Poll - Communism: Good or evil?

[Meh]

The measure of a good goverment is it's ability to create and utilize new technology and adapt to external changes.

Capitalism was an answer to prior govermental styles by putting the drive for technology into the hands of businesses.

Communism was an anti-capitalistic movement to answer the problem of captialism which was business natural tendecy is to become dominant. In other words a monopoly. Once this state is acheived technological progress ends and everything stagnates with opressed workers and rich business owners.

Facism was an anti-capitalistic, anti-communistic movement to answer the problems of the two. The problem of monopolies was resolved by the monopolies being under the service of the state. The problem with communism is that while preventing monopolist personal gain it also elminiated personal gain. All and all this was the best system based on economic and scientific princpals. However since it was state cetnric it automtically made enmies out of every other state and was elminated. Also the psedo-sceince of race which resulted in the idodic mruder of millions inhbited it by remove otherwise helpful people from particpation. If Facism where allowed to continue it would have eventually had the same problems of imperialism with little changes at the top of the structure.

Most states live in a combination of these goverments now.

Captialism - to allure people into advancing business and technology. States can never decide do as much as unaligned business and individuals.
Socialism - to prevent parts of the population from being unable to meaningfully contribute and or live. Writing off parts of the population elminiates the possibility that they will solve particular problems.

It was the blending of those two in the end that resulted in the states we have today.

Note I did not mention democracy, republics etc. There is another balance betting having the populance elect leaders and having constant leadership. Elected leaders could be elected to make technoglogy flow backwards or otherwise ruin things. Unelected leaders have a tendency to be stagnant. This is where the judical/civil and the elected parts of goverment come into play. Elections are needed to keep the goverment working for the electorate. Judical/civil needs to be there to keep everyone else sticking to the founding pricipals of the goverment so that it doesn't run itself off a cliff.

[Darth Tiberius]

You're correct Solfius. I said communism is evil however because it opens doors to other dictators and is a anti-liberty and a anit-God system. That is a matter of opinion however to some. To me it is fact but to some they can make points to counter my argument which some (opposing arguments to my opinion) of them are actually quite insightful.

[Darth Tiberius]

I also must commend David Goodwin on his insightful comment. I agree with the good proportion to it.

[watermelonnose]

The measure of a good government is it's ability to create and utilize new technology and adapt to external changes.

The problem of monopolies was resolved by the monopolies being under the service of the state.

Governments don't create anything, only individual people do.

Natural monopolies are beneficial to the economy and consumers. They are however short lived.

The monopolies that are troublesome are the ones created by the force of law. The only monopolies that can continue for long are the ones protected, at the expense of the economy, by the government. Governments, not Capitalism, created the problem with monopolies .

[Meh]

The measure of a good government is it's ability to create and utilize new technology and adapt to external changes.

The problem of monopolies was resolved by the monopolies being under the service of the state.

Governments don't create anything, only individual people do.

Exactly correct and the role of goverment is to stand out of the way of progress possibly helping it a bit via education and grants.

Natural monopolies are beneficial to the economy and consumers. They are however short lived.

The monopolies that are troublesome are the ones created by the force of law. The only monopolies that can continue for long are the ones protected, at the expense of the economy, by the government. Governments, not Capitalism, created the problem with monopolies .

The Sugar Trust, the Coal Trusts and all of those Trusts would have lived forever if not for goverment intervention and were not created by the goverment. This was the time where all the anti-trust (anti-monopoly) rules came out of. Goverments job is to prevent monopolies from creating themselves and also as you say not to create any on their own.

Captialism unhindered by rules creates monopolies. The larger the company the more capital it can put behind absorbing and supressing which is easier than innovating.

[watermelonnose]

The Sugar Trust, the Coal Trusts and all of those Trusts would have lived forever if not for government intervention and were not created by the government. This was the time where all the anti-trust (anti-monopoly) rules came out of. Governments job is to prevent monopolies from creating themselves and also as you say not to create any on their own.

Capitalism unhindered by rules creates monopolies. The larger the company the more capital it can put behind absorbing and suppressing which is easier than innovating.

It wouldn't matter if the trusts lived on forever. Without government force to keep others from entering a profitable market or giving them special privileges they couldn't maintain a monopoly.

The only way to maintain a monopoly under a pure capitalistic system is to offer their product at a lower price that any other competitor, but once their prices rise to make it profitable for others to enter the market, those others would.

The consumer benefits form natural monopolies like that.

One company could never amass enough capital to absorb all of its competitors, even if they were willing . To try would be self-defeating.

We need the government out of the business of meddling in the market.

[Camino]

Also the psedo-sceince of race which resulted in the idodic mruder of millions inhbited it by remove otherwise helpful people from particpation.

Your confusing facism and Nazism there because although the Nazi regime was facist, mass murder and facisim are not inclusive they just happened to come together in the form of Nazism.

As for this natural greed being good I can't belive how wrong I find my self looking at such a statement, all natural greed has brought the majority is suffering the great capitalist republics and their companies have forced most people to live in the most awful conditions there are. How this greed drives us on I don't know because it doesn't and it never will but the pursuit of knowledge and understanding are what I believe drives humanity forward mostly albeit it is contaminated by personnal gain in it's uglyist forms.[/quote]

[Darth Tiberius]

However Hitler's facist state was a bit of a contradiction. Facism is the definition of full market freedom. Tlotal opposite to the planned economy. Hitler however regulated and nastionalised many industries. Almost like communism but under the pretence of facism. Hitler chose who could own certain markets. That's not quite facism. The Romans allmost had it.

[Meh]

The Sugar Trust, the Coal Trusts and all of those Trusts would have lived forever if not for government intervention and were not created by the government. This was the time where all the anti-trust (anti-monopoly) rules came out of. Governments job is to prevent monopolies from creating themselves and also as you say not to create any on their own.

Capitalism unhindered by rules creates monopolies. The larger the company the more capital it can put behind absorbing and suppressing which is easier than innovating.

It wouldn't matter if the trusts lived on forever. Without government force to keep others from entering a profitable market or giving them special privileges they couldn't maintain a monopoly.

The only way to maintain a monopoly under a pure capitalistic system is to offer their product at a lower price that any other competitor, but once their prices rise to make it profitable for others to enter the market, those others would.

The consumer benefits form natural monopolies like that.

One company could never amass enough capital to absorb all of its competitors, even if they were willing . To try would be self-defeating.

We need the government out of the business of meddling in the market.

But it did happen before and could happen again.

When a monopoly is formed a monopoly no longer offers good at the lowest price. They can raise the price at will.

[Meh]

Also the psedo-sceince of race which resulted in the idodic mruder of millions inhbited it by remove otherwise helpful people from particpation.

Your confusing facism and Nazism there because although the Nazi regime was facist, mass murder and facisim are not inclusive they just happened to come together in the form of Nazism.

As for this natural greed being good I can't belive how wrong I find my self looking at such a statement, all natural greed has brought the majority is suffering the great capitalist republics and their companies have forced most people to live in the most awful conditions there are. How this greed drives us on I don't know because it doesn't and it never will but the pursuit of knowledge and understanding are what I believe drives humanity forward mostly albeit it is contaminated by personnal gain in it's uglyist forms.

[/quote]

I could be confusing the two. Musseli did very similiar things govermental wise and was just as racist. If you were blond haried and blued eyed then you were "responsible for the fall of the empire".

There are several levels of greed. What would be a better name for the level of greed that allows a person to own a computer while others starve? People have a natural desire to make themselves comfortable and it that force that makes working for your own ends more productive than voluteering for a state. There are saints and sinners on both ends. I am talking where most of us live which is more towards the center between a hoarder and a alturist.

[watermelonnose]

The Sugar Trust, the Coal Trusts and all of those Trusts would have lived forever if not for government intervention and were not created by the government. This was the time where all the anti-trust (anti-monopoly) rules came out of. Governments job is to prevent monopolies from creating themselves and also as you say not to create any on their own.

Capitalism unhindered by rules creates monopolies. The larger the company the more capital it can put behind absorbing and suppressing which is easier than innovating.

It wouldn't matter if the trusts lived on forever. Without government force to keep others from entering a profitable market or giving them special privileges they couldn't maintain a monopoly.

The only way to maintain a monopoly under a pure capitalistic system is to offer their product at a lower price that any other competitor, but once their prices rise to make it profitable for others to enter the market, those others would.

The consumer benefits form natural monopolies like that.

One company could never amass enough capital to absorb all of its competitors, even if they were willing . To try would be self-defeating.

We need the government out of the business of meddling in the market.

But it did happen before and could happen again.

When a monopoly is formed a monopoly no longer offers good at the lowest price. They can raise the price at will.

If you look into where it has happened before, you will find that the unfair advantage these companies had were because of the advantages they received from government.

If a business wants to keep its monopoly it will have to keep their prices low and keep on innovating otherwise the market forces will have others coming in to compete.

You are missing the point that the only monopolies that can carry on for any length of time and not be beneficial are the ones that are protected by government.

[watermelonnose]

Economic systems

Fascism = The private ownership with public control of the means of production.

Socialism = The public ownership and control of the means of production.

Communism = is no different that socialism in its economics only in the political methods used to accomplished it goals.

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production.

I don't thik this one's been tried yet = publc ownership with private control of the means of production.

[Darth Tiberius]

The theroy you stated has never been tried is a partial contradiction in definition of itself. Private control means that it is not nationalised. However the system you said is allready out there. Stockholders control the outcome of businesses. That is why public control of private businesses allready occurs.

[rklenseth]

I'm surprised this topic is still going considering what I have read so far most of you agree that any kind of socialism can't work due to human nature and from most of the posts I have read most of the people currently have Conservative ideals with talking about how there should be less government in the economy or less government everywhere.

Personally, I think that it is sometimes a necessary evil for there to be some government. That is why I'm not an ultra-Conservative but a Moderate Conservative but I am definitely against these Democrats wanting to nationalize health care and put it under the government. It might be free to the poor class and the wealthy class can afford it but imagine what will happen to the middle class. We will be screwed over. That is one reason why I'm predicting the Democrats will lose the coming presidential elections. The middle class is the true power in America whether anybody realizes that or not.

I also love how the Democrats always use race and ethnicity. The Irish-Americans learned a long time ago that the Democrats were a bunch of crooks. I like it how they always blame Republicans for being racist or descrimatory while it was Republicans who freed the Africans from slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. It was a Republican Congress that passed Civil Right legislation in which years before was voted down by a Democratic Congress. I also love how they play to the illegal Latin-American immigrants and those of legal status by saying they will allow them to stay in the country for their vote. You wonder why the Democrats in California passed that legislation giving the right to vote to illegal immigrants. Not only are these immigrants taking away jobs from legal Americans because there are employers who don't want to pay mininium wage but they will soon take over our government by giving it to a Democratic Socialist Elite.

I also do find it funny that the many of these so called anti-war people are actually extreme radical socialists who are also planning a violent revolution to take over America. Hmmmmm.......You talk about hypocrites. I also find it funny that a lot of these Islamic countries are saying that we are fighting a holy war against them but when in fact there are more Muslims living in our country than there are in their country. I wonder if a lot of these brainwashed poor bastards in those countries know that. I also have no sympathies for their causes. Any so called political group that goes and purposedly kills innocent men, women and child so that people will listen to them should not be listened to. I think it was Pirog that was questioning Israelis actions against the Palestinians. What would you do if another groupd of people were purposedly targeting your people who are innocent in any of the crimes the government may have committed? They aren't targeting military barracks or anything military but innocent civilians going about their daily lives. You wonder why Israel reacts the way it does when such attacks happen. And do you think the Palestinians will stop once Israel gives them what they want? I don't think so.

Just thought I would add more flavor to this rather political post.

And I don't think the world is one big illusion. It's just a bunch of different realities. Perhaps if one was to form all of those realities into one maybe they would find one truth. But as I heard once, the truth is whatever you believe it is and that truth may only be a lie to another.

[Darth Tiberius]

I agree with quite a bit of what you said. Those are pretty right wing vuiewpoints. But also remember the bad Republican leaders that did horrible things. Nixon is a prime example of an absolute monster. I

Personally, I can't stand these anti-war people. They are just mindless zombies who are disaffected and looking for someone to blame.

That is why we need a government that doesn't have the evils in both ends of the spectrum. A giovernment in the middle of the spectrum. Like the "Keskusta" party I belong to kin Finland. Allthough I live in the UK. My mom is Finnish.

What really bugs me is when people sympathise with these terrorists like the one's on Sept. 11. Some idiots say they were justified or at least misunderstood. That is ridiculous!