Communism (sp?)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ June 12 2002,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We elect people to make decisions for us, that is how it works.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, yes, you British have really excelled in that. Hmm.. what should I choose? Tory or Labour, Labour or Tory... damn too many choices!

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 12 2002,19:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, yes, you British have really excelled in that. Hmm.. what should I choose? Tory or Labour, Labour or Tory... damn too many choices!<span id='postcolor'>

Another great point right there! Most countries that critisize "one party systems" Only have two  serious parties to offer their voters.....wow great choice eh?

In the US - Democrat or Republican

UK - Tory or Labor

France - Corrupt Chirac or the wannabe Nazi guy

Canada - Liberals or.....wait nevermind here it's just the fucking Liberals  

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 12 2002,19:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol Tovarish! Very good point indeed. Before the news of a newly elected president would reach LA, a new president would be elected in Washington

I think the major fuck-up in the constitution is that it makes itself unchangable. That is never good. That means that when a new form of government is introduced, it will be through revolution. And in a country that has nukes and a big military, that is never good news <span id='postcolor'>

Ummmm....it IS changable. Thats why we have some 20-odd amendments.

[Guest]

Amendments let you add things, not change the core. Btw, can you un-amend the amendements?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 12 2002,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Amendments let you add things, not change the core. Btw, can you un-amend the amendements?<span id='postcolor'>

Oh you mean the basic construct of the governement. There you are correct.

Yeah you can unamend by making another amendment that does away with the other amendment lol

Prohibition was an amendment...and then was later repelled by another amendment.

[Prune 0]

The trouble with democracy is that people think that their vote does not count, and so they stay at home. Thus, the government is elected in by die-hard supporters (mostly). A lot of people feel this is inevitable. I doubt that elections are fought on policies, rather on whether the general public likes the guy who heads the party.

What I think should happen is...

You go into a specific manifesto reading area. There you read all of the manifestos of the main parties (or at least cut down versions so that you can compare). An official then confirms that you have read the manifestos. Now your vote carries much more weight than others do (by 4 or even 10 times, perhaps). This would encourage people to know what they are voting for.

I can't see this happening, though.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Prune @ June 12 2002,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now your vote carries much more weight than others do (by 4 or even 10 times, perhaps). This would encourage people to know what they are voting for.

I can't see this happening, though.<span id='postcolor'>

I can't agree with that. I inform myself thank u very much, and a vote should be a vote. Nothing less, Nothing more. I've personally never voted in a federal election. Not because I was uninformed, believe me I've done my homework. But because I felt that none of the parties fighting for my vote deserved itm and I decided to consiously make a statement with my non-vote as many others do - If you don't give me something worth voting for, I ain't voting. If enough people do this sooner or later it will be obvious the system isn't working

[Prune 0]

Not everyone is as informed as you tovarish. Most don't know what policies they are voting for. Labour abolished student grants, for example, who in their right mind would vote for that?

Perhaps there should be an 'abstain' option where your disgust for every party is registered. Then you wouldn't get mixed up with the apathetic.

[Prune 0]

Not everyone is as informed as you tovarish. Most don't know what policies they are voting for. Labour abolished student grants, for example, who in their right mind would vote for that?

Perhaps there should be an 'abstain' option where your disgust for every party is registered. Then you wouldn't get mixed up with the apathetic.

[Prune 0]

Not everyone is as informed as you tovarish. Most don't know what policies they are voting for. Labour abolished student grants, for example, who in their right mind would vote for that?

Perhaps there should be an 'abstain' option where your disgust for every party is registered. Then you wouldn't get mixed up with the apathetic.

[Warin 0]

Holy Triple Posts, Batman!

I totally agree with your way of thinking Tovarisch. THe only problem is that when you dont vote, you do get lumped in with the apathetic and ignorant. Perhaps all of us informed Canadians should start our own party. Less with the intention of being elected, and more with the intention of showing people that the system is a great idea, but the current implementation is rather flawed.

[Guest]

It's too bad that the number of active voters is so low in some countries. The EU in average has 80% vote turnup. Sweden for instance is usually between 85-95%.

I'll probably draw some criticizm for this, but I think that our political systems, while they work, are incorrectly designed. Democracy works well on a small scale. On a large scale (countries) the only time democracy is relevant is when it goes bad because people are pissed off by something and make a radical change. The normal situation is that you have a couple of parties that are more or less similar. You basically vote for whoever you nomally vote and even if the party holding power changes, very little real things change.

The time when democracy works is when you get a primitive mob mentality working. Prime examples are different populists (Le Pen for instance) that are on the march in Europe right now.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Denoir is a commie. He just doesnt want to admit it

[Sadico 1]

Woaah, i had never seen before a triple post!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden for instance is usually between 85-95%.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's goddamn high!

I'm not old enough to vote, but i'll do in the next elections (2004). I sometimes feel that people that doesn't vote is helping the party they like less

Also, if i don't vote, i feel like i can't really object the politics of the government, because i had an oportunity of voting against them and didn't use it. I think i will vote the party i dislike the less, because i don't really like any of them. The socialist party is full of corrupts, the partido popular (the one in the government now) is rightist (and full of corrupts too) so there is no way in hell i'm gonna give them my vote, and izquierda unida (that includes communists, trotskists, maoists...) sucks because the member parties spend more time fighting each other than doing something worthwile.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ June 13 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, if i don't vote, i feel like i can't really object the politics of the government, because i had an oportunity of voting against them and didn't use it. I think i will vote the party i dislike the less, because i don't really like any of them.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with that, I can't bring myself to vote against something...you are meant to be motivated to vote for something. If nothing is worthwhile, well, no one is getting my vote as a freebe. You have to earn it . Of course, If I was put into the position French voters were put in this year, I would definitely vote against the Nazi wannabe, even if the oposition was corrupt. I would hate doing it though

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Home ties are nothing.Family ties are nothing.Everything that is-is nothing.

Is communision.No freedom.You cant marry who you want.If you own a farm, you have to give it to the goverment.Everything belongs to the goverment.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Also, goverment controls how much bread you can buy, how much milk you can buy etc.

[ralphwiggum 6]

the communism failed in economic/materialistic perspective. and that perspective is where Marx got all riled up. Marx beleived that it's not hocus-pocus philosophical thought that helped ppl, but a bread that can be consumed.

here's problem with communism. communism stated that evolution of human economical advance is continuous. when one system becomed dominant, there rises better one. for example, from feudal system to whatever system that followed after it during renaissance period.( ) and he asserted that after capitalism, flaws of capitalism would crumble itself, and that would be the end of it. from there, workers(proletariats) will gain power and create a system where equlaity persists.

his logic is flawed since 1)he assumes that evolution of system is continuous and cyclic, yet his evolution of system stops at communism 2)his definition of equality is not suitable for all ppl.(sharing with others)

of course this is not a new idea. there were books that were influential like Utopia and Paradise Lost. but communism was able to shape that dream to reality. or try to...

the problem with central planning is that you can Never estimate what resource would be needed and what would be most efficient and most rewarding. for one or a few central system to decide on all details of production is impossible. the amount of data to be used is enormous and that is assuming that there are no misinterpretation at any level.

for USSR, it came to the point that even they relied on their analysis upon CIA's. the only market that USSR was able to compete was international arms market. why? they had competition, which meant room for improvment existed. in their own country, improvement meant more work, which discouraged workers from making innovations. in capitalism, innovation also leads to more work, but also more rewards for innovators.

[Guest]

Actually Marx didn't come up with many practical suggestions for an implementation of a communist system. He mostly described what the problems were during that time epoch.

He still gets blamed a lot of what actually are perversions of his theory.

IMO Marx gave a limited social comment that was relevant then. I don't think that he ever meant it to be implemented IRL.

The major fault of commiunism has always been a non-working economical theory. I still think that socialism in general has brought a lot of good ideas to the society.

[Gollum1 0]

There´s nothing wrong with communism on paper, but in the real world, people aren´t perfect.

The Soviet Union wasn´t a socialist state, but that´s just what happens when you give too much power to your leaders, no matter how wise they seem.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Prune 0]

ooops. It kept on saying connection refused. hmmmm

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ June 13 2002,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Woaah, i had never seen before a triple post!   <span id='postcolor'>

then look in the "OFP Resistance" thread

[Mora2 0]

Sadico:

" and izquierda unida (that includes communists, trotskists, maoists...) sucks because the member parties spend more time fighting each other than doing something worthwile."

Everybody should know this partie supports terrorists and those who defend them.Recently they voted against a law for abolishing parties that support terrorist groups like "Batasuna" (which is the equivalent in Spain of the Sinn Feinn...)

[DarkLight 0]

The basic idea about communism is pretty good if you ask me, but what some of you say is true, it wouldn't be fair to work hard and earn as much money as your neighbour who works a lot less than you.

But it's a pretty good idea, right? If everybody would be eqqual the ammount of poor people would lower a lot... There must be a good way to mix 2 kinda politics, communism and another one to make it perfect...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

That would be moderate democratic socialism the system by which most of western Europe lives

(varies throughout Europe)