KR> pure communism, and pure democracy are very similar, and
 KR> neither work in anything bigger than a commune.

 BL> No... that's true of communism, but a democracy can be quite
 BL> large as long as people are fairly homogenous; as long as most
 BL> think the same and have similar goals, and are mostly
 BL> interchangeable.

 KR> name a pure democracy, capitalism is not the same thing.

 BL>   There is no such thing as pure anything... it's a concept only.

 BL>   Capitalism and democracy are like Rod and Rex the Wonder Dog; they
 BL> coexist but they're different. Capitalism is the natural consequence 
 BL> of freedom which is also not the same as democracy. It is possible to 
 BL> have very restrictive democracy but not very restrictive capitalism.

 BL>   However, my point is correct: democracy *can* be quite large as long
 BL> as the people are homogenous. In fact, a pure democracy would have
 BL> to be fairly large to work. Small groups go towards anarchy, communism

 BL> or totalitarianism. Democracy takes too much time in a small group. It

it works as long as everybody accepts the results, and cooperate. i think
that the current gun debate is an excellent example of why it wont work
here and now.

 BL> only works if the people are willing to delegate authority.

 BL> Communism has to be imposed. It ignores human greed, and the
 BL> universal belief that we are better than everyone else.

so does democracy. if this were a democracy, we could vote on what kerry
packer does, but i dont like your chances in this society.

 KR> communism runs ok in small communities where everybody has
 KR> concern for the welfare of all, the abbos seemed to get along
 KR> ok like that until we civilised them.

 BL>   Abo society is very strict with behaviour imposed on the tribe by
 BL> elders, as with the kibutz. Freedom is sacrificed for the common good
 BL> imposed from above, defined from above, and development is stifled. A
 BL> democracy is impossible to run in small groups, but it facilitates
 BL> change... as does anarchy. 

order is always imposed in any sort of organised society, the only one
where no order is imposed is anarchy. i'd say that democracy is **only**
possible in small groups, it has only been successful in small groups of
like minded souls.

 BL>   To me, the system is unimportant as long as freedom is maximised. In
 BL> small grpoups anarchy does this best, and in large groups democracy
 BL> does it best... as long as the society is homogenous (without large
 BL> minorities). Democracy leads to a splintering of disparate nations, 
 BL> as we see in the USSR and the Balkans.

maximising freedom can only lead to anarchy, then the freedom of the strong
is maximised at the expense of the weak.

 KR> the problem that the chinese leadership has now is the rise of
 KR> the middle class, and that historically has been the downfall
 KR> of despotic systems. 

 BL> Only if the bureaucracy is small. Under communism, the middle
 BL> class *is* the bureaucracy.

 KR> i should have said an independent middle class, coz that is
 KR> what is growing up in china, not completely beholden to the
 KR> party, and, as time goes by they will become even more
 KR> independent, and demanding. 

 BL>   Classic theory measures society by the middle class (*independent*
 BL> middle class means what? Free?), but in my opinion the middle class 
 BL> is just a symptom of overall freedom. Communism got around this by 
 BL> creating a middle-class bureaucracy to stifle freedom and spread the 
 BL> wealth to some extent.

the middle class is what makes a society work, they take the direction of
the upper class and guide the lower class in carrying them out. when that
middle class, though find out how much power they really have then the
system is in danger, and that is what is happening in china. the middle
class are finding out that they can use their experience for their own
ends.

 BL>   What you are seeing in China is capitalism. It won't work without
 BL> freedom, and freedom creates a middle class that wants to hang onto
 BL> what they've got, etc... You are right overall, but I think you've got
 BL> cause and effect reversed.

 KR> did you know that there is a significant reverse migration
 KR> going on with young chinese/australians seeing much more
 KR> oppportunity in hong kong/china than here over the next few
 KR> years. 

 BL> It's not exactly *reverse* migration. What they do, is move the
 BL> family (and the money) to Australia, get free Australian
 BL> citizenship and put the kids in private schools, dump the wife
 BL> in a nice property in Sydney, and then take the money and
 BL> themself back to China and the girlfriend.
 BL> Australian-citizenship is the parachute.

 KR> not a few of these are australian born.

 BL>   I think we may be arguing over the meaning of "migration." To me,
 BL> that means leaving one country to live in another, permanently. I
 BL> find it hard to believe that any of these Chinese entrepreneurs are
 BL> surrendering their Australian passports... they're just chasing a
 BL> dollar in a stronger economy than ours.

you dont have to surrender your australian passport to become a permanent
resident of another country unless that country demands it, any more than
you have to give up your previous citizenship to become a citizen here. i
know quite a lot of people with dual citizenship, i've got 2 passports, its
quite useful, i can go to the us, japan, or anywhere in europe without a
visa.

 KR> macarthur would have been flattened if the chinese had put
 KR> their whole force on him. 
 BL> And then he would have used the Bomb. He saw a window of
 BL> opportunity for the USA to rule Asia. He was a fuckit. The USA
 BL> shut the window years earlier when it supported Chiang Kai Chek
 BL> instead of Mao. The Dulles brothers have a lot to answer for.
 BL> China was never the enemy...
 KR> he may have tried, but his masters would not have let him. the
 KR> us miltary has always had it's share of gung ho loonies such as
 KR> curtis lemay, but they are usually kept reasonably in check. 

 BL>   The Military throws up men for the job, and Curtis LeMay and SAC was
 BL> necessary at the time. Politicians keep them on a tight rein. In fact,

curtis lemay would have been a fuckwit under any circumstances, it is to
the credit of the us presidents that he was kept under control, and their
debit that he was put anywhere near the position that he was in. he was
very effectively satirised in dr strangelove.

 BL> the Chinese have probably the best record of all for controlling their
 BL> military.

thats true, they are too busy pirating cds, well they were, i think that
has stopped now, at least the supply of "installer disks" has
dried up in hk.

                          keith
@EOT:

--- WinPoint 0.2.07 Alpha