 Communism in Sixth World, How it looks like? |
  |
 Jun 20 2005, 02:34 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 256 Joined: 24-October 04 Member No.: 6,784  |
Ultimately, people confuse the outcome of Communism with the Ethos of Communism. That Communism proposes a world where people are motivated to work for the common good and to foster a communal empathy for society at large, rather than personal (selfish? or at least self-centered) gain, is indeed admirable. Its also inherently Messianic, Authoritarian, and Morally Relativistic, and thus tends to attract (and promote) people who are Messianic, Authoritarian, and Moral relativists. This is where you get the disconnect between "ideal" or "pure" communism and the real results of communism, where leaders either use communism as an excuse to seize power, or as a justification for any action, no matter how heinous, because the cause (A workers utopia without want or need) is just. Which is why it is both so enticing and so dangerous.
A wise man once said that such a well meaning tyranny of busybodies was the worst of all, for, while the Fascist may sometimes sleep, and the lusts of the Robber-Barron may temporarily be sated, those who oppress you for your own good will never rest, because they are urged on and on by their own conscience. No one argues about "pure" or "true" Nazism having value. None but a loony few claim that the measures taken by the National Socialists in Germany were misguided just because the result, a 1000 year golden age of peace and prosperity with handsome Blonde and Blue-Eyed Super-models everywhere was admirable, or that it simply hadn't been done properly, because it is well accepted that the means, beyond being morally reprehensible, would never have logically achieved its stated end. Yet this is precisely what people argue about communism. Further, Communism and Capitalism are bandied about as though they were two sides of the same coin, some sort of economic Yin and Yang. It is not so. While Communism is a theory extrapolated from the view of history proposed by Marx, its far harder to claim that a Capitalistic ideal sprung in such a way from the mind of anyone. Capitalism is a term used to describe the interaction of forces that have shaped the economy of nearly every society in history. Its far more appropriate, IMHO, to view capitalism as an expression of natural law, as a theory, rather like Darwinian Evolution or Newtonian physics are an attempt to describe and explain forces naturally occurring. As such, its meaningless to speak of a "pure" model of capitalism, (I'm hard pressed to think of any such model that wasn't proposed in derision of capitalism anyhow) the theory simply doesn't propose one exists. Back on topic, for Communism in the 6th world, simply think of the people communism has really traditionally appealed to, Lenin, Marx, Castro. Marxist-Communism has always been a largely Bourgeois theory pitched by those disenchant with the system to thoses less fortunate for the purposes of either manipulating them (a cynical opinion) or try to help them (a less cynical opinion). A large restless underclass and those disenchant with the status quo, doesn't sound like anyone in the 6th world, does it? Gloss over Communisim's many failings and play up its agitprop, its ready made for SR. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 9 2005, 12:08 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Rehovot, Israel Member No.: 265 |
Yep, all hyper-centralized systems are VERY similar, even if one is ruled by "Apparatchicks" and pretends to be Marxist and the other is ruled by "Execs" and speaks of profits and competition all day long. And yes, Stalinism sucks - a tiny minority of bureaucrats controlls everything and mismanages everything. Its like a badly-managed megacorp. The RL Chinese state capitalism masquarading as a "People's Republic" is much like a well-managed megacorp - the workers are screwed and exploited, but the ruling clique reeks in money and controls a hefty portion of the world's economy. Any state claiming to be "socialist" or "communist" or a "people's democracy" without having a true democratic system is neither: it's just a stalinist state. True socialist democracy is a system in which each workplace is managed by its own workers - rather than by a Party-appointed boss - and each community is managed by a locally- and freely-elected council - rather than by a centralized Party apparatus and it's thought-police state. Democratic Socialism doesn't meant that society owns you, your clothes, your food and everything else - it just means that society - controlled by local elected bodies - is the biggest producer in the market and produces goods according to the wishes of the people (including quality control; Stalinist quality control was HORRIBLE because of the lack of input from the masses). Democratic Socialism also means that you can elect, and, if needed, replace, your own boss. You could just call it a "democratic economy" rather than "Socialism" or "Communism". In such an economy you would still own your private posessions, but the factories will be owened by their workers rather than by capitalists/apparatchicks. Anyone who supported such ideas in Russia was labeled as a "Trotskist" and was "disappeared" by the Cheka/NKVD/MGB/KGB - including most of thoe who took part in the October Revolution. By 1938, all of the revolutionaries were purged out of the USSR - except for Alexandra Collontai who kept a very low profile and accepted the new ruling clique and Leon Trotski, who was murdered in 1940 by a Stalinist agent. And yes, life in the USSR sucked - I know several people who lived there in the 1980's. Anyone who justifies the crimes of Stalinism isn't a socialist, and does not seek the best interests of the working class - quite to the contrary. Cambodia was even worse, because the Khmer Rouge (sp?) were not even aiming at creating a centralized Stalinist state - they idealized the "simple way of life of the Khmer people" and held horribly racist ideas spiced up by some Communist jargon. And North Korea is Stalinism at its worst - even worse than Stalin's Russia. Cuba isn't as bad as North Korea or even the USSR - but it is still Stalinist and neither a democracy nor Socialist (even though, like all other Stalinist states, it pretends to be both). It still suffers from all the faults of Stalinism and is by far NOT a democracy. While it isn't repressive as other similar regimes, it still lacks the freedom of speech or of representation and is still controlled from above by a privileged Party elite that wastes alot of productive forces on both luxury, military buildup and sheer bureaucratic inefficiency. That said, I think that there would be alot of pseudo-socialist ideas floating around in the Sixth World. With the opressive Corporate control over everything, alot of workers will look for an alternative - and alot of opportunist politicians will jump on that source of power. A few will actually support Democratic Socialism, others will support the various Anarchist ideals, some will support Stalinism or Maoism (that is, Stalinism with a strong guerilla tendancy), and some will try to put forward a mish-mash of populist ideas intended to pull the masses after them. And, ofcourse, add to this various neo-tribalist and anti-corp Awakened groups. Anti-capitalism in all forms should be a major underground current in the Shadowrun universe. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 9 2005, 12:39 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 278 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Rehovot, Israel Member No.: 265 |
Socialism, in its original and true form, is NOT based on "conscience"; it is based on democratic and local control over the means of production (i.e. factories). It is not based on making the people "good" and "nice" to each other, it is based on making every decision maker (in economy or politics) elected and recallable and is subjected to far more checks and balances than today. Socialism is based on the same basic premises of the idea of Democracy, applied to the economy as well. Stalinism ("Communism", as in the USSR/Cuba/North Korea), ofcourse, is based on the absolute control excersized by a privilegued (sp?) bureaucratic clique over EVERYTHING, from politics to economy to culture. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 9 2005, 09:56 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
Socialism is present in most modern democracies to one degree or another, even the United States. The trick is finding the right mix of socialism and capitalism. In the United States, this is complicated by our federal system of government.
Marxism, on the other hand, is a completely messed up philosophy that has never worked in the real world. The examples that others have given (Israelis, Incas, etc.) are socialism, not communism. A lot of lefties seem to have this notion that Marxist communism is this bright, utopian ideal that got corrupted by the likes of Mao and Stalin. But Marxism isn't nice. It is predicated on violent revolution as inevitable, class hatred, and thinly-veiled anti-semitism. It would appeal to a lot of people in a distopian world like Shadowrun, though. On the flip side, it would probably be competing with a lot of other crackpot theories. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 03:06 AM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 7-August 02 Member No.: 3,076 |
The Shadowrun universe doesn't run according to "capitalism." Free market economies must be based on the rule of law: businessmen are subject to arrest and prosecution for breaking laws. A corporation can be fined for breaking the law. In Shadowrun, businesses are states, organizations legally coequal with governments and financially superior. This is not "capitalism." Frankly, it's insanity. Taking one group of people and making them immune to laws is and always has been a recipe for abuse of authority. I would think that the Shadowrun universe has a lot of political movements based around an alliance of anti-business Socialists and pro-free market forces who have combined to agitate for the end of corporate extraterritoriality. Socialists and free marketers disagree on a lot, but they agree on this principle and it is the most egregiously wrong social structure in Shadowrun. Most of the rest of the dystopian nature of Shadowrun results from this insanity. The US, at least, had it shoved down their throats by the Supreme Court. Other nations adopted it voluntarily. This was a move of unsurpassed stupidity and suicidal obliviousness. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 03:18 AM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 7-August 02 Member No.: 3,076 |
Depends on what you mean by "Socialism." In discussions like this, Socialists tend to use a very expansive definition as a form of verbal sleight-of-hand. Like the previous poster who claimed that "In a true capitalism, you do not have monopoly laws,or even rules dealing with things such worker safety." This is simply incorrect. It is, bluntly, a fiction promulgated by Socialists to justify far more intrusive Socialistic measures (like the wholesale owning of industires by the government): "Anti-monopoly laws are required and that's Socialism, so Socialism is required and the government owning the steel industry is okay!" The earliest modern economic theoretician, Adam Smith, noted that free markets require the robust rule of law. A functioning free market requires the ability for businesses to enter and leave a market freely. Monopolies or oligopolies hinder this. Yet, businesses seek to monopolize. To paraphrase Adam Smith: "It is rare that any 3 businessmen meet to talk, that their discussion does not turn to a restraint of trade." Thus, businessmen seek their own benefit, at the expense of the wider society, by creating monopolies. Laws regulating monopolies are thus required: Monopolies harm societies and economies and are therefore, even in Free Market economies, a perfectly apt subject for making and enforcing laws. Let me reiterate: Free market economies require laws that ban certain activites businesses are likely to engage in. This is not "Socialism" and claims to the contrary are simply mistaken. The arguments among free marketers revolve around how to regulate these activities and what areas ought be subject to laws. Laws are required, but cause bad effects: they make it more expensive for entreprenuers to enter the market. In other words, over-regulation by the government can also create monopolies. In fact, many businessmen lobby the government to create "safety" regulations that serve only to hinder competition. Back to Shadowrun: Like I said above, Shadowrun isn't an example of a free market world. It's an example of a world where businesses were exempted from taxation and regulation, and therefore could engage in restraint of trade to their heart's content. Like I said above, insanity. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 12:06 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
Insanity is a good word for it. The biggest kvetch, however?
After the rise of Megacorps and extraterritoriality, how're you gonna get it back? The corps are holding all the chips now. Short of every Great Dragon decideing unanimiously that they want a second rise of nationalism and smashing the megacorps and telling the Corporate Court that it's not the power anymore... And we know that ain't gonna happen, since so many GDs are fond of sinking their claws into the megacorporate pies. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 12:52 PM
Post
#58
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Perhaps I haven't seen enough checks and balances, but every example of socialism I've seen (especially things like welfare, medicare, etc.) seems to have a giant hole for the greedy to profit at the expense of his neighbors. After all, if you could elect your own boss, wouldn't you elect the one who let you slack off the most? The problem with people governing themselves directly is they will govern themselves for their own best interest if they lack a social conscience. Having read the Communist Manifesto, I wasn't impressed with the foresight shown in this particular area. Rather, it simply sounded like everyone would be delighted to work for his neighbor without any thoughts for his own desires, as long as his basic needs were met. An enjoyable fiction, but fiction nonetheless. But as I said, perhaps I simply haven't seen enough checks and balances at work. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2005, 04:21 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
For a true Marxism to work, you'd have to have everyone be a Vulcan. Emotionless, logical machines.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 04:48 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
same realy for any political system. only by removing emotions may the humanity move forward...
however, it seems that a lot of the discussion walks into the trap of goverment = the people. this is not allways true, not even in a representative democrasy. only in a direct democrasy will this idea contain some level of realism. so when one is talking about the means of production being in the hands of the people its not equal to them being in the hands of the goverment. instead the factory should be run by a democrasy rather then a ruling elite. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 05:38 PM
Post
#61
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Well, that depends on what one means by "basic needs" One can easily include psycologial needs in this catagory. Meterial contentment and fulfilment of ambition could be seen as basic needs from some point of view. So long as these are fulfilled everything will be fine. However, the real problem with Communism is implimenting it within a command economy is impossible. In order to fufill the ideal one requires a surpluss economy, in which materials and goods are so abundant that they no longer have any value. The "We don't use money in the 22ed century" Utopia of Star Trek is an example of such an economy. If one can use a replicator to instantly create any item, even more replicators, from spare atoms then the only things that have value are base atoms. If the machine can construct atoms from base particles than only those particles would have any value and substomic particles are so abundant that they really wouldn't be worth much. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 05:52 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
more likely it would turn into a energy economy. that is unless energy can be so cheaply generated that noone cares about the cost of it. allso, i dont think star trek dont use money. its just that one only see the "military" side of it, from inside a ship. the ship is set up to provide the needs of the crew and their familys. the energy comes from that big reactor in engineering. question is, who pays for the fuel to that reactor?
unless one develops perfect energy convertion there is going to be some energy lost going from one form to the other. this eats up and surplus sooner or later. basicly you cant go from energy to matter and then back to energy again without loosing something in the prosess. and as long as that loss is there, one have economy... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 06:14 PM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
It really depends on the scarcity of the fuel source. If the fuel isso abundant as to have no intrinsic value, then entropy is such a negligable factor on the economy that it can be ignored. Sure, it will catch up to this abundance economy in a few trillion years, bbut untill we approach the heat death of the universe there will always be more raw matter to put into the economy. Matter mining is made so much easier by the fact that one doesn't have to seperate out the precious metals and minerals as they do today. The replicators can simply break any matter down and reconfigure it into formerly precious materials. It is pretty much confirmed that there is no money in the Federation at all. Other cultures still use currency, which is why they are always talking about latnum (a precious metal that apparently can't be replicated using standard means and the defavcto currency of the alpha quadrent. It is never explained why this metal can't be replicated but it is sort of a cop-out so that the Ferringi emphasis on capitalism could actually work in such close proximity to the Federation.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 06:32 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
to manipulate atoms or subatoms you need a lot of energy. about equal to the amount of energy einsteins formula predicts that is inside the atoms unless im mistaken. that is if you want to do it in any controled form.
and the more stable it is the harder it will be. so the question becomes, where to get the energy to keep the prosess going? only thing i can think of thats reliable enough is solar energy, but then one will need very effective solar panels. or fusion reactors that produce more then they need to sustain control (not happening right now). or maybe they use solar plants to generate the matter that fuel the fusion plants :silly: ugh, thinking to much about this hurts... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 06:37 PM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The great thing about E=Mc^2 when it comes to matter reconfiguration is that it works both ways. Matter<->Energy is pretty much a 1:1 reaction, excepting entropy. One would need to introduce a little extra into the system to overcome entropy but not so much. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 07:04 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
define not so much?
you dont need much entropy until it becomes very uneconomical to do so unless you have a virtualy free source of energy to begin with... remember that the c is the speed of light. this means that you need a whole lot of energy to produce a small bit of matter. so even if the entropy is 1% of the total energy used, its a whole lot of energy being lost in the prosess. right now the only place nuclear fusion (basicly what a replicator is doing) is happening are in some lab setups and inside the sun. and then only with the most basic of elements. trying to produce something like a hot cup of tea or a new shirt by replication is cost ineffective to say the least. sure there may show up some developments in the future that can ease this along. maybe nano tech? problem is that right now nano tech is seen as more or less magic. i think there is a lot of pratical limitation to the theorys about what nano tech can do (alltho i must say, seeing pants that dont stain from a glass of wine is kinda cool). now, if we can maybe move the economy over to a hydrogen economy (i hear some danish scientists have found a way to bind hydrogen to salts so that it can be transported in tablet form) things may become more interesting. but making hydrogen requires energy... in the end, its a never ending fight against entropy... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 08:39 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Communism in the Sixth World looks like Horizon Incorporated or Aztechnology.
The unity of Capital and Labor into a single entity with the State as a separate concern withered away to nothing - sounds like a Communist Paradise, or a Megacorporate Extraterritorial Region, doesn't it? Marx saw a utopian vision in which the People would coopt control of the means of production and make all decisions in a hyperdemocratic fashion. Shadowrun proposes an alternate and Dystopic vision in which the owners of the means of production take full control of all the people and make life-and-death choices for them with no accountability to anyone. But the essential economic setup that Marx envisioned is right there, everywhere. Shadowrun is Communist - just a horrible malevolent form of it. The only difference between Stalin's state-run industries and Aztlan's industry-run state is semantics. -Frank |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2005, 09:10 PM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
So communism works beautiful assuming that: 1) You can have anything you want. If you want to be king of the world, you can be 1b) You don't want anything. A happy drug makes you not care about being king of the world. 2) Anything you could desire can be easily created with a minimum of work, making money and industry largely redundant. Works for me! I'm a communist now. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 09:15 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
communist my foot, more like monarcy or despotism then communism... only way this can turn into communism is if everyone owns a share in the mother corp and therefor have a say in the running of said bussiness... oh wait, is that how aztechology or horizon is run? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 09:17 PM
Post
#70
|
|||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
as stated, remove all emotions and presto, utopia. a very boring place, if we still know what that word means (isnt bordom a emotion?) but still a utopia... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2005, 09:28 PM
Post
#71
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Nominally, yes. Horizon is an employee owned corporation, which means that ideally everyone is equal. It's just that presumably some are more equal than others. How that is rigged up hasn't really been described, but this being Shadowrun we can presume that it's been subverted somehow by at least one group. Aztechnology has a similar setup in which nominally everyone in Aztlan has a say in the direction things move - it's just that the people who actually make those descisions are those in charge of counting and interpretting those electronic votes. So in either case, everyone has a say, it's just that your say doesn't especially matter and the entire collective pretty much does exactly what it was going to do if you had said nothing. Stalin had a similar setup. He could claim to be leading a communist country because everyone had a say in the economic direction. It's just that in reality if your say wasn't pretty similar to what he wanted it to be you could be shipped off to Siberia. Same idea. Communism requires every worker to have a voice. It doesn't require the management to care. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2005, 09:34 PM
Post
#72
|
|||||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
and that makes it communism in name only. or basicly just a mask for despotism/monarchy (it all depends on spin realy)... hmm, that more equal then others comment makes me think of the pigs in animal farm. yes it was a spoof on communism but for some oddball reason it shows that it can work, only that everyone have to take on the responsiblity to make it work and remove those that try to exploit the system. in the end the flaw isnt the basic system, its man. we are all just greedy, lazy, power hungry liers at heart... |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 10 2005, 10:08 PM
Post
#73
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Well, you actually can have Communism and Despotism at the same time. Communism is an economic system characterized by planned resource distribution and a single interest that represents both Capital and Labor. The system of government you use to make those plans and represent those interests could be anything from Pluralistic Democracy to Iron Handed Despotism to Anarchic Dartboard. The personal freedom allowed to any particular worker could be anything from State Sponsored Expression to Nerve Stapled Drone.
As a total aside, Animal Farm was intended as a criticism of Soviet Stalinism, Orwell himself was a Trotskyist.
I've always found that to be a cop out. Any particular economic system does not give you democracy and freedom, it simply allows it. There is an absolute limit to how much democracy you can sustain under Capitalism because of Investor Veto. But that doesn't mean that any particular society that uses an investment capitalism model of economics is guaranteed to have that much democracy - look at Argentina! Sure, under Communism you can have virtually unlimited amounts of democracy. That doesn't mean that you will. And that's not a flaw with the communist system, and it's not a problem with humanity in general. That's a social problem (or more likely several problems) in whatever country isn't living up to its potential. If that sort of thing was inherent in anything as universal as economic systems or the human condition, Britain and Australia would be ruled by their own Pinochets right now. -Frank |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 10 2005, 11:21 PM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Lets say the equation for converting one form of matter to another at 1% entropy is this M->E->M2 where E= (Mc^2) - (Mc^2)*.005 and M2 = (E/c^2)-(E/c^2)*.005 This could be expressed as the functions f(M) = (Mc^2) - (Mc^2)*.005 = E and f(E)= (E/c^2)-(E/c^2)*.005 = M2 combined into the function f(f(M)) = [(Mc^2)/c^2] - 2[(Mc^2/c^2)*.005] = M - M*.01 =M2 Therefore, while one looses quite a bit of energy in the conversion one only looses a small ammount of mass. For ever 99 kilograms of output you need 100 kilograms of input. THis mass could simply be obtaining be beaming random spacerocks abord. Incidently, it is the transporter technology that the replicators are based on. They most certainly do not use nano technology. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2005, 11:53 PM
Post
#75
|
|||||||||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, interesting.
it wasnt a cop out, i was aiming it at both sides. the moment that the people gets lazy in monitoring their leaders, they risk having control taken away from under their feet. right now, britan and australia is ruled by people thats listening more and more to big corp then the masses. australia is a offshot of british rule. the brits where the one group that had the best luck shutting down their colonial systems and handing over control to democratic goverments. for some reason those words form a US general sounds strangely correct, even tho they where aimed at the time towards stalins sovjet: "freedom requires eternal vigilance". why it is that britain and australia have yet to colapse or end up with a rotten ruler i dont know. maybe because they have ties to older systems of goverment? as in, they have links, directly or indirectly to old ideas of self-control. in comparison most of the nations in south america and africa are young nations. allso, mixing diffrent etnical groups into the same nation have a bad habbit of blowing up without a leader that wants to represent the people, not just one etnical group. some african nations and the balcan nations have both shown this. and we should never forget that hitler was elected to power in a democratic system... |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st July 2026 - 11:25 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.