The rise and fall of communism

[papa_kulikov]

im interested to know what you think about communism as a form of government.........where Lenin,Engels and Marx genius's or just another set of nobodies????

[Blade]

Communism just does not work and never will. The idea of communism has quite a number of flaws:

Docters who work long hours earn just the same as the local garbage man. Therefore, people are deterred from taking up difficult jobs, as they know they will not be rewarded for doing so. This leaves a big gap in the professional field.

Although the people are supposed to think only of the country, but human nature will still prevail. People want more of everything, as well as personal glory by nature, so it is impossible to force millions of people to put their country before themselves.

The governments are made out to be the only 'religion' around. Religions were banned in some communist countries for some time, because the government wanted all the attention of the people to be focused on them. Obviously, it didn't work. It only bred resentment among Christians, Muslims and other religions.

... and many more.

[Teufel]

Blade pretty much sums it up for me. I'd only add that I bet you couldn't name me one Communist country that wasn't/isn't oppressive. And I'd go a step further and say Socialism should also be done away with. ^_^

Wanting to develop a system of government that spreads the wealth is admirable, but really, despite its bad rap, I think capitalism does a great job of that, especially if it has a good amount of checks & balances.

Just compare the lifestyle of an European serf in the Middle Ages to the average European, or American, etc, or even just a hundred years ago. Or even the kings, who we live better than. he||, a large number of Americans below the povertly line have two cars, a big screen TV, etc. (of course, that's just because of the outdated way we put people below the poverty line, but still.)

[papa_kulikov]

you got me there............but communsim was supposed to be the perfect form of government.......everyone is treated equally................
that is what communism is in a basic form...........its not the communism type of government that is flawed it's the people that abused communism and turned it into a dictatorship that is the problem..........and as now nobody has been able to get past that...

[Blade]

I don't think that communism is a government made up to exploit citizens. Although the ultimate aim is to treat people equally by distributing equal wealth, equal housing, etc, the truth is that people don't all deserve equally. If those who exceed the average person are treated like an average person themselves, it will deter them from going on futher endeavours.

The truth is, people like docters, lawers, politicians and managers have, in most cases, exceeded the average acheivement level. Although these people were born with their intelligence, it takes hard work to get to where they are today, and they should be rewarded more than someone who has just plodded along. Otherwise, people will be deterred from taking up careers that have high earning power in a capitalist society.

/rant

[Teufel]

its not the communism type of government that is flawed it's the people that abused communism and turned it into a dictatorship that is the problem..........and as now nobody has been able to get past that...

I've heard a lot about doing Communism the "right way." and how no one has done it yet. But I disagree. In Communism, you send your money to the State and the State controls everything. How is it NOT going to be a dictatorship when it has so much control over peoples' lives? I believe strongly with America's Founding Fathers that the less government, the better.

I think Blade makes great points as well, especially about the lack of motivation on peoples' part in Communism. I mean, if a janitor and a neurosurgeon make the same amount of money, I'm gonna want to be a janitor! To he|| with wasting years and years of my life in school and then having to do delicate and very hard operations every day. :D And two shouldn't make anywhere NEAR the same amount.

it takes hard work to get to where they are today, and they should be rewarded more than someone who has just plodded along.

Exactly, to me that's the perfect society. You get what you give. :D

[papa_kulikov]

good point...........but Marx,Lenin and Engels wanted a perfect form of government to rule russia.......but if you think of it.......there is no real perfect form of government..........

[imported_palags]

Anarchism is the best "government" :) But when many people are doing things only for themselfs, not thinking about others (like criminals, rich people etc.) it just can't be realised. Many will disagree but i think people must rule themselves not by some smelly dictator :)

Communism is a good idea but just like anarchism it can't be realised with the existing society.

[LtSounders]

Anarchism is a disgrace, :thumbdown: without laws and gouvernemt society will fall apart back to barbarism. We need an elected leader (not a dictator) to function as a society!

[imported_palags]

Originally posted by LtSounders@Mar 7 2004, 03:45 AM
Anarchism is a disgrace, :thumbdown: without laws and gouvernemt society will fall apart back to barbarism. We need an elected leader (not a dictator) to function as a society!
As a said i can't be realised with such stupid society. Maybe a leader who JUST tells people what they should do not force them to do that. But any laws should be exterminated.
If some groups of anarchist emerge they could survive without government and will not turn into barbars. Btw there are some groups of anarchist who live on their own. But they are not many.

[Blade]

The fact that humans have leaders, and an organised society, seperate us from other more primitive life forms. Anarchy would degrade our society, and would make all our technological advancements be worth naught. Plans such as going to Mars, building the Sky City in China, building spacecraft propelled by nuclear reactors, etc, would not have a chance of happening, if we lived in anarchy.

Although it may have a chance of working in a society where everyone thought of others, this 'perfect' society is an impossibility. Humans are characterised by their greed and lust for personal gain, and in an anarchy, the people who are most capable of achieving this personal gain will succeed. However, even if our society behaved perfectly, and the world was an anarchy, we would never become as technologically advanced as we are today.

[Kobayashi]

Read the Communist Manifesto.

The aim of Marx and Engels was not to ive the binman as much as the doctor, but:

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Also:
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

On work:
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.


And finally:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

[papa_kulikov]

communism in its true form is meant to be good...........like for example......the free education..........

[mcdarkness]

i agree i would like communism more if the flaws could be corrected.
i like the fact that you get free medical and free education.
It gives you a sense of more pride and love of your country it really makes you belive you are helping the people.

[papa_kulikov]

mankind as a whole is flawed....if it were not....communisum would be the perfect government\

[papa_kulikov]

some answers to some questions.........


http://www.faucette.net/what-comm/back.jpg

[Slava45]

Its just another form of government, and supposedly its free from the corruption, greed, and lust, that all thrive in capitolism.
What was for so lon deemed by the wast as "the empire of evil" was given this name because they were communists. Though this system failed, there are really no reasons to hate the russians and other communists because of their government. One thing that really irks me is when people refer to russians as "damn commies" or "commie b astards" :pissed:
I've been thinking about it, and really I cant find any good reasons why the west saw communism as such an evil thing.
It's teh same thing with france, I cant think of any good reasons why most americans hate them.
And the same thing with canada. I cant think of any reasons why so many americans hate them.

[DeusExForum]

Communism was founded by the Ancient Greeks

[papa_kulikov]

Modern communism was founded by Carl Marx,Fredrick Engels and V.I Lenin....

[Blade]

Its just another form of government, and supposedly its free from the corruption, greed, and lust, that all thrive in capitolism

Pff. If any 'corruption, greed and lust' happen in a capitolist society, it is because the working-class people want to take their case of tall-poppy syndrome out on those who earned more money than themselves.

The reason communism failed was because giving out equal rewards (money) for different efforts is unfair, and society will not stand for it. Although the idea of the garbage worker getting paid the same as the successful lawyer may sound good to the jealous people of the lower-class, it doesn't sound good to anyone else.

I've been thinking about it, and really I cant find any good reasons why the west saw communism as such an evil thing.

Because quite a few of the communist societies were/are a threat to the west

It's teh same thing with france, I cant think of any good reasons why most americans hate them.

Because, frankly, the French are pathetic.

And the same thing with canada. I cant think of any reasons why so many americans hate them.

Just a bit of neighbourly rivalry ;)

[Neohunter]

lol that reminds me, i just bought a shirt that says "INVADE CANADA!".

But its all in good fun, i love canadians ^_^

Anyway, onto communism.

I don't like Communism. When people have power, they abuse it. Its as simple as that.

[Revolyutsija]

Originally posted by Blade@Jan 26 2004, 02:55 AM
Communism just does not work and never will. The idea of communism has quite a number of flaws:

Docters who work long hours earn just the same as the local garbage man. Therefore, people are deterred from taking up difficult jobs, as they know they will not be rewarded for doing so. This leaves a big gap in the professional field.

Although the people are supposed to think only of the country, but human nature will still prevail. People want more of everything, as well as personal glory by nature, so it is impossible to force millions of people to put their country before themselves.

The governments are made out to be the only 'religion' around. Religions were banned in some communist countries for some time, because the government wanted all the attention of the people to be focused on them. Obviously, it didn't work. It only bred resentment among Christians, Muslims and other religions.

... and many more.
You got it wrong from the begining, A doctor dont need more money to live than a garbage man, why should he earn more?..when the education is free, he dont need to pay for his studies. And people who become doctors today dont become it for the money, then there are better alternatives if you would like to make money, its irrevative anyway becuase in communism there is no money.

People is not supposed to think of their country, becuase there are no countries in communism, the idea of countries is retarded. I guess you havent read Marx/Engels.
When you talk of human nature, you can only speak for yourself, and the only argument capitalists got is that human nature *****.

Religion itself is not forbidden, but when religion is used to take control over people, like Iran, it should be forbidden. Actually nothing is forbidden in communism, but what you ve seen in reality is socialist countries, ussr, cuba, north korea, vietnam , laos etc... ussr even call them self socialist(united soviet socialist republics). And socialism is the level before communism, A country cant become communistic before the whole world does, but socialism can exist in a capitalist world.
Cuba is socialistic, is it a bad country? free education, free medical service, and one of the best in the world. Black and White peaople is equal. Cuba is very democratic on the local level and they have elections much more democratic than any other western "democracy", and what yuou have read about Cuba in the western media is not the truth, Western media is just a tool for the imperialist countries to gain more power.
Tell me what more thats bad in socialism and communism, i will prove you wrong.

[Revolyutsija]

Communism grows stronger than ever.

[Blade]

You got it wrong from the begining, A doctor dont need more money to live than a garbage man, why should he earn more?..

I am in High School, and if I get out of school and become a successful doctor or lawyer through lots of effort, I would rather a Mercedes SLK Kompressor and a waterfront house for my efforts rather than some poorly maintained government rental house and a piece of ***** car.

It's not living that counts, it's how you live.

when the education is free, he dont need to pay for his studies.

What do you think would give a better education - the local public school with underpaid teachers and poor facilities, or the $20,000 a year private school? Your statement is ill-informed.

And people who become doctors today dont become it for the money, then there are better alternatives if you would like to make money

Of course they don't, they do it because they are good at it. This doesn't change the fact that they deserve more money because they have put in more effort.

in communism there is no money.

There is money, just not enough of it.

When you talk of human nature, you can only speak for yourself, and the only argument capitalists got is that human nature *****.

If thats so, why the f**k have the communist countries failed or are reverting to socialism or capitalism? When it comes to whiny 'no war', 'free speech', 'all men are equal' people such as yourself, you can only speak for yourself and the rest of your little band of do-gooders who need a good lesson in reality.

Religion itself is not forbidden, but when religion is used to take control over people, like Iran, it should be forbidden.

No, it should not. If the government is right, they should not fear being ignored in favour of religion. However, when it comes to fanatics (of all religiions) it is a different story.

A country cant become communistic before the whole world does

And why is that?

Cuba is socialistic, is it a bad country? free education, free medical service, and one of the best in the world. Black and White peaople is equal. Cuba is very democratic on the local level and they have elections much more democratic than any other western "democracy"

For f**ks sake, you can't be serious. Once you tell me where you got these statistics and post a link, I will agree with you, but how the f**k can you have more 'democratic' elections? In capitolist countries, people go and pick a leader out of a group of candidates, and this leader controls aspects of the country for a certain number of years. How more democractic can you get?

Communism, on the other hand, has it's leaders who control the entire country and it's people, and in many cases ban religion. And you call this more democratic than capitolism? I don't think so.

Western media is just a tool for the imperialist countries to gain more power.

Are you serious? In that case why does the Australian, the British, the American, etc media scream about why we should not invade Iraq? Why do they take a stance against President Bush? Surely, if the media were on the governments side, they would agree with the Iraq invasion? The media go against those who are in power, eg. large supermarket chains, the government, etc, and stick up for the smaller people. If the government controlled the media, it would the opposite.

And aren't we forgetting something? The communist smear propoganda in the faces of the people, which are controlled by the media WHICH IN TURN ARE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, yet you complain about Western media being used to give 'imperial' countries more power?

Have you ever read a book called 'Nineteen-Eighty Four'? I think it sums up in a more extreme way what communism does - control the lives of everyday people.

I guess you havent read Marx/Engels

If these books were written by communist leaders, there really is no need for comment.

Tell me what more thats bad in socialism and communism, i will prove you wrong.

Go on. Your naive opinions would be excusable if you didn't fling them around so arrogantly. Oh, and don't pointlessly double-post, it's bad for your health. Do it again and a star may be coming your way.

[Neohunter]

Blade, I want you to be my mentor.

[Kobayashi]

READ THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
Marx wasn't a leader, he was an author. Biography (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/marx/eng-1869.htm).

If thats so, why the f**k have the communist countries failed or are reverting to socialism or capitalism? When it comes to whiny 'no war', 'free speech', 'all men are equal' people such as yourself, you can only speak for yourself and the rest of your little band of do-gooders who need a good lesson in reality.


*bile rises in back of throat*
If it wasn't for this warmongering mentality that previals due to misinformation there would be no war. Egalitarianism is the only true way that the human race will better itself.

Free education gives everyone the means to become a doctor/binman/whatever based on their ability and not daddy's dosh.

1984 is about fascism, not communism. Contrary to popular belief, the opposite to fascism is anarchism, not communism. You want a book about communism, read Animal Farm. It answers your question about why communist countries are so *****. Seriously, read it.

[Sage]

Communism is strong...and Capitalism is strong, it really depends on the view you wish to take on them, they both have good and bad points...ideologically Communism is better, practically speaking Capitalism is easier to implement and seems more stable, but there are so many independant factors in all examples(USA, USSR, Canada, Britian, China, Cuba ect) that a black and white distinction is impossible to make.

[Blade]

I wouldn't mind knowing who Marx was, if someone is prepared to tell me.

If it wasn't for this warmongering mentality that previals due to misinformation there would be no war

Fair enough, the Iraq was has been discussed hundreds of times, so if you agree, I wouldn't mind focusing on communism.

Egalitarianism is the only true way that the human race will better itself

Better itself in what way? The human race has progressed from being cavement to what we are today, and people were never equal. There have always been those who are better, and those who are worse, and the fact is that some people are smarter than others, some are better at sport than others, some are more popular than others, so people can never be equal.

Free education gives everyone the means to become a doctor/binman/whatever based on their ability and not daddy's dosh.

Of course, but I was pointing out to Revo that free education does not necessarily provide the best education. Besides, those with great ability can earn themselves scholarships.

1984 is about fascism, not communism. Contrary to popular belief, the opposite to fascism is anarchism, not communism. You want a book about communism, read Animal Farm. It answers your question about why communist countries are so *****. Seriously, read it.

Actually, I hired a book with two stories, 1984 and Animal Farm - I'm starting to read Animal Farm soon.

[Sage]

Here (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/marx.htm) is some information on Marx for ya Blade. :thumbsup:

[Blade]

Sounds interesting... once I have read Animal Farm and the Crucible, I may have a look at it :tup:

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 26 2004, 03:17 AM
I wouldn't mind knowing who Marx was, if someone is prepared to tell me.

Check out the biog I linked you to, or google it. Don't forget Engels, either.

Free education gives everyone the means to become a doctor/binman/whatever based on their ability and not daddy's dosh.

Of course, but I was pointing out to Revo that free education does not necessarily provide the best education. Besides, those with great ability can earn themselves scholarships.
Fair enough, I suppose a "diluting" effect is inevitable in this case.

1984 is about fascism, not communism. Contrary to popular belief, the opposite to fascism is anarchism, not communism. You want a book about communism, read Animal Farm. It answers your question about why communist countries are so *****. Seriously, read it.

Actually, I hired a book with two stories, 1984 and Animal Farm - I'm starting to read Animal Farm soon.
Excellenté. Orwell's one of my favourite authors. If you've read up on Russian history, it becomes obvious who the animals are supposed to represent (and the windmill, although I won't spoil it for you).

Better itself in what way? The human race has progressed from being cavement to what we are today, and people were never equal. There have always been those who are better, and those who are worse, and the fact is that some people are smarter than others, some are better at sport than others, some are more popular than others, so people can never be equal.

Because it's a paradox: the reason we exist from a genetic point of view is to spread our genes, yet we are the most self-destructive species on the planet. As far as I'm concerned, if you have 46 chromosomes you are human and therefor by definition my equal, despite slight fluctuation in the things you mentioned - intelligence, popularity, strength. These things do not make a person superior or inferior, they make up the individual.
Fair enough, the Iraq was has been discussed hundreds of times, so if you agree, I wouldn't mind focusing on communism.
I was refering to all wars, not just the Iraq war, and the use of propaganda therein, namely:
A) Your side is in the right.
B) The enemy is in the wrong.
C) You are stronger than your enemy.
D) Whichever diety you happen to believe in is on your side.

[Neohunter]

But that wasn't always the case. In my opinion, the last real war was World War II, but it doesn't mean I don't respect those who fought in Korea or Vietnam. I agree though that governments always make their armies seem like the most powerful armies and such (much like us) and their arrogance would be their downfall.

[Blade]

As far as I'm concerned, if you have 46 chromosomes you are human and therefor by definition my equal, despite slight fluctuation in the things you mentioned - intelligence, popularity, strength. These things do not make a person superior or inferior, they make up the individual.

Of course. However, since we all have 46 chromosomes and are human, people take that for granted. Our lives, whether people agree with it or not, are focused on the slight fluctuations I mentioned - intelligence, beauty, popularity, muscular strength, etc.

The world's leaders are intelligent. The celebrities and supermodels that so many people look up to are beautiful and popular. The famous sports players have sporting talent. These slight fluctuations make big differences between people.

I was refering to all wars, not just the Iraq war, and the use of propaganda therein, namely:
A) Your side is in the right.
B) The enemy is in the wrong.
C) You are stronger than your enemy.
D) Whichever diety you happen to believe in is on your side.

1. Well, according to the polls in America, most people think their side was in the wrong when it came to the Iraqi war.
2. As a capitalist society, Australians don't produce enough propoganda to actually change the minds of people. The misinformation that you speak of is not necessarily believed by all the people.
3. Well, there is no real doubt that America is stronger than Iraq :tweet:
4. True...



On a related note, I hope that revo*whatevertherestofhisnameis* guy pops in soon, I would like to hear what he has to say about my reply to him :D

[Revolyutsija]

If thats so, why the f**k have the communist countries failed or are reverting to socialism or capitalism? When it comes to whiny 'no war', 'free speech', 'all men are equal' people such as yourself, you can only speak for yourself and the rest of your little band of do-gooders who need a good lesson in reality.

If you want disscusion, dont come with personal assaults. And why do you call me whiny etc? i say if you want peace, prepare for war.
You think i am over class american? I am born sssr, and we stay sssr. Putin is a fascist, many agree. And becuase of capitalism i am forced to learn english, its a language of the oppressor. you wouldnt understand, becuse you only experience capitalism, unrealistic, it dont work.
I answer the other part of your post later, take care.

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 27 2004, 07:14 AM
As far as I'm concerned, if you have 46 chromosomes you are human and therefor by definition my equal, despite slight fluctuation in the things you mentioned - intelligence, popularity, strength. These things do not make a person superior or inferior, they make up the individual.

Of course. However, since we all have 46 chromosomes and are human, people take that for granted. Our lives, whether people agree with it or not, are focused on the slight fluctuations I mentioned - intelligence, beauty, popularity, muscular strength, etc.

The world's leaders are intelligent. The celebrities and supermodels that so many people look up to are beautiful and popular. The famous sports players have sporting talent. These slight fluctuations make big differences between people.

Bush is intelligent? News to me!
:D

In regards to the fluctuations, these are required genetically. What I'm talking about is equality - if we were all genetically the same, without the variations you mentioned, we would be identical, which is a different state. We'd also find that we'd succumb very quickly to genetic diseases.

I was refering to all wars, not just the Iraq war, and the use of propaganda therein, namely:
A) Your side is in the right.
B) The enemy is in the wrong.
C) You are stronger than your enemy.
D) Whichever diety you happen to believe in is on your side.

1. Well, according to the polls in America, most people think their side was in the wrong when it came to the Iraqi war.
2. As a capitalist society, Australians don't produce enough propoganda to actually change the minds of people. The misinformation that you speak of is not necessarily believed by all the people.
3. Well, there is no real doubt that America is stronger than Iraq :tweet:
4. True...
1. But did not the government try to persuade them it was a just war? The poll results indicate they were not very good at it.
2. Capitalism is not immune to propaganda, look at McCarthyism and the Cold War.
3. Obviously, but historically this point has always been used. Why commit to a war you don't believe you could win?

[Blade]

1. Of course they did, they need to have the countrys backing before fighting a war...
2. Of course, but isn't propoganda more apparent in communism?
3. Surely the leaders wouldn't commit to the war either if they weren't as strong as the enemy...

In regards to the fluctuations, these are required genetically. What I'm talking about is equality - if we were all genetically the same, without the variations you mentioned, we would be identical, which is a different state. We'd also find that we'd succumb very quickly to genetic diseases.

What I am saying is that the fact that we are all human is taken for granted, and when we judge people as above or below us we use these fluctuations.

If you want disscusion, dont come with personal assaults. And why do you call me whiny etc? i say if you want peace, prepare for war.
You think i am over class american? I am born sssr, and we stay sssr. Putin is a fascist, many agree. And becuase of capitalism i am forced to learn english, its a language of the oppressor. you wouldnt understand, becuse you only experience capitalism, unrealistic, it dont work

I called you whiny, etc because you are not taking a realistic approach. You are saying that humans are prepared to do something for their country and for other people alone, and not for themselves. The vast majority of humans will not put in great effort for little reward (eg. being a doctor in a communist country).

The reason communism failed is because those who had potential weren't prepared to put in as much effort (getting a professional career), because they knew they would get equal reward to those who put in little effort. If you are getting little reward, why put in great effort?

And you're right, I don't understand why English is the 'language of the opressor', so I wouldn't mind you highlighting that point. Oh - and if capitalism is unrealistic and doesn't work, why has capitalism been apparent in our society for so long?

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 27 2004, 09:04 PM
1. Of course they did, they need to have the countrys backing before fighting a war...
2. Of course, but isn't propoganda more apparent in communism?
3. Surely the leaders wouldn't commit to the war either if they weren't as strong as the enemy...

1) Not necessarily - they have command over the troops. Public support is not required at all, but wanted for the political benefits it brings.
2) Yes.
3) In that case, there would be a lot less wars as the losers would never commit themselves.

In regards to the fluctuations, these are required genetically. What I'm talking about is equality - if we were all genetically the same, without the variations you mentioned, we would be identical, which is a different state. We'd also find that we'd succumb very quickly to genetic diseases.

What I am saying is that the fact that we are all human is taken for granted, and when we judge people as above or below us we use these fluctuations.
Then we get into a debate about human nature - whether it is nature or nurture that some of us will look down on others as inferior or regard certain characteristics as superior to others.

[Blade]

1. Of course they need the countrys backing if they want to get re-elected. The leaders aren't dumb enough to charge into a war if they know it will lose them their position.
2. Exactly my point, the communists smear more government-favoured propoganda in the peoples face than the capitalists do.
3. Of course, but when it comes to Muslim fanatics, they don't give a ***** if they die - they go up to Allah anyway.

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 28 2004, 10:53 PM
1. Of course they need the countrys backing if they want to get re-elected. The leaders aren't dumb enough to charge into a war if they know it will lose them their position.
2. Exactly my point, the communists smear more government-favoured propoganda in the peoples face than the capitalists do.
3. Of course, but when it comes to Muslim fanatics, they don't give a ***** if they die - they go up to Allah anyway.
1) Without going into a debate on Iraq, it was so unpopular in Spain that Aznar lost his position because of it.
2) Yup.
3) In their own twisted minds that counts as a victory. To draw comparisons, feudal Japanese warriors famously welcomed death as something great - do die in battle was the best way to go. I point you to The Book of Five Rings by Musashi Miyamoto - different cultures obviously have different perceptions of what it means to be victorious.

[Blade]

1. Yess, but did the public opinion change? Perhaps he thought that the people would eventually agree with Iraq, or maybe he could have been trying to get 'brownie points' from the US?
3. Exactly the reasons why we don't want Muslim fanatics/terrorists getting nuclear weapons - they don't care if the Americans nuke them back :(

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 28 2004, 11:56 PM
1. Yess, but did the public opinion change? Perhaps he thought that the people would eventually agree with Iraq, or maybe he could have been trying to get 'brownie points' from the US?
3. Exactly the reasons why we don't want Muslim fanatics/terrorists getting nuclear weapons - they don't care if the Americans nuke them back :(
1) Who knows? possibly a combination of both.
3) There are obvious reasons why we don't want terrorists to get nukes, but that isn't one of them. Due to their guerilla nature terrorists - unlike a country - are not tangable targets for nuclear weapons. You'd end up killing a million innocents and 100 terrorists. Something the US learned in Vietnam, guerillas can't be beaten using conventional bombings.
The matyr logic of terrorists is dangerous when it comes to nukes, as should a terrorist ever get hold of nuclear material they'd walk into the middle of New York with a briefcase and blow himself, as well as several hundred thausand people, to kingdom come.

[Sage]

Wasn't this thread about communism? :offtopic: ;)
Maybe take this to the General section...

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Sage@May 29 2004, 01:41 AM
Wasn't this thread about communism? :offtopic: ;)
Maybe take this to the General section...
Errrrr...oh yeah.

Well, technically we are still on-topic discussing political issues....I think.

[Blade]

The nuclear standoff which is happening at the moment is based on the M.A.D (Mutually assured destruction) concept - if one country nukes, they get nuked back, so neither of them do it in the first place. However, I am pointing out that Muslim fanatics don't care if they get nuked back, so the MAD concept doesn't apply to them. This is a reason why it is so dangerous.

I am talking about it on a country scale, any terrorist with a nuclear bomb in his suitcase would go almost anywhere and blow himself up.

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 29 2004, 02:46 AM
The nuclear standoff which is happening at the moment is based on the M.A.D (Mutually assured destruction) concept - if one country nukes, they get nuked back, so neither of them do it in the first place. However, I am pointing out that Muslim fanatics don't care if they get nuked back, so the MAD concept doesn't apply to them. This is a reason why it is so dangerous.

I am talking about it on a country scale, any terrorist with a nuclear bomb in his suitcase would go almost anywhere and blow himself up.
MAD is not applicable here - terrorists aren't in control of any countries, unlike in the Cold War where you had a definate enemy (USSR).

[Blade]

I wasn't necessarily talking about terrorists, Muslim fanatics also apply. If Pakistan or Indian got nuclear weapons, I know it would be unfounded, but I would be pretty scared.

[Kobayashi]

Originally posted by Blade@May 29 2004, 03:57 AM
I wasn't necessarily talking about terrorists, Muslim fanatics also apply. If Pakistan or Indian got nuclear weapons, I know it would be unfounded, but I would be pretty scared.
Actually, both those countries http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762462.html]already (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?[url) have nukes[/url]. Fortunately, they're not run by the same religious wackos who would gladly blow himself to pieces in order to kill an enemy. Unfortunately, both want a piece of land called Kashmir quite badly. Fortunately, the MAD theory applies.

[Blade]

They have nuclear weapons, but at the moment they have not yet developed a rocket system to deliver them. I was referring to whether these countries have the ability to deliver these weapons at Western countries using rockets, not whether they have nuclear weapons in the first place (sorry if I worded it bad)

[Kobayashi]

We're getting way off-topic here, but according to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25851]this (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?[url) site[/url] Pakistan can deliver it's payloads using an intermediate-range missiles, the longest range being the the Shaheen II with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. India's maximum range is the Agni series, which has a range of nearly 3,500 kilometers.

Not enough range to reach the west, but they could still nuke each other should they feel the need.

[Blade]

Well, as long as they can't hit the West...