Really, is it a pathetic improvement that there hasn't been a famine in China in the last 50 years, but before that there indeed were? — ssu

Don't cherry pick my sentences. Quote them fully.

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.

Well, those leaders in China still think of themselves as devoted Marxists. — ssu

What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful?

You call a billion people going out of absolute poverty a "small improvement"? — ssu

Yes, especially when moving from absolute poverty to almost absolute poverty. That is not much of an improvement. Don't forget, you can manipulate stats. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Sometimes that quote is very true!

Why there a persistent large class of poor people is a complex issue. — ssu

No, it's fundamentally very simple, it started off with the majority of humans, in small communities, allowing the 'strongest and scariest f***wits,' to become their leader/king and accepting the primal fear manipulations put forward by the theosophists around at the time. It's such a pity that at the time, humans did not have a standard community policy of joining en-masse, every time it was needed to kill the brawn based gangsters, who would be king, consistently, from day 1. it's also a pity we had no effective antidote to religious BS at the time. The other reason that the rich and poor was created globally, was the application of capitalism via the money trick. Fundamentally, quite simple, but soooooooo destructive for our species and this planet.

Weak countries are exploited, that is true. — ssu

I assume that is not ok in your opinion, yes? and if it's not, then what reparations do you think are due for such abominable violations of basic human secular morality and how are you helping to stop such from ever happening again?

Coulda swore that was down to communist central planning and rigid birth control. — Vera Mont

The rigid birth control was introduced in the late 1970's, so that was later. Yes, central planning and the "Great Leap" are culprits, but then again you had central planning introduced to East European satellite states and there was no famine there. The China that the Communist got wasn't prosperous. China had famines in 1876-1879, 1901, 1906-1907, 1920-1921, 1928-1930 and then came the famines cause by the Sino-Japanese war / WW2 / Chinese Civil War.

Pfth! — Vera Mont

That comment sums up neatly the ignorance (and arrogance) of what some people, especially Americans, but typically Westerners, have to the agency of other people than themselves, to the views of these other people and their role in their own history. Just pawns or victims of the rich Westerners.

Nothing complex about. Somebody with a big gun comes along, burns their homes, orders them off their land and into the mines, or factories, or cane or cotton or coffee plantations - whatever makes the rich even richer. — Vera Mont

Ah! No complexity, it's all simple.

Did it happen in your own country like that? Who ordered your parents / grandparents or you to work in a mine or factory after burning your home?

You think it happened like that in the countries that made the transition to industrialized countries in the 19th or 20th Centuries?

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness

Right, what should be happening globally.

Well let's start with that. At first a question for you: do you think that historical examples of how now more prosperous countries did eradicate widespread poverty is still informative on what at the present should be done?

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites. — universeness

You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich.

What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful? — universeness

First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union.

And for the Chinese system, how much really power those billionaires have in China? Haven't you heard about China's missing billionaires? The Chinese Communist party has power in China, and the CCP is ruled by one man.

Again the US is the best example of a country what comes closest to a plutocracy.

In the US a billionaire who comes out of nowhere, can indeed get into power: he has the money to make an election campaign and there's a willing electorate that will vote for him (or her) as his or her wealth seems like a credible guarantee that the person is able and effective. Above all, his or her wealth is quite well guaranteed and American billionaires don't have the habit of falling from multiple store windows. In Putin's mafia-lead Russia that happens and also in CCP controlled China a billionaire has to avoid politics.

Yes, especially when moving from absolute poverty to almost absolute poverty. That is not much of an improvement. Don't forget, you can manipulate stats. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Sometimes that quote is very true! — universeness

Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that.

I assume that is not ok in your opinion, yes? — universeness

Definitely!

Sovereign states being sovereign is a good start, at least. A good guideline, let's say.

No, it's fundamentally very simple — universeness

If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too?

The rigid birth control was introduced in the late 1970's, so that was later. Yes, central planning and the "Great Leap" are culprits, but then again you had central planning introduced to East European satellite states and there was no famine there. The China that the Communist got wasn't prosperous. China had famines in 1876-1879, 1901, 1906-1907, 1920-1921, 1928-1930 and then came the famines cause by the Sino-Japanese war / WW2 / Chinese Civil War. — ssu

Why do you keep harping on famines? Famines are caused by various factors, including climate, war and politics. Like Stalin's making of the famine in Ukraine and the Irish potato famine. But there are plenty of homeless, displaced and dispossessed people when there is no actual famine, and plenty of people who can't afford decent food, housing or medical care, even when they're working full time and making more then $2.15 a day.
You can mix together as many disparate facts as you like. It won't make any difference to fact that the accumulation of more wealth in fewer vaults is detrimental to the welfare of the world's population.

That comment sums up neatly the ignorance (and arrogance) of what some people, especially Americans, but typically Westerners, have to the agency of other people than themselves, to the views of these other people and their role in their own history. — ssu

It's arrogant? OK. But I judge people by their actions, rather than the flags they wave. Most of the RC popes did not behave like Christians; most of the East Bloc leaders did not, and do not behave like Marxists. It's not the self-delusion that counts; it's the effect.

Just pawns or victims of the rich Westerners. — ssu

So, have the wars of European conquest, partitioning of continent, colonial rule, the plantation system, the copper, gold, diamond and coal mines all been swept under the revisionist version of "banana republics have only themselves to blame" doctrine?

Did it happen in your own country like that? Who ordered your parents / grandparents or you to work in a mine or factory after burning your home? — ssu

The Russians, actually - or rather, the Kremlin-controlled puppet government of not-so-dedicated Marxists, who got rich, invested abroad, mismanaged the economy, then sold out to American business. But that was later - a couple of centuries after the colonization of Africa, South America and Far East - you know, those very poorest poor people who are your first concern. Except, of course, South Korea, which did fine, entirely on its own.... sort of...

Washington financed most of the ROK operating budget, paying the entire cost of its large military. From 1946 to 1976, the United States provided $12.6 billion in economic assistance; only Israel and South Việt Nam received more on a per capita basis.

You think it happened like that in the countries that made the transition to industrialized countries in the 19th or 20th Centuries? — ssu

In the 19th, mostly under British colonial rule, yes. In the 20th, increasingly either through investment by the US or their authoritarian government's big guns.
Which ignores an important question: How does a transition from agrarian to industrial economy benefit the general population?

do you think that historical examples of how now more prosperous countries did eradicate widespread poverty is still informative on what at the present should be done? — ssu

Only if the facts of the 'how' can be fully understood and can pass a basic secular morality test. For example, Much of Glasgow in Scotland, was built on the profits of the tobacco lords, which was built on the cheap, forced labour of slavery. Many of Britain's cities prospered on the profits of slavery and on the fact that the British military, pillaged other civilisations, just like other vile groups, such as the Romans, the Vikings etc, etc did before them. Are those the kind of historical examples you wish to exemplify as resulting in less poverty for their stakeholders? Historical examples of humanist/socialist/labour and suffrage movements, which actually did improve the lives of many, should indeed be championed and in fact always have been, by true socialists and humanists.

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.
— universeness
You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich. — ssu

It's a pity you don't understand the local/national/international and global responsibility the nefarious rich have for the economic and power imbalance they created in history, and continue to create today. Calling it 'populism,' is a simplistic and very poor attempt to hold up an irrelevant shiny, to distract from and dilute the truth.

First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union. — ssu

In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. Its a well known, common pathology. I am surprised you cannot see past such disguises. Do you also believe that Donald Trump is a true man of the Christian faith? :rofl: and Boris Johnson was a genuine brexiteer, based on principle? :roll:

And for the Chinese system, how much really power those billionaires have in China? Haven't you heard about China's missing billionaires? The Chinese Communist party has power in China, and the CCP is ruled by one man. — ssu

So the difference for you, between characters like Elon Must, Roman Abramovich, and Zhang Yiming (owner of such as Tik Tok etc) is that the Russian and the Chinese examples of nefarious rich, ultimately answer to a political overlord (King)? Whereas in the West, the billionaires are more independent and can abuse global populations, more freely? What other distinction between such characters do you think exists? Do you really think political doctrine is an important distinction between such individuals?

Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that. — ssu

Dying as a slave or dying as an enslaved gladiator, for the entertainment of an audience in an arena, is quite drastic, yes? Such public atrocities do not happen anymore, as an acceptable part of a 'civilised' nation, do they? Does that mean we should focus on the fact that 'well that shit doesn't happen much anywhere today,' so we should all be very grateful for what we have, because no one has died as a gladiator in an arena for a long time, so we are doing well!

Famines and food riots have not even ended yet. They have globally reduced, yes but that is f*** all, to pat anyone on the back for, as it's at best, tip of the iceberg improvements. We have sooooooooo much further to go, and you, trying to congratulate, whoever it is you are trying to congratulate, for what has been done so far, is at best misguided and at worse, sinister.

Sovereign states being sovereign is a good start, at least. A good guideline, let's say. — ssu

No, No, No, No, No! ( as I have heard some on-line debaters such as Matt Dillahunty exclaim, when dismayed at an interlocuter.) We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'

If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too? — ssu

Yes, simple in concept but not so simple in execution, due to the current power and influence of the nefarious rich.
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone.
2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party.
3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc.
I could go into much more detail on each of the above three changes I advocate but I doubt you would be interested. So I merely state them here, again, as I have stated such for many years, in the hope that others will find common cause with such ideas, which of course have been around for a long time.

1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone. — universeness

For sure. But there is still the ticklish problem of all that blood and sweat tied up in luxury vehicles, mansions, animal skins and the bling in the vaults. None of the stuff, recycled, would be worth a fraction of its present market price. The mansions will make fine seasonal worker accommodation for the orchards and I guess you could use the airplanes as temporary shelter for scientific missions, and the boats would come in handy for fishing all that plastic out of the oceans. But the artwork, jewellery and impractical garments can never be sent back to compensate the people who suffered for their making.

Why do you keep harping on famines? Famines are caused by various factors, including climate, war and politics. — Vera Mont

Because it's a good marker when the country is really, really poor.

Famines happen in societies which are fragile, for example there are many subsistence farmers who are affected by draughts etc. You can have devastating wars, but a country prosperous enough can avoid famines. Hence there was no famine in Germany or Italy during WW2, and no famine in my country then either. Rationing food is the obvious solution. Yet poor and fragile states simply don't have the means and the ability to ration and feed their people. It's actually the rare case when a famine is made on purpose (Holodomor, the siege of Leningrad).

But there are plenty of homeless, displaced and dispossessed people when there is no actual famine, and plenty of people who can't afford decent food, housing or medical care, even when they're working full time and making more then $2.15 a day. — Vera Mont

I was on starting at first from the worst situation: when poverty means one does not have the financial means to obtain commodities to sustain life. That ought to be nonexistent in this World and we do have the means to eradicate absolute poverty.

When we come to things like decent food, housing or medical care, then we are in the realm of relative poverty. What is decent food, housing and medical care? In my country literally no citizen of this country is begging on the streets, the beggars are usually from Romania. Having a home is a right and there's no huge homeless problem, people don't live in tents on city streets. Here we come to questions like of how far should the welfare state go? Yet the issue isn't about welfare, but just how well the economy works for the people, does everyone have the possibility for a decent life through work?

So, have the wars of European conquest, partitioning of continent, colonial rule, the plantation system, the copper, gold, diamond and coal mines all been swept under the revisionist version of "banana republics have only themselves to blame" doctrine? — Vera Mont

Obviously not, yet shouldn't we look at the examples of countries that have been poor, have been colonies and yet afterwards have improved their economies and have become prosperous?

Except, of course, South Korea, which did fine, entirely on its own.... sort of... — Vera Mont

Aid (from the US) might have had some effect, but the long-term projects of industrializing the country had in the long run, were successful. And then when domestic industries were competitive enough, then competing in the global market was key.

In the 19th, mostly under British colonial rule, yes. — Vera Mont

Outright colonies didn't industrialize in the 19th Century, it was those places that had dominion status that did, starting with the dominion of Canada in the mid 19th Century.

How does a transition from agrarian to industrial economy benefit the general population? — Vera Mont

Important question.

The answer is that the agrarian communities are made up of subsistence farmers, those who grow the food they eat, which doesn't create actually more wealth. But when industry springs up, those who have worked the fields get a better salary working in the factory. Then a lot of very poor agrarian workers are find themselves in a better position ...being just a bit wealthier, even if still poor, industry workers. Hence the lure from the countryside to the cities.

I won't bore you with statistics, but every industrialized country has seen the transformation of people generally living in the countryside to people living in the cities with now there being just a small fraction from earlier times of people working in agriculture.

Only if the facts of the 'how' can be fully understood and can pass a basic secular morality test. — universeness

Well, my country (Finland) never had colonies, it basically was a colony of Russia and earlier part of Sweden. South Korea was under Japanese rule for a long time (and didn't have colonies). Sweden in fact did have small colonies, but they weren't remarkable. Norway or Switzerland didn't have colonies either. Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what?

Historical examples of humanist/socialist/labour and suffrage movements, which actually did improve the lives of many, should indeed be championed and in fact always have been, by true socialists and humanists. — universeness

In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right!

In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. — universeness

An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks?

So the difference for you, between characters like Elon Must, Roman Abramovich, and Zhang Yiming (owner of such as Tik Tok etc) is that the Russian and the Chinese examples of nefarious rich, ultimately answer to a political overlord (King)? Whereas in the West, the billionaires are more independent and can abuse global populations, more freely? — universeness

Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here.

Famines and food riots have not even ended yet. — universeness

And there is absolute poverty too.

They have globally reduced, yes but that is f*** all, to pat anyone on the back for, as it's at best, tip of the iceberg improvements. We have sooooooooo much further to go, and you, trying to congratulate, whoever it is you are trying to congratulate, for what has been done so far, is at best misguided and at worse, sinister. — universeness

Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.

And yes, if India and China have improved the situation of many of their people, why do you think it's misguided to acknowledge this?

1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone. — universeness

What's wrong with money? Are you going to centrally plan what people want and what manufacturers produced or what?

2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party. — universeness

Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together?

3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness

What's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? Whose going to decide that? I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy.

But the artwork, jewellery and impractical garments can never be sent back to compensate the people who suffered for their making. — Vera Mont

I am sure humanity can absorb such a hit. I like your other suggested uses for the ill-gotten gains, obtained sycophantically by the nefarious rich, from the toil of the many, via the money trick. I think we should also take all church property into state ownership, without compensation for the current owners and turn them all into shelters for the homeless. We could also turn all Vatican wealth over to the current poor, cold and hungry of the world. Surely Jesus (if it ever existed) would approve of such actions.

Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what? — ssu

Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.
I am not suggesting that the wealthy Welsh, Scottish and Irish nefarious few were not fully complicit in benefiting from building the vile 'British' empire. I am sure a minority of nefarious Finns, benefited from using those with a Finnish warrior mentality, who fought for the Swedes or the Russian actions to plunder and pillage their neighbouring peoples. Those who embark on conquest, pillaging and plundering have notions of personal gain, more than they have an interest in establishing the empire notions they were probably not even aware they were establishing. That's why the term mercenary was and always has been part of our bloody history. With all due respect, you seem to have a very naive, 'picture book' sense of human history.

In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right! — ssu

That's a bit better!

An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks? — ssu

Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol:

Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here — ssu

Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? The one autocrat will get assassinated or brought down/replaced, if they don't keep the plutocrats happy. The autocrat will try to keep his/her closest supporters a bit terrified of them, yes, all gangster leaders do this but as Gandhi correctly pointed out:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always."

And there is absolute poverty too. — ssu

Do you think that in the current western cost of living crisis where many who are fully employed, still have to go to food banks, is a big improvement on the Dickensian days of the poorhouses and soup kitchens?
Do you think that people, currently dependent on food banks, should be sooooooo happy and should spend their time celebrating that things are not as bad as those Dickensian days and should they also spend their time celebrating the fact that they are not suffering in the same way as those who suffered during the Irish potato famine or the Scottish highland clearances or the various ethnic cleansing projects that have been imposed on various populations in the past, or perhaps the deliberate horrific actions of Stalin such as the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukranians during the Holodomor. or his slaughter of the Kulaks? Is that the message you offer? That we should all be grateful for the tiny crumbs the worlds poor has been allowed to enjoy from the vast resources the nefarious rich control? Are you f****** serious? I don't mean to sound annoyed at your suggestions, but it's hard to disguise the fact that I am, even if you don't care that I am. I hope others can see how misguided your suggestions are.

Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.
And yes, if India and China have improved the situation of many of their people, why do you think it's misguided to acknowledge this? — ssu

Thanks for at least asking that question. It's misguided, because you have presented your argument in a completely imbalanced way, imo. You have suggested, imo, that it is the mimicry of the dictates of western style rich and powerful individuals, and the acceptance of capitalist doctrine, the money trick and the free market economy, in places such as India and China, that has lifted so many of the poor, out of absolute poverty, and into a state, that you are trying to peddle as a great improvement that the global poor should be sooooooo grateful for.
I am suggesting that your position is misguided and naive because, I think that the truth is, that the nefarious rich and powerful, are becoming more and more afraid of the great mass of poor people who are getting more and more pissed off at them, and are sharpening their pitchforks and getting braver and braver in their wish to organise and protest, the imbalances they suffer, every day, which are beyond their individual power to influence/combat.
The nefarious rich are throwing the poor more and more little crumbs, in the hope that they can do enough to placate them but still maintain their own vile position and lifestyle. You are suggesting the poor should be content with the little crumbs they are receiving and they should also sing the praises of the crumb givers for their efforts. I am insisting that you are talking BS and that the people of this planet should continue to organise globally and increase the pace and power of their just demands. It's time to end all plutocracy/autocracy permanently, everywhere it exists.

What's wrong with money? — ssu

Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings.
A global resource based economy supported by as much automation as possible, can be locally/nationally/internationally and globally organised as centrally controlled, and/or distributively controlled systems, as dictated/required by the conditions/human needs in a particular area.

Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together? — ssu

The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include:
1. Historical political systems are taught in all schools, as a subject with a similar standing to that of Maths or science today.
2. Political debate is established as free online and via publically owned, state funded, televised channels. Anyone can take part at any age. Just expand what's going on on sites like TPF on a gobal scale.
3. There is a pathway from local politics to national/international/global politics open to all who wish to apply. This would be issue by issue politics and not party based politics.
4. Using the UK system as a base example. 650 mp's would be elected as independents. They would all form the government for 4 years and argue and legislate on an issue by issue basis. No prime minister and no official opposition required. Any one of the 650 can be chosen to represent the UK on international or global issues.
5. There would be a second elected chamber to check and accept or reject all legislation agreed on by the first chamber. This second chamber would consist of two (one male, one female) elected independents from all significant stakeholder groups, (youth, middle aged, old, education, medical, military, police, LBTQ+ etc, etc)
These 5 suggestions are of course, only the smallest beginnings and are open to full democratic debate.

What's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? — ssu

Too rich or too powerful is a measure of an individuals ability to influence political policy. If they can do so by use of their money then they have too much of it and are too individually powerful

Whose going to decide that? — ssu

We, the people through our directives to our elected representatives, regarding the checks and balances we insist they establish and rigorously maintain.

I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy. — ssu

I agree with 'division of power' and 'term limits'but certainly not 'keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum.' Fully open, transparent, full disclosure governance is an essential check and balance.
UPDATE: Sorry ssu, I misread your sentence 'keeping secrecy of government actions, at a true minimum' So I would change my disagreement with that goal to agreement.

Because it's [famine] a good marker when the country is really, really poor. — ssu

So what? That says nothing about what caused the poverty and fragility in the first place. If there is no famine for a few years or decades, that's not an indication that the country has become rich and stable; only that a transitory situation has passed - for a time. There are famines enough yet to come in countries that are not poor right now.

The answer is that the agrarian communities are made up of subsistence farmers, those who grow the food they eat, which doesn't create actually more wealth. — ssu

Can there be a famine in Switzerland? Say, a global economic collapse halts food imports and a new strain of rinderpest wipes out the cattle? All the worthless money in all the vaults won't feed dthe people. They'd have to pick up a hoe and become subsistence farmers within six months - assuming the private food supplies are nationalized and rationed, along with the government reserves. They can't grow much grain, but they might do all right with vegetables and fruit, if they convert the shopping malls into hydroponic gardens asap.

What do you think 'created' original wealth?
What makes you think wealth is a good thing, that ought to be created and accumulated?
What prevents famine, short of a major climate calamity, is local independent, diverse agriculture. But who needs that, when the food importers can make a fortune by burning down some other country's forest, take away the subsistence of the farmers there, turn them into low-wage slaves and then mark up the produce in an industrial country?

I won't bore you with statistics, but every industrialized country has seen the transformation of people generally living in the countryside to people living in the cities with now there being just a small fraction from earlier times of people working in agriculture. — ssu

Yes, I know. And I'm familiar with the process whereby it was accomplished. I wonder whether you would have liked to be on the less privileged side of those transitions.
O, happy, happy factory workers!

Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.
I am not suggesting that the wealthy Welsh, Scottish and Irish nefarious few were not fully complicit in benefiting from building the vile 'British' empire. I am sure a minority of nefarious Finns, benefited from using those with a Finnish warrior mentality, who fought for the Swedes or the Russian actions to plunder and pillage their neighbouring peoples. — universeness

That genuinely doesn't come at all to the reasons why Finland became and industrialized country from being a poor hinterland of Europe. But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. Starting from the whimsical belief that prosperity cannot be created, but has to be robbed from some others. Actually it's quite questionable how much colonies really profited people of the main countries. For Portugal having Angola and Mozambique were really a burden, not an stream of income. The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade.

Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol: — universeness

During the time of the photo was taken, I think they were.

Yet telling is that you find only Trotsky to be a true believer in the socialist cause, but not Lenin, who according to you, he is the butcher. Well, I guess people haven't heard about Marxism-Leninism or just who was the founder of the Red Army and who started to use barrier troops to shoot their own front-line troops if they retreated or deserted. :lol:

Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? — universeness

Does it have to be a plutocracy supporting autocracy? How far goes your populism? You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats?

So I would change my disagreement with that goal to agreement. — universeness

Great, we agree on something!

What's wrong with money? — ssu

Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings. — universeness

It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed.

The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include: — universeness

Ok, you've put a bit of thought to this.

Some questions:

So you ban parties, won't accept them, assume 650 mp's act as "independents" (ahem! No grouping around tolerated), yet then in 5. you say there would be a second chamber either with just two people (male / female) or two from all stakeholders (I didn't get that part, sorry) as varied places as youth to LGTBQ+ to military and police???

Wowwowoow, hold on here!!!

So you are literally putting military and police into the legislative branch when they clearly belong in the executive branch. It's really not up to them to be in the process of making laws, on the contrary! I guess the military and the police as "stakeholders" will have a lot more weight on for example on national security issues than the LGTBQ+ stakeholders.

There is ample amount of examples how military being outside it's main realm of defence and embedded in the states governing really doesn't work and basically leads to inefficiency and corruption... and not even a great military.

Besides, both the police and the military are usually such professionals that the legislative branch does listen to them if they really have something important to say. But there's never a formal put that the generals have to accept legislation and have some kind of veto.

And anyway, how does this quote sound to you:

“A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives.”

Sounds great, eh? Well, it's from the Green Book of Ghaddafi, the "Brotherly Leader of the Revolution" who went into schools to pick nice looking girls to deflour and was really let's say an eccentric dictator. But his point was that his dictatorship was masked, even if whimsically but still, in direct democracy. That "direct democracy" worked through "revolutionary committees" that basically surveyed the population and crushed all opposition.

The point of this is that what some formal political design looks like theoretically, isn't what you are going to end up with, especially if there aren't any kinds of safety valves.

But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. — ssu

It is hardly a shock that those who support capitalism, see the claims of its critics as merely engaging in rhetoric. I am sure we are both more interested in the conclusions any readers of our exchange come to, rather than the conclusions each other comes to.

You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats? — ssu

No, I think the recipe started when we were wandering hominids in the wilds. An individual rise to power has always corrupted humans and the gaining of absolute power via political intrigue and economic competition has always corrupted absolutely. This lesson has been demonstrated, time and time again to all humans who have the wits to perceive such. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It's long overdue that the human race finally bars all individual pathways to too much individual or small group power and influence.

It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed. — ssu

So has god posits and kings and aristocracies and class systems and caste systems and familial dynastic, inherited wealth, privilege and power, regardless of mental suitability or stability, etc etc. The fact that such phenomena have been around for a long time does not dilute how pernicious they are.

So you ban parties, won't accept them, assume 650 mp's act as "independents" (ahem! No grouping around tolerated), yet then in 5. you say there would be a second chamber either with just two people (male / female) or two from all stakeholders (I didn't get that part, sorry) as varied places as youth to LGTBQ+ to military and police??? — ssu

No, group forming of similarly minded individuals will happen, and is encouraged on an issue to issue basis, for the 4 years the elected 650 independents govern. Each action taken by an MP will however be scrutenised, at the constituency level. Once a month, the MP must report to a meeting held within the constituency they represent. Any voters from that constituency can attend that meeting and ask the MP questions regarding their report of their activity. All political meetings of the first chamber will be recorded and can be viewed by the public, as a way of ensuring that the MP has acted in the way they report they have acted. The second chamber would have as many members as required to allow one male and one female rep from each group.

So you are literally putting military and police into the legislative branch when they clearly belong in the executive branch — ssu

The military and the police would be represented at all levels of government, but the military and police would not be under the full control of the first chamber. The first chamber would not have the exclusive power to declare war, they would however have complete access to all military and police forces, in the situation where war had been declared against us, or an attack was immanent or in progress. They can unilaterally defend but they cannot, as the first chamber, unilaterally attack.

Sounds great, eh? — ssu

No, it sounds misguided. Those who represent the people in a parliament are the people, they are of the people and they are elected by the people and they are tasked with acting for the people and if they don't, then they must be removed and the system must have robust enough checks and balances that those who abuse the trust put in them, can be identified and removed, easily, quickly and fairly.

The point of this is that what some formal political design looks like theoretically, isn't what you are going to end up with, especially if there aren't any kinds of safety valves. — ssu

History absolutely confirms how correct this statement is, so we need to be wise and not repeat the same old mistakes and make damn sure that we do employ 'all kinds of safety valves.' One aid towards this goal might be to encourage ssu not to keep over-stating congratulations towards the not fast enough and not significant enough tiny improvements in global poverty imbalance or ecological damage.

Those who represent the people in a parliament are the people, they are of the people and they are elected by the people and they are tasked with acting for the people — universeness

This becomes true about ten minutes after you remove the influence of money from the political system. If there is no social or financial gain to be made in governance, it's just a civic duty.
Only, make sure that essential services and institutions are protected from government interference, because people elected for a short term in office may not be able sustain long-term projects.
(Eg. Look at the roads. Nobody can build a proper road, probably not since the Romans, because it's too expensive: allocation for any single project is determined by the lowest bid and annual budgeting means the infrastructure can only be patched, a little at a time, when absolutely necessary. All the patching and repair over the lifetime of a road ends up draining ten times the resources and worker-hours it would have to build well in the first place. Obviously, all this is even more costly when done by private contractors, who also make a hefty profit, both on the initial construction and on the annual maintenance.)

The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade. — ssu

In my opinion, the human story will remain, and forever be, a corrupted story, until our extinction, if we are mainly about 'countries' and 'becoming rich.' These are the kinds of notions which I find soooooo 'unsatisfying.' We ask questions and we seek answers, that's what we do! that's who we are!
The real way for people to live better lives is to create a global system where the basic means of survival do not have to be the daily focus of any individual person. In such a global society, the human race might become a net positive for the universe, because we have the ability to create meaning and purpose. Such is non-existent imo, in a universe without lifeforms such as humans.

This becomes true about ten minutes after you remove the influence of money from the political system. If there is no social or financial gain to be made in governance, it's just a civic duty. — Vera Mont

Absolutely but not just a duty, a very worthy cause and vocation, which offers those who take on such, a respected status. A career which can allow an individual to make a real positive impact of the lives of so many and help direct our entire species in new and better ways to be and exist. The politicians who serve the people well or exceptionally well, will really deserve the memorialisations we dedicate towards them and the legacy they leave. Imo, this is a far better thing an individual can do with their life, than they have ever done before, especially when compared to becoming a Putin, a Thatcher, an Elon Musk, a Kardashian, a Roman Abramovich, etc, etc.

Only, make sure that essential services and institutions are protected from government interference, because people elected for a short term in office may not be able sustain long-term projects. — Vera Mont

Individual good politicians can get re-elected. You might serve as one of the 650 for much of your life, if you represent your constituents well enough. Long term projects which are popular with and valued by the electorate, will be sustained imo.

(Eg. Look at the roads. Nobody can build a proper road, because it's too expensive: allocation for any single project is determined by the lowest bid and annual budgeting means the infrastructure can only be patched, a little at a time, when absolutely necessary. All the patching and repair over the lifetime of a road ends up draining ten times the resources and worker-hours than building well in the first place. Obviously, all this is even more costly when done by private contractors, who also make a hefty profit, both on the initial construction and on the annual maintenance.) — Vera Mont

These issues will no longer be present in a moneyless, resource based economy which employs automation as its backbone. Future roads will be built and maintained by automated systems. We just need to develop the necessary tech capability.

These issues [infrastructure] will no longer be present in a moneyless, resource based economy which employs automation as its backbone. Future roads will be built and maintained by automated systems. We just need to develop the necessary tech capability. — universeness

We have the technical capability now. But money doesn't build roads and bridges; it only buys the materials, energy and labour. For a big, project, resources have to be allocated and dedicated over some considerable period of time. Once begun, it can't be left up to popularity whether to continue working on a costly project or abandon and allocate the material, energy, equipment and human supervision to some idea that sounds sexier during election week.

A career which can allow an individual to make a real positive impact of the lives of so many and help direct our entire species in new and better ways to be and exist. — universeness

I'm not a fan of career politicians. They become campaign-savvy, manipulative. Anyway, a career without pay or kickbacks has only the rewards of social status and admiration, and one can get as drunk on that as on any kind of power. The other danger of long service is the formation of influence-networks, from which cabal is not a step too far. You're teetering on the edge of what happened last time: a good leader was made chief; in the next conflict he became the war-lord; victorious, he was crowned king... next thing you know, his eldest son automatically inherits the throne, collects tribute from vassals, carves his legal code on an obelisk, stamps his ugly mug on a gold coin...

I would like to see a firmly established civil service of professionals, administered by a council - parliament, congress, what have you - drawn form the general population. Maybe by lot or rota system, like jury duty, serving short overlapping terms of two or three years. That way, the governing body really would be of the people. There would always be enough members - half, two thirds? - with experience for continuity and enough fresh minds for perspective, and civic service wouldn't remove people from their own regular life long enough to deform them. No medals, no accolades, no parades, no bloody statues or name carved into schools and libraries - just another job that gets done because it needs doing for the common weal.

We have the technical capability now. But money doesn't build roads and bridges; it only buys the materials, energy and labour. For a big, project, resources have to be allocated and dedicated over some considerable period of time. Once begun, it can't be left up to popularity whether to continue working on a costly project or abandon and allocate the material, energy, equipment and human supervision to some idea that sounds sexier during election week. — Vera Mont

When you say 'costs' here, I assume you are referring to the material resources required to complete a large project and not money, as we want to remove money. Yes, if a large project was started then it should be finished or else there would be a lot of wasted resources and the reasons for such bad and costly mistakes would need to be rigorously investigated and prevented from happening again.

Anyway, a career without pay or kickbacks has only the rewards of social status and admiration, and one can get as drunk on that as on any kind of power. — Vera Mont

I agree that can happen and I have no problem with that if it's healthy enthusiasm, but not if it has became a personal addiction towards a goal of establishing a cult of celebrity. I am fine with 'hero worship,' at the level I myself have for such as Carl Sagan, but yes, I would be concerned if the admired person was being damaged, due to developing an addiction to the praise of others. I agree that dealing with the praise of a multitude of fellow humans, needs to be psychologically 'supported'/rationalised/grounded.

The other danger of long service is the formation of influence-networks, from which cabal is not a step too far. You're teetering on the edge of what happened last time: a good leader was made chief; in the next conflict he became the war-lord; victorious, he was crowned king... next thing you know, his eldest son automatically inherits the throne, collects tribute from vassals, carves his legal code on an obelisk, stamps his ugly mug on a gold coin... — Vera Mont

Yes, a very worthy warning flag to raise and always wave, especially considering how many historical examples there are of such.

I would like to see a firmly established civil service of professionals, administered by a council - parliament, congress, what have you - drawn form the general population. Maybe by lot or rota system, like jury duty, serving short overlapping terms of two or three years. That way, the governing body really would be of the people. There would always be enough members - half, two thirds? - with experience for continuity and enough fresh minds for perspective, and civic service wouldn't remove people from their own regular life long enough to deform them. No medals, no accolades, no parades, no bloody statues or name carved into schools and libraries - just another job that gets done because it needs doing for the common weal. — Vera Mont

See, lots of good people have lots of idea's for trying to improving things for the better.

When you say 'costs' here, I assume you are referring to the material resources required to complete a large project — universeness

That, plus, effort, disruption of other services, people tied up in planning and overseeing - the material and social costs. Economy doesn't just mean money; it means the balance of what is available against what is used up; what is lost against what is gained.

Yes, if a large project was started then it should be finished — universeness

That's the safeguard I was asking for. Once it's decided, set up a committee for the duration and declare it hands-off to the sitting government until its completion. The same with a communications network or a hospital: no tinkering by amateurs or fickle voters.

I would be concerned if the admired person was being damaged, due to developing an addiction to the praise of others. — universeness

That's been known since prehistory. I can't recall which tribe it was that considered seeking praise a major source of corruption - I'd have to go back to the book https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374157357/thedawnofeverything - but even Christianity considers pride a deadly sin.

See, lots of good people have lots of idea's for trying to improving things for the better. — universeness

Yea, we've always been here, mostly ignored.

That's the safeguard I was asking for. Once it's decided, set up a committee for the duration and declare it hands-off to the sitting government until its completion. The same with a communications network or a hospital: no tinkering by amateurs or fickle voters. — Vera Mont

Sounds reasonable to me but there would have to be some wriggle room. There is no such an existent as perfect pre-planning that has been exhaustively tested and every possible barrier to completion has been identified and all needed contingency plans established. Unforseeable happenings can occur that could make the completion of a large project, untenable. Hopefully such would be very rare but not impossible.

That's been known since prehistory. I can't recall which tribe it was that considered seeking praise a major source of corruption - I'd have to go back to the book — Vera Mont

I remember watching the old film, 'The rise and fall of the Roman Empire.' They had a scene where a conquering Roman general has re-entered Rome to the ticker tape parade style adulation of the population. The senate placed a slave in the chariot of the general, with orders to whisper gently in the ear of the general, every so often, during the adulations, the words, 'remember you are just a man.'
It turns out that such an action by the early Roman senate, was historically accurate.
Perhaps we could get a small innocent looking child, to do the same to all world leaders (male and female), who are about to deliver a political manifesto to the population they represent.

Yea, we've always been here, mostly ignored. — Vera Mont

You don't get ignored here Vera! You are not a force that is easy to ignore. :smile:

There is no such an existent as perfect pre-planning that has been exhaustively tested and every possible barrier to completion has been identified and all needed contingency plans established. — universeness

That's why you put a panel of experts in charge; so that they can make whatever decisions need to be made form day to day. Practical and technical decisions, not political ones.

Perhaps we could get a small innocent looking child, to do the same to all world leaders (male and female), who are about to deliver a political manifesto to the population they represent. — universeness

Haw! I just flashed on an image of Parliament, with 500 tiny winged putti hovering over the big, serious representatives. I sure hope they're potty-trained!
Did the whispering slave trick work? Of-bloody-course not! And I'm not prepared to put little innocent children to such unrewarding work. It's simpler just not to celebrate anybody for doing their job or even doing something popular. Recognize, sure: when one lot has served their three years, give them a nice going away party and a commemorative coffee tray or something.
You remember Donald Trump? The whole disaster of his presidency and its aftermath could have been prevented by the simple expedient of denying him media coverage. He's an attention-junkie; it's his main reason for disputing the election and wanting to be king: he can't bear the thought of losing the spotlight. He should have been ignored to death long before all those other died.

That's why you put a panel of experts in charge; so that they can make whatever decisions need to be made form day to day. Practical and technical decisions, not political ones. — Vera Mont

It could still all go pear shaped but in general, I agree with your suggested processes.

I had to look up winged putti and noted that it was the plural of the Italian word 'putto,' described as:
A putto is a figure in a work of art depicted as a chubby male child, usually naked and very often winged.. I do like the idea of supernatural entities, shitting on the heads of politicians from a great height, who have been proved liars. The trouble is, putti don't exist, so, I think I would actually prefer a real, fully clothed, teenage Glaswegian NED (Non-Educated Delinquent), who simple said something like 'Aye pal, but yi better no be a bullshitter by ra way!' every so often, and then made physical gestures towards the speaker after every manifesto pledge, such as switching a pointed finger between their own eyes and the politicians eyes, in a threatening manner, BUT that's just my strange tastes. The exact check and balance we should employ remains fully open to democratic debate.

Did the whispering slave trick work? Of-bloody-course not! — Vera Mont

Well they didn't have a surround sound system or close circuit tv, displayed on big screens so that all the people present could witness the warning to the general that the senate was trying to deliver. The senate did carry out their warning in the case of the vile Julius Caesar, when they correctly decided to kill the monster, but you are correct, that the fact that Octavius became the first Roman emperor soon after, proved that particular attempt at a check/balance, failed.

You remember Donald Trump? The whole disaster of his presidency and its aftermath could have been prevented by the simple expedient of denying him media coverage. He's an attention-junkie; it's his main reason for disputing the election and wanting to be king: he can't bear the thought of losing the spotlight. He should have been ignored to death long before all those other died. — Vera Mont

Ha! if only I could refer to him in the past tense. I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. We need a politics which allows individuals to air personal grievances properly, and we need to establish a pathway of arbitration that such folks can take, which will earnestly try to find the best compromise solution that would best suit all parties involved. It's the notion of justice that we all favour the most, imo.

I think I would actually prefer a real, fully clothed, teenage Glaswegian NED (Non-Educated Delinquent), — universeness

Hey! Before, you said

a small innocent looking child, — universeness

Don't you go shifty on me, comerade!

I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. — universeness

It wasn't just allowed; it was engineered, provoked and orchestrated. And that's why I would like to see neither network-formation nor campaigning - or politics, for that matter - in the administration of economy, social services and justice.
As for the grievance arbitration, I totally agree.

Hey! Before, you said
a small innocent looking child,
— universeness
Don't you go shifty on me, comerade! — Vera Mont

:lol: Mia culpa!

As for the grievance arbitration, I totally agree. — Vera Mont

:up:

???? So why do you choose to help strangers who seem unable to help themselves? — universeness

I love your question. I question myself and realize I regret not helping some people in the past because they are as deserving as those I have helped lately. I think the difference in my judgment is the result of having more physical and memory problems myself. This awareness of how hard it can be for physically or mentally impaired people (including children) comes from experience and this is lacking in a young population. When we have never experienced a problem, we expect others to do what we can do. We expect a lot of children! Perhaps our expectations of ourselves and others are too high?

I help others because it is the right thing to do. You know, the bottom line is, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It is not about who they are and I don't want what I do taken as a personal relationship thing. I see myself more like a nurse who takes care of a wound and then moves on to the next patient, than a loving person.

Emotions change and change, but being virtuous hopefully is not so changeable. I think we need to do things that are the right thing to do. In the 60s we said, "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". This is the only way to have a better life. The better we make life, the greater the chances are of us having good lives. That is reason, right?

Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love.

Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love. — universeness

I don't propose to answer for Athena, but for myself: because "love" is such a loaded, booby-trapped word. It evokes sentimentality, hypocrisy, Christian doctrine and a whole a passel of emotional stuff with which I don't want to be lumbered. I have compassion for people I find quite unpalatable and for animals I would never want to encounter in the wild. That empathy, or sense of rightness or whatever it is is quite distinct from my personal relationships in which affection plays a major part. Also, I consider some constraints on my freedom, some obligations of time an effort, as a civic duty: the price of living in a society that affords me protection and support.

I tend to consider love, as a spectrum/domain, which has a very large number of emotions/members.
I primarily go to it's practical use in the history of the human species.
The label 'love' itself is perhaps too misused, when exclusively related to physical/emotional/biological partnerships between humans. At it's fundamental level I think the love/empathy/altruism/selfish genes/narcissism/hate range of our emotional spectrum, allows cooperation between humans in very simple and loosely connected ways to a maximum, whereby an individual can become so integrated and dependent on others that, their complete well-being becomes totally reliant on the relationship and then onto that which dictates the deliberate manipulation and control of others via emotion, up to and including the hatred of other people and other objects

I think @Athena does what she does, as deep down inside, she is more a persona of cooperation than she is a persona of competition. I am the same. Some folks can be as cooperative or competitive as they deem they have to be, depending on how they have personally interpreted a situation they encounter. I tend to encounter any new scenario with the golden rule in mind but I can also turn primeval, if pushed, prodded and abused enough. I think you and Athena are similar but I accept we don't know each other well enough for me to be sure of the statement I have just made.
Many other people prefer the predator label or the lone wolf label and are almost incapable of maintaining any significant form of cooperation.
I have certainly been surprised by aspects of people in the past that I did not predict and would never have predicted. I personally think that love of competition, love of fighting, love of morally unconstrained personal advancement etc, are those members of the 'love spectrum,' that belong to our 'jungle rules' early experiences and are IMHO, residuals from uncivilised and somewhat backwards thinking.