Hi Y'all! Kinda new 'round these parts....

Well, Sleek, I might agree that democratic capitalistic socialism (i.e. Sweden) may be better than American-style capitalism, I'm sure my Czech friends here would disagree with you that Communism is a good thing. I'll quote a conversation I overheard at a pub:

Young British Communist: Communism wasn't so bad here. I visited with my dad in '87.

Czech with little patience: Shut up.

Czech with lotsa patience: No, vole, you don't get it.

Brit: No really. Evreryone has a job, and everyone-

CWNP: Shut up.

CWLP: Man, we only had bananas on Christmas. My neighbors were spying on me.

Brit: But the health care! You guys... besides that wasn't real communism.

CWNP: I said shut up. It was real. very real. They killed my dad.

 

Are you saying that communism is "greater than" capitalism? Or that they are the same thing? Either one displays incredible ignorance on your part. When have we seen Communism to actually work? And the two systems are nearly opposite, as everyone knows. I don't think I even have to list why they are so different.

Like I said, it was really a joke. Yeah, I know that they aren't the same. Communism is a form of Socialism, as is Facism. A little Socialism here and there is okay, but too much screws everything up. I think the concepts of nationalized health care and welfare are atrocious. People need to work for what they get. My grandfather was the son of poor Sicilian immigrants, and he worked his way up in the dressmaking business all the way to owning his own factory. That's Capitalism in action, and fufillment of the American Dream. Obviously Capitalism and the Republic aren't a perfect system, but in all my studies of government, I haven't found one that works better.

Yeah, doesn't everyone know that? There are no true democracies in this era. The only example of a pure democracy I can think of is Ancient Athens. There, the citizens (free, land-holding, native Athenian males) actually voted on every law and governmental decisions themselves, rather than voting to elect representatives who make those descisions like any democratic repulican government does. In this day and age, a true democracy is a logistical nightmare.[/i]

 

ok let me rephrase

Socialism>Capitalism

Capitalism=Corporate Imperialism

Communism has worked for brief periods of time, before degenerating into the whole paranoid fascism USSR thing.

Marx>Lenin>Stalin

If you want my opinion on what system would be best purely based on the fundamental values no matter how aive then i'd have to go with this;

Anarchy>Socailsim>Capitalism.

 

It was a true democracy in the sense that the citizens made the governmental decisions themselves. But the citizens were an extremely limited group, like I said. So it was a democracy, but not an equal democracy.

I've never heard of such a thing as a pure democracy with equal rights for all.

Yeah, the computer I'm using at school doesn't like to cooperate. But I'll teach it who's boss, and make it my bitch. You'll see.

 

Well, not exactly, because our officials are elected by the people, so we have far more control over the government (but still not enough) than the non-citizens in Athens did. The best way for the people to control the government is by keeping them scared. And the best way to scare the government? Legalize assault weapons.

 

In that sense Athens was a direct democracy, beacuse citizens participated directly on every decision taken. Modern democracies are representative - people choose representatives who take decisions with their consent. The problem with Athens was that they needed a lot of slaves to support their government.

 

Funny, how America needs a lot of "slaves" to support its "democracy".

 

Chalupa, were you going for a deeper comparison, relating how the US treats 3rd world countries? If so, you have an odd way of saying it. If not, then you are merely totally luny, and you indeed type the way Shady thinks.

 

Jesus, you gotta love this place. Newbies say hello... and we start talking about the pro's and con's of differing govenmental types...... at the risk of daring to go back on topic... welcome newbies :wavey:.

 

Chalupa, what in hell are you talking about? Yeah, America has lots of slaves. Yeah. Wow, I think I'm stupider just from reading your post.

 

I believe she used quotes around the slaves to denote that they are not in fact in fact slaves, just as America is not, in fact, a democracy. Though America's underclass is essentially stuck, has no way out, has terrible education, adn less than 1/10 of 1 percent ever make it out of the ghetto (white, black, whatever), they aren't of course, literally slaves. But our governmental system is not full of choice; the individual does, att the end of the day have very little political power, unless that individual be a CEO or leader of the Chritian Coalition; so it's not really much of a democracy either.

And that system where wealth brings clout essentially shunts aside the poor, forcing them to work for minimum wage, keeping them in poverty, as no mother and father together can support a family wherer both make inmum wage without each working three jobs. And so they do, their children have no one to watch them except neighborhood thugs, and they remain the poor in the next generation. It's not true slavery, but it is not a lot more hopeful.

And the worst part is, as America becomes more prosperous, it does require this undercalss to perform its menial tasks for next to nothing to grow even more prosperous.

I assume that's what she meant.

 

Look, I really don't have the time or pacience to dicipher what the fuck you people are talking about.

IMO, communism>capitalism

Don't you dare say that communism has never worked, the USSR was not communist really, it was a dictatorship that didn't support capitalism. True communism isn't that far from true democracy, all the people get together and decide what to do, the only difference is that in communism you don't own any items, the group owns the items. There is a large feasibility problem when dealing with large groups in this kind of society, but if a workable system of true communism could actually be divised, it has the potential of becoming very powerful.

 

Dude, have you ever even lived in a communist country? Don't say shit about which you don't know shit. I have freinds that passed through the Iron Curtain when it was still up, and they tell me it was awful. So maybe the USSR wasn't true communism, but that's my point. Communism can't work in the flawed world we live in. Only if everyone was kind and considerate of each other could Communism actually work.

 

Sigurd has it right. I think that the main purpose of all the bans on fully automatic weaponry is to keep the populace in a disadvantage so that they can't remove the government easily. That bullshit that they are trying to sell us (well, to the citizens of the United States) that making "assault" weapons illegal, they are reducing crime is pure bollocks. Criminals know where to get their guns anyway and they will still shoot you with them, no matter what the "law" says.

 

Sigurd, I never said the USSR was a nice place to live. You are right, but I think even in people's current state of unkindness small-scale communism would be successful. I think with proper planning a larger scale system could be worked out. I have some ideas, none particularly feasible, but I think it could be done.

One of those unreasonable layouts is this. Areas are broken up into towns and provinces as they are now. Each area would need to be kept very small, no more than 1,000 people. All the commodities of the town are pooled and then the residents vote on how to distribute them. A certain percentage is given to higher provincial governments. For instance, there may be 1,500 towns on Long Island. Every 100 towns is united with it's neighbors in a county government. 100 Counties form a state government. 100 states form a regional government. And so on and so forth until you reach the national government. Each one accumulates it's resources and the leaders in each area vote on the best way to utilize the resources.

A possible example of a hierarchy could be that several people in each town are elected to a council for a period of time, a year or two, and they organize the business. In the higher governments, a number of representatives could be sent to represent their areas and they could rotate the leaders. Like the House of Representatives and the Speaker of the House, one or more people could be elected to administrate the meetings of the governments.

This is not really pure communism, more of a cross between communism and a republic, it's the only way I can imagine large scale communism as well.

 

Wow! Madre del Dio! Somebody actually understands the gun situation! Why is everyone else so friggin' stupid about guns?If something is outlawed, who are the only people who can obtain it? The outlaws!

 

Every place that true comunisim was tried it worked. That would be the earliest christians & the early Israeli kbiutzem (spelling big time). It was NEVER atempted in the USSR. But free market captialism was never practiced in the US either. We have socalism here, but only for the wealthy & the corperations.

More accurate to say they both have socialistic atributes.

National health care keeps us all healthy. The uninsured poor are a resivour of desases waiting to infect you. They are a big part of the reason that we are rated only 17th - 20th overall in world health care. Our "free market" system is the most expensive in the world as well. A great example of socalism for the corperations.

Which one? My grandand got here at age 10 & worked his way up the same ladder. His label was Sally Togs, it went defunct about a year after he died. 1955 or so.

 

Interesting, my great grandfather, a stowaway at age 13, also worked his way up the dressmaking ladder. But now, with the protect American jobs initiatives, there's no way an immigrant could do that. Also, there's that whole child welfare thing...

Yeah, legalize assault weapons. That'll work. Cause an AK47 would work so well agianst comsat surveillance, Abrams tanks, bombers, smart bombs, stealth fighters, bunker busters, microwave lasers, etc. If a group of Amrican people decided to overthrow the government with assault weapons, even if there were 50 million armed people, they would lose. They would die. All you would get is a lot, A LOT, of dead gun nuts. Hey, maybe it isn't such a bad idea...