Dose any one else think Communism dosnt sound that bad?

Dude, your grammar doesn't even make sense... Read that first sentence. I think I know what you're saying, that you don't HAVE to pose an argument in politics - but it's hard to come to that conclusion, please write stuff that isn't so goddam difficult to decipher.

If that's what you're saying, then of course you're right - no one's required to do ANYTHING, it's an entirely voluntary board here you can do and say what you want. That said, people come to Politics to debate and talk about politics, not many people come here purely to say "That guys a borderline troll, ignore him, he's a dickhead" but not actually make an argument or discuss politics whatsoever. The reason for this is probably because such catty and unconstructive behaviour is pointless and doesn't add anything to the thread at all.

You can quit this condescending bullshit anytime you want too. Your posts literally reek of smugness and arrogance. You might think you're the 'bigger man', but you come across like a wanker who thinks his shit smells like roses and is full of bloated self praise. After all, has anyone here designated you the 'bigger man', or is that just you saying that? No need to respond to that question, it is just you. But hey, you're the big man here! Who needs other peoples opinions, your own are so awesome and superior that it doesn't matter what other people think, because you're a big, big man! Yeah!

This happened on another thread too, you seem to really have it in for me for some reason. I don't know what I did or said to offend you... but whatever, I don't mind. Are we going to talk politics? If you want to, then whatever, I can burn these fetid bridges and make a fresh start with you, I pride myself on the fact that I am always willing to forgive and forget. So post a topic of political discussion and we'll start again, like rational adults.

Or you can continue this uppity attitude and continue to think of me as a piece of shit. If that's the case though, please don't bother posting again here, people are probably getting sick of seeing our petty argument. So, either post about politics next time or don't post at all, you dig?

 

He's right, in a way. It depends on which school of 'Communism' you subscribe to though. Stalin, for example, hated the idea that everyone should be paid the same wage. Lenin loved it. Other Communists reject the concept of wages all together and advocate a communal 'resource pool', where everybody has equal access to the 'resources' and can take what they want for their 'wage'.

Communism, by nature, involves a heavily regulated market, a planned market. A regulated market has nothing to do with the people themselves though, and as such it doesn't mean that the people are neccesarily regulated... but historically they have been. In fact, historically Communism has been a dismal failure, though apologists are quick to point out that true Communism has never been implimented. As a side note, this is incredibly ironic because this is what I hear free market capitalists say all the time, that the free market has never actually been put into action and the current capitalist governments aren't 'capitalist' at all.

 

I have a feeling there's two kinds of people, those that want to take care of themselves and those that want to be taken care of. Maybe it's a genetic predisposition. Sadly, it seems those that want to be taken care of are in the majority.

This means the productive minority are cursed to an eternal struggle against the masses.

You can tell which kind of person you are by which basic ideology you support; equalization or freedom.

Why do you have democracy in quotations? Anyways, our Republic has become increasingly marxist since the turn of the 20th century. Read history much? In the last century we've introduced progressive personal income tax, public education, central banking, death tax, property tax, wage controls, price controls, rationing, central planning...

The increase in socialist state power is precisely the reason our country is heading down the shitter.

 

No there are effects. You only want to look at the benefits though which is people are fed and employed. What is the cost though?

Higher wages in a socialist system = higher costs of operating = higher taxes.

A bigger tax burden on whats left of the free market will slow down growth substantially.

And once the free markets can't provide a good at an affordable price because the costs of operating a bussiness are to high, the socialist solution will be what? Oh just nationalize it and tax the people more.

Soon there will be a government take over of everything and people will have no freedom

 

This is exactly correct and exactly how things have trickled down the well of communism many times in history. The people are also fine with this. The higher wages are a good thing to them but things break down slowly. The break down of this system mean the higher costs of operating and taxes, as you stated above. This results in the people being okay with what is going on so that they can be fed and all this time, money is no object still because the socialism. So things will become nationalized which is also fine with the people. All it is to them is a requirement and step that needs to be made so they can live their lives without a huge struggle. Well now you have people who need help and don't care what kind of actions are taken to give them that - they're fine with it. This is when communism trickles its way through the cracks to a government take over. Seeing as the people have already been reduced economically, politically, and educationally, the take over will be easy and the people will, yes, be fine with it.

That is until forced religion, work, et cetera is forced on them.

 

The religion will be the state is god

 

Here is a good answer. A well thought out one. I will explain how it might work.


The ONLY way communism works. Is when it has a strong, brilliant minded, balanced, and un-corruptable leader, with the good of his people in mind.


This would also only work on a group of say 40 people at the most.


They would all have to abide by a somewhat strict, but fair set of rules.


You would most likely have to secede your plot of land from the US like the Native Americans have done. Which means self sustaining your whole commune.


People would have to be screened by the the de facto leader before entry.


At the time when the leader dies, the commune must dissolve. He could not hand it down to his child, or put it in the hands of another member.




Basically Communism works VERY WELL until you get to the part where you need a leader. Because the leader must be near-perfect. Russia has not had that, China has not had that, Cuba has not had that.

It also does not work, because the larger your population gets the harder it is to create a high standard of equality for your people, your wealth becomes spread thin.

Which is why you must use a small amount of people who agree with the way of life and have been screened.



IF you really want to know a good system. Then look in to my new system of structuralism.

It is based not on equality of wealth, but equality of the system, infrastructure, and oppurtunity.

All of the things they require of us, SCHOOL, HEALTH INSURANCE. or things like ROADS, BRIDGES, ect. Whatever you can think of like that. Is equal.

Everybody starts on equal footing.

As in, poor kid in the ghetto doesnt HAVE to go to the shitty broken down school that wont get him anywhere, while the suburban kid gets to go the high-end epicenter of learning.

We force our people to learn, so they will all recieve the best education, regardless.


This way, nobody has an excuse. You all recieve equal education of the highest standard. What YOU decide to do with it, is what sets you apart.

still working on it all. Havent given it the attention it really needs.


EDIT:


LOL, if anybody takes credit for that idea, or the name "structuralism"

Ill sue your ass. I consider that published shit pretty much. Becuase someday I will.

 

no, people want to be free

 

Communism is the perfect government for a group of perfect people.

We aren't perfect so it doesn't work so well.

 

Well, it all depends on the markets involved, doesn't it?

For example, imposing a minimum wage upon the little cafe on the corner of the street is going to have a far greater effect upon it than imposing a minimum wage requirement on an oil refinery or chemical extraction plant. The big business with big money can afford to pay these costs, and as such are absolutely morally obligated to pay a minimum wage - if you want me to go into detail I will, but you probably get what I mean here. Now, the small businesses struggle to meet this requirement, and exactly what you said would happen. They get stretched too thin, they become inefficient and they suffer.

Now, I can't imagine that the government would want to nationalise all of these little cafes that can't afford to properly pay the minimum wage - as a matter of fact, they tried to in Russia and it failed dismally, so they allowed private enterprise with this sort of thing under the NEP. However, that's slightly besides the point! In Bolivia, the small business sector is basically those involved in the informal economy. This excludes small business workers in the city, and they might indeed cop a raw deal with these minimum wage requirements, but generally the small business sector is untaxed, unregulated and is basically rural cottage industries from what I understand (I have a penpal/correspondant in Bolivia, and this is what she informs me). So these government measures don't actually EFFECT the majority of small business in Bolivia, because they're not really involved with the government anyhow.

Now, big business is another ballgame, as I've said. These companies are giants with staggering amounts of money - is there another way to be when you run a lithium extraction and refinery company? I mean, we don't hear of little guys in the industry, people who just thought they'd give it a shot and see what happens, you know? In other words, these companies have a monopoly on a huge amount of money. For this reason, they can pay the minimum wage and be quite uneffected by the relatively tiny outlay of money - and it is a tiny amount of money, the Bolivian peso is worth a fraction of the US dollar.

So, the minimum wage standards don't effect the majority of small business - some small businesses might lose out, but that's the way it goes I guess. The big businesses will hardly be struggling to pay the minimum wage requirements, so that's all good too.

As a side node, why would taxes go up if the government were to nationalise, let's say, all of Bolivias big business? The government would have a shit load more money coming in regularly, taxes should be going DOWN, not up...?

EDIT; Lol @ 'the state will become god' etc. Marx was very, very explicit about the issue of religion - he wanted it gone. Marx wanted no religion whatosever, none at all. No state based religion, NONE. He viewed it as a means of controlling the people, the 'opium of the masses' - which is quite ironic, since you're levelling an allegation that Communists want to control everyone, something that Marx percieved religion to do and thus vehemently opposed it in all forms in a Communist state.

 

The problem with communist leaders is, they are NOT corrupt to start with. They have good ideas and the good of their people in mind.

But of course they cant go through the political system, it would lead to corruption to get to the top.

Not only that, but they cant connect with the older generation. Many people become scared of the change, or dont agree with one aspect of their view which poisons the well.

So what ends up happening is they have to take the country or the government over by force (usually through using their military influence). Which causes rifts in the population. Making it an uphill battle still.

After that, if they do take power, they have to suck up to the people that funded their campaigns. Just like a real campaign. They have trouble putting their fundamentals in to affect, and you have this huge cluster fuck.

The only ideal rise to power is one where the people are literally one inch away from tearing off the incumbents head. In this scenario, the leader to be can (if he is a moving speaker) gain the allegience of native rebels and save political captiol as well as save themselves from needing a ton of backing cash. But that leader needs to be one OF the people.


On top of that though, is my initial statement. Communism takes a perfect, un-corruptable leader.

Most leaders have a chip on their shoulder, and when they take power, hunt down the people that they hated.

Its a real mindfuck trying to think about it all. So dont strain your brain, especially if youre high as fuck.

 

Example. It isnt so much age, but ideals...


We cannot take away the populations religion. It is unjust.

But at the same time we cannot operate as a religion bearing country. So we MUST seperate church in state.

In a christian majority country, especially the USA, doing that, would ensure your downfall, possibly before you even took office.


But I would take a guess that the majority of devout christians are in the older generation.


That there my cause a rift in the population.


Everybody will agree with something, but nobody will agree with everything.

 

Im speaking more in terms of a revolution in general for that.

That being one of my ideals.

Im not religious, but im aware that people want their religion and are very much attached to it.

I could not take it away, but then again I must remove it from dollar bills, the pledge, national anthems, ect.

Especially in cases of abortion where they start bringing religion in to the battle.

seperate the church and state.

 

Ahh the communist lovers trying to blame everything that goes wrong with communism on everything else... except communism itself.