NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to the Democratic Socialist Party
here's the new thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472567)
--------------------------------------------
Manifesto
The State must protect the rights of its citizens, as set out in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

Social Issues
The Democratic Socialist party believes in a socialist state, therefore social security should be made available to all, regardless of age or infirmity
Healthcare shall be funded by the state and available to all.
Public Transport, Energy Supply, Water Supply and Education are provided by the state to ensure that the cost to the citizen matches the cost of providing those services.
Communication Services will be provided privately, to ensure that they are appropriately up to date and competitive, but will be subsidised by the state to ensure fair pricing.
Social benefits are provided for the unemployed, but decreased with time. While we care for disabled

Economy
As far as specific microeconomic policies are concerned, we believe that neither statism nor the free market can provide a "one size fits all" solution. Every reform must be judged on its merits, using extensive cost-benefit analyses - taking into account non-monetary costs, such as pollution, income inequality or the eradication of individual liberties.
As with all our policies, we thus advocate the use of pragmatic, rather than ideological solutions to economic problems.
We promote a progressive tax system.
Taxes will be high enough to fund public services, but low enough to allow companies to be competitive on the global market.
Recognising that technology is of high value, the state will encourage technical businesses geared toward export, and will provide the appropriate education/training.
Small businesses and entrepreneurs should be encouraged and monopolies discouraged.

Regarding The Electoral System/ Government
The founding of separate, independent political parties should be encouraged by the state.
Free, publicly funded elections should be held every four years using proportional representation.
The Party supports Decentralisation
The state and religious groups should be kept separate.

The Environment
Ratification of Kyoto
Investments in alternative sources.
Renewable sources in the long term,
Nuclear power, in the short term, with preference given to nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission.

Foreign Policy
active participation in UN,
Gradual abolition of Immigration Policies, and the borders with neighbouring countries.
Free open borders, but new citizens must fit certain criteria;
• Language and culture courses provided
• Must be an active worker for at least 1 year,

Judicial
Capital punishment is not acceptable under any circumstances.
We support an international criminal court as we believe that only an international court can be neutral and fair.

Equality Issues
Equality between the sexes is a hallmark of our view of society; therefore, abortion is a right that cannot be denied by the state.

Marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex is a fundamental right and will be permitted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

please feel free to make any suggestions/additions/criticisms you feel are appropriate.

many thanks to all contributors.



Members
Cool Dynasty 42
Leonstein
Knootoss
Spaam
Argesia
The odd one (Founder)
Deleuze
Malden and Everon
Maineiacs
The Blaatschapen
United Tribes Cacitate
Swimmingpool
Avarhierrim
Soheran
The Chinese Republics
The Psyker
Green Swan
Vintovia
Uzb3kistan

Potentially interested people
Syrna Collonie
Great Beer and Food
EL JARDIN
Volvo Villa Vovve
Occhia
Emochny
Ine Givar
Potaria
Subversa

I am not going to be a member of this party, but a fundamental difference is that you can have private businesses and property, whereas the communists can not.

*Spies*

Sorry, haven't been following all the forum threads, what is all this stuff about political parties springing up everywhere?

ok with a bit more thought here's a sample of possible policies;
market economics will be socialised but not abolished.
defence is limited to self defence.
people are encouraged to use public transport (which will be improved) but not actively discouraged from using their own private transport.
social welfare is high on the agenda.

suggestions?

Sorry, haven't been following all the forum threads, what is all this stuff about political parties springing up everywhere?

See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861134#post8861134).

Enshured social security, health care,
Agreed, cheap public transport, and well structured,
High income taxes, also high taxes on property
Private cars, allowed, with expensive enshurance, registration etc. so that lets say a middle class family will be able to afford one car
Orientation in "know how" industry, goal to export as much as possible

Thanks Ariddia :D

Enshured social security, health care,
Agreed, cheap public transport, and well structured,
High income taxes, also high taxes on property
Private cars, allowed, with expensive enshurance, registration etc. so that lets say a middle class family will be able to afford one car
Orientation in "know how" industry, goal to export as much as possible
taxes would have to be kept reasonable, the right to property is important.
how does reference to the universal declaration of human rights sound?

When I think high taxes I think Sweden, high enough to provide good socal care and keep social differences as low as possible, yet reasonable enough to allow good economy

And yes, respect for human rights decleration

When I think high taxes I think Sweden, high enough to provide good socal care and keep social differences as low as possible, yet reasonable enough to allow good economy

And yes, respect for human rights decleration
agreed. tax will be decided purely on the basis of how best to provide for the public and not on general opinion, which would be influenced by greed.

i propose a state funded Health Service akin to the NHS

and a progressive tax system

I'm glad social democracy rather than democratic socialism has picked off better over here.

I fogot one important thing, education should be in most part covered by the state, we do want to have educated work force in the end, don't we?

i propose a state funded Health Service akin to the NHS
thanks for joining us dude.
i think the following should be government funded;
the Health Service
Transport
(self) Defense
Education
Water + Power supply
Communication (including post and telephones)
but that competition be allowed, in the interests of keeping standards up.

thanks for joining us dude.
i think the following should be government funded;
the Health Service
Transport
(self) Defense
Education
Water + Power supply
Communication (including post and telephones)
but that competition be allowed, in the interests of keeping standards up.

Emm.. think that Transport, Education, Water + Power supply and Helath service (while allowing private clincs) should be run by the goverment,

While Communication is privately owned, but heavily subsidised by the state to keep the prices for it as low as possible
I also propose agricoltural subsidies, so that farmes will be competitve on the world market

Emm.. think that Transport, Education, Water + Power supply and Helath service (while allowing private clincs) should be run by the goverment,

While Communication is privately owned, but heavily subsidised by the state to keep the prices for it as low as possible
I also propose agricoltural subsidies, so that farmes will be competitve on the world market
i am against agricultural susidies because of their detremental effect on farmers in developing countries who cant compete with cheap, subsidised surplusses flooding their target markets.

i am against agricultural susidies because of their detremental effect on farmers in developing countries who cant compete with cheap, subsidised surplusses flooding their target markets.

Yes, I'm against that on moral grounds as well, but looking from a perspective of "our" country it's good for the economy, and I'm from a wine growing, and without subsidies a lot of could not exists since it would not be profitable eonugh and people would look for other jobs insted (although many have other jobs) still they would drop it as extray source of income

that's why i proposed it,...

Yes, I'm against that on moral grounds as well, but looking from a perspective of "our" country it's good for the economy, and I'm from a wine growing, and without subsidies a lot of could not exists since it would not be profitable eonugh and people would look for other jobs insted (although many have other jobs) still they would drop it as extray source of income

that's why i proposed it,...
how about subsidising small farmers (like a grant system) as much as neccessary to keep them competitive, but not so much as to adversely affect the world economy. remember 'our' economy depends on world-wide market forces. call it 'responsible subsidising' or something like that.

now i have to go. i cant wait to see what people come up with while im gone. feel free to start drafting a manifesto, i may be gone for some time.
goodbye all. :)

now i have to go. i cant wait to see what people come up with while im gone. feel free to start drafting a manifesto, i may be gone for some time.
goodbye all. :)

I have to go as well, don't have time right now to draft anything, hope we get more members tomorrow :cheers:

Hey! This looks promising. A question: will ALL industries be kept private, or can some, like say trash collection, be controlled by the state?

*waits for a manifesto to attack*

i propose a state funded Health Service akin to the NHS

and a progressive tax system

You need state funded health or else you'll get something like what the u.s. has where only like 50% of the population has healthe insurance (i'm not sure on the numbers but you get he idea)

OK basic point right now considered to be in the manifesto:

1. We respect the declaration of basic human rights and it is states role to enshure those rights.

2. We support a social state: meaning socal security for everyone (also minorites, disabled, etc...); state founded health care; public transport, energy + water supply and education are owned and run by the state to enshure minimal prizes of those public services; communicatin, although privatly owned to keep up with modern trends, is heavily supported by goverment via subsidies to keep the prizes down.

3. Economy: we will use progressive tax system that from wich will fund public services but will still allow companies to be competitve on a global market; recognising the vale of high technology in the world, state encourages "know how" industry directed into export, for that education system must be avaible for all

This is what I can think of right now, if you want to add something... please do

I surport points two and three, but I'm against human rights (personal reasons)
nothing to add though

recognising that not all economic leftists are communist the foundation of the democratic socialist party commences.
i can't think of the differences off the top of my head, so help me out.
:D

Well, I'd call democratic socialists the only really centrist moderates out there in the world. If you look at almost every other doctrine, both left and right, they're all pretty extreme.

OK basic point right now considered to be in the manifesto:

1. We respect the declaration of basic human rights and it is states role to enshure those rights.

2. We support a social state: meaning socal security for everyone (also minorites, disabled, etc...); state founded health care; public transport, energy + water supply and education are owned and run by the state to enshure minimal prizes of those public services; communicatin, although privatly owned to keep up with modern trends, is heavily supported by goverment via subsidies to keep the prizes down.

3. Economy: we will use progressive tax system that from wich will fund public services but will still allow companies to be competitve on a global market; recognising the vale of high technology in the world, state encourages "know how" industry directed into export, for that education system must be avaible for all

This is what I can think of right now, if you want to add something... please do


I think this manifesto is off to a good start but it does not address the electoral process which, if ignored, could lead to the kind of corruption in the democratic proccess experienced by most capitalist countries.

Ok, for the electoral process, I think the state should have proportional voting system and that political parties should be state founded, based on their electoral result. Free elections every 4 years.

Would that do?

I think this thread have some good points or actually a lot of them, but that you talking about is not democratic socialist. It is "new" socialdemocratic and "radical" socialliberalism. Democratic socialism is actually creating the communist society. With communist society meaning a classless society there evryone have the same change and you got both political, economical and social democracy, there you also abolish capitalist.

But compared to so called communism you strife to this goal with democratic method and also trough a long process with good reforms like the ones you posted on this thread. Also you respect and follow the will of people so if you can't archive the communist society with democratic means, you will accept a socialliberal society or even a liberal and conservative society. (But if it becomes a nazi society I will get my kalachnikove)

So basicly it is working for reforms like you posted on this thread but there you have a very longterm vision of the classless society. A intersting link is
http://www.redapollo.org/cgi-bin/crimson.pl

All of this is my personally opinion of course

Call me naieve.. but is not most of western Europe (where I live) democratic socialist ?

ahem......

manifesto added, what do people think?

I think basic manifesto is cool for now, can't contribute much, don't have much time lately, school is takeing a lot of it...

to revive the thread:

what will our stance be on enviroment, I suggest the ratification of Kyoto, and investments in alternative sources.

As for the environment? I think we should move for renewable sources in the long term, but if we truly want to halt global warming now, I suggest nuclear power, until we can phase it out.

As for the environment? I think we should move for renewable sources in the long term, but if we truly want to halt global warming now, I suggest nuclear power, until we can phase it out.

agreed, especialy with nuclear fusion on the horison nuclear power might just be the answer... btw nuclear fusion has shorter decontamination period than currently used nuclear fision.

Whoa, people did you look at the elections, we are one of the leading parties!!!

How cool is that :)

Who is the leader of this party?

I have some suggestion... First, social welfare is above everything else, and I don't believe you mentioned the environment. In actual cases of democratic socialism, environmental ethics have been extraordinarilly high. Compassion for one another transcends into compassion for all forms of life.

I have some suggestions... First, social welfare is above everything else, and I don't believe you mentioned the environment. In actual cases of democratic socialism, environmental ethics have been extraordinarilly high. Compassion for one another transcends into compassion for all forms of life.

I wish to join this Party, since I adhere to its principles. Where do I sign?
I have already voted for it, you see.

I shall declare myself to be a supporter of your party and would like to join.

Elections:
Free elections every four years.
No contributions from anyone to any party. A non-partisan department will hand out the same amount for an election campaign to any party.
Ideally we should have every person thoroughly informed about what the parties are. That should be achieved through
a) lots of education
b) maybe a website-like terminal that asks a voter questions about their beliefs and then suggests a party to be voted for
c) If there is no alternative, a test to be undertaken before the vote that will then put a weighting to a vote. Ie. a professor's vote counts more than a BigBrother-Contestant's vote. But I'd rather have the first two.

Government Spending:
1) Education. The most important investment is in human capital. Free secondary education for all, and then fully funded tertiary places for a certain quota, based on their high school scores.
2) Research and Development. In order to advance the country, the Government (G) should work together with business to develop new technologies etc. A space program would be nice.
3) Medical Services. Mighty important. Everyone needs access to free medical services of any kind. The G will have to provide for that. Including Abortions...
4) Social Security. Since Globalisation happens whether we like it or not, there is no point maintaining a welfare state that provides disincentives. That is the truth. However, a safety net must be there for those that fall. Job searching aid must be number one priority though.

Environment:
Kyoto must be signed. There need to be sensible policies that internalise external costs to society into the firm's cost structure. Credit Trading (like included in Kyoto) is a good idea. The research into alternatives to fossil fuels, and better nuclear technology shouldhave priority.

Taxation:
Get rid of all income taxes. Instead intoduce taxes on consumption (like GST in Australia). If you want to pay less taxes, you need to buy less. And the rich will pay more because they'll buy more. That needs to cover overseas purchases as well.

Economic Policies:
Well, the Government will end up crowding out private investment if it is too reckless. Therefore, G Investment should be focussed on public goods and long term improvements (ie infrastructure, schooling etc)
The Central Bank will carry the main load of balancing the business cycle, therefore the currency must be freely floating on the international markets. Taxes should be paid on international transactions, though.
Strong Anti-Trust laws will ensure that monopolies will not develop. If they do, the G will have the power to break companies apart.
Intellectual ownership laws must be softened to ensure that all entrepreneurial spirits have access to the newest innovations. The resulting disincentive to research for private agents will be covered by stronger G spending in the area.

Social:
Well, soft drugs should be legally sold in licensed shops. Hard Drugs must be provided by the G for cases in which there are addicts. That can then be phased out over the years.
Marriages for gay couples must be legalised.
All religions should be allowed, but none can receive support from G or be excempt from paying taxes.
Guns should be illegal to own for all except law enforcement. There can be shooting ranges that provide guns if that's what people want.
------------
I'm sure I forgot something but that's what I reckon...

Leonstein, em... since "The Odd One" who is a starter of this party and I think it's leader has not been very active, I think you can be a member of this party (also going for Argesia) , although I don't agree with all your wievs, especialy on taxation. How do we Tax multinational companies?

Hard drogs should not be permited and especialy not provided by the goverment (do you know how expesive heroin is :) ) No I know a couple of things about this and rehabilitation does not include the use of drugs...

On the point of Social security, emm.. I'm not shure about wellfare, but we need more like child bonuses, scolarships, speacial care for disabled,...

Hard drogs should not be permited and especialy not provided by the goverment (do you know how expesive heroin is :) ) No I know a couple of things about this and rehabilitation does not include the use of drugs...



It costs over £100 a pop illegally but if it was provided by the government it would only be a few pounds.

Over at the Communist Party, there's talk of a United Left (not really, but close - an alliance of some sort with the DSP. I think it should be done!
But really, do I count as a member now? What is it that I have to do?

taxes would have to be kept reasonable, the right to property is important.
how does reference to the universal declaration of human rights sound?
From page one of this thread

Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.

This means the abolition of the right to property. How would you resolve that essential difference.

Being left of center does not mean that you have compatible policies. Those who voted for you hve voted against the UDCP and the RTP. To ally with extremists would seriously damge your support base.

This means the abolition of the right to property. How would you resolve that essential difference.

Being left of center does not mean that you have compatible policies. Those who voted for you hve voted against the UDCP and the RTP. To ally with extremists would seriously damge your support base.

Indeed ti would, but you are forgetting a very important word here COMPROMISE, but I won't settle on abolition of private property those comunists will have to settle on a good social state, we'll see when we talk it over.

And why are you trying to destroy an alliance before it even exists? Scared are we? 8)

Indeed ti would, but you are forgetting a very important word here COMPROMISE, but I won't settle on abolition of private property those comunists will have to settle on a good social state, we'll see when we talk it over.

And why are you trying to destroy an alliance before it even exists? Scared are we? 8)

Scared? No. Just following an old addage.

I suggest you look at DHommes comments in the UDCP thread for yourself.

Indeed ti would, but you are forgetting a very important word here COMPROMISE, but I won't settle on abolition of private property those comunists will have to settle on a good social state, we'll see when we talk it over.

And why are you trying to destroy an alliance before it even exists? Scared are we? 8)
I agree: it's the for the majority share to decide policy. I mean, we cannot all agree on all thigs, but isn't it the same for the UDCP and RTP?
We do not have to agree on all issues, but I think we can find common ground.
Marxism states graduality. Perhaps that is discarded by trotskites, but let's still approach them. The way things are looking, we are THE MAJORITY. Let them see if they can agree with our policies.

Posted in UDCP thread, we'll see with what they are going come back. They seem more reasonable than RTP

I mean, what other party(-ies) would you form an alliance with?

Left wing could form a coalition, that means:

UDCP, RTP (both extreme we'll have some tough negotiations but it is not impossible), COTP (her pary is more moderate than ours, but I think she can agree on policies we have)

Now, I think this would be a very strong coalition.

...

We also might be allies with MOBRA I am very active in it, hey those 3% might be important, and we won't have to wory bout those big rats eating us :) *joke*

What, no Liberals :)
And we'll form a Super Centre-Centre Left Party!

An alliance with the Liberals? Would anyone of you agree?

An alliance with the Liberals? Would anyone of you agree?

What parties do you mean, come to think of it we'll have a lot of problems just with the parties I recomeded, I dare to think what will we have to do for coalition with others.

What parties do you mean, come to think of it we'll have a lot of problems just with the parties I recomeded, I dare to think what will we have to do for coalition with others.
I'm not in favour of a Liberal-DSP alliance, but I was trying to determine wether there were any of you members who would think it's something to look into. They do this sort of coalitions all over Europe.
At least, in case people agree, we could use it as an asset. Keep our options opened and "threaten" the communists with it. I think we can agree on some issues, with both of the main blocks.
We can be anywhere from centre to radical! ;)
Tell me if it makes any sense.

I'm not in favour of a Liberal-DSP alliance, but I was trying to determine wether there were any of you members who would think it's something to look into. They do this sort of coalitions all over Europe.
At least, in case people agree, we could use it as an asset. Keep our options opened and "threaten" the communists with it. I think we can agree on some issues, with both of the main blocks.
We can be anywhere from centre to radical! ;)
Tell me if it makes any sense.

As we are the two strongest parties, it would indeed be a threat to keep in mind. However, our policies are incompatible. We advocate small govenment, low to zero taxation and minimum welfare, these are diametrically opposed to yourselves so it is not a coalition that I for one would see as having any real basis beyond pure convenience for the politicians concerned (as is the case in most of Europe.) What may be workable is to have issue based coalitions rather than outright alliances.

I'm not in favour of a Liberal-DSP alliance, but I was trying to determine wether there were any of you members who would think it's something to look into. They do this sort of coalitions all over Europe.
At least, in case people agree, we could use it as an asset. Keep our options opened and "threaten" the communists with it. I think we can agree on some issues, with both of the main blocks.
We can be anywhere from centre to radical! ;)
Tell me if it makes any sense.

It does, but in europe those are not really coalitions (here in slovenia both are in opposition) and I personally don't want this kind of coalition, I'm not ready to let go social care as I found it one of the essentials of our party

As I've said in our thread, the UDCP are willing to enter a DSP/COTP/UDCP/RTP coalition, in order to form a unified left-wing majority, and keep out the capitalists. We're willing to make compromises, as long as this is a genuine coalition, where everyone's voice is heard. It won't be unconditional support; we'll compromise if you do, and we're willing to accept that you're the largest party of the left, which probably means we'll have to compromise a little more than you. The Socialist parties need the Communist parties, and the reverse is also true. ;)

agreed. tax will be decided purely on the basis of how best to provide for the public and not on general opinion, which would be influenced by greed.

What measures will you take to deal with high unemployment (due to lots of welfare)... and the negative effects this will have on your overall production and economy?

And given your (probably) high tax rates for the rich and corporations, how will you encourage your upper class(es) to invest in new businesses?

As I've said in our thread, the UDCP are willing to enter a DSP/COTP/UDCP/RTP coalition, in order to form a unified left-wing majority, and keep out the capitalists. We're willing to make compromises, as long as this is a genuine coalition, where everyone's voice is heard. It won't be unconditional support; we'll compromise if you do, and we're willing to accept that you're the largest party of the left, which probably means we'll have to compromise a little more than you. The Socialist parties need the Communist parties, and the reverse is also true. ;)

True, we will compromise, that is my personal promise to you, but as I already said I can not accept some of your points (abolition of money, abolition of private property) and simply can not compromise on them, but other topics are IMO open.

Take this coalition as the first step in developing left-wing utopia, you your self said many times it takes time to communism.

What measures will you take to deal with high unemployment (due to lots of welfare)... and the negative effects this will have on your overall production and economy?

And given your (probably) high tax rates for the rich and corporations, how will you encourage your upper class(es) to invest in new businesses?

High unemployment due to wellfare?? (sory but not everybody is happy with wellfare). Here in europe (at least slovenia), the unemployment is increasing even if wellfare is decreasing... so some support to your claim would be wellcome.

Swedens economy is doing just fine (know how that is) and it has preatty high taxes, Except for some old areas that based on steel prodction. so once again support would be wellcome

True, we will compromise, that is my personal promise to you, but as I already said I can not accept some of your points (abolition of money, abolition of private property) and simply can not compromise on them, but other topics are IMO open.

Take this coalition as the first step in developing left-wing utopia, you your self said many times it takes time to communism.
Gradualism - "it takes time". Perfect, I think we can all agree.
And since none of you communists side with a Stalinist doctrine, I guess us "travelling companions" do not have to fear a violent outcome :)
You are not planning a Gulag... are you?

I can not accept some of your points (abolition of money, abolition of private property) and simply can not compromise on them, but other topics are IMO open.
what of our plans for direct democracy and governmental system?

Gradualism - "it takes time". Perfect, I think we can all agree.
And since none of you communists side with a Stalinist doctrine, I guess us "travelling companions" do not have to fear a violent outcome :)
You are not planning a Gulag... are you?

LOL

No, no fear of that. ;) Our position is that communism can only be self-sustaining if it is consensual. Trying to impose it through force on people who are not ready for it is self-defeating.

what of our plans for direct democracy and governmental system?
I, for one, am in favour as long as it is not a complete rejection of parliamentarism. Even if it means all rule to the soviets - we'll be the Mensheviks. :)
But seriously, keep the notion of "term in office". It's been proved successful.

I, for one, am in favour as long as it is not a complete rejection of parliamentarism. Even if it means all rule to the soviets - we'll be the Mensheviks. :)
But seriously, keep the notion of "term in office". It's been proved successful.
excellent :)
this is one of the UDCP's prime aims, and for there to be no scope for compromise on either this, nor the abolishment of money/move to communism (as y'all have already said) would be a coalition deal-breaker for me!


the system we have propsed still uses parliament, but there is no literal or physical form - it is virtual (online), heavily structured, regionalised, and the people themselves - as a whole - directly take the place of representatives... hence the direct democracy :)

High unemployment due to wellfare?? (sory but not everybody is happy with wellfare). Here in europe (at least slovenia), the unemployment is increasing even if wellfare is decreasing... so some support to your claim would be wellcome.

Swedens economy is doing just fine (know how that is) and it has preatty high taxes, Except for some old areas that based on steel prodction. so once again support would be wellcome

"support" for the "high welfare leads to high unemployment" argument may be found in countries like Germany and France, whose unemployment rates are in the low teens... more than double that found in a less socialist country like the US.

it is based on logic:

if you give people food, medicine, shelter, etc... what will they have to work for? YES we work for other things, but there are those in every society who will take advantage of such systems and simply decide that they have enough and that they don't need to work. These people become dead weight-- they do not help your economy but see fit to suck up public funds provided by the workers.

As for the hypothesis that high taxes = weaker economy, consider this:

Money is great: the more money given to businesses, the more they have to spend on their workers, research and development, advertising, etc... things to help the company remain solvent/excel.

The more money people have, the more the can invest in said businesses or use to buy their products or services. Such transactions help companies.

Obviously, the higher a country's taxes, the less money people have to invest in companies or buy their products/services.

Of course, countries can become used to cash flows and learn to deal with the amount coming into companies from investments/consumer buying (etc.)... but that does not mean that companies' strength is being maximized.

GOVERNANCE:
* See our graphical flowchart of government.
* There would be a written constitution.
* All residents in the country would have the right to vote.
* There would be a strict separation between the state, police and judiciary systems.
* The voting age would be set at 16.
* Direct democracy would be implemented through the means of a tech system with various levels of forums to discuss issues. There would be trained personnel to organise and run this system, writing proposals, putting the laws into effect and organising local meetings at least on an annual basis. Voting would eventually be done through a tech system once a developed, reliable system is formed.
* Voting would be done in special buildings with an electronic system rather than at home for security reasons.
* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization).
* The education (and health) system(s) in particular would be granted more autonomy at local level, with greater involvement of parents to be encouraged, with respect to Governance (decentralisation).
* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.

I copied it and will answer to it point by point:
1. give me some time to study this, since I havent followed your whole thread I don't know all what it does, will come back to it later
2. agreed
3. agreed
4. agreed
5. OK, I can accept this although I think 18 would be better (think how many 16-years old have any clue about politics)
6. NO, although possible, it is impractical, parlaiment is here for a reason and it is calle effitiency. All laws simply can not be made through direct democracy, Compromise: Right to refereda (is it called that way?) with low demanded signatures to have it, will have to discuss how low
7. Don't know, or care, either way we can accept new techonolgy but I don't find it necesary
8. Decentralisation, agreed
9. Agreed, with state control to keep the standards up, some areas might find education not so important.
10. Explained in point 6.

OK, this is my view other pary members are encouraged to make their contribution.

What do you think.

Repying to Frangland:

Hmm.. good point, but our manifesto never says anything about hight social wellfare, it says social care, so we can adept our legislation to different situations. Wellfare has to exsits but lets say a worker that just lost his/her job and can't find another job right away gest higher wellfare than other, but we limit that period to lets say a year, after that it decreases making people to go back to work.

Would you accept that?

And other point, well we do have to take something away from the welthy to give to the poor, that is the point of our party, shure that weakens that company but that doesn't mean that company will crush. I know that there are a lor of sucessfull companies (check where your medical equipment or some other hight tech thing came from, quite possible from Sweden, wich has high taxes)

OK, this is my view other pary members are encouraged to make their contribution.

What do you think.
as a member of the UDCP i'll leave replying till the DSP has come up with a unified responce

OK, this is my view other pary members are encouraged to make their contribution.

What do you think.
I agree.

Even though this may be too soon, I wish to congratulate this fair gathering for putting on a jolly show. We are in the lead (I guess I'm being redundant).Thumbs up for socially-minded politics!

OOPS!
It's shifting...
Who's in charge of (at least, some) propaganda?

ok with a bit more thought here's a sample of possible policies;
market economics will be socialised but not abolished.
defence is limited to self defence.
people are encouraged to use public transport (which will be improved) but not actively discouraged from using their own private transport.
social welfare is high on the agenda.

suggestions?


Promote small business/entrepreneurism over large industries.
Support strong anti-trust laws. Break up monopolies.
Socialize monopolistic corporations. Redistribute the resources/assets of those corporations as homesteads to entrepreneurs.
Promote employee ownership of enterprise. Not just the shareholding sham of irl 90s America, but actual voting shares.
Reduce taxes on labor/increase taxes on investment. Investment and saving will still be attractive because it doesn't involve work.
Those who make more money will be taxed at a higher rate. Harder work will always remain attractive because of the following point.
No confiscatory taxes. The income tax rate will always be less than 100% regardless of income.


Small business is less "efficient" than large corporations, but promotes quicker movement of money, which is ultimately better for the economy as a whole. Large businesses are more "efficient" at concentrating money in the hands of the already wealthy. Actually that second quote shouldn't be there.

The Democratic Socialist party believes in a socialist state, therefore social security should be made available to all, regardless of age or infirmity
Hmmm, regardless of age or infirmity. I know, you can advertise all of these rules on TV, too. "National Social Security: Because you can't be trusted to do it on your own!"

Healthcare shall be funded by the state and available to all.
"National Healthcare: Because who wants doctors to be motivated by how successful they are?"

Public Transport, Energy Supply, Water Supply and Education are provided by the state to ensure that the cost to the citezen matches the cost of providing those services.
"State-Provided Energy: Because capitalism sucks, and so does AEP!"
"State-Funded Education: So our children know how to spell citezen and speak correct!"

Communication Services will be provided privately, to ensure that they are appropriately up to date and competive, but will be subsidised by the state to ensure fair pricing.
"State-Funded Education: So children have to make up words like competive!"
"Fairly Priced Communication Services: Because anti-trust legislation never worked!"

We promote a progressive tax system, ie. taxes will be high enough to fund public services, but low enough to allow companies to be competitive on the global market.
"State-Funded Education: So children will know what a progressive tax system is!"
Recognising that technology is of high value, the state will encourage technical businesses geared toward export, and will provide the appropriate education/training.
"Encouraged International Trade: Because who wants to keep our money in our economy?"

Regarding the electoral system:
Free elections should be held every four years using proportional representation.
"Free Elections Quadrennially: Because why not use the models of capitalist democracies in the name of socialism?"

please feel free to make any suggestions/additions you feel are appropriate.
Do the national average IQ a favor and kill yourself.

Hmmm, regardless of age or infirmity. I know, you can advertise all of these rules on TV, too. "National Social Security: Because you can't be trusted to do it on your own!"


"National Healthcare: Because who wants doctors to be motivated by how successful they are?"



I'm puzzled by meritocracy: it doesn't encourage quality services, it only provides indifference towards those who cannot afford anything. It's such an easy excuse to pretend those who do not get do not deserve!
Let's at least ensure a minimum, decent standard.

I italicized age and infirmity - and made infirmity bold - for a reason. No, a person should not receive monetary welfare unless they need it.

I italicized age and infirmity - and made infirmity bold - for a reason. No, a person should not receive monetary welfare unless they need it.
That's beside the point. There are also diseases, afflictions, etc. which do not count as infirmities. I'm not saying free health system galore, but better more than less (certainly better something than nothing).
You'll be surprised at what a state can actually afford - the problem is never as acute as the right-wing will say! andtheir recourse to morality ("no taxation without representation") is either hypocritical or pure blackmail - since all companies expect to be favoured by states (that's why they lobby).

Do the national average IQ a favor and kill yourself.

Drop the Flamming. I disagree with their policies as much as you do, but this type of gratuitous comment just makes you look stupid and devalues everything else you might have said.

I din't read it, as it would obviously not be worth it. Is that the image you want to create.

Rogue Newbie I don't see a point in your post, since it doesn't neither say anything smart, it also does not refute our points. You just changed the meaning of what we said.

The first point was already answered.

Hey my country has state founded health care and I'm still alive, so hmm...perhaps doctors aren't just some corrupt capitalists, also they get paid, they get sued if they make a mistake, so yes they are motivated to their job good.

Energy, well you just don't agree with our views of how economy should look like, what the hell are you doing in this thread?

Many countries has state funded education, guess what some of them has one of the best education systems, (once agaion sweden for example)

Why do children need to know what a prggresive tax system is? We want it so that we can keep our country running.

International trade dircted in export, and btw we do live in a globalised world, thus are bringing money in the country.

So capitalism invented democraty???? Is that a reason that we can't use it?

You'd be so toast in debate...

That's beside the point. There are also diseases, afflictions, etc. which do not count as infirmities. I'm not saying free health system galore, but better more than less (certainly better something than nothing).
You'll be surprised at what a state can actually afford - the problem is never as acute as the right-wing will say! andtheir recourse to morality ("no taxation without representation") is either hypocritical or pure blackmail - since all companies expect to be favoured by states (that's why they lobby).
I quote myself, which is sad, but only to formulate a relevant question:
IF THE CORPORATE WORLD SUCH A FREE AND EQUAL-CHANCES SYSTEM, SO "VERY HOSTILE" TO STATE INTERVENTION, WHY DO CORPORATIONS LOBBY?
TAH-DAH...

Okay I have a question, how is your state socialist if you allow free trade within it?

Ok, we might have a slight problem here, currently we have about 5 seats in the parlaiment, and I don't know if we have 5 party members... The Odd One is nowhere to be seen, the others are also missing. The only active members is myself and Argesia. So who do we sent to parlaiment after the elections.

Okay I have a question, how is your state socialist if you allow free trade within it?

Em... there is a diference in socialist and communist, socialist can allow free trade but is strongly regulated, socail care is taken care of, free health care, state owned energy an water.

I quote myself, which is sad, but only to formulate a relevant question:
IF THE CORPORATE WORLD SUCH A FREE AND EQUAL-CHANCES SYSTEM, SO "VERY HOSTILE" TO STATE INTERVENTION, WHY DO CORPORATIONS LOBBY?
TAH-DAH...

You have a very basic misunderstanding of the free market system. Firstly it does not actually exist anymore in the world, (with the possible exception of some South East Asian states) and in such a system there is no corporate welfare, no government support for any company at all. The only roles of the government in a true free market economy are to provide security and to enforce contracts. Some, such as the NSCL layer a basic welfare system on top as this helps create a good environment for all comapnies. (Primary education, emergency healthcare).

Why do corporations lobby, because they exist in a semi socialist state at the moment where there are tax breaks and favourable conditions to be granted. If there were no taxation and the conditions are not controlled by the government then lobbying would be a waste of time.

Em... there is a diference in socialist and communist, socialist can allow free trade but is strongly regulated, socail care is taken care of, free health care, state owned energy an water.
No socialist is state owning property using workers councils. You are essentially presenting a liberal capitalism

Yes now I see, we actually don't have free market since we support the regulation of companies, proggresive taxation. Did we ever said that we support the free market?

To DHomme, no I don't think socialst means that everything is goverment owned. And even if it does. The modern Democratic Socialist means baseicly what we support. And the name doesn't matter anyhow we still stick to our principel.s

Why do corporations lobby, because they exist in a semi socialist state at the moment where there are tax breaks and favourable conditions to be granted. If there were no taxation and the conditions are not controlled by the government then lobbying would be a waste of time.
Fact: Lobbying is an official device in the USA, which is the most corporate-trusting society.
The thing is that the unavoidable tendency of the corporate world is to close itself and blackmail the state! yes, blackmail.
The "semi socialist state" that you defined is actually corporatism, the official economical doctrine in fascist countries in the 30s. There was nothing but assistance on the part of big business for the anullment of "classical economy laws". Fact.
And remember, it took a Keynes to mend this system, and he only did it through participation of demoocratic states - the ultimate guarantee. Otherwise, big business is not at all adverse to infiltrating the state structure, a system which is as common as to be clled natural.

Ok, we might have a slight problem here, currently we have about 5 seats in the parlaiment, and I don't know if we have 5 party members...
What do you mean when you say that? For real?

Repying to Frangland:

Hmm.. good point, but our manifesto never says anything about hight social wellfare, it says social care, so we can adept our legislation to different situations. Wellfare has to exsits but lets say a worker that just lost his/her job and can't find another job right away gest higher wellfare than other, but we limit that period to lets say a year, after that it decreases making people to go back to work.

Would you accept that?

And other point, well we do have to take something away from the welthy to give to the poor, that is the point of our party, shure that weakens that company but that doesn't mean that company will crush. I know that there are a lor of sucessfull companies (check where your medical equipment or some other hight tech thing came from, quite possible from Sweden, wich has high taxes)

first paragraph: fair enough. I'd go with perpetual help for the helpless (IE, mentally/physically disabled)... and for those who lose jobs, something like what you propose above. Maybe 6 months instead of a year.... but some help nonetheless.

second paragraph: That's okay... but you've got two choices:
a)Hurt the wealthy

or

b)Hurt the middle classes

Someone is going to feel the squeeze in the tax structure... you have to choose which it's going to be. I would like to spend responsibly as a government so that taxes do not become a real (IE, you have trouble paying your bills due to the taxes...) problem for the people.

If you can figure out a way to:

a)Keep taxes relatively low to free up money to help keep the economy strong

and

b)Come up with a responsible budget to meet the income generated by such taxes -- while caring for those who really need help, without giving too many people too much (thus spurring perhaps an adverse effect on the economy).

Then you will really have a great thing going.

I would hate to be a politician... talk about juggling!

To DHomme, no I don't think socialst means that everything is goverment owned. And even if it does. The modern Democratic Socialist means baseicly what we support. And the name doesn't matter anyhow we still stick to our principel.s

Democratic Socialists really need to change their name then- maybe the "Embarrassed Capitalists" would suit them, eh?

What do you mean when you say that? For real?

Yup, members are as far as I know, you, me, the odd one (not present) and Leonstein. Maybe I'm wrong and there is more. But as you see we are the only ones talking here!

This is my last post today, I'm going to bed now, I'm preatty tired. Also tommorw I have some friends visiting so I don't know how much I can be present. So Argesia you run the show for our party and hope The Odd One shows up. And try to get some party members.

Yup, members are as far as I know, you, me, the odd one (not present) and Leonstein. Maybe I'm wrong and there is more. But as you see we are the only ones talking here!

This is my last post today, I'm going to bed now, I'm preatty tired. Also tommorw I have some friends visiting so I don't know how much I can be present. So Argesia you run the show for our party and hope The Odd One shows up. And try to get some party members.
Will do.

Democratic Socialists really need to change their name then- maybe the "Embarrassed Capitalists" would suit them, eh?

Why should we, I think the name goes well with the policies. I see you marking us capitalists all the time, but we are shrinking the difference between the poor and the rich, but less extreme than you do. We do have a common ground. We just think our way of doing thig is better.

Once again Communist does not equal Socialst.

To Fragland

Firstly, do you want to be a party member, you seem interested and address important topics, + we need one more for the parlaiment :)

Basicly the prggresive tax system puts more pressure to those who earn more, so it will hirt the middle and the upper class but less the middle. Makes sense? But still there are diferences only smaller.

a)I can't really answer to the point, since i don't know how to. Taxes will be higher that they are right now lets say US, or perhaps most European countries, but it wont be 100% so people still make profit.

b) The budget will be spent on: social care, free health care, running chep power and water supply, free education, goverment subsidies, etc... there is allways a way for a goverment to spend money, in our case we make shure it goes back to the people in some way.

Now I'm really off to bed. Good night.

Why should we, I think the name goes well with the policies. I see you marking us capitalists all the time, but we are shrinking the difference between the poor and the rich, but less extreme than you do. We do have a common ground. We just think our way of doing thig is better.

Once again Communist does not equal Socialst.

To Fragland

Firstly, do you want to be a party member, you seem interested and address important topics, + we need one more for the parlaiment :)

Basicly the prggresive tax system puts more pressure to those who earn more, so it will hirt the middle and the upper class but less the middle. Makes sense? But still there are diferences only smaller.

a)I can't really answer to the point, since i don't know how to. Taxes will be higher that they are right now lets say US, or perhaps most European countries, but it wont be 100% so people still make profit.

b) The budget will be spent on: social care, free health care, running chep power and water supply, free education, goverment subsidies, etc... there is allways a way for a goverment to spend money, in our case we make shure it goes back to the people in some way.

Now I'm really off to bed. Good night.

We'd argue too much over the numbers, so no.. but I'm honored by your offer.

It's funny... so many "parties" that are somewhere between total socialism and total economic libertarianism (IE, no taxes, no regulation, etc.)... are really generally close in terms of basic ideas for the economic/financial direction of a country.

Probably the biggest challange -- and what we would differ over, in terms of numbers -- is how to help those who need it without sacrificing financial freedom to too great an extent.

Do the national average IQ a favor and kill yourself.
stop being such a dick, dick :rolleyes:

*half expects to get warned but it was worth it*

Probably the biggest challange -- and what we would differ over, in terms of numbers -- is how to help those who need it without sacrificing financial freedom to too great an extent.
Financial freedom? I agree in principle, only I trust the state as a valid economical structure. It can mantain things, and it is way too mistrusted - usually, based on biased views.

I felt like being 'altruistic' and I made a special campaign poster for all you DSPers. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/dsp1.gif

I felt like being 'altruistic' and I made a special campaign poster for all you DSPers. :D

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/dsp1.gif
aaah, soooo nice of you.

-snip-

Government convinces the populace to vote away their rights? Hahahahaha. Yeah, right.

Financial freedom? I agree in principle, only I trust the state as a valid economical structure. It can mantain things, and it is way too mistrusted - usually, based on biased views.

you know... the higher the taxes, the lower a person's financial freedom (controls a lower percentage of his earnings)

you know... the higher the taxes, the lower a person's financial freedom (controls a lower percentage of his earnings)
So? You have free medical care, free education, even free housing. Nobody says WHAT you have to chose!
And, incidentally, do you think that pure liberalism guarantees freedom of choice?
I draw a limit to the philosophy of "no taxation without representation":

1.nobody has the right to hold the state at ransom
2.most taxes could be viewed as rent - the state does give rights and benefits in return
Well, that's it for me. I have to sleep sometime :)

Okay, I guess I'll be a member now...

Consumption based taxes are a good idea, I believe.
- They still work just as well as other taxes. If a super-rich person doesn't buy anything, which is almost impossible, he or she would not be partaking in the economy, so why should we tax him. And we could set taxes higher on luxury items, and keep normal consumption goods very cheap. It's almost like price control, just much easier.
- The most important argument for is that it gives the Government an excellent tool for demand management! Don't want people to buy as much ... diapers? Set the tax higher for diapers. Want people to buy more cars? Lower the taxes on cars! And lots of people in the car industry have their jobs saved.
- Multinationals can easily be taxed with a tax on forex transactions. If a firm wants to move its money, they need to get a foreign currency. And that's where we're waiting.
-------------------
Social Market Economies as they were originally founded are no longer competitive. It's true. But that doesn't mean anything other than that we have to think of new means of achieving the same goal.
Unemployment Benefits must be part of a successful society, of course. But in a time in which companies can easily choose between countries, they must be streamlined and focus on finding new (equally well-payed) jobs for the unemployed. The Government should be responsible for paying for their life, but not indefinitely.
Hayek has shown (just with mathematics and empirical evidence, no ideology here) that even if you could plan an economy perfectly, a free market will always do it at less cost. So why not use that? Why not have the market run free and have the right switches at the right places to make it do exactly as you want?
----------------------
Also, what's our stance on foreign policy?
I would propose very strong support for the UN and the gradual abolition of Immigration Policies, and the borders with neighbouring countries.

Democratic Socialists really need to change their name then- maybe the "Embarrassed Capitalists" would suit them, eh?

Maybe Social Democrats?
Pretty much all of us support a social market economy. That has nothing to do with socialist as Marx said it, but it does have to do with for example the Socialist Parties in France or Spain.
---
*socialism was, said Marx, the stage between the overthrow of capitalism by the workers and the final moneyless, classless society of Communism.
---
I'm not a capitalist. I don't believe that the free market can always achieve a perfect outcome. I don't believe that market failures only occur because of outside influences. But I have seen the facts as presented by many economists overthe past hundred years that have shown that markets are indeed quite efficient on what they do.
They are a tool, not more. We must use the market to achieve a classless society by intervening in the right places. Just banishing them will only leave us with planning an economy that, if you think about it, is too large to ever be perfectly organised from the outside.

Leonstein, glad to have you with us.

Now to your taxation, I don't see the reason why we can't have both. It already exists here in my country. There is a tax added to every product, where I think food has 8,5% while cigarets are around 40% I'm not shure on the numbers but I think is something like that, and it shows the way it works. But still that douesn't compesate for income tax, while it can decreaso the hight of tax we need to put on companies thus increasing their competitivness.
Would we agree on that?

I already explained what our social benefits for unemployment are, and they cover up with yours. Needed but decreased with time. While we care for disabled,...

Foreign policy: Support for you UN, well I'd say active participation in UN, I don't allways agree what UN decides to do or not to do.

Also I belive that full openess of borders is not a good idea if coltures mix to fast you get problems (most of the europe for example).

Also I belive that full openess of borders is not a good idea if coltures mix to fast you get problems (most of the europe for example).
What does this mean? What are the problems, and why would they be linked to "mixing" the cultures?

What does this mean? What are the problems, and why would they be linked to "mixing" the cultures?

Well, problems with turkish population in Germay, muslim and other ethnic groups in Netherland (you do know for a murder of The van Gogh), etc,... while some cultures integrate or coexist well together some don't and if we allow everyone in, it is quite possible that workers from some countries will not be accepted in society, thus causing problems.

I know we must promote toleranec but it just isn't that simple. Also people sometime feel that those imigrants are takeing away their jobs once again causing intolerance. Those are the problems with coltures when borders are open.

Well, problems with turkish population in Germay, muslim and other ethnic groups in Netherland (you do know for a murder of The van Gogh), etc,... while some cultures integrate or coexist well together some don't and if we allow everyone in, it is quite possible that workers from some countries will not be accepted in society, thus causing problems.

I know we must promote toleranec but it just isn't that simple. Also people sometime feel that those imigrants are takeing away their jobs once again causing intolerance. Those are the problems with coltures when borders are open.

You are aware that what you are suggesting is contrary to the basic tenents of socialism, yes? :rolleyes:

Well, problems with turkish population in Germay, muslim and other ethnic groups in Netherland (you do know for a murder of The van Gogh), etc,... while some cultures integrate or coexist well together some don't and if we allow everyone in, it is quite possible that workers from some countries will not be accepted in society, thus causing problems.

I know we must promote toleranec but it just isn't that simple. Also people sometime feel that those imigrants are takeing away their jobs once again causing intolerance. Those are the problems with coltures when borders are open.
The problems that the immigrants cause are nothing compared to the reaction to them: most perfect examples are the neonazi attacks on turkish (and kurdish) communities in Germany throughout the 1990s, and the fact that anti-imigration policy has been enforced in Holland (remember when the right-wing won?) prior to any immigrant-caused incident.
Something as important: the borders are opened INSIDE Europe. Turkey does not have open borders! Neither do any of the major "exporters" (my country -Romania- included)!
Immigrants come because they are (or at least, came because they were) needed. The hypocrisy in Europe is that they would rather accept them only as temporary guests (even though some families have been staying there for ages) - and this is so that they would benefit from their work without "hurting" the native employee. Although MOST IMMIGRATION RELIES ON JOBS THAT NOBODY WANTS (such as Maroccans in Spai, or Turks in Germany).

You are aware that what you are suggesting is contrary to the basic tenents of socialism, yes? :rolleyes:

Em... I'm not proposing anything... I just showing in that post what the problem with full open borders are, I have my belives, but sometimes I must face reality and weight cost and benefit. That's why I oppose fully open borders, while skilled workers are ofcourse wellcome, if we don't have enought educated workforce.

Argesia, perhaps my post came out wrong, that's what I was talking about they are not accepted by the society (that is what you called response). So I think we agree, that fully open borders would actually cause problems.

Em... I'm not proposing anything... I just showing in that post what the problem with full open borders are, I have my belives, but sometimes I must face reality and weight cost and benefit. That's why I oppose fully open borders, while skilled workers are ofcourse wellcome, if we don't have enought educated workforce.

Well, I live in Canada, which is probably one of the most multicultural nations in the world, and we don't really have the problems you speak of. Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that when you say "culture mixing" what you really mean is "race mixing". Either way, if you are so opposed to an open migration policy and the "mixing" of cultures, I'm sorry to say that you're not a socialist, and need to find yourself a different party.

Well, I live in Canada, which is probably one of the most multicultural nations in the world, and we don't really have the problems you speak of. Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that when you say "culture mixing" what you really mean is "race mixing". Either way, if you are so opposed to an open migration policy and the "mixing" of cultures, I'm sorry to say that you're not a socialist, and need to find yourself a different party.

I was in canada recently, and was surprised how well coltures integrated there. But still does canada has open imigration policy? Where does it say that you need to support opem immigration policy to be socialist?

I'm not against mixing of coltures and I personnaly think that it is a good thig, but I'm showing what the problems might be if it happens to fast, get the point?
That's why we need to limit immigration.

Argesia, perhaps my post came out wrong, that's what I was talking about they are not accepted by the society (that is what you called response). So I think we agree, that fully open borders would actually cause problems.
Hm, I cannot possibly know about what opened borders would do - I think they can be a positive thing. I was just pointing out that the things you blame on open borders are actually caused by something else.
The fact is that now, in Europe, borders are as closed to immigration as they are in the US - with the same selection system that you seem to advocate (the EU and US get to pick the most skilled workers and entrepenure, and no matter what the policy of immigration is, they are CALLING for these, and are putting a drain on countries of emigration, debilitating their economies)

Agresia true I agree, but wouldn't open immigration policy mean more immigration thus more mixing of coltures thus more problems it causes if it happens to fast?

EDIT: But if you and Leonstein think that it is a good thing, I'm willing to accept open borders. This is democracy after all.

Agresia true I agree, but wouldn't open immigration policy mean more immigration thus more mixing of coltures thus more problems it causes if it happens to fast?
No, actually. An example: if a Bulgarian would wish to benefit from certain advantages in Germany, he would be under no imperative to settle there.

No, actually. An example: if a Bulgarian would wish to benefit from certain advantages in Germany, he would be under no imperative to settle there.

OK, if you think it is a good idea, I'm willing to accept it. Although I think we need something to hold it back, but I'm outnumbered.

I have to go now, it's a hectic day for me, I'll come back later. Cheers.

OK, if you think it is a good idea, I'm willing to accept it. Although I think we need something to hold it back, but I'm outnumbered.

I have to go now, it's a hectic day for me, I'll come back later. Cheers.
I don't wish for you to get the impression that I'm forcing this issue on you.
Anyway.
Bye.

Open Borders are a nice thing to have, as they fill up a labour force that'll shrink as standard of living rises.
To coordinate an opening of borders it would be nicest to have very good relations with neighbouring countries, hence the UN-Thing.

I agree that on taxation we can find a compromise. I believe cosumption taxes to be a great, progressive way of doing things, and thus they oughta be included.

Also, what happens once the election is decided? We get seats and then? What is being ruled over?

PS.: Do you think that this party is being hurt by the absence of the odd one? He's the only one who can edit and thus complete the manifesto...

Let me be a member, welfare and democracy!
Although my country 'Malden and Everon' is a "Iron Fist Consumerists" it will be better soon. My brother has made it a nasty place to live in :mad:

Well, of course, we can always need more people! Don't forget to vote for us in the election though.
We meanwhile are still waiting for the Leader - The Odd One, who will lead us into a a new utopia. ;)

We should include a mandatory language courses for immigrants. The reason why many Turkish people in Germany don't really integrate is that they don't speak German.
The Turkish men in Germany often don't want (probably a lot of pressure from their families as well) German women, or Turkish women who've been in Germany for too long.
So instead they go to Turkey and find someone there. Often fiercely conservative, they are very religious and don't speak any foreign languages (maybe a few words Arabic). So they never leave the house unless they go to the Mosque or pick up their kids. They live in a parallel community that never needs to contact any outsiders.

So if we provide Language courses, which will include lessons on history and culture as well, we solve a lot of the problems right away.
And it can't be that expensive. There'll be volunteers and community groups engaged as well.

So Leonstein, OK once again I have a compromise, perhaps we can have free open borders, but new citizens must fit certain criteria, like you said language and colture courses (test out of internal affairs or something?) , must be an active worker for atleast 1 year,... we could agree what the criteria should be.. So our border are open to everyone that fits the criteria, could we agree on that? Thus not everybody would flock to our country but still borders would be "open".

And yes you are wellcome to the party, please try to help out as much as you can, join us in discussions, etc,...

Now, with elections drawing to an end, who is going to be in the parlaiment?
I propose:
- Leonsten (though joined late, very active and involved with ideas)
- Argesia (working with us)
- The Odd one (he is the leader but he is nowhere to be seen, so if he doesn't show up we need someone to take his place)

Your suggestions are wellcome.

So Leonstein, OK once again I have a compromise, perhaps we can have free open borders, but new citizens must fit certain criteria, like you said language and colture courses (test out of internal affairs or something?) , must be an active worker for atleast 1 year,... we could agree what the criteria should be.. So our border are open to everyone that fits the criteria, could we agree on that? Thus not everybody would flock to our country but still borders would be "open".

And yes you are wellcome to the party, please try to help out as much as you can, join us in discussions, etc,...

Now, with elections drawing to an end, who is going to be in the parlaiment?
I propose:
- Leonsten (though joined late, very active and involved with ideas)
- Argesia (working with us)
- The Odd one (he is the leader but he is nowhere to be seen, so if he doesn't show up we need someone to take his place)

Your suggestions are wellcome.

We have a Deal.
As for the parliament, I'll humbly accept. But currently it almost looks like we're gonna get more votes than NSCL, so we'll have lots of seats to fill. Who else could take part?
------------------------------------
Oh yes, and should we try and get into a coalition with the communists and trotzkyists? I reckon I could try and convince DHomme to side with us (certainly moreso than siding with the Liberals).
Otherwise we could also try the party of whatever works. What we say certainly should work, so we are in perfect accordance ideology-wise! :p

Well, I had some time to think it over bout the coalition, I don't really think it is necesary that we have one (although it wouldn't hurt and I'm still in favor of it), but when you come to thik about it you see that we already have some kind of coalition with them, I think we will support eachother on the common issues (education, health care,...). But since we can't accept abolishment of private ovnership, those areas could be detremental to our coalition, if we have one ofcourse. See the point?

But yes, we rocked, I really didn't think that we'll score so good, since I didn't put that much effort into it, compared to party like UDCP, so now we still our need to select MPs.

Well, I had some time to think it over bout the coalition, I don't really think it is necesary that we have one (although it wouldn't hurt and I'm still in favor of it), but when you come to thik about it you see that we already have some kind of coalition with them, I think we will support eachother on the common issues (education, health care,...). But since we can't accept abolishment of private ovnership, those areas could be detremental to our coalition, if we have one ofcourse. See the point?

But yes, we rocked, I really didn't think that we'll score so good, since I didn't put that much effort into it, compared to party like UDCP, so now we still our MPs.
i'm leaning to agreeing with you on this - the coalition isn't specifically necessary, especially as the right-wingers seem to have (at least temporalily, hopefully permamently) dropped the idea themselves. if there aren't coalitions on EITHER SIDE then parliament will be far more open and, as you say, we will definatley support each other on common issues, while keeping not only our party identity, but also being able to push for party-specific issues that could be swallowed up (and potentially ignored) under coalition.


congradulations on your 5 seats, by the way, my leftie comrades :cool:

I can take a seat if you want, what with all the campaigning I did late!

I can take a seat if you want, what with all the campaigning I did late!

I would think that they would be wise to ignore you. You did far more harm than good to their cause.

You made them look stupid. Congratulations, and thank you from the right of center parties.

I would think that they would be wise to ignore you. You did far more harm than good to their cause.

You made them look stupid. Congratulations, and thank you from the right of center parties.

Wow, somebody's touchy!

More harm than good? How so? My opinion of sir Spaam elevated over the course of reading his posts.

Wow, somebody's touchy!

More harm than good? How so? My opinion of sir Spaam elevated over the course of reading his posts.
Pssst! I don't think the right-wing like me!

Besides, notice that when I joined the debate, the DemSocs caught up and past the ClassLibs? Maybe you should rely on cold hard facts first, AB. And please don't start trolling, cos I was starting to think you were an intelligent right-winger.

Pssst! I don't think the right-wing like me!

You're not alone, as they seem to dislike me a fair bit as well!

Pssst! I don't think the right-wing like me!

Besides, notice that when I joined the debate, the DemSocs caught up and past the ClassLibs? Maybe you should rely on cold hard facts first, AB. And please don't start trolling, cos I was starting to think you were an intelligent right-winger.

Iam not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult :confused:

Particulalry as I am not very right wing!, but hen compared to yourself I suppose I may be.

The point is I asked you repeatedly for evidence of claims in the Election debate (which is now archived for all to see by the way) and you simply never produced any at any time that were not from organisations with specific agendas. I posted links and sources that contradicted these and you ignored them. You insisted on claiming that the hippocratic oath was about altruism and morals, but when I posted the copy of the oath you failed to show where it adressed these points. You insisted that health insurance in the US cost $10,000, which as you now know is plainly untrue. You claimed that the NSCL manifesto was the same as the corporate welfarism of the USA, showing a complete lack of understanding of US politics amd/or our manifesto.

How did any of that help your cause.

@Potaria, I take you to be a biased witness as he was arguing for points you wanted to hear. The already converted is not the sector he will have harmed the DSP's case with (Or te UDCP's for that matter). It was the undecideds that would have had difficulty believing him, and please don't tell me that you believe every unsubstantiated claim he made.

Iam not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult :confused:

Particulalry as I am not very right wing!, but hen compared to yourself I suppose I may be.

The point is I asked you repeatedly for evidence of claims in the Election debate (which is now archived for all to see by the way) and you simply never produced any at any time that were not from organisations with specific agendas. I posted links and sources that contradicted these and you ignored them. You insisted on claiming that the hippocratic oath was about altruism and morals, but when I posted the copy of the oath you failed to show where it adressed these points. You insisted that health insurance in the US cost $10,000, which as you now know is plainly untrue. You claimed that the NSCL manifesto was the same as the corporate welfarism of the USA, showing a complete lack of understanding of US politics amd/or our manifesto.

How did any of that help your cause.

@Potaria, I take you to be a biased witness as he was arguing for points you wanted to hear. The already converted is not the sector he will have harmed the DSP's case with (Or te UDCP's for that matter). It was the undecideds that would have had difficulty believing him, and please don't tell me that you believe every unsubstantiated claim he made.

How did it help us? About as much as you and Wegason and the other Libs did with your mudslinging at the Socialists. Calling us Commies, honestly. And yes, it is archived. DO YOU WANT ME TO PULL OUT EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE? Now, the fact that you don't understand points that I assume were pretty clear, shows that it is not me with the problem.

@Potaria, I take you to be a biased witness as he was arguing for points you wanted to hear. The already converted is not the sector he will have harmed the DSP's case with (Or te UDCP's for that matter). It was the undecideds that would have had difficulty believing him, *and please don't tell me that you believe every unsubstantiated claim he made.

Ah, so you're bitter that he won over the undecideds with his posts? Hahahahahaha. Good.

*I don't believe every claim, but I believe most of them.

Point is, regardless of any campaigning, we had a very competitive idea to our credit, which was enough to swing many people to our side that probably had no idea what our policies were. (not that we knew exactly ;) )

So know, we need to select a set of 5 people who will represent the idea of a moderate and progressive left in the parliament.

Yup, members are as far as I know, you, me, the odd one (not present) and Leonstein. Maybe I'm wrong and there is more. But as you see we are the only ones talking here!

This is my last post today, I'm going to bed now, I'm preatty tired. Also tommorw I have some friends visiting so I don't know how much I can be present. So Argesia you run the show for our party and hope The Odd One shows up. And try to get some party members.

Well, he's got a point, so we should get to it before we squander our election victory!
So I say:
-Argesia
-CoolDynasty42
-Leonstein
-who else?
-who else?

So if you want to be in the parliament, speak up!

I'm up for a temp position until you find someone more suitable. Bit of a lurker as you can tell but I can show up for debates.

Point is, regardless of any campaigning, we had a very competitive idea to our credit, which was enough to swing many people to our side that probably had no idea what our policies were. (not that we knew exactly ;) )

So know, we need to select a set of 5 people who will represent the idea of a moderate and progressive left in the parliament.



Well, he's got a point, so we should get to it before we squander our election victory!
So I say:
-Argesia
-CoolDynasty42
-Leonstein
-who else?
-who else?

So if you want to be in the parliament, speak up!

I've already put my hand up and did a lot of campaigning in the last 36 hours. And I think my efforts helped us to win and beat those Libs ;)
So yes, I put my hand up.

(I also play particracy and am currently president and most successful party in Hutori, if you want experience ;))

I wrote on another thread I'd like to do be an MP. Considering the largest opposing group are Classic Liberals (Libertarians), I'd be an excellent choice for this position. Why? Read the last few pages of this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8972784#post8972784

I stopped arguing for a bit because I lost the time to post on NS, but I'll get back to responding soon. Anyway, the point is that I'm well versed in their arguments and have a lot of experience answering them.

Right, I read your post. Impressive, but futile. Neither side can ever budge...;)

Now, here is a post from another thread. Knotoss doesn't know which party to affiliate with, and I reckon it would be good if we could get him on board (especially sincle the liberals want him too)
I made a case, but he wants us to declare our position on these questions:
Well, that sounds interesting. Both have compelling arguments. But maybe I can ask some practical questions to get things clearer. (I'll ask them to both sides)
What would be the preferred level of total tax rate as a percentage rate of GDP. [Example: 30%-40% of GDP]
Does the party have a position on capital punishment (if no position exists, what are the feelings within the party on this issue?)
Do you believe in the policy of Keynes (for the soc dems), or the Bush pemanent tax cuts (for the libs)?
What is the party position on the European Union and the Constitutional Treaty?
Which party do you feel most closely affiliated to (a) in the United States (b) in the United Kingdom (c) in Germany
What about the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

That should clear up a lot of issues for me

Since I don't feel I can represent the entire party on this, I ask you. My views are:
a) no idea, depends on the demographics, the spending mood people are in as well as what part of the business cycle we're at.
b) Against capital punishment under any circumstances.
c) Keynes had good ideas. We believe in his core message, but someof his theories must be updated since the economy changes over time.
d) Very much pro-EU, we need a constitution, I personally don't know what a country needs sovereignty for if there are no enemies it needs to attack.
e) US- Hmm, Nader but I'd settle for Democrats
UK- Possibly LibDem, but I don't know much about them. Not a fan of Blair or the Conservatives though.
Germany- Bündnis '90/Die Grünen in social issues, economically SPD, so the current coalition is great.
f) Only an international court can be neutral and fair. Anyone who doesn't take part is obviously not interested in fair trials for war criminals, but rather in Show Trials (like with Saddam Hussein)

Where do I sign?

I think that the tax rate should be high enough to support any welfare concerns that we may have, so probably at least 30%, but the richer one is, the higher their tax rate - with a limit of 49% for the highest bracket, say.

Right, I read your post. Impressive, but futile. Neither side can ever budge...;)
Thank you. And yes, I realize it's futile, but it's fun - and supposed to be demonstrative of the commitment and facilities I'd bring to bear being an MP. I hope so, anyway. Pretty please?

As for Knotoss' questions:
Well, that sounds interesting. Both have compelling arguments. But maybe I can ask some practical questions to get things clearer. (I'll ask them to both sides)
a) I think that generalizing taxes on the level of GDP is too broad. An effective tax system needs to deal in specifics. I believe in no taxes for people under the poverty line, a small tax burder for the lower classes and lower-middle classes, a reasonable (probably about 33%) for the middle and upper middle classes, and an ultra-specific scaled system beyond that. For example, there would be a different percentage of tax payed by someone making 500 million than someone making 1 billion. The amount would never be high enough, however, to eliminate any desire for private industry.

b)Capital punishment should only be allowed in cases that can be determined by DNA testing, and even then, I'm iffy on it.

c)I think a lot of Keynes' theories of economics make a lot of sense.

d)The EU charter needs to be simplified and shortened. It's kind of a disaster right now, and it's clear that European sentiment is largely against it. I like the idea of a unified Europe, in principle.

e)I don't like any of the American parties much, but I'm closest to the Democrats because I'm pragmatic at heart. Small steps in the right direction; hopefully the party can be liberalized. I don't know much about either British or German politics, at least not well enough to make an informed decision.

f)The ICC needs to be examined carefully, and the judges must be impartial. I can't stress this enough; a politically motivated international court would be disastrous. However, I'm always in favor of greater connections between nations in general, because of an inherent distrust of the Westphalian nation state system and realist politics. An international tribunal on war crimes, particularly if combined with a retooling of UN peacekeeping ,would be a great step forward.

Hi!

Thank you for your response.

I am back from France now and just finished checking up on the general forum. Arridia added me as MP because I said I was interested, but I would not want to step on any toes (Deleuze) by just proclaiming myself an MP merely on account of Arridia adding me. That said, I would really like to be an MP for this great party.

Unfortunately this thread seems to have gone a bit inactive with no posts for a long time. Is there an offsite forum that I missed? (If not, I can create one.)

No forum AFAIK. I think you can be accepted, Knootos.

OK, I'm back I finaly finished everything in school, and also really needed a break form NS (rehabilitation from addiction). Now I see that we have all the MPs, so I would like to know how did you choose all of our MPs?

A seperate forum would be great, also to everyone to in the party I hope that we will have a productive cooperation in representing our views.

I already have my own NS forum, for roleplaying purposes mostly, and I thought it might be nice to just create a subforum and set up a full website when we have someone with the ability and when the subforum is actually used.

Link!
Democratic Socialist Party subforum (http://s7.invisionfree.com/KIST/index.php?showforum=6)

Please register, thank you. I also proposed an addition to our manifesto. I am hoping for a good discussion.

I thought the questions of MPs was our decision, and one that hadn't been made yet. This discussion could happen on this thread or on different one, I suppose.

Well, we used to have more seats then we had candidates. With Deleuze now intending to run as well, I think we have a problem.

Spaam seemed to think me a better candidate then Deleuze. I am honoured by this, to be sure, but I would not want to thread any toes.

I contacted both people as soon as there was talk of me becoming MP, but I have not received a response from Deleuze unfortunately. I do hope he will get in touch. (As well as respond to my refutation of his claim that Europeans are antisemitic in his OMG NOES thread :D )

If you want to talk about it you can do it on our fresh new forum too, obviously.

Well, we used to have more seats then we had candidates. With Deleuze now intending to run as well, I think we have a problem.

Spaam seemed to think me a better candidate then Deleuze. I am honoured by this, to be sure, but I would not want to thread any toes.

I contacted both people as soon as there was talk of me becoming MP, but I have not received a response from Deleuze unfortunately. I do hope he will get in touch. (As well as respond to my refutation of his claim that Europeans are antisemitic in his OMG NOES thread :D )

If you want to talk about it you can do it on our fresh new forum too, obviously.
I just sent you a tg. And wrote a refutation :D. Here or there, it's fine. Although probably easier here.

OK, so do you all think that we need to rethink who is going to be in the parlaiment? Do we need an elecetion. I think we can leave it as it is, but I don't want any hard feelings in the party, what do you think?

Likewise, I don't think we need an election, but if Deleuze insists on it then it is the only fair thing to do.

I guess we could also settle on giving Deleuze an electable place, though, at the next election. If you don't mind waiting a little. :)

Likewise, I don't think we need an election, but if Deleuze insists on it then it is the only fair thing to do.

I guess we could also settle on giving Deleuze an electable place, though, at the next election. If you don't mind waiting a little. :)
I think preemptively assigning MPs without a party election goes against the concept behind our party, equal opportunity and such.

I'm not sure the second idea is allowed under current rules of parliamentary procedure.

I think preemptively assigning MPs without a party election goes against the concept behind our party, equal opportunity and such.

I'm not sure the second idea is allowed under current rules of parliamentary procedure.
The thing was we used to not have enough members. There were the original 3, and me, and then everyone wanted Knootos. The fact that you weren't active till AFTER the election, says that you prolly shouldn't have a seat this time round. Next time however...

In any case, I think we should just get on with it, and stop stalling.

In any case, I think we should just get on with it, and stop stalling.

I second this motion...

I second this motion...
In that case its settled. Let the politicking begin!

On another issue, I would like to start a recruitment thread, with this text:

Join the Fight

Strong and social policies – that is what the Democratic Socialist Party is fighting for. For more jobs and social security, decent healthcare for everyone and safety on the streets. For a sustainable and tolerant society. The Democratic Socialist Party looks for a balance between personal freedoms and equal opportunity; a healthy economy and sustainable development; high-minded ideals and responsibility.

Your support is essential for the Democratic Socialist Party. Not just when there are elections, but also before and after. As a member, you give the party faith, strength and inspiration to fight for a social and progressive general forum.

Membership gives you many options: maybe you just want to be kept informed, maybe you want to become active yourself and decide with us, or maybe you want to become an MP in the Parliament!

As the largest progressive party in NationStates, our voices can make a difference on these and other issues to create a better and brighter future for all. Become informed and get involved—add your voice to ours!

Members:
<list>


Thoughts?

I think it also needs a picture of some kind.

I think preemptively assigning MPs without a party election goes against the concept behind our party, equal opportunity and such.

I'm not sure the second idea is allowed under current rules of parliamentary procedure.

The procedure would not preclude the pre-assignment of individulas to seats in order of the gaining of the seats. The seats though would still belong to the party and not to the named individuals.

Thoughts?
Sure, why not.
Right now we have pretty few people actually engaged with the party. If we are gonna do well in the next election, we'll need lots of members and sound organisation.
PS: I'm principally in favour of an election (It's democratic socialists afterall), but there's not a lot of people who'd vote, is there?

Well, since the Empathically Silly party is almost dead :( I'll switch to another party and you guys seem the most reasonable to me.

Can I join?

All credits for recruiting me will go to Knootoss :)

Great, every party that I'd like to join is inactive :(

Nah. Just deliberating. I'll send peoples a telegram. If our supposed MPs are not responding... well, you and Deleuze are nice and active ;)

Anyway, I'll start the campaign too I guess.

Based on this thread, this is the list I came up with. I suppose these people need TGing.

General Forum Parliamentarians
Cool Dynasty 42
Leonstein
Knootoss
Spaam
Argesia

Members:
The odd one (Founder)
Deleuze
Malden and Everon
Maineiacs
The Blaatschapen

Potentially interested people:
Syrna Collonie
Great Beer and Food
EL JARDIN
Volvo Villa Vovve
Occhia
Emochny
Ine Givar
Potaria
Subversa

Count me in.

Great! I'll draw up a list with the new people from the recruitment thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426277) when we have a fair few people from there :)

I think a lot of our members, and even some of our MPs, haven't been active much recently.

Yah, the whole discussion on rules has slowed things down a bit. But still we have a useful base and we are getting new members now via the other thread as well. I'll try to compose a TG to everyone interested tonight.

Good to see our party expand, and knotoss you deserve a beer for your devotion.

New thread for parlaiment is open for voteing, I don't have anything against it so, what's your take on it. I say we vote for it.

You already knew, but there is a duty to announce this to all parties in the parliament.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484

New thread for parlaiment is open for voteing, I don't have anything against it so, what's your take on it. I say we vote for it.

Seeing as I was involved in the negotiations, I duly recommend that all DSP members of parliament vote for this proposal. See also my adress to the House in the debate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484)

And thanks for the compliment, Cool Dynasty 42 :)

I'd like to be a part of this party. This is what I was looking for.

How can I enter the party??

Seeing that I'm not working anything for the party (time issues) and am leaving for reggae festival tomorow, and right after that to romania, I officialy resing from my post as a MP for the wellbeing of the party.

I hope you can find a suitable substitution for me *caugh* deluze *caugh*

Hope there's no hard feelings

I'm for.

I hope you can find a suitable substitution for me *caugh* deluze *caugh*
Deleuze has already been voting as an MP, hasn't he?
If he's not with us, who is he with then....

Deleuze has already been voting as an MP, hasn't he?
If he's not with us, who is he with then....
I have, "with us". I have the thread where it occurred on file, if you need it.

I hereby join this NS Political Party!

me 2

I want to wish your party good luck, sorry for the delay.

Hi, people.

hello. sorry for my long absence.

i know it's too late to use in the election but i've started drawing up a new manifesto to replace the original (which was supposed to be provisional, whoops!). the new one is based on the original with addittions and alterations based on the discussions in this thread. i'm also adding the member list to the first post.

and here's the new manifesto. i'll wait a couple days to see what people think and then change the first post accordingly. its a bit all over the place.

Proposed Manifesto

The State must protect the rights of its citizens, as set out in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

Social Issues:
The Democratic Socialist party believes in a socialist state, therefore social security should be made available to all, regardless of age or infirmity
Healthcare shall be funded by the state and available to all.
Public Transport, Energy Supply, Water Supply and Education are provided by the state to ensure that the cost to the citizen matches the cost of providing those services.
Communication Services will be provided privately, to ensure that they are appropriately up to date and competitive, but will be subsidised by the state to ensure fair pricing.
Social benefits are provided for the unemployed, but decreased with time. While we care for disabled

Economy:
We promote a progressive tax system, i.e. taxes will be high enough to fund public services, but low enough to allow companies to be competitive on the global market.
Recognising that technology is of high value, the state will encourage technical businesses geared toward export, and will provide the appropriate education/training.
Small businesses and entrepreneurs should be encouraged and monopolies discouraged.

Regarding The Electoral System:
The founding of separate, independent political parties should be encouraged by the state.
Free elections should be held every four years using proportional representation.
The Party supports Decentralisation

The Environment:
Ratification of Kyoto
Investments in alternative sources.
Renewable sources in the long term,
Nuclear power, in the short term, with preference given to nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission.

Foreign Policy:
active participation in UN,
Gradual abolition of Immigration Policies, and the borders with neighbouring countries.

Free open borders, but new citizens must fit certain criteria;
Language and culture courses provided
Must be an active worker for at least 1 year,

Judicial:
Capital punishment is not acceptable under any circumstances.
We support an international criminal court as we believe that only an international court can be neutral and fair.

members list added

Might I propose an added (for The Economy):

"As far as specific microeconomic policies are concerned, we believe that neither statism nor the free market can provide a "one size fits all" solution. Every reform must be judged on its merits, using extensive cost-benefit analyses - taking into account non-monetary costs, such as pollution, income inequality or the eradication of individual liberties.
As with all our policies, we thus advocate the use of pragmatic, rather than ideological solutions to economic problems."

Feel free to take it apart as you wish. :)

Might I propose an added (for The Economy):

"As far as specific microeconomic policies are concerned, we believe that neither statism nor the free market can provide a "one size fits all" solution. Every reform must be judged on its merits, using extensive cost-benefit analyses - taking into account non-monetary costs, such as pollution, income inequality or the eradication of individual liberties.
As with all our policies, we thus advocate the use of pragmatic, rather than ideological solutions to economic problems."

Feel free to take it apart as you wish. :)

i like it.

i dont see how i could possibly improve on it, so ill probably copy and paste it in. :)

I like the new revisions; just a few things I might propose to add in:

Equality between the sexes is a hallmark of our view of society; therefore, abortion is a right that cannot be denied by the state.

Marriage between two consenting individuals of the same sex is a fundamental right and will be permitted.

The separation between church and state is absolute, and no religious practices will influence government policy.


Elections will be publicly funded.

I like the new revisions; just a few things I might propose to add in:

Equality between the sexes is a hallmark of our view of society; therefore, abortion is a right that cannot be denied by the state.

Marriage between two consenting individuals of the same sex is a fundamental right and will be permitted.

The separation between church and state is absolute, and no religious practices will influence government policy.


Elections will be publicly funded.

All excellent ideas IMO.

Quick question. How can you, as socialists, justify this-

"Small businesses and entrepreneurs should be encouraged"

When it clearly is anti-socialist?

When it clearly is anti-socialist?
Depends on what exactly you understand under the, admittedly, fairly wide area called "socialism".
I personally think being entrepreneurial is a natural thing for people, and it's not like we haven't benefitted as a species from people thinking of new stuff to make money.
Our job is not to stop people from using their skills and ideas to make a bit of money - our job is to provide a framework in which they can do that, but in which those that don't (for whatever reason) don't suffer for it.
But that's just my personal take on the issue.

We need to nominate our MPs for the four seats we got.
It'll be a tough job, with conservatives and radical libertarians both holding five seats. It's fairly vital that those that engage in these discussions can convince as many people (especially from the neutral/joke parties) to vote our way. It's the only way we can balance the probable weight the right has in economic issues.
On the other hand, in social policies we're likely to agree with the Reason party more often than not.

Anyways, the only proposal I can think of putting forward is the establishment of an economic policy board, a reserve bank and the like. Should be relatively uncontroversial.

Depends on what exactly you understand under the, admittedly, fairly wide area called "socialism".
I personally think being entrepreneurial is a natural thing for people, and it's not like we haven't benefitted as a species from people thinking of new stuff to make money.
Our job is not to stop people from using their skills and ideas to make a bit of money - our job is to provide a framework in which they can do that, but in which those that don't (for whatever reason) don't suffer for it.
But that's just my personal take on the issue.

Surely thats social-democracy and not socialism (a system diametrically opposed to capitalism). This clearly illustrates my point that your party doesnt follow an anti-capitalist stance, but a left-wing capitalist agenda- ie. to keep the free market system in place but with a few minor changes and some restrictions


Ive just had a biiiiiiig coffee to stay awake. haha ha ha.

Surely thats social-democracy and not socialism (a system diametrically opposed to capitalism). This clearly illustrates my point that your party doesnt follow an anti-capitalist stance, but a left-wing capitalist agenda- ie. to keep the free market system in place but with a few minor changes and some restrictions


Ive just had a biiiiiiig coffee to stay awake. haha ha ha.
Didn't we have that argument before? I seem to recall....

Flashback:
http://press.comedycentral.com/images/press/gallery/l/southpark/season8/810_Preschool_1.jpg
No socialist is state owning property using workers councils. You are essentially presenting a liberal capitalism
Yes now I see, we actually don't have free market since we support the regulation of companies, proggresive taxation. Did we ever said that we support the free market?
To DHomme, no I don't think socialst means that everything is goverment owned. And even if it does. The modern Democratic Socialist means baseicly what we support. And the name doesn't matter anyhow we still stick to our principel.s
...
Democratic Socialists really need to change their name then- maybe the "Embarrassed Capitalists" would suit them, eh?
Maybe Social Democrats?
Pretty much all of us support a social market economy. That has nothing to do with socialist as Marx said it, but it does have to do with for example the Socialist Parties in France or Spain.
---
*socialism was, said Marx, the stage between the overthrow of capitalism by the workers and the final moneyless, classless society of Communism.
---
I'm not a capitalist. I don't believe that the free market can always achieve a perfect outcome. I don't believe that market failures only occur because of outside influences. But I have seen the facts as presented by many economists overthe past hundred years that have shown that markets are indeed quite efficient on what they do.
They are a tool, not more. We must use the market to achieve a classless society by intervening in the right places. Just banishing them will only leave us with planning an economy that, if you think about it, is too large to ever be perfectly organised from the outside.

The non-communist left has its voice now. Go DSP!

To be honest, i have this debate so often with so many different people i can no longer remember.
Probably smoking weed the last 7 days in a row hasnt helped neither.

We need to nominate our MPs for the four seats we got.
It'll be a tough job, with conservatives and radical libertarians both holding five seats. It's fairly vital that those that engage in these discussions can convince as many people (especially from the neutral/joke parties) to vote our way. It's the only way we can balance the probable weight the right has in economic issues.
On the other hand, in social policies we're likely to agree with the Reason party more often than not.

Anyways, the only proposal I can think of putting forward is the establishment of an economic policy board, a reserve bank and the like. Should be relatively uncontroversial.
In terms of nominations for MP positions, I think the three most natural choices are the two active returning members from last term (Leonstein and myself) and the party founder, the odd one, who recently became active again. Suggestions/volunteers for the fourth member would be awesome (which is not meant to imply that I'm inflexible on the first three, I just think those choices made the most sense, particularly given that all three of us have been active on the election thread). Of course, these aren't appointments - there should be party-wide elections to determine the MPs.

In regards to strategy, here's what I propose: Let's get our social agenda through first. It shouldn't be too hard, given the other leftist parties and the libertarians will almost definately support us. To work on that, I've already been in contact with UDCP members, and will telegram Melkor (Reason) and members of the RTP and NSCL as soon as I'm done writing this post. Then, the goal is to use that momentum to help push success on the economic front. If we can be the driving force behind the first legislation through the new Congress, perhaps it can help pursuade others to support us on other fronts.

Anyway, what do you all think?

Suggestions/volunteers for the fourth member would be awesome (which is not meant to imply that I'm inflexible on the first three, I just think those choices made the most sense, particularly given that all three of us have been active on the election thread).
Nominating myself would be unwise, I guess. But the reason I wasn't active in Parliament was that I got disconnected for a couple of months. I appologise to my collegues as I do to my electorate.
Anyway, I would support whoever gets the seats.

Regarding proposals for Parliament, I suggest we start by essential points that we can agree on. Some things are common to both our manifestos, such as free healthcare, measures to ensure everyone has decent living conditions (enough food, a roof over their head...), legislation to protect workers' rights, or the affirmation that there will be no death penalty. If we can get some of those through Parliament, it would be an important step.

I like what you have so far. Have you concidered looking at the minimum wage? I would suggest a clause about a mandate that workers putting in 40 hours recieve enough for one adult and one child to leave out of poverty (actually out of poverty, not just over a poverty line that is so low one has to be completely destitute). If private industry can not fund this, perhaps a modified earned income tax credit would be possible.

Bump.

So. Who's going to be in Parliament?

Yeah, I reckon we need a decision.
Should we do a poll? :D

Anyways, if you guys want me to be MP, I'll do it. If someone else wants to really badly, I'm not going to stand in their way.
I've been thinking about one or two proposals, but we'd be proposing them as a party anyways, so my status is of no importance.

Hi, I would very much like to vote for this party - but I can't seem to be able to find where the election thing is so I can place my vote. Can anyone point me out to it?

Hi, I would very much like to vote for this party - but I can't seem to be able to find where the election thing is so I can place my vote. Can anyone point me out to it?
Sorry. It ended some hours ago.

Yeah, I reckon we need a decision.
Should we do a poll? :D

Anyways, if you guys want me to be MP, I'll do it. If someone else wants to really badly, I'm not going to stand in their way.
I've been thinking about one or two proposals, but we'd be proposing them as a party anyways, so my status is of no importance.
A poll would be opened to anyone. We should ask the members, perhaps. Send individual telegrams?

EDIT: We might not be able to do the telegram thing, as we would have to ask United Tribes Cacitate for the name of his/her nation (he/she seems to have a different name for forums - and he/she might not be the only member in this situation).

Sorry. It ended some hours ago.

That would explain me not being able to find it then. Maybe i'm not at stupid as I thought. >.>

That would explain me not being able to find it then. Maybe i'm not at stupid as I thought. >.>
Of corse you're not stupid: you meant to vote for us :) .
Please, stick around. Become a member.

The Parliament thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448070. We are currently deciding who to send to parliament (we gained four seats; however, we used to have five - I was a parliamentarian myself, but due to connection problems I couldn't really be an active one back then).

I'm still up for a seat. As of right now, the only people who have indicated interest in a seat are Leonstein, the odd one, Argesia, and myself. So unless there are any other candidates, a poll is rather unnecessary. If there are, then let the voting begin.

Regarding proposals for Parliament, I suggest we start by essential points that we can agree on. Some things are common to both our manifestos, such as free healthcare, measures to ensure everyone has decent living conditions (enough food, a roof over their head...), legislation to protect workers' rights, or the affirmation that there will be no death penalty. If we can get some of those through Parliament, it would be an important step.

Would you agree to these? If so, I can draw up a proposal on one of them within the next few days, and run it by you to see if you'd be willing to support it.

Would you agree to these? If so, I can draw up a proposal on one of them within the next few days, and run it by you to see if you'd be willing to support it.
We haven't managed to assign seats yet, so no definite answer is available. But we'll get to it, stick around.

bump

...As of right now, the only people who have indicated interest in a seat are Leonstein, the odd one, Argesia, and myself....
Okay, I think we waited long enough for someone else to express interest.

My choices for our four seats are just those:
Deleuze, The Odd One, Argesia and myself.

I know the elections have passed, but can I sign up for this group?

I know the elections have passed, but can I sign up for this group?
You most certainly can :) .

The elections are over, and we need to choose four people to represent the DSP in our parliament.
It could be a tough job, given that there are some very smart people out there, who'll very quickly go and disect the very core of your arguments and beliefs.... :D
Nonetheless, there isn't all that much to it if you're not a MP (Member of Parliament), cuz then it's really just helping along in discussions and when elections come around.
For proposals to be accepted by parliament only MP votes count, so if you take the responsibility, you'll get raw power in return. :p

You most certainly can :) .

The elections are over, and we need to choose four people to represent the DSP in our parliament.
It could be a tough job, given that there are some very smart people out there, who'll very quickly go and disect the very core of your arguments and beliefs.... :D
Nonetheless, there isn't all that much to it if you're not a MP (Member of Parliament), cuz then it's really just helping along in discussions and when elections come around.
For proposals to be accepted by parliament only MP votes count, so if you take the responsibility, you'll get raw power in return. :p
Thats all right I'd like to join the group, but I'm sure their are people that are able to defend the parties positions beter than I.

Hi,

I'm a proud supporter of the DSP and I would like to contribute this sig I made for your party:

A proud supporter of the:
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY
because everyone matters.

feel free to pass it around

Hi,

I'm a proud supporter of the DSP and I would like to contribute this sig I made for your party
Yeah, I saw some of your work during the election...well done! :)
The sig might be a big large, maybe we could cut it down in size a bit - afterall who wants a sig that's bigger than ones post?

Anyways, I feel somewhat obliged to ask you whether you'd be up for a seat in parliament, since you helped a lot.
We have four people, but if you feel you can hold your own in a discussion against others and convince neutral MPs to vote our way, we might have to decide again.

Yeah, I saw some of your work during the election...well done! :)
The sig might be a big large, maybe we could cut it down in size a bit - afterall who wants a sig that's bigger than ones post?

Anyways, I feel somewhat obliged to ask you whether you'd be up for a seat in parliament, since you helped a lot.
We have four people, but if you feel you can hold your own in a discussion against others and convince neutral MPs to vote our way, we might have to decide again.I'll be honoured to take a seat in the parliament as a DSP member. But problem is, the teachers are on strike in my area so I had to work independently on my grade 12 school work (yes im graduating this year ;) ). So that's mean I'll be very busy for now, depend how long the teachers' job action last. I'll decide whether or not I take a seat. Anyway, thank for the offer and fight hard in the parliament! ;)

I'm all but finished with the manifesto, i just wonder if any one can suggest which heading under which these should go;

Equality between the sexes is a hallmark of our view of society; therefore, abortion is a right that cannot be denied by the state.

Marriage between two consenting individuals of the same sex is a fundamental right and will be permitted.

and i will probably change 'consenting individuals' to 'consenting adults'

All good ideas. As for what heading for them -- Don't know, but I'll think about it. We definitely need to have them in there, though.

I would join... we have a specific region too?:)

Hi,

I'm a proud supporter of the DSP and I would like to contribute this sig I made for your party:

A proud supporter of the:
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY
because everyone matters.

feel free to pass it around

Isn't the party red, not orange?

Isn't the party red, not orange?
Hmmm... dunno

I think orange is the best colour for this party since this party is like Canada's leftist party - the NDP (which their theme colour is orange).

If it's red, the conservatives would brand us "communists"(which we're not and we don't like it).

Also, do you think the motto: "because everyone matters" best suits the party?

Hmmm... dunno

I think orange is the best colour for this party since this party is like Canada's leftist party - the NDP (which their theme colour is orange).

If it's red, the conservatives would brand us "communists"(which we're not and we don't like it).

Also, do you think the motto: "because everyone matters" best suits the party?
Might I suggest light blue? It is the colour of choice with socialist parties across Europe.
The motto is great, we should stick with it.
I also propose we have a logo.

http://www.fes.de/archiv/_weimar/3265.htm
Or that.

Might I suggest light blue? It is the colour of choice with socialist parties across Europe.


It is?! In France, the socialists' colour is pink, and blue is used only by the right.

Here in NS General, blue is the colour of the NSCP. Red is the UDCP, and dark red the RTP. I think the NSCL was orange for a while, but I could be wrong. The COTP was pink and light mauve. I'm not sure about the others.

http://www.grsites.com/textures/__temp4/logo682039.jpg

Here's a simple "logo maker". But surely we can do better than that!
http://www.grsites.com/logo/

It is?! In France, the socialists' colour is pink, and blue is used only by the right.

Here in NS General, blue is the colour of the NSCP. Red is the UDCP, and dark red the RTP. I think the NSCL was orange for a while, but I could be wrong. The COTP was pink and light mauve. I'm not sure about the others.
The most popular colour is red, of course. However, the second most used is light blue - mostly, when parties want to distance themselves from other left-wingers (especially since light blue has, to my knowledge, a history between the World Wars as anti-fascist in some countries - I think it might originate in Scandinavia, but I don't really know). Personaly, I have nothing against red.

http://www.grsites.com/textures/__temp4/logo682039.jpg

Here's a simple "logo maker". But surely we can do better than that!
http://www.grsites.com/logo/
Yeah, what I had in mind was something more like an emblem (it took me some time to find the proper word :) ). Something like the rose, perhaps?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4677/dsp0os.jpg

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/6052/dsp28zv.jpg

This is the last one for now. This is hard work! Stupid demo version wont let me save them...I need to take a screenshot and move into paint...

Can anyone help?
Ever since the game has had its problem, I can't log on forums. The only reason why I'm on this one is that I added it to my "favourites" menu (in Explorer). Do you know what I should do?
Also, the pages that I do get on always have errors.

Can anyone help?
Ever since the game has had its problem, I can't log on forums. The only reason why I'm on this one is that I added it to my "favourites" menu (in Explorer). Do you know what I should do?
Also, the pages that I do get on always have errors.
purge your cookies. That's usually what causes stuff like that.

About the manifesto though, might I propose at least one state funded, a-political mainstream media outlet, such as a national television channel? The American model you guys have in your manifesto works about as nicely as newspapers does for the blind.

About the manifesto though, might I propose at least one state funded, a-political mainstream media outlet, such as a national television channel? The American model you guys have in your manifesto works about as nicely as newspapers does for the blind.
I think that would be good. It would have to be independent though - something like SBS in Australia, or PBS in the states (which I presume to work the same way).

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7465/dsp36zc.jpg

here's mine :)

1)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8250/dsp12kq.png

2)
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8520/dsp24cv.png

3)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6039/dsp1a4rd.png

4)
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2469/dsp2a1js.png

I used macromedia fireworks 2004 MX. Not as pro as photoshop but it's easy to use.

-snip-
I like 1 and 3. I reckon the rose as the traditional symbol of the moderate left is pretty important.

I like 1 and 3. I reckon the rose as the traditional symbol of the moderate left is pretty important.
I second that.

My problem (see post 229) didn't get solved. Thank you for your suggestion, The Similized world, but it's got to be something else. When I log onto forum as a nation, and not as a browser, the game gives me "area vb of this script has to be defined". Otherwise, I can log on from inside the forum, but it still has errors on page.
Any suggestions?

I just logged in externally from forums.jolt.co.uk; I can't get it from NS anymore.

As for the question about where we should put my additions to the manifesto, we could put in under a heading called "social equality," and the economic proposals under "economic equality." We could also just put them under a heading called "civil rights."

It's a server-wide error. Everyone's got it, so for the time being we have to do.
Here's the tech-thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449380).

I think that would be good. It would have to be independent though - something like SBS in Australia, or PBS in the states (which I presume to work the same way).
By a-political, I meant one that is untouchable by political parties.

It's a server-wide error. Everyone's got it, so for the time being we have to do.
Here's the tech-thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449380).
Thanks. I kinda got around it.

By a-political, I meant one that is untouchable by political parties.
I agree with public television, be it a-political (ie: no single view expressed at all) or forum-like (allocating time to each point of view, in a way that is provided by the political actors themselves - such as time given to each party in Parliament).
We have it over where I live, and, though it could be improved and has gone through several quakes, it's the best idea ever in a democracy.

I agree with public television, be it a-political (ie: no single view expressed at all) or forum-like (allocating time to each point of view, in a way that is provided by the political actors themselves - such as time given to each party in Parliament).
We have it over where I live, and, though it could be improved and has gone through several quakes, it's the best idea ever in a democracy.
Somewhat similar here. Almost all modern democracies takes this approach, because otherwise they end up with American-style media, which is counterproductive in terms of informing the public enough to enable them to participate in their democracy.

And that's why I suggested it. In my not so humble opinion, the American model is one of the worst things that ever happened to mankind.

And that's why I suggested it. In my not so humble opinion, the American model is one of the worst things that ever happened to mankind.
Hear, hear.

A little battle hymn to get the blood flowing ;)

What we need is a stong Working Class!
Unity and a lot of Pride
For our Country and our Class
Not for the Upper Class and the Government!

What we need is a strong Working Class
Unity and a lot of Pride

We play Oi! Music for the Working Class
Oi! Oi! music, with a lot of pride
For our Country and our Class
Against the Upper Class and the Government!

Somewhat similar here. Almost all modern democracies takes this approach, because otherwise they end up with American-style media, which is counterproductive in terms of informing the public enough to enable them to participate in their democracy.

And that's why I suggested it. In my not so humble opinion, the American model is one of the worst things that ever happened to mankind.


Tell me about it. My country has long since succumbed to bread and circuses. Apathy keeps us docile -- or at least allows the government to direct our rage where they think it will further their goals. If we ever knew what was really going on...

Umm...What do I do if I want to join.

Can i join?

Can i join?
You certainly can.
You don't have to do much really...the elections have just been finished and we've already decided on our Members for Parliament.

So feel free to do what you want - You're now a member of the DSP. :)

I'll stick to being sympathetic to the party ;)

I'll stick to being sympathetic to the party ;)
You are our civic society ;) .

i have finally gotten round to putting up the updated manifesto.

Consider me a member!