A Two Party System

ricetalks · Oct 23, 2008

Somewhere in one of these thread somebody brought up the discussion about having only two parties running in the election and they were wondering if two parties were enough. I can't find it now, so I make it a new post.

I am reminded of the joke that Tommy Douglas once told when he was running for election in Saskatchewan and was running on the promise of putting in a socalized medical system. And it goes like this:

There was a nation of mice who at election time always had a choice of two parties, The Black Cats and The White Cats.

First, they would vote for The Black Cats and things were really bad. The cats every once in a while would kill and eat some of the mice. And when the mice finally got fed up, they said, "Enough of this! Things have gotten really bad! Let's vote for the White Cats!" And they voted for the White Cats. And things were a little better under the rule of The White Cats because they didn't kill and eat as many mice, but they were still cats and so they couldn't help themselves.

In the next election The Black Cats said, "Listen, we've become vegitarians so were not going to eat the mice anymore. Vote for us!"

And the mice, fed up with the White Cats, voted for the Black Cats. And in no time the Black Cats were back to eating mice because, you know, they tried it but cats cannot live on vegetables alone.

When the next election came around, finally one of the mice stood up and said, "Listen, why do we keep voting for these cats? Why don't we elect one of us? Why don't we just vote for a mouse?"

And all of the cats looked at him and said, "HE'S A COMMUNIST!"

Don · Oct 23, 2008

There's way too much truth in that parable.

Nicely told.

robeiae · Oct 23, 2008

Yes. Now extend the story with Animal Farm in the back of your mind...

kuwisdelu · Oct 23, 2008

And in the sequel, all the characters get slaughtered in The Jungle.

benbradley · Oct 23, 2008

Better black, white or dead than red!

maxmordon · Oct 23, 2008

I remember seen this on a Made-For-TV movie about Douglas, really good story.

ricetalks · Oct 23, 2008

robeiae said:
Yes. Now extend the story with Animal Farm in the back of your mind...

As the end and quote from animal farm goes (something like):

"They looked from pig to man and from man to pig, and they already couldn't tell the difference."

It means that if you go far enough left it meets the right and they are essentially indistinguishable.

That left and right is not a swing to the left or right, but a cycle where they virutally blend into one another like day and nigh on the face of a clock.

The best is somewhere in the middle where they are both half engaged. One keeps the other in check, and that's what I believe.

Any system that allows all of the economic power and all of the political power to accure in the same hands will be a distorted and corrpupt sytstem. It is fundementally what is wrong with communism (not to mention the idea that people are basically imperfectable), but mainly, as a system, it puts the control over money and the economy in the same hands of the people who have absolute control over the political life of the country. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely). This applies to ALL systems of governance.

Unfortunately, we are now witnessing what happens when we let the same thign happen within western systems. We have let those who have control over the money and the economy in our system to also have too much control over the politcal system and there has been nothing to restrain them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We are nearing the point where man looks to pig and pig to man and no one can tell the difference.

maxmordon · Oct 23, 2008

Government by Party! Introduce that great and glorious
element--at once the bulwark and foundation of England's
greatness--and all will be well! No political measures will
endure, because one Party will assuredly undo all that the
other Party has done; and while grouse is to be shot, and
foxes worried to death, the legislative action of the coun-
try will be at a standstill. Then there will be sickness in
plenty, endless lawsuits, crowded jails, interminable confu-
sion in the Army and Navy, and, in short, general and unex-
ampled prosperity!

Utopia Limited, By Gilbert & Sullivan

robeiae · Oct 24, 2008

ricetalks said:
As the end and quote from animal farm goes (something like):

"They looked from pig to man and from man to pig, and they already couldn't tell the difference."

It means that if you go far enough left it meets the right and they are essentially indistinguishable.

I don't think that is what it means, at all. The point here is that power corrupts, as you later note, even when that power is wielded by the ostensibly lower classes of society. Inserting the particpants from your story, it would be looking form "mouse to cat and from cat to mouse."

The left-right stuff is really not where Orwell is going, imo. He's talking about communism and its end-game: totalitiarianism.

Can it come from the right, just as easily? Sure.

But I was merely pointing out to Don where the "truth" he saw in the story would likely lead.

ricetalks · Oct 24, 2008

robeiae said:
I don't think that is what it means, at all. The point here is that power corrupts, as you later note, even when that power is wielded by the ostensibly lower classes of society. Inserting the particpants from your story, it would be looking form "mouse to cat and from cat to mouse."

The left-right stuff is really not where Orwell is going, imo. He's talking about communism and its end-game: totalitiarianism.

Can it come from the right, just as easily? Sure.

But I was merely pointing out to Don where the "truth" he saw in the story would likely lead.

Except the idea of the mouse being a commuist in the story is just an ACCUSATION to scare the other mice.

If Orwell was talking about totalirarianism, which is absolute power, then he draws no difference between the men and the pigs.

It is a parellel parable for the Russian Revolution. The men represent the capitalist that the pigs get rid of. In the end, at the table, the pigs (the communist) and the capitalist (the men) are indistiguishable. And that's the point.

All you need to do is look at American business slowly shifting their manufacturing base to communist China. That's the table that Orwell was talking about. A capitalist system does not automatically create democracy. In fact, it prefers a dictator that is benevolent to its interests. It's why they support dictatorships so often.

kuwisdelu · Oct 24, 2008

They're both the point. Go too far, too radical, in either system, and the leaders take too much power. That power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That, and one-to-one allegory makes for a boring, one-dimensional book, IMO.

Bartholomew · Oct 25, 2008

ricetalks said:
As the end and quote from animal farm goes (something like):

"They looked from pig to man and from man to pig, and they already couldn't tell the difference."

Ahem. AHEM.

Zoombie · Oct 25, 2008

ricetalks said:
The best is somewhere in the middle where they are both half engaged. One keeps the other in check, and that's what I believe.

Quoted For Truth.

We need more Aggressive Moderates. Just as how we need more militant agnostics: I Don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!

robeiae · Oct 25, 2008

ricetalks said:
Except the idea of the mouse being a commuist in the story is just an ACCUSATION to scare the other mice.

Of course. But the end game is the same.

If Orwell was talking about totalirarianism, which is absolute power, then he draws no difference between the men and the pigs.

It is a parellel parable for the Russian Revolution. The men represent the capitalist that the pigs get rid of. In the end, at the table, the pigs (the communist) and the capitalist (the men) are indistiguishable. And that's the point.

All you need to do is look at American business slowly shifting their manufacturing base to communist China. That's the table that Orwell was talking about. A capitalist system does not automatically create democracy. In fact, it prefers a dictator that is benevolent to its interests. It's why they support dictatorships so often.

Um, Orwell wasn't talking about capitalism, per se. The men were those in charge, in control. Their ideology is really unimportant. The idea is that people CLAIMING to be interested in equality for all--i.e. communists, Stalinists in particular--will act no different than the previous "evil" leadership, given the chance to do so.

Your capitalism diatribe is misplaced, here.

Captshady · Oct 25, 2008

Remember, in that book, the pigs were secretly changing "the rules" in the middle of the night, just to maintain control. When they were caught in the act, that's when the lead pig resulted to using the might of the attack dogs, to keep everyone in line.

Important lessons there as well.

LimeyDawg · Oct 25, 2008

Actually, if you look at the ballot, you'll see other party candidates listed (greens, Nader, etcetera) depending on your state. The GOP and Dems have money to burn...okay, that actually hurts to say in context of the bailout, but I won't derail

ricetalks · Oct 25, 2008

Zoombie said:
Quoted For Truth.

We need more Aggressive Moderates. Just as how we need more militant agnostics: I Don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!

But I know what I believe and that's why it says "THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE ANYWAY."

ricetalks · Oct 25, 2008

Bartholomew said:
Ahem. AHEM.

Yes, I know. I've noticed the bottom of your board before. I just couldn't remember who had it an where to find it so thanks for adding it here.

ricetalks · Oct 25, 2008

robeiae said:
Of course. But the end game is the same.

Um, Orwell wasn't talking about capitalism, per se. The men were those in charge, in control. Their ideology is really unimportant. The idea is that people CLAIMING to be interested in equality for all--i.e. communists, Stalinists in particular--will act no different than the previous "evil" leadership, given the chance to do so.

Your capitalism diatribe is misplaced, here.

Really? What was the previous "evil" leadership? We know the pigs were communist and, eventually, Stalinist, so who were the men?

It doesn't strike you that U.S. business now finds it to their advantage to manufacture in communist China to take advantage of its cheap labour?

What were the 60,000 dead in Viet Nam for if, in thirty years, you were just going to go back and conduct business as though nothing happened and, in the end, losing or winning didn't really make any difference anyways? Because, eventually, your interest were going to compliment each other anyway.

Ageless Stranger · Oct 25, 2008

ricetalks said:
Really? What was the previous "evil" leadership? We know the pigs were communist and, eventually, Stalinist, so who were the men?

It doesn't strike you that U.S. business now finds it to their advantage to manufacture in communist China to take advantage of its cheap labour?

What were the 60,000 dead in Viet Nam for if, in thirty years, you were just going to go back and conduct business as though nothing happened and, in the end, losing or winning didn't really make any difference anyways? Because, eventually, your interest were going to compliment each other anyway.

The Tsar/aristocrats in real life, the farmers in the book.

blacbird · Oct 25, 2008

ricetalks said:
It doesn't strike you that U.S. business now finds it to their advantage to manufacture in communist China to take advantage of its cheap labour?

China isn't really communist anymore, hasn't been for a couple of decades now. It's politically authoritarian, to be sure, but capitalist as hell.

ricetalks said:
What were the 60,000 dead in Viet Nam for if, in thirty years, you were just going to go back and conduct business as though nothing happened and, in the end, losing or winning didn't really make any difference anyways? Because, eventually, your interest were going to compliment each other anyway.

Trust me, many of us over there 40 years ago were asking this exact question. And getting no answers.

caw

ricetalks · Oct 25, 2008

All sytems are capitalist in that they need capital to function. It's just a question of who is going to have control over that capital and all of the things within the country that create capital. (i.e. labour, natural resources, manufacturing, etc.)

I would say in this regard China is still communist although, undoubtedly, an altered version of the communism that it started out being.

The moderates in China (and I use that term loosely) have come to recognize how capitalism can help the development and growth in China and help it supply a better life for its people. And make the rulers of the Communist party rich along the way.

But China has done better by itself by adopting to capitalism in a measured and controlled way (the Chinese version, if you will) than Russian did in an all-out, no-holds-barred embrace.

Granted, the past 65 years in Russia has produced a kleptocracy annd that has a lot to do with the ensueing chaos surrounding its move to a free market economy. It was the wild west's version of it.

A Two Party System

ricetalks

Don

All Living is Local

robeiae

Touch and go

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

maxmordon

Penúltimo

ricetalks

maxmordon

Penúltimo

robeiae

Touch and go

ricetalks

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Bartholomew

Comic guy

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

robeiae

Touch and go

Captshady

What happened to my LIFE?!

LimeyDawg

Scars are poems too

ricetalks

ricetalks

ricetalks

Ageless Stranger

Dave Brubeck kicks your ass.

blacbird

ricetalks