I tend to get the feeling that this country (the US) has a bad taste in its mouth about Communism. In your personal opinion, do you like the idea?

Personally, I think if run correctly, without corruption it would be fine. Yes, that's highly unlikely, but given that highly unlikely event, wouldn't it be kinda cool?

Thoughts?

10/21/2005 5:42:31 PM

youve been flagged by DoHS

10/21/2005 5:44:30 PM

10/21/2005 5:44:40 PM

Quote :

"youve been flagged by DoHS"

meh, i've been flagged for worse

10/21/2005 5:46:10 PM

If run correctly, with no corruption, then a dictatorship would be the most desirable form of government.

You lose.

10/21/2005 5:56:10 PM

^it has one large flaw, that being that it isn't very self-sustaining. The Athenians loved democracy for this reason as well as the philosophical ones.

10/21/2005 6:03:57 PM

True democracy could coexist with communism.
I'd go so far as to argue that true democracy could exist only with communism.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2005 6:13:10 PM

I don't like it. I am of the opinion that people should fend for themselves; 'people' meaning those who are capable of working and sustaining themselves through such - so, children, elderly, and legitimately disabled persons are exempt from this and should be helped when needed.

That being said, I am in favor of laws restricting some parts of capitalism, such as no monopolies and so forth.

Those are my thoughts.

10/21/2005 6:15:25 PM

communism, in theory, is the best possible form of government with equality for all...but that assumes, of course, that all people agree on equal treatment, and no one believes that they deserve more than others

that being said, socialism is the closest alternative that's actually realistic...i'll go so far as to that i would happily support this country if we turned to socialism

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 6:39 PM. Reason : happy!]

10/21/2005 6:37:23 PM

capitalism is the only system that drives economic progress

Quote :

"no one believes that they deserve more than others "

that implies that no one believes that they deserve LESS than others, also. and therein lies the (significant) flaw in communism.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 7:13 PM. Reason : s]

10/21/2005 7:12:35 PM

Quote :

"True democracy could coexist with communism. I'd go so far as to argue that true democracy could exist only with communism."

um, communism requires a very powerful central government. that's not true democracy

maybe some sort of anarcho-socialism could coexist with true democracy, but not communism

10/21/2005 7:15:57 PM

^ if people consistently elected that powerful central government in free and open elections because they liked how it was running things...that could certainly be democracy...why not?

10/21/2005 7:25:59 PM

My strongest objection to communism is just how borring it is. Under a communist system, everything would be run by some committee somewhere making decisions that no one is happy with but is nevertheless willing to accept.

In a free system, the "game" as some call it is excitting!
The capitalist system is conflict, competition, Google is up! Microsoft fights back! Netscape goes under! Apple corners the market on underwater internet watches with new flaming action!

How could anyone prefer living under a system of "Social Solidarity" and "Collective Cooperation"?
Can you imagine how boring the WallStreet Journal would be!?!?

In America, everyone asks "What will they come up with next?" In the Soviet Union, everyone knew what they WANTED to come up with, they could just read the latest 5 year plan, meticulously written up in lawyer speak.
While Google has gone IPO and is starting up a whole new way to do wireless, the planning commission would be debating whether or not "People really need wireless"!

As for the "efficiency" argument, it is pure bullshit. Never in history has human efficiency reached such heights. We produce more goods and services per unit of resources consumed than ever in history. The complaint people like Kris are really making is NOT that we are inefficient making the stuff we do, but that we make too much stuff. I'm certain the third world would LOVE to have our problem.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:26 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/21/2005 8:15:59 PM

Quote :

"Is Communism Bad? "

a loud and resounding YES


but so is myopia a.k.a. la sez faire capitalism

10/21/2005 8:24:07 PM

Quote :

"capitalism is the only system that drives economic progress"

Oh yes, it's not as if the worlds greatest superpower a few years ago wasn't communist.

Communism worked wonderfully for russia. Yeah they might have lost a war with the number one superpower, but that doesn't imply that their system had no merit. Ultimately the Greek democratic republic failed, but that doesn't imply that they weren't on to something.

Quote :

"and therein lies the (significant) flaw in communism."

Therein lies the flaw in your understanding of modern communism.

Quote :

"um, communism requires a very powerful central government. that's not true democracy"

Why is that not true in democracy? The people could have a powerful central government if they elected to.

Quote :

"My strongest objection to communism is just how borring it is. Under a communist system, everything would be run by some committee somewhere making decisions that no one is happy with but is nevertheless willing to accept."

Building cars is boring, the data lines that tie our information transfer together are boring, generally effective systems tend to be inhuman and "boring", sorry, I'd rather have something that works well than something "fun", you want fun, go to a theme park, don't turn the international economic future into a dice game.

Quote :

"In America, everyone asks "What will they come up with next?" In the Soviet Union, everyone knew what they WANTED to come up with, they could just read the latest 5 year plan, meticulously written up in lawyer speak."

I'd like to remind you of who invented the satelite, one of the most important inventions of the 20th century. Soviet innovation was only later surpassed by American innovation.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/21/2005 8:29:28 PM

Quote :

"the data lines that tie our information transfer together are boring"

I disagree, as an engineer I find technology fascinating and enjoy designing it.

10/21/2005 8:35:38 PM

Challenge: spot the contractiction in the following quote

Quote :

"Oh yes, it's not as if the worlds greatest superpower a few years ago wasn't communist. Communism worked wonderfully for russia. Yeah they might have lost a war with the number one superpower"

here i'll explain it for the dumbass commies. Sentence one states that the world's greatest superpower was communist, yet in sentence two, it lost to the number one superpower.

greatest != number one? i'm sure he'll squirm his way out of it by modifying his definition of "greatest"

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:38 PM. Reason : s]

10/21/2005 8:37:41 PM

No.

Rather

The world's greatest superpower destroyed itself.

Sort of like every NC STate vs UNC football game.

LOL at that.

10/21/2005 8:39:08 PM

^^ that honestly was a typo, I meant to type "one of the world's greatest superpowers" in refering to the USSR. I never meant to imply that the USSR ever surpassed the US, given geographic and age disparities between the two, it would be nearly impossible for the USSR to do so.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 8:45 PM. Reason : ]

10/21/2005 8:45:24 PM

Quote :

"Communism worked wonderfully for russia. Yeah they might have lost a war with the number one superpower, but that doesn't imply that their system had no merit. Ultimately the Greek democratic republic failed, but that doesn't imply that they weren't on to something."

See, I was always skeptical of all the anti-Commie rhetoric. I felt like there had to be some aspects of the system that held merit or that were better than our own.

The problem would be finding people to run the party that everyone actaully liked, and that did a good job. Again, corruption is what ruins government.

10/21/2005 8:46:49 PM

one of the main problems with early (revolution-based) communism was its dependence on one powerful and well intentioned man, one can plainly see this with Lenin vs. Stalin.

10/21/2005 8:49:16 PM

Nothing about communism demands a one party, stifling regime.

Communism died in Russia when Stalin consolidated his power.

Coincedentally though, he did take what was essentially a third world nation and hammer it into the 20th century in under a decade.

10/21/2005 8:50:08 PM

He also showed his iron resolve. I believe if anyone else had been in power at that time other than stalin, russia would have surrendered to the nazis. Stalin had an ego that kept him in, and god save that ego, if it wasn't for it, Britian would have fallen, Germany would have met japan and half the globe would be uner the control of the nazi regime.

10/21/2005 8:53:25 PM

He was also a terrible miltary commander and got completely blindsided by Hitler's betrayel.

I think he added focus and intensity during the invasion but his generals are the ones that destroyed the German invaders.

10/21/2005 8:57:57 PM

americans are too paranoid about communism, especially considering 100% of them never even lived or experienced this system. most of the stuff people in this country learn about communism comes from history books written by historians who researched journals to write their books, or from professors who also never lived in communism.

i lived majority of my life in what used to be Yugoslavia and before the wars, country had strong middle class (not the case now), everyone could afford a yearly vacation on adriatic sea, salaries were comparatively better than most of the eastern block countries and standards of living were far better, crime virtually NON-EXISTENT, middle class was able to afford moderately priced italian and german vehicles, country had its golden years in all international sporting events, military had high morale, civil progress in terms of new roads, buildings, factories etc, there was large influx of western and japanese technology, people worked some 30 hours a week, plenty of chances to naturally progress through company's hierarchy, had plenty of time to enjoy life and live stress free. in other words, unless somebody told you, it would be near impossible to tell this was a communist society. granted, military budget was huge, country leaders were hedonistic bastards, and at one point or another economic collapse was inevitable, but for some 30 years it worked just fine. communism would probably last longer if it wasn't for wars, which had causes not relevant to communism fallacies.

the picture painted in this country, be it literature or by historians is borderline funny to pretty much anyone from my country. however, i cannot attest to chinese, cuban, north korean or any other country that had/still has communism as a political system/regime.

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 9:30 PM. Reason : f]

10/21/2005 9:24:41 PM

From what I understand Yugoslavia was a different kind of communism. Yugoslavia was one of those really well governed communism nations, it was no wonder they could not find anyone to replace him upon his death.

Quote :

"Coincedentally though, he did take what was essentially a third world nation and hammer it into the 20th century in under a decade."

You would need to argue that only he could have done this, however. You would also need to argue that another system could not have done a better job of it with fewer casualties and less wasted effort.
Of course, all of this is academic as any system based on liberty would have descended into communism anyway, its what the people felt they wanted at the time.

Quote :

"See, I was always skeptical of all the anti-Commie rhetoric. I felt like there had to be some aspects of the system that held merit or that were better than our own."

Be skeptical all you want, the anti-Commie rhetoric has more than a few truths on its side. As you said, you would need to find someone that everyone actually liked and that did a good job, two features which are often contradictory.

10/21/2005 10:00:49 PM

Quote :

"i lived majority of my life in what used to be Yugoslavia and before the wars, country had strong middle class (not the case now), everyone could afford a yearly vacation on adriatic sea, salaries were comparatively better than most of the eastern block countries and standards of living were far better, crime virtually NON-EXISTENT, middle class was able to afford moderately priced italian and german vehicles, country had its golden years in all international sporting events, military had high morale, civil progress in terms of new roads, buildings, factories etc, there was large influx of western and japanese technology, people worked some 30 hours a week, plenty of chances to naturally progress through company's hierarchy, had plenty of time to enjoy life and live stress free. in other words, unless somebody told you, it would be near impossible to tell this was a communist society. granted, military budget was huge, country leaders were hedonistic bastards, and at one point or another economic collapse was inevitable, but for some 30 years it worked just fine."

you mean to tell me that if a government wastes all its money on social programs, and saps every bit of efficiency and value out of an economy that it will be good while it lasts, but then will collapse?

holy shit you deserve a nobel prize in economics!

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 10:45 PM. Reason : s]

10/21/2005 10:45:26 PM

Quote :

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. ---John Kenneth Galbraith"

Here's one for Kris...

Quote :

"I still call myself a communist, because communism is no more what Russia made of it than Christianity is what the churches make of it. But if by some freak of history communism had caught up with this country, I would have been one of the first people thrown in jail. --- Pete Seeger"

10/21/2005 11:11:05 PM

Quote :

"if people consistently elected that powerful central government in free and open elections because they liked how it was running things...that could certainly be democracy...why not?"

true democracy entails the people voting on everything with no central government involved

10/21/2005 11:19:38 PM

Quote :

"From what I understand Yugoslavia was a different kind of communism. Yugoslavia was one of those really well governed communism nations, it was no wonder they could not find anyone to replace him upon his death. "

you omitted, but i assume you mean Tito? yeah he wasnt perfect, but for the most part he tried to keep the country intact, which couldnt be said of latter nationalistic idiot leaders.

Quote :

"you mean to tell me that if a government wastes all its money on social programs, and saps every bit of efficiency and value out of an economy that it will be good while it lasts, but then will collapse? holy shit you deserve a nobel prize in economics!"

no. what i mean to tell you and you failed to comprehend is that communism may not ALWAYS be such a horrendous society as portrayed in this country. i was not aware that social programs that build country's infrastructure including roadways, bridges, two nuclear powerplants (in country that is size of the Kentucky), mines, oil fields, and irrigated fields are considered to be "waste of money".

by comparison (budget wise) considering how much money US is pouring into wars, we were straight up efficient.

$10 that ill be called a commie within 10 posts

[Edited on October 21, 2005 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2005 11:22:28 PM

When you said that, you did realize that we are barely spending 3% of our GDP to cover all of our defense, not just the wars.

As such, I assure you, Yogoslavia was spending a higher percentage on its military aparatus, such as it was.

10/22/2005 12:17:19 AM

yeah that was probably stupid comparison in the first place, but after all we are comparing number#1 economy in the world to former communist country ravaged by wars. still, if you want to say that US spends only 3% of its GDP on military then we should mention that USA public debt is 65% of its GDP, whereas YU it is 80%. not that much difference considering we had highest recorded inflation (i still have 10 billion dinars bill with me somewhere), communism, and wars. so whatever doesnt come out of GDP, comes from lenders and that part is not calculated in the GDP spending. bear in mind that in communism we didnt have lenders like in capitalism, so the only way to repay public debt was to print more money, which jacks up inflation even more.

[Edited on October 22, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : g]

10/22/2005 12:48:43 AM

Quote :

"true democracy entails the people voting on everything with no central government involved"

yeah ok...obviously i meant representative democracy

10/22/2005 1:35:30 AM

Communism works if you can convince everyone involved to work within the system.

Churches and businesses are microcosms of communism, in a way, but that's only because the people in each of those organizations are brainwashed to work as much as they can for the good of the company/church because hard work is a good, moral, righteous thing to do.

10/22/2005 2:25:45 AM

Is Democracy > Communism?

10/22/2005 2:51:28 AM

Democracy is more natural, practical, and stable than communism. If those are what define "greatness", then Democracy>Communism.

10/22/2005 2:54:54 AM

where do lazy people fit into communism?

10/22/2005 3:01:09 AM

There are jobs for lazy people.

10/22/2005 3:03:41 AM

Yugoslavia had good times because it had a semi-competent dictator keeping it from imploding in spite of all the many, many reasons it should have imploded. One could point to several instances wherein countries prospered for a while under a "benevolent dictator." Such a government has many of the benefits of democracy (government works for the people, and not exclusively for its own benefits...notice the "exclusively"), but without all the inefficiency.

However, pending our discovery of some vast intelligence that could select benevolent dictator types to run a country, that system, as has been said, is unsustainable. The good leader dies and a psycho replaces him.

---

In answer to the thread, a quick view of history leads me to the conclusion that no extreme works out. Flat out communism doesn't, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't, raging anti-government libertarianism or anarchism doesn't, iron-fisted dictatorship doesn't. A market that's free, but not too free, controlled, but not too controlled -- that's the winning bet. A government that's powerful, but not too powerful, restricted, but not too restricted -- same deal.

All extreme ideologies are based on, well, ideals -- near-perfections of human behavior on one end or the other that have not and will not ever manifest themselves on a nationwide scale. In spite of Kris's dream, the world is never going to be populated exclusively by unselfish people, and something comparable could be said for any other ideology.

The only way that works in the long run is the middle way.

10/22/2005 3:07:58 AM

^thread, he wins

10/22/2005 6:46:34 AM

Holy shit

Quote :

"Flat out communism doesn't, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't, raging anti-government libertarianism or anarchism doesn't, iron-fisted dictatorship doesn't. A market that's free, but not too free, controlled, but not too controlled -- that's the winning bet. A government that's powerful, but not too powerful, restricted, but not too restricted -- same deal."

Grumpy said something I agree with?!

10/22/2005 7:51:07 AM

^^^agreed.

10/22/2005 10:17:08 AM

In theory, communism would work. However, the aspects of greed and equality would detour people from actually working to their potential.

10/22/2005 10:28:25 AM

Quote :

""Flat out communism doesn't, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't, raging anti-government libertarianism or anarchism doesn't, iron-fisted dictatorship doesn't. A market that's free, but not too free, controlled, but not too controlled -- that's the winning bet. A government that's powerful, but not too powerful, restricted, but not too restricted -- same deal.""

Yeah, nail on head.

10/22/2005 10:34:25 AM

Quote :

"In theory, communism would work. However, the aspects of greed and equality would detour people from actually working to their potential."

"In theory it works," has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever made.

What makes it even worse is that usually people as in the example above follow it with stuff about how certain aspects of human nature would keep it from ever working. And if you believe that, then it means communism fails every bit as much in theory as it does in the attempts to experiment with it.

Secondly people who even think such a system might in anyway be a good idea are showing that they really have no concern for their basic rights as a human being - liberty and property.



[Edited on October 22, 2005 at 11:49 AM. Reason : ]

10/22/2005 11:43:51 AM

Quote :

"I'd like to remind you of who invented the satelite, one of the most important inventions of the 20th century. Soviet innovation was only later surpassed by American innovation."

A bunch of "relocated" German scientists left over from world war two? Under threat of violence? Yep.

10/22/2005 11:50:04 AM

Quote :

"Here's one for Kris..."

Here's a few for you:

Quote :

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. - FDR"

Quote :

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes"

Quote :

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics. - FDR"

Quote :

"When you said that, you did realize that we are barely spending 3% of our GDP to cover all of our defense, not just the wars."

It's still too much.

Quote :

"As such, I assure you, Yogoslavia was spending a higher percentage on its military aparatus, such as it was."

It has to. A functioning military takes a specific amount of money, not a specific percentage of GDP.

Quote :

"Is Democracy > Communism?"

Democracy and communism are not mutually exclusive. One is a political system and one is an economic one.

Quote :

"All extreme ideologies are based on, well, ideals -- near-perfections of human behavior on one end or the other that have not and will not ever manifest themselves on a nationwide scale."

Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the BALLS to be an extremeist?
Sorry, I love that Colbert quote.

10/22/2005 11:54:24 AM

And you must wonder why John Maynard Keynes and FDR have both been discredited. Sure, we like the guys, but only because we refrain from speaking ill of the dead.

And note he said "The liberty of a democracy is not safe" because this statement is 100% true. In any society there is the liberties reserved for individuals and those reserved by the state, in this case a Democracy. As individuals become wealthy they become more capable of defending their own liberty against that of the Democratic State. This is not a problem if you believe individual liberties should be protected, it is even a benefit if you believe the individual is already overly regulated.

You must decide if you believe individuals should be free or if the government should be free. Given our government is layed out in a constitutional republic, it seems the former is the assumption, at least until the socialists manage to defeat the US Constitution.

Quote :

"It has to. A functioning military takes a specific amount of money, not a specific percentage of GDP."

A functioning military takes a specific amount of troops, I could buy that. Since wages in America are several times that of Cuba it would make sense that we spend several times more on defense than Cuba. But to argue that as wages increase military spending should remain the same sounds silly.

[Edited on October 22, 2005 at 2:16 PM. Reason : reg]

10/22/2005 2:09:37 PM

Quote :

"And you must wonder why John Maynard Keynes and FDR have both been discredited. Sure, we like the guys, but only because we refrain from speaking ill of the dead."

I'm not big on economists but I'm going to go on a limb and say FDR was one of the best wartime president's this nation has ever had.

10/22/2005 2:33:25 PM

True. I often prefer to think of FDR of the 40s and FDR of the 30s. One has been discredited, the other will always be a war hero

10/22/2005 4:43:56 PM