Some political notes.
INTRODUCTION
I’ve written this webpage on politics only so as to: help people think through their political issues so that they can: get them out of the way, move on, to eternal issues.
In this section I use the word communism differently from the way most people use it. 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I think I use it in its purest sense.
.
POLITICS
Democracy = every person rules. Dictatorship = one person rules. Democracy is more socially complex than dictatorship. Hence democracy is better than dictatorship. ,, ,, See earlier section: GOOD & BAD, RIGHT & WRONG.,,,,, ,, ,, Proportional Representation is more democratic, by the above definition, ,, ,, than First Past The Post. Perhaps see: Electoral Reform Society. ,,,,,
A hypothetical, tiny, island nation that’s so richly blessed that it doesn’t need money, cannot have capitalism or communism. But it will still need either democracy or dictatorship. ,, ,, To get agreement on: marriage laws, behavioural laws, festivals, etc. This shows that: Democracy & dictatorship are about people, the power structure. Capitalism & communism are about money (which does not necessarily mean power). This shows that the two pairs of mechanisms: capitalism & communism &: democracy & dictatorship, can be separated. This helps to define them.
.
Capitalism = everyone can keep all they’ve made. Communism = everyone must share all they’ve made. Democracy = every person rules. Dictatorship = one person rules. Hence there are four possible extremes: democratic communism democratic capitalism dictatorial communism dictatorial capitalism. All nations fall within these four possible extremes (like four corners of a table).
.
Or, more simply:
The data for the above, abbreviated, charts is from: ,, ,, Our World in Data / Democracy index ,, ,, and: ,, ,, Heritage / index of economic freedom. ,,,,, You may disagree with Norway’s position (I certainly do) but I just stuck with the data in the above two links. Perhaps someone else can make a better(?) chart.
.
Capitalism = everyone can keep all they’ve made. Communism = everyone must share all they’ve made. Capitalistic mechanisms produce wealth but communistic mechanisms give that wealth a human face. That’s why every civilised nation has both mechanisms: capitalistic mechanisms ,, ,, Free markets. ,, ,, Anti-monopoly laws.. and communistic mechanisms ,, ,, Unions (though they’re needed less as the economy grows).. ,, ,, Tax-paid-for means-tested needs-tested: ,, ,, ,, ,, housing, ,, ,, ,, ,, healthcare, ,, ,, ,, ,, education, ,, ,, ,, ,, unemployment money, ,, ,, ,, ,, disability money. ,, ,, N.B. People’s needs (above) are finite. ,, ,, So the richer a nation gets ,, ,, the less it will actually need communistic mechanisms. ,, ,, (Hence, also, the less it will need big government.) ,, ,, But we humans are frail. ,, ,, So a nation will always need some communistic mechanisms, ,, ,, however few.
Why does capitalism, much more than communism, produce wealth? Because, even if you are: a completely selfless person, who lives only to help others, your would still have: structured your life around yourself (because you control only yourself and because you need resources to function). God designed the material of the universe, hence of nature: & hence the flesh & souls of animals & hence the flesh & souls of humans , , (though not the hearts/spirits of humans) to have concentric circles of selfishness: inner circle an animal you midway circle related animals your family/friends outer circle pack/flock/herd your group/nation/bloc. Perhaps see earlier webpage: The design of everything . . . and earlier section: THE ORIGINS OF: PAIN & PLEASURE AND FEAR & ATTRACTION. . . .
.
Capitalism = the production of wealth – good regardless of its uneven distribution – bad. Communism = the even distribution of wealth – good regardless of who produced it – bad. These goods and bads are impossible to measure. Hence it’s impossible to measure which is best between capitalism and communism. Indeed, it’s pointless to speculate which is best since both are needed.
.
We grow up gradually: 1. First needing supervision (child). 2. Then needing advice (teen). 3. Finally becoming autonomous (adult). We grow up gradually, from: at home, everything’s paid for , , So you’re free to be passionate about justice. to: you’ve left home, so you pay your own way. , , So you’re free to be whatever you can manage to be. We grow up gradually, hence the saying: “If a person hasn’t voted left-wing by the time they’re 25 – they’ve got no heart. If a person hasn’t voted right-wing by the time they’re 40 – they’ve got no brain.”
.
Youngsters have always tended to be communistic. But, these days, in the West, most teachers are communistic too. Hence youngsters’ education today is particularly politically imbalanced. I suggest balancing it by using Wikipedia. , , Wikipedia has to be: unbiased, and give its sources. Also, when you’re on YouTube etc, often search for the opposite of what you’d normally search for. That will stop the algorithms from keeping you in a left-wing echo chamber. This also applies to people stuck in a right-wing echo chamber. , , Actually, YouTube algorithms struggle with this. , , So perhaps look on two, completely separate, devices. , , Perhaps see earlier section: THINKING TOOLS THAT I USED. . . . , , Perhaps see: BBC iPLAYER ( search for: HARDtalk / Jonathan Haid ). . . .
.
Left-wing and right-wing are, or should be, limited to: capitalistic mechanisms & communistic mechanisms. Unfortunately however: parties wanting to increase their votes and causes lobbying one party or the other, result in all sorts of issues wrongly becoming party political. Some of those issues might even be: national (e.g. immigration) or international (e.g. global warming).) This means that issues that need resources may not consistently get them as parties go in and out of office. ,, ,, Proportional representation would be better, for this problem, ,, ,, than first past the post.
.
WESTERN COMMUNISM
What I call Western communism is commonly called diversity, equity, and inclusion. Wikipedia: diversity, equity, and inclusion. ,,, Western communism only ever occurs in Western nations. Or, more precisely: in Western democracies. Or, more precisely: in Western Protestant Christian democracies, in which God prompts Christians to love everyone. Or, more precisely: in Western Protestant Christian democracies, in which God prompts Christians to love everyone, but where, now, churches have shrunk, so that unbelievers are the new majority, and they: reject the: God component of Christianity, but keep the: people love people component of Christianity.
Hence the mechanisms: diversity, equity, & inclusion, were built in: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, etc, but not in: China, India, the Middle East, Africa, etc.
.
We are made of the same material as animals. Yet we are eternal. Hence: we added: justice to: the law of the jungle to make it: the ways of the world. The ways of the world are everywhere. And they eventually need, & so eventually produce: capitalistic mechanisms &: communistic mechanisms. ,, ,, See earlier cell, starting Capitalism = everyone.,,,,, Communistic mechanisms, because they are everywhere, are in Western nations. The Western nations’ left-wing then combined: communistic mechanisms with: people love people to make: Western communism, diversity, equity and inclusion, the legislation of love.
The trouble is, – love cannot be legislated. ,, ,, Legislating love produces fake love. ,, ,, See: 1 Cor c13 NIV for a definition of real love. Hence Western communism lacks the most important communistic mechanism: equality of income. (Many of its advocates are rich and intend staying that way.)
.
BUT, Western communism does manage to keep the following, three, less important, groups of mechanisms. Beware. The following three groups of mechanisms are good, 1) and 2), and partly good, 3). And, if you don’t yet know God, you tend to idolise good things. Perhaps see earlier section, IDOLATRY, and its subsections.
1) Equal social acceptance of people of different cultures (i.e. different: ethnicities, classes, religions, opinions, etc). N.B. Some pairs of cultures have parts that are incompatible with each other. In which case the only practical answer is to value: the West’s overarching acceptance culture even more than you value: the individual cultures it accepts (even if that includes your own culture). Hence the maxim: I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.” ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Voltaire, via Evelyn Beatrice Hall. . . . Notice that Voltaire’s maxim has an implied condition in it: I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend, to the death, your right to say it as long as your words are not attacking someone else’s right to say what they want to say.”
.
2) Equal social acceptance of people of different: colour, body shape, ability, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
.
3) Equal educational & work outcomes for all people: This is done by restricting the more able’s applications so as to increase the success of the less able’s applications. (This last group of mechanisms is the one that’s only partly good: some gain, some lose.)
I reckon people crave to see equality of outcome because they don’t see people, they see only the world & its hierarchy. The world values people according to what they can do. God values people. They don’t have to do anything. Luke c15 NIV.,,,
You may say: “This place makes me think that God does not value people.” I say: “This place is a only a bin: from which God will rescue us ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, See earlier cell (starting: This place is merely temporary) ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, and the links within it. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Perhaps the whole of that section. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, (This link does not open a new tab.) ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, See earlier webpage: We choose where we go,,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, and the links within it. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, (This link does not open a new tab.) and in which God equips those who believe him.” ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, See: C.S. Lewis: Enemy-occupied territory. ,,,
.
Group 3) mechanisms do not clearly improve democracy or economy. Group 1) mechanisms are essential parts of democracy. But group 2) mechanisms clearly improve democracy: This is because, in a democracy: minority groups will always fear the power of, always be at the mercy of, the majority group, (human rights laws partly correct this, but not fully). Quality communication is the answer to the above. To be precise – quality old-school communication is the answer (algorithms have discovered, for themselves, that outrage & echo chambers get the most clicks). To be precise – quality old-school communication is only part of the answer. The rest of the answer is either love or laws. However, laws that favour minorities, that super-support minorities, that compensate for their democratic weakness, imposed undemocratically, or even if imposed democratically, cause the same kinds of problems that they solve. So the only answer left is love.
To conclude: In order to clearly improve democracy the group 2) mechanisms must be added and that can only be done by: o quality old-school communication ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Interviews, logic & science, documentaries, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, films & plays, talk shows, comedians, etc. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Perhaps see my own contribution: ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, GOD’S WORDS ON SIN down to TRANSGENDERISM. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, (Bear in mind that I wrote it all primarily for Christians.) o and love. Admittedly love is not a mechanism that politicians (or anyone) can readily control. But that’s as good as it gets.
.
A WARNING
The main task of a democracy is to make a dictatorship as difficult to form as possible. Hence the components of the United Kingdom are as overlapping as possible. It’s a nation where: anyone can do anything they want providing it doesn’t break common law which grew over time according to individual cases often reported in the free press which can be sued, if it’s wrong, by ordinary citizens who can vote politicians into, or out of, office who can make big changes to everyone’s lives but who are under the same laws as everyone else, etc. So that no one person is in power. Or, conversely, everyone is in power. ,, ,, N.B. Laura Spinney writes, in her interesting article ,, ,, Reimagining Democracy, in New Scientist magazine 5^th Oct 2024, ,, ,, that the UK’s [& similar nations’] democracy ,, ,, could be greatly improved by using digital technology.
However, if a party, either left or right, ever values: its policies more than it values: democracy, then it’s a disaster waiting to happen: They’d be thinking: “We can see that our policies are the best ones for our nation. So, next time we’re in office, let’s try to tweak things so that, ideally, we’re never out of office again.”
.
Satan loves dictatorships: “So few words. So much effect.”
.
Home page	End of site.