Present to Communists

[Grisu]

They aren't that good at the Deutsche Sprache eh?

indeed, or maybe they were just afraid that Die Capitalist Invaders would send the wrong message

 

[The Yankee]

indeed, or maybe they were just afraid that Die Capitalist Invaders would send the wrong message

This? It's just German.

 

[Emperor2]

I have a better present.

I have never been so God damned tempted by anything in my entire life...and I don't even like anime!!!

Someone said something about playing Civ w/ a communist gov't .

I always do the sme exact thing. It's Socialist utopia all around in a civ IV game.

So aren't you just thrilled that you live in a capitalist system where you won't be able to get into the best schools?

We all have to make sacrafices. I make up for it by going to the bookstore and reading my eyes dry.

 

[LightFang]

So aren't you just thrilled that you live in a capitalist system where you won't be able to get into the best schools?

Some people just don't deserve to be in the best schools. Not insinuating that it's Emperor2, no, just saying.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I always do the sme exact thing. It's Socialist utopia all around in a civ IV game.

I think communism is the strongest government in Civ III for the type of game that I play. I always play on huge maps and have a large empire and it helps with corruption and production, plus there's no war weariness. I wish I understood why it's so powerful in a video game...

 

[Emperor2]

I think communism is the strongest government in Civ III for the type of game that I play. I always play on huge maps and have a large empire and it helps with corruption and production, plus there's no war weariness. I wish I understood why it's so powerful in a video game...

Civ III, it was always either Fascism or Communism. Usually fascism, though. Worked better for military conquest, if I remember right. I haven't played civ III in a while...

 

[Princeps]

Educate me.

Stalinist totalitarianism wasn't anymore socialist than a corporation is socialist.

 

[Emperor2]

Stalinist totalitarianism wasn't anymore socialist than a corporation is socialist.

Except for the whole no-private-propetry thing.

 

[greenpeace]

Except for the whole no-private-propetry thing.

Not all forms of communism have complete lack of private property.
Also, I'll counter with the fact that they (US-USSR) share hierarchical structure. Also, they share militiristic mindsets.

 

[LightFang]

Not all forms of communism have complete lack of private property.
Also, I'll counter with the fact that they (US-USSR) share hierarchical structure. Also, they share militiristic mindsets.

Hitler had a dog.
Hitler was a Nazi.
Nazis are evil.
Therefore, if you have a dog, you're evil.

 

[Emperor2]

Not all forms of communism have complete lack of private property.
Also, I'll counter with the fact that they (US-USSR) share hierarchical structure. Also, they share militiristic mindsets.

1st. No, Lenin did have the NEP.
2. In our hierarchy, you can move upward or downward with your work level. In the USSR, you're kind of stuck.
3. That is true - but our militarism is focused on spreading freedom (REAL freedom, none of this crap "Liberation of the Proles"), whereas theirs was devoted to gaining power via world revolution.

Hitler had a dog.
Hitler was a Nazi.
Nazis are evil.
Therefore, if you have a dog, you're evil.

I like your line of thought.

 

[The Yankee]

Not all forms of communism have complete lack of private property.
Also, I'll counter with the fact that they (US-USSR) share hierarchical structure. Also, they share militiristic mindsets.

What organization doesn't have a hierarchical structure?

 

[Princeps]

Except for the whole no-private-propetry thing.

Actually, there was property. It was state property. In socialism, property should be collectively controlled either by democratic institutions or by direct democracy.

Whatever you think Stalinism was, it was not socialism.

Let's start with what property is. Property is a legal construct, and a societal custom, not a god given right: If soverign power decides that your property should be taxed, regulated or stripped and sold, then it can do that, because your property rights are defined by the soverign power of the state. The only reason why you have property is basically because the violent institutions of state decide that it is your property, and enforce your property rights through violent measures. In the end, these violent institutions of state can strip you of your property, and rightly so, if the state is responding to democratic will of the people. However, in the Soviet Union, the violent institutions responded to will of the Soviet planners and elites, who controlled everything without any regulation or democratic oversight from the majority (much like corporate leadership). The state power in the Soviet Union defined property differently, but regardless their property was enforced by the same measures as in any state, and it was property of a certain group and its distribution was not sensetive to any democratic will, thus it was theft, just as any property is in any state. Thus there wasn't any socialism in the Soviet Union, on the contrary, the Soviet Union was the precise opposite of socialism in almost every way. A huge corporation.

 

[Emperor2]

What organization doesn't have a hierarchical structure?

Order and peace require some form of hierarchial structure. It's the order of the niverse. The thing is, it has to be open to all through hard work. That's the one of the great things about Capitalism.

Let's start with what property is. Property is a legal construct, and a societal custom, not a god given right: If soverign power decides that your property should be taxed, regulated or stripped and sold, then it can do that, because your property rights are defined by the soverign power of the state. The only reason why you have property is basically because the violent institutions of state decide that it is your property, and enforce your property rights through violent measures. In the end, these violent institutions of state can strip you of your property, and rightly so, if the state is responding to democratic will of the people. However, in the Soviet Union, the violent institutions responded to will of the Soviet planners and elites, who controlled everything without any regulation or democratic oversight from the majority (much like corporate leadership). The state power in the Soviet Union defined property differently, but regardless their property was enforced by the same measures as in any state, and it was property of a certain group and its distribution was not sensetive to any democratic will, thus it was theft, just as any property is in any state. Thus there wasn't any socialism in the Soviet Union, on the contrary, the Soviet Union was the precise opposite of socialism in almost every way.

Property is a god iven natural right. 2nd -Collective action has no unique moral authority (-Rick Koerber). If a state strips you of its property, it is a mis-constructed state, and is defying its purpose of defending your property (read Locke). And the soviet planners and elite WERE the government. So they could be taking in all the money for themselves, as long as they are in the Soviet Upper Class, they are the government, and that money is being funneled to he government. So it is socialism - a manner of socialism, not hard crack socialism.

 

[LightFang]

3. That is true - but our militarism is focused on spreading freedom (REAL freedom, none of this crap "Liberation of the Proles"), whereas theirs was devoted to gaining power via world revolution.

I know, right? Us seizing the Philippines from the Spaniards, us keeping Puerto Rico as a spoil of war and kind of refusing to allow Cuban independence until they signed the Platt and Teller Amendments, our dicking around with the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary to make the Pacific Ocean our playground, Wilson's involvement in Mexico against the foreign-recognized dictator, us getting involved in World War I, which was not really our business to begin with, keeping troops around in Mexico so we could seize large parts of the West, that whole idea of manifest destiny, involvement in Vietnam and Korea, establishing dictators in Latin America such as Pinochet, who toppled Allende's socialist government, were all totally about freedom.

Oh, and also, if you think there is no private property in communism, think again!

I have my toothbrush. Is it your toothbrush? Hell no. It's mine.

The state owns the factors of production.

 

[Princeps]

2. In our hierarchy, you can move upward or downward with your work level. In the USSR, you're kind of stuck.

Nonsense. There were many people who worked their way inside the soviet hierarchy. Many people who were once repressed peasants, became part of the highest Soviet leadership. Of course, they had to be indoctornated in the process.

3. That is true - but our militarism is focused on spreading freedom (REAL freedom, none of this crap "Liberation of the Proles"), whereas theirs was devoted to gaining power via world revolution.

Total nonsense. I suppose when the US marine goons dissolved the Haitian national assembly for refusing to the sell the country out to US corporations, that was all for
freedom?

I suppose the bombing of Laos was for freedom? Or the bombing of Cambodia? Pinochet? Suharto? Your Reagan's mass murdering friends, the contras?

It's a pretty long list of "freedom fighters" and "freedom fighting"

 

[Emperor2]

Light fang said a bunch of stuff

1st - Most of those early ones - Those were mistakes. We've made mistakes. It's true. But today - it's different. But the WWI was our duty to our democratic allies. Vietnam and Korea was about freedom - freedom from communism. Establishing Pinochet was a transitional government to a democratic state.

Yes, there is a little bit of private property, but that doesn't quite count. We're speaking on really much larer terms here. And the government can still sieze your toothbrush.

Nonsense. There were many people who worked their way inside the soviet hierarchy. Many people who were once repressed peasants, became part of the highest Soviet leadership. Of course, they had to be indoctornated in the process.

Total nonsense. I suppose when the US marine goons dissolved the Haitian national assembly for refusing to the sell the country out to US corporations, that was all for freedom?

1st - if you have to work your way up by killing people, bribing, lying, and decieving, it isn't good honest work that's moving you.

2nd. I'm sure there was more to it then that, but if there wasn't, then there have been a few mistakes. I acknowlege that. But the big things, the most often occuring tihngs, those are the ones that affect most of the world and are about freedom.

 

[LightFang]

1st - Most of those early ones - Those were mistakes. We've made mistakes. It's true. But today - it's different. But the WWI was our duty to our democratic allies. Vietnam and Korea was about freedom - freedom from communism. Establishing Pinochet was a transitional government to a democratic state.

I know, right? When Japan bombed our military installations, we decided to retaliate by destroying two cities, where civilians just happened to live!

Duty to our allies? What? That was a European affair. We didn't have to stick our heads into the whole business. There was no aggressor nation, really.

Uh huh. Allende wasn't democratic? He was popularly elected, unless of course he cheated or something. But I'm pretty sure he didn't. The people wanted a socialist government and Kissinger and the CIA had to stop it, of course! Pinochet and his disappeared people, yep, totally the right thing to do.

If the early wars were mistakes, what keeps the latter ones from being mistakes too?

Yes, there is a little bit of private property, but that doesn't quite count. We're speaking on really much larer terms here. And the government can still sieze your toothbrush.

I know, but I couldn't let your absolute declaration slide.

Oh, and the government can seize your stuff too. See: eminent domain.

 

[Princeps]

2nd. I'm sure there was more to it then that, but if there wasn't, then there have been a few mistakes. I acknowlege that. But the big things, the most often occuring tihngs, those are the ones that affect most of the world and are about freedom.

Really? Or is freedom acceptable when it is in US interests, and unacceptable when it's not? Because, we actually see that kind of a pattern in US actions.

 

[West 36]

Can I say something I know?!
Private property = means of production
Personal property = your stuff
Idk if that helps anything. But there ya go.