Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/14/02 10:19 AM, Slizor wrote:
There. That's your problem. You assume that the Communist structure needs a lot of power.

How could it be run without a lot of power? If pay wasn't a factor the goverment would have to enforce what occupations people had otherwise you would have a country populated by nothing but videogame testers and bad poets. You also have to have a large and powerful goverment just to handle the logistics of divying out the cash and property.

"Because something has never been done, it can't happen"

Thats why I said that Hypothesis is a better definintion. If every person in a Communist nation was totally content and supportive of the goverment and didn't mind having limits to their sucess pu ton them then communism could be possible. But in the real world there are people like me who don't like having the goverment telling them what to do.

How could it be run without a lot of power? If pay wasn't a factor the goverment would have to enforce what occupations people had otherwise you would have a country populated by nothing but videogame testers and bad poets. You also have to have a large and powerful goverment just to handle the logistics of divying out the cash and property.

This is what I'm working on currently. People are(partially) right when they say Communism is old. So I'm working on a modern way to encompass the views into a system. So far it is this. All production is controlled by the state. Workers don't have money, but instead passes. People who work are allowed to do as much as the pass allows them(say going to a pool = 1 point and a pass allows a 100 points, you could go to the pool a hundred times, but nothing else.) It is in effect rationing. Education is free, health care, etc is free. The state gives you a house, big houses will be shared. If you are not working then you are not contributing to society and therefore should not be given anything. Sorry if it's a it muddled, it's a work in progress.

Anarchy!

It won't work but as long as we're talking utopian theories, I prefer it. In theory it would allow the community to organize everything and allow people near total freedom, as long as they don't intrude upon their neighbors' freedom. The only problem is that people aren't ready for it, there's too much greed and deceit for it to work, at least on a large scale. Maybe someday...

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least';... Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe-'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
-Henry David Thoreau

At 5/15/02 12:28 PM, Slizor wrote:

This is what I'm working on currently. People are(partially) right when they say Communism is old. So I'm working on a modern way to encompass the views into a system. So far it is this. All production is controlled by the state. Workers don't have money, but instead passes. People who work are allowed to do as much as the pass allows them(say going to a pool = 1 point and a pass allows a 100 points, you could go to the pool a hundred times, but nothing else.) It is in effect rationing. Education is free, health care, etc is free. The state gives you a house, big houses will be shared. If you are not working then you are not contributing to society and therefore should not be given anything. Sorry if it's a it muddled, it's a work in progress.

Would different occupations get different amounts of "points"? If all occupations got the same amount I would still be something like a video game tester or a hammock critic.(did I spell hammock right?)

Would different occupations get different amounts of "points"?

Nope

If all occupations got the same amount I would still be something like a video game tester or a hammock critic.(did I spell hammock right?)

You do know there can only be so many hammock critics? And if there wasn't space for one you'd have to find another job?

At 5/16/02 11:01 AM, Slizor wrote:

Would different occupations get different amounts of "points"?

Nope

If all occupations got the same amount I would still be something like a video game tester or a hammock critic.(did I spell hammock right?)

You do know there can only be so many hammock critics? And if there wasn't space for one you'd have to find another job?

This ia very nice, but how will it not devolve into a bearucratic nightmare of red tape, excessive paperwork, ineffeciency and a massive bearucratic complex full of competing levels and departments all protecting their turf and engaging in internecine feuds? I fear that any government like that would end up like "Fedland" in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, more policies than sense.

The problem with an all powerful central government that handles all functions on a national level, is that they're too far removed from what they're trying to manage. Many things are far better left up to local community governments and private citizens to work out and handle themselves. That is the primary tenet of conservatism, that people can manage their own lives better than big government, (with a few exceptions, i.e. the insane, criminals, etc.) The government is distant, impersonal and detached and should only be entrusted with certain tasks where a broad reach is benficial such as defending a nation, making treaties and alliances, making certain national laws, etc.

True man. Even in any society, with today's modern medical technology even a blind deaf mute who's crippled from the waist down can pass on their genes to another generation. Bad genes are not run out in any society, including a Communist or Socialist one.

Cool post man, good job.

At 5/16/02 11:23 PM, Badandy014 wrote: True man. Even in any society, with today's modern medical technology even a blind deaf mute who's crippled from the waist down can pass on their genes to another generation. Bad genes are not run out in any society, including a Communist or Socialist one.

Cool post man, good job.

I'm glad you like my theory but thats not exactly what I meant. I was speaking more about evolution applied to science, product quality and goverment reform.

Still what you said is a valid point. I live in the southeastern United States and there are some rednecks around here that have like 12 kids while people with Phds usually have one or no kids. I think that since we humans are such dominant organisms that without anything killing us off natural selection has very little effect on us. Thus I'm not sure if human evolution may have ground to a halt.

I would say GO COMMUNISM! but i can't live knowing i get paid as much as morons like GoldenGun or SB clock.

I would say GO COMMUNISM! but i can't live knowing i get paid as much as morons like GoldenGun or SB clock.

At 5/20/02 01:40 AM, EZ3 wrote: I would say GO COMMUNISM! but i can't live knowing i get paid as much as morons like GoldenGun or SB clock.

Thats one of my big problems. When I look around me at some of the redneck slack jawed yokels who live here in North Carolina, and think that I would be their social equals it makes me wanna puke.

Hyuck! Hyuck! I make as much money as Slizor!

Go Cleutus, undisputed King of the Trailorpark.

I like the Cuban system where people doing more important, advanced jobs do get payed more, but there is a "Maximum wage" just as there is a minimum wage, preventing wages spirally out of control and creating an undeserving elite. This is a nice compromise between ideology and practicality because it gives people the incentive to work and improve themselves as well as preventing the massive disparities in wealth that capitalism creates.

Thats one of my big problems. When I look around me at some of the redneck slack jawed yokels who live here in North Carolina, and think that I would be their social equals it makes me wanna puke.

They may think the same as you.

At 5/24/02 02:40 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Go Cleutus, undisputed King of the Trailorpark.

I like the Cuban system where people doing more important, advanced jobs do get payed more, but there is a "Maximum wage" just as there is a minimum wage, preventing wages spirally out of control and creating an undeserving elite. This is a nice compromise between ideology and practicality because it gives people the incentive to work and improve themselves as well as preventing the massive disparities in wealth that capitalism creates.

I think that for a Communist country Cuba is run rather well. If it weren't for the whole no public elections, school sponsered brainwashing, goverment run media, and no freedom of speech it really wouldn't be that bad.

At 5/24/02 02:46 PM, Slizor wrote:
They may think the same as you.

They don't have much of a grasp of politics or economics.

However I have rexamined my prior statement and there are good natured (if unintelligent) rednecks who I don't mind and some of whom are even my friends, but there are some assholes around here that I can't stand.

Many of said rednecks grow up as complete jackasses and are forced to cease being jackasses if they want to find decent employment. They would remain jackasses in a socialist system.

I think that for a Communist country Cuba is run rather well. If it weren't for the whole no public elections, school sponsered brainwashing, goverment run media, and no freedom of speech it really wouldn't be that bad.

Well, maybe they wouldn't have to be so draconian if the USA cut them some slack and stopped trying to economically strangle them and poison their leader...

At 5/25/02 11:30 AM, dagger_happy wrote:
Well, maybe they wouldn't have to be so draconian if the USA cut them some slack and stopped trying to economically strangle them and poison their leader...

Oh I see so its our fault that Cuba is fucked up.
The truth is Castro wouldn't stil be around without all his authoritarian bullshit.

Furthermore the Cia hasn't tried to kill Castro since the 60's.

If the U.S. lifted our economic sanctions it wouldn't change the Cuban's ways. It would just give Castro more money to for brainwashing and hunting down "political prisoners" (I.E. anybody who disagrees with him).

People need to take some responsibility and stop blaming the U.S. for everything.

"we had to kill all our dissidents because the U.S. didn't give us enough economic aid boohoo."

At 5/25/02 11:44 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Oh I see so its our fault that Cuba is fucked up.
The truth is Castro wouldn't stil be around without all his authoritarian bullshit.

Furthermore the Cia hasn't tried to kill Castro since the 60's.

If the U.S. lifted our economic sanctions it wouldn't change the Cuban's ways. It would just give Castro more money to for brainwashing and hunting down "political prisoners" (I.E. anybody who disagrees with him).

People need to take some responsibility and stop blaming the U.S. for everything.

"we had to kill all our dissidents because the U.S. didn't give us enough economic aid boohoo."

Meh. You're probably right. Censorship really shouldn't exist these days. But, yes, Castro wouldn't be around without his authoritarian bullshit because the CIA et al would do their damned hardest to get him out, funding all manner of agitators. If you were a teeny weeny capitalist country living right next to a huge, communist monolith, wouldn't you be a little preoccupied with your regime's security? I think Casto deserves a little respect for preserving Cuba at all with the US trade embargo, considering that the US was previously its biggest importer by far. The guy's getting old now anyway, so I don't suppose the system will last much longer. Isn't it a little hypocritical of the US to preach to Cuba from a higher moral plain when it has helped prop up numerous capitalist regimes that were far from democratic? No one seemed to have a problem with Batista either...

If it weren't for the whole no public elections

The same could be said for America.

school sponsered brainwashing,

Ditto for my last comment.

goverment run media

I don't see this as a bad thing, opposed to a capitalist run media.
:, and no freedom of speech

They're allowed to say things. Freedom is a relative term. :D

At 5/26/02 04:32 PM, Slizor wrote:

If it weren't for the whole no public elections

The same could be said for America.

school sponsered brainwashing,

Ditto for my last comment.

goverment run media

I don't see this as a bad thing, opposed to a capitalist run media.

, and no freedom of speech

They're allowed to say things. Freedom is a relative term. :D

Do you really believe what you say?

If it weren't for the whole no public elections

The same could be said for America.

school sponsered brainwashing,

Ditto for my last comment.

goverment run media

I don't see this as a bad thing, opposed to a capitalist run media.

, and no freedom of speech

They're allowed to say things. Freedom is a relative term. :D

Do you really believe what you say?

Well, school brainwashing, definatly. State run media still is left unexplained and freedom is a relative term. I'm not gonna go into the whole election crap, but, it is part of the brainwashing.

At 5/27/02 05:19 AM, Slizor wrote:
Well, school brainwashing, definatly. State run media still is left unexplained and freedom is a relative term. I'm not gonna go into the whole election crap, but, it is part of the brainwashing.

"No free elections?" How so? We often do not elect the right people, but they are fairly elected.If you want to see some unfair, rigged elections, I can point you to some African and South American countries that are really "fair."

"No free elections?" How so? We often do not elect the right people, but they are fairly elected.If you want to see some unfair, rigged elections, I can point you to some African and South American countries that are really "fair."

There are only two possible parties which hold enormous wealth to spend on advertising, buying out papers, etc. Then there is the whole last election thing.

At 5/26/02 04:32 PM, Slizor wrote:

If it weren't for the whole no public elections

The same could be said for America.

What? That is the stupidest thing you have ever said.

school sponsered brainwashing,

Ditto for my last comment.

Yes but our brainwashing is all for your socialist bullcrap. I go to an American Public School and there is very little "Love America Rhetoric" taught. It's all Liberal bullshit about "decision making strategies" and how we should live our lives and love everybody.

goverment run media

I don't see this as a bad thing, opposed to a capitalist run media.

Not a bad thing? Without the press to supervise and inform the people the goverment can do whatever the hell it wants.

, and no freedom of speech

They're allowed to say things. Freedom is a relative term. :D

Yes they are allowed to say some things like. "let me suck your dick El Presidente" or "I love Castro" or "death to capitalism". But if you start questioning the all mighty Castro then you and your family are in a world of shit.(as if living in Cuba wasn't already bad enough)

At 5/28/02 04:10 AM, Slizor wrote:

"No free elections?" How so? We often do not elect the right people, but they are fairly elected.If you want to see some unfair, rigged elections, I can point you to some African and South American countries that are really "fair."

There are only two possible parties which hold enormous wealth to spend on advertising, buying out papers, etc. Then there is the whole last election thing.

So they advertise themselves. That's a good thing. They all promote their message and the intelligent voter will make an informed choice. There is a little too much political mudslinging, but I don't think that it is too much of a problem. This is certainly better than the wonderful one party socialist system where evryone "agrees" and "gets along." Nobody would dare speak out saying something unpopular, would they? Oh, of course not, because everyone "agrees" and "gets along" so well, heh heh...

As for the 2000 election, it was messy, but fortunantly the law was finally upheld by the Supreme Court. All those that have pointed to the fact that Bush's brother was governor are only trying to make scandal where there is none. Jeb Bush did nothing. He knew people would point fingers at him and he took special care not to interfere with a thing. Gore tried to keep recounting until he won, even counting the so-called "dimpled chads," in clear violation of the law and common sense. If your were going to vote for somebody, would you barely tap the card or make sure you punch it out? Gore tried to create votes for him where there were none, all in the name of "interpreting voter intent." Meanwhile, his lawyers worked to throw out thousands of overseas and Armed Forces votes that clearly supported Bush. His lawyers were even seen high-fiving and slapping each other on the back after one such hearing that discounted thousands of soldiers votes, "A win's a win," they said. I'm not making this stuff up, it's all too true. Eventually the Supreme Court enforced the law. The fact that several recounts by independent organizations and journalist groups have been done since, and all uphold Bush as the rightful winner, should put to rest by any doubts. If even the leftist-biased mainstream media can find Bush the winner, he is.

(The vote, county by county. Red = Bush, Blue = Gore)

Yes but our brainwashing is all for your socialist bullcrap. I go to an American Public School and there is very little "Love America Rhetoric" taught. It's all Liberal bullshit about "decision making strategies" and how we should live our lives and love everybody.

What's the oath of alleigence?

Not a bad thing? Without the press to supervise and inform the people the goverment can do whatever the hell it wants.

You assume that the media don't have any motives to lie to you as well.

They're allowed to say things. Freedom is a relative term. :D

Yes they are allowed to say some things like. "let me suck your dick El Presidente" or "I love Castro" or "death to capitalism". But if you start questioning the all mighty Castro then you and your family are in a world of shit.(as if living in Cuba wasn't already bad enough)

As is done in America with such ideas as "anti-american". It may not be done by the government, but it sure is done by everyone else.

So they advertise themselves. That's a good thing. They all promote their message and the intelligent voter will make an informed choice.

There's your problem, they "all". What is the difference in budget for "all" of the parties?

<whole load of crap>

At 5/30/02 12:26 PM, Slizor wrote:

What's the oath of alleigence?

Oath of Allegience?, Oh perhaps your talking about the pledge of allegience. Well most of the schools in America don't even have it and those that do only say it at occasional assemblies for some presentation. It encourages nationalism but not mindless obedience like in Cuba.

:you assume that the media don't have any motives to lie to you as well.

Oh yes the media is very biased. Very liberally biased.

As is done in America with such ideas as "anti-american". It may not be done by the government, but it sure is done by everyone else.

What?

At 5/30/02 12:29 PM, Slizor wrote:
There's your problem, they "all". What is the difference in budget for "all" of the parties?

<whole load of crap>

Oh so we should give equal amounts to the Communist Party, and the Fascist Party, and all the other crazy little parties as we do to the Republican Party and the Democratic party which represent the views of most Americans.

Secondly we just passed a little bill for something called campaign finance reform perhaps you've heard of it?