3rdreich

[Aqualis]

well the point is that money wouldn't really matter, it'd be more about products, and it would no longer be YOUR money, it would be everybodies labour and everybodies productiveness.  And to be honest, with a group of people you elected as able burecrats all putting their heads together, odds are that you on your own are more likely to waste your money then they are.  Point and case, the average american is spending 113% of their yearly earnings.  This means the average american will be going further in debt, therefore your already wasting your money, you might as well have somebody else to blame when it gets wasted :lol:

So what this boils down to is, I'm to dumb to think for myself so I should let someone else do it for me, right?

As for what you say about true communism never being tried, how do you think we got these "corrupt communist states" in the first place?

[Juby (Tercios)]

 A) your not too stupid, I just said the odds are that a gorup of people could handle it better because of the mental resources of a group vs, just you and that the average american would probably fair better economically with the government(who they elected, so basically themselves as a group). and remember, Not everybody is money minded, alot of people are really bad with money.
B) All the communist regimes of the past were not elected, the became communist through revolution, therefore its much more awkward to establish a democracy from undemocratic means, whereas the only two democratically elected communist governments, Spain and Nicaragua were both overthrown by right wing revolutions, so it's always been nipped in the behind.

[Aqualis]

 My point on the second part was that it had been tried and failed.

On the first part; I don't think that there is any agreement that we can reach on it.

[Juby (Tercios)]

My point on the second part was that it had been tried and failed.

On the first part; I don't think that there is any agreement that we can reach on it.

huh, I thought I just established that it hadn't failed, the two time when the people democratically elected it, the minority rich and military overthrew it (war ensued very quickly too so the governments weren't even given a chance), and the regimes founded violently outside the democratic process were the corrupt regimes.
as for the point on money, well if you remember the points about cars and CD's you'll recall that a sports car is really a waste of money because a car is a tool and it's only function is to establish your position in higher society (unless you want one just so you can go really really fast).  Establishing your position in higher society is an effort to look special or better then most people, this inspires envy in others and feelings of superiority in you, which are both fairly negative feelings, however a CD is simply for your enjoyment, so the gov would still let you buy what you please, like what cd to buy, or a book or movie or whatever, it just would try and stop you from wasting your money on flashy useless stuff.

[Gen. Volkov]

 Real communism has been tried.. every country we ever called communist did at one point try, as you say, "real" communism. The problem inherent in that is people DO lust for power. These tribes you claim lived in peace until Europeans came in fact regularly warred among one another for thousands of years. If you want some proof, go look in an encylopedia. The only ones who ever lived in relative peace were the ones who were fighting to survive. I mean heck, you must know about the Aztecs right? They warred with EVERYONE, because they needed a constant supply of HUMAN sacrifices. Does that sound peaceful to you?

My evidence for communism not working in our world? For people being greedy and lazy? (Though I never said they were inherently so, its just that communism will produce it among humans) Look at every country that ever tried communism. IT NEVER SUCCEEDED! No matter what they did, no country ever had true communism, try as they might. Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, the dictators anywhere the inevitably result from a country's attempts to have functional communism. Because there is one important point you are missing. TRUE communism has no strong central government, it is a goverment of many people a making group decisions, hence the "commune" part of communism. And that is why it can NEVER succeed on a country wide scale, there are simply to many people. And even if there was a communist place small enough for it to work with the numbers, it still wouldn't, because human nature runs against communism. People want power. Or failing that, they want a leader. Its just a part of our evolution, in fact its the strongest point in the argument that we evolved from apes, because EVERY primate out there has a leader at the head of the troop.

[Juby (Tercios)]

 man, Stalin and Mao were not evel close to communists, the Soviet Union was never communist, socialist mixed with facism at best, China was even worse, IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED.  Did I say all natives lived in peace, no, and your dead wrong if you think all the peacefull ones were fighting to survive.  your simply not stating any facts, do you realize how many groups of aboriginals their are in the americas alone, not to mention the groups from austrailia and various islands?  Most of these communities were not even close to destitute, you should read up on various pacific island cultures and stop thinking of just the aztecs when you here native americans.  As for you saying dictators spring up in every attempt at communism, that is an statment that carries no merit whatsoever, Russia and and China were both dictatorships basically from day one, they never said, "hey, lets try and a be a real communist nation", Stalin didn't rise out of communisms failure, he succeded Lenin.  Mao was their from day one and passed it on to other dictators.  Going back to previous evidence, Yugoslavia, when Tito stepped down as dictator and gave power to a senate of sorts, it experienced it's greatest period of yugoslavia until soon after he died when Racism and religious tensions between the ethnic groups resurfaced (there are many Serbs who lived in the concentration camps and remember how the croatians collaberated with the Nazis, the fact that Tito was croation unified them while he was alive though).  You came out and said it was tried and failed but can you tell me a period when the Soviet Union was democratic before it's collapse? Can you tell me the same for China, no of course not because they never were actually communist, it amazes me how people think they know what communism actually is without doing real research and then expect to be able to tell a communist what their beleifs are about, that's like not reading the Qua'ran and trying to tell a muslim why his religion is wrong, and vice versa, a person not reading the bible and telling a christian what christianity is about.  And don't say school taught you either, cause school taught you that Stalin was a communist, which is sooooo wrong, he gave rewards to certain people, he was a dictator, he denied people their rights, he's a facist not a communist.  My recommendation, Read the Communist Manifesto and the Das Kapital, their not some crazy books that'll turn you communist, but you'll at least know where communists are coming from.

[Gen. Volkov]

 *Clears throat* I have read those books. I know exactly where you are coming from. Unfortuantely for you, you are wrong. Yes Mao was the dictator after the communists seized power, but before that they really wanted to be a communist nation. Stalin didn't succeed Lenin, HE KILLED HIM! How about you do me a favor and go read some HISTORY! LENIN was trying to create a true communist country when he was murdered. Your precious Tito was the de facto leader of Yugoslavia, even if it was claimed otherwise. A communist country is just not possible, if you want the facts for this, go look at EVERY country that tried to be communist.

I was giving the Aztecs as one example of many. These aboriginals and islanders WERE fighting to survive. And they had leaders anyway. Shamans, chiefs, call em what you want, they still had leaders. And if you are trying to tell me that the pacific islanders and the Australian aboriginals were not fighting to survive in a hostile place, then I give up, becuase you are no longer basing your arguments on fact.

Lemme put it to you this way. Say you had a job, and you were paid the same as everone else, yet no matter how hard you work, you will NEVER get a promotion, and you will NEVER get paid any more than your fellow workers. Would you want to work there?

[Juby (Tercios)]

 You are so full of it, you have not read those books or you would know the answer to the question you asked, Mao led the Communists during the civil war and was dictator from day 1! you obviously just made that up.  Lenin was going capitalist when he died! he was betraying true communism and going further from it by allowing privately owned land! he was going socialist by keeping Command heights of scoiety under government control but privatizing many other things. This shows how easily you lie and how ignorant of communism is because you said "LENIN was trying to create a true communist country when he was murdered".  whether or not Stalin killed him is debatable, it's a mystery, their are many many hypothesis on who killed him, hollywood movies sometimes lie if thats where you heard Stalin killed Lenin(case and point, that movie on Jack the ripper implicates Queen Victoria of being involved which is just silly).  Lenin was selling out communism.  Up until that point the government was being run in a system that was called "Wartime Communism" which is basically giving a government that was not elected (theirfore undemocratic, therefore un-communist) extreme powers over the average citizens (which is contray to communism as well).  On Titio, how many times do I have to say this, He was the dictator of Yugoslavia, he then stepped down in favour of a senate, you can't just say he was still basically dictator just so that you can win the arguement, back it up with proof if your gonna say stuff like that.  If you think taht all aboriginals were either at war or fighting to survive, you are ignorant of native history and it shows, that is simply not true, many aboriginal tribes were living quite easily and not at war.  You seem to be willing to say anything in order to try and "win", face it, your in over your head when it comes to debating a communist on communism, I can tell this because I've debated many, many people who think they know what communism is are wrong and at the same time, many, many capitalists who actually do know what their talking about and your arguements obviously belong to the first groups.  Their have only been two countries that have attempted true communism, Spain in the 1930's and nicaragua in the 80's, both were undemocratically overthrown (the first with the help of nazis, the second with the help of the US) so they never got a chance.

Now, for your question, first you should re-read the whole arguement fro the start, not just run your mouth. But I'll answer it: You have to work in a communist country in order to be eligable to recieve, now certain things are universal, most constitutions guareentee life, therefore everyone in a communist country is guareenteed food, water, clothes and shelter.  If you wish to be eligible for more then just food and walls (which everyone does want) you work, if your work is consistently showing incompetance or laziness you may get reprimanded and what you earn(the extra's, read back, things like music and books) as extra's would not be provided for a short period ( communism has a saying, "from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their needs" therefore you have to contribute to be inclueded, cause if the country is run by the people for the people, everybody has to contribute because it is unfair to let someone reap the rewards of works without working themselves).  Would you quit a job if you were living in comfort and their were no other job offers just cause you can't get an extra 50 cents per hour? No, if you were happy, why would want more? you simply assume that because you've been raised equating your value with money.  Raises are meant to counteract inflation and to appease you if you are upset because you think you deserve more to improve your standerd of living, in a communinism, their is no inflation and you already live in a great standerd of living, so whats the point.  As for promotions, no person has more rights or a better standerd of living because those are kept proper by the government, which represents the people.  That said, does your boss have more votes then you? in a communist country he wouldn't get more money then you, and even the term boss isn't accurate, most people who a capitalist would view as a superior are really just secretaries keeping work organized, and if your job required assitants, that would be obvious, you are in charge with assitants to get a job done, the assistants would be people with less experience, when they had experience, they would gain the same position as you, and their are also rotation ideas, for example a group of scientists, one scientist is doing research, his say...4 fellow scientists assist him, when his experiment is done, he works on his thesis paper and assists the other scientists in one their experiments.  The whole point of communism is that the currencial system is absurd, why would you care how much you made, does more money make you a better person, do rich people write better books, if your religious do you think you'll get into heaven because you have more money?  You will not get paid more then anyone else, so what?

[Rocc Arrem]

 this has really gotten off topic *thinks* what was the topic?

[Juby (Tercios)]

 somebody had named their clan 3rd riech, I mentioned that i disliked nazism as much if not more then the next guy cause I'm a communist,  then it became about, WHAT, COMMUNIST, and I explained it to the first people and they were all good about it, then a couple more people came along and took it upon themselves to "enlighten" me with the great wisdom they seem to have that I lack despite my thorough research. :lol: basically they think they know more about communism then communists and what they claim should be taken as gold. <_<  

[Veranor]

 The Age of Uncertainty is a good read. So is 1984. Communism is not exactly looked upon kindly in the U.S., what can you expect?

The ideals of communism are something to believe in.

I have to also agree with Juby on the comments about true communism. Everyone seems to think that certain countries are communist, but they are not. It's not communism if you have a leader. It's not communism if there are monetary awards for doing something above and beyond. It defeats the whole purpose.

Meh.

EDIT:
Revolution &
Imagine & Working Class Hero

[Checkerpaw]

 

you obviously just made that up.  Lenin was going capitalist when he died! he was betraying true communism and going further from it by allowing privately owned land! he was going socialist by keeping Command heights of scoiety under government control but privatizing many other things.

I think it's worth pointing out that Lenin was NOT going socialist or capitalist, and that he did NOT want to make the changes you listed (i.e. allow some private property)

He was FORCED to do so because otherwise, the U.S.S.R would have completely and utterly collapsed from the Communist measures imposed upon the people.  It was the same way for Stalin.  Stalin instituted communist programs that basically bled Russia's economy and culture to death.  He too was forced to pull back and allow things like private gardens to save the country from complete breakdown.  It is interesting to note that after these relatively minor changes were made, the ecomony and production of the population always started to improve.  In fact, much more produce came from those private little garden plots that the people owned then the state owned farms that people were forced to labor at, even though the farms were much bigger.

This is historical fact.

[Juby (Tercios)]

 well it is true that Lenin was effecting these measures to counteract the failing system but it was not communism that was failing, it was what I previuosly talked about, what was called "Wartime communism" and he did give private property to farmers, at least he was starting too, that caused alot of turmoil amoung many people in the government.  Hence the craziness that followed his death, but I would argue that instituting real communist measures rather then slight concessions to capitalism would have been better.  Also the soviet Union was one of the worst mannaged nations ever, in Breznevs day they were spending 70% of their budget on the military, communist or capitalist that's crazy, and a huge problem taht faced all of the leaders was that they never bothered to fix the agriculture areas in the west that were ravaged by war in WWI, and even more so in WWII, step one to any communist changes is too secure the necessities, which they forgot.  So really the Soviet Union is just one of the biggest messes in history, ruined resources, ignorance of democracy (politribo was basically a new class of elites, so the plight of the proletariat was back at square one) and mismanagement.
Something interesting to read on this subject would be Lenin's last speech, rahter interesting, shows his growing change from communism and helps explain why Leninism deviates from marxism.

[The Weasel Liberation Mov]

 Personally, I like Democratic Socialism. But only if it's not corrupt.

[Aqualis]

somebody had named their clan 3rd riech, I mentioned that i disliked nazism as much if not more then the next guy cause I'm a communist,  then it became about, WHAT, COMMUNIST, and I explained it to the first people and they were all good about it, then a couple more people came along and took it upon themselves to "enlighten" me with the great wisdom they seem to have that I lack despite my thorough research. :lol: basically they think they know more about communism then communists and what they claim should be taken as gold. <_<

This will be my last post in this topic, after this I have nothing more to say.

I did not try to "enlighten" you. My first posts to you were questions. All my arguments here have been based soley on what you have said. I've pretty much ignored Communism up until this point because I haven't cared. I'll admit that I know basically nothing about communism, except for what you have said here.

I will never live under communism. I just don't like it.