Forms of Government

S_O_B_SlasherZ · Apr 22, 2002

This is just something to draw attention from all those religous debates.Where it seems who can throw the most monkey **** at who..anyways

I would just like to know what everyone thinks is the Most effective type of government.And refrain from turning this into a im going to quote you and then say your stupid then make my point were all adults here now play nice

Im going to say democracy just because every other form of government just doesnt work.Like Communism and most definitly socialism..which France will soon find out.Thats my two cents.

Massy · Apr 22, 2002

I can't see where you're going with the France strand, the presidential run-off is between a fascist and a conservative, which the conservative will win by a large majority. Le Pen is a socialist in the same way that blue is red. You appear to be a little confused.

Democracy is by far the best form of government, but like the terms "capitalism" (technically an economic system, but it's still relevant.) and "socialism" has been used and abused so much that they have ceased to lose all meaning and I don't even like to use them. Democracy literally means "rule by the poeple" but has so many different forms, from the practical one-party-masquerading-as-two of the US and the UK, to the ten-parties-in-a-coalition of most of Europe, to true soviet (Small 'S') democracy, in which the the state is slowly decentralised and deconstructed and decisions are made by the people that they affect.

the_puff · Apr 24, 2002

Although I believe strongly in Capitalist Democracy, I also believe that if Communism were to be handled properly, it would be a good form of government. The problem, however, is that for Communism to work, all the people involved must be trusted to fill their role without trying to cheat the system. This would work with a small group of people who can be easily monitored, but with a group even the size of a small town it becomes almost impossible. Inevitably, some people, usually those in power included, will try to cheat the system to get more than everyone else. This completely unbalances the entire system. If there was an efficient, effective method to ensure everyone would do their part (without infringing on the rights of the people), then I could agree that a system such as communism could work almost as well as a capitalist democracy.

jameslocke · Apr 24, 2002

Ah, the perfect government eh? this is a good topic indeed. i'm going to move away from the norm and try to outline a perfect government. first of all, capitalism is out. capitalism is very good at creating wealth, but very poor at distributing it. capitalism is only concerned with the bottom line, so individuals (and sometimes the environment) gets trampled on and disregarded. i lean towards a more socialist type government, where healthcare and social service systems are paid for by the government and are properly funded. capitalist health insurance is a joke. the only people who get coverage are the healthy ones. ever try getting health insurance if you have cancer? or tried paying for kemotherapy? doesnt work. therefore, the government provides healthcare equally for all people. people should be represented, so a democratically elected leader should be in power, with office replacement for that leader every X number of years. taxes should be paid in differing amounts, according to social status. the richer the person, the more taxes they pay. perhaps pay taxes based on X% of total assets. diplomacy should be a high priority, and military spending would not take up the most of the states budget. basic freedoms would be guaranteed (right to bear arms is not a basic freedom!) such as free expression (with restrictions, thats a given), food, shelter, clothing for all who needed it, and the right to life. preferably, the society would be built around a more eastern (buddhist, hindu, taoist, confucianist) thought/education system. understand that this would not be an enforced national religion, but a societal way of thinking. i'll add more when i have time, but feel free to tear this post to shreds, so long as as you provide reasons and explanations.

PimpLuigi · Apr 26, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Massy:from the practical one-party-masquerading-as-two of the US and the UK, <hr /></blockquote>amen to that, what the h3ll kinda democracy only has two parties? i mean it's like we kick one more and bam we're a dictatorship.

It reminds me of a simpson's episode where two aliens capture, then masquerade as Bob Dole and Bill Clinton then run for president.
When everyone finds out their aliens come voting time, someone (homer?) says maybe will vote for a third party. To which one(alien) replies, "go ahead, throw your vote away!"

I'd personally much rather be like Holland or some such with the ten party system, y'know like an actual real democracy? It's no wonder so many people don't vote- often time you hear- "it doesn't matter", or "both parties are crooked anyway". It's like what kind of icecream would you like? chocolate? or vanilla? well **** maybe i'm a strawberry man. Okay bad example, it makes no sense to me especially in a capitalist nation that more parties aren't introduced as competition, well i suppose they are- they just all fail miserably, so i guess it does make sense, our parties are just monopolies.

the electoral college is seriously effed up anyway, it's like some thirdparty leader could get all the votes and they can still vote for whoever they want to- what the **** is that?

alright rant done, on the topic, Democracy is the best government, just some democracies are better than others. (find the hidden allusion get a cookie!) capitalism is also stellar, because it fuels technology, even cures for diseases are largely fueled by how much money they'll make off 'em. you think people would be bust'in their *** to make smaller and faster everything, if there wasn't a demand for it? these space trips? people are paying money to go to space. alot of it. and though it's in a ton of sci-fi sheezo, i honestly believe recreational trips to the moon aren't that far off. Maybe not an amusement park like in futurama, but you get the idea. Money makes the world go round.

-Pimp

[ April 26, 2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: PimpLuigi ]

Bumble Bee Tuna · Apr 26, 2002

Could it be..."All animals are created equal...but some are more equal than others." the marvelous quote from the infinitely quotable George Orwell, in "Animal Farm"?
I want my cookie.
The best government, theoretically, is a dictatorship. Run by someone who knows what's best. Ha ha. There are countries that are supposedly under this form of government, and they call themselves democracies. It's fun.

-B

Massy · Apr 26, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Democracy is the best government, just some democracies are better than others.<hr /></blockquote>And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Actually, a benevolent dictatorship is possibly the best form of government, and a couple have existed. Catherine the Great perhaps, and Fredick the Great of Prussia. Possibly a few Roman emperors such as Hadrian and Claudius too.

Unfortunately, maintaining this is dÃ¡mned near impossible. Once the dictator is killed or dies of natural causes, a not-so benevolent dictator can easily slip into the massively centralised power structure and **** things up royally. Either that, or the dictator succumbs to "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I'm sticking with my soviet democracy.

[ April 26, 2002, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

XDaDePsak · Apr 27, 2002

Spectatorship, kinda like a dictatorship, but without the Dic... and the government isnt allowed to govern, only spectate...

Can you say ampersand?

PorCorpWis · May 13, 2002

Poor, poor stupid people. I'm referring to those that have been brainwashed into believing that a capitalist democracy like the United States is the best form of goverment, or the only one that could possibly work.

Any capitalist society is inherently flawed. If all people are created equal... why does one have more money than the other? Don't give me BS about how people who work harder deserve more money. In most cases, how hard you try doesn't decide how much money you get. To assume this is true is rediculous. The most "deserving" people are almost never the ones with the most money. And that's assuming you can say that one person "deserves" more money than another. What happened to equality?

Not to mention that it is morally wrong to be insanely wealthy. Is it right for one person to have money money than they could ever need or even want, while another starves? I'm sure that most people would say that is wrong. Now let's take it a step further. Is it right for someone to live in a two story house decked out with all sorts of expensive stuff while another person, one who works just as hard or harder, lives in a 3-room-house with nothing but a cot and a television? This is wrong too. As you can see, things become more "right" as they move toward equality.

So an ideal form of government must enforce true equality among people, including ECONOMIC EQUALITY.

Although historically communism has been associated with dictatorship, there's no reason that this needs to be so. A communist government with elected officials, ala a democracy, is just as possible.

So what do I think the ideal form of government is? A Communist Democracy... or a Representative Socialism... or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't really have a name, because no (important) country has tried it yet. Which is a shame.

[ May 13, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: PorCorpWis ]

Gilgamesh · May 13, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna:
Could it be..."All animals are created equal...but some are more equal than others." the marvelous quote from the infinitely quotable George Orwell, in "Animal Farm"?
I want my cookie.
The best government, theoretically, is a dictatorship. Run by someone who knows what's best. Ha ha. There are countries that are supposedly under this form of government, and they call themselves democracies. It's fun.

-B<hr /></blockquote>Wow! just what i was planning to sy. i loved that book. It DOES seem that a non-communist dictatorship is the best form of government, to me. The bad thing is, when the original, centralized dictator dies, the sucessors tend to be consecutively weaker or less-respected, which makes this kind of government a bit unstable in really long-term. Tis' a pity. But worry not, once we perfect dictatorship, every country will have one. joy!

And about communism... it always seems condemned to failure due to human nature.

(Just my politically incorrect opinion of the week)

[ May 13, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Gilgamesh ]

S_O_B_SlasherZ · May 13, 2002

Alright PorCorpWis or whatever your name is. Your taking the everybody is created equal thing out of context. A poor person and a rich person of the same rights.Freedom of Speech,right to bear arms,etc. Just because one has more money then the other doesnt mean he has more rights. Just means he owns more materialistcally(feeling thats spelled horribly wrong). If I go to college for 6 years to become a doctor and you drop out and get a job at McDonalds. Why should we make the same amount of money? What right do you have to decide I have too much money and that you need more of mine. Its not fair. That would drastically hurt the economy if wealth was spread out "equally". Why bother to go to college when someone else will and you can get a job at Blockbuster and make the same money. No one would have any drive to suceed because you could'nt.No matter how hard you would have worked you still would be making the same money working at Chic-Fila then going to college and becoming an aeronautical egineer. Also we have to understand that we are talking about governments runned by normal people. And people get power hungry and greedy and can be horribly evil. Thus being said this would mean that any kind of dictator ship will never ever ever work on this planet unless you can make a perfect person to lead your country forever. And if you can raise your hand.We'll thats my two cents..........

XDaDePsak · May 13, 2002

Wigporkjizz:

"If all people are created equal... why does one have more money than the other? Don't give me BS about how people who work harder deserve more money. In most cases, how hard you try doesn't decide how much money you get. To assume this is true is rediculous. The most "deserving" people are almost never the ones with the most money. And that's assuming you can say that one person "deserves" more money than another. What happened to equality?"

If everyone earned the same amount, there would be absolutley NO economic progress. Aside from that, everyone would pretty much have to do their own work... (farm their food, build their houses)
Basically, your ideal is the Amish lifestyle.

;-0

Gamer4Fire · May 13, 2002

Well, so far our American government has been the most stable. Although a benevolent dictatorship is the best, it is in no way stable. How do you keep the benevolence from one generation to the other? You can't, and that is the major flaw in that theory of government.

The American capitalist democracy isn't the best government, but it has proven to be very stable and although it has its flaws, its benefits have been able to overcome them.

The Fish · May 14, 2002

Capitalism is really the best form of goverment. Communism may sound nice and make everyone equal but it doesnt. All it does is breed poverty. Rulers are overwhelmed with power and greed and dirive nations downhill. I'll Explain it in a report I had to do.

So without further ado:

The Marxist economic system is based on Communism. In Communism, the government owns all, the government controls all, and the government determines all. Also in Communism, the government controls where you work. The basis of Communism is Socialism. Socialism is almost the same as Communism, but there are some rights to private property.
The idea of your giving the money you make to the government and receiving a fixed amount of food may seem great, but there are many things wrong with it.
First of all, it provides a perfect chance for the government to become a tyranny. With the government being in complete control, it can overtax or supply people with too little. It would control everything and could easily take away rights.
Secondly, it would create laziness. People would be given food for their little to no work. Also there would be no incentive to succeed or work. If all of their money was taken away, what would be the purpose of working really hard? Everyone would want easy jobs and therefore people would not put their all into hard, hi-stress jobs.
The third and final reason is that it would be unproductive and hard to run. If the government controls where you work and companies cannot fire the unproductive workers, it would be hard for companies to progress. If companies did not progress, they would not provide quality products and they would not come up with new ideas and ways of doing things. Also running a Communist nation is expensive and mismanagement could collapse it. Providing everyoneâ€™s healthcare, housing, and food costs a pretty penny. If the government overlooked something or overprovided, it could result in much debt for the nation. As you can see, it would troublesome.
Communism does not work due to manâ€™s sinful nature. The Marxist does not see this though, because they believe man is naturally good. They believe that if man can reach perfection, the system would work. Indeed, if man was not greedy, was not lazy, and could manage thing perfectly, then communism may be the perfect system. But since none of those are true, Communism could never work.

Also just to tell you guys, Communism does bring economic equality. Complete equality in poverty. So which do you think is better, a majority of people in middle class situations in Capitalism, or everyone on the streets in Communism? The choice is obvious. Capitalism.

[ May 14, 2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: The Fish ]

Bumble Bee Tuna · May 14, 2002

Actually, PCW, I fail to see the "wrongness" of your examples. Don't put words into my mouth (or in this case, ideas into my brain). If someone has more money, it is because they, or one of their relatives, worked harder. For the most part. That is fair. If someone takes a job with more risks and hardships, like being an ER doctor, they deserve more rewards to make up for their hardships. This is fair. A communist society, where the doctor gets the exact same benefits as someone working an easy job, cannot work, because the doctor sure as **** isn't getting a fair deal, and he's going to quit and take an easy job. Capitalism, for all its other flaws, is the way to get people to work hard, and hard work is what drives a successful society.

BTW, if you loved Animal Farm, by all means read 1984, which is much much better than Animal Farm, yet remains untouched because it's...scary. And it contains the sex! ahhhh! So nobody reads it in school. Shame, shame, shame.
It's also a marvelous book to make references to or quote from, as Massy so aptly showed us with "and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" (Substitute in Eurasia at your leisure).

"He who controls the past, controls the present. He who controls the present, controls the future." (or something like that. Enough tangential discussion, non?)

-B

PorCorpWis · May 15, 2002

Bumble Bee, the truth is that it's not always the person who works harder who makes more money. A lot of people work harder than athletes, but athletes are the ones making millions instead of the people who deserve it.

However, a society in which all people are economically equal reguardless of work is flawed as well, because there is no point to working hard. The results in a society full of lazy people.

Indeed, the biggest flaw of Marxist philosphy is that people are not perfect enough for a perfect society. People need an incentive to work hard.
How about something in-between? Instead of free enterprize, or no enterprize: regulated enterprize. A system in which the government can regulate to make sure that people are more or less equal, eliminating excessive poorness and richness, while not eliminating all incentive for hard work.

So much regulation seems like it's the fast track to tyranny, but using elected officials can prevent this from occuring.

The Fish · May 15, 2002

PCW, inequaility is a fact of life. I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "A system in which the government can regulate to make sure that people are more or less equal, eliminating excessive poorness and richness, while not eliminating all incentive for hard work." but do you suggest killing the unproductive workers? Also the giving the goverment more power does not solve anything. When a goverment is given all power it becomes corrupt. The Russian goverment had all power and now if you want something to be done you have to bribe some high official. Also, PCW, an athelete makes his millions of dollars because he is gifted at the sport he does, and the reason he is paid millions is because he is one of the best at it. However this does not meen a computer consultent cannot do the same. The computer consultent is not one of the best at the sport so he would not be paid millions of dollars. However the computer consultent is best at what he is doing right now. They both have equal oppertunity to become an athelete but the computer consultent chooses not to.

Massy · May 15, 2002

One day, when I am ruler of all earth, I plan to put a big, large ban on anyone discussing things they clearly know very little about. And thus I dissect this post down to its last detail.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Capitalism is really the best form of goverment.<hr /></blockquote>Capitalism, like socialism, takes many different forms. I'll assume, for the benefit of argument, that for capitalism you mean the system in place in say, the US at the moment. (This is not entirely capitalist, as is evidenced by the existence of socialist programs and bodies such as social security and trade unions.) If you were referring to say, anarcho-capitalism or something else, I stand corrected.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Communism may sound nice and make everyone equal but it doesnt. All it does is breed poverty.<hr /></blockquote>An unsupported statement with little to recommend it. As a communist state (or lack of the state) has never existed, I question what your assumptions are based on.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Rulers are overwhelmed with power and greed and dirive nations downhill. I'll Explain it in a report I had to do.<hr /></blockquote>This quote is it's own refutal. Surely a communistic state would not have an all-powerful leader. "The USSR did! China did!" you cry. Thus a country with a parasitic bureaucratic elite, as both these countries had, is not in anyway communist, and had far more in common with states such as Mussolini's Italy.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Marxist economic system is based on Communism.<hr /></blockquote>Wrong. The communist economic system is based on Marxist principles (or anarchist ones, which advocates the same final goal via different methods.)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In Communism, the government owns all, the government controls all, and the government determines all.<hr /></blockquote>Wrong, again. Look at the word. Communism. Comm-unity, comm-unal ownership. Communism as a word means nothing more than the common ownership of property. (As opposed to possessions - In Marxist/anarchist terms your land and means of pproduction are propoerty, as opposed to your possessions, your car etc.) Communism is not a system of government, but one of ownership. Everyone owns the property, and thus everyone has a say in what to do with it. Hence in a communist system of ownership, democracy is not an option, but a necessity.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also in Communism, the government controls where you work.<hr /></blockquote>And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The basis of Communism is Socialism. Socialism is almost the same as Communism, but there are some rights to private property.<hr /></blockquote>Like all of the terms on use here, "socialism" has been used and abused so much that it has lost most of it's meaning. The definition I favour is "democracy and the classless society." However, in Marxist terms (and this appears to be what you are referring to here) socialism is the process by which the state of communism is achieved. (This is why the USSR, whilst having very little to do with true socialism, named itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ie. They felt they were in the process of achieving communism via socialism.)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The idea of your giving the money you make to the government and receiving a fixed amount of food may seem great, but there are many things wrong with it.<hr /></blockquote>You seems to completely disregard the idea of taxes (giving money to the government) and benefits (receiving food). Die hard Libertarians would say that neither of these things are necessary, but then again these are pretty much like anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Critiques of Libertarianism aside however, without taxes or benefits how do you plan on keeping the government solvent or feeding the poor?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />First of all, it provides a perfect chance for the government to become a tyranny. With the government being in complete control, it can overtax or supply people with too little. It would control everything and could easily take away rights.<hr /></blockquote>You don't need a communistic government to take away rights. Nazi Germany ran on a capitalist mode of production, and one of the greatest free-marketeers in history was that lovely, lovely man, General Pinochet. Tyranny is tyranny, it makes no difference as what the ideology is that they use as a veil.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Secondly, it would create laziness. People would be given food for their little to no work.<hr /></blockquote>People who don't work deserve to starve to death then?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also there would be no incentive to succeed or work. If all of their money was taken away, what would be the purpose of working really hard? Everyone would want easy jobs and therefore people would not put their all into hard, hi-stress jobs.<hr /></blockquote>Here is the typical plutocratic assumption that the only reason one works is for money. Why be a nurse or a teacher when you can be a lawyer and make much more money? The satisfaction of doing something productive, doing what you want to be doing. Yes, money is clearly an incentive, but it is not the be-all and end-all, as then people would simply hurl themselves into the highest-paying job that they could.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The third and final reason is that it would be unproductive and hard to run. If the government controls where you work and companies cannot fire the unproductive workers, it would be hard for companies to progress.<hr /></blockquote>You mean, it would be harder for the companies to make obscene profits with which to gift its shareholders while the "unproductive" struggle for existence having been laid off. Due to capitalism's cyclic nature, its ebb and flow, people are laid off not because they are unproductive, but because they are expendable. In a communist society, those who work in a factory own the factory, and the goods are made not for profit, but so that goods can be made and the workers can be paid without excess value being derived from their labours.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If companies did not progress, they would not provide quality products and they would not come up with new ideas and ways of doing things.<hr /></blockquote>Careful, you're coming dangerously close to making a good point there. The fact that in their desire to make a profit, companies do new and interesting things is a given. However, this can happen without the driving force of profit. Something like Linux is a prime example of this.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Also running a Communist nation is expensive and mismanagement could collapse it. Providing everyoneâ€™s healthcare, housing, and food costs a pretty penny. If the government overlooked something or overprovided, it could result in much debt for the nation. As you can see, it would (be)troublesome.<hr /></blockquote>The point is moot, the government does not indeed, can not control every aspect of every person's life. In a true communist system, people would control their own lives.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Communism does not work due to manâ€™s sinful nature.<hr /></blockquote>Ugh, how very "Adam ate the apple, and thus we are all tainted!"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Marxist does not see this though, because they believe man is naturally good. They believe that if man can reach perfection, the system would work. Indeed, if man was not greedy, was not lazy, and could manage thing perfectly, then communism may be the perfect system. But since none of those are true, Communism could never work.<hr /></blockquote>I am a Marxist. I do not believe man is inherently good or "sinful" (Ha.) I believe that men will do what is in their own self interest. Inevitably however, self interests will clash. This is why it is in everyone's best interest to co-operate rather than to compete. (We're not hunter gatherers any more, Darwin does not apply here.) People work better in groups, and thus communism is a compromise between the equal self-interests of different people each deriving the maximum from life that is not at the expense of others. And yes, everyone is equal. (Which does not mean "the same", as should be obvious.)

[ May 15, 2002, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

The Fish · May 15, 2002

Wow, you really riped my post to shreds, Massy. Nice job. I think you hit nearly every sentence. I'm gonna try to do the same.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Capitalism, like socialism, takes many different forms. I'll assume, for the benefit of argument, that for capitalism you mean the system in place in say, the US at the moment. (This is not entirely capitalist, as is evidenced by the existence of socialist programs and bodies such as social security and trade unions.) If you were referring to say, anarcho-capitalism or something else, I stand corrected. <hr /></blockquote>By Capitalism I meen the form of Capitalism where the goverment takes away some of your money do to taxes in order to support itself. The goverments job should be to create laws, manage internationsl affairs, and keep order which would include punnishing those who break the laws. However I do not belive the goverment should provide things such as schooling, due to the fact the parents should decide where their child goes to school.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> An unsupported statement with little to recommend it. As a communist state (or lack of the state) has never existed, I question what your assumptions are based on. <hr /></blockquote>Yes it has exisited. The USSR was fully communist. If you ever looked at the photographs of the nation at the time poverty was everywhere. History shows there was poverty and people who have lived there have written books showing so. Also just to show you how cruel the USSR was at the time read the book Tortuered for Christ. The tribulations the goverment put him through for no good reason are unbeliveable.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> This quote is it's own refutal. Surely a communistic state would not have an all-powerful leader. "The USSR did! China did!" you cry. Thus a country with a parasitic bureaucratic elite, as both these countries had, is not in anyway communist, and had far more in common with states such as Mussolini's Italy. <hr /></blockquote>When a ruler has all power, with such in communism, he can become intoxincated with it. Stalin loved having power so much that he would sit back stage for long periods of time just to hear the people clap in his honor. Because man is naturely evil and greedy he will take every oppertunity to recive power. Ultimately communist leaders would become so greedy that they would become Mussolinis, Hitlers, and Stalins.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Wrong. The communist economic system is based on Marxist principles (or anarchist ones, which advocates the same final goal via different methods.) <hr /></blockquote>Any fully Marxist state would take on the economic systemm of communism so indeed I am right. Sorry if it was misphrased a bit.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Wrong, again. Look at the word. Communism. Comm-unity, comm-unal ownership. Communism as a word means nothing more than the common ownership of property. (As opposed to possessions - In Marxist/anarchist terms your land and means of pproduction are propoerty, as opposed to your possessions, your car etc.) Communism is not a system of government, but one of ownership. Everyone owns the property, and thus everyone has a say in what to do with it. Hence in a communist system of ownership, democracy is not an option, but a necessity. <hr /></blockquote>Yes it may be Co-everything but indeed the goverment is the actual owner. The people may have some say on what is done with peices of property but ultimately the goverment chooses what will hapen. So I am correct again.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
<hr /></blockquote>I have no idea what to make of this so I am just going to ignore it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You seems to completely disregard the idea of taxes (giving money to the government) and benefits (receiving food). Die hard Libertarians would say that neither of these things are necessary, but then again these are pretty much like anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Critiques of Libertarianism aside however, without taxes or benefits how do you plan on keeping the government solvent or feeding the poor? <hr /></blockquote>Sorry, it is taxes but they are heavy. The goverment takes nearly all of it and gives you food. But I do not belive this is the goverments role but the people should be able to provide for themselves.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You don't need a communistic government to take away rights. Nazi Germany ran on a capitalist mode of production, and one of the greatest free-marketeers in history was that lovely, lovely man, General Pinochet. Tyranny is tyranny, it makes no difference as what the ideology is that they use as a veil. <hr /></blockquote>I never said you needed a communist goverment to take away rights however it is much easier for the goverment to do so and ultimately the goverment will.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> People who don't work deserve to starve to death then? <hr /></blockquote>Yes, work is a fact of life. Everyone needs to be productive. However if there are phisical limitations there should be exceptions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Here is the typical plutocratic assumption that the only reason one works is for money. Why be a nurse or a teacher when you can be a lawyer and make much more money? The satisfaction of doing something productive, doing what you want to be doing. Yes, money is clearly an incentive, but it is not the be-all and end-all, as then people would simply hurl themselves into the highest-paying job that they could. <hr /></blockquote>Lets use some logic hear. Would you rather take an easy job or a job that takes hard work, your constant attention, and would involve high stress?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> You mean, it would be harder for the companies to make obscene profits with which to gift its shareholders while the "unproductive" struggle for existence having been laid off. Due to capitalism's cyclic nature, its ebb and flow, people are laid off not because they are unproductive, but because they are expendable. In a communist society, those who work in a factory own the factory, and the goods are made not for profit, but so that goods can be made and the workers can be paid without excess value being derived from their labours. <hr /></blockquote>First of all, yes, workers are laid off because they are unprofitable and unworth saving. That is the point of laying them off. Ultimately, the owner of the company wants his business to suceed, doing so he has to elimate what is preventing him from doing so. Second, if you where in a communistic economy and one or more of your workers was unprofitable and I could not fire him do to the legal system, your business would have a hard time making a good profit.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Careful, you're coming dangerously close to making a good point there. The fact that in their desire to make a profit, companies do new and interesting things is a given. However, this can happen without the driving force of profit. Something like Linux is a prime example of this. <hr /></blockquote>I do agree with you, it can happen, but it happens way more frequently when there is an incentive.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The point is moot, the government does not indeed, can not control every aspect of every person's life. In a true communist system, people would control their own lives. <hr /></blockquote>What I am saying there is it is hard for the goverment to perfectly give every man according to his needs. Also thanks for correcting my typing mistake in the quote.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Ugh, how very "Adam ate the apple, and thus we are all tainted!" <hr /></blockquote>It is true. All men have a nature to do evil. So yes, communism cannot work do to man's tendency to do evil.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I am a Marxist. I do not believe man is inherently good or "sinful" (Ha.) I believe that men will do what is in their own self interest. Inevitably however, self interests will clash. This is why it is in everyone's best interest to co-operate rather than to compete. (We're not hunter gatherers any more, Darwin does not apply here.) People work better in groups, and thus communism is a compromise between the equal self-interests of different people each deriving the maximum from life that is not at the expense of others. And yes, everyone is equal. (Which does not mean "the same", as should be obvious.) <hr /></blockquote>Yes, every man is equal, but there is no way to make every man in the same class. Men do work better together in groups, and they can work together in capitalism. However I fail to see the "togetherness" in communism do to the fact that everything is maneged by the goverment.

S_O_B_SlasherZ · May 16, 2002

Communism does not work, period. Show me one country that has survived on Communism and isnt thrid world. Also when we talk about Communism causing poverty lets look at todays biggest communist country which would be China. And there is poverty everywhere there.

Lets face it. Some people don't work to get money but work to be productive, but the majoriy of people work to get more money. If everyone is making the same amount no reason to push yourself if your going to do the same as everyone else.
We'll thats my two cents...

Massy · May 16, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yes it has exisited. The USSR was fully communist. If you ever looked at the photographs of the nation at the time poverty was everywhere. History shows there was poverty and people who have lived there have written books showing so. Also just to show you how cruel the USSR was at the time read the book Tortuered for Christ. The tribulations the goverment put him through for no good reason are unbeliveable.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Communism does not work, period. Show me one country that has survived on Communism and isnt thrid world. Also when we talk about Communism causing poverty lets look at todays biggest communist country which would be China. And there is poverty everywhere there.<hr /></blockquote>*Slaps forehead and drags hand down face, quietly weeping*

Let me rephrase, in big letters.

THE USSR WAS NOT COMMUNIST.
CHINA IS NOT COMMUNIST. (It's in the ****ing WTO for christs sake! Are you ****ing morons?)
CUBA IS NOT COMMUNIST. (Although it hasn't done too badly.)
NORTH KOREA IS NOT COMMUNIST.

The term "communist" is merely newspeak for "Stalinist." A communist nation involves the communal ownership of property, not government ownership of property. It must be democratic in order to ensure its own survival. I have a feeling that this is about as useful as driving nails into my own fingers, and have a worse one that I will never be able to correct your obvious and massive misconceptions. If you're going to argue against communism, fine, there's plenty to argue against if you do so properly, but if you don't know what it is then I humbly refer you to rule four of this board. No blatant acts of ignorance. I request that you read some Marx, or be very, very quiet indeed. *Sigh* Ooohhh Gaaamer...

[ May 16, 2002, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]

S_O_B_SlasherZ · May 16, 2002

OK Massy I went to the CIA's site and got some info for a report I will post the adress up here tommorow I misplaced it anyways it says China is a Communist country.

So maybe were wrong and if we are so is the CIA. And if we are wrong then name a Communist country.
We'll as always theres my two cents........

PorCorpWis · May 16, 2002

Massy, I salute you. You know everything I wish I knew about communism and socialism, thank you for enlightening me. I fully agree with what you said.

SlasherZ and The Fish are morons. I just had to say that. They don't have a **** clue what they're talking about.

The Fish · May 17, 2002

Actually we do have a **** clue what were talking about.

Ok, if you really claim that China, Cuba, and Russia where never communist, even though clissified so by our nations offcials, and self admited by that nations leaders I'll go with that. But there is one example that I can give you that I know had a Communist set up. In America's beginings, when there was not a absolute form of goverment, the colonie of Jamestown used a Communal (Communist) form of doing things. Shortly after the colonie almost starved to death because no one would work and yes, what saved the town from certain destruction was Capitalism. Now please give me one area that used Communism that became a great success.

Massy · May 19, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Actually we do have a **** clue what were talking about.<hr /></blockquote>Answer me one question then.

Have. You. Ever. Read. Marx?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ok, if you really claim that China, Cuba, and Russia where never communist,<hr /></blockquote>Well, I'm glad we got that straight.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Even though clissified so by our nations offcials, and self admited by that nations leaders I'll go with that.<hr /></blockquote>The Soviet Union, and Maoist China - China is almost completely capitalist now, only paying lip service to Chairman Mao because people still look fondly back to the day when the communists (rightly) booted the corrupt nationalists out of the country - when these countries were under totalitarian rule, they designated themselves "socialist" as they had not yet achieved "communism". However, seeing as socialism is (In my opinion) defined best as "democracy and the classless society" and not Cuba nor the CCCP or Red China had either of these things, we can draw two conclusions: Neither were these countries socialist, nor were they communist. I prefer to use the term "collectivism" but "Stalinism" and "state capitalism" also work. Indeed "fascism" would be more accurate than "communism."

Do not forget that the same American government that designated them "communist" mainly did so for propaganda purposes, in order to better differentiate themselves from "Good, wholesome American capitalism." Thus attacking not the opressive tendencies of these countries, but their economic system. Stupid. In the cold war, both sides did for bull**** what what Stonehenge did for rocks.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But there is one example that I can give you that I know had a Communist set up. In America's beginings, when there was not a absolute form of goverment, the colonie of Jamestown used a Communal (Communist) form of doing things. Shortly after the colonie almost starved to death because no one would work and yes, what saved the town from certain destruction was Capitalism. Now please give me one area that used Communism that became a great success.<hr /></blockquote>This is more like it. Before, tribes (Like Amazonian indians) or communities (Such as the Amish) have lived in "communal" circumstances, and the former have survived for thousands of years. However, seeing as they do not have control of the means of production (As is detailed in Das Kapital, which I'm assuming you've never read) they cannot achieve a truly classless society, but something very similar. Even so, these societies have survived on a more or less communist basis for a long time.

The standard rebuttal for this is that these are "backward" societies, and that to advance, capitalism is needed Additionally, it can only work on a small scale. I refute the former: the assumption that these people are "backward" is foolish. ("Helping one another in relative peace? Backward! They'd all be better off with some guns and money!") And profit is merely an incentive to progress, not it's sole cause and driving force.

However, it does work on a small scale. In neighbourhoods, communities, tribes, whatever. But what, I ask, is a nation or country or the human race but millions of these communities? In my opinion some kind of pyramid system is needed, so that these communities, with their elected soviets, form the basis of our society rather than the state or the religon or the dollar. (Actually, the last two kinda overlap.)

[ May 22, 2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Massy ]

Crono · May 27, 2002

Mao Zedong died back in the 1970's.

Every country that has ever been labeled Communist has been labeled thusly because the Communist party (just like a republican, democratic, green parties) gained the majority in the national government. These Communist parties started off with the good intentions of communism, but in time they realized maintaining such a society was too difficult--people rebelled of poor conditions, education was poor, lack of government funding, etc. So the governments had to emplore force and restrict the rights of the people to prevent anarchy and an irrepairable economy. This is where the "commies" strayed off the road into fascism, totalitarianism, or capitalism (yet maintaining a dictatorship). Anyway, my point is the Communist party should not be affiliated with the communist philosophy.

And now my thoughts:
This little republic democracy of the United States doesn't suit me. The fact that we really have only two parties corrupts elected officials into following the ideals of their party rather than their own just so they can win another term. The people voting for these representatives don't get what they asked for like this. I guess what I'm saying is the citizens don't get enough say; the officials they elect can change their original ideals. But then there is a problem with that: too many voters are uneducated on their vote and do it just to say they voted. The highly educated of the country ultimately do not have enough influence in the government. I must be straying off my original topic now..
Religion has gotten too involved with politics in this country as well. A man running for president might be the most perfect candidate you could ever ask for, but he is an atheist or any nonchristian. The votes that would go to him do not, all because he is not the religion of the majority in the United States. Look in Congress; I don't think any Congressmen aren't Christian or Jewish. Religion does play a role in politics, and that really cannot be changed.

I also want to point out that equality is a myth. We may all be born equal, covered in mucous and all, but as our lives progress, the mucous goes away.. er, we lose that balance of equality. People gain wealth, have higher IQs, have greater strength.. most importantly with the intelligence (intelligence is the main benefactor that has made our species unrivaled on this planet). I would never consider myself equal with a kid who has failed 7th grade three times and gets wasted everyday. I don't care how pompous I sound, but I am better than that person. If we were all cannibals, he'd be the first to end up in the toilet. Scum like that can make no benefit on society and should be destroyed as soon as possible. They are a poison, plain and simple. It would be an insult to say that he is equal to me.

[ May 27, 2002, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Crono ]

Forms of Government

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

Agent Smith

Dolphin-Safe

BRoomer

BRoomer

Smash Ace

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

PyroGamer

Smash Rookie

Dolphin-Safe

Smash Ace

Smash Rookie

BRoomer

Smash Rookie

Smash Apprentice

BRoomer

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Smash Rookie

BRoomer

BRoomer

Information

Network