Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/27/06 01:30 AM, Lord_Beugiath wrote:

. What ever happened to the USSR?

It collapsed.

Communism would work in a world where unicorns frolicked and faires flew gleefully about. Socialism is workable, but the middle class is hopelessly subjugated to the point achieving wealth and fortune would be nearly impossible. Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best so far because it is more compatible with human nature and self-interests than any other form of economics.

But of course capitalism leaves the poor in a giant pile of shit.

At 5/27/06 03:11 AM, TheShianatron wrote: But of course capitalism leaves the poor in a giant pile of shit.

Communism and socialism leave everyone poor in a giant pile of shit.

That's because in soclialism and communism almost everyone ends up poor, but more so in communism than socialism.

At 5/27/06 03:23 AM, TheShianatron wrote: That's because in soclialism and communism almost everyone ends up poor

No, everyone always ends up poor and reliant on the government under these two systems.

, but more so in communism than socialism.

No shit, that's why capitalism is superior than either of the two. It gives people the ability to make something out of themselves without a tyrannical government interfering.

At 5/27/06 03:30 AM, GunCrave wrote:

At 5/27/06 03:23 AM, TheShianatron wrote:

No shit, that's why capitalism is superior than either of the two. It gives people the ability to make something out of themselves without a tyrannical government interfering.

I never said that capitalism is inferior to either communism or socialism. I said that capitalism has it's own problems and that it is not perfect. Calm down.

At 5/26/06 07:01 PM, Trizzt wrote:

At 5/26/06 06:57 PM, Lord_Beugiath wrote: As said eariler, communism is the most effective form of 'government' in a small community.

However, applying the concept to an entire nation doesn't go over well.

And for those of you who think communism is an acceptable alternative (or *gasp!* a better one!), try living in a communist state. I know more than a few families and individuals who have come here from a formly-communist state. Their tales are horror stories.

Very large or small countries*

look at china, fastest growning economy, and soon to be a super power.

I hope you're not implying that China became this powerful because of communism.

My experiences with socialist russia are great nostalgic moments.

Your profile says that you're 18, so I can't imagine that you're too nostalgic about things that were going on when you were an infant.

Whith the corrupt system i dont agree, but the Idea itself as Marx wanted it is beutiful.

You consider a bloody revolution to be a beautiful concept?

At 5/26/06 06:51 PM, Trizzt wrote:

At 5/26/06 06:46 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: Of course it works best with a major population like in china

Actually i come from Hong Kong,China where we use captilisim,and it is seriously better than communisim,and streotypically people think china is communist,its not,if we were using communisim i wouldnt be posting here.

Not in it's purest form, no. But must we bring up the horrors of pure capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? I mean, 5 year olds working very dangerous jobs in very dangerous positions, a huge gap in rich and poor, etc. There would have been a lot more socialist and communist revolutions if socialist ideals like unions, minimum wage, and health care hadn't been peacfully instituted.

It's like the theory of capitalism gradually evolving into socialism and eventually communism; notice that after all these socialist reforms for workers, there are now well-established socialist parties in every first-world nation except America (and I think maybe Japan)

At 5/27/06 04:12 AM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 5/26/06 07:01 PM, Trizzt wrote:

At 5/26/06 06:57 PM, Lord_Beugiath wrote: As said eariler, communism is the most effective form of 'government' in a small community.

However, applying the concept to an entire nation doesn't go over well.

And for those of you who think communism is an acceptable alternative (or *gasp!* a better one!), try living in a communist state. I know more than a few families and individuals who have come here from a formly-communist state. Their tales are horror stories.

Very large or small countries*

look at china, fastest growning economy, and soon to be a super power.

I hope you're not implying that China became this powerful because of communism.

My experiences with socialist russia are great nostalgic moments.

Your profile says that you're 18, so I can't imagine that you're too nostalgic about things that were going on when you were an infant.

Whith the corrupt system i dont agree, but the Idea itself as Marx wanted it is beutiful.

You consider a bloody revolution to be a beautiful concept?

Yes I am implying that China is better under Socialism.

And Yes I was Five in the last days of the union, and I can say it was much better than Wasington DC where I lived after that and was also five. Not mentioning The US, it was better than what russia is now, and almost everyone would agree.

I like the Idea of the System, The bloody revolution is the prelude to the Idea.

At 5/27/06 05:35 AM, MyIqis0 wrote:

At 5/26/06 06:51 PM, Trizzt wrote:

At 5/26/06 06:46 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: Of course it works best with a major population like in china

Actually i come from Hong Kong,China where we use captilisim,and it is seriously better than communisim,and streotypically people think china is communist,its not,if we were using communisim i wouldnt be posting here.

Thats because the british flooded you with money, has nothing to do with capitolism, HongKong couldnt survive without outside influence. Socialist China is growing much faster than any country, and Is By far stronger than it was before Mao.

At 5/27/06 03:30 AM, GunCrave wrote:

No shit, that's why capitalism is superior than either of the two. It gives people the ability to make something out of themselves without a tyrannical government interfering.

To paraphrase John Locke: Your essential rights are to life, liberty and the right to make money.

He did write something to that effect: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

On paper Communism sounded like a good idea but it turned out the govrement was to easily corrupted. Also people allways want to own their beongings for them sealves.

What government does work 100%?

I am so fucking tired of debating whether communism is ideal or not.

The proof is there! Capitalism cannot work on it's own. American Society has communist traits in it as well as capitalistic ones too. We can't keep arguing which one is better, because "better" is a general term. Communism HAS THE ABILITY to unite the world. Capitlism partitions it for competition.

It isn't human nature that keeps people from being communist; it's capitalism. We always think of ourselves before we analyze a situation. Half of the peope on this forum are for Capitalism, because of it's plethora of prizes(a comfy chair, a gold watch). However, there is and ALWAYS will be a negative side to all of this. Don't you realize? Capitalism can only function through oppression and profit from oppresion. Whether it be substantial or not isn't the case.

And by the way, I believe Kenzu said this earlier. Communism never existed. Atleast not in the way it should be. Just like capitalism, there are many nuances of communism. I for one stand for democratic and libertarian socialism.

Oh, and another, PURE CAPITALISM HAS NEVER EXISTED. Pure capitalism is a lot like mercantilism. It's INEFFICIENT, but because Capitalism CAN WORK, we believe in it.

At 5/26/06 07:01 PM, Trizzt wrote: look at china, fastest growning economy, and soon to be a super power.

Since their capitalistic reforms in the 80's, they started growing immensly fast. Their growth has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with the combination of an autocracy, capitalism, and fixing their currency.

And they aint the fastest growing economy anywho.

My experiences with socialist russia are great nostalgic moments.

I highly doubt you remember anything. You were what, 4-5 years old when the Soviet Union collapsed? 2-3 when all the Republics left the Union and the Warsaw Pact was disolved?

You may think you have real memories. About the only thing I think you remember would be fake memories your parents would tell you and you sort of think you have memories of. I know I dont remember jack from back then. And I moved 3 times before I was 5. Across the country each time. You would think I would remember at least moving one time.

I dont.

Some people werent as lucky, mostly latvians and estonians complain.

Yeah, I wonder why :P And I would say a lot more would complain than just the Balts. EVERY former Soviet Republic and puppet state left in 1991 when it became apparent the Russians no longer wished to hold them under their thumb. EVERY former Republic and puppet state summarily turned their back on Russia and turned towards the EU and the West.

but the Idea itself as Marx wanted it is beutiful.

No. I would never want to live like that. Ever.

I agree, and I disagree at the same time, though that is a paradox.

Sure, Communism has never really worked (at least never for an extended period of time, and holding up the principles it claims to conform to), but that doesn't mean to say it won't ever work, though this is doubtable, as I belive the inhabitants of this earth are unable to keep a society like that working. I think the closet to an ideal communist state anyone has got to was Lenin, although that was short lived.
I do admire the idea of communisim in it's own right, though, as it aims to uphold noble principles, and to give power to the common man, and to provide him with the means to live.
Capitalism, however, does work - but I only belive it does so because it's in it's principles to be corrupt and unfair, and it's goals certainly are not noble. That's what makes Capitalism so easy to achive - the fact that it isn't considered tainted or corrupt, becuase in order to function, it can become those things without straying away from the ideas set down over time.

At 5/27/06 05:14 PM, elkrobber wrote: I agree, and I disagree at the same time, though that is a paradox.

Sure, Communism has never really worked (at least never for an extended period of time, and holding up the principles it claims to conform to), but that doesn't mean to say it won't ever work, though this is doubtable, as I belive the inhabitants of this earth are unable to keep a society like that working. I think the closet to an ideal communist state anyone has got to was Lenin, although that was short lived.

The closest and most prevailing structure of communism/socialism(i think socialism) to me was in India, before Mughal rule. The Caste System was an ACCEPTED structure of governance. And because people allowed themselves to participate in the Caste System, India needed no outward help, because of communism.

Many people say that Communism cannot work on a global scale.

Bullshit.

India had self-sufficient villages. HUNDREDS UPON THOUSANDS OF THEM. Instead huge cities we have now, Communism would enforce the limitation of populus in cities. And this helped India prosper with communities.

But, like many anti-communists would say:

"Well, the caste system is highly class-centric, which lead to discrimination toward "inferior classes". Also, it isn't used in India anymore, proof that the system failed. And this limited some classes's ability to succeed."

Well, first, due to Muslim, British, and just the worldly influence on India, India's Caste System slowly diminished. *Note that all invasions of India had profit-motivated ambitions.
Another thing, I do believe that India had a very hard time regulating class tension, however, this is because INFERIOR CLASSES WERE MADE EVIDENT. In true socialism, every class would have no label, save for the class's purpose.
I already stated how all workers had the ability to succeed, just some had it easier than others. In the Indian Caste System, that is. Not the Socialist Castes. India was not neccesarily striving for a Utopia in those days; just finding a way to survive.

At 5/26/06 07:16 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Holy fuck. I may disagree with Kenzu and his crazy idealogies, but you have to give him credit for a few things.

Thank you.

Anyway. I don't see the point of discussing communism. It is very far away, not even at the horizon. You cannot skip socialism anyway, so unless all countries turn magically into socialist ones, there is no hope for communism to be achieved on a country-wide scale. So why to discuss it in the first place?

Oh, also a interesting fact that I have come across with. Anti-Communists talk much more about communism than Socialists and Communists together. The reason? Simple. Socialists and Communists spend their time on crucial sections, which are important now and that's why they mainly talk about social-securities and socialism and not about communism, since it would make no sense to ''impose'' it anywhere now.

Stalin killed 300.000?
Even if he killed ''only'' 1000, he still would be a paranoid mass murderer, who deserves to burn in hell. (Forgive my phrasing)

And about the 20 million count.
It is actually 22 millions and includes all death during WWII. So the biggest part are civilian casualties, soviet army casualties, people eliminated in concentration camps, people who died in starvation/sieges, people who died in gulags, people who were purged...

No matter who/what killed them, they are dead and no one can bring them back.

At 5/27/06 08:12 PM, Kenzu wrote: It is actually 22 millions and includes all death during WWII. So the biggest part are civilian casualties, soviet army casualties, people eliminated in concentration camps, people who died in starvation/sieges, people who died in gulags, people who were purged...

No matter who/what killed them, they are dead and no one can bring them back.

Why count those in the concentration camps? It's not Stalin's fault that Hitler was annihilating the Jews.

At 5/28/06 01:52 AM, TheShianatron wrote:

At 5/27/06 08:12 PM, Kenzu wrote: It is actually 22 millions and includes all death during WWII. So the biggest part are civilian casualties, soviet army casualties, people eliminated in concentration camps, people who died in starvation/sieges, people who died in gulags, people who were purged...

No matter who/what killed them, they are dead and no one can bring them back.

Why count those in the concentration camps? It's not Stalin's fault that Hitler was annihilating the Jews.

Because You only know that 22 millions died in WWII. You can't possibly know how many were jews in concentration camps, and how many were jews in gulags

Communist wont work because of people like the person who created the form for communism to really work every one has to agree and that just wont work then in addition you are relying on every one have the need or want to work then you remove the possibillity for any private marketship and well i think thats wrong the benefits of communism only go to the:
poor
smart people who become party leaders
And these people get fucked over:
Entruepenuers(probaly didnt spell that right...)
People who actually work harder and strive to be something
musicians
artist
writers...
And these people fuck over communism:
Those with differing ideals
potheads - i think this should be legal
lazy people - cant get rid of these
greedy people-cant get rid of these

The only reason why it doesn't work is corruption! Otherwise assuming every leader was fair, it would work and it would OWN!

Communism should asplode!

(Asplode is a reference to homestarrunner.com)

At 5/27/06 02:15 PM, -Buddhist- wrote: What government does work 100%?

Democratic Kleptocracy.

Except when people try to GIVE shit away. That just don't fly man.

At 5/28/06 07:45 AM, Flashthinker wrote: The only reason why it doesn't work is corruption! Otherwise assuming every leader was fair, it would work and it would OWN!

Yes, and you'd also have to assume that everyone would WORK. That, and that no one is greedy. Oh, and that technology would be easily incorporated. And every factory manager would produce EVERYTHING that they're told.

Communism sucks because it fails in practice, theory, and it just plain stupid to listen to Marx, who wanted the rich people to be "overthrown" while he would be classified as a bourgeoisie.

Communism will definetly work if no one will have to work, which will be achieved at a time when we will have masses of robots, who will be our slaves and work for us!