PDA

View Full Version : Communism or Democracy


Red Gyarados
05-12-2006, 12:19 AM
If you were the presedent of a country would make it a communist goverment or a democracy?

A. Democracy

Seven
05-12-2006, 09:36 AM
Gf, as said in the thread you stole this "subject" from, democracy and capitalism aren't opposites, capitalism and communism are. You obviously know nothing about this, so why would you want to debate.

Oh, and it's not as if the President/Prime Minister decides how he's going to shape society and economy one morning. :\.

I fear this thread will become some sort of hillbilly "OH MAH LORD WE HATE DAT COMMUNISM!!!!1!1!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!1!"

silverfrost
05-12-2006, 03:28 PM
I would undoubtedly wake up one morning and say to myself, "Gee, this country needs to be completely communist."

Seven
05-12-2006, 03:38 PM
I would undoubtedly wake up one morning and say to myself, "Gee, this country needs to be completely communist."

Me too! Gf, if I were president, I'd be..."oh hell, I know communism according to Marx goes bottom-up, but what the heck! I'll do it :D!"

Ironshell Blastoise
05-12-2006, 03:53 PM
I would undoubtedly wake up one morning and say to myself, "Gee, this country needs to be completely communist."

I would wake up and vote for you to be the first lesbian president only if I get video surveillance of your bedroom/shower ;)

Lesbianism is obviously the greater form of government.

boltAge
05-12-2006, 06:44 PM
What political systems do the cities in the Pokemon world have?

Alonso
05-13-2006, 11:06 PM
Gf, as said in the thread you stole this "subject" from, democracy and capitalism aren't opposites, capitalism and communism are. You obviously know nothing about this, so why would you want to debate.

Oh, and it's not as if the President/Prime Minister decides how he's going to shape society and economy one morning. :\.

I fear this thread will become some sort of hillbilly "OH MAH LORD WE HATE DAT COMMUNISM!!!!1!1!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!1!"
That isn't completely true. Socialism is actually capitalisms rival.
Communism is a type of socialism.

Seven
05-13-2006, 11:25 PM
That isn't completely true. Socialism is actually capitalisms rival.
Communism is a type of socialism.

I know but, this thread's about communism so...why bother making the distinction when this thread doesn't call for it? It's obvious that communism is the most well known form of socialism.

Alonso
06-07-2006, 04:26 AM
I know but, this thread's about communism so...why bother making the distinction when this thread doesn't call for it? It's obvious that communism is the most well known form of socialism.
Yeah...and I think a lot of people fail to realize that communism is a form of socialism.

Need Help:

Need some pros and cons of socialism ASAP: I think it would be better not to start a new thread on a topic that has already been covered in two different threads. Can I please get some good answers? Nothing like "socialism is dumb because of this and that and because it opposes america." No...nothing like that

Kenny_C.002
06-07-2006, 04:01 PM
Yeah...and I think a lot of people fail to realize that communism is a form of socialism.

Need Help:

Need some pros and cons of socialism ASAP: I think it would be better not to start a new thread on a topic that has already been covered in two different threads. Can I please get some good answers? Nothing like "socialism is dumb because of this and that and because it opposes america." No...nothing like that
Pros: well idealistically if it runs its course perfectly, it's so called "nearly perfect".

Cons: it's never perfect due to:
1. corruption
2. economic slowdown
3. increased instances of poverty

Dunno. Don't care. XD

absol2005
06-07-2006, 05:46 PM
My father is a communist. :x

Incongruity
06-07-2006, 08:09 PM
Pros: well idealistically if it runs its course perfectly, it's so called "nearly perfect".

Cons: it's never perfect due to:
1. corruption
2. economic slowdown
3. increased instances of poverty

Dunno. Don't care. XD
Well if the world was made up of three billion mes and three billion female-mes, it would be perfect and communism would work.



Of course, the world is still greedy, lazy, manipulative, arrogant, idiotic, inconsiderate, and Caucasian, so this kind of thing would never work.

Oh, and IMO, democracy doesn't work in any unit of more than 500,000 eligible voters anyways.

So none of the above for me.

Alonso
06-07-2006, 08:57 PM
Hold on...wasn't there something about freedoms being taken away.
So far, a con in the theory is that some freedoms are taken away.

Oops maybe I should've have been more specific. I want pros...actually mostly cons, of the communist or socialist theory. If you get pros and cons of the way the communist and socialist states work today the thing is full of flaws. I just want flaws in the theory.

Seawolf
06-07-2006, 09:24 PM
What political systems do the cities in the Pokemon world have?

Does the Pokemon world even have a political system? :eh:

TDD91
06-07-2006, 09:34 PM
It is a fact that there is actually no true democratic ystem, and the only one ever was the Ancient Athenians who selected their leaders by lot from a pot every year, and they did this every single year, with a council made of each of the tribes of Athens ruling each month. The oly position you were actually appointed to was Army General, as naturally that was a very important role.

Alonso
06-07-2006, 10:28 PM
Does the Pokemon world even have a political system? :eh:

No it does not...it's just a fantasy world.
If Pokemon did exist and people actually went to catch them and stuff, then who would do important jobs like doctors, lawyers, scientists. I figure that almost everybody would want to be a pokemon trainer. The world of pokemon to me seems impossible to maintain itself. Then again if pokemon was seen as sport then maybe it wouldn't attract everybody and there would be people seeking out a career, though I highly doubt it. How would Gym Leaders make a living...they make no money. How do parents of pokemon trainers make a living? They would go to work, but what if the parents were pokemon trainers and they did not work? Complicated, huh? Unless someone very clever can help solve the problem. Guess there is no politics in Pokemon.

My father is a communist. :x
Big Whoop.

Kenny_C.002
06-07-2006, 11:04 PM
Hold on...wasn't there something about freedoms being taken away.
So far, a con in the theory is that some freedoms are taken away.

Oops maybe I should've have been more specific. I want pros...actually mostly cons, of the communist or socialist theory. If you get pros and cons of the way the communist and socialist states work today the thing is full of flaws. I just want flaws in the theory.
Problem here is that it's all theory. Theoretically socialism is perfect. It's the practical side of things that makes it flawed.

plasmaball3000
06-09-2006, 11:06 PM
Problem here is that it's all theory. Theoretically socialism is perfect. It's the practical side of things that makes it flawed.

Yeah, it's people that pretty much screw everything up. What annoys me, however, is how people look at all the "communist" states and how they all fail, and thus use this as a way of discounting all their beliefs. But it's not their beliefs that always cause the problems - it's the elite few that always manage to mess up the world. A true communist state will pretty much never exist, but that doesn't mean that certain socialist ideologies cannot exist and better the world. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed, it doesn't mean that privatized social security is a good things (which is a connection I hear about far too often).

CHAMPION Victoria
06-11-2006, 12:58 AM
Socialism is flawed both in theory and in practice. There is nothing worse in this world than socialism.

Socialism is the savior of mediocrity, inferiority, and indolence.

Kenny_C.002
06-11-2006, 01:32 AM
Socialism is flawed both in theory and in practice. There is nothing worse in this world than socialism.

Socialism is the savior of mediocrity, inferiority, and indolence.
Victoria, though you can see the flaws of socialism in practice, you have failed to realize that by being brought up by a capitalistic country, you are in absolutely no position to judge socialism's theory. That's just being hypocritical.

Alonso
06-13-2006, 12:34 AM
Victoria, though you can see the flaws of socialism in practice, you have failed to realize that by being brought up by a capitalistic country, you are in absolutely no position to judge socialism's theory. That's just being hypocritical.
What if she lived in a communist country. Ah, never thought about that. But the chances of someone have lived in a communist country is small. There were always a lot more capitalist countries than communist.
Problem here is that it's all theory. Theoretically socialism is perfect. It's the practical side of things that makes it flawed.
Just like Demcracy. (BTW, I do know that Capitalism is the oppostion of communism and socialism. I just brought democracy up because it is another example.)

I don't know if I have brought this up before but a friend once told me:
Communism is morally right but economically wrong and Capitalism is morally wrong but economically right
Do you agree with him?

Kenny_C.002
06-15-2006, 03:56 AM
What if she lived in a communist country. Ah, never thought about that. But the chances of someone have lived in a communist country is small. There were always a lot more capitalist countries than communist.

Quite obviously as a person who lived in a communist country, I KNOW the mindframe of a collectivist culture. Thus, I know instantaneously that she is, of course, hypocritical, brought up in the mindframe of a western country.

Just like Demcracy. (BTW, I do know that Capitalism is the oppostion of communism and socialism. I just brought democracy up because it is another example.)

Understand that you've set up the thread as a compare and contrast thread, thus it is natural for us to step back and say "whoa there, this should be capitalism vs. socialism." I see nothing wrong with that.

Now as for the theory of democracy, truth be told it's a flawed system (Bush comes into mind here, sorry guys), and the system can easily be manipulated and twisted to favour certain people. Thus you're partially right in it that democracy is perfect.

Why partially? Simply said, the flaw in the system is elections themselves. It's economically not viable for someone to serve 4-5 years (i.e. serve until next election), and thus many of the economic policies are shortsighted rather than long-term (business cycles run in 50-60 year cycles, policies should anticipate these fluctuations in the business cycle to keep the economy in tip top shape, to soften the downslides as much as possible).

Do you agree with him?

No. If you examine both sides, they both contribute in part to how an economy should be run (e.g. socialism's "work for life" idea is a much better idea than the "union" idea that capitalism cranked out. On one side, you have happy labour, the other side, you have angry labour, always fighting against management).

Morality is subject to different people. To say that capitalism is less moral than socialism is stupid. Socialism stems from a collectivist mindframe, whereas capitalism stems from a individualist mindframe. Neither should be considered right or wrong, or whether either is more moral than the other.

I'll leave one thing to contribute for the mindset of the people:

Imagine a school of fish, and a single fish apart from the group and in front of this school.

Incongruity
06-15-2006, 03:50 PM
Oh come on, people. How are we still going on about this?

If you think about it, the only REAL reason that a strong federalist democracy (like in the US, and almost every other major nation-state in the world) is even needed is because of the idea "united we stand." Theoretically, if we unite, we'll have more power. But why do we even need power? Why do we even need centralization? In reality, the group as a whole only needs it for military and defense purposes, but only the weaker members need the "united power" for other things. The weaker members, for example, Wyoming in the United States, provide little and rely on subsidization. The stronger members, for example, California, provide a lot, and only get minimal military protection.

What do I think? I think we should decentralize federal power in all areas but the military, and instead of making a Union of states, make it a Defense-Pact. This will encourage local elections too. Currently, local elections are notorious for having an EXTREMELY low turnout. Yet, local elections are where people have most power. In elections of hundreds of millions, one party could gain a majority, but still have a hundred million people completely dissatisfied. This kind of centralization is ridiculous. I don't want to be forced by some **** hundreds of miles away to follow a policy that I heartily disagree with, nor do I wish very strongly to impose my policies on someone hundreds of miles away. The only reason I rely on the federal government at all is for military protection (or now, mostly military clout). The essentials of government, as in the Fire Department, Police Department, Health Services, and Education can all be provided by the State or Municipal government. Federal funding? Please. If we didn't have excessive federal taxation, and instead distributed those funds to where they belong, as in the state and municipal treasuries, funding would be exponentially more effective. Why? Areas of high gross income like California, Texas, and New York wouldn't be forced to subsidize the millions of pork projects of US Congressmen. With all this pork gone, there would be many times more funds. There would be MORE, NOT less funds for research, education, safety, protection services, etc. And, several states could always join together for the few issues that affected them all (as they would presumably be forced to because of a desire to well, live)

My idea? De-centralized federation of states, each with a democratic system. Except, instead of a voting pool of 200 million, I'd like a voting pool of like, 5 million MAX for the big states. And even then, I'd like only people who take ten very different IQ tests and average over 120 to be allowed to vote. In fact, I'd like people to be genetically predetermined prior to birth as to whether they should be allowed to vote or not.

Crossfire Chaos
06-20-2006, 12:30 AM
My idea? De-centralized federation of states, each with a democratic system. Except, instead of a voting pool of 200 million, I'd like a voting pool of like, 5 million MAX for the big states. And even then, I'd like only people who take ten very different IQ tests and average over 120 to be allowed to vote. In fact, I'd like people to be genetically predetermined prior to birth as to whether they should be allowed to vote or not.

I love this idea. SK.

The deffinition of Communism:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

See? theoretical. It has never been the true goverment of anywhere, it is an IDEAL. Communism can't even be compared to democracy, socialism, ect... This is because it is not a form of goverment. What communism is closest to is civilized anarcy, while this may be considered an oximoron, it is true that such a thing could exist if everyone was raised correctly. People should grow to love one another no matter who they are. In this ideal everyone is part of one huge family. They look out for one another, care for one another and protect eachother. They work because they want to, not because they need to, and they share what they get with everyone who needs it.

Now, I'm not sure that such a thing could exist, but attempts have been made twice notably already. The first time Communism lasted for 70 days, the second for 70 years. Could the third possibly last for 700? or forever? With robotic technology just over the horison there will be no need at all for people to work, they could have fun all day and be fed an clothed. They would work because they are bored with having fun and want to contribute to the society.

Anyway to everyone who thinks Communism is what the USSR and all those other countries had. I'd like to tell you your wrong. Do you even know what USSR stands for? Union of Socialist State Republics. They are all Socialisms. This is the definition of socialism.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

That is exactly what the USSR was. People worked for the country as a whole, but a central omni-potent group of people was what controlled the econimy and production. They ordered certain people to do this and others to do that. Nobody except those in power were happy because nobody chose what they did. It was all forced. If you look at it closely the definition is very close to Dictatorship. Definition:

A government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives.

AKA: absolutism, autarchy, autocracy, despotism, monocracy, tyranny.

See, this is why people hated what the USSR had. It was just called communism because those in power wanted to keep it. Namely the people who controlled the democracy in the US and did not want there populace to believe the ideal of Communism was actualy a good thing. Propaganda at work again, just like the USSR did in it's own country against Democracy. (less power for the people in power.)

Now I won't even go into Representitive Democracy, but I'll tell you it is easily corrupted, because only a few hundred people make the decisions, it is not based on the vote of the populace at all, those are just lies to get you to believe you have a say. In fact, a well run mafia has the power and the money to controll the entire goverment. (or portion if you don't believe me. )

But the fact that something like that could happen (even though its crazy) only proves that humans who have no morals tend to be the leaders of all forms of goverment. Marx and Lenin were both for the Ideal of Communism, and after corrupted individuals found it could be to there advantage, they staged a charade and conqured the USSR without opposition from anyone but the Tzar, who in a sense treated his people better then the Socialism did. If you ever get the chance, read Animal Farm It's located >here< (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/)
Mr. Jones represents Tzarism and it's downfall. And Old Major represents Marx/Lenin.

Wow. That was a long post, but I think I made my point. Go ahead and disagree, but if you say that Communism = USSR, then your wrong and you know it.

And just for the record. Yes, I was born in Keiv, Ukraine. Yes, I am Russian. Yes, I do know portions of the USSR's national anthem. Don't tell me I'm biased. I'm not, I've lived in the USA since i was 10 months old, that has only shown me that goverments are a cruel thing. And I have seen propaganda at work, in my school this year I just recently saw a video that "depicted" all forms of goverment. Representitive-Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Dictatorship and Monarcy. Anarcy made an apearance here an there. Everything but R-D and Socialism were shown as goverments from hell. Which suprised me seeing as Socialism was what the USSR actualy had. They also said France was a socialism. (that's not true it is?) Afterwards people voted on which goverment was best. Majority picked R-D and Socialism. A couple picked Dictatorship because they wanted to be asses and I and another picked Communism. He was an ass too and said he picked it because he liked the color red. And when I tried to explain myself when the teacher called on me immediatly the whole class ganged up on me and the teacher said. "<name> your wrong. The video clearly shows that your just saying a bunch of lies."

Anyway, sorry for taking time out of your day so you can read this. I promise that I won't get all angry if you decided to disagree.