View Full Version : CCCP


Le Petit Prince
Oct 01, 2001, 11:37 AM
Welcome to the CCCP thread (USSR) for communist and fanatics of the soviet empire...

I vote communist in all election (Canada):)

Juize
Oct 01, 2001, 12:19 PM
Ummmmm...
What is the point of this topic?..
:confused: :confused: :confused:
(the MEANING, WHY)

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 01, 2001, 12:39 PM
What is the point of this topic?..

What is the point of you being on this forum?:confused:

Flatlander Fox
Oct 01, 2001, 12:50 PM
I have the feeling that you would be the peasant in the communist system... Yeah, that's what usually happens to smart people in a communisitic system... That or they end up dead.

Like that idea?

Or maybe you should look at ALL of the highly successful countries that are currently under a communist government.:rolleyes:

It's an nice dreamy economic system, not a good government type.

I'm not much of a bleeding heart liberal, but I want to help out the less fortunate also with government aid. I am not a right winger either. But if you want to try a communist system, join the Army.

You will get paid as much as the guy next to you, whether you deserve it or not. He may or may not work, but he will still get paid. You will to.

You will get fed, you may not like the food so well, but that is too bad.

Your boss will tell you to do things which you consider silly and dangerous, but you will do them or suffer the severe consequences.

I love my job, but I make it tolerable for myself in my own way. Many others are not able to do so.

I suggest you join as quick as possible, that way you can figure out for yourself and get these silly and romanticized ideas out of your skull.

Communist threads make me:mad:. :)

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 01, 2001, 12:57 PM
I have the feeling that you would be the peasant in the communist system... Yeah, that's what usually happens to smart people in a communisitic system... That or they end up dead.

You rather would be forced to invent new weapons under gunpoint.

It's an nice dreamy economic system, not a good government type.

Maybe ,MAYBE time will prove different.Also about capitalism.

Flatlander Fox
Oct 01, 2001, 01:15 PM
Unless they are all on hash or LSD.

People compete against one another, that is nature.

Capitalism has a better chance of utopia, but a mix of both is best for all.

Capitalism=Rich people happy. Poor people stepped all over.

Communism=Rich people dead. Government riches distributed unevenly. Poor people held at gunpoint to stay poor.

CornMaster
Oct 01, 2001, 01:33 PM
You see...what I like about Communism is that everyone is treated equal. Money, race, sex aren't supposed to matter. The government doles out the profit of the country equally.

The whole motivation for the worker is to improve the country, therefore improving his own situatition. Unfortunatally, at our current state of evolution, the simple man can't see into the long run. They get lazy and stop working. And instead of others around him working harder to make up for it....they start to get lazy as well. It begins a downward sprial...that is very hard to break. But...when mankind is over the things that makes us different and can see the big picture...then Communism will work and THEN it will flourish!

CornMaster = Idealistic.
:goodjob:

Other reasons Communism has failed thus far are:
1) It's not TRUE communism. The Government plays favorites and shoots itself in the foot.
2) Leaders of Communist countries, for the most part, have been dictators. You need to be a fully functional Democracy for it to work well.
3) Size. The countries that Communism has been tried (Russia/China) are huge. It is nearly impossible to control a country this vast. Smaller countries would be much more apporiate to start with. Then grow to include bigger countries.
4) Capitalism. Capitalist countries sabatoge Communist countries because if Communism worked, the poor capitalists would join them. Without anyone for the rich capitalists to exploit they will eventually become poor as well and then there is no more Capitalism. Rich people hate to loose the illusion of power that money gives them. And since they have the money they can "buyout" the Communists.
5) Technology. The technology level of Communist (and Capitalist) countries so far is not high enough to even take care of it's population. Once hunger, deasease, and pre-mature death is eliminated Communism will be much more viable. By this time, distance will mean very little and we will be able to transport goods and people vast distances with little trouble. (Of course these go hand in hand with number 3)
6) Reputation. Due to past failures in other Communist countries, people are wary of communism. Not fully looking at it potential but only looking at the failures. Instead of looking for ways to improve it and make it work...people spend their time critizing it.
7) Brain Washing. Most people (not so much today....but 10 and more years ago) were taught that Communism = Red = Commie = bad = death = persucition = poorness. If people could come out of the mind set the commies = bad then we would have a chance. (This goes in hand with 6)

And well....I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them right now.....and that's enough writing for now anyway. ;)

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 01, 2001, 02:14 PM
well ,maybe robotics will make a new sort of communism possible.
it could be long ,but in time ,more and more production will be taken over by computers. (like it is now)
That doesn't work that well in a capitalistc system (employement is very important ,since people need money to buy the products.
A communist system doesn't have that sort of problem's.

That is a bit short explaind.i can make a long post about the possible future importance of robotics in a communist system ,but it would so easely critticized.

However ,i believe the future system will be a communism where computers & robots do all the work (and even all the thinking) ,but that is not for now yet ,maybe even not for within 100 years.

floppa21
Oct 01, 2001, 02:26 PM
Isn't the USA a communism right now? I FLOPPA21 pay extra every single month on my phone bill so others who "can't normally afford a phoneline" can have one. And it is mandatory.

I FLOPPA21, pay taxes so others can be on welfare and collect social security. Will either exsist when I am eligible to claim support from either? And it's mandatory.

I FLOPPA21 pay taxes to help the government keep the country running, to fund SCHOOLS and RECREATION, or to LINE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS POCKETS. And it's mandatory.

I know I know. I'm fulla crap. I say Communism is impossible because too many people are not all for the same ideal. DuckofFlanders may have a point on the robotics/automation thing...

PinkyGen
Oct 01, 2001, 04:09 PM
Hmm, I'm taking a class right now in college all about the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, we're in the middle of the civil war right now, so I'll get back to the communist aspect later. :lol:

amadeus
Oct 01, 2001, 06:56 PM
Communism doesn't stop corruption, it breeds it. I'm a hardcore Republican, and I know that anything the government can do, companies can do twice as better at half the cost.

Vrylakas
Oct 01, 2001, 09:26 PM
As one who has had the "pleasure" of living under this thing of wonder, communism, I'm afraid I must decline to agree with you on its merits.

In my college years as communism collapsed around Eastern Europe, the hunt was on for the mass graves of neighbors and friends who had disappeared at the various convulsions, and plenty were found. You may have your lovely fantasies about communism, but be so glad you live in Canada and have never had to actually experience it.

BTW, "CCCP" - which stands for the Russian "Sojuz Sovjetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik" and is pronounced by Russians as "SSSR" - inspired some subversive humor. In Hungary, there was a children's cartoon/animated hour every evening on television that began with a clay-mation bear getting ready for bed. When he got to the part where he'd brush his teeth, he'd say as he spat into the sink "tse-tse-tse-PUH!" (which is how a Hungarian would pronounce "CCCP").

Here's an old 1970s Polish joke:

"Q: What would happen if they declared a communist people's republic in the Sahara Desert?"

"A: Within 3 years they would have to import sand."

Az
Oct 02, 2001, 12:41 AM
Believing in communism generally is idealistic

Believing in the Sovviet union is something different than believing in Communism. Soviet Communism is not Coummuism. The Soviet Regime was a pure dictatorship that deported more people in concentration camps than nazi Germany; and that is only the top of the iceberg.

Voting comunist is a bit stupid. Sorry about that but I think it is. Those comunist parties nowadays are so pathetic and can't do anything anymore. But I must admit it has a touch of idealism too, since they still go against Globalisation and so on...

CornMaster
Oct 02, 2001, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Vrylakas
As one who has had the "pleasure" of living under this thing of wonder, communism, I'm afraid I must decline to agree with you on its merits.

In my college years as communism collapsed around Eastern Europe, the hunt was on for the mass graves of neighbors and friends who had disappeared at the various convulsions, and plenty were found. You may have your lovely fantasies about communism, but be so glad you live in Canada and have never had to actually experience it.

BTW, "CCCP" - which stands for the Russian "Sojuz Sovjetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik" and is pronounced by Russians as "SSSR" - inspired some subversive humor. In Hungary, there was a children's cartoon/animated hour every evening on television that began with a clay-mation bear getting ready for bed. When he got to the part where he'd brush his teeth, he'd say as he spat into the sink "tse-tse-tse-PUH!" (which is how a Hungarian would pronounce "CCCP").

Here's an old 1970s Polish joke:

"Q: What would happen if they declared a communist people's republic in the Sahara Desert?"

"A: Within 3 years they would have to import sand."

Let me re-itterate me first 2 points:

Other reasons Communism has failed thus far are:
1) It's not TRUE communism. The Government plays favorites and shoots itself in the foot.
2) Leaders of Communist countries, for the most part, have been dictators. You need to be a fully functional Democracy for it to work well.

Did I say I like Soviet Communism??? No...it wasn't Communism. And your right...killing the country men is a BAD idea...anyone can see that. That's another reason why it failed. Once all the above conditions are met (In my post) Then Communism will work and EVERYONE will want to be a part.

We aren't at the point of behavioural, and technological evolution yet....but when we get there (assuming we don't nuke ourselves into oblivian first) communism will be the ONLY way to go.

Magnus
Oct 02, 2001, 12:23 PM
By the thread title, I think we are discussing SOVIET style communism, not communism as philosophized in other places. The CCCP had the most outragiously large and corrupt beaurocracy ever seen (the only people who did well were those emplyed by the state). It also took propaganda to such an extreme, that if you disagreed with anything the STATE had decided, you were considered insane, because anything the state said was perfect. I am so happy it is gone.

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 02, 2001, 01:59 PM
Communism will almost inevitably lead to dictatorship/oligarchy and repression, It is highly incompatable with democracy and personal freedom, which allow citizens to pursue the own interests, welfare, and judgements. Communism denies choice; citizens continue to choose; police power is used to enforce the lack of choice. Since communism concetrates ecomonic and other decision making in the hand of (typically closely allied) government officails and bureucrats, it mulitplies the opportunity for graft many fold, leading to all: of graft; privilege bestowed by government fiat; hereditary oligarchy, power structures based on personal (rather than state) loyaty and thus dictatorship.
That all communist nations have immediatley or within a very few years become tyrannical police states should give even the most naive here a CLUE. :rolleyes:

Mikoyan
Oct 02, 2001, 02:40 PM
No, boyo, that's capitalist countries you're getting at!:rolleyes:

CornMaster
Oct 02, 2001, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Communism will almost inevitably lead to dictatorship/oligarchy and repression, It is highly incompatable with democracy and personal freedom, which allow citizens to pursue the own interests, welfare, and judgements. Communism denies choice; citizens continue to choose; police power is used to enforce the lack of choice. Since communism concetrates ecomonic and other decision making in the hand of (typically closely allied) government officails and bureucrats, it mulitplies the opportunity for graft many fold, leading to all: of graft; privilege bestowed by government fiat; hereditary oligarchy, power structures based on personal (rather than state) loyaty and thus dictatorship.
That all communist nations have immediatley or within a very few years become tyrannical police states should give even the most naive here a CLUE. :rolleyes:

You see...that's excatly what I'm talking about. Instead of focusing on what Communism can be...you focus on what it's been. You put it down with no comments on how to make it work.

You say we are naive, and don't have a clue....well your close minded and brainwashed. The only difference is that we can see what can be, the good and improvment of life for man....and your happy with the corrupt status quo, which has the rich profitting off of the poor.

When I think of the current system...and all of the suffering and subjugation it makes me cringe.

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 02, 2001, 07:43 PM
I tottaly agree with Cormaster here.

Communism is merely a productional system where in theory all output is divedid equaly.In this sense ,communism is ethical more correct to capitalism.Capitalism says those who produce earn ,but that is not ethical correct because the recources of the product are stolen from nature.In an ethical way nobody can claim natural recources to him ,because it's a nature product and is owend by everybody or nobody.

Maybe a perfect communism isn't possibly this day in history ,but technical and social revolution can change that in the future.
and capitalism hasn't proven to work yet.You don't know how capitalism will look like within now an 20 years.The difference in social classes is rising nowadays ,i wonder how our social classes will look like in time.

since nobody got criticism on my robotics/communism point i'll try to better explain it.

robotics is realy something that is starting just nowadays.Already there are coorperations like renault & Bayer who have manufacturing plants with huge output where only robots and a few I.T'rs do all the work.This evolution is normal: computers work 24h/day ,don't cost that much to run& maintain ,don't strike and work more efficient.This is good for the boses ,but not good for the economy ,since a decrease in jobs means that less people have the financial possibilety to buy products.If that would be done on a grand scale in our capitalistic economy's ,it would be disastorous ,since All product's would be produced in mass ,but almost nobody could afford it.
But therefore ity's not nessecarely a bad evolution ,because if it would be done on a grand scale it could mean that eventualy less people would have to work for a production that is greater.
in commuunism ,that isn't realy a problem.Production is devided equaly ,if a total economy would be roboticizd ,everybody would get the same for a zero amount of work.
Afcourse ,how much of the economy can be roboticizd?
1 first of all ,every human action that is based sheer on arm movement can be done by robots.That means that every factory labor can be done by robots.
2 evey administative can theorirtcily be done by computers to ,if the've got the right resources.If youre databases are big enough ,a computer can calculate or proces the information.Every static function can be done by a computer ,if it has the possibilety's and the right software for it.

Artificial intelligence isn't realy something that is big today ,but the technilogical advancements on informatics go fast and in an increasing paste.furthermore ,A.I is growing faster than human intelligence.most people can't immagine yet how such a thing could work.But believe me ,it's posible.Eventualy ,the Human "intelligence" is merely a proces system too.I can tell you a lot more of it (i can program c++ :cool: ) ,but i won't get thecnical here. (YET)
Eventually ,i am convinced that the computer in time can take over our "thinking production" aswel.i even think it will be in time much better in it than us.once an A.I interface is eventually created ,it could come much smarter than us ,because:
Computers can proces faster ,can have acces to more sources (internet!) ,can store a lot more knowledge than us ,and eventualy work more efficient than us.
It will take time ,but if not in 50 years ,it will be possible once in time. (unless something like WWIII or something happens)

To accomplish something like that is a lot of work.you have to robo-industrialize everything ,from farming to health care.
Although that sounds strange ,don't wory ,not everything will look like a factory.

We should begin with the energy market.Prefferably with renewable recources.Building large roboticizd hydro and solar energy plants would give a lot of cheap (even free) energy.
We also would have to build a new transport network ,or atleast a computer controled transport network, so that it can suppliy rcourses to it's robots.And afcourse continualy robots would have to build robot producing plant's.And make software so that special construction robots can build any kind of robotic plant that is needed ,and so on...

i gona post more later...

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 03, 2001, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by CornMaster


You see...that's excatly what I'm talking about. Instead of focusing on what Communism can be...you focus on what it's been. You put it down with no comments on how to make it work.


"Mans unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be ttrue, rather than what the facts show"
Try to discover "D3 - intellectual integrity". Even the clueless should learn MORE from a virtual 100% failure rate of communist systems with respect to economics, freedom, and human rights, after wide spread use and decades of experimentation, than "it just needs a little fine tuning". It is a smurfing loser of a system, yesterday, today, and tommorow. After the millions of their own people murdered and billions oppressed by communistic systems and regimes, you would cherefully consign millions more and billions more because your fanciful imagination believes it will work next time, if only "they" will listen to you. There have been thousands or even millions just like you involved with the various communist regimes up to now, many of them far more skilled and idealistic than you, and not any of them could produce success with communism. Any hope you have that you could do so is the height of perverse arrogance.

Juize
Oct 03, 2001, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Mikoyan
No, boyo, that's capitalist countries you're getting at!:rolleyes:
You call Lefty a 'boyo'?
Hm. Either I'm just ####ing around with engrish language,
or that was extraordinary funny.
Miko, you're 14. Remember it when you post. :p

Now to the Leftys comment:
It stinks.

The only reason why communist nations are being often
dictatorshippy (engrish?!) and poor, is the fact that the USA
doesn't stand one. It will try to crush all of them.
Its pretty ####ing hard to manage a poor country
when the most biggest arm power in the world is against.
:slay: :slay: :skull:

Simon Darkshade
Oct 03, 2001, 10:36 AM
What has been said in favour of communism here is all well and good in theory and ideals, but there is no coverage given to how this may be put into action, apart from Duckys 'interesting' robot proposal (I can't really see how robotics would speed up communism)
What is to be done?
How are you going to change the minds of the people, who have generally been taught to regard communism as anathema and an impossibility (with some historical justification), to complete endorsement of communism as the way, the truth and the light?

Avoiding association with the CCCP experience is basically impossible, as this dominated the communist nations of the world, and its collapse was real. Not an accident, or evil capitalist conspiracy; just historical inevitability.

The circumstances necessary to bring about communism are not going to happen, unless there is a sudden vast seachange in the way the world operates. Any fledgling international movement that tries to precipitate a change in the correlation of forces will be monitored from its very embryonic stages, and stamped down upon if it tries to play up.

Communism no longer makes sense. It is no longer the antithesis or menace of capitalism; maybe it was so in the period 1848-1890, but not in the Information age of late capitalism. It is an industrial phenomena that has lost its relevance to the masses, and is progressively losing its last bastions.

The rise recently of radical anti globalisation protestors is not a harbinger of communist revolution; it is a vastly eclectic group of anarchists, greens, professional troublemakers, and misguidedly idealistic youth. There are communists among them, but they do not hold the power of this movement, which, given current events, will quickly fade away. (No big conferences to protest at because of security concerns, and even when they start up again, it'll be tighter than, well its best not mentioned...Antiwar protests will have no impact, as the vast majority want war and are right in doing so. This isn't an "oppressed people", this is a force that aims at the destruction of all the "corrupt" ideals of the West, left or right. But this is another matter. Suffice it to say, the anti globalisation hippies on the streets movement never had widespread public support, due to the media and the truth, and any actions now will diminsh their base even further)
These types look with rose colured glasses at 1968 and delude themselves that they actually achieved something apart from getting high;) . The era of achieving political change in Western liberal democracies through "dancing in the streets" is long gone.

Idealism isn't a bad thing in itself. Everyone has to go through the process of discovering where they stand, and a little fresh air wafting through the clouds of reality and realpolitik is nice. But unfortunately, these dreams are only dreams.

So, my conclusion is thus: Communists, give me your solution. Tell us how it will be done. Persuade your audience. On a different not, tell us how you came to these beliefs, and what works you have studied, what your experience is. You say you see the good; very well, tell us how you will lead the world there. Be specific.
And don't forget the past. Be sure to tell us that every experience of communism in the present and past, CCCP, Ethiopia, North Korea, are not really communism, and not what you are talking about. Be sure to use the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to prove what you are arguing from a Marxist perspective.

Mikoyan
Oct 03, 2001, 10:37 AM
Juize: Actually, i recall the word 'boyo' from some sort of science fiction series... can't remember which one though

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 03, 2001, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Juize

The only reason why communist nations are being often
dictatorshippy (engrish?!) and poor, is the fact that the USA
doesn't stand one. It will try to crush all of them.
Its pretty ####ing hard to manage a poor country
when the most biggest arm power in the world is against.


A little weak on history, sonny, The Soviet Union was the largest nation in the world in territory, population, and armed forces, and the richest in natural resources. and very experienced in armed invasion and control of other nations it could reach. ......Amd it was a dictatorship even when allied the the USA.

CornMaster
Oct 03, 2001, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola


"Mans unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be ttrue, rather than what the facts show"
Try to discover "D3 - intellectual integrity". Even the clueless should learn MORE from a virtual 100% failure rate of communist systems with respect to economics, freedom, and human rights, after wide spread use and decades of experimentation, than "it just needs a little fine tuning". It is a smurfing loser of a system, yesterday, today, and tommorow. After the millions of their own people murdered and billions oppressed by communistic systems and regimes, you would cherefully consign millions more and billions more because your fanciful imagination believes it will work next time, if only "they" will listen to you. There have been thousands or even millions just like you involved with the various communist regimes up to now, many of them far more skilled and idealistic than you, and not any of them could produce success with communism. Any hope you have that you could do so is the height of perverse arrogance.

You just saying excatly what I said you would say.

Communism hasn't failed because of Communism....it's failed because of Dictatorships and for the 7 reasons I posted already. In the future when those 7 conditions are met then Communism will work perfectly. I don't understand why you can't see that???

And it's not a little bit of fine tuning to get it to work...it's like a complete overhaul. Why do people keep twisting my words??? There is going to be major changes for it to work...and that's the whole point. It's not going to happen over night and it's not going to be easy, but it's necessary or we will destroy ourselves. How can you not see that Communism is equality for all...and how can you not want that to happen??

allan
Oct 04, 2001, 02:06 AM
"Eventually ,i am convinced that the computer in time can take over our "thinking production" aswel.i even think it will be in time much better in it than us.once an A.I interface is eventually created ,it could come much smarter than us ,because:
Computers can proces faster ,can have acces to more sources (internet!) ,can store a lot more knowledge than us ,and eventualy work more efficient than us.
It will take time ,but if not in 50 years ,it will be possible once in time. (unless something like WWIII or something happens)"

If machines become that intelligent, what use will they have for humans, who they will maintain? In order for machines to perform all the thinking processes that humans do, they will have to become self-aware. And once they become self-aware, what incentive will they have to continue to abide our primitive presence? Will they eliminate any way to "shut them off"? Will we end up fighting something like a Butlerian Jihad (to those familiar with the Dune future history), or the Terminator timeline war?

While computers and robots can greatly enhance our lives, I don't think we should ever relinquish responsibility and control to them. We should remember that WE are the intelligent race on the planet, and continue with that burden--and that reward.

Also, what I think Lefty was trying to say (and I agree with him) is that the ideal communism--the utopia version--cannot work, at least on any large scale, because humans BY NATURE are individuals more than they are social animals. It is the way we were made (or evolved), and our individual desires are what drive us, not any concern for people we do not know (unless of course there is a disaster).

And then there's another maxim--absolute power corrupts absolutely. Under capitalism, MILLIONS of different parts of the economy are controlled by individuals, often in competition or else either unrelated or in a cooperative relation (like a manufacturer and a parts supplier). Concentrating the entire economy into the hands of one entity (government--someone has to lead) will attract the power-seekers to those positions far more than it does now. At least now the heads of different economic entities keep each other in check--UNITED, and things could be a lot worse for those who have no power. Don't kid yourself, there will ALWAYS be people who have more power than others, and will seek to increase their power over others--simply because others don't want it, or at least not badly enough--and so the best "equalizer" to that is to let individuals be free, in fact have more liberty than they do now.

The US is not perfectly capitalist either, BTW. Our capitalism is in fact just as corrupted from the ideal as the Soviets were from Communism. In true capitalism, government would have NO authority to either interfere with OR benefit certain corporations (so long as they do not engage in violence or fraud)--unlike now, where certain corporate interests are propped up by government force, through bought politicians. In a truly free, capitalist society, politicians wouldn't HAVE the influence to sell them, since their power would be minimalized (by something like the US Constitution, which is largely ignored by the US government these days). Corporations would have to sink or swim on their own merits: a cheaper source of energy is developed by a corporation, then too bad for the oil company, to give one example. Not so now, but it could be, if capitalism were done RIGHT.

So while you see a communism that COULD BE, I see a capitalism that COULD BE. Are they both hopeless dreams? Maybe, but I'll work for the capitalism that could be--because humans might not be equal (and really, we ARE all different, and those differences should be cherished), but they will ALL be better off, and also have individual liberty to create on their own.

allan
Oct 04, 2001, 02:21 AM
Actually, if we let private enterprise engage in space flight, we would probably spread ourselves to other planets more quickly--and THAT is the only assurance we as a race can have from annihilation, since we are now capable of destroying the planet.

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 04, 2001, 07:08 AM
If machines become that intelligent, what use will they have for humans, who they will maintain? In order for machines to perform all the thinking processes that humans do, they will have to become self-aware. And once they become self-aware, what incentive will they have to continue to abide our primitive presence? Will they eliminate any way to "shut them off"? Will we end up fighting something like a Butlerian Jihad (to those familiar with the Dune future history), or the Terminator timeline war?

The terminator thought of A.i. is just tottal bullsh1t.A computer has no will or enjoyment.Mankind has a will for enjoyment,so he will do thinks so he can enjoy ,a computer hasn't.But a computer has a goal ,it's general command.a computer doesn't has to come self aware to come smarter than us.But he uses his total processing potential to matematecly search connections (and thus conclusions) between his data.a computer will never be creative ,he can't.
The terminator way is IMPOSSIBLE!

While computers and robots can greatly enhance our lives, I don't think we should ever relinquish responsibility and control to them. We should remember that WE are the intelligent race on the planet, and continue with that burden--and that reward.

i think we should ,if the computer would come more intelligent than us ,it probaly could take better conclusion's than us.Furthermore ,it has no wil ,so it won't screw a situation for it's own benifit.

I can't really see how robotics would speed up communism

With the points i gave a few post's ago ,i think tat a robotics revolution will almost surtenly happen.But it wouldn work in a capitalist enviroment.A communist system is perfect fo it.

one of the problem's of communism was that people began less to work because they got the same anyway.In a robotics system they don't have to work.

floppa21
Oct 04, 2001, 09:02 AM
Cornmaster, PLEASE PLEEEEASE don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like peace and love and the perfect IDEAL world you're talkin of. But what are the chances it will happen? Like John Lennon's Imagine, or the whole Dead Head thing... Equality for everyone across the board is wonderful, I don't see how it couldn't be a good thing, but will it ever happen? Nope. Your Ideal Communism can never happen because it would take HUMANS to set it in motion, and humans are seriously flawed... In CIV2, Democracy has no corruption... Not in the real world. Why? Humans. You see what I'm sayin? I'm not shootin down your ideas or ideals, I feel similar on some, but I don't see it as a possibility. Maybe you're just more optimistic than I...

Juize
Oct 04, 2001, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
A little weak on history, sonny, The Soviet Union was the largest nation in the world in territory, population, and armed forces, and the richest in natural resources. and very experienced in armed invasion and control of other nations it could reach. ......Amd it was a dictatorship even when allied the the USA.

Hey, I wasn't talking about... Oh yeah, sorry.
Couldn't read the topic. A little blind :D.

(..)largest nation in the world in territory, population,(..)
In population? A little weak on the geography, sonny. :p

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 11:10 AM
..and China was (largest pospulation) was aslo communist.

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by CornMaster

Communism hasn't failed because of Communism....it's failed because of Dictatorships and for the 7 reasons I posted already. In the future when those 7 conditions are met then Communism will work perfectly. I don't understand why you can't see that???


Perspicacious persons do not see that becuse it is not so.

As for that seven reason you posted on 10/1, they sound more like the pitiful excuses of a shoolbay trying to excupate himself from failure to do homework than they sound like cogent arguement.

1. "Not true communism". It is the the only commumism that has existed or now exists, nor do any real human system follow simplistic ideals nor can they ever do so. "playing favorites" this, and massive corruption, is caused (along, of course, with human nature) by communism. Centralizing ecomonic and production decision making in bureaucrats creates a grafter's and nepotist's paridise, as this bureaucrats are much more accesable and influencible that impersonal market forces and thousands of separate businesses making these decisions, and also because the bureaucrats economic well being is much farther separated for the performance of what he regulates as compared to market decision making whose profit goes up or down with getting it right.
2. "Dictatorships" Communism creates the dictatoships because it is an inherently coercive system. It's essence is denial of economic freedoms, subjugating all indicvdual economic activity to the state. As other freedoms, polictical and personal, are then inevitably used by the citizens to obtain back ecomomic freedom and power, the communist state just as inevitably destroys these, creating a totatlitatrian police state. Communism is incompatible with freedom beyond a very few years.
3. "Size" pure BS here communist states have come in all sizes.
4. "Attack by Capitalism" Stupid BS whining. All NATIONS egage in geo polictical attack and manuvers against rival powers, and the Soviet Union was the leader by in this category, putting more rescources into international subversion and armed occupation than any other nation in world history.
5. "Technology" improvement in technology will improve capitalism as well as communism(communism will likely get less benefit because of #1 above), and will not change the coercive nature of communism.
6. "Reputation" Communism reputation is well earned, well deserved, and an excelent criterion for rational persons to judge its future.
7. "Brain-washing, commie=bad" With or without brain washing commie=bad for persons who treasure ecomonic, personal & political freedoms, since its exercise in human societies and with human nature is incompatilbe with those freedoms. Commie=inefficiant and stagnent ecomony is even more clear.

Mikoyan
Oct 04, 2001, 12:35 PM
Actually, China did'nt have their population boom until the late 1960's

Simon Darkshade
Oct 04, 2001, 12:52 PM
What, still no takers among the red hordes? Fie and fiddlesticks, its a default result.:p

CornMaster
Oct 04, 2001, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by floppa21
Cornmaster, PLEASE PLEEEEASE don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like peace and love and the perfect IDEAL world you're talkin of. But what are the chances it will happen? Like John Lennon's Imagine, or the whole Dead Head thing... Equality for everyone across the board is wonderful, I don't see how it couldn't be a good thing, but will it ever happen? Nope. Your Ideal Communism can never happen because it would take HUMANS to set it in motion, and humans are seriously flawed... In CIV2, Democracy has no corruption... Not in the real world. Why? Humans. You see what I'm sayin? I'm not shootin down your ideas or ideals, I feel similar on some, but I don't see it as a possibility. Maybe you're just more optimistic than I...

Oh....your right.

And I don't take it the wrong way. I realize that Communism is not possible at this time. I've devised 3 or 4 situations which will allow Communism to become fully accepted now (or near future)...but they are not likely. ;)

And yes....Human Nature is the stopping point. That's why it has failed..a why it will fail again, unless there are major changes to human perception and behaviour. Which will take a while to come around; Evolution is slow. :)

So you don't have to worry...you and Lefty will be long dead when Communism is fully accepted. Why won't I be dead??? Because I plan to live forever. :p

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
What, still no takers among the red hordes? Fie and fiddlesticks, its a default result.:p

All de fault is with de commie-scum. :D

Le Petit Prince
Oct 04, 2001, 01:03 PM
Does Russians use SSSR or CCCP what CCCP means? I saw you like my subject finally!:)

CornMaster
Oct 04, 2001, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
1. "Not true communism". It is the the only commumism that has existed or now exists, nor do any real human system follow simplistic ideals nor can they ever do so. "playing favorites" this, and massive corruption, is caused (along, of course, with human nature) by communism. Centralizing ecomonic and production decision making in bureaucrats creates a grafter's and nepotist's paridise, as this bureaucrats are much more accesable and influencible that impersonal market forces and thousands of separate businesses making these decisions, and also because the bureaucrats economic well being is much farther separated for the performance of what he regulates as compared to market decision making whose profit goes up or down with getting it right.

Can you say that this is the Communism Marx intended? I didn't think so.

2. "Dictatorships" Communism creates the dictatoships because it is an inherently coercive system. It's essence is denial of economic freedoms, subjugating all indicvdual economic activity to the state. As other freedoms, polictical and personal, are then inevitably used by the citizens to obtain back ecomomic freedom and power, the communist state just as inevitably destroys these, creating a totatlitatrian police state. Communism is incompatible with freedom beyond a very few years.

I can give you partial credit here...Communism is easier, actually, any government is easier run by one person. And thus far communism has boiled down to a dictatorship. But it's not the way it should be run. The inproper planning of Government Structure and the God-like nature these dictators think of themselves, are to two major reasons dictatorships have come up. Due to insuffecent planning and excution one person had to take the lead and fill in the power position that wasn't properly planned for, thus creating the dictatorship. If the US government switched to Communism tomorrow, I think our government structure could be maintained, without the president become dictator. Because we have a well planned structure. (I wouldn't call it super-effecent, but it would maintain.)

3. "Size" pure BS here communist states have come in all sizes.

Your right, they have come in all sizes. But the smaller ones have been more successful...aka...they are still around. N. Korea, Cuba. China has diluted it's Communism in the last few years...accepted more Capialist trading practices.

4. "Attack by Capitalism" Stupid BS whining. All NATIONS egage in geo polictical attack and manuvers against rival powers, and the Soviet Union was the leader by in this category, putting more rescources into international subversion and armed occupation than any other nation in world history.

What you call "Stupid BS whining", I call the major reason for failure. Whether or not countries attack each other politically doesn't matter. It was Capitalism vs Communism. And Capitalism is more equiped for an economic war. Capitalism is established and had support and money. Communism was new. Had the Capitalists NOT attacked Communism so brutally it would have faired much better. Would it have been a success? Probably not. The other points are still in action. The ineffective government, "bad rap", and human nature, still would have brought it down.

5. "Technology" improvement in technology will improve capitalism as well as communism(communism will likely get less benefit because of #1 above), and will not change the coercive nature of communism.

I have to disagree. Communism will benifit much more from better technological advances. It will make equality much higher if the country can feed and cloth all it's people. In a Capitalist country, the country may have the food and clothes but the poor people can't afford it and still have nothing. In Communism everyone would benifit from the Countries resources, and no one would be hungry.

6. "Reputation" Communism reputation is well earned, well deserved, and an excelent criterion for rational persons to judge its future.

I'll give you this. It's reputation is earned. Only partly deserved, but IS NOT a good point to judge the Communist ideal on. The main reason is that proper communism hasn't been achieved. It's all been corrupted versions that earn and deserve the bad reputation. But saying the Communist ideal is bad because of previous failures is not right.

7. "Brain-washing, commie=bad" With or without brain washing commie=bad for persons who treasure ecomonic, personal & political freedoms, since its exercise in human societies and with human nature is incompatilbe with those freedoms. Commie=inefficiant and stagnent ecomony is even more clear.

So what your saying here is that Commie = bad for the rich who love their money and illusion of power. For the greedy and corrupt in the Capitalist system. Commie = good for the poor and downtrodden. And for anyone else that values equality and order above the chaos of Capitalism.

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Le Petit Prince
Does Russians use SSSR or CCCP what CCCP means? I saw you like my subject finally!:)

Wargamers tend to shorten things. My group usually referred to it as SU, =Soviet union or satirically, Sports Unlimited.:D

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 04, 2001, 04:26 PM
I gona post some comments on Allan's post about Robotics .Yeah still Robotics ,you may all call it whacko ,but as far as i think ,while you all are debating what communism has learnt us from the past ,i am thinking how communism can look like in the future.:scan:

While computers and robots can greatly enhance our lives, I don't think we should ever relinquish responsibility and control to them. We should remember that WE are the intelligent race on the planet, and continue with that burden--and that reward.

Well i don't think we are the intelligent race on this planet..Agreed ,"Most" intelligent yes ,but since intelligence is relative i don't wan't to call ourselfs intelligent.

I think we have to give them responsebility's & control if they could come more intelligent than us.In general i think it's better to give a job to a computer if he can do it better than you.like with a calculator, it can eventualy calcullate bmore consistenly than us, and certainly faster.

and:

Also, what I think Lefty was trying to say (and I agree with him) is that the ideal communism--the utopia version--cannot work, at least on any large scale, because humans BY NATURE are individuals more than they are social animals. It is the way we were made (or evolved), and our individual desires are what drive us, not any concern for people we do not know (unless of course there is a disaster).

but if we can produce computer's that are perfect in it's posibillety to rule ,why wouldn we let them rule us (we humans that are not perfect ,and never will be)

eventually i'm certain that computer's never will use their power badly.It's simple ,a computer has no wil.and it doesn't need a will to work ,only a command. (that can be endless)
And it doesn't need a will to be intelligent.That way ,a computer can only do for what it's constructed to do.Even if a Macintosh would be extremely smart and dangerous ,it still wouldn have an arm to hold a gun.
it's only will is the command whe give him ,and that is serve us.
I'll tell you more about the architecture of Artificial intelligence later.

And then there's another maxim--absolute power corrupts absolutely. Under capitalism, MILLIONS of different parts of the economy are controlled by individuals, often in competition or else either unrelated or in a cooperative relation (like a manufacturer and a parts supplier). Concentrating the entire economy into the hands of one entity (government--someone has to lead) will attract the power-seekers to those positions far more than it does now. At least now the heads of different economic entities keep each other in check--UNITED, and things could be a lot worse for those who have no power. Don't kid yourself, there will ALWAYS be people who have more power than others, and will seek to increase their power over others--simply because others don't want it, or at least not badly enough--and so the best "equalizer" to that is to let individuals be free, in fact have more liberty than they do now.

in a robotics communism the whole economy would be controled by a Primery industry Controller. (And a Backup industry controller (for you NT'rs))
That can be better.eventually a capitalist industry led's to a LOT of waste.If something doesn't sell ,it is thrown away ,sometimes just to keep prices high.That is so utterly a waist.a capitalist industry is rarely builded in a constructive co÷rparation with eachother.Manufacturing plants can be constructed on strange places with it's goal in mind.like for example country's with low labor costs.That way ,there is more oil used to transport the products.I hope you can understand that that way in a Capitalist industry a lot of recources go lost because the low coorparation of the industry itself.in a communism where the whole industry is constructed and owned by one body ,that sort of waiste's can more be eliminated.
Also with over-production.In a communism it can be tottaly known how much of a specific good must be constructed.that way it's easier to fight overproduction.
If you agree with me that a Artificial Intelligence will never be dangerous ,then you understand why a simple computer controling the entire industry would be better than a human controlling the industry.

The US is not perfectly capitalist either, BTW. Our capitalism is in fact just as corrupted from the ideal as the Soviets were from Communism. In true capitalism, government would have NO authority to either interfere with OR benefit certain corporations (so long as they do not engage in violence or fraud)--unlike now, where certain corporate interests are propped up by government force, through bought politicians. In a truly free, capitalist society, politicians wouldn't HAVE the influence to sell them, since their power would be minimalized (by something like the US Constitution, which is largely ignored by the US government these days). Corporations would have to sink or swim on their own merits: a cheaper source of energy is developed by a corporation, then too bad for the oil company, to give one example. Not so now, but it could be, if capitalism were done RIGHT.

Don't praise capitalism too much ,especialy in America.a lot of irreplaceble stuff is financially interresting too ,like for example the rain forest ,drugs ,guns ,precious animals... .Why do you think that much hand gun's are sold in America? America has a big gun industry ,where a lot of people work.
Eventualy ,alternative energy could have been invented and used on a bigger scale much earlier ,wasn't it for the power of the oil industry.bush himself is paid by a lot of polluting industry's ,like oil.that is something that slowens the reforms to a cleaner industry.and i think with that it's possible that America will once come a "corparete republic".hell ,it's one right now.
The power in capitalism isn't balanced at all.there are reasons why there is so much talk over pollution ,the ozon layer ,extinction of animals ,organized crime ,... .
There is also the problem of stress ,wich go's sometimes by strange ways in our social culture.We may not be very caring if somebody commit's suicide.A lot of the suicide cases i call a product of capitalism too. (though not all)

the difference with capitalism is that it theoreticly never can be perfect ,whil communism can be.Technological advancement can make maybe communism a perfect system.

Now back to robotics :D .if you wan't it or not ,robotics is something that almost surtenly WILL HAPPEN.Today our technilogical reasearch goes mostly to genetic resaerch and informatics resaerch.The future will be the product of that.in that saes sence i guess our genepoel will a lot be changed through hundred years from now.Especially in a capitalist enviroment ,a Robotics industry can grow fast ,though in capitalism it has styupid after effect.Every sort of labor will eventually with the appropiate technolegy be cheaper by robots then humans.On the workfloor ,the computer will render the human ultimatly obsolete.not directly every sort od labor ,but graduatly it will.even today work in a factory is cheaper by robots than a western worker.And thus you see already a lot of big company's constructing robotics plants.If it is financialy interresting in a capitalist enviroment ,it will be done ,and every company that doesn't will be out competed by such plant's. (with higher productivety + lower costs)
But (and i stated this already in another post) a capitalist sytem is reliant on employement for smooth running.As thus capitalism and robotics are contradictionary.The more of the economy that is roboticizd ,the badder for the economy.eventualy it comes down to a lot of people become poor (by having now employement) ,but with an increasing production and a soaring demand ,eventually even the boses do not benifit.
in a communism it's perfect.To the people that have no employement you give the products that are already produced in mass ,for free.that way ,you can have a robotics revolution till the end ,and the eventual result is that nobody has to work ,everything is in mass and free.
(every family a t.v. for free ,every person a bike for free ,...)
this you can only achieve in a communist system.

that is for part one of my reply

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 04, 2001, 04:27 PM
part 2:

now on the artificial intelligence part:
The Infrastructure of an A.i:
Basicly ,a A.i is just a software program that has as ultimate command "to think" ,and has functions that simulate the human thinking proces.To achieve that ,The A.i need a database with knowledge ,and within that database references for a particly part of knowledge to other part's of knowledge with the relation for that particular part of knowledge to tyhe other part of knowledge.for exampel:

cell a (knowledge cel) contains the number 1
cell b contains the number 2
cel c conatins the number 3
reference (a1b1) says the relationship between a and b is (+1,-1)
reference(b1c1) says the relationdhip between b and c is (+1,-1)

thus the A.i can conclude that the relation between a and c as (+2,-2) ,because the computer has knowledge from previous references to form this conclusion.In a way ,that is how we humans think to.if we conclude something we investigate the relationship of the thing we wan't to conclude with other knowledge we already have and that has references to the conclusioin we want to make.for humans it is like that: The more knowledge we have ,the better conclusions we can take.If we program thart much knowledge in a computer ,it can take conclusions on the knowledge it already has.Than we can give him the command "think".that is a command to search for relationships between the knowledge it already has relations to.

that is just the basics of A.I. .the core of the software.The more knowledge you give the computer ,the more it can conclude.The more speed you give it ,the faster it will conclude.you can program it to make actions on certain conclusions.

The fact with computers is that it can be improved the much you wan't.A computer that maybe once in time could hold thousands of terrabytes in knowledge ,will then be "smarter" than us.we humans cant grow that much ,nor that fast in potential as a computer.

Man my finger are realy starting to hurt.;)

BNut i hope to prove this way that Commuinism isn't impossible.Technological advancement can change the face of it realy fast.
if this come's once to life ,this robotics thingy (and i'm certain of it it will) we all will never have to work again.And note tht this is good.
I will go further on this in one of my following posts.About the social and political changes in such a system.

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Man my finger are realy starting to hurt.;)



Get it out of your ass.

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 04, 2001, 05:25 PM
Get it out of your ass

Well thank you for youre constructive criticism.
Guess you call yourself grown up too.
I do not ask to believe what i say.nore do i force you.
And i have respect to another person's oppinion.Where i don't agree ,i'll reply to debate.
i'll respect anothers oppinion on the statements in my post ,as long as they are presented in a faschinable way.

Now i'll stop replying on youre reply ,i'm lowering my own selfesteem with it.

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 08:30 PM
.....from which you have plucked you fantasy economic theories. :crazyeyes

Lefty Scaevola
Oct 04, 2001, 08:33 PM
Respect is not given, either to persons or theories, but awarded as they are judged meritorious.

CornMaster
Oct 04, 2001, 09:16 PM
Don't worry Duck.

I bet that's the only way Lefty can win a discussion...by insulting the other participants into submission. :rolleyes:

Vrylakas
Oct 05, 2001, 12:08 PM
I apologize to Cornmaster for taking so long to respond on this thread. the usual recent issues ("the Server is busy" & "You are not currently logged in") conspired against me being able to post anything over the past couple days. here's my original response:

Cornmaster wrote:Did I say I like Soviet Communism??? No...it wasn't Communism. And your right...killing the country men is a BAD idea...anyone can see that. That's another reason why it failed. Once all the above conditions are met (In my post) Then Communism will work and EVERYONE will want to be a part.

The problem is then which one to pick? The Maoist example? Mao is probably the dictator who has killed the most human beings ever in history - and almost all of his victims were his own countrymen. Pol Pot? Castro? Kim il Sung? The Shining Path? Gus Hall? Tagliatti?

Communism started as a reaction against the industrial revolution, but it was too intertwined with the utopian ideals of the Romanticist movement. Red flags, simple slogans, underground conspiracies, regimentated society - all the attractive aspects of the 19th century's romanticism. Romanticists took the ideals of the Enlightenment - that the universe was a machine with simple moving and understandable parts that only needed to be manipulated for humanity's welfare. Marx's concept of history is exactly that - the belief that history is one big engine, a machine that plods along on pre-laid tracks towards an inevitable destination. He described the tenets of his theories as "Laws of Nature", a common belief in science in the 19th century - again, going back to the belief that nature was a machine with distinguishable parts. Modern scientists don't talk about laws of nature.

Some popular Polish writers in the 1950s and 60s (Adam Michnik, Czeslaw Milosz, Leszek Kolakowski) described the attraction of totalitarian societies for youth, how all the marching, the orderliness, the flags, banners and slogans make youth feel secure, important and connected. The end result of course is extremely dangerous. Every time communist regimes have been attempted anywhere in the world, the end result has been lots of blood and suffering.

Perhaps you are right that the problem is just that humans haven't evolved enough. Maybe the day will come when we really could make communism work. But when that day comes, why would we chose communism? If we're so evolved by then, why not choose an improved version of Democracy, which has done better than any other form of government to spread wealth, equality and basic human rights. Is it perfect? No, but its results far outstrip the competitions'. I know Democracy can be boring, messy, annoying, and it can fumble sometimes, but the reality is that we live in the real world where there are no simple answers supplied by magical, mystical political theories that solve all or most of the world's problems. When any political theory promises you that, then a little warning light should go on in your head. Simply said, in the real world we just have to think. There are few automatic answers to the big problems of society, much as the great 19th century thinkers tried to invent some.

Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.

CornMaster
Oct 05, 2001, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.

This isn't Communism vs Democracy. It's Communism vs Capitalism.

Like I said....the only way Communism will work well is under a fully functional Democracy. Dictatorships just don't cut it now-a-days.

TheDuckOfFlanders
Oct 05, 2001, 02:06 PM
And so i continue my postings ,which by now arn't probaly ready anymore. (silent cry)
anyway ,i gonna post a following concept that i call a theoretical future possebilety.

Internet Democracy

Basicly ,internet democracy is where all people vote on-line over ever issue posibly presented.For example the common people vote on new laws on-line.Administative personel are appointed by the people on-line.
this is just theory ,but technicly the internet makes it possible to construct a total democracy around it.though it's not easely constructed ,and it involves a lot of more issue's than here presented.Let's go out from the fact that a on-line voting system theoreticly can make a more total democracy.

One of the issue's involved here is if we can give the people that sort of power.The comman mass isn't necesarely the best leader.
I think if it's well constructed it's possible to gett the best out of such a situation,although i don't have directly a system in mind.Though i think there are enough smart minds in our world that can construct ia system for it to work.

This is also givving resposibilety to the comman mass.Voting over every issue would be a every day task.What if the voter doesnt vote? This could be constructed on a different way.Maybe people could ,if they wanted ,give their vote to othe people to vote. (politicians could gather vote's) ,maybe even you could give the youre vote only if it would involve certain issue's.

before i write more on this ,i gona look if i get reply's on this.
i hope it ,i don't wan't to pass my idea's unnoticed.Unlessas it is posted by somebody that just wants to break it of ,lauch with it.you can make jokes on it ,but make they are good ,and not utterly .

CornMaster
Oct 05, 2001, 04:16 PM
I think that's an excellent idea. A true democracy has the people voting ON EVERY ISSUE. This isn't possible now...but with technological advances and computers with internet in every household...it could be possible. Of course....we need to get the bums and hobos into houses and jobs. Which will never happen in a Capitalist socity. But in a Communist one...it would work very well!!

But this just ties into some of my points above..and it would diffently be a leap into the right direction!!! :goodjob:

Robespierre
Oct 05, 2001, 05:06 PM
Unlike communism, Democracy has been proven to be adaptable to any virtually any society on the planet.

Except the Vietnamese (need I explain that democracy didn't "work" there?), Chinese, Russians and other Slavic Countires (where it has created rampant corruption), and some other nations around the world where democracy is just logistically not a good way out.

Every country needs its own special type of government to maximize that country's potential and bring its society to the highest level. Not everyone should try to be like the USA. USA systems of government only work for the USA situation, all the other nations need to find their own unique way of getting things done.

Vrylakas
Oct 05, 2001, 08:23 PM
Robespierre wrote: Except the Vietnamese (need I explain that democracy didn't "work" there?), Chinese, Russians and other Slavic Countires (where it has created rampant corruption), and some other nations around the world where democracy is just logistically not a good way out.

I hope you appreciate the great restraint I am showing in my answer. The "Slavic Countries" aren't Democratic? I strongly beg to differ. Poland, from which I've just returned a few weeks ago visiting family, is indeed a flourishing democracy, scheduled to begin final negotiations to enter the European Union in 2004. The major roadblock to Poland's joining the EU is not the quality of Polish democracy, but rather French and Irish fears about cheap Polish farm produce. There certainly is a level of corruption in Poland, but after 50 years of Soviet military occupation and puppet dictatorship, this should not be surprising. Spain in the late 1980s also had a similar kind of immature democracy that had problems with corruption, as it had also recently emerged from a dictatorship. Greece, in the same period, as well as Italy and Japan in the 1950s & 60s can similarly be categorized. It takes a while for society to adapt, and to "get the kinks out".

As well, I might remind you that the Czech Republic, another fellow Slavic nation, is a democracy. The Czechoslovak democracy of the 1930s, the only country in Central Europe to retain a fully democratic government in that period (when even Weimar Germany had lapsed into the Nazi dictatorship), was so developed with its institutions that some ideas were even copied by the United States (social security benefits, for example).

Also, an often overlooked country in the Balkans is quiet Bulgaria, where after some political struggles in the early 1990s finally has taken solid steps on the road to Democracy. The communists of Bulgaria had expelled thousands of ethnic Turks in the 1980s but Democratic Bulgaria welcomed them back in the 90s and instituted far-reaching minority protection laws. The economy still struggles, but Bulgaria has been hurt bad by the economic isolation brought on by the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. Bulgaria fully supported the West and maintained the embargo (when most other Balkan states were breaking it) but at the cost of its own economy.

Yes, some societies have historical experiences that forces them to develop social institutions that do not work well with democratic governments - the Sicilian family-mafiosi comes to mind - but I'm a little miffed at your suggestion that Slavs are incapable of democracy.

That offense aside, let's look at your other examples. 1. The Vietnamese: Are you referring to the brief period of 1955 (from the Geneva Accord on Vietnam) to 1975 when the North Vietnamese forces overran Saigon? The fledgling Vietnamese "democracy" of the South was a crony government of the wealthy elite that spent its entire existence fighting a losing war and getting fat off American subsidies. Not a good environment for Democratic development. 2. Chinese? Two things here: First, Taiwan has developed a successful democracy. The Guomingdong finally relinquished its dictatorship and Tainwan has spent a decade now as an increasingly wealthy and stable democracy. So Chinese can indeed build a democratic government. The Chinese of Hong Kong were also heading down a similar path as Britain belatedly decided to allow them to develop self-government shortly before handing the colony over to Mainland control. The old arguments about Democracy being an exclusively Western concern have been proven lies by the Chinese, Japanese and the South Koreans. Secondly (about the Chinese), Mainland China is perilously heading down the path towards Democracy. The current communist government in Beijing is trying to build a contained, controlled capitalist experiment in China while still retaining communist control overall. Well, the sh*t is going to hit the fan sooner or later. Capitalism, like Democracy - which is why they go hand-in-hand - requires the free flow of information. Dictatorships require control over the flow of information. Beijing's current goals are incompatible, and one or the other will have to give. Either the communists will eventually have to clamp down (violently, a la Tianeman Square) and destroy their capitalist experiment, or conversely they may find themselves suddenly irrelevant and out of power one day because through their capitalist experiment they are teaching the Chinese people how to make critical decisions about their own lives and destinies - which will inevitably bring the question of why Chinese can make economic decisions for themselves but not political decisions. You wait; the Chinese periphery is already gone Democratic; the Chinese Mainland will soon face the same decision...

The Russians: Was this who you meant when you mentioned Slavs? The Russians and Ukrainians are not the only Slavs around, you know... To use a quote I wrote once in these forums, the Russians went from having a gangster-style communist government in the 1990s to having a gangster-style Democracy. It is certainly down, but not quite out. A prominent Russian writer who was despairing about the condition of his country last year wrote about a trip he took to Cuba recently. He said he was amazed at how stifling a communist country was to an outsider, and he thought this is probably what it felt like for Westerners to travel in the old Soviet Union. However, while very faulty and corrupt, Russia is not a dictatorship any longer. It is a sort of inbetween period, where it could swing either way.

Every country needs its own special type of government to maximize that country's potential and bring its society to the highest level. Not everyone should try to be like the USA. USA systems of government only work for the USA situation, all the other nations need to find their own unique way of getting things done.

Agreed. But I don't think I said this anywhere in my last post. Democracy is a broad term and democratic governments around the world are not all structured the same. The Canadian form of democracy is very different from the American - take this from one who lived for years on the Canadian border near Toronto - and yet both are Democratic. The British is different again, as is the German hybrid Federal-style system of Democracy, from the French corporate-state style, from the Italian and Greek styles, from the Japanese style, from the South Korean style.... The list goes on. You get my point. When I use the word Democracy, I am referring to a general system of government that engages the people it rules in the decision-making process of politics. Is there any perfect kind of Democracy around the world, or "true" Democracy? Sorry, not really. All are faulty because they are run by people, who are also imperfect. The 20-minute Italian governments, the voting fiasco in Florida in last year's American presidential elections, the failure of the Canadian system to adequately represent the Western provinces, the Japanese Democratic goverments' uncomfortably close ties to business that make it almost impossible to reform its rotting banking industry, the Swiss canton that only in the last decade voted to allow women to vote; these are all examples of how humans are imperfect. This also gets back to my original statement about how no political theory can magically and mystically solve all problems (like communism claims). Democracy offers the best hope by offering the highest level of participation by its citizens; the government doesn't tell citizens what to do, it must reach a consensus and the citizens (through political parties or issue groups) can influence decisions that affect them.

Societies need to develop certain characteristics before a Democracy can develop. You may recall that Democracy failed throughout Europe in the 1930s, including in Germany and Italy. Now both are prosperous and Democratic countries. Today there are far many more successful Democracies than failed ones - Argentina and Chile, South Africa, most of Eastern Europe, Mexico, even Iran is slowly trying to develop a native form of Islamic democracy. There are no guarantees, but Democracy clearly offers the best chance and can work anywhere. It is not merely a Western anomoly...

allan
Oct 07, 2001, 09:09 AM
"eventually i'm certain that computer's never will use their power badly.It's simple ,a computer has no wil.and it doesn't need a will to work ,only a command."

And who gives the command? And what is the command? I.e. humans will still rule--the programmers. And who controls the programmers?

The scenario you described (computers ruling) implies a self-aware AI. And where does self-awareness come from? Are we sure that it couldn't one day surface in a sophisticated AI, perhaps even unexpectedly?

Aside from this, "intelligence" isn't the only criteria for good rule--there is wisdom, intuition, compassion, and vision--all human traits that computers (at least as we know them) cannot have. Computers cannot understand the spiritual dimension of existance either. Simply put, a machine of pure logic would not understand us humans at all, and I for one would like to be ruled by beings who UNDERSTAND us--and so far that is only us humans who are so qualified. And probably always will be.

I don't need "perfection"--whatever that is (can anybody know?). Basically, I prefer to rule myself as much as possible, and have a limited government there to protect me, and all others, from threat of violence or fraud. I understand myself better than anyone else, and I have only one life (that I am aware of anyway) to enjoy--why should I not have complete control of it? Things don't always go the way I want them either--but I can accept that so long as I have freedom to try and improve things for myself.

In the end, "perfection" probably has as many definitions as there are people....

"Don't praise capitalism too much ,especialy in America."

I know by that comment that you didn't read my post too well. Read it again--I don't want to repeat myself.

"Why do you think that much hand gun's are sold in America? America has a big gun industry ,where a lot of people work."

Nope, America has a big gun industry BECAUSE lots of people (not just here) want to own guns. You have the causality backwards.

"Eventualy ,alternative energy could have been invented and used on a bigger scale much earlier ,wasn't it for the power of the oil industry.bush himself is paid by a lot of polluting industry's ,like oil.that is something that slowens the reforms to a cleaner industry."

EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my last post, which is why American capitalism isn't perfect capitalism. The fact that government officials CAN be bought, and CAN regulate at the request of the buyers, is what makes American capitalism imperfect, just like you (and I) said. Take away government power to interfere like that, and we'd probably all be driving solar-powered cars right now, or better.... Read my post again.

ComradeDavo
Oct 16, 2001, 05:27 PM
um, i'll just voice my support for my communist comrades in this discussion, 'go my comrades!!!' and be off.

joespaniel
Oct 16, 2001, 10:18 PM
It p!sses me off to go to work everyday and make someone else richer, only to squeek out an existance with some modern amenities. Truth is, capitalism isn't all its cracked up to be.

I don't argue that collective-communism in theory sounds pretty good sometimes. However there is no functioning communist society anywhere in the world that I would want to have to live in.

The USSR was the worst example of Totalitarianism, with China a second runner up, of all the 'communist' nations. I don't equate the two (Communism=Tyranny) in theory, its just that every 'workers revolution' has just dissolved into despotism and more misery for the people.

Even socialism (not Nazism!) held more promise in actual practice than any real communist nation. My city, Milwaukee, was the only city in America that elected a socialist mayor to office time and again for over a decade. It was a heavily German/Polish population, that having been exposed to European exploitation for generations, then American, said enough to capitalism.

I cannot argue economics, I am not educated in that area. But I have common sense. A good mix of competition and social care is probably for the best, a fair deal.

Even though I didn't win the lottery again, I could be alot worse off. I could live in Cuba!;)

joespaniel
Oct 21, 2001, 11:29 AM
Communism is not inherently evil. It is an ideal, distasteful to people of means, but not evil.

Communist revolutions the world over have been 'hijacked' by some who in turn have screwed the revolutionaries in the end, setting up governments that hurt the people as much as any capitolist state.

Face it, once your in power, you can do what you want. At least with a democracy, you can check some activities of the government. Voting, demonstration, free speech, privately owned media... The list goes on. A Stalin could not flourish in a modern democracy, nor a Mao, Kemer Rouge or Castro.

Thats the problem with communism in practice. Too much centralized power.

A communistic democracy has some promise, but no one in an existing 'free' country would want it, except the impoverished. And to buy their grudging acceptance of things, we have a welfare system, social security etc.

It just wont happen.

One could argue that Hitler came to power in a democratic way, but thats not true. A lost world war, intimidation and open violence, hatred and playing to peoples fears, and a catastrophic economic situation brought that monster to rule.

amadeus
Oct 25, 2001, 04:30 PM
Communism is evil, and communists hate freedom.

CornMaster
Oct 25, 2001, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Communism is evil, and communists hate freedom.

1) I don't hate freedom.
2) It's not evil, the people that have tried it are.
3) And how about you back up your statements so I can't shoot them down so easily.

sonorakitch
Oct 27, 2001, 02:25 PM
I can't believe there are people on here that are proponents of communism. Even in its truest, most perfect form, it robs men of their competitive inhabitions. To even suggest communism is a good idea, to me, is just ignorance.

~Chris

Vrylakas
Oct 27, 2001, 11:27 PM
Sonorakitch wrote: I can't believe there are people on here that are proponents of communism. Even in its truest, most perfect form, it robs men of their competitive inhabitions. To even suggest communism is a good idea, to me, is just ignorance.

Eh, there are still some fools who follow Hitler too. Both fascism and communism have proven about as spectacular failures in application as any political experiment anywhere, and yet some people are determined to remain blind.

My professors in Hungary a decade ago used to fume about Western intellectuals who praised Marxism and communism, though they lived comfortably and safely in the democratic West. They hated papers like Le Monde who had praised every word that came from Moscow since 1945, again from a comfortable vantage point. When confronted about the failure of every attempt anywhere to implement any kind of communist experiment, the Western believers mumble meakly about "purity"; "That wasn't real communism..." Trust me, it was.

Two Quick Hungarian jokes from the very dark 1950s, a variation on a theme:

1.
Q: What is Capitalism?
A: The system where man is exploited by man.
Q: So what is Socialism then?
A: The system where man is exploited by the state.

2.
Q: What is Capitalism?
A: The system where man is exploited by man.
Q: And what is Socialism then?
A: The other way around.

mariano
Nov 01, 2001, 08:08 PM
All communists in this thread would be kicked off from every Polish university in commie times. I've never seen communism concepts so different from The Only Right Marks-Engels Concepts. I had to read all this crap during the studies, although it was said I lived in real paradise of freedom. ;) There is no REAL communism different from Polish or Soviet communism. Idealist communism doesn't lead to Soviet communism --- it IS Soviet communism. Even commie classics had to admit that communism leads to some form of despotism. I mean particulary Marks and Lenin who weren't such idealists as one could think. Marks wanted to be a theorist of universal history process, not a wild revolutionary. So he said:
1) Switching to next epoch of history (capitalism --> communism) is possible ONLY at the state of FULL development of previous epoch. You can't make it appear faster --- this was the principial sinn of all communist countries. If you want communism earlier, there is only one thing you can do --- make current capitalism even more capitalist: vote for ultra-liberals, tell your chief that you want lower salary for 50% more work including sundays and take part in global consumption of most useless things produced by extremly exploited labourers. International communism counts on you, Cornmaster. ;)
2) Revolution is an immanent part of turning to next epoch. Being more accurate: BLOODY revolution. And again: it can't be puny revolution like so called Great Socialist November Revolution, when some guys wanted to come to power in Russia and stated that communist ideology will do. Revolution must be "automatic", the situation must be critical, capitalism must loose ALL of its economical, social and philosophical power. Only then. And what said Lenin about every revolution: it must be bloody, cruel and lead to despotic rule of few under many. Getting Marks and Lenin together: revolution leading to despotism is an origin sinn of communism. No other chance.
Robots theory looks more modern. ;) But I can put together a story of democracy turning in "robotized democracy", not needing commie crap. E.g.: Labour unions get dissolved or delegalized. There are no labour law, wild capitalism is back. Producers see that employing robots is more economical and sack all workers. Unemployment grows to --- say --- 80%. Thanks to democracy this 80% goes to voting polls and chooses the party which orders the producers to pay for every robot a tax which is equal to former salaries which is given to people, who can now watch tv all day, collect stamps or play civ5. What an idealistic story. ;)

TheDuckOfFlanders
Nov 04, 2001, 05:27 PM
But I can put together a story of democracy turning in "robotized democracy", not needing commie crap. E.g.: Labour unions get dissolved or delegalized. There are no labour law, wild capitalism is back. Producers see that employing robots is more economical and sack all workers. Unemployment grows to --- say --- 80%. Thanks to democracy this 80% goes to voting polls and chooses the party which orders the producers to pay for every robot a tax which is equal to former salaries which is given to people, who can now watch tv all day, collect stamps or play civ5. What an idealistic story.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Effectively comming down to an Communist system :lol:

All you guys havn't understood it all yet ,but i know that robotics will change the world in a communist system.just think it over ,it's really that simple.