Governments

That is enough. If one looks back at history that is a huge difference between the way things have been done in the past. Actual democratic control of all governmental decisions is impossible and undesirable.
Democratically elected representatives, answerable to their constituency and performing the legislative and executive functions of government is the best system , despite its shortcomings, yet devised.

 

The problem is, that the representatives are mostly accountable to the elites who finance and gear elections. No "dark forces" necessary. Simple lobbying and huge costs of election campaigns make politicians into puppets of their wealthy masters. The masters themselves do not change that often. Of course, sometimes the interests of the masters collide, but that seems to me to be the real content of politics today. Do I have to mention the oil lobby, the arms lobby, Saudis, aipac....? It looks like everything´s for sale.
And increasingly so in Europe, too.

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

It's an unfortunate trend however I think your being overly cynical. To assume that because interest groups spend time and money to attempt to promote their agenda (or a candidate they support) that it means that the candidate has been "bought" is incorrect. Powerful interest groups have always attempted to influence political leaders throughout history whether the leaders were elected , appointed or merely seized power. The powerful lobbies can ensure that a canidate or an issue is given maximum exposure by purchasing media ads however they cannot rig elections or predetermine outcomes. Many powerful "elites" were dissapointed when "their" candidate lost in the last two US presidential elections for instance.

 

But the opponant also had the backing of powerful elites.

Essentially, to win elections, Politicians tend to expend vast amounts on campaigning & advertising.
This money tends to arrive from 'donations', mostly from interested parties (Izaak's 'elites'). When an interested party feels that his interest is being ignored, he withdraws funding. Unless the politician can get alternative income, he is forced to acceed to the guy's demands.

Look at UKIP, who are damn near vanished now, as their chief fund-donator defected to the Conservatives.

 

Ricky wrote:

Of course. But the fact that there is no single "power elite" calling the shots contradicts the idea that politicians are merely puppets of a hidden power elite. It's out in the open. All donations must be reported and are subject to public scrutiny. The powerful interest groups combat each other in the arena of public opinion in order to convince people, who actually cast the votes, to vote for their man or their issue. Messy.. but until someone comes up with a better system..necessary.

These "elites' might be Labor Unions or public school teachers or the National Rifle Association or grass roots organizations of voters focused on an issue of particular interest. To say that powerful elites call all the shots from behind the scenes and the politicains must dance to their tune is more than an oversimplification, it is demonstrably false. By taking a side on an issue that pleases one interest group a politician virtually always is displeasing a competing interest group. Ultimately politicians want votes, since that is what keeps them in power. If a majority of the voters are on one side of an issue and powerful interest groups are on the opposite side (and cannot convince the voters to see it their way) the politician will invariably side with the voters out of self interest.

 

It's also hard to determine the influence of such possible elites of the program of a given party completely follows the lines of their ideological background. Only in populist or radical groups can one often see signs of where the funding is coming from; they, after all, don't have a long history of promoting points within a coherent doctrine, but are rather looking for as much support as possible as soon as possible.

I agree with Izaak insofar as that there are definitely (rich/influential) people behind the scenes of a democratic system that have a lot of influence on the campaign because they fund it. But first of all that's the way it works; you provide the funds, you want a say in the use of it. Second, most of the financers will choose a political part they wish to back because they already stand for some or all of their interests, not controlling what will be in the program but making sure that it gets passed. And third, whatever money vested interests may put into controlling politicians, there is simply plenty of government work that doesn't benefit lobbying groups at all and therefore can't have been enforced if it were up to them entirely.

 

In France money donations from companies to political parties are constitutionally forbidden.

Parties are financed by public money, proportional to the number of votes they got in the past elections.
Of course the sums involved are ridiciously low when compared to the cost of an american election campaign.

This system is tought to reduce the influence of business upon politics.

 

Nothing would make me more happy, than if someone was able to show me that I am overly cynical, as Grieg says. Unfortunately, from what I know, I have no reason to think otherwise.
Sure, the elites behind are not a monolith. Fighting is going on behind the scenes, too.

Of course, some of the financial backing is in the open. But most – probably isn´t. This is not only about paying for the elections.
One such possibility is working on public opinion – i.e. owning and influencing the media. Another one is assuring the retired politicians vast sums of money, property, equity and whatnot. Any politician is bound to retire and a chance to land on a “golden cushion” must be tempting. Incidentally, it is the preferred way the Saudis use (acording to Robert Baer).

 

http://www.communist-party.org.uk/index ... _intro.txt
this is communist party of uks basik belifs

 

Thank you. What´s your point, please?

 

Oh, brother! Someone needs to tell these folks that only characters in bad movies talk like that...

 

I can't believe they still dare to defend communism as a way out of capitalism misery after the many obvious examples of its horrendous failure.

 

How many members do they have, please? There are many freaks on the net.

 

Very, very few. The communists long ceased to count in Britain even as one of the minor partys

 

There's one in the Netherlands that remains just below the limit to get a seat in Parliament at every nationwide election.

http://www.ncpn.nl/verkiezingen/2003kamer/affiche.jpg

"Just vote Communists!" :roll:

 

Dear friends,
What the heck are we talking about here? Communism is dead and rotting peacefully (ex. N. Korea and China). I don´t mention Cuba because it´s the poor offer of American sanctions.

I would like to tell a few words about China:

Isn´t that right that the official, and very probably, real party line of C.P. of China is a kind of N.E.P. in order to get enough money to become a real danger to the capitalist world and devour it in the end? Just like Lenin was planning with his NEP?

 

History! Got a problem with that?

I'd say yes, that's exactly what they're doing. In Communist states, the more unrevealing the name, the less communist the policy will really be!

 

No, no problem at all.
I just can´t get things to fit together: you said that in communist countries the more things are unrevealing (i..o.w. the less revealing they are), the less communist policy will be?
Can you elaborate in 1-2 sentences? I am not getting it.

Do you know some more about the Chinese NEP? A scary idea.

 

If a communist government starts a policy that has an unrevealing name, such as the simple "New Economic Policy", which tells you nothing about its actual content or direction, it is likely to be not at all that communist and in fact lean heavily on capitalist farmers. It wasn't meant as a very serious comment, just to point out that communist governments tend to borrow a lot from capitalist countries because at least that has proven itself succesful whereas communist measures have not.

 

Ok, I got it.
The key question is - isn´t the Chinese society capitalistic enough mentally to oppose any return to communism and the communists´plans of expansion through war?