[Cont.]
You don't have these things in democracy;
Because it's not designed to fail,

It's got failsafes.
- You get more cash if you play the game and sell the nation out.
It's called a bailout, an IMF loan.

Democracy is a bus, that takes us to our destination where we get off.
- One World Government -
And it's a tool in which an entire nations wealth can be built and taken from the people at the same time.
- All whilst the nation is left in perpetual endless debt.

For this segment of the game:

You have to keep people within a range.

You have to keep people happy enough that they're not going to speak out to risk giving up the comforts they're already accustomed to;
- Whilst not making them angry enough that they will assemble and stand against the government.

Keep them within that range and you can more or less do whatever you want.

Then you fund both sides of government so that it doesn't move either right or left without your say so;

Or you capitalise on playing both sides against the middle whilst continually shifting the goal posts in your favour.

Jesus Christ AC. Your worldview is so bizarre that I doubt if you and I can ever reach a consensus on anything. But I will give it a try. I will start off with the basics as you obviously have trouble recognising simple concepts.

There are two types of government in the world, totalitarian and democratic. Democratic governments can generally solve internal disputes and rid themselves of incompetent governments using elections. Democratic governments do not go to war with democratic governments. Some totalitarian governments are relatively benign and are not a threat to world peace. They do not try to acquire nuclear weapons, nor act aggressively, or try to export their usually crazy socialist ideology on other countries. Example Vietnam, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, or the old Yugoslavia ruled by Tito, the man who created the Non Aligned movement. In the case of these benign and usually stable totalitarian states, they can have very good relations with the democracies and do business with them. It was once hoped that China would become one of these states.

But it is the totalitarians with expansionist ideas, who try and obtain nuclear weapons, who think that their crazy ideas (or religion) should be adopted by everybody, and who sponsor terrorism within neighbouring countries to get that end, who are the problem. Especially if the majority of their own populations would hurl them out on their ears if there was ever an election. In such cases there are only three options to deal with such regimes.

1. Do nothing and let them keep doing whatever they are doing.
2. Go to war with them.
3. Impose sanctions and hope that their own populations will eventually rise up and throw them forcefully out of power.

Your quote that "Democracy is a bus..." was spoken by Turkish dictator wannabee Edrogan who finds democracy to be an inconvenience to the sort of Greater Turkey he envisions. My belief is that he wants Turkey recreate the Turkish Empire, and he wants Turkey to expand either into the Balkans or into Arab lands.

Reading these posts gives a crystal clear indication why our world is in such a mess !

I hope you are not making inferences to my posts, Individual? I am shocked and deeply hurt.

Hitler played to the working class earlier in the peace. Rohm and the SA were "fascist anti-capitalists". Hitler killed Rohm and the SA leadership on 'the night of the long knives' to demonstrate his disposition to capitalists in Germany. ie: Germany was to be a fascist, corporatist state, but not a socialist one.

The Coalition's 'ensuring integrity' legislation would not look out of place in a totalitarian state. And capitalism presents itself today as a 'closed system'. It refuses to be relativised. And every time a radical anti-capitalist movement arises it is undermined from within and without.

The problem is that capitalists won't accept a 'democratic path to socialism'. Economies are wrecked by destabilization, there's the threat of possible coups, people either give in to capitalism as a closed system or - like Lenin - they turn to extreme strategies amid extreme circumstances. (if it ever gets to that point)

For now my personal political objectives are modest. But as Noam Chomsky has argued - the key to maintaining capitalism is to allow intense debate - but within a narrow ideological frame. I want democratic socialism to be a strong element in the debate.

We need a much deeper pluralism ; along the lines argued by Chantal Mouffe.

Probably for decades into the future a 'hybrid system' is in the interests of capitalists, and of workers and citizens.

Into the future we might want to experiment gradually with different mixes of competition and co-operation, planning and markets.

More radical voices should have a voice ; but the problem again is capitalism's 'closed' nature, the threat of repression and isolation. Because we're in a global system 'no country can entirely go it alone.' So the most radical might want to make uncompromising critiques of capitalism ; but the problem is finding a way 'to take the world with us' to such a point that provides a barrier to destabilisation, isolation, repression.