Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Just saw Clefo's Avatar and wondered, any other "lurking" communists in here but me? Communism sounds, to me, like a 90% failsafe against poverty (granted, even if everyone are paid the same, you could in theory spend your whole month's pay on tobacco, drugs, and alcohol and starve for the rest of the month, but in general, if you take care of your money, you'd be off in a good shape). Also, in capitalist systems, people (and especially children of those) in the "average" society (or as the U.S. calls it, the "middle class"), may be ashamed of not having as much money as those who are "well off". This would most likely not happen in a communist system (except from people getting in the hole by gambling, abuses, etc.). Also, the fact that the government owns everything doesn't have to mean you have to have monopolies on everything. Simply let the government take over all existing corporations and companies and you have an unmonopolized, socialistic system. Then I have some discussion topics: Why is communism associated with hating the NATO alliance? Without NATO, there'd be even more wars, wouldn't it (anyone could take over smaller countries like the Scandinavian penninsulan nations without too much trouble)? If communism actually erupts (which I have very little faith in, as I'm less fanatical and more like a "hobby communist" ), should there be a new symbol representing it, replacing the classic red-and-yellow USSR one with the hammer? I think if we keep this symbol, lots of people will stereotype us and look at the system as the same dictator-system as the one used by the USSR. My suggestion for a new symbol? The Scales, which represent a struggle for equality. Last of all, I'll tell you about the Norwegian school system. In elementary school (age 6-14) there is no grading/credit system. No matter how badly a student works (unless he or she's really acting up or practically trying to flunk, if someone would do that), he will graduate from his current class. Also, there are no rewards for excellence, perfect attendance, good behaviour, etc. like in American schools. In Middle school, there still are no rewards, and you'll need to answer all questions wrong on a test to fail it (rather than 7 out of 10 in the US). It's a bit harder to get a perfect score of 6 (US 100), but if you do your work well you'll most likely end up with a 5 (US 90). Are our "equality-elementary schools" Communistic? I think yes, and I want to hear your opinions on this. (For more info, check out the slightly more fanatical Communist Party of USA.) Disclaimer: I know this thread may seem offensive to Russians, ex-Cubans, Chinese Nationalists, etc., but with "Communist" I mean a person who, instead of the current Capitalism system they'd have a working, democratic, equal communist system, and not the dictator systems we see today. Anyone wanting a dictator govt. should start their own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Must also consider the downsides. With communism there is almost NO incentive to work hard and gain a profit. And unless you are ruled by a whip yeilding dictator your country will barely have any development. Russia was able to get through with Communism because of its absolute dictator. Still life was miserable but development was fast. I remember clefo once calling me a "Communist" and it wasn;t a compliment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 *pulls out stake and a pile of wood with a gascan.* Stand witho yur back on the stake while I tie you on, and then I will light the wood and push the stake over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 That's cause Communism got a bad name in the U.S. I believed in true communism at one point, but then I saw the light. If you lived under a pure communism, then you couldn't pick what you could do with your life. And there'd be no way to better your position, hence the class system in the medievil (sp?) England. If you were born to a lowwer class there was no way to become high class. I know that middle class is good, but every American wants to grow up and be rich for a reason! Also, a pure communism couldn't work for the simple matter that power corrupts. If the government had total control over the nation, they would eventually use it to benefit themselves in some way or another, placing more of a burden on the working class in some way. You say that that could happen to America also? Well it can't for one big reason. Communism is a one-party situation whilst America uses a two party system. It is the fact that one party can point out another's flaws and gain more power to improve the situation of the country a little so they stay in power, this clash is what keep's government from corrupting. In a true communism there would be no clash and therefore someone would corrupt. Making the working class suffer. But that's all I have to say about Communism. Does anyone else have an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clefo Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 I use a variety of insults mind you. "Philistine" "Pig Ignorent Toadie" to name 2. Communist could be one of them.. My 2 cents: Communism is a really good system if you put it down on paper, however it is never implimented correctly in world governments. I think people should lay off Commies, I mean they're now the LEAST threatening group in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Really communist is the perfect political system for the perfect world. Unfortunately, we are a little short of perfect worlds in this universe. Not only does Communism rely on leaders not becoming corrupt, but it also relies on people not being lazy and doing things just to help society. The problem is that neither happen, leaders always become corrupt and people always become lazy, selfish, and greedy. Therefore, while it would be great if communism worked, it doesn't, and it never will. We have people from Canada here too, right? Rommel and Sherack and Jackal are Canadian, so they are practically communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 Originally posted by Clefo I use a variety of insults mind you. "Philistine" "Pig Ignorent Toadie" to name 2. Communist could be one of them.. My 2 cents: Communism is a really good system if you put it down on paper, however it is never implimented correctly in world governments. I think people should lay off Commies, I mean they're now the LEAST threatening group in the USA. I believe you called me that, cuz i once edited one of your posts muwhahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted June 12, 2002 Share Posted June 12, 2002 I don't agree with communism (I come from Russia, so please don't automatically call me a commie;) ) I mean how are hard-working busnessmen and women supposed to get a rise in profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 13, 2002 Author Share Posted June 13, 2002 Not only does Communism rely on leaders not becoming corrupt, but it also relies on people not being lazy and doing things just to help society. The problem is that neither happen, leaders always become corrupt and people always become lazy, selfish, and greedy. Therefore, while it would be great if communism worked, it doesn't, and it never will. Good way of shortening that. However, you could maybe introduce the two-party thingie from the US into the communist government this way: The Main party owns everything, the other party acts as an enforcer party taking over if the first party does something wrong, like corrupting, etc. And why can't we have multiple parties that the people vote at? The people should work if they -that is, everyone at the same time, as a group- are given new privilieges (such as pay increases) when most of them (90-95%) do their work. Those who go lazy? Hey there boss, just do as the capitalsts and fire them so they learn their lesson:evil:! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle The people should work if they -that is, everyone at the same time, as a group- are given new privilieges (such as pay increases) when most of them (90-95%) do their work. Those who go lazy? Hey there boss, just do as the capitalsts and fire them so they learn their lesson:evil:! I don't believe thats its that simple. While 90-95% might do the work, the efficency would plummet even further. Thats because people have no incentive to excell. They simply must do what is required of them and thats all, nothing more. With Capitalism, people who do extra or work hard are promoted or given a pay increase. This gives an individual not only reason to excell, but also hope of a better life. People under communism have neither. Individual achievement is a great influence on people, but communists will never no that. Thats beccause the minute you do that it is no longer communism and not all the people are equal. You could increase everyone's salary, but the cost of that would be incredible, and no governement would do that. The base of communism is that everyone, even the governement is equal. As it turns out, some people became "more equal" than others and thats where we have the problems. If more people become "more equal" than others in terms of pay, power, or influence, the problem expands exponentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy We have people from Canada here too, right? Rommel and Sherack and Jackal are Canadian, so they are practically communists. Not really! Canada's economy is based on capitalism, just like the USA, but we do have a few different elements taken from socialism; for example, the health system is more controlled by the government, and many services are free. It's a great system, probably the best to have in an imperfect world like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Not really! The health system is more controlled by the government, and many services are free. Along with controlled health, it is very bad, and people come to the US for prescriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted June 13, 2002 Share Posted June 13, 2002 The fact that the government has more control over the health system has no effect on the efficiency of the doctors. It simply means that many services are free, like giving birth in an hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 14, 2002 Author Share Posted June 14, 2002 Canada's economy is based on capitalism, just like the USA, but we do have a few different elements taken from socialism; for example, the health system is more controlled by the government, and many services are free. Same with Norway and Sweden, but I'm unsure if it should be that way as many of our hospitals are overfilled and in pretty bad shape. However, the nurses and doctors get their stuff done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted June 14, 2002 Share Posted June 14, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar Not really! Canada's economy is based on capitalism, just like the USA, but we do have a few different elements taken from socialism; for example, the health system is more controlled by the government, and many services are free. It's a great system, probably the best to have in an imperfect world like this one. I know, i was joking. I see socialism sorta as a "nice communism" Still, the efficency of the doctors themselves may not decrease, but the efficency of the system does. As you see in Canada (or so i'm told), people must go on long waiting lists to get the health care they need. some people may not get the care they need whe they need it, and that is the problem. In America people get the healthcare they need when they need it, provided they have the money, or insurance, to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy In America people get the healthcare they need when they need it, provided they have the money, or insurance, to pay for it. Which is precisely the reason why I despise your system. Sorry to be negative but I think its a disgrace. Healthcare should be something made available to every citizen regardless of their finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 A more interesting topic would be why the US feel the need to bash Cuba so badly? They represent no threat whatsoever. The trade sanctions they have slapped on Cuba is absolutley crippling their economy. Didn't Jimmy Carter on a recent visit concede that the biological research centre was NOT a weapons research facility, but a centre to progress the knowledge of crop efficienecy etc? They have a health and education system which is superb (much to the embarrasment of the US government). I'm not even sure that left wing politics is the threat to the US anymore, but more so that countries can successfully take matters into their own hands (or they would be if the US didn't cripple them so badly), which I suppose could trigger revolution in many of the unstable South American countries. I guess that is why Che Guevarra is still held as such an important figure by so many people, a man that brings hope for the underprivalidged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clefo Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Amen Duder.. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi3112 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Communism in Star Wars, I always thought the st federation was communist, but none of the sw civs, explain wich civ you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Originally posted by Tie Guy Still, the efficency of the doctors themselves may not decrease, but the efficency of the system does. As you see in Canada (or so i'm told), people must go on long waiting lists to get the health care they need. some people may not get the care they need whe they need it, and that is the problem. That is absolutely true. I don't know about the other provinces, but here in Québec we're currently facing a crisis concerning the waiting lists. The hospitals can simply not meet the demands of the population anymore; they treat patients with minor diseases in the corridors because the rooms are full! This is really happening, believe it or not. The USA's health system might be unfair, but at least some patients get decent treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar That is absolutely true. I don't know about the other provinces, but here in Québec we're currently facing a crisis concerning the waiting lists. The hospitals can simply not meet the demands of the population anymore; they treat patients with minor diseases in the corridors because the rooms are full! This is really happening, believe it or not. The USA's health system might be unfair, but at least some patients get decent treatment. It's the same in the UK. We have a public health service, and because of it we have high waiting lists. But To resort to a system in which we alienate those who can't afford it is morally corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Of course the ideal solution would be to build more hospitals and have a better funding for the health system, but it's not that simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.