Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why?
Why does everyone have to pick on socialist systems of government? Admitt it, you only hate it because your all racists....Pigs!!!

Listen Slizor you seem to view every government from a solely philosophical point of view.

By Marx's precise definition has there ever been a communist state? No.....but there never will be.

Marx's theory might have seemed to work in his head but it is impossible in the real world.

Therefore I would say that the Soviet Union came as close to being a large scale communist state as there will ever be. The results of that system are obvious widespread poverty caused my government beuracracy and the destruction of individual rights.

If everyone was Jesus Christ, Ghandi, or Mother Theresa than communism might work. But in the real world not all people are so willing to sacrifice for their fellow man, nor will they ever be.

At 4/17/03 07:39 PM, sabrewulf wrote: Why?
Why does everyone have to pick on socialist systems of government? Admitt it, you only hate it because your all racists....Pigs!!!

Good to see I haven't been underestimating the intelligence of the average socialist.

At 4/18/03 01:58 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

Good to see I haven't been underestimating the intelligence of the average socialist.

...and thus is the additute expressed by the average democrate toward the socalist (which comparitively makes the socalist look better).
but seriously whats wrong with communists? There great guys once you get to know them and stop making biased opinions based on "who killed who for what". Just because some of them are asshole doesn't mean the lot is rotten.

but what about the socalist education system? surely that could be murged with the democratict system of government. Think about it..not having to worry about what university you'll have to go to, not having to worry about student loans!!! If we could have that in our current system, that would put an end to alot of problems in our system like unemployment, and sever dept. Im sure it could work.....you can't really corupt the educatin system, right?

I dont like communists because it just means that poor people can do no work at all but get lots of money. If you goto any extremes of a political view then of course u are going to get a dictatorship. Thats why people shouldnt goto extremes, power corrupts.

communism truly does suck,thats why we have to kill them all

At 4/18/03 05:19 PM, Ps2_Lover_666 wrote: communism truly does suck,thats why we have to kill them all

You're an idiot. We should kill you.

At 4/18/03 03:00 PM, sabrewulf wrote:

At 4/18/03 01:58 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

Good to see I haven't been underestimating the intelligence of the average socialist.

...and thus is the additute expressed by the average democrate toward the socalist (which comparitively makes the socalist look better).
but seriously whats wrong with communists? There great guys once you get to know them and stop making biased opinions based on "who killed who for what". Just because some of them are asshole doesn't mean the lot is rotten.

Communists are mindless fools who care nothing for freedom and are perfectly willing to let the government rule their lives. Some of them may be nice people, but as far as politics go they are idiots for not realizing the corruption inherent in the system.

At 4/18/03 08:59 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Communists are mindless fools who care nothing for freedom and are perfectly willing to let the government rule their lives.

also there has never been a truly communist nation... the soviet union/north korea are dictatorial communist nations, china is a strange mixture of dictatorial govt with a set free market economy, very strange combo to say the least...

also the FASCISTS the same people that are telling others what they can and cannot do in bed? ie people in 13 states saying sodomy is illegal...

Some of them may be nice people, but as far as politics go they are idiots for not realizing the corruption inherent in the system.

there is corruption inherent in every system...

the US electoral college is set solely to make sure the people dont have total say in who is the president... also when the constitution was written the senators were elected by the state legislature... very democratic isnt it

At 4/18/03 10:57 PM, karasz wrote:

At 4/18/03 08:59 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Communists are mindless fools who care nothing for freedom and are perfectly willing to let the government rule their lives.

also there has never been a truly communist nation... the soviet union/north korea are dictatorial communist nations, china is a strange mixture of dictatorial govt with a set free market economy, very strange combo to say the least...

There never will be a communist nation either because true communism is a fool's dream. The closest you will ever get on a wide scale is the USSR and as I have said on many occasions the results of that experiment are quite obvious. If people want to voluntarily join a communist commune then that's fine but forcing the citizens of a nation into a system that so maliscously limits a person's mobility and freedom over thei own life is little better than fascism.

also the FASCISTS the same people that are telling others what they can and cannot do in bed? ie people in 13 states saying sodomy is illegal...

Yeah there are a lot of religous types in congress. Its not like the law is ever enforced anyway so I don't see how it matters. Comparing that to fascism is mindless hyperbole. You feel oppressed because you don't know what true opression is.

Some of them may be nice people, but as far as politics go they are idiots for not realizing the corruption inherent in the system.

there is corruption inherent in every system...

True but in a communist state the government is given so much power that the likely hood of said corruption and the consequences of it are far worse than in a system with a smaller government.

the US electoral college is set solely to make sure the people dont have total say in who is the president... also when the constitution was written the senators were elected by the state legislature... very democratic isnt it

If the electoral college was put in place to assure that the people didn't have total say over who was president then explain to me the motive of this?

One would imagine that having an electoral college would limit the influence of major population centers like NYC to a degree thus making it harder for the supposedly corrupt framers of the constitution to control the election process.

And as for the point about the senators being elected by the state legislature one should remember that the congress was elected by the populous. In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous. However this is a mute point since later changes to the constitution disposed of this.

If you really wanted to make a point about how supposedly unjust america was then you should point out the fact that only white male land owners could vote in the early days of the country. However if you do so you should also remember that at the time we were the only democratic nation on Earth so I guess that sort of sucks the punch out of any statement you could make about how unjust you feel America was in it's early days.

The brilliance of the constitution is that it can be ammended to change with the times. A creation as signifigant and glorius as democracy is bound to need a little fine tuning.

At 4/18/03 11:44 PM, implodinggoat wrote: There never will be a communist nation either because true communism is a fool's dream. The closest you will ever get on a wide scale is the USSR and as I have said on many occasions the results of that experiment are quite obvious. If people want to voluntarily join a communist commune then that's fine but forcing the citizens of a nation into a system that so maliscously limits a person's mobility and freedom over thei own life is little better than fascism.

but a fascist govt isnt a communist govt... and just remember there has never been a MARXIST communist nation... only Leninist/Stalinist communist nations... remember that always...

Yeah there are a lot of religous types in congress. Its not like the law is ever enforced anyway so I don't see how it matters. Comparing that to fascism is mindless hyperbole. You feel oppressed because you don't know what true opression is.

fascism is the govt telling u what u can and cannot do... having a law that says u cant have sex this way only that way isnt that oppressive?

if its not enforced then Y have the law?

im a straight white guy in the 18-49 year old range... i never will know what oppression is...

If the electoral college was put in place to assure that the people didn't have total say over who was president then explain to me the motive of this?

One would imagine that having an electoral college would limit the influence of major population centers like NYC to a degree thus making it harder for the supposedly corrupt framers of the constitution to control the election process.

exactly... shouldnt every 1 vote in NYC count as the same as those in Miami, or Dallas? i dont have the actual numbers but u get my point right?

And as for the point about the senators being elected by the state legislature one should remember that the congress was elected by the populous.

how can it be a representative congress if only 1 is directly elected by the people?

In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous.

do we want a govt that is indirectly elected by the people...

not that it really matters since the constitution changed this... ill look for something else wrong with the constitution that is more relevant...

If you really wanted to make a point about how supposedly unjust america was then you should point out the fact that only white male land owners could vote in the early days of the country. However if you do so you should also remember that at the time we were the only democratic nation on Earth so I guess that sort of sucks the punch out of any statement you could make about how unjust you feel America was in it's early days.

well thats exactly y i didnt make the point...

The brilliance of the constitution is that it can be ammended to change with the times. A creation as signifigant and glorius as democracy is bound to need a little fine tuning.

but the constitution makes the persons vote in NYC mean less than that of Boston

Listen Slizor you seem to view every government from a solely philosophical point of view.

I'm not a Marxist, I just happen to believe in laelling things correctly.

Marx's theory might have seemed to work in his head but it is impossible in the real world.

We always come back to this, you have yet to prove this point.

Therefore I would say that the Soviet Union came as close to being a large scale communist state as there will ever be. The results of that system are obvious widespread poverty caused my government beuracracy and the destruction of individual rights.

Clearly you have no historical knowledge of Russia, or you would know that A) poverty was already widespread and B) people had less rights then under the "Communists".

According to Webster's Dictionary, communism is any economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole. No private property or ownership. Everything belongs to the people as a whole. This is a classless and stateless society however for equal distribution of goods, in my opinion now, there must be organization and planning for this to be done. For this to be done, I believe that there has to be a group of people in charge of such organization. This might be where the one-party concept stems from. I believe the differences that separate communism from any other system is the emphasis on equality of all things. When the people in charge of planning secures for itself more goods than the rest of society then inequality steps in and destroys communism.

At 4/19/03 01:09 AM, karasz wrote:
but a fascist govt isnt a communist govt... and just remember there has never been a MARXIST communist nation... only Leninist/Stalinist communist nations... remember that always...

yes and you remember that their never will be one because its not possible on a large scale without deteriorating into fascism.

fascism is the govt telling u what u can and cannot do... having a law that says u cant have sex this way only that way isnt that oppressive?

Its opressive but only slightly. Fascism is having a dictator ruling over you that controls practically everything. If you actually lived in say China for a while then you would know what true opression is.

if its not enforced then Y have the law?

im a straight white guy in the 18-49 year old range... i never will know what oppression is...

You will never know what oppression is in the United States unless the voters allow for the government to grow beyond the limits the constitution put on it. Which they are doing slowly but surely so perhaps you will taste opression.

If the electoral college was put in place to assure that the people didn't have total say over who was president then explain to me the motive of this?

One would imagine that having an electoral college would limit the influence of major population centers like NYC to a degree thus making it harder for the supposedly corrupt framers of the constitution to control the election process.

exactly... shouldnt every 1 vote in NYC count as the same as those in Miami, or Dallas? i dont have the actual numbers but u get my point right?

They do actually. New York gets more electoral votes than Florida or Texas because its population is larger. I agree with you that the electoral college is outdated but you decided that you would exagerate it into some great fascist opression of the American people when it is merely an outdated system.

how can it be a representative congress if only 1 is directly elected by the people?

What the hell are you talking about?

In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous.

do we want a govt that is indirectly elected by the people...

No, thats why there was an ammendment to get rid of that back in the early 19th century why you brought it up is beyond me.

At 4/19/03 12:23 PM, Slizor wrote:

Marx's theory might have seemed to work in his head but it is impossible in the real world.

We always come back to this, you have yet to prove this point.

History makes a pretty strong case for me. Its impossible to prove that it could never work because you can always say, yes it failed the last three hundred times but maybe this time......

Therefore I would say that the Soviet Union came as close to being a large scale communist state as there will ever be. The results of that system are obvious widespread poverty caused my government beuracracy and the destruction of individual rights.

Clearly you have no historical knowledge of Russia, or you would know that A) poverty was already widespread and B) people had less rights then under the "Communists".

A) Is true. However it isn't the point, the people were under a monarchy (a system which I oppose as much as I oppose communism) of an incompetent Czar at the time. The point is that if they had a capitalist democracy since 1918 instead of a communist one for 70 years then Russia would be in much better shape today.

and as for B) I must disagree with you here. The Czars were certainly opressive but they never imagined anything on the scale that Stalin did. Still this is a mute point as I don't support Monarchies.

Speaking of the czars, what was up with that Ras Butin guy. I would like to elaborate on the question more but hes just so wierd I can't.

At 4/18/03 03:09 PM, sabrewulf wrote: but what about the socalist education system? surely that could be murged with the democratict system of government.

The Socialist Education System apparently doesn't put much of an emphasis on spelling and grammar.

At 4/19/03 10:00 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/19/03 12:23 PM, Slizor wrote:

and as for B) I must disagree with you here. The Czars were certainly opressive but they never imagined anything on the scale that Stalin did. Still this is a mute point as I don't support Monarchies.

??? You should study russian history. Stalin based his politics on those of the Czar Ivan the Terrible. Ivan was a paranoid ruler who massacre 1/4 of the population in the city of Novgorod (2nd city in importance after Moscow at the time) because he had suspicions that the population wanted to rebel (he had no proofs). Besides, you cannot base the analysis of the whole Russian communist system based on Stalin alone. When you study Russian history, you discover that the way this country has always worked was in violence and oppression. It has become a way of life. If you look at Russia nowadays, it asnt change at all since the fall of communism. 2 days ago a Russian politician that was against Poutine's politics was shot by a silenced weapon. Russia oppressive ways were not the doing of communism.

You can't judge Russian history solely by the actions of Ivan the Terrible either.

I was reffering to a Czar Nicholas the 2nd the one whose entire family the Bolsheviks executed.

He was incompetent but not a bad human being, he cared about the Russian people but he had no idea how to help them.

At 4/19/03 09:53 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

how can it be a representative congress if only 1 is directly elected by the people?

What the hell are you talking about?

before the 16th amendment that had the people directly elect senators, the state leg. did, and i was reafering to how tahts not a representative govt SINCE the senate was elected by those that are elected...

In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous.

do we want a govt that is indirectly elected by the people...

No, thats why there was an ammendment to get rid of that back in the early 19th century why you brought it up is beyond me.

i was refering to how the US wasnt a truly representative govt, since the electoral college is there and the senators USED to not be directly elected...

semantics

At 4/9/03 06:04 PM, Shangui wrote: But what if their could be a democratic communism ? Wouldnt that be great, everyone would gain just the same, their would be no social innegalities or oppression. It's the best of both systems.

democratic communism used to exist in the old Yugoslavia between 1946 and 1980 under the reign of Josip Broz or 'Tito', he wanted no part of the Warsaw pact of the 1950's and he rules his own country and it only failed after his death when milosevic took over and all those small countries like croatia and bosnia broke away

At 4/18/03 05:09 PM, The_Dark_Skater wrote: I dont like communists because it just means that poor people can do no work at all but get lots of money. If you goto any extremes of a political view then of course u are going to get a dictatorship. Thats why people shouldnt goto extremes, power corrupts.

when you look at your history books, many sick-minded people like Stalin ran thier countries under communism, ruled as a dictator so that no one could overthrow him, but under the communist manefesto written by marx and engles, communism is not run by a dictator, it has an actual goverment much similar to a democratic, but in a different version and they dont do no work, the five year plan by stalin during the 1930'd made the soviet union one of the leading countries in the world in industry and agriculture during the great depression, so communism is only corrupted by people of want it corrupt, just like with democracy

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.

communism is NOT a dictatorship. only fanatics like stalin ruled as a dictator so they could never lose power, but just like with democracy, the have their own government people, much similar to democratic countries. in regards to some communists who want a soviet union in every country, these people are followers of Leon Trotsky who believed in world revolution, and he was actually assassinated in Mexico for his beliefs of world revolution in 1940. so the system and government are not the problem, its the fanatical people who run it that corrupt it and give it a bad name, not that im saying im communist or anything, its just that you need the facts to help you understand the world better

Communism was warped, but lenin modified it to suit the needs of a modern world. it would be like having everyone riding horses in this day and age, what eventually happens in communism though is that the dictator (a) needs power. (b) can't leave office because without force upholding communism and punishing the slackers of society, communism would collapse. (c) was only supposed to fill a purpose then vacate the office along with no government at all, benifiting society through individual loyalty and commitment to one's country.

unfortunately people are greedy and selfish

We always come back to this, you have yet to prove this point.

History makes a pretty strong case for me.

Please do not cite "history" as an authority as history is far far too complex to be put into one sentence. Please, explain this to me. Have any countries been/are communist? Or are you saying that the Soviet Union was communist but then it collapsed?

Clearly you have no historical knowledge of Russia, or you would know that A) poverty was already widespread and B) people had less rights then under the "Communists".

A) Is true. However it isn't the point, the people were under a monarchy (a system which I oppose as much as I oppose communism) of an incompetent Czar at the time. The point is that if they had a capitalist democracy since 1918 instead of a communist one for 70 years then Russia would be in much better shape today.

A) This is totally unfounded B) The industrialisation of Russia only happened so quickly because of the Gulags and other such schemes. If "Communism" doesn't happen then they don't get industrialised, if they don't get industrialised....they lose World War 2.

B) I must disagree with you here. The Czars were certainly opressive but they never imagined anything on the scale that Stalin did. Still this is a mute point as I don't support Monarchies.

Stalin did murder people, totally, but there was also greater rights, espeially under Lenin (Stalin cut back on these rights.) Like the right to divorce, the right of equal treatment of women, etc.

why is everyone ripping on dictatorships? a dictatorship is the most efficient style of government designed by man. no beuracracy, no voting, no wasted time. if its a good idea, the dictator has it done, period. I cant help it that not all dictatorships are benevolent, but I would rather live in benevolent (benevolent means good for you retards who are going to flame this) dictatorship, where the dictator understands the need for personal freedom than a democratic republic or a communist republic of the same type. That is why dictators are so hard to topple, because people who believe the dictator is benevolent would fight to the death to keep him in power, rather than fall to a government where justice so often falls through the cracks, as it so often does in republics. what would the world be like if it was run by the worlds smartest man, instead of some group of elected idiots that spend all their time fighting with each other, instead of injustice? of course the worlds smartest man would avoid this difficult position like the plague, but imagine how much better run the world could be.

well when people say dictatorship they think Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Mussolini... NOT Arthur of Camelot, cuz i mean hell he too was had absolute control...

At 4/21/03 07:00 AM, Slizor wrote:

We always come back to this, you have yet to prove this point.

History makes a pretty strong case for me.

Please do not cite "history" as an authority as history is far far too complex to be put into one sentence. Please, explain this to me. Have any countries been/are communist? Or are you saying that the Soviet Union was communist but then it collapsed?

I am saying that many nations have attempted to be communist states and the result has always been the same a dictatorship has evolved out of the powerful beuracracy neccesary to manage a communist system.
The Soviet Union came as close as any nation ever has or ever will to being a true communist state and the results are obvious.

A) This is totally unfounded B) The industrialisation of Russia only happened so quickly because of the Gulags and other such schemes. If "Communism" doesn't happen then they don't get industrialised, if they don't get industrialised....they lose World War 2.

Look at the rest of the western world Slizor. All of Western Europe has been running under a capitalist system throughout the 20th century where as Eastern Europe sat under communism for 50 to 70 years and is much poorer.

To adress your other point, I believe that a capitalist Russia could have industrialized just as effectively as a communist one. Look at the United States, our industrial output was equal to the rest of the world combined during that war.

We could have won without the Russians. It wouldn't have been easy but it could have been done. Eventually we would have beat the Germans to the bomb via the Manhattan Project and the war would have ended quickly.

Besides the weather won the war for the Russians more than anything else.

Stalin did murder people, totally, but there was also greater rights, espeially under Lenin (Stalin cut back on these rights.) Like the right to divorce, the right of equal treatment of women, etc.

Lenin was no saint Slizor, he was enacting mass executions of "dissidents" throughout his reign so that he could maintain power. Compared to the Czars he might have instituted more rights but compared to western democracies he lagged far behind.