Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I am against communism but for one simple reason, I am against all pure forms of economy. To have a successfully economy you must borrow from every system, America is not 100% capitalist, that would result in mountains of corruption and inhumane working conditions. Very similar to what communism would result in. Plus I do not believe everyone should be considered equal, when you do it that way you suck all the fun out of life.

Why do you think Lenin, Stalin is a rolemodel. Because they killed millions of their own? * Well I know Lenin didn't kill that many, but Stalin sure did.

For your information I didn't say I liked Stalin, he was just another power-mad dictaror, much like Hitler or Saddam. Lenin on the other hand probably killed less than bush has!

At 4/11/03 12:25 AM, jimsween wrote: I am against communism but for one simple reason, I am against all pure forms of economy. To have a successfully economy you must borrow from every system, America is not 100% capitalist, that would result in mountains of corruption and inhumane working conditions.

U.S.A is the most neo-liberalist country on the globe, while not being a 100%, it is most certainly very close to the center ideals. Exploitation does exist in U.S.A, it's hidden under false hopes given by the "American Dream". Most people do not realize that this ideal is impossible to reach for many. It's also a certainty that any pure system will have flaws, this is why I think that inside the democratic system, where change is easier to make, we can have a socialist governement while keeping some capitalist basics. We have to face the evidence that big corporations can have laws voted or rejected with just the right amount of bribe, we cannot say corruption doesnt exists. In a capitalist system, rich mostly prevail, name me one american president who wasnt rich before the elections ?

Has for the inhumane working condition, I'm sure the Nike CEO can reassure you : no american citizens are being mistreated, but if you ask him about is Thaïland plants where workers are being paid about 1 dollar a year and are constantly drilled with regular beatings, I'm sure you'll see the effectiveness of the liberalist system. Capitalism brings exploitation by an all new way in our world these days, and mondialization based on economy, has it happens right now, will only worsen everything.

Funny story about mondialization, are you familiar with the WTO (World Trade Organization) ? Canada banned a product years ago because it caused cancer. The company accused Canada of ruining it's profit and the WTO judged in favor of the company. Canada had to pay a huge fee to the company and had to pay the equivalent of what would have been sold. Darn stupid if you ask me. Who rules the WTO ? Businessmen who are NAMED to their position, not elected... long live democracy...
We have to fight the megacorporations takeover by stopping the economic mondialization.

At 4/11/03 06:32 AM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote: For your information I didn't say I liked Stalin, he was just another power-mad dictaror, much like Hitler or Saddam. Lenin on the other hand probably killed less than bush has!

presidents and leaders now kill by peace - years of sanctions and aid cuts before war starts.

At 4/11/03 06:32 AM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote:
For your information I didn't say I liked Stalin, he was just another power-mad dictaror, much like Hitler or Saddam. Lenin on the other hand probably killed less than bush has!

Utter bollocks. Lenin set up the Communist secret police and ordered them to kill anyone suspected of being opposed to the revolution. His murdering was greatly overshadowed by Stalin, but he set the precedents that allowed for Stalin's reign.

At 4/11/03 12:00 PM, nomisdp wrote: Utter bollocks. Lenin set up the Communist secret police and ordered them to kill anyone suspected of being opposed to the revolution. His murdering was greatly overshadowed by Stalin, but he set the precedents that allowed for Stalin's reign.

<sigh> It was a figure of speech, maybe you need to think of all the things Lenin did to BENIFIT his country!

At 4/11/03 12:46 PM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote: <sigh> It was a figure of speech, maybe you need to think of all the things Lenin did to BENIFIT his country!

commnism in russia only had a good side because it was during that time that russia went through her industrial revolution (which, i will concede, the communist system helped streamline). i think you praise the regime way too much, all it did was force the people to play catch up with the other nations and in doing so oppress said people. it was something like a nationwide concentration labor camp for all citizens! "all" the things indeed

When you look at the whole spectrum of world leaders throughout history, Hitler would probably set the bar for evil, while Gandhi, while not really a "world leader," would set the standard for purity. I'd say Lenin ranks a little above the middle. Not Gandhi, but certainly never operating with the intents of Hitler.

For your information I didn't say I liked Stalin, he was just another power-mad dictaror, much like Hitler or Saddam. Lenin on the other hand probably killed less than bush has!

You know I acctually noticed at the first place that you didn't say you particalary liked Stalin, But I think that If you supports Russian communism you cannot exactly hate Stalin. I can agree with that Lenin acctually wasn't that bad, because he wasn't such a cruel dictator as Stalin and certainly not as foolish or mad. Lenin was a revolutioist and thougt in new ways and though that communism would be the best for Russia, when people were starving and living in poverty. Stalin on the other hand just used his own people.But on the other hand, Lenin said to people If they voted for him they would get bread and peace. Well, did they?

You cannot compare Bush with Lenin or any other communist leader. Bush acctually helped Iraq get rid of their hated dictator. You know the Iraqis have wanted this to happen for the last sevreal decades. I know we're getting out of the topic but, since you brought up Saddam, Hitler and Bush we might asswell discuss that also. Saddam have tortured and killed thousands and thousans of his own. When the United States want to kill Saddam and make some Iraqi casulties, to end this terrible dictarship in at least on more country they are met with hate from everyone. What I'm trying to say Is that Bush and other world leaders in democracy mostly kill civilians and bring their military to countries to HELP them. and...

Communists kill their own people. Stalin actually killed most of his his well ranked officers (because he thought they were a threat to him) so when the great war began he couldn't mobilize his forces. The Russian had enormous causalties.

Again I ask what good have communism achived?

At 4/11/03 08:20 AM, Shangui wrote:
U.S.A is the most neo-liberalist country on the globe, while not being a 100%, it is most certainly very close to the center ideals. Exploitation does exist in U.S.A, it's hidden under false hopes given by the "American Dream". Most people do not realize that this ideal is impossible to reach for many. It's also a certainty that any pure system will have flaws, this is why I think that inside the democratic system, where change is easier to make, we can have a socialist governement while keeping some capitalist basics. We have to face the evidence that big corporations can have laws voted or rejected with just the right amount of bribe, we cannot say corruption doesnt exists. In a capitalist system, rich mostly prevail, name me one american president who wasnt rich before the elections ?

In a socialist government the government controls some of the businesses, like healthcare and daycare, I am not against this but we should still allow private outlets for this. And the rich prevail in every system, corruption isnt only isolated to capitalism it is much rarer in communism. In socialism there is just as much a chance of corruption as in capitalism. And the U.S. is hardly neo liberalist.

Has for the inhumane working condition, I'm sure the Nike CEO can reassure you : no american citizens are being mistreated, but if you ask him about is Thaïland plants where workers are being paid about 1 dollar a year and are constantly drilled with regular beatings, I'm sure you'll see the effectiveness of the liberalist system. Capitalism brings exploitation by an all new way in our world these days, and mondialization based on economy, has it happens right now, will only worsen everything.

This exact same thing ahppens in socialism too, your point doesnt even make sense. How is capitalism to blame for that, I would say it is thier governments fault.

Funny story about mondialization, are you familiar with the WTO (World Trade Organization) ? Canada banned a product years ago because it caused cancer. The company accused Canada of ruining it's profit and the WTO judged in favor of the company. Canada had to pay a huge fee to the company and had to pay the equivalent of what would have been sold. Darn stupid if you ask me. Who rules the WTO ? Businessmen who are NAMED to their position, not elected... long live democracy...

That is not a stupid desiscion, WTO is protecting pur rights, if they can start banning products because they are unhealthy then that is just opening the door for the government to push us around. And almost everything causes cancer, including french fries.

We have to fight the megacorporations takeover by stopping the economic mondialization.

You seem to like that word alot, unfortunately my attempts to find a definition for it have failed, either you have made it up or keep spelling it wrong. I'm not sure why you quoted my because you really didnt offer much of a rebuttle, it looked as if you were just agreeing with me.

Sorry about mondialization, my mistake... I ment globalization... sorry (I borrowed that from french, I speak both languages so I get mixed up sometimes)The story about WTO was about a HIGHLY cancerous product, dont you think we should try and have clean products ? Unless you love cancer... but I dont think so. Globalization based on economic theories make it impossible for smaller countries to keep their production local. Before the WTO or the World Bank, smaller countries could freely adopt protectionnist politics and keep larger corporation outside their countries. Now the World Bank, backed up by the richer countries, forces smaller countries to open their frontiers, but is it for the best ? Depends, but usually it winds up by creating social inequalities. Have you ever wondered how much whp lashes their were in your morning coffee ? or in your Nike shoes ? You have the chance of living in America where such things are banned. Has for America not being highly neo-liberalist, are you sure you have the right definition ? America is the country where that ideology is the most present. Has I said before, maybe on another subject, anything put to the extreme is bad. This stands for communism has well. And who says a socialist country cannot have private health care ? The issue is being discussed in Quebec right now, has a mean of having a two speed system. Those who cant wait can pay and have faster service. It's really the best of both situation, that way anybody can get health care, but if you wanna invest in that, you get better service. This could be applied to a lot of things and would be, in my opinion, a good compromise.

Back on communism, one of the good things in communism is that people who dont want to work and want to act has a ball-n-chain for the state get assigned to a job, that'll teach 'em to take advantage of the system !

*looks at all the posts*

Communism is Garbage.
I know people here have said that, but it truly is.

I'm on the left. I am idealistic.

But communism is a pipe-dream. Unplausible.
Good in theory. Bad in practice.

And about private buisness and socialism co-existing... it's even better than capitalism or straight socialism. Look at the UK.

At 4/12/03 03:00 AM, TheShrike wrote: Good in theory. Bad in practice.

PRECISELY. Can't we just all say that, and leave the fucking topic as it is?

Actually, I think a decent bit of debate about political and economic systems has taken root here.
I like seeing that.

At 4/12/03 03:21 AM, UNpossible wrote:

At 4/12/03 03:00 AM, TheShrike wrote: Good in theory. Bad in practice.

PRECISELY. Can't we just all say that, and leave the fucking topic as it is?

No, because I enjoy how every topic on communism eventually does a 180 and ends up trashing Capitialism, democracy, or various past-and-present world leaders. I'm going to do my best not to kill all of you when your arguments get too outlandish.

Democratic communism is theoretically possible, and would be the best system, if only there could be a magical way to provide the people with a work incentive. That is the major flaw with communism. The economy stagnates.

This I don't understand, it seems to be some sort of doublethink which pervades Americans' thoughts. If the economy stagnates and Communism doesn't work as an economic theory....then how come one of the most backward countries in the world....which was also one of the biggest, managed to become a world superpower in 30 years?

Because communism requires such a massive bureauocracy to enforce, the government will most likely be highly centralized

This is a very American idea, mainly due to the federal nature of your system (I would also like to point out the gap in your logic there, you can have a federal system which has a "massive beurocracy".) See, in Britain with have a thing called "Sovereignty of Parliament" this means that Parliament is the highest source of law in the entire country. They could, if they wanted, get rid of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, get rid of local councils and get rid of elections. But they don't, the introdcution of a beurocracy doesn't change anything

At 4/12/03 07:07 AM, Slizor wrote: This I don't understand, it seems to be some sort of doublethink which pervades Americans' thoughts. If the economy stagnates and Communism doesn't work as an economic theory....then how come one of the most backward countries in the world....which was also one of the biggest, managed to become a world superpower in 30 years?

Being able to have lucrative trade deals with other superpowers such as the US helps...

This is a very American idea, mainly due to the federal nature of your system (I would also like to point out the gap in your logic there, you can have a federal system which has a "massive beurocracy".) See, in Britain with have a thing called "Sovereignty of Parliament" this means that Parliament is the highest source of law in the entire country. They could, if they wanted, get rid of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, get rid of local councils and get rid of elections. But they don't, the introdcution of a beurocracy doesn't change anything

Good for the UK. The US Supreme Court holds much power over the laws of the US as well however the Checks and Balances idea placed inside the three branches of US gov't play off one another for dominance.

Okay, for all you people who don't think Communism can work I'm just going to use two arguements on you.

First of all, how can you say Communism doesn't work when it has never existed? You are all too willing to just take it as said. In Russia they had the normenklatura, an elite who got the best of everything. How is that Communist? Then, of course, we could talk about how it has never happened in an industrialised country, a prerequiste for Communism. Seriously, have a good look at the actual working of "Communist states" and you will see they are nothing but Capitalists paying lip service.

Secondly, if you don't accept that, you know when doing a scientific experiment to prove something wrong or right you give things a fair chance? Well Communism has never had a fair chance, wherever it has sprung up there have been wars against it, trade embargos and numerous other tactics. You want to claim something doesn't work, then give it a fiar chance first.

I would say, according to history, that the closest forms of communism close enough to what communism really is would be the tiny utopian communities that sprung up in the US and the UK about 2 centuries ago. All of them came and went.

At 4/12/03 07:23 AM, Slizor wrote: First of all, how can you say Communism doesn't work when it has never existed? You are all too willing to just take it as said. In Russia they had the normenklatura, an elite who got the best of everything. How is that Communist? Then, of course, we could talk about how it has never happened in an industrialised country, a prerequiste for Communism. Seriously, have a good look at the actual working of "Communist states" and you will see they are nothing but Capitalists paying lip service.

lol. but the main point of communism is that it should be 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people' which in itself isn't bad, but people will get £20,000 if they dont work and £21,500 ifg they do. £1,500 for a yeas work isnt very good, it demotivates people and they probably wouldnt wrk.

Secondly, if you don't accept that, you know when doing a scientific experiment to prove something wrong or right you give things a fair chance? Well Communism has never had a fair chance, wherever it has sprung up there have been wars against it, trade embargos and numerous other tactics. You want to claim something doesn't work, then give it a fiar chance first.

i suppose thats a fair point, even after WW1 they tried to stop communism. it didnt work. 1/5th of the world lives under communism.

PRECISELY. Can't we just all say that, and leave the fucking topic as it is?

No, because I enjoy how every topic on communism eventually does a 180 and ends up trashing Capitialism, democracy, or various past-and-present world leaders. I'm going to do my best not to kill all of you when your arguments get too outlandish.

Well..... What can I say? We all like bashing something or other, otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we? But, I still think theShrike said it best about communism.

lol. but the main point of communism is that it should be 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people' which in itself isn't bad, but people will get £20,000 if they dont work and £21,500 ifg they do. £1,500 for a yeas work isnt very good, it demotivates people and they probably wouldnt wrk.

£20,000 a year for not working?! Cool. The more-conscisly named "to each according to need" is what Communism strives towards.....after a fundamental change in society.

At 4/11/03 12:46 PM, TheShadowOfLenin wrote:

At 4/11/03 12:00 PM, nomisdp wrote:

<sigh> It was a figure of speech, maybe you need to think of all the things Lenin did to BENIFIT his country!

like what for instance? The only thing i can think of was pulling Russia out of WW1 and the gains of this were offset by the civil war.

At 4/12/03 10:37 AM, Slizor wrote:
£20,000 a year for not working?! Cool. The more-conscisly named "to each according to need" is what Communism strives towards.....after a fundamental change in society.

There are needs beyond eating, living, and breathing. It may fulfill some needs but it is such an affront to the basic human needs of ownership, self control, and freedom that it inevitably spirals into totalitarianism.

At 4/10/03 12:05 PM, Slizor wrote:

wait wait wait! i got one....what if there could be a constitutional dictatorship?

A dictatorship can have a constitution y'know. And having a Constitution does not mean people will follow it, just look at America. If you want an actual debate about the merits of Communism, bring it on.

now thats a question... a constitutional dictatorship... what the hell kinda country would that be like... the guy in charge is in charge but has to follow certain rules as based in the constitution... wow, that would be weird as fuck...

There are needs beyond eating, living, and breathing. It may fulfill some needs but it is such an affront to the basic human needs of ownership, self control, and freedom that it inevitably spirals into totalitarianism.

Hahaha. That's a good one, instead of saying they were rights, as per usual, you say they are basic needs.

The need to own things.....hmmm, instead of countering this, I will question the credability of this claim.

The need of self-control. This clearly can't be true as people don't have self-control in a Capitalist system and they seem to be going along fine.

The need of freedom. Again, system get along fine without this. Although Communism doesn't deny them of freedom, it frees them from the exploitative upper classes.

At 4/9/03 06:00 PM, kospas wrote: Communists suck because they want a nev Russia or North-Korea in every freakin' country. And they never learn. Communism is a dictatorship and many people don't seem to realize that.

You are quite possibly the most retarded person on this forum.

At 4/9/03 06:00 PM, kospas wrote: Communists suck because they want a nev Russia or North-Korea in every freakin' country. And they never learn. Communism is a dictatorship and many people don't seem to realize that.

Hey, CIA fuck!! I dont want a fucking Russia or north Corea!! I want a fucking democracy, where the people steer and not the millionaire. Remember, in russia and north corea, there was a cup that overthrown the old system and replaced it with communism. THat didnt mean the people wanted communism, that meant some idiots wanted communism, and they realised that people would vote on other parties than the communist party, they made all other parties than communist parties illegal. And that means, the leaders werent actually communists, but fascists.

But anyway, there is two types of communism: The non-democratic type of communism, that have been set in because of a cup, or the people-elected, democratic communism (actually, it is socialism), that have been voted in by the people, and are able to steer a democratic country. The first type, the non-democratic, is what we have seen. But todays socialists want the last type of communism. You should stop sucking the dick of Edgar J. Hoover and start to actually read some books before you say anything about communism.

At 4/13/03 06:47 AM, Slizor wrote: The need of self-control. This clearly can't be true as people don't have self-control in a Capitalist system and they seem to be going along fine.

Very true about capitalism. Capitalism is driven by greed and the competitive nature of Mankind.

The need of freedom. Again, system get along fine without this. Although Communism doesn't deny them of freedom, it frees them from the exploitative upper classes.

Freedom is truly important especially freedom of movement. The more pressure the government puts on the citizens, the more the citizens will writhe and wiggle in the gov't stranglehold.

At 4/13/03 06:47 AM, Slizor wrote:

There are needs beyond eating, living, and breathing. It may fulfill some needs but it is such an affront to the basic human needs of ownership, self control, and freedom that it inevitably spirals into totalitarianism.

Hahaha. That's a good one, instead of saying they were rights, as per usual, you say they are basic needs.

If you don't view freedom as a basic human need then you have a great simialarity to Stalin....by that regard you should go far in your party.

The need to own things.....hmmm, instead of countering this, I will question the credability of this claim.

You still don't realize that greed is an inherent human trait. Capitalism is the only means by which this vice can be wielded for benefitial gains.

The need of self-control. This clearly can't be true as people don't have self-control in a Capitalist system and they seem to be going along fine.

A person in a capitalist system has much more control over their own fate then one living under communism. Being charitable and helping your fellow man is admirable, but a government has no right to impose this upon its citizens.

The need of freedom. Again, system get along fine without this. Although Communism doesn't deny them of freedom, it frees them from the exploitative upper classes.

And enslaves them to the government, what a great trade off.