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.

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

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

  However, my point is correct: democracy *can* be quite large as long
as the people are homogenous. In fact, a pure democracy would have
to be fairly large to work. Small groups go towards anarchy, communism 
or totalitarianism. Democracy takes too much time in a small group. It 
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.

 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.

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

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

 BL> The problem of communism is that it denies the role of women.
 BL> Men alone will go fishing and drinking and rooting and no one
 BL> gives a shit. It it the role of women to nag men to work and
 BL> become rich and famous. Poor old Lenin did not understand this.
 BL> Mrs Lenin was a dud root.

 KR> thats odd the russians seemed to push the role of women in
 KR> their society with pictures of 20 stone tractor driving
 KR> heroines of the soviet union, 

  And the USSR collapsed... if the women had stayed home nagging the
men properly, Boris Yeltsin would be a sober man today.

 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. 

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

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

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

 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. 

  The Military throws up men for the job, and Curtis LeMay and SAC was
necessary at the time. Politicians keep them on a tight rein. In fact, 
the Chinese have probably the best record of all for controlling their
military.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---