Communism!

[trage]

I was wondering what everyone thought about Communism? I notice that a lot of people who don't even know anything about it are always saying it's a horrible form of government just because the United States fought against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, things like that make me angry. (These are people in the USA obviosuly -.-)

In my opinion Communism would be a great form of government if people actually followed up with it and it didn't become corrupt in one form or another.

Oh and I know it is unachieveable I just want to knwo peoples opinions on it.

[rklenseth]

Communism is a good idea except there is one problem...us. People become corrupt. Some people are just like that from the start.

It is human nature. You will have people that are saints and people who you might consider the anti-christ or Satan. Most of us are just simply in between those.

Communism itself is not wrong nor is socialism or fascism it is rather the people who run it that are wrong. Stalin was wrong. Hitler was wrong. Not the forms of government that they governed under though each person has their personal opinion of each.

The problem with communism and socialism in general is the lack of choice and democratic solution. Now you can say that European governments have created a good blend of socialistic and democractic government except for the fact of the lack of free enterprise.

Now I have nothing against people who want to live under a communist government. That is their choice as long as they don't force other people under it as well.

Now the one major problem with communism is that it give far too much power and authority to just one body that is usually not elected. Now lets say you didn't want to live under a communist government and said you wanted to change the government. So unless the leaders are saints (and if they are politicians they certainly won't be) the government is going to resist such change. But what hand do you have to play with. If the government controls the food you get, the clothes you wear. If you resist than your family starves or dies from the elements because they weren't properly clothed.

Now if you add in a democratic solution with elected officials rather than appointed or tyrannical leaders (such as is the form of communism in the Soviet Union, China on a national level (they have elected officials on a local level), or Cuba, or North Korea) then you have a better chance to change the government if you get a majority to agree with you that communism isn't working.

[Nick]

Call me weird, but I dont believe in democracy, or at least on such a large scale, like a countries government.
Theres no way that we will ever elect the best man for the job. He probably is a teacher somewhere... The principles of democracy make you THINK you really have a choice about what goes on in the government, but really, who can you choose from? Since if I went off into Canadian politics, I would lose like... everybody, I will use an American example. Are Kerry and Bush really that different? No, the left-wing right-wing thing is just something to make it seem like youre taking a side, when really, theyre pretty much the same, except they benefit different special interest groups...

[The Industriallist]

Communism isn't really a form of government, it's a form of economics. The key feature is that all production is managed by the government. Now, I don't know of any case of a non-totalitarian government with a communist economy, but there's no theoreticall problem with that.

I don't see that it would matter, though. To manage a national economy would certainly take a great many people.
Many people working for the government = a bureaucracy.
I don't think anyone's managed to make a bureaucracy do a good job or be efficient in the history of government on earth. So putting one in charge of your economy is going to be a mess, and because of the importance of a reasonably efficient economy to survival, it will tend to advance to a catastrophe. As frequently observed in history.

If you could find a way to build non-defective large government organizations, you might be able to make communism work, and it would be good (I think. Though there are still downsides). As long as you can't, it works better to use the distributed computing effect of the free market.

[rklenseth]

Call me weird, but I dont believe in democracy, or at least on such a large scale, like a countries government.
Theres no way that we will ever elect the best man for the job. He probably is a teacher somewhere... The principles of democracy make you THINK you really have a choice about what goes on in the government, but really, who can you choose from? Since if I went off into Canadian politics, I would lose like... everybody, I will use an American example. Are Kerry and Bush really that different? No, the left-wing right-wing thing is just something to make it seem like youre taking a side, when really, theyre pretty much the same, except they benefit different special interest groups...

You are talking about a Republic Democracy, Nick. You are right we do not have any choice in the government because we elect representatives to make those choices for us. So in a way we don't have a choice but in a way we do. Lets say an elected official doesn't do what we want him or her to do than we have the choice the next election season to elect someone new that we think might do a better job. So an elected official does have to listen closely to the people or he or she will lose that job. Sooner if you live in California .

If you don't think that current candidates are the best solution than you could run yourself but then you need to convince a majority of the voters to vote for you in each state in order to win. You come to that problem with political parties. Now if you are part of a political party than chances are you are going to vote for the candidate running for office of your party. To not do so would undermine your party (note to people here; I am not part of any political party). So then you would have to ask yourself why are you part of this group if you vote for another person not of your group.

So in essence the most powerful entities in the political spectrum will be and always will be the political parties.

[The Industriallist]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

[Jos Elkink]

I'm in favour of democracy and a free market, but I don't want to really participate in this endless discussion right now. The only thing I would like to remark is that I find it rather funny that while Americans are among the most anti-communist, and Americans are the largest group in Cantr, it is really hard to sustain anything other than a communist regime in Cantr ... People are always talking about working all together for the general good and sort of free market egoism is almost frowned upon ...

[The Industriallist]

I'm in favour of democracy and a free market, but I don't want to really participate in this endless discussion right now. The only thing I would like to remark is that I find it rather funny that while Americans are among the most anti-communist, and Americans are the largest group in Cantr, it is really hard to sustain anything other than a communist regime in Cantr ... People are always talking about working all together for the general good and sort of free market egoism is almost frowned upon ...

I blame the front page...people have to be assuming that 'society simulator' means "go find a society to join". Either that, or way too many people can't combine the ideas of roleplay and competition...

Though I would note that my anti-communist argument doesn't really apply to cantr...no one can seem to build a bureaucracy, hard as some people try.

And besides that, there aren't really any communist governments, except maybe Ladvicitavoi. Most places have more or less monolithic economies, but there's no requirement to participate.

[trage]

Call me weird, but I dont believe in democracy, or at least on such a large scale, like a countries government.
Theres no way that we will ever elect the best man for the job. He probably is a teacher somewhere... The principles of democracy make you THINK you really have a choice about what goes on in the government, but really, who can you choose from? Since if I went off into Canadian politics, I would lose like... everybody, I will use an American example. Are Kerry and Bush really that different? No, the left-wing right-wing thing is just something to make it seem like youre taking a side, when really, theyre pretty much the same, except they benefit different special interest groups...

American "Democracy" in my opinion is not democracy, it's a Federal Republic (in my opinion), Democracy has everyone vote on everything, the United States is not a Democracy.

EDIT: Oops noticed that Richard already responded to this, sorry.

[rklenseth]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

I agree except I think there is a small chance that things could change. I think a strong, independent, party-less leader could break the 2 party strangle hold of the government. But this person would need to be an exceptionally strong leader who can make people listen to him or her. There is a small chance but it would take a miracle for such a thing to happen.

[Xander]

I'm an Anarcho-Communist myself (the communist bit is more Trotskyite, so i'm probably an Anarcho-Trotskyite). Any questions you have can be well answered at www.che-lives.com. I'm a member there, under my more used Internet id of XPhile2868.

[The Industriallist]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

I agree except I think there is a small chance that things could change. I think a strong, independent, party-less leader could break the 2 party strangle hold of the government. But this person would need to be an exceptionally strong leader who can make people listen to him or her. There is a small chance but it would take a miracle for such a thing to happen.

I think someone who could pull that off would be able to overthrow American democracy. I mean, to make a serious political impact on charisma and leadership alone...that would be an incredible amount of power. People who can lead to that degree can lead a country straight into dictatorship, and often have. So you're calling for a double miracle...someone who can save the governmental system without destroying it.

[nitefyre]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

I agree except I think there is a small chance that things could change. I think a strong, independent, party-less leader could break the 2 party strangle hold of the government. But this person would need to be an exceptionally strong leader who can make people listen to him or her. There is a small chance but it would take a miracle for such a thing to happen.

i.e. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (yes, he was a democrat, but party lines were near invisible during the war)

I much prefer non political types, i.e. Nelson Mandela, and well, especially him. The credibility...and such is just awe-inspiring.

Oh just wait another forty or so years till that miracle happens

And responding to Industriallists comments, about not voting- I think one should vote for who they want, be it Nader, let it be. But if you don't vote, I don't see why one should bitch and whine. It's your own damn fault.

I however, agree that essentially, bureaucracies screw over the efficiency of countries. (ie leading upto Sept 11th) But check and balance is definetly needed, hence the need for a legislature. Sure Communism works on the very small scale (cantr level), but it is human nature, as stated earlier, for humans to be greedy evil bastards in most cases. Anyone ever read the easy novel of "Lord of the Flies?" It presents that case- in another layer.

[rklenseth]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

I agree except I think there is a small chance that things could change. I think a strong, independent, party-less leader could break the 2 party strangle hold of the government. But this person would need to be an exceptionally strong leader who can make people listen to him or her. There is a small chance but it would take a miracle for such a thing to happen.

i.e. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (yes, he was a democrat, but party lines were near invisible during the war)

I much prefer non political types, i.e. Nelson Mandela, and well, especially him. The credibility...and such is just awe-inspiring.

Oh just wait another forty or so years till that miracle happens

And responding to Industriallists comments, about not voting- I think one should vote for who they want, be it Nader, let it be. But if you don't vote, I don't see why one should bitch and whine. It's your own damn fault.

I however, agree that essentially, bureaucracies screw over the efficiency of countries. (ie leading upto Sept 11th) But check and balance is definetly needed, hence the need for a legislature. Sure Communism works on the very small scale (cantr level), but it is human nature, as stated earlier, for humans to be greedy evil bastards in most cases. Anyone ever read the easy novel of "Lord of the Flies?" It presents that case- in another layer.

I was going to say George Washington.

[nitefyre]

It's worse than that...I wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates...but because we have not just political parties but an effective 2-party system here in the US, there simply is no chance of anyone else winning. At this point it would take years of direct effort by both major parties to create any chance that another party could make a creible presidential run. Which means that the party leadership gets to pick the choices, which is probably more power than the electoral ability to chose the winning candidate.

And thus the US is really badly doomed...

I agree except I think there is a small chance that things could change. I think a strong, independent, party-less leader could break the 2 party strangle hold of the government. But this person would need to be an exceptionally strong leader who can make people listen to him or her. There is a small chance but it would take a miracle for such a thing to happen.

i.e. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (yes, he was a democrat, but party lines were near invisible during the war)

I much prefer non political types, i.e. Nelson Mandela, and well, especially him. The credibility...and such is just awe-inspiring.

Oh just wait another forty or so years till that miracle happens

And responding to Industriallists comments, about not voting- I think one should vote for who they want, be it Nader, let it be. But if you don't vote, I don't see why one should bitch and whine. It's your own damn fault.

I however, agree that essentially, bureaucracies screw over the efficiency of countries. (ie leading upto Sept 11th) But check and balance is definetly needed, hence the need for a legislature. Sure Communism works on the very small scale (cantr level), but it is human nature, as stated earlier, for humans to be greedy evil bastards in most cases. Anyone ever read the easy novel of "Lord of the Flies?" It presents that case- in another layer.

I was going to say George Washington.

That goes without saying.

Of course party lines weren't created back then ... as of yet ... if I'm not mistaken.

But still, he is...George Washington.

*exerices his right to bold*