Arizal1 wrote:Siggon Kristov wrote: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.
It is helping the poor, arguably. The IMF forces us to cut social services, so this is an easier way for the government to help the poor, and it's a more direct way to put money into the hands of the poor so the voters are grateful and their votes are secure.
Arizal1 wrote: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).
Yes, spending on roads helps the economy in Keynesian theory. Do you know why? It's because you pump money into the economy by buying materials from their producers, and paying contractors and workers, who in turn use that money to spend on consumer goods, and all that blah blah. I'm not denying that, however it's not the motorists who vote for the government when the roads are fixed; most voters don't even drive.
You say "spending in roads is popular" but I go further by explaining why spending on road-building is popular. Do you accept my explanation (you didn't give the impression that you did), or do you care to offer a different one? Why leave a blanket statement like "spending in roads is popular" without analysing why it is popular? Fixing roads is popular in Jamaica because it means that contractors and workers are repeatedly getting money from the government. If the government cared about maintaining good roads, they would build more durable ones. They really only patch roads, not build or properly fix them. If they build durable roads, the contractors and workers don't benefit, so they have no reason to vote to keep the party in power, and the other party can just promise them jobs (in road-building) and the other party gets their support in the next election.
Arizal1 wrote: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.)
I prefer first-past-the-post because the MPs have specific constituencies (and constituents) which they are responsible for. Fidel Castro had praised the constituency-based system (and I couldn't understand why, because I really dislike first-past-the-post for several reasons) in Jamaica, and Cuba's system is constituency-based as well. Proportional representation encourages party rule, and I don't like that unless it's one-party. I don't buy this whole thing that it encourages a two-party system, because Canada has 3 main parties (plus more), the UK has large/strong parties apart from Conservatives and Labour, and some Caribbean countries (like Trinidad & Tobago, or St. Kitts & Nevis) have more than 2 main parties. You can have first-past-the-post with no parties, with 1 party, with 2 parties, or with more than 2 parties. It just becomes problematic when there are parties, because people have a partisan perspective of election results, when first-past-the-post is really about individual representatives being elected separately by the constituents that they represent.
Arizal1 wrote: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.
I still consider myself to be a Democrat. Again, Democracy is not about equality of views or about individual rights, or any of that nonsense. Democracy is a collectivist idea that has attracted the same criticisms in the past as Socialism does today. Do not confuse Democracy with Liberal Democracy, please; that is something which really annoys me.
Arizal1 wrote: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.
It's not about possessing the truth; it's about which class each ideology serves.
Arizal1 wrote: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.
Ignore them while they influence other people? I specifically said that I confront the ones who publicly advocate certain things. They aren't wrong about what they think; their ideology works perfectly to do what it is supposed to do, but that is something terrible.
Arizal1 wrote:Siggon wrote: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.
Yes, I'm for worker co-operatives.
Arizal1 wrote: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.
You said that Marxists may unconsciously do it. In actuality, they openly and deliberately advocate class struggle. I do not consider the bourgeoisie to be a part of "humanity" - they are humans, but "humanity" is a collectivist thing. For the bourgeoisie to exist in the modern Capitalist model, there must be private property rights where the collective is deprived of property so that some individuals may have exclusive access and control of more property than they even use; this is inhumane.
And I did not say that I think that Liberals put one part of humanity against the other. They want society set up in a way where the working class lives peacefully with the bourgeoisie. How else will the bourgeoisie exploit them?