in general, and do not believe that centralised state power is a good idea because of what it can lead to. I identified as Anarcho-Communist once. Anarcho-Communist criticisms of Socialism are still constantly in my head, so Anarcho-Communism is a big part of my ideology, however I find it to be impractical and would much prefer Socialism. Socialism isn't perfect, which is why I still apply some Anarcho-Communist criticisms to it. Believing in Socialism does not mean that I think that it is perfect, but I do not think that anything else is both practical and better.

It doesn't matter if I mis-associated the term to a very similar ideology with just more radical views, it's an ideology that exists and it would generally harm the general populace instead of enlighten it which would have been the original goal. The result is a society that is much worse than a Capitalist one. That sounds a little silly to you doesn't it?

You're missing the point. You accuse Communism of being Statist when it is not. Socialism is Statist. Communism has no state.
Many Communists are Anarcho-Communists, so saying that Communists are Statist is simply nonsensical.

We can't have a proper discussion if you're going to talk shit like that. Before you criticise something, at least understand what it is instead of repeating cheap talking points and then going "it doesn't matter, it's the same" - it's disingenuous and ridiculous to say that Anarchists are Statists.

[Arizal1]

You're ignoring what I'm saying, missing my point, and applying your foreign/first-world understandings to the issue. Elections don't corrupt the government, but they cause the government to have misplaced priorities. Each party, when in power, is only interested in keeping itself popular to be re-elected again. In your nice first-world country, that can be a good thing. In Jamaica and some other places in the Caribbean, it is not. A popular policy may not be in the interest of the people, and a policy in the interest of the people may not be popular. I gave an example with road-building.

But I agree with you. In Quebec, we had our own scandal of corruption which some believe has to do with how the Transportation ministry was cut dry in privatisation tentatives (labeled Public Private Partnerships). Others think it is because our market is small and closed, in part because of the unions.

Also, and exactly as you say, in Quebec, the road system is awful (at least this is what every Quebecker say). Our metropolis has bridges and highways constructed in the 60-70s crumbling and applies only short term solutions. Quebec mayor lobbied for the construction of a Stadium in my city. It is popular, but the State had to finance it, which is perhaps not the best use possible for its money.

What I mean to say is that this is not only happening in Jamaica, altough it probably has worst impacts in Jamaica if the country is not that rich to begin with.

I do believe in elected representatives. However, under Liberal Democracy and how Liberal Democracy works, income disparity gives the wealthy more influence, and the wealthy have pushed this idea of trickle down economics

If you believe in a representative system, then we are closer that I tought on that point. What I need to know is if elections would be free in your Proletarian Dictatorship. Would a liberal, a conservative, whatever his opinion, be free to run for election? If the answer is yes, then we can speak of a democracy.

Political competition can sometimes ruin the effectiveness of the state. One party rolls out some long-term strategies, and then another party steps in and ruins everything.

Yes, and this is because, at the date of the elections, the party which made long term plans didn't have anymore the confidence of the people AND that the next government wasn't convinced that was a good thing.

About the LGBT, I understand that the situation is dire, and I don't see what could be done to improve their lives... Someone in your society will have to show courage, some national conversation will have to be done.

In my last posts, I was not saying that rich people are pro-LGBT; I was saying that many Jamaicans have the misconception that being LGBT is "a rich people thing" and they believe that rich people are spreading "the gay agenda" - Jamaicans would not be receptive to efforts to "increase awareness" even if the rich people here cared enough to try to do it.

I was simply stating that Canada legalized gay marriage, and maybe from Jamaica all canadians appear as "richs". I was not implying that you had to be rich to support the LGBT. However, it seems to me that for various reasons, the neediest of the society can be pushed into thinking that, as you shown before in this thread.

But your Liberalism sickens and disgusts me. I don't want to have to wait on wealthy people to like something before it can be promoted. This is what we have in Liberal Democracy; the ideas of rich people spreading easily. Rich people sponsoring campaigns and influencing policies.

This is true. It is indeed capitalism. But things eventually get done. Without this exchange system,

I didn't say that I support unchecked power. Avoid stretching what I say. As a Socialist, I have always admitted that a problem with state power being centralised is that the party can be infiltrated by non-Socialists who don't have the interests of the masses as a priority. We saw how Yeltsin was able to be in the Communist Party in the USSR, and how Russia and Mozambique eventually became neoliberal.

Sorry to have overstretched your saying. I hope what follow isn't totally out of touch :
So, for you, the problem is the eventual infiltration of the party, while for me it is exactly the contrary. I am worried by ideological purity and by what could happen to people who wouldn't share the official views, while you are worried that those people could make the party derivate from its true course.

But what would happen if your views weren't extreme enough for the current ideology? Or what would happen if your views were just different than those of your colleages, and that for that they accused you of being some kind of treator? I believe that if a party is possessed by a desire to achieve ideological purity, it could very well exhausts all its vital forces and end up like the USSR, which was run in the late 80s by people who didn't seem to care anymore about the ideology.

Other, more serious Liberals who actually read Liberal theories instead of just reading some news articles and watching white people talk on TV, only believe in stuff like Welfare Liberalism to keep workers alive. They don't believe in achieving equality; they don't just don't want the working class to die off because it looks bad and the labour supply would be gone. Even if they don't consciously say it, their policies and actions result in the strengthening of a system which keeps the proletariat alive for their exploitation. I explain this in my essay, which you still haven't read. It's annoying to have to say it here when there's somewhere that I already said it.

About your essay, where can I find it? You shouldn't feel that you have to "repeat" yourself, since you could say it in a different way, adapt to your interlocutor. I don't understand how you can complain that I didn't read it since I never have access to it.

I didn't say yet that I read Hayek, Rawls and a couple of other authors or that I studied political philosophy because I don't judge an argument by its cover. The fact that you read them makes you more aware of what they say and allow us to have an interesting conversation, but I do not like that when you imply that I know nothing and that I am just another young naive guy from the North.

I admit that I don't confront myself to raging inequalities everyday, but I at least try to think about ways to make my political system better. I also try to go out of the box and to talk to people holding different ideas than mine (like you) instead of mocking them.

I don't think that it is more serious for a liberal to admit that he only wants to keep workers alive. I would like for the entire world to have minimal life conditions and renumerating people to live, yet I don't want for everyone to have the same salary whatever they do or to live under a Socialist party oppressing them and claiming that one day, true communism would be achieved while their very idea of the human nature precludes this to happening.

As I said before, if you think liberals are bad and want to oppress people, then why socialists should be any better? Because they have better intents? You claim that the liberals have bad intents*, and maybe it is true. Hayek irked me when I read that people of different origins must not be blended together. The oldest liberals talk more about burghers than about the common people. Still, if they divide humanity, even unconsciously, the socialists do the same by opposing them to the capitalist burghers which should be removed form the surface of the globe.

I believe one way for inequalities to diminish, for the world to become a better place, is for people to become more aware of problems and most of all recognizing themselves in all their fellow human beings. And I don't think wealth, if it is not accumulated in absurd proportions (I might be in favour of maximum salaries, if the world were united), is necessarely a break to that.

*You didn't say the liberals had bad intents. You just stated what seems like a fact. But it is clear that in your eyes, this is horrid and therefore, if it is their intent, it is bad.

[Siggon Kristov]

You're ignoring what I'm saying, missing my point, and applying your foreign/first-world understandings to the issue. Elections don't corrupt the government, but they cause the government to have misplaced priorities. Each party, when in power, is only interested in keeping itself popular to be re-elected again. In your nice first-world country, that can be a good thing. In Jamaica and some other places in the Caribbean, it is not. A popular policy may not be in the interest of the people, and a policy in the interest of the people may not be popular. I gave an example with road-building.

But I agree with you. In Quebec, we had our own scandal of corruption which some believe has to do with how the Transportation ministry was cut dry in privatisation tentatives (labeled Public Private Partnerships). Others think it is because our market is small and closed, in part because of the unions.

Also, and exactly as you say, in Quebec, the road system is awful (at least this is what every Quebecker say). Our metropolis has bridges and highways constructed in the 60-70s crumbling and applies only short term solutions. Quebec mayor lobbied for the construction of a Stadium in my city. It is popular, but the State had to finance it, which is perhaps not the best use possible for its money.

What I mean to say is that this is not only happening in Jamaica, altough it probably has worst impacts in Jamaica if the country is not that rich to begin with.

Why is the stadium construction popular? In Jamaica, it would be because contractors and labourers get money, so they would vote for the ruling party in the next election. And are the short-term solutions to road/bridge issues deliberately to keep money flowing to poor voters to secure their votes? If not, it's not the same as Jamaica's case, or even similar.

I do believe in elected representatives. However, under Liberal Democracy and how Liberal Democracy works, income disparity gives the wealthy more influence, and the wealthy have pushed this idea of trickle down economics

If you believe in a representative system, then we are closer that I tought on that point. What I need to know is if elections would be free in your Proletarian Dictatorship. Would a liberal, a conservative, whatever his opinion, be free to run for election? If the answer is yes, then we can speak of a democracy.

The Liberal Democrats' obsession with "free elections" is showing here again, one of the things that cause me to cringe. Liberalism and Conservatism are antithetical to Democracy, so ideally they wouldn't be able to run on that basis.

I speak not of ideological representatives anyway; I'm speaking of representatives of people. The question of whether someone is liberal or conservative wouldn't concern the system. It's about councillors representing districts/neighbourhoods, etc. - representatives would be for geographic areas or communities so that everyone has a specific representative responsible for him/her (like we have in Jamaica or Canada now with single-member constituencies).

Political competition can sometimes ruin the effectiveness of the state. One party rolls out some long-term strategies, and then another party steps in and ruins everything.

Yes, and this is because, at the date of the elections, the party which made long term plans didn't have anymore the confidence of the people AND that the next government wasn't convinced that was a good thing.

Or because members of the Jamaican electorate tend to not be confident in any long term plans at all. They are impatient. They have an "eat a food mentality" people say. They want immediate things to placate them. They don't care about what happens 10 years from now. They are too frustrated right now to think about that.

Anyway, government control switching constantly between parties prevents some long-term plans from even being plausible. Parties eventually give up on long-term plans and just focus on winning the next election.

About the LGBT, I understand that the situation is dire, and I don't see what could be done to improve their lives...

You're a Liberal. I don't expect better.

Someone in your society will have to show courage, some national conversation will have to be done.

You stand up for LGBT people, and you're labelled and treated as one of them. This is a disincentive for many persons to show solidarity with the LGBT community. If you defend LGBT rights, people just start assuming that you're LGBT too, and then your life becomes at risk.

Also, some of the people who are advocating for LGBT rights are doing it without class consciousness. They are advocating for it on the basis of private property rights.

So, for you, the problem is the eventual infiltration of the party, while for me it is exactly the contrary. I am worried by ideological purity and by what could happen to people who wouldn't share the official views, while you are worried that those people could make the party derivate from its true course.

But what would happen if your views weren't extreme enough for the current ideology? Or what would happen if your views were just different than those of your colleages, and that for that they accused you of being some kind of treator? I believe that if a party is possessed by a desire to achieve ideological purity, it could very well exhausts all its vital forces and end up like the USSR, which was run in the late 80s by people who didn't seem to care anymore about the ideology.

There has always been a diversity of views in the Communist Party of Cuba, more diverse than between Jamaica's 2 parties or the USA's 2 parties. Things become less about party lines, and more about actual varied views. A 2-party (and sometimes a multi-party) system encourages party lines and party positions. In the Caribbean, partisanship is worse than elsewhere. We have small parliaments, and razor-thin majorities, so there is serious disincentive to vote against your party because you want to keep your party in power. In a one-party state, or a state with no parties, people would be representing communities instead of ideologies. Debates would become more practical, and less ideological, as you say in the last part.

Other, more serious Liberals who actually read Liberal theories instead of just reading some news articles and watching white people talk on TV, only believe in stuff like Welfare Liberalism to keep workers alive. They don't believe in achieving equality; they don't just don't want the working class to die off because it looks bad and the labour supply would be gone. Even if they don't consciously say it, their policies and actions result in the strengthening of a system which keeps the proletariat alive for their exploitation. I explain this in my essay, which you still haven't read. It's annoying to have to say it here when there's somewhere that I already said it.

About your essay, where can I find it? You shouldn't feel that you have to "repeat" yourself, since you could say it in a different way, adapt to your interlocutor. I don't understand how you can complain that I didn't read it since I never have access to it.

Since the start of this thread, 3 others PM'd me their email addresses so that I could give it to them. The post, immediately before your first post, ended with me telling someone how to get the essay.

I didn't say yet that I read Hayek, Rawls and a couple of other authors or that I studied political philosophy because I don't judge an argument by its cover. The fact that you read them makes you more aware of what they say and allow us to have an interesting conversation, but I do not like that when you imply that I know nothing and that I am just another young naive guy from the North.

Do I care whether you like that? You're a Liberal, and that's how I see all Liberals. Ironically, I wasn't even referring specifically to you; it's something I have said about liberals before (in the USA, commenting on USA politics, not Canadians commenting on other countries). I mentioned 2 types: the annoying ones that Assata Shakur disliked, and the other more-informed Liberals who are truly evil.

I admit that I don't confront myself to raging inequalities everyday,

I don't expect a Liberal to care about raging inequalities. As long as you have your cute individual rights, everything is fine until you're bored enough to care about the disenfranchised as a way of finding something to do.

I at least try to think about ways to make my political system better. I also try to go out of the box and to talk to people holding different ideas than mine (like you) instead of mocking them.

My best friend is a Muslim, and I'm strongly atheist. He's not a Socialist or Communist, but I am, and I engage in discussions with his parents, and they usually go well. I can, and I do, engage in civil discussion with people who have different views. I have met no-one with identical views to mine, but I get along with a lot of persons. When someone is publicly advocating for certain things, however, I find it in my best interest to challenge them publicly. On the side, I also find it in my best interest to try to silence them, through intimidation if necessary.

I don't think that it is more serious for a liberal to admit that he only wants to keep workers alive. I would like for the entire world to have minimal life conditions and renumerating people to live,

We're going in circles, because we'll keep saying the same things. You're advocating ideas similar to John Rawls, and I'll keep saying that they serve to exploit the working class.

yet I don't want for everyone to have the same salary whatever they do or to live under a Socialist party oppressing them and claiming that one day, true communism would be achieved while their very idea of the human nature precludes this to happening.

This whole "same salary" thing is something else that makes me cringe. There are some people who believe in universally-equal wages, but not everyone. I believe in worker ownership, not state ownership where workers get paid for working for the state. There will be income disparity, but not as bad as people getting 10 times the income of others, or where someone's future is more affected by things that happened before their birth than the things that they choose to do while they are alive.

As I said before, if you think liberals are bad and want to oppress people, then why socialists should be any better? Because they have better intents? You claim that the liberals have bad intents*, and maybe it is true. Hayek irked me when I read that people of different origins must not be blended together. The oldest liberals talk more about burghers than about the common people. Still, if they divide humanity, even unconsciously, the socialists do the same by opposing them to the capitalist burghers which should be removed form the surface of the globe.

Class collaboration is an idea that was advocated by Hitler and Peron. Marxists believe in class struggle, not class collaboration. I do not pretend to support class collaboration. Marxists openly support dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists still believe in a Socialist state with a ruling class, just that the proletariat would be the ruling class. It's no secret.

[Arizal1]

And are the short-term solutions to road/bridge issues deliberately to keep money flowing to poor voters to secure their votes? If not, it's not the same as Jamaica's case, or even similar.

So you believe that your government deliberately waste the money in order to prevent itself to have money to help the poor. I would rather think it is simply because spending in roads is popular and ensure them votes (and helps the economy, if you are keynesian).

I have a friend which made me recognize that the Chinese system, for example, can be efficient because the factions in the communist party are not openly hostiles toward one another. One of my teacher made me think about this, and yes, system which is too much adversarial can be harmful to the well-being of the State and its people.

But the fact that Canada or the USA have this archaic first past the post system, which encourages a two party system, or so called majoritary governments (for Canada) or unending tenures (for USA) is what make those systems adversarial. (By the way, it is precisely my love of party politic which made me join Particracy.)

You are talking about multi-party system : my model on the parliementarian side is Germany. This country managed to make a real separation of power : an horizontal one between the federal State and the Lander, backed with a federal chamber which may be able to stop dictatorial intents and with a multi-party system where mps have some ground to defend if the party asks them to go too far.

Now, I don't deny that a communist party can end up looking like a rainbow coalition of different factions, but if you look at China, you see that a communist party can have of its ideology only the name. It is when it abandons the quest of ideological purity that things get better, and they seem to get better by going further away from the most extreme ideas. All "practical" debate end when someone believe his interlocutor is a traitor. If you believe *I* am anthitetical to democracy because of my beliefs, then in my opinion you are not a democrat. And yes, we are turning in round on this matter, so we would be better to drop it.

Since the start of this thread, 3 others PM'd me their email addresses so that I could give it to them. The post, immediately before your first post, ended with me telling someone how to get the essay.

Well, sorry if I didn't pay attention at the moment I tought I was answering to the original question. I might ask you for this essay, but maybe not right now.

Do I care whether you like that?

I cannot of course force you to care or to change your view, but I find the disdain you have toward liberals and conservatives troubling. We are mistaken beyond redemption, in your view, and this seems to stem from the idea that you possess the truth. At least this is what I can derive from the fact that you are willing (and find it in your best interest) to intimidate people to prevent them from speaking their minds. You could instead try to convince them that they are wrong and, if they don't listen to you, simply ignore them. I would be unable to do such a thing.

I believe in worker ownership, not state ownership where workers get paid for working for the state. There will be income disparity, but not as bad as people getting 10 times the income of others, or where someone's future is more affected by things that happened before their birth than the things that they choose to do while they are alive.

That's great! So you are for cooperatives? They can already exist in the capitalist system and they are growing (at least in Canada.) Maybe one day this model will supplant the company one, altought company have some advantage for them (stability and simplicity, for example). But I still wish to see them flourish.

Class collaboration is an idea that was advocated by Hitler and Peron. Marxists believe in class struggle, not class collaboration. I do not pretend to support class collaboration. Marxists openly support dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists still believe in a Socialist state with a ruling class, just that the proletariat would be the ruling class. It's no secret.

I do not believe in class struggle. This is a civil war scenario while the society has other means to resolve crisis. If there is a civil war in a country, then the power in place failed to govern correctly in the mind of many of its civilians.

But you missed my point, by talking about class struggle. I was saying that, as you think liberals do, you put one part of humanity against another part and believe something good would come of that. However, liberal or conservative ideas, and thus political conflicts can come from a diverse society as you are probably envisioning your vibrant communist society.