NationStates Jolt Archive

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

Leave. Immediately. I've always wanted to take a shot at living in Ireland.

Edit: Jolt recognizes my supremacy over all others by giving ME the first post!

you mean, if the us became a quasi-sociolist dictatorship, don't you.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

yeh, to the thread title, i'd immigrate.

to the op, i'd point and laugh.

If the US became communist, I'd move there and help the revolution.

If the US began turning into the USSR, I'd move out of America's Ukraine while I still have the chance.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

Flee to Europe and hide.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

gosh, that's pretty moronic. are you 12?

Try to weasel my way into the Politburo.. those guys steal half the cash anyway, might as well join 'em.

Failing that, go someplace else.

Edit: Jolt recognizes my supremacy over all others by giving ME the first post!

Oops. ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do?

No.

Make everyone the same

"Equal" in the political and economic sense is not the same thing as "the same."

by killing off the ones unable to work

Um, where did you get that idea?

and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

"Gifted" implies difference - not necessarily inequality. So, no, we need not "lower the gifted."

I would probably be one of those liquidated. Upper class and communism don't go together, last time I checked. If for some odd reason I survived, I would try to live the best way I could. It would be unrealistic to think of starting a guerilla movement, because communism is a system of total control. There's no way insurgents could hide among the people.

I guess I'd just wait for communism to implode. Which is what it always does.

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

Oops. ;)


Well. Second place isn't bad, is it? :p

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

um....wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

No... you're sadly misinformed on the topic.

The USSR was never communist, but that's almost beside the point, as even the USSR didn't 'lower the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal'.

While many intellectuals were persecuted they weren't persecuted simply for being intellectuals, rather for holding ideas that were opposed to the party. However, the everyman got persecuted for the same thing too.

Gifted people, especially gifted people of lower class decent, especially if they were party members, tended to rise quickly. Kalashnikov being a good example, a wounded soldier builds a good prototype of a rifle, winds up in charge of their production.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

No.


This has been another episode of 'stupid questions, monosyllabic answers.' Tune in next time to hear our host answer the time old question, "But can't we at least torture them a little?"

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8646/copyofmccarthylookingupfl9.gif

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

If by "gifted" you mean 'privileged,' maybe.. No nation is going to intentionally hobble their gifted thinkers, so long as they toe the political line.

I would denounce the reactionaries. Then I would go to my dacha for the weekend and sodomize the dancers from the state ballet.

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8646/copyofmccarthylookingupfl9.gif

A communist?! *hides* It won't take him/her long to find out I made this thread!!! :eek:

No.


This has been another episode of 'stupid questions, monosyllabic answers.' Tune in next time to hear our host answer the time old question, "But can't we at least torture them a little?"

Followed by "Evolution's just a lie, isn't it?" and "Don't you agree that global warming really isn't anything to worry about?"

A communist?! *hides* It won't take him/her long to find out I made this thread!!! :eek:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1420/copyofmccarthypointeb7.jpg
[/shaunofthedead]

If by "gifted" you mean 'privileged,' maybe.. No nation is going to intentionally hobble their gifted thinkers, so long as they toe the political line.

Reread the bolded part.

Let it sink in.

Reread the bolded part.

Let it sink in.

As someone mentioned earlier, even Stalin let intellectuals live and work, so long as they didn't cause trouble. Our hypothetical communist state probably isn't going to destroy a portion of its human capital unnecessarily.

Edit: Unless you were objecting to my grammar, which I'll admit isn't anything special. :)

Reread the bolded part.

Let it sink in.

America might smart ass! *breaks your flamethrower*

no, I was bolding the point you made. No nation would willingly cripple themselves. It's just stupid.

Cambodia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Mao's China........

Nations cripple themselves all the time.

As someone mentioned earlier, even Stalin let intellectuals live and work, so long as they didn't cause trouble. Our hypothetical communist state probably isn't going to destroy a portion of its human capital unnecessarily.

Edit: Unless you were objecting to my grammar, which I'll admit isn't anything special. :)

no, I was bolding the point you made. No nation would willingly cripple themselves. It's just stupid.

America might smart ass! *breaks your flamethrower*

yeaaaaaaah......suuuuuure. Aren't you up past your bed time?

no, I was bolding the point you made. No nation would willingly cripple themselves. It's just stupid.

I don't see it happening in modern, globalized times. We snatched up all the ex-Nazis we could grab after WWII and all the Soviet defectors we could get. I don't see a hypothetical communist America suddenly changing course. Absent religious resistance, I don't see us excecuting our captains of industry, so long as they accept the new regime.

yeaaaaaaah......suuuuuure. Aren't you up past your bed time?

Maybe over there in RUSSIA, where you are!
(shiftyeyes)

I'd launch a counterrevolution to defeat them.

Probably move there, for the simple reason that without a monopoly of force (i.e. the state) there would be no-one to stop me instigating and promoting anarcho-capitalism to those consensually interested (or disinterested in collectivism).

Where would you get your property from?

If USA was communist. Statist communist? Probably just ignore them like I try to now. Anarcho-communist. Probably move there, for the simple reason that without a monopoly of force (i.e. the state) there would be no-one to stop me instigating and promoting anarcho-capitalism to those consensually interested (or disinterested in collectivism).

Ahhhhhh... I see.

You could always convince the communes to give you some, or to adopt capitalism.

But I would hope that that would be an uphill battle. :D

I'd launch a counterrevolution to defeat them.
Then I'd launch a double-decker-counter-counter-revolution to defeat you both!

no, I was bolding the point you made. No nation would willingly cripple themselves. It's just stupid.

Right you are about the stupidity of a nation crippling itself but Russia, the Philippines and America are. Those are three nations I know about that are crippling themselves and there maybe more.

Where would you get your property from?
Ahhhhhh... I see.

yeaaaaaaah......suuuuuure. Aren't you up past your bed time?

I most likely live in a different time zone. So how would you know?

Then I'd launch a double-decker-counter-counter-revolution to defeat you both!

Hey, I'm on your side!

I suppose I would have to convince one miserable commune that capitalism was better, so they would then privatise their communal property.

Or perhaps champion a fascist resistanc ewherein my 'friends' and I would 'free' the communal property, then extort access to it. *taps fingers* Yes...

*joins you*

Or perhaps champion a fascist resistanc ewherein my 'friends' and I would 'free' the communal property, then extort access to it. *taps fingers* Yes...

Well then we could launch a selective-inverse-double-triple-counter-counter-complementary-revolution together. :D

Now we're talkin'! :D

Hey, I'm on your side!
Well then we could launch a selective-inverse-double-triple-counter-counter-complementary-revolution together. :D

Ignoring the OP...

I suppose I would have to convince one miserable commune that capitalism was better, so they would then privatise their communal property.

Yeah, nice one.

"Yeah, I know you like running things according to democratic principles and sharing the fruits of your collective labour...shit like that...but things would work so much better if you put me in charge, giving me a larger share of resources than everyone else. You get what's left over."
"Sure, okay, I guess."

Right you are about the stupidity of a nation crippling itself but Russia, the Philippines and America are. Those are three nations I know about that are crippling themselves and there maybe more.

by rounding up their entire mass of intellectuals and shooting them?

by rounding up their entire mass of intellectuals and shooting them?

snubbing them, beating them up, putting radioactive dust into their lungs, poisoning them, turning people against them, featuring the smart guy as the bad guy in the media ect. It was in the news that Philipino's actually do have undercover soldiers assassinate intellectuals and that the only reason they're known about is because this guy survived and told his story. And theres a guy known as "Mr. nasty whose a Filipino intellectual and the nation wants him dead.

which is exactly the same as rounding them up and shooting them...and it is the...government that is doing this?

let me guess, you get beat up and called nerd a lot, don't you?

Yes. Prepare to be shocked, prepare to have your heart fly up into your brain in terror.....


I am among one of the smartest in the whole school. (I live in the U.S)

snubbing them, beating them up, putting radioactive dust into their lungs, poisoning them, turning people against them, featuring the smart guy as the bad guy in the media ect.

which is exactly the same as rounding them up and shooting them...and it is the...government that is doing this?

let me guess, you get beat up and called nerd a lot, don't you?

Laugh heartily as they got it all wrong right from the starting gate.

if the U.S become communist I would shake my head that its still out of step with the rest of the world just now on the other foot

if the U.S become Sparta we Europeans would use are powerful fleet to...oh we all know how that turned out…erm…er…look Persians!

I am among one of the smartest in the whole school. (I live in the U.S)

that means nothing to me :p

the only reason they're known about is because this guy survived and told his story.

riiiiight

if the U.S become communist I would shake my head that its still out of step with the rest of the world just now on the other foot

if the U.S become Sparta we Europeans would use are powerful fleet to...oh we all know how that turned out…erm…er…look Persians!



that means nothing to me :p



riiiiight

Well I'm kind of an idiotsavent. (guy codominant in being intelligent and stupid) I hate myself enough for it so I hate it when people rub it in.

that's....nice?

yeah and I'm still ahead of the rest of the youth.

Yes. Prepare to be shocked, prepare to have your heart fly up into your brain in terror.....


I am among one of the smartest in the whole school. (I live in the U.S)

that's....nice?

Ignoring the OP... Why didn't do that?

Yeah, nice one.

"Yeah, I know you like running things according to democratic principles and sharing the fruits of your collective labour...shit like that...but things would work so much better if you put me in charge, giving me a larger share of resources than everyone else. You get what's left over."
"Sure, okay, I guess." I was thinking more along the lines of "Hey guys, why don't you divvy this shit up however you want, then let me buy some, so i can run my capitalistic machine, whilst oiling it with your blood? :D *clicks both fingers and points simultaneously*

How did you find that out? Last thing I heard there still was no reliable way to accurate measure the intelligence of an individual.

Many teenagers there didn't know what a calorie, gas giant, or morgue was. They were more preoccupied with self destruction.

I am among one of the smartest in the whole school. (I live in the U.S)
How did you find that out? Last thing I heard there still was no reliable way to accurate measure the intelligence of an individual.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Hey guys, why don't you divvy this shit up however you want, then let me buy some, so i can run my capitalistic machine, whilst oiling it with your blood? :D *clicks both fingers and points simultaneously*

The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

;)

I hate myself enough for it so I hate it when people rub it in.

awww *pats head*

yeah and I'm still ahead of the rest of the youth.

that’s not a very hard thing to do in most countries well at least believe that you are when really the teachers see you as a future redneck

*plays banjo song about moonshine*

How did you find that out? Last thing I heard there still was no reliable way to accurate measure the intelligence of an individual.

He just knows. that's why he's the smart one.

awww *pats head*



that’s not a very hard thing to do in most countries well at least believe that you are when really the teachers see you as a future redneck

*plays banjo song about moonshine*

I can't be redneck. I'm asian.

He just knows. that's why he's the smart one.
Logically. *nods*

Many teenagers there didn't know what a calorie, gas giant, or morgue was. They were more preoccupied with self destruction.

hmmm books or sex

who is the smart one here?

Many teenagers there didn't know what a calorie, gas giant, or morgue was. They were more preoccupied with self destruction.So total amount of knowledge equates to intelligence?

I can't be redneck. I'm asian.

Taiwan will rise again! *continues playing banjo*

I can't be redneck. I'm asian.
Chinese? ABC or FOB? Or perhaps somewhere in between?

hmmm books or sex

who is the smart one here?

I am! Use books to become smart then sound smart in front of a crowd of ladies then....:p

Well I'm kind of an idiotsavent. (guy codominant in being intelligent and stupid) I hate myself enough for it so I hate it when people rub it in.

That's.....not....what....that....means.



yeah and I'm still ahead of the rest of the youth.

again...that's....nice?

So was I, what of it?

So total amount of knowledge equates to intelligence?

And how its applied of course.

Chinese? ABC or FOB? Or perhaps somewhere in between?

Filipino, thats how I'm in touch with whats going on there. My mom's family got royally screwed by the government. Good thing I was in the US while that was happening.

I am! Use books to become smart then sound smart in front of a crowd of ladies then....:p

how's that working for ya?

how's that working for ya?

:D

"If America Should Go Communist"
Leon Trotsky
August 17, 1934
http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-ame.htm

Should America go communist as a result of the difficulties and problems that your capitalist social order is unable to solve, it will discover that communism, far from being an intolerable bureaucratic tyranny and individual regimentation, will be the means of greater individual liberty and shared abundance.

At present most Americans regard communism solely in the light of the experience of the Soviet Union. They fear lest Sovietism in America would produce the same material result as it has brought for the culturally backward peoples of the Soviet Union.

They fear lest communism should try to fit them to a bed of Procrustes, and they point to the bulwark of Anglo-Saxon conservatism as an insuperable obstacle even to possibly desirable reforms. They argue that Great Britain and Japan would undertake military intervention against the American soviets. They shudder lest Americans be regimented in their habits of dress and diet, be compelled to subsist on famine rations, be forced to read stereotyped official propaganda in the newspapers, be coerced to serve as rubber stamps for decisions arrived at without their active participation or be required to keep their thoughts to themselves and loudly praise their soviet leaders in public, through fear of imprisonment and exile.

They fear monetary inflation, bureaucratic tyranny and intolerable red tape in obtaining the necessities of life. They fear soulless standardization in the arts and sciences, as well as in the daily necessities of life. They fear that all political spontaneity and the presumed freedom of the press will be destroyed by the dictatorship of a monstrous bureaucracy. And they shudder at the thought of being forced into an uncomprehended glibness in Marxist dialectic and disciplined social philosophies. They fear, in a word, that Soviet America will become the counterpart of what they have been told Soviet Russia looks like.

Actually American soviets will be as different from the Russian soviets as the United States of President Roosevelt differs from the Russian Empire of Czar Nicholas II. Yet communism can come in America only through revolution, just as independence and democracy came in America. The American temperament is energetic and violent, and it will insist on breaking a good many dishes and upsetting a good many apple carts before communism is firmly established. Americans are enthusiasts and sportsmen before they are specialists and statesmen, and it would be contrary to the American tradition to make a major change without choosing sides and cracking heads.

However, the American communist revolution will be insignificant compared to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, in terms of your national wealth and population, no matter how great its comparative cost. That is because civil war of a revolutionary nature isn't fought by the handful of men at the top—the 5 or 10 percent who own nine-tenths of American wealth; this handful could recruit its counterrevolutionary armies only from among the lower middle classes. Even so, the revolution could easily attract them to its banner by showing that support of the soviets alone offers them the prospect of salvation.

Everybody below this group is already economically prepared for communism. The depression has ravaged your working class and has dealt a crushing blow to the farmers, who had already been injured by the long agricultural decline of the postwar decade. There is no reason why these groups should counterpose determined resistance to the revolution; they have nothing to lose, providing, of course, that the revolutionary leaders adopt a farsightcd and moderate policy toward them.

Who else will fight against communism? Your corporal's guard of billionaires and multimillionaires? Your Mellons, Morgans, Fords and Rockefellers? They will cease struggling as soon as they fail to find other people to fight for them.

The American soviet government will take firm possession of the commanding heights of your business system: the banks, the key industries and the transportation and communication systems. It will then give the farmers, the small tradespeople and businessmen a good long time to think things over and see how well the nationalized section of industry is working.

Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. "Technocracy" can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism.

National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous.

Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers' purchasing power.

To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain.

The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system.

Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants. This, in addition to your technical equipment and your wealth, is the greatest asset of your coming communist revolution. Your revolution will be smoother in character than ours; you will not waste your energies and resources in costly social conflicts after the main issues have been decided; and you will move ahead so much more rapidly in consequence.

Even the intensity and devotion of religious sentiment in America will not prove an obstacle to the revolution. If one assumes the perspective of soviets in America, none of the psychological brakes will prove firm enough to retard the pressure of the social crisis. This has been demonstrated more than once in history. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Gospels themselves contain some pretty explosive aphorisms.

As to the comparatively few opponents of the soviet revolution, one can trust to American inventive genius. It may well be that you will take your unconvinced millionaires and send them to some picturesque island, rent-free for life, where they can do as they please.

You can do this safely, for you will not need to fear foreign interventions. Japan, Great Britain and the other capitalistic countries that intervened in Russia couldn't do anything but take American communism lying down. As a matter of fact, the victory of communism in America—the stronghold of capitalism—will cause communism to spread to other countries. Japan will probably have joined the communistic ranks even before the establishment of the American soviets. The same is true of Great Britain.

In any case, it would be a crazy idea to send His Britannic Majesty's fleet against Soviet America, even as a raid against the southern and more conservative half of your continent. It would be hopeless and would never get any farther than a second-rate military escapade.

Within a few weeks or months of the establishment of the American soviets, Pan-Americanism would be a political reality.

The governments of Central and South America would be pulled into your federation like iron filings to a magnet. So would Canada. The popular movements in these countries would be so strong that they would force this great unifying process within a short period and at insignificant costs. I am ready to bet that the first anniversary of the American soviets would find the Western Hemisphere transformed into the Soviet United States of North, Central and South America, with its capital at Panama. Thus for the first time the Monroe Doctrine would have a complete and positive meaning in world affairs, although not the one foreseen by its author.

In spite of the complaints of some of your arch-conservatives, Roosevelt is not preparing for a soviet transformation of the United States.

The NRA aims not to destroy but to strengthen the foundations of American capitalism by overcoming your business difficulties. Not the Blue Eagle but the difficulties that the Blue Eagle is powerless to overcome will bring about communism in America. The "radical" professors of your Brain Trust are not revolutionists: they are only frightened conservatives. Your president abhors "systems" and "generalities." But a soviet government is the greatest of all possible systems, a gigantic generality in action.

The average man doesn't like systems or generalities either. It is the task of your communist statesmen to make the system deliver the concrete goods that the average man desires: his food, cigars, amusements, his freedom to choose his own neckties, his own house and his own automobile. It will be easy to give him these comforts in Soviet America.

Most Americans have been misled by the fact that in the USSR we had to build whole new basic industries from the ground up. Such a thing could not happen in America, where you are already compelled to cut down on your farm area and to reduce your industrial production. As a matter of fact, your tremendous technological equipment has been paralyzed by the crisis and already clamors to be put to use. You will be able to make a rapid step-up of consumption by your people the starting point of your economic revival.

You are prepared to do this as is no other country. Nowhere else has the study of the internal market reached such intensity as in the United States. It has been done by your banks, trusts, individual businessmen, merchants, traveling salesmen and farmers as part of their stock-in-trade. Your soviet government will simply abolish all trade secrets, will combine all the findings of these researches for individual profit and will transform them into a scientific system of economic planning. In this your government will be helped by the existence of a large class of cultured and critical consumers. By combining the nationalized key industries, your private businesses and democratic consumer cooperation, you will quickly develop a highly flexible system for serving the needs of your population.

This system will be made to work not by bureaucracy and not by policemen but by cold, hard cash.

Your almighty dollar will play a principal part in making your new soviet system work. It is a great mistake to try to mix a "planned economy" with a "managed currency." Your money must act as regulator with which to measure the success or failure of your planning.

Your "radical" professors are dead wrong in their devotion to "managed money." It is an academic idea that could easily wreck your entire system of distribution and production. That is the great lesson to be derived from the Soviet Union, where bitter necessity has been converted into official virtue in the monetary realm.

There the lack of a stable gold ruble is one of the main causes of our many economic troubles and catastrophes. It is impossible to regulate wages, prices and quality of goods without a firm monetary system. An unstable ruble in a Soviet system is like having variable molds in a conveyor-belt factory. It won't work.

Only when socialism succeeds in substituting administrative control for money will it be possible to abandon a stable gold currency. Then money will become ordinary paper slips, like trolley or theater tickets. As socialism advances, these slips will also disappear, and control over individual consumption—whether by money or administration—will no longer be necessary when there is more than enough of everything for everybody!

Such a time has not yet come, though America will certainly reach it before any other country. Until then, the only way to reach such a state of development is to retain an effective regulator and measure for the working of your system. As a matter of fact, during the first few years a planned economy needs sound money even more than did old-fashioned capitalism. The professor who regulates the monetary unit with the aim of regulating the whole business system is like the man who tried to lift both his feet off the ground at the same time.

Soviet America will possess supplies of gold big enough to stabilize the dollar—a priceless asset. In Russia we have been expanding our industrial plant by 20 and 30 percent a year; but—owing to a weak ruble—we have not been able to distribute this increase effectively. This is partly because we have allowed our bureaucracy to subject our monetary system to administrative one-sidedness. You will be spared this evil. As a result you will greatly surpass us in both increased production and distribution, leading to a rapid advance in the comfort and welfare of your population.

In all this, you will not need to imitate our standardized production for our pitiable mass consumers. We have taken over from czarist Russia a pauper's heritage, a culturally undeveloped peasantry with a low standard of living. We had to build our factories and dams at the expense of our consumers. We have had continual monetary inflation and a monstrous bureaucracy.

Soviet America will not have to imitate our bureaucratic methods. Among us the lack of the bare necessities has caused an intense scramble for an extra loaf of bread, an extra yard of cloth by everyone. In this struggle our bureaucracy steps forward as a conciliator, as an all-powerful court of arbitration. You, on the other hand, are much wealthier and would have little difficulty in supplying all of your people with all of the necessities of life. Moreover, your needs, tastes and habits would never permit your bureaucracy to divide the national income. Instead, when you organize your society to produce for human needs rather than private profits, your entire population will group itself around new trends and groups, which will struggle with one another and prevent an overweening bureaucracy from imposing itself upon them.

You can thus avoid growth of bureaucratism by the practice of soviets, that is to say, democracy—the most flexible form of government yet developed. Soviet organization cannot achieve miracles but must simply reflect the will of the people. With us the soviets have been bureaucratized as a result of the political monopoly of a single party, which has itself become a bureaucracy. This situation resulted from the exceptional difficulties of socialist pioneering in a poor and backward country.

The American soviets will be full-blooded and vigorous, without need or opportunity for such measures as circumstances imposed upon Russia. Your unregenerate capitalists will, of course, find no place for themselves in the new setup. It is hard to imagine Henry Ford as the head of the Detroit Soviet.

Yet a wide struggle between interests, groups and ideas is not only conceivable—it is inevitable. One-year, five-year, ten-year plans of business development; schemes for national education; construction of new basic lines of transportation; the transformation of the farms; the program for improving the technological and cultural equipment of Latin America; a program for stratosphere communication; eugenics—all of these will arouse controversy, vigorous electoral struggle and passionate debate in the newspapers and at public meetings.

For Soviet America will not imitate the monopoly of the press by the heads of Soviet Russia's bureaucracy. While Soviet America would nationalize all printing plants, paper mills and means of distribution, this would be a purely negative measure. It would simply mean that private capital will no longer be allowed to decide what publications should be established, whether they should be progressive or reactionary, "wet" or "dry," puritanical or pornographic. Soviet America will have to find a new solution for the question of how the power of the press is to function in a socialist regime. It might be done on the basis of proportional representation for the votes in each soviet election.

Thus the right of each group of citizens to use the power of the press would depend on their numerical strength—the same principle being applied to the use of meeting halls, allotment of time on the air and so forth.

Thus the management and policy of publications would be decided not by individual checkbooks but by group ideas. This may take little account of numerically small but important groups, but it simply means that each new idea will be compelled, as throughout history, to prove its right to existence.

Rich Soviet America can set aside vast funds for research and invention, discoveries and experiments in every field. You won't neglect your bold architects and sculptors, your unconventional poets and audacious philosophers.

In fact, the Soviet Yankees of the future will give a lead to Europe in those very fields where Europe has hitherto been your master. Europeans have little conception of the power of technology to influence human destiny and have adopted an attitude of sneering superiority toward "Americanism," particularly since the crisis. Yet Americanism marks the true dividing line between the Middle Ages and the modern world.

Hitherto America's conquest of nature has been so violent and passionate that you have had no time to modernize your philosophies or to develop your own artistic forms. Hence you have been hostile to the doctrines of Hegel, Marx and Darwin. The burning of Darwin's works by the Baptists of Tennessee is only a clumsy reflection of the American dislike for the doctrines of evolution. This attitude is not confined to your pulpits. It is still part of your general mental makeup.

Your atheists as well as your Quakers are determined rationalists. And your rationalism itself is weakened by empiricism and moralism. It has none of the merciless vitality of the great European rationalists. So your philosophic method is even more antiquated than your economic system and your political institutions.

Today, quite unprepared, you are being forced to face those social contradictions that grow up unsuspected in every society. You have conquered nature by means of the tools that your inventive genius has created, only to find that your tools have all but destroyed you. Contrary to all your hopes and desires, your unheard-of wealth has produced unheard-of misfortunes. You have discovered that social development does not follow a simple formula. Hence you have been thrust into the school of the dialectic—to stay.

There is no turning back from it to the mode of thinking and acting prevalent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe's Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men—the first worthy of the name of Man.

I am! Use books to become smart then sound smart in front of a crowd of ladies then....:p

so NSG is in fact a secretly lucrative dating agency :eek:

so NSG is in fact a secretly lucrative dating agency :eek:

It isn't or covert agents from the cheerleader clique would be here by now *pulls out p50 submachine gun and searches for spies* http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/6/2/6/small/626273.jpg
http://www.proprofs.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/paper.gif

;)

Nice one. :P

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Red_army_soldiers_raising_the_soviet_flag_on_the_roof_of_the_reichstag_berlin_germany.jpg
The White House, 2020.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

Drink vodka...

...what the fuck else am I supposed to do?? :p

I can't be redneck. I'm asian.

Norse Irish assimilated to the point they were more Irish then the (Celtic) Irish. There's no reason to assume you can't be more redneck then the honkies. :D

Well, while I don't think that's quiiiiite what the USSR did for most of its history, I'd still be happy to see the US becoming too introspective and weak to carry-on much of its cultural and economic imperialism beyond its unfortunate border states. Though I would be even more worried than I already am for the safety of my American friends.

If this came-about by a violent revolution, though, I'd likely try to get over there and head for the barricades, all the while shouting about the dangers of Bolshevism and most probably I'd end up being shot for trying to convince people to join the Soviets instead of the Party.

Worth a try, anyway.

I am among one of the smartest in the whole school. (I live in the U.S)

Hmmm...
In that case the US' new communist government would have to look pretty hard to find any intellectuals to persecute.

I'd become a member of the wealthy nomenklatura with a nice mansion, a sizable salary, and vacations on the Crimea.

Upper-level bureaucrats ftw.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

Well first of all Communism doesnt equal opression. At heart communism is an economic system, not a governement system. Its all about equal distribution of wealth. The problem is the majority of communist nations tend to turn authoritarian and oppressive....It depends on what type of communism we're talking about here- If its Stalinist Communism, then to hell with that its counter-revolutionary time. But if its just economic deal then I'd at least give it a chance cuz capitalism can oppress you just as fast as communism can. And Capitalism is actually probably better at oppression.

If I were in America and it went Commie, I would take the first plane/bus/train/ship/vehicle out of the country - I wouldn't want to end up dead for merely being an avid reader, or refusing to work for nothing.

It isn't or covert agents from the cheerleader clique would be here by now *pulls out p50 submachine gun and searches for spies* http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/6/2/6/small/626273.jpg
http://www.proprofs.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/paper.gif

You want to shoot cheerleaders? Dude, you've got this all wrong.

If it was true communism, I would get on the first available plane to the USA.

If it was communism in the only way it can be implemented, I would stay in the UK.

Why are the best political theories always impossible to make real?:(

Nothing, yet. Wait for its collapse for a few decades, start a business and then plunder the USA's natural resources from its wreckage.

If it was true communism, I would get on the first available plane to the USA.

If it was communism in the only way it can be implemented, I would stay in the UK.

Why are the best political theories always impossible to make real?:(

Considering that we have spent the better part of human history without such a concept as property rights, I doubt that.

never go there again.

if america got a wild hair up its but to pay lip service to a marxist idiology rather then a capitolist one, i rather suspect that's all it would be. really the culture is the culture is the culture. and the idiology being payed lip service to is mostly pretty much the names that are put on things.

now if we were to adopt a REAL NONmarxist socialism, like the kind that once made america worth a dam and to a degree still does in europe and a few other places, now that would interest me.

i wouldn't mind seeing a few other things too, but i really think too much is expected of idiology. any idiology and way more then any idiology can deliver.

i don't thing there's any under which tyranny could not occur and i would consider what we have in america now tyranny too.

any time it takes an act of heroism just to be honest, that is tyranny as far as i am concerned, and that is what america has already devolved into, and i don't really think chainging the name of the idiology would do very much to chainge that. one way or the other.

i believe that when we stop putting arbitrary fanatacisms like idology, again ANY idiology, ahead of simply the decency to stop trying to screw everything up for everyone else, that is when things, everything, on average, will begin to improve.

until we do that, well it is a flip of a coin as to whether or not our human species will save itself from the collective suicide of destroying the web of life which the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper, by way of the corporacratic implimentation of it, is currently motivating.

=^^=
.../\...

If it was true communism, I would get on the first available plane to the USA.

If it was communism in the only way it can be implemented, I would stay in the UK.

Why are the best political theories always impossible to make real?:(

Considering that we have spent the better part of human history without such a concept as property rights, I doubt that.
Exactly. :cool: Whether or not True Communism can be implemented is not actually a matter of changing Human nature at all. That's clearly an old stereotype b/c obviously Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, Castro, &c. were all human and yet dreamed of achieving precisely that True Communism; regardless of however goshawfully they went about it, some worse so than others. If a human being can conceive of it in theory at all, then ipso facto it isn't against human nature however difficult it may be to achieve in practice.
Rather, why not simply change the nature of "profit" from narrowly monetary terms to more universal terms instead, including personal and communal health as well as money and possessions? That done, naturally over generations of evolutionary acculturation following a limited "Revolution" to put the necessary government to do all this in place, the profit motive actually might lead in theoretical-Communism's direction; since leaving the world and mankind in the lurch for bucks alone would no longer be seen as profitable.
Back on topic, the US would probably just become like China if a "communist" regime took power here; probably as the end result of the Shrub's having paved the groundwork for a pseudo-leftist authoritatian regime to arise in reaction to the follies of his own rightist pseudo-authoritarian regime.:D I wouldn't mind this either, keeping my little discourse about "Profit and Communism" above in mind. But once I joined whatever Party took the ruling power (hopefully only one among several exercising true "collective dictatorship" this time...:rolleyes:), I'd be dedicated to ensuring that the proverbial "USSA" emphatically did not let internal or external military paranoia take us down the USSR's road to doom. And if we start doing this, then it's "Bombard the Party Headquaters!" time for me at least.

*Trotsky post*
Thank you East Amur for an excellent first post!

And hurrah for Trotsky, too, obviously.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?
Well you don't seem to have even the beginnings of a clue about what you're talking about, I have to say.

The USSR didn't kill the disabled and the weak. That was the Nazis.

The USSR also certainly didn't 'force down the gifted', either. What about Mayakovsky and Tatlin, Krutikov and Kalashnikov?

All of them were gifted, none of them (barring Mayakovsky, who was, due to worshipping at the altar of Mayakovsky, shut up before he shot himself) were held back due to their exceptional intellectual abilities.

i'd probably do nothing, if it turned out right and for one reason or another Belgium began to suck hard for me i'd might mover there, but if this wouldn't happen (wich it probably wouldn't) i'd stay right here.

and i thought this thread was going to be about clinton.

Fat fucking chance.

Fat fucking chance.

I agree. The U.S. banned the Communist party many years ago.....

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

First, I'd be astonished beyond words. America doesn't have socialist tendencies; it has fascist tendencies.

Then I'd check to see if there was something wrong with the scotch I was drinking, since the only possible explanation for such an unlikely event would be that I was hallucinating.

:rolleyes:

Nothing at all. Why would that bother me?

I would laugh at myself for thinking that it was slipping into a theocratic, large corporation state with all political clout being held by the vice president (which can be in vice president office as much as he/she likes and U.S people seem to dislike any constitutional change, no matter what) who would be the religious leader.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what communists do? Make everyone the same by killing off the ones unable to work and lowering the gifted to make sure that everyone is equal?

You're wrong. That was me correcting you.

Get the family to hide their guns, and prepare for insurrection!

I agree. The U.S. banned the Communist party many years ago.....

Contrary to popular belief, we forbade the COMINTERN/COMINFORM, an arm of a foreign government's intelligence service, from acting within the United States on the behalf of a foreign government. There are countless broadly leftist groups in the United States, and they are fully free to organize and assemble.

i dont know. it would be pretty cool if that happened, but large scale communism almost never does its job right. so i guess id move to jamaica.

I would kill myself.

I am an individual, an end in myself. I exist solely for my own sake, to promote my own rational self-interest. I do not sacrifice myself to others, nor do I sacrifice others to myself.

When I deal with other men, I do so as trader-to-trader; Communists would have me deal with others as slave-to-master. In any exchange, I am seeking to maximize my own rational self-interest, and I expect my counterpart to be doing the same for himself. As a virtuous, rational individual, I would have it no other way.

I am a human being, with a mind and a body and a SELF, and certain rights that stem from that fact. I would rather die as a human than live as a coward.

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

If the US became communist (as in anarcho-), I'd celebrate... then watch the rich people as their rich people crap was taken away.

If it became communist (as in populist/Soviet), I'd pack my things and look fo a European country that would be best to move to.

I exist solely for my own sake, to promote my own rational self-interest.

nor do I sacrifice others to myself.

It seems to me that these two statements are plainly contradictory.

Ah.... It's only Jolt again. And here I was being incredulous that Soheran would have made a thread like this. :p

Nothing at all. Why would that bother me?
same
Ah.... It's only Jolt again. And here I was being incredulous that Soheran would have made a thread like this. :p

true Jolt loves to play games

Ah.... It's only Jolt again. And here I was being incredulous that Soheran would have made a thread like this. :p

I accidentally expropriated the "Can we buy socialism?" thread, too.

It's going to be really confusing for anyone to go back and re-read all of these time-warped threads months from now....

I accidentally expropriated the "Can we buy socialism?" thread, too.

It's going to be really confusing for anyone to go back and re-read all of these time-warped threads months from now....

think what it be like if someone looks them up years from now

I accidentally expropriated the "Can we buy socialism?" thread, too.Guess socialism was free that day.

If the US became communist (as in anarcho-), I'd celebrate... then watch the rich people as their rich people crap was taken away.

Or watch them hire out mercenaries and become highly armed protective collectives, or watch them transfer all their funds to foreign accounts and take all the capital that would be nessecary to guarentee equal rights in a communist state.

I'd join the American resistance in exile in Canada and begin helping send funds to the American freedom fighters...

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

If this happened I would also look for the moon to grow wings and moo like a cow-pig.

I would suggest that everyone read the article by Trotsky I posted.

I would suggest that everyone read the article by Trotsky I posted.

Is it in this thread or somewhere else?

Personally, I've always felt the concept of communism in a pure form to be a rather attractive political principle. However, history tends to show is that there is usually somebody willing to exploit the 'communist revolution' and make it something quite different, often a corrupt dicatorship freigning democracy; hence, thats where we get the USSR.

In the event of America becoming communist I'd most likely upstick to Australia...or maybe Canada, at least they've got a Conservative Government.

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

Situation 1: Move to Canada.

Situation 2: Move to Canada and speak out against the US.

think what it be like if someone looks them up years from now


Funny you should say that

Personally, I've always felt the concept of communism in a pure form to be a rather attractive political principle.

What the hell is attractive about it?

Communism is nothing more than the enslavement of the individual to the collective. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a vile principle indeed.

I exist for myself. I have no obligation to provide for others, just as no one else has an obligation to provide for me. When I deal with others, it will be on terms we BOTH agree to, and because we BOTH decide it to be in our respective self-interests to do so. I will NOT act for the sake of another, because that would be altruistic and therefore pure evil.

I would fight them to the death.

I would fight them to the death.

But then, you'd do that anyway, right?

I will NOT act for the sake of another, because that would be altruistic and therefore pure evil.

...

Altruistic = Pure evil?

Since when?

When I deal with others, it will be on terms we BOTH agree to

Oh, but I thought you existed for yourself?

Why should you constrain your actions for the sake of something as petty as someone else's consent?

Leave.

This includes Soviet-style communism and anarcho-communism.

I will NOT act for the sake of another, because that would be altruistic and therefore pure evil.
Yes, everything Darth Vader did, he did for love. I saw the movie, I know how it goes.

On another note, I hope you never forget your proof of insurance if you happen to be, say, skiing and pierce your kidney at the top of the hill. Word on the street is that there's no airlifts if you can't prove you have insurance. You know, on account of maybe being unconscious, it might be difficult for you to bilaterally agree to anything. But I'm sure you've thought of that.

...

Altruistic = Pure evil?

Since when?

My thoughts exactly.

If the US went communist...I dunno. It wouldn't affect me personally, but my Dad lives in Philly....
Normally I would be all for it, but I'm not convinced that communism can work in the US as it is now without going the way of the USSR and the PRC.

Escape at once before I could be shot, dissapeared, or put in the gulag.

Yes, everything Darth Vader did, he did for love. I saw the movie, I know how it goes.

On another note, I hope you never forget your proof of insurance if you happen to be, say, skiing and pierce your kidney at the top of the hill. Word on the street is that there's no airlifts if you can't prove you have insurance. You know, on account of maybe being unconscious, it might be difficult for you to bilaterally agree to anything. But I'm sure you've thought of that.

If it comes down to tough shit for me, well, then, tough shit for me. It's my problem; others aren't obligated to solve it for me.

That it might result in a potentially undesirable consequence does not make it any less morally perfect.

Since always.

Unfortunately, though it's always been true, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century when it was *discovered* to be true.

Free yourself from the chains of 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethical lies.

Are you some type of randroid?

...

Altruistic = Pure evil?

Since when?

Since always.

Unfortunately, though it's always been true, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century when it was *discovered* to be true.

Free yourself from the chains of 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethical lies.

Unfortunately, though it's always been true, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century when it was *discovered* to be true.

You people are such... Christians.

The Savior has come, and revealed the Truth. It will make you free.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

If America (by which, I assume, we mean just the USA) became communist, I would finally be able to stop worrying about whether I can afford healthcare for my family.

What the hell is attractive about it?

Communism is nothing more than the enslavement of the individual to the collective. "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a vile principle indeed.

I exist for myself. I have no obligation to provide for others, just as no one else has an obligation to provide for me. When I deal with others, it will be on terms we BOTH agree to, and because we BOTH decide it to be in our respective self-interests to do so. I will NOT act for the sake of another, because that would be altruistic and therefore pure evil.

What is 'attractive' about the principle of a pure communism, is the idea that EVERYTHING might get a little better for EVERYONE.

Since always.

Unfortunately, though it's always been true, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century when it was *discovered* to be true.

Free yourself from the chains of 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethical lies.

Yeah everyone! Throw down your chains and be dicks to each other! Only by being absolute arseholes can we hope to achieve anything!

Since always.

No.

Unfortunately, though it's always been true, it wasn't until the mid-twentieth century when it was *discovered* to be true.

It's never been true and has yet to be discovered to be true.

Free yourself from the chains of 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian ethical lies.

I ain't basing any of my altruism on any religion. It's partially based on the idea that doing favours for other people is the right thing to do sometimes and generally makes life more bearable for everyone involved. It's partially based on the idea that people might return the favour, but less so, since I never expect that (it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen often, but just that I don't get disappointed when it doesn't happen).

There are things I have in excess that I willingly choose to give up for free. I am no less an individual, nor more evil, for choosing to do that.

I agree. The U.S. banned the Communist party many years ago.....
IIRC not quite. They still run candidates legally in State and National elections as independents, and then draw hardly any votes. (Usually from those protest-voters who aren't inclined to help Nader limp along anymore...:p) It has changed from time to time, them having been banned at some times and legal at others (again, such as now IIRC) depending on how paranoid the various Republicrats happen to be at any given moment.

If I was living in the USA I would leave, I don't want to live in an idealistic but totally non realistic attempt to force everyone to be equal, negating the need for the gifted, removing any of your ecenomical rights giving you little control over you life. Just to serve the purpose of these idiotic elitist middle class fantasies about how the working class wants everyone to be like them and will submit to the inevitable big brother of communism.

I would move out ASAP, and preferably before the communism got fully rooted (so the State doesn't try to steal my stuff on my way out).

Then I would watch and see how long it took for the huge insurrections to wrack the country from coast to coast.

If I was living in the USA I would leave, I don't want to live in an idealistic but totally non realistic attempt to force everyone to be equal, negating the need for the gifted, removing any of your ecenomical rights giving you little control over you life. Just to serve the purpose of these idiotic elitist middle class fantasies about how the working class wants everyone to be like them and will submit to the inevitable big brother of communism.

Okay, but what about if the US became communist?

*snip*

Difference is not the same thing as inequality.

"Economical rights" as they are under capitalism are not the same thing as the capability to control one's life.

Difference is not the same thing as inequality.

"Economical rights" as they are under capitalism are not the same thing as the capability to control one's life.

It is considering how your money and your job can completely change your life style.

It is considering how your money and your job can completely change your life style.

Which is not the same as freedom. Or rather - it means only the 'rich' can be 'free'.

It is considering how your money and your job can completely change your life style.

That is indeed the case. I fail to see how it leads to your conclusion.

Okay, but what about if the US became communist?

There are about as many interpretations as to what communism is as there are interpretations of the Bible. I'm sure your all for some sort of idealistic but completely impossible version of communism that will actually not hinder the economy or take away your freedoms etc... whilst at the same time being self sustainable time without the iron fist. Despite Marx actually saying himself that a dictatorship is nescecerry for the beggining stages, I gues Marx isn't communist either then. :rolleyes:

Anyway the fact of the matter is, Communism is impossible without the iron fist dictatorship. The general interpretation is still for forcing people to live in the equivelent of council flats, taking away any sense of ambition or acheivement whilst giving them crap jobs, little choice on how you can control your money and even largely on what you can buy or sell. Not for me thanks.

You want to shoot cheerleaders? Dude, you've got this all wrong.

Beware, they'll shoot you the first chance they get! *jumps through glass window*

Despite Marx actually saying himself that a dictatorship is nescecerry for the beggining stages

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the dictatorship of a class, not of an individual.

The political form of that "dictatorship" is radically democratic.

Which is not the same as freedom. Or rather - it means only the 'rich' can be 'free'.

Hardly, although even if that was the case, you would still choose the alternative "nobody can be free".

There are about as many interpretations as to what communism is as there are interpretations of the Bible.


No, not really. Communism is an economic model about who owns the means of production.

Anything you tie to that idea on top of that, is your baggage - nothing to do with the concept of 'communism'.


I'm sure your all for some sort of idealistic but completely impossible version of communism that will actually not hinder the economy, take away your freedoms etc... whilst being self sustainable at the same time without the iron fist.


Ah well, if you say communism is impossible, I guess it must be.

But, you are debating YOUR idea of what a communist society MIGHT look like, nothing to do with anything I've said. Your strawman - beat it all you like.


Despite Marx actually saying himself that a dictatorship is nescecerry for the beggining stages, I gues Marx isn't communist either then. :rolleyes:


Marx might have been a communist. He wasn't all communists. And he wasn't 'communism'.

There is also context to what Marx was talking about, which you choose not to allow for.


Anyway the fact of the matter is, Communism is impossible without the iron fist dictatorship.


Not only is this not even vaguely true, it never has been. What Jesus (allegedly) did can be argued as fairly communistic - people working together for the good of the community is often associated with communism - but, as i have to point out again - communism is ONLY an economic model.


The general interpretation is still for forcing people to live in the equivelent of council flats, taking away any sense of ambition or acheivement giving whilst giving them crap jobs, giving you little choice on how you can control your money and even largely on what you can buy or sell. Not for me thanks.

Which is a load of crap. Living in this time, there is no reason why communism should be backwards, certainly no automatic leap to 'council flats for all'. Even a fairly statist communist model doesn't need to intrinsically have anything to do with slums.

As for ambition and achievement - if you honestly think that either is described adequately by the capitalistic imperative, I'd say you've never actually experienced them - all you are discussing, then, is greed and it's realisation.

Adding to your strawman pile the idea of 'crap jobs'... why would all jobs instantly become crap? Control over money.... some models of communism allow for currency, some don't. What you an buy and sell? Doesn't that become largely irrelevent if every need is satisfied?

If America became communist, I'd say; "Look at that. America has gone and communised itself. Good thing I live on the other side of the Atlantic!" ;)

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?
I'd sign up with the brown coats and fight. Better dead than red. And I might just take a few of them with me.

Hardly, although even if that was the case, you would still choose the alternative "nobody can be free".

Another of your strawmen... did you take over as ruler, when the Wizard left Oz?

If only the rich can be free in your model, and everyone has equal access to the same degree of 'freedom' in my model... where is the 'nobody can be free'?

I'd sign up with the brown coats and fight. Better dead than red. And I might just take a few of them with me.

Maybe the 'browncoats' would be the communists...

Why would it be better to hurt and kill, than to accept we are all brothers and sisters?

You people are such... Christians.

Jesus of Nazareth was a socialist and therefore pure evil.

What is 'attractive' about the principle of a pure communism, is the idea that EVERYTHING might get a little better for EVERYONE.

Wrong.

The end does not justify the means.

Marxism is about bringing the productive down to the same level as the unproductive, and doing so by force.

It is about enslaving the individual to the collective.

It is about the death of man qua man, instead making him into a brute beast.

It is about valuing brawn over brains, pull over productivity.

It is rejection of all that is good and virtuous and heroic about man.

If the United States became communist, I may give up my american citizenship, or become a rebel and fight them. Hopefully I could peg off a lot of em. I agree with the dude above me who posted "better dead than red"

Jesus of Nazareth was a socialist and therefore pure evil.

Way to miss the point. ;)

Jesus of Nazareth was a socialist and therefore pure evil.

In all probability, Jesus was a 'nazarite', not from 'Nazareth' - if he even existed.

You still haven't shown a compelling reason for... well, anything - but more specifically, for these assertions that various incarnations of 'doing good stuff' are 'evil'.

Marxism is about bringing the productive down to the same level as the unproductive

Which only shows that you have no understanding of the basic Marxist arguments against capitalism, or the Marxist proposals for alternatives.

How... unsurprising.

In capitalism, there is inequality - some people are rich, and some are poor. I communism, everyone is equal - all people are poor:p

at least communism isn't poor in its vodka supply though

In capitalism, there is inequality - some people are rich, and some are poor. I communism, everyone is equal - all people are poor:p

Wrong.


Don't be silly. You asked what is 'attractive' about it. I suggested something attractive - it thus cannot be 'wrong'.


The end does not justify the means.


Which ends? Which means? You create a catalogue of strawman arguements.

I've noticed that most people who immediately oppose the concept of 'communism' have no idea what might be involved, and fail to make any attempt to think about it.


Marxism is about bringing the productive down to the same level as the unproductive, and doing so by force.


Another strawman. I didn't mention Marxism - just 'communism'.

Of course, I think your analysis of Marxism is pretty unrealistic, too.


It is about enslaving the individual to the collective.


No, it really isn't. It is about a community taking responsibility for the community. If we specified that the people were white, anglo-saxon americans, you'd call it patriotism.


It is about the death of man qua man, instead making him into a brute beast.


Another strawman. Ideally, a system based on communism empowers individuals, and encourages them to work in union. Where is the implicit 'beast' in that?


It is about valuing brawn over brains, pull over productivity.


Again, not only untrue, but not representative of any argument I made.


It is rejection of all that is good and virtuous and heroic about man.

I disagree... but I don't know whether I disagree with your platform, or your assertion that greed, xenophobia and rapaciousness are "all that is good and virtuous and heroic"?

In capitalism, there is inequality - some people are rich, and some are poor. I communism, everyone is equal - all people are poor:p

I appreaciate this was probably supposed to be a joke, but, unfortunately, people actually believe that this idea is somehow implicit in communism.

Here, Here... On that note if the US ever became communist, and I couldn't join the resistance I would move to Switzerland. Although, I may end up doing that anyway, if we keep electing fools.

Again... what is it that is 'wrong' with the idea? Why would you rather die than treat everyone as an equal?

I'm very tired and not in the right state of mind to properly debate, so forgive me for these non detailed replies.

No, not really. Communism is an economic model about who owns the means of production.

Anything you tie to that idea on top of that, is your baggage - nothing to do with the concept of 'communism'.


It's more then that.


Ah well, if you say communism is impossible, I guess it must be.

But, you are debating YOUR idea of what a communist society MIGHT look like, nothing to do with anything I've said. Your strawman - beat it all you like.


I have studied this and seen how the marxist model of communism is an impossibility without a totalitarian rule. It's not just my opinion, it's an agreed opinion held by the majority of economists.


Marx might have been a communist. He wasn't all communists. And he wasn't 'communism'.


The communist model is almost exclusively based off Marx.


There is also context to what Marx was talking about, which you choose not to allow for.


Not really, as my History teacher (who also happens to be communist) will admit.


Not only is this not even vaguely true, it never has been. What Jesus (allegedly) did can be argued as fairly communistic - people working together for the good of the community is often associated with communism - but, as i have to point out again - communism is ONLY an economic model.


What Jesus did was NOT pose an ecenomic model, the idea of sharing is not exclusively communist AT ALL. Don't use that crap to try and justify it.


Which is a load of crap. Living in this time, there is no reason why communism should be backwards, certainly no automatic leap to 'council flats for all'. Even a fairly statist communist model doesn't need to intrinsically have anything to do with slums.


But it will result in that anyway.


As for ambition and achievement - if you honestly think that either is described adequately by the capitalistic imperative, I'd say you've never actually experienced them - all you are discussing, then, is greed and it's realisation.


Who says i'm arguing for capitalism anyway?


Adding to your strawman pile the idea of 'crap jobs'... why would all jobs instantly become crap? Control over money.... some models of communism allow for currency, some don't. What you an buy and sell? Doesn't that become largely irrelevent if every need is satisfied?

1)Jobs - Because communist largely favours brauns over brains, it's against the middle classers completely and is for heavy industrialisation. So it will mainly be industrial workers, even if it wasn't industrial jobs they would not be particularly awarding jobs as no-one can really have control over another etc... you would probably not even have a choice in your work either.

2) Buying and selling - if by every need you mean by, every basic need to survive.

If the United States became communist, I may give up my american citizenship, or become a rebel and fight them. Hopefully I could peg off a lot of em. I agree with the dude above me who posted "better dead than red"

Here, Here... On that note if the US ever became communist, and I couldn't join the resistance I would move to Switzerland. Although, I may end up doing that anyway, if we keep electing fools.

Not really, as my History teacher (who also happens to be communist) will admit.

If your history teacher seriously believes that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to an actual autocratic dictatorship instead of the political rule of the working class through radically democratic institutions, tell him to read the part of Marx's The Civil War in France that deals with the Paris Commune.

Maybe the 'browncoats' would be the communists...
No, the browncoats would not be the communists. The Independents did not believe in having all of the planets controlled by a singular government and instead believed in each world's freedom. Communism is all about a large central government forcing equality on all except high-ranking party members, kind of like the Alliance.

Why would it be better to hurt and kill, than to accept we are all brothers and sisters?
Because not all of us believe we should sign over our freedom for a little safety and equality. Anyone who tries to force me or anyone else to surrender liberty for forced mediocrity is begging for a bullet as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who tries to force me or anyone else to surrender liberty for forced mediocrity is begging for a bullet as far as I'm concerned.

I agree. That's one of the reasons we should destroy capitalism.

No, the browncoats would not be the communists. The Independents did not believe in having all of the planets controlled by a singular government and instead believed in each world's freedom. Communism is all about a large central government forcing equality on all except high-ranking party members, kind of like the Alliance.


Wrong on both counts.

Communism is not 'about large central government'. You are thinking about 'statist' communism as though it represented every approach to the model.

The other count - the browncoats insisted on the right to protect their own, on the right to keep what was 'theirs' - they closely conform to the model of communism as an economic ideal 'ownership of the means of production'.


Because not all of us believe we should sign over our freedom for a little safety and equality. Anyone who tries to force me or anyone else to surrender liberty for forced mediocrity is begging for a bullet as far as I'm concerned.

Where is this 'surrender of liberty' coming from? What 'freedom' is it you speak of? What is this 'forced mediocrity' you argue against?

And - what gives you the right to shoot people for their ideology?

I'd be more fearful.

I don't see it happening in modern, globalized times. We snatched up all the ex-Nazis we could grab after WWII and all the Soviet defectors we could get. I don't see a hypothetical communist America suddenly changing course. Absent religious resistance, I don't see us excecuting our captains of industry, so long as they accept the new regime.
Perhaps they'll execute you fellows instead before such a thing happens...

I would kill myself.

Not worth it. I'd live just to watch it stagnate and die. That'd satisfy me. Immensely.

Of course, this will not happen in the USA. I cannot think of a more anti-communist country in the world. Except perhaps for former USSR countries, perhaps.

I'd be more fearful.
Why?

I'm very tired and not in the right state of mind to properly debate, so forgive me for these non detailed replies.


It doesn't matter if your replies are more or less detailed, if they are based on errors.


It's more then that.


No, it isn't. Communism is an economic model.


I have studied this and seen how the marxist model of communism is an impossibility without a totalitarian rule. It's not just my opinion, it's an agreed opinion held by the majority of economists.


Again - a strawman. You mentioned 'marxism', not I.


The communist model is almost exclusively based off Marx.


Cite?


Not really, as my History teacher (who also happens to be communist) will admit.


I don't believe you. I also find it very telling that we are (allegedly) relying on your 'teacher', rather than your own experience of reading marx.


What Jesus did was NOT pose an ecenomic model, the idea of sharing is not exclusively communist AT ALL. Don't use that crap to try and justify it.


I'm justifying nothing. You said communism can be inextricably linked to the iron fist of dictatorship, and I used Jesus as an example of someone displaying communistic tendencies without the iron fist. It isn't justification, it is a rebuttal.


But it will result in that anyway.


Why? Because capitalism has?


Who says i'm arguing for capitalism anyway?


You did. You made an argument about being able to buy freedom.


1)Jobs - Because communist largely favours brauns over brains, it's against the middle classers completely and is for heavy industrialisation. So it will mainly be industrial workers, even if it wasn't industrial jobs they would not be particularly awarding jobs as no-one can really have control over another etc... you would probably not even have a choice in your work either.


This is entirely a strawman. We live in the 21st century, in a digital age. There is no reason to assume that a 'virtual' communism need favour brawn, any more than there is to believe that it immediately implies heavy industrialisation. Neither is implicit in the concept.

The other assertion - that jobs couldn't be rewarding - isn't even logical. If I like teaching, and am a good teacher - it is in the best interests of me AND the community to have me as a teacher, no?

I am 'rewarded' by doing the job i am suited to.

Or - do you consider rewarding to be entirely about fiscal perks?


2) Buying and selling - if by every need you mean by, every basic need to survive.

Certainly, it is important to make sure egveryone has every basic need to survive, no? Whether we be communists or capitalists, we shouldn't let people in our towns starve or freeze, should we?

But - 'needs' beyond the basic can still be satisfied with the communist economic model, just as they can with capitalist models. It is illogical to assume they MUST be ignored.

Of course, this will not happen in the USA. I cannot think of a more anti-communist country in the world. Except perhaps for former USSR countries, perhaps.

If anything, it is that very anti-ideology that might prove the undoing of the situation it has perpetuated.

The main thing that stopped the spread of communism into the US historically, was the quality of life assured for the majority of the population, and the social support available.

As the wealth-inequality gets greater, and the state removes progressive social supports, the US places itself in a position where ANY alternative becomes more and more attractive. especially those that claim basis in equality.

As the wealth-inequality gets greater, and the state removes progressive social supports, the US places itself in a position where ANY alternative becomes more and more attractive. especially those that claim basis in equality.
I doubt the alternative would be Communism though. Fascism seems the far more likely candidate, what with its appeals to the masses and its relative ability to sustain itself without imploding. The State will of course have to continue covering up its failures, but with a coercive apparatus in its grasp, this will be easy.

With individuals such as Pat Buchanan around, the necessary rhetoric is already in place. Unfortunately, if the fascist model is successful I won't get to witness its ultimate demise.

I doubt the alternative would be Communism though. Fascism seems the far more likely candidate, what with its appeals to the masses and its relative ability to sustain itself without imploding. The State will of course have to continue covering up its failures, but with a coercive apparatus in its grasp, this will be easy.

With individuals such as Pat Buchanan around, the necessary rhetoric is already in place. Unfortunately, if the fascist model is successful I won't get to witness its ultimate demise.

Personally, I'd argue that fascism is already taking over, and has been for a few years. It just hasn't felt strong enough to announce itself yet - although it is becoming more vocal very recently.

However, the brand of fascism that is popular is still perpetuating some of the very problems that might eventually lead to a communist US - such as that big economic equality. Fascism only lasts as long as people feel the 'outsider' to be more oppressive or worrying than the internal process. And, once the US has finally managed to remove all the Jews, Mexicans and blacks, instituted it's official christian religion, and outlawed all those forms of 'deviant' behaviour (such as homosexuality, or being left-handed)... and the American people find that a quarter of them STILL have no food, fascism is over.

Wrong on both counts.
Gee, I was just about to say the same about you.

Communism is not 'about large central government'. You are thinking about 'statist' communism as though it represented every approach to the model.
Except that is the only model that has ever been practiced.

The other count - the browncoats insisted on the right to protect their own, on the right to keep what was 'theirs' - they closely conform to the model of communism as an economic ideal 'ownership of the means of production'.
No, you are very confused. Personal ownership and self-determination are the core beliefs of capitalism not communism. In communism the individual has nothing, cannot own anything, everything belongs to the community as a whole, hence the word communism. Communism is all about common ownership, a principle according to which the assets of an enterprise or other organisation are held indivisibly rather than in the names of the individual members. Communism is very, very anti-personal property and personal liberty.

The Independents were fighting for personal liberty and ownership, freedom from a collectivist alliance of planets who forced equality and obedience on its populace.

Where is this 'surrender of liberty' coming from? What 'freedom' is it you speak of? What is this 'forced mediocrity' you argue against?
The surrender of liberty comes from communisms demand that individuals relinquish personal property, and by extension their personal freedom to the collective. Once it belongs to the whole it ain't yours any more. And even though you're a part of that collective if 51% of it doesn't side with you then you're overruled.

The mediocrity comes from income equality, as in a doctor is payed as much as the janitor who has to clean up after an operation. If you can make just as much money doing the simple tasks and striving for more won't get you anything more, anything special, then why bother? After a few generations without a social ladder to climb no one will be able to when (and I do mean when) it is restored. Atrophy. They'll be too weak to adjust to the real world, the world of Darwinism, of evolution through survival of the fittest.

And - what gives you the right to shoot people for their ideology?
When that ideology becomes a threat to me and my right to live my life the way I see fit I get to fight that ideology tooth and nail. With violence if need be.

Personally, I'd argue that fascism is already taking over, and has been for a few years. It just hasn't felt strong enough to announce itself yet - although it is becoming more vocal very recently.

However, the brand of fascism that is popular is still perpetuating some of the very problems that might eventually lead to a communist US - such as that big economic equality.
Indeed, the current US Third Way economic model is geared towards fascism, but it's still quite a way off.

Fascism only lasts as long as people feel the 'outsider' to be more oppressive or worrying than the internal process. And, once the US has finally managed to remove all the Jews, Mexicans and blacks, instituted it's official christian religion, and outlawed all those forms of 'deviant' behaviour (such as homosexuality, or being left-handed)... and the American people find that a quarter of them STILL have no food, fascism is over.
By which time the State may well have developed sufficient technologies to inculcate and enslave the recalcitrant. I see nothing in the way of a society such as that of BNW, should the State absolutely desire it. Once it has convinced the masses of the need to surrender itheir liberties for it to protect them, it has already gained some of the legitimacy it needs to move forward.

Party Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeples!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Communism is very, very anti-personal property and personal liberty.

What "personal property" do you think communism would take away? And since when is personal property equivalent to personal liberty?

If you can make just as much money doing the simple tasks and striving for more won't get you anything more, anything special, then why bother?

Ah, so people are naturally inclined toward mediocrity, and they must be forced to give it up?

Are you sure about that? And if you are, why are you so vociferously opposed to it?

You see, everyone here is taking things to the extreme, and sorry for being so blunt but it shows the Cold War ignorance of the US that has been indoctrinated by pro-business corporatists that communism is an inherently evil ideal. Property and possession do not equal liberty or democracy, in fact they are the antithesis of equality and freedom. Socialism itself is a transition period, so that the society resembles a Mixed Economy of both capitalism and communism.

It is indeed strange that all over the world and in particular in Europe, they are many many openly socialist parties, some in or sharing power in governments. The state welfare system in Scandinavian states is but one example of socialism. But for some reason socialism is a bad word in the US, which again demonstrates your ignorance.

I believe the Welfare State model itself, as a socialist model within a modern democratic society, is an excellent example of socialism at work. People can whine in the US all they like, but the fact remains that those Scandinavian states have been balancing these societies for decades upon decades, while abject poverty and the gap in income distribution in the US has skyrocketed.

Which only shows that you have no understanding of the basic Marxist arguments against capitalism, or the Marxist proposals for alternatives.

Wrong.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works, as well as those of Lenin and Trotsky, and a bit of Proudhon.


Have you?

Marx starts with an utterly flawed theory of history (a really really retarded derivation of the Hegelian dialectic) and continues to fuck it up from there.

I'm guessing you haven't.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."

Don't be silly. You asked what is 'attractive' about it. I suggested something attractive
And that's not attractive at all.

Which ends? Which means? You create a catalogue of strawman arguements.
These weren't a response to anything you said in particular but a response to the basic precepts of Communism, and Marxism in general. I apologize if putting them in the same post as one that had a sentence or two directed at you confused you.

I've noticed that most people who immediately oppose the concept of 'communism' have no idea what might be involved, and fail to make any attempt to think about it.
See my immediately prior post. I used to be a Communist, until I actually started to think about it.


No, it really isn't. It is about a community taking responsibility for the community. If we specified that the people were white, anglo-saxon americans, you'd call it patriotism.
I would?

That's news to me...

greed, xenophobia and rapaciousness are "all that is good and virtuous and heroic"?

Greed is good, yes. But never have I said that "xenophobia and rapaciousness" are. I'll forgive you that, however, since you were apparently under the assumption, however erroneous, that I was putting words into YOUR mouth and were, understandably, angry.

And since when is personal property equivalent to personal liberty?

They're inseparable.

A corollary of one's right to one's body and mind is the right to the products of one's body and mind--to keep, trade, sell, or exchange as he (and only he) wishes.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works

This is no indicator of understanding.

Indeed, if you have truly read them all, my guess would be that you never gave them any serious attention - that is, after all, the most efficient method of speed-reading.

But prove me wrong - explain to me how exactly Marxism implies "bringing the productive down to the same level as the unproductive."

A corollary of one's right to one's body and mind is the right to the products of one's body and mind

No, it isn't.

There is no inconsistency in saying that a person can have a right to his or her body and mind, but not necessarily to their products - especially when the ambiguity of deciding exactly what constitutes a "product" is added in.

What "personal property" do you think communism would take away? And since when is personal property equivalent to personal liberty?
If you don't own it then you can't use it the way you see fit. If you own nothing, if it's all owned by the community, then you can't use it without asking permission first. For every task you perform, every action you take. That is how a limitation of property rights is a limitation of general liberty.

Ah, so people are naturally inclined toward mediocrity, and they must be forced to give it up?
If there are no natural predators, no internal strife, no challenge, then yes. People who never need to lift a finger get weak and fat real fast. And then, when they are presented with a challenge they are unable to meet it, to accomplish the tasks presented to them. There is a difference between enough shelter to survive and so much that you never see the sun. It's the latter that destroys a man, it's just a little slower than if he were left out in the cold.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."
Quite apt. Mind if I sig it? :)

I'd move to the Czech Republic, where the leader isn't all "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING HELP :("

Also, why is it alright for the State to trump the personal liberties to success that every human being potentially has?

Quite apt.

Have you read Marx?

You see, everyone here is taking things to the extreme

Ah, well maybe that's because we were asked what we would do if the US became a nation run through communist principles(or at least tried to run using communist principles). Your pointing out socialism, which was not what we were asked to consider. Personally I would find that far more acceptable than an attempt to create a communist society. I may not prefer it to a more capitalist alternative, but it wouldn't make me consider fleeing the country; or attempt to overthrow the government.

Have you read Marx?
I read the Communist Manifesto a while ago. Planning on reading Das Kapital later.

I read the Communist Manifesto a while ago.

So have the vast majority of Marxists, so if you want to put yourself in the category of someone who has read Marx, you would have to include them, too.

Indeed, if anything the trend is the opposite from the one the quote suggested - most Marxists are substantially more familiar with Marx than most anti-Marxists. Most anti-Marxists haven't the slightest clue about Marxist theory, and illustrate this amply when they are challenged by people who know what they're talking about.

Linus and Lucy is, as usual, spewing shit.

Wrong.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works, as well as those of Lenin and Trotsky, and a bit of Proudhon.


Have you?

Marx starts with an utterly flawed theory of history (a really really retarded derivation of the Hegelian dialectic) and continues to fuck it up from there.

I'm guessing you haven't.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."

For someone who claims to have read all fifty volumes of Marx and Engels and all forty-five of Lenin, as well as the equally voluminous writings of Trotsky (and also as indicated in your text, Hegel), that's a pretty lame, generic polemic. I seriously doubt the validity of your claim. Provide something more substantive if you want to be taken seriously.

Wrong.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works, as well as those of Lenin and Trotsky, and a bit of Proudhon.


Have you?

Marx starts with an utterly flawed theory of history (a really really retarded derivation of the Hegelian dialectic) and continues to fuck it up from there.

I'm guessing you haven't.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."

For someone who claims to have read all fifty volumes of Marx and Engels and all forty-five of Lenin, as well as the equally voluminous writings of Trotsky (and also as indicated in your text, Hegel), that's a pretty lame, generic polemic. I seriously doubt the validity of your claim. Provide something more substantive if you want to be taken seriously.

Wrong.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works, as well as those of Lenin and Trotsky, and a bit of Proudhon.


Have you?

Marx starts with an utterly flawed theory of history (a really really retarded derivation of the Hegelian dialectic) and continues to fuck it up from there.

I'm guessing you haven't.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."

For someone who claims to have read all fifty volumes of Marx and Engels and all forty-five of Lenin, as well as the equally voluminous writings of Trotsky (and also as indicated in your text, Hegel), that's a pretty lame, generic polemic. I seriously doubt the validity of your claim. Provide something more substantive if you want to be taken seriously.

Wrong.

I've read all of Marx and Engels' works, as well as those of Lenin and Trotsky, and a bit of Proudhon.


Have you?

Marx starts with an utterly flawed theory of history (a really really retarded derivation of the Hegelian dialectic) and continues to fuck it up from there.

I'm guessing you haven't.

My favorite quote in the whole world: "A Marxist is someone who has heard of Marx; an anti-Marxist is someone who has read Marx."

For someone who claims to have read all fifty volumes of Marx and Engels and all forty-five of Lenin, as well as the equally voluminous writings of Trotsky (and also as indicated in your text, Hegel), that's a pretty lame, generic polemic. I seriously doubt the validity of your claim. Provide something more substantive if you want to be taken seriously.

For someone who claims to have read all fifty volumes of Marx and Engels and all forty-five of Lenin, as well as the equally voluminous writings of Trotsky (and also as indicated in your text, Hegel), that's a pretty lame, generic polemic. I seriously doubt the validity of your claim. Provide something more substantive if you want to be taken seriously.

This is what a quadruple post? I have to agree with you though, I find it very hard to believe you have that much time on your hands.

Slack off.

Personally I would kill all the Commy suck-ups I could find that allowed this to happen to my country......then if I was still alive I would move to Australia.:sniper:

This is what a quadruple post? I have to agree with you though, I find it very hard to believe you have that much time on your hands.

Haha, sorry. I keep screwing that up.

Personally I would kill all the Commy suck-ups I could find that allowed this to happen to my country......then if I was still alive I would move to Australia.:sniper:

Sorry, the Revolution has already begun here.

Well, I was just being provocative to see who would bite, but I agree the USA is already well entrenched in the Socialist agenda.

I think you were talking about Australia when you said "here". I wouldn't know, but I still would prefer Australia to all other places, since there seems to be a no BS kind of attitude in general there. My knowledge is limited, but that is my impression.

If the United States became communist? I'd go to Canada. Canada kicks ass.

I think Big Brother got a hold of my penultimate post. The Revolution apparently has already begun here at Nation States also!

I think Big Brother got a hold of my penultimate post.

Scroll up.

If America ironically became the new soviet union and forced all the gifted down to the average level and destroyed all those who are disabled and too weak to work to make sure everyone was the same what would you do?

It wouldn't happen, dear.

It wouldn't happen, dear.
So, whose puppet are you? :p

Hey, if a communist society could preserve full scientific and religious freedom, human rights, freedom of information, and provide equally as strong incentives for continual social and technological improvement as capitalism, I'd be the first to support them.

I generally support any system that fits my definition of progress, and if communism could do that, I would have no problem dismantling capitalism in favor of it.

So, whose puppet are you? :p

A puppet?

A puppet?

In other words, an additional nation controlled by another poster on the board.

In other words, an additional nation controlled by another poster on the board.

Oh. Well this is my first account, naturally.

Oh. Well this is my first account, naturally.

Yeah, I think if you don't know what a puppet is, you're probably not one. :D

Oh, and welcome to NSG.

I'd leave. Communism is essentially based upon eliminating many of the incentives that drove me on my path. I want some measure of money. Not only that but I do not think that communism will be able to do what Vetalia puts as his standards anyway. There are too many variables in a modern economy to deal with and therefore too many ways to fuck it all up for good periods of time. That is not offering a shining endorsement of capitalism, but it is better than communism.

Yeah, I think if you don't know what a puppet is, you're probably not one. :D
Unless it's someone who doesn't want their cover blown. ;)

Oh, and welcome to NSG.
Yes, I'll extend you my welcome too. :)

Not only that but I do not think that communism will be able to do what Vetalia puts as his standards anyway.

Yep, that's why I'm not currently a socialist or communist. I just don't feel that our world today is capable of supporting that kind of society; for that matter, capitalism isn't perfect either, but it does provide those things in one way or another.

Might it be in the future? Maybe, even likely, but I prefer to stick with something that works pretty well than risk it on an untested system that could cause major social damage.

Oh, and welcome to NSG.
Thank you.
Unless it's someone who doesn't want their cover blown. ;)

I think that you are paranoid.
Yes, I'll extend you my welcome too. :)

Thank you also.

Unless it's someone who doesn't want their cover blown. ;)

True.

But then again, I've rarely seen a puppet that isn't a troll or a replacement for an inadvertently deleted nation, and in most of those cases their new name reflects the old one (e.g. Fassigen). But then again, there's nothing wrong with a puppet that just replaces the old nation; sometimes it's good to mix it up and play a new nation with a different name.

I'll probably do that when Vetalia hits 20,000 posts or something.

MTAE is back! Oh Gaud no!

I think that you are paranoid.

I probably am.

True.

But then again, I've rarely seen a puppet that isn't a troll or a replacement for an inadvertently deleted nation, and in most of those cases their new name reflects the old one (e.g. Fassigen). But then again, there's nothing wrong with a puppet that just replaces the old nation; sometimes it's good to mix it up and play a new nation with a different name.

I'll probably do that when Vetalia hits 20,000 posts or something.
Well, I'll be needing colonies eventually, so perhaps I'll invest in a puppet myself.

MTAE is back! Oh Gaud no!

I liked MTAE. I wouldn't mind seeing him back - though I don't think the Mods would like it much.

Most of the trolls said to "be him" don't even approach him.

Well, I'll be needing colonies eventually, so perhaps I'll invest in a puppet myself.

I just created Vetalia Geminorum A, the first artificial moon of Vetalia. Maybe I'll also get around to creating Vetalia Geminorum B at some point.

For that matter, I need to write my NsWiki entry.

I liked MTAE. I wouldn't mind seeing him back - though I don't think the Mods would like it much.

Most of the trolls said to "be him" don't even approach him.
I was surprised he was branded a troll to begin with - most trolls do not bother substantiating their positions.

I must admit that even though his politics were reprehensible he was entertaining.
True. There are others on here with ideals very similar to his, but he had a unique flair of his own.

I liked MTAE. I wouldn't mind seeing him back - though I don't think the Mods would like it much.

I must admit that even though his politics were reprehensible he was entertaining.

I'm an atemporal being apparently

I think MTAE went to go "fight commies" somewhere. :p

As for the OP, I still say if Americans just start drinking vodka as though we needed it to stay warm, nobody would notice the difference. :D

Heh, this is ridiculous! People are talking about Marxism being about bringing the productive down to the level of the unproductive... I really, really can't understand how anyone can make that contention while also claiming to have read Marx. Some theories with the communist name attached to them have been about levelling down... but Marx wrote polemics against them.

Others are describing communism as Marxist and Marxist alone... when communism -even the name communism- existed before Marx ever put pen to paper in a political context. Communism is not exclusively Marxist, and couldn't possibly be... unless ol' Karl had a time machine that he used without anyone ever knowing about it. And if that'd been the case you'd think that he'd have had a thing or two to say to comrade Lenin when he scrubbed out half of Marx's life work and concocted a great contradiction with Marx's name on it. How bizarre is this thread going to get?

I'm a communist... but I'm not a Marxist. In fact I only got around to reading the Manifesto last week (I was getting sick of people calling me a Marxist even though I'd never read Marx). The experience -of reading the Manifesto- has left me feeling vindicated in my distance from Marxism, not that there aren't still a lot of individual elements in there worth taking on board. Plus some good slogans, of course. I prefer reading around the subject, I suppose. From where ideas came, under what conditions, and such.

All right, I'm bored. Who wants to establish a commune? Perhaps we can use part of Australia, it's full of mini-nations already, one more won't be too surprising. I think we'd need over a thousand people for it to have much chance of lasting, though. And one of you better be able to cook.

I must admit that even though his politics were reprehensible he was entertaining.

Oh, I loved the 'nuke the whole world and just build US colonies everywhere' policy, lol.

I must admit that even though his politics were reprehensible

Yeah, but in a forum full of people who support capitalism, I've stopped caring.

he was entertaining.

And very intelligent. I genuinely enjoyed arguing with him.

Oh, I loved the 'nuke the whole world and just build US colonies everywhere' policy, lol.

I loved it when he wanted to bring back the institution of slavery.

These weren't a response to anything you said in particular but a response to the basic precepts of Communism, and Marxism in general. I apologize if putting them in the same post as one that had a sentence or two directed at you confused you.


Communism and Marxism are not synonyms.


See my immediately prior post. I used to be a Communist, until I actually started to think about it.


I don't believe you.


Greed is good, yes. But never have I said that "xenophobia and rapaciousness" are. I'll forgive you that, however, since you were apparently under the assumption, however erroneous, that I was putting words into YOUR mouth and were, understandably, angry.

Your arguments have all been in favour of a model that prefers individual reward, at the expense of others or anything else - hence xenophobic and rapacious.

I'd leave. Communism is essentially based upon eliminating many of the incentives that drove me on my path. I want some measure of money. Not only that but I do not think that communism will be able to do what Vetalia puts as his standards anyway. There are too many variables in a modern economy to deal with and therefore too many ways to fuck it all up for good periods of time. That is not offering a shining endorsement of capitalism, but it is better than communism.

Why do you want money?

If you could have a moneyless society where all your needs were met, what would be the advantage of money?

I'd haul my ass to Kyrgyzstan and live my life somewhere in/near a cave at the base of Mount Pobeda. It'd be cool because that way, I'd live my life in a pointless fashion and would suck...that's why it'd be cool.

If you could have a moneyless society where all your needs were met, what would be the advantage of money?
If all your needs were met then there'd be no drive to perform any services to society or tasks other than those of personal recreation. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier, if you take away the challenge of life people will become weak and only survive so long as their needs are provided for them by an external force.

It's like the dumbing down of society; teachers don't want students to feel bad so they give them easy marks the students usually don't deserve, the students don't feel like they need to go above and beyond in their work because they're already getting favorable grades, those students become the teacher and again, not wanting to make their students feel bad will give them an easier time. Continue this cycle long enough and the whole world is populated by retards. It's the lack of challenge that drives this.

If all your needs were met then there'd be no drive to perform any services to society or tasks other than those of personal recreation. This is precisely what I was talking about earlier, if you take away the challenge of life people will become weak and only survive so long as their needs are provided for them by an external force.

It's like the dumbing down of society; teachers don't want students to feel bad so they give them easy marks the students usually don't deserve, the students don't feel like they need to go above and beyond in their work because they're already getting favorable grades, those students become the teacher and again, not wanting to make their students feel bad will give them an easier time. Continue this cycle long enough and the whole world is populated by retards. It's the lack of challenge that drives this.

So - what you are saying is that people are dumb and getting dumber... perhaps I might agree. I'm curious how you manage to ignore the fact that this happens in capitalist countries, instead pretending that cycles of self-destruction would somehow be peculiar to communist situations.

Even more curious is the idea that money an 'the essentials' are the only motivators for any kind of progress. I'd guess you don't involve yourself in charity work much?

(The other point I might make, of course, is that schools are still better equipped to educate than most individuals acting on their own behalf... and that 'education' is not limited to schools. If you are poorly educated but have internet access, your school isn't to blame - that's just an excuse.)

I wouldn't DO anything if America became communist. Why would I? I live on the Isle of Wight. I mean, would me "mowing the lawn for America to stop being communist" help at all?

Laugh.

Those sound like two different questions to me.

If the United States became communist, I would happily participate in the revolutionary transformation of society.

If the United States became the new Soviet Union and killed off the disabled and the weak, I would probably try to escape.

I would go underground, gather a number of other veterans, and put our insurgency skills to work. Mwahahahaha! Phear my wrath! :D

I wouldn't DO anything if America became communist. Why would I? I live on the Isle of Wight. I mean, would me "mowing the lawn for America to stop being communist" help at all?

You'd be suprised what lawn-mowing can achieve.

Really? you think it might help with the whole middle east thing too? It's a bit wet at the moment because it rained yesterday, but as soon as it dries up I will be out there...mowing for world peace.

Don't forget to mow to end world hunger.

You'd be suprised what lawn-mowing can achieve.

Really? you think it might help with the whole middle east thing too? It's a bit wet at the moment because it rained yesterday, but as soon as it dries up I will be out there...mowing for world peace.

Really? you think it might help with the whole middle east thing too? It's a bit wet at the moment because it rained yesterday, but as soon as it dries up I will be out there...mowing for world peace.

Personally, I'd rather f**k for world peace! :D

compaired to what america HAS become under the bush regeme, i'd probably breathe a major sigh of relief.

=^^=
.../\...

Personally, I'd rather f**k for world peace! :D


I don't know what my boyfriend would think of that, but thanks for the offer ;)

Personally, I'd rather f**k for world peace! :D

Do that while mowing the lawn. Instant world peace.

Do that while mowing the lawn. Instant world peace.

I'm always up for a f**k or someone else mowing the lawn, but the combination might be a bit... disturbing.

Well, if it actually happened, I would run the secret police, and have fun hunting down and killing anyone who pissed me off.

I would run a kangaroo court, and hang people with piano wire in front of their families and friends.

I'm always up for a f**k or someone else mowing the lawn, but the combination might be a bit... disturbing.
They're not called ride-on mowers for nothing.
That is very disturbing too...

*backs away

At least you have underwear on for this disturbing thread :)

That is very disturbing too...

*backs away

I'd at first fight to protect the union, then perhaps flee to Canada later if it proved futile... and plan a counter-attack.

Seriously. Why, for the sake of all intelligence, surrender yourself to Communism? It's ridiculously far-fetched and idealistic with no touch to reality. Not only does the idea itself sound silly on its own, but it also has quite the running record of failure. ALL communist societies that last rule out of an iron grip and fear. ALL communist societies who follow the actual view of it result in debilitating failure.

America becoming Communist (which will never happen, anyway) would destroy the country.