Communism works very, very well on a small scale. If
You take a larger country though it begins to fall apart. Plus, it's immensly simple for a dictator to rrule a Communist country.

Communism works on paper, not in real life.

At 4/26/09 04:11 AM, LordAdon wrote: Overall, the problem with communism is greed. Although communism has potential, it is often brutally mutilated y communist dictators. They have too much greed, and the ram their country into the ground (STALIN). Also, the greed of the citizens. In communism, everyone works to benefit the other person, not themselves. The natural selfishness of man can then lead to the nation's demise.

I say, under a good government, that knows what they are doing, communism is good.

This is what I believe. I believe in equality, for everyone, every race, gender. The whole system could really work well. Too bad most people are too stupid to look at this. Their shallow mindedness, and their elders feeding them propaganda will keep them in fear of it, saying it's evil. It's really not, if people are smart enough to overcome greed.

communism or communist idea has lost its flames years ago when U.S.S.R. fell

PrOS:
every body is treated like everybody
every body gets a pay every time they work
classless

cons:
secret pOlice ( in Stalins regime the GULAG )
non communist countries will be like a bunch of Dicks (like usa no offense) and try to change your communist ways
non communist countries will be very very paranoid because they think that communism will spread and oppose freedom

it has its advantage and and dis advantages like some other forms of government

At 4/30/09 10:04 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 4/30/09 09:58 AM, LordAdon wrote: So tht you ALL KNOW! I have read the communist manifesto, and i am partly marxist.

marxism is terribly ineffective giving money to people who don't deserve it (except mentally disabled and Veterans and workers comp and people who get welfare) and Wage Equality.

you haVE a fucking point there sonny and your thinking that those people who dont deserve money like old people , criminals those things who dont work you really have a point thats one disadvatage

At 5/1/09 10:54 AM, commune628 wrote:

At 4/30/09 10:04 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 4/30/09 09:58 AM, LordAdon wrote: So tht you ALL KNOW! I have read the communist manifesto, and i am partly marxist.

marxism is terribly ineffective giving money to people who don't deserve it (except mentally disabled and Veterans and workers comp and people who get welfare) and Wage Equality.

you haVE a fucking point there sonny and your thinking that those people who dont deserve money like old people , criminals those things who dont work you really have a point thats one disadvatage

thank you and taxing the hell out o people doesnt make it any better. plus you cant own private property and you have to share everything fuck that you should work to get what you want.

Let me give you an opinion of a Russian vodka drinking bear with a balalayka and red-star ushanka WW2 hat about why did we fuck up.

Not so long ago (in historical, understandable term) was a country - the USSR. Many probably still remember. USSR was not an ordinary state, a superpower, what would a home idiot of Soviet intellectuals may seem. In those days, in the world was another superpower - the U.S. was its name.
United States and led by them (not to say that this is just a figure of speech - led to) the West continuously conduct subversive work to destroy the USSR. Call it unprecedented in scope and scale of the event «cold war». Cold it was called because after the defeat of Nazi Germany during World War II it became clear that the Soviet Union to win by force of arms can not be none. Because in the new war methods and means have been elected are totally different. For the most part - ideological.
In retrospect, it looks very simple. Citizens of some countries with a totalitarian regime (see Soviet Union) said: you are so bad because you do not have democracy and free elections. But as soon as both will be - LIFE IS GONNA ROCK. Stupid Soviet citizens listened to this drivel, with widely opened beak: Dang, thats how it all is! And they knew that as soon as they begin to undertake «free elections» and assemble complete Duma intellectuals, all at once will become as freakin AWESOME.
The first violin in this case played by the Soviet intellectuals. You should determine the term: who is this very Soviet intellectual? And what is it different from the intellectual as such? Ordinary Soviet intellectual - the essence of a citizen, without clan or tribe, has been very good (I would even say - a world-class), humanitarian (much less often - technical) education at public expense. Here's an important point. The absence of the genus and tribe implies a very fragile morality. And together with them - the lack of accountability for their actions.
The man in the true sense of the word shit is beginning to feel extraordinary diamond cut. Just because some read books and listen to what others are saying about them. It is no secret that knowledge - it does not equal mind. But our citizens who obtained knowledge in the government immediately to all those to whom and to whom he grew up, but some books are not read, the people cease to believe. And as a true Bolshevik believes that once declared free elections and organize the Duma - in Russia for about 500 days, formed the earth's paradise. In short, a Soviet citizen with strong morals and a minimum life experience - a chimpanzee with a grenade.

Communism? Bah. It never works. But traces of Karl Marx's work is still found in democracy, such as equal rights for all, social equality, equal payment and other sorts of shit I couldn't list because I don't have the time to make a list!

At 4/30/09 04:32 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

:: :

Show me a totally Stable Communist or Anarchist government that has been:
totally stable
doesn't get took over
doesn't abuse human rights
or use money

Anarchist Catalonia may have been taken over, (they were being attacked by The USSR, and the Axis, who had more numbers, weapons, and power) but they were totally stable for three years, they didn't abuse human rights, and they abolished money. Read my earlier posts, I already talked about this.

Also, check out the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, they're a living example of communism in practice, and they aren't at all as you would generalize them.

What the fuck does this have to do with this topic?

Not much, but it has everything to do with your judgement, or lack thereof.

At 5/2/09 01:39 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 4/30/09 04:32 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

Show me a totally Stable Communist or Anarchist government that has been:
totally stable
doesn't get took over
doesn't abuse human rights
or use money

Anarchist Catalonia may have been taken over, (they were being attacked by The USSR, and the Axis, who had more numbers, weapons, and power) but they were totally stable for three years, they didn't abuse human rights, and they abolished money. Read my earlier posts, I already talked about this.

yeah and it doesn't work because it is all disorganized, and has no millitary because it has no government. and the USSR ha they supplied the Spanish Civil war. you noob

During the Civil War, the Spanish Communist Party gained considerable influence due to the reliance on supplies from the Soviet Union. Communists and liberals on the Republican side suppressed the anarchists revolution in order, as they said, to ensure that the war received maximum resources. They accused the anarchists of not fighting as hard as the Republican forces, and putting social change before defeating the Nationalists. The Anarchists' response was that "the revolution and the war are inseparable"

Also, check out the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, they're a living example of communism in practice,

and they aren't at all as you would generalize them.

once again thats in on a small scale not a whole country.

What the fuck does this have to do with this topic?

Not much, but it has everything to do with your judgement, or lack thereof.

just bringing it up is Ad homiem.

At 5/3/09 01:57 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:
yeah and it doesn't work because it is all disorganized, and has no millitary because it has no government. and the USSR ha they supplied the Spanish Civil war. you noob

No, it's not all "disorganized". Why don't you explore some of the links in my earlier posts, they talk about how the anarchists organized their society. And the anarchists did in fact have a military, but it was hell for them to get armed. As the paragraph you posted below pointed out, the Soviet Union refused to back the Anarchists and the Marxist POUM; the real communists. The Barcelonia May-Days saw clashes between the Soviet-backed "communists" on one side, and the Marxists and Anarchists on the other. You're confusing two completely different forces.

During the Civil War, the Spanish Communist Party gained considerable influence due to the reliance on supplies from the Soviet Union. Communists and liberals on the Republican side suppressed the anarchists revolution in order, as they said, to ensure that the war received maximum resources. They accused the anarchists of not fighting as hard as the Republican forces, and putting social change before defeating the Nationalists. The Anarchists' response was that "the revolution and the war are inseparable"

Copy pasta much? The anarchists and the Marxists were right, the revolution and the war were inseperable. You're still SEVERELY underestimating just how much influence the Anarchists had during the war.

once again thats in on a small scale not a whole country.

Okay, but they're still not YOUR definition of communist, and YOUR definition is the wrong one. You also said nothing about the scale of said communist society, just to name one that doesn't have any of those characteristics.

just bringing it up is Ad homiem.

Just a nice character assesment, really. But hey, if you're willing to admit that your irrational hatred of Muslims is so pathetic, it actually can be used against you in the form of an Ad homiem attack, then sure, that's exactly what it is.

Isn't communism the same thing as socialism except in communism, violence is used to enforce government ideas

At 4/26/09 04:11 AM, LordAdon wrote: I say, under a good government, that knows what they are doing, communism is good.

There would be no government over the people. In communism everyone is equal. The reason it has never worked is, well one humanity isn't ready for it. But also because there has always been a government that wanted and got more then the people did.

The people would be taking care of eachother.

At 5/3/09 12:56 PM, thefischer wrote: Isn't communism the same thing as socialism except in communism, violence is used to enforce government ideas

No. Read the whole topic before you ask something like this.

At 5/3/09 01:31 PM, UpTheIrons wrote:

At 4/26/09 04:11 AM, LordAdon wrote: I say, under a good government, that knows what they are doing, communism is good.

There would be no government over the people. In communism everyone is equal. The reason it has never worked is, well one humanity isn't ready for it. But also because there has always been a government that wanted and got more then the people did.

The people would be taking care of eachother.

Prolbem with comunism in general is that it IS a form of government as any large group of people, country or continent would probably need, what would work if several small portions of government whom would be voted for n the people would be responsible for all the vote counting, pretty much it would be (everyone who wants this guy go stand over there n everyone who wants the other go somwhere else n they'd count em all up in which there wouldn't be very many since the places of government would be split up) But ofcourse there would need to be a good relationship between all of the "tribes" or however u want to describe it.

As for laws, same thing really, vote on it, n the population of certain areas will likely depend on the laws and how many people (the minority or majority) like the way they turned out so then everyone's happy, the minority of whom their wanted laws would be the ones to move to a place that fits their wants.

With comunism though, people would tend to be big bitches about it n not want to do some of the more important things like developing better technology since they aren't getting paid as much as somone working at a crappy gas station.

So if there were common people in government n not the smug assholes who don't care about others living condition as well as human life in general, I'd say we'd be getting somewhere but ofcourse no amount of getting ready will ever make that happen since the government seems to like abusing their power don't they, so if people who like the idea of communism, please share how you suppose it could come into a place like America without going through a thousand years of bloody horror....

THe PROBLEM is the selfishness of the people, who are unalble to work to benefit anybody other than themselves.

EX-FUCKING-ACTLY

Communist is UTOPIA. It's perfect only if the people are perfect.

Dont know if anyones allready posed this yet or sumit like it but i feel special right now so i'll go 4 it any way:
Russia got it pretty good when Lenin came to power after the time it took to balance after the Bolshevik rev. he came up with the NEP which is a very good compromise between capitalism and communism for those who don't know under communism the idea is every peasant grows x amount of crop and the gov take y amount of surplus however the hole in this meant that a hard working peasant who grows 10 tons of crop gets 9 taken away an 1 left to eat (proportions are for the example only^-^) along with other rations given by the state however a lazy peasant who grows 1 ton gets none taken away. so under the NEP the state take 50% of crop and the peasant gets to sell the rest (although Lenin planed to get rid of money altogether it just doesn't work) so hard working peasant grows his 10 ton of crop and gets 5 ton taken away plus cash the lazy peasant grows his 1 ton gets 1/2 of it taken away an goes hungry an dies (don't worry Russia's got millions of peasants) combine this with the allowance of small factories to be privately owned but regulated in a similar way and you've got yourself a fairly successful state the with this way of doing stuff Lenin managed to double or triple nearly all produce in all major industries such as iron, coal, gas and car industry

Ok look....communism is the ultimate form of liberalism. I mean look at it this way. Welfare in the US. You work hard for your money, just to get it taken away and given to A. Some fuck up that CAN work but doesn't or B. A family that needs it (99.9% of the time it will be A because people abuse Welfare). Now, what is AMAZING about Capitalism is the fact that YOU earn your money. The government doesnt make you who you are. YOU DO! You make all of your money, you decide what to do with it, you decide what kind of house to live in, YOU have the power to do what ever the fuck you wanna do with your money. Capitalism teaches the people under it RESPONSIBILITY! It makes it so that you can get a job and succeed. Or not work and get kicked out on the street. And folks, the lazy DO NOT deserve a handout. As I see it, Communism is for lazy ass welfare recipients who have never worked a day in there lives, but are too old for mommy and daddy to help them, so they rely on the government. And those types of people disgust me :)

Oh and before you all whine that "He's so insensitive!" I believe in welfare where its due (retarded, crippled, so on) But NOT the drunk, the lazy, and the slovenly. And most welfare recipients are the three things I just mentioned.

At 5/4/09 06:25 PM, VanceTheGrizzDipper wrote: Ok look....communism is the ultimate form of liberalism.

I'm assuming you know something about economics, and thus you know that liberalism = capitalism.

(After reading your post I realize, sadly, that this is not the case.)

I mean look at it this way. Welfare in the US. You work hard for your money, just to get it taken away and given to A. Some fuck up that CAN work but doesn't or B. A family that needs it (99.9% of the time it will be A because people abuse Welfare).

Show me one statistic that displays this.

Talking from personal experience, my family has fallen on hard times and has needed welfare in order to get back on our feet. And do you know what we did? We got back on our feet. I don't think that this is an uncommon occurrence.

But if I am wrong I would be very happy to see a statistic.

Now, what is AMAZING about Capitalism is the fact that YOU earn your money. The government doesnt make you who you are. YOU DO! You make all of your money, you decide what to do with it, you decide what kind of house to live in, YOU have the power to do what ever the fuck you wanna do with your money. Capitalism teaches the people under it RESPONSIBILITY!

Some examples of RESPONSIBILITY!: Enron, the monopolists of 19th century America, AIG...

It makes it so that you can get a job and succeed.

Unless of course you run a small business with high quality products that your family has run for at least a hundred years and Walmart moves into your town.

Or not work and get kicked out on the street. And folks, the lazy DO NOT deserve a handout.

This is the main problem I have seen with American Conservative ideology, so let me make something completely clear:

The fact that someone is poor does not necessarily mean they earned their poverty by being lazy. The working class is not lazy. Often times the working class works much harder than the upper class, but they are still living from paycheck to paycheck.

As I see it, Communism is for lazy ass welfare recipients who have never worked a day in there lives, but are too old for mommy and daddy to help them, so they rely on the government. And those types of people disgust me :)

Yes, they disgust most people. But those types of people would not be allowed to live in Communism. They would be worthless to society, and thus probably killed.

At 4/26/09 05:56 PM, LordAdon wrote: No anarchism. Anarchists are stupid. I used to think that way, but once i realized the truth, i switched to red.
You can't have anarchism. Once the government is gone, the dudes with the bigges guns take over.

Except that the final end that is the Marxist utopia is a form of anarchism in which the means of production, and the goods and services produced, are shared equally by all. There is not concept of property in utopian Marxism, no government either.

At 5/4/09 06:37 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/4/09 06:25 PM, VanceTheGrizzDipper wrote: Ok look....communism is the ultimate form of liberalism.

I'm assuming you know something about economics, and thus you know that liberalism = capitalism.

(After reading your post I realize, sadly, that this is not the case.)

No CONSERVATISIM= Capitalism... If Liberalism=Capitalism then the liberals wouldnt be the ones arguing for welfare and tax increases

I mean look at it this way. Welfare in the US. You work hard for your money, just to get it taken away and given to A. Some fuck up that CAN work but doesn't or B. A family that needs it (99.9% of the time it will be A because people abuse Welfare).

Show me one statistic that displays this.

Talking from personal experience, my family has fallen on hard times and has needed welfare in order to get back on our feet. And do you know what we did? We got back on our feet. I don't think that this is an uncommon occurrence.

But if I am wrong I would be very happy to see a statistic.

Now dude, I aint sayin that NO family deserves welfare. Just the Lazy, Drunk, Drug happy families. From the way it sounds yall really needed it and I support that.

Now, what is AMAZING about Capitalism is the fact that YOU earn your money. The government doesnt make you who you are. YOU DO! You make all of your money, you decide what to do with it, you decide what kind of house to live in, YOU have the power to do what ever the fuck you wanna do with your money. Capitalism teaches the people under it RESPONSIBILITY!

Some examples of RESPONSIBILITY!: Enron, the monopolists of 19th century America, AIG...

That isn't the governments fault. It is the fault of those that took control. Except for the monopolists of the 19th century...and That was 200 years ago.

It makes it so that you can get a job and succeed.

Unless of course you run a small business with high quality products that your family has run for at least a hundred years and Walmart moves into your town.

This is true, but you take a risk by opening that buisness and you must accept what comes of it

Or not work and get kicked out on the street. And folks, the lazy DO NOT deserve a handout.

This is the main problem I have seen with American Conservative ideology, so let me make something completely clear:

The fact that someone is poor does not necessarily mean they earned their poverty by being lazy. The working class is not lazy. Often times the working class works much harder than the upper class, but they are still living from paycheck to paycheck.

I never said that the poor were lazy. I said that the lazy are often poor. My grandmother, poor, pooooor woman. Hardest working woman I knew. But did she go on Welfare? Nope. She worked through it.

As I see it, Communism is for lazy ass welfare recipients who have never worked a day in there lives, but are too old for mommy and daddy to help them, so they rely on the government. And those types of people disgust me :)

Yes, they disgust most people. But those types of people would not be allowed to live in Communism. They would be worthless to society, and thus probably killed.

Not really. The communist government would say "well ok...here is money! Have fun!" and then make you get a job. And if you didnt get a job..yes. Youd be killed.

But this nation was formed as the land of the FREE! Communism is control of the government by ONE party, with no involvement of the people.

At 5/4/09 10:45 PM, VanceTheGrizzDipper wrote: No CONSERVATISIM= Capitalism... If Liberalism=Capitalism then the liberals wouldnt be the ones arguing for welfare and tax increases

Economic liberalism. This is the actual economic and historical definition of liberalism, without the petty American political party bits shoved in.

Now dude, I aint sayin that NO family deserves welfare. Just the Lazy, Drunk, Drug happy families. From the way it sounds yall really needed it and I support that.

Right. But show me one sign of evidence that shows that my family is not the standard family that used welfare the correct way. I hear lots of complaints that welfare has been abused, but I have seen it used correctly more than I have seen it abused.

So, please, show me some source that has convinced you that the majority of people who use it are lazy, drunk, or drug happy. That is, after all, what you said, multiple times.

Some examples of RESPONSIBILITY!: Enron, the monopolists of 19th century America, AIG...

That isn't the governments fault. It is the fault of those that took control. Except for the monopolists of the 19th century...and That was 200 years ago.

I'm not saying it's the government's fault. I'm saying that capitalism is not inherently flawless, and doesn't necessarily promote responsibility.

Look at Walmart, who I mentioned before: they are completely dishonest in their practices. They go to foreign countries, essentially buy out entire towns, and then ship the clothing and so on back and sell it for much cheaper than any other business could possibly hope to sell for. This is good for Walmart's higher-ups and for the consumer (who doesn't love cheap stuff?), but it is seriously crippling the US economy.

Unless of course you run a small business with high quality products that your family has run for at least a hundred years and Walmart moves into your town.

This is true, but you take a risk by opening that buisness and you must accept what comes of it

Of course. But you must see that this sort of thing isn't right, and is actually hurting capitalism in the US.

Or not work and get kicked out on the street. And folks, the lazy DO NOT deserve a handout.

I never said that the poor were lazy. I said that the lazy are often poor. My grandmother, poor, pooooor woman. Hardest working woman I knew. But did she go on Welfare? Nope. She worked through it.

That's true. Let me say something different, still related to what you said:

Not everyone on the street is there because of their own fault.

Yes, they disgust most people. But those types of people would not be allowed to live in Communism. They would be worthless to society, and thus probably killed.

Not really. The communist government would say "well ok...here is money! Have fun!" and then make you get a job. And if you didnt get a job..yes. Youd be killed.

You just said no, and then agreed...

But this nation was formed as the land of the FREE! Communism is control of the government by ONE party, with no involvement of the people.

That's the way communism has turned out, but ideally it isn't that way at all. Soviet Communism was basically an oligarchy.

I should probably say that I don't agree that communism could work on a large scale.

Well I live here at America so I believe more in the whole "Rights" thing.

Both ways seem fair enough to me I guess.

To bad their no such thing as a good government

You can't make a world that is perfect. Nothing in the fucking world is perfect. You can't have a utopia because in some place there will be sadness, war and high amount of tears! And if Communism is revived, then I'm going to be like McCarthey in the 1950s USA.

At 5/7/09 03:45 AM, joe9320 wrote: You can't make a world that is perfect. Nothing in the fucking world is perfect. You can't have a utopia because in some place there will be sadness, war and high amount of tears! And if Communism is revived, then I'm going to be like McCarthey in the 1950s USA.

Because you want the country to be like Stalin's in 1940's USSR?

At 4/26/09 04:38 AM, LordAdon wrote: What are rights? Do you think we have rights in the unites states?
Have you ever heard of the patriot act?

no no no, see, comunism can be very good, as long as the person(s) who controlls it is not evil.
Sometimes, rights must be given or sacrificed.
I think youve been watching to much american propeganda.

like i said, communism needs to be modified.

I Disagree, overall comunism is a good idea, although it ussually ends up meaning that evryone is poor. Also i think that if you work hard to earn somthing that the government should not be able to take that from you.

yea im a socialist and youve got it down communism would be perfect if it werent for the human factor

At 4/26/09 04:11 AM, LordAdon wrote:

I say, under a good government, that knows what they are doing, communism is good.

You had a good point till you typed this phrase. If the people are greedy, then you need people to be willing to do everything for the greater good. However, apart from greed there is also reward. The more amount of effort you put into something, the bigger the reward. At least that is the idea for alot of people.
There are so many people with a different opinion that it's allmost impossible to have communism work. Aswell there are other ways to get rid of poverty.