13-12-2010, 10:30 AM
Dean
The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology. Some of the points you make about the USSR are lucid, I think, because the material conditions of that regime are no longer an issue of ideological debate, so we can all see - more or less - what needs to be critiqued there.
The contemporary parties, however, are driven by two different sectors of the economy:
First is the capital-intensive (low need for labor-hours), which prefer democrats (since they spur growth and domestic spending, which raises demand, expands the market for their products).
Secondly, we have the Republicans - largely supported by the labor-intensive corporations. Any expansion of labor rights, compensation or OSHA style conditions (which the Dems mildly support while the republicans heavily oppose) is more expensive to these industries at a rate relative to the magnitude of their labor:capital ratio.
Nicholas Popov
Originally Posted by Dean
"The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology.
... , which prefer democrats ... Secondly, we have the Republicans ..."
Incidentally, about "absence" of ideology and about political stunt: two-party pre-election 'football' is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the one who pays actors, that is in favor of the Big Money. :playingball:
"Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, ... The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders." http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...php?t=4973
Honest contest is only here.
The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology. Some of the points you make about the USSR are lucid, I think, because the material conditions of that regime are no longer an issue of ideological debate, so we can all see - more or less - what needs to be critiqued there.
The contemporary parties, however, are driven by two different sectors of the economy:
First is the capital-intensive (low need for labor-hours), which prefer democrats (since they spur growth and domestic spending, which raises demand, expands the market for their products).
Secondly, we have the Republicans - largely supported by the labor-intensive corporations. Any expansion of labor rights, compensation or OSHA style conditions (which the Dems mildly support while the republicans heavily oppose) is more expensive to these industries at a rate relative to the magnitude of their labor:capital ratio.
Nicholas Popov
Originally Posted by Dean
"The problem I see is that you're focusing too much on ideology.
... , which prefer democrats ... Secondly, we have the Republicans ..."
Incidentally, about "absence" of ideology and about political stunt: two-party pre-election 'football' is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the one who pays actors, that is in favor of the Big Money. :playingball:
"Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, ... The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders." http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...php?t=4973
Honest contest is only here.