The great commie versus Patriot depate

[RogueLeader]

I'm gunna say this 1 last damn time...

Communism is NOT (N, O, T) totilatarian. That seems to still be a misconception in this forum. I'd like to thank the damn soviets for completely ruining communism's future by completely corrupting everything it stood for.

The people of Sweden are heavily taxed, because the government uses that money to provide them with services. In other words, the money goes back to the people. And note that they have very good standards of living, so obviously the government is doing a quality job. So how much better off would they be if they could keep there money? None. They would have to choose from big businesses that don't give a damn about the people, just getting more of their money. This way, the Swedes in the end get more for their money, and live better.

And the Ronald Reagan example is a pretty good one. The economy did grow, by a lot, but at the expense of national debt. That didn't have much effect back then, but it always comes back to haunt us. And who benefits from national debt- the wealthy bankers and international investors. On another interesting note- Ronald Reagon was originally a Marxist. However, he, like so many of you, started to confuse soviet communism and marxist communism and began to think that communism in general was oppressive.

I cannot stress enough, Marxist Communism is the most anti-totilatarian government ever conceived. Seriously, read his writings, you will find that true communism is much different than the soviets near-fascist government

 

[Zundfolge]

I'm gunna say this 1 last damn time...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>  
Communism is NOT (N, O, T) totilatarian. That seems to still be a misconception in this forum. I'd like to thank the damn soviets for completely ruining communism's future by completely corrupting everything it stood for. [/quote]

I don't care how well intentioned communists are communism will ALWAYS lead to totilatarianism, the grand misconception of communists around the world is that they can do it right.

The right to freely trade is just as important as the right to speach, religion, etc. and communism by Marx's own definition robs people of the right to freely trade.


As to the national debt going up under Regan, it's because of 2 things, increased defense spending (which many argue is what finaly ended the cold war) and because the Democrats that controlled the congress wouldn't give him the spending cuts he asked for.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> On another interesting note- Ronald Reagon was originally a Marxist. [/quote]
I don't buy that for a second. You're going to have to supply a credible source before I swallow that one.


Even if a communist government is not oppressive, it still keeps the people at the lowest common demoninator, and doesn't allow for growth.

It's a nice pipe dream, but so are the goose that lays the golden eggs and santa clause.

<center>

</center>

 

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So how much better off would they be if they could keep there money? None. They would have to choose from big businesses that don't give a damn about the people, just getting more of their money. [/quote]
So all businesses don't care about people and all governments do?


See I think it the Swedish people where allowed to keep their money, they could more effeciently spend it on the goods and services they want. Not waiting for mama government to come wipe their behinds.

The Swedes are doing quite well, not because of their socialism but despite it. See the government has fixed the prices of the goods and services they provide so Swedes are not allowed to shop around for the best price and spend the difference on other things they want/need.

The silliest thing I find in this whole arguement (not just this argument with you, but the whole communist vs capitalist thing) is that communists don't trust companies any more then they can throw them, but they trust governments completely. But companies are just people, and so are government bureaucrats, what makes you think that bureaucrats are more caring people then businesspeople.
See if the bureaucrat wrongs you your only redress is to go to his buddies (the other bureaucrats) and see if they are willing to do something about it, however in the mean time you still have to use the bureaucrat who wronged you to accomplish whatever it is you where trying to do (yeah, that will work). But when a private business wrongs you at the very least you can just go to another business (this happens enough and that guy is out of business) or at worst you can go to the bureaucrats you love and they can do something about it.

My point is that even if you are able to establish some sort of utopian communist state that doesn't oppress it's people, you still aren't better off then in a free market capitalist democracy.

<center>

</center>

 

[Zundfolge]

Sorry for the flurry of postings, but I've had too damn much coffee (love that Uganda Blue )

Let's also look at Sweden and try to determine how fair their socialism is (fairness is something most communists claim is their reason for loving communism).

We'll do it in a little roleplay. Sven is not happy with his tax bill, so he goes to the tax office and asks the bureaucrat why his taxes are so high.

Sven: Excuse me, maybe you can help me. Why am I paying 80% of what I earn in taxes.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well, you get lots of services for your money. Why you even get 2 weeks a year at a spa. Paid for by the government.

Sven: But I don't like the spa, I don't want to go.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well then don't go... It's a free country, nobody is going to force you.

Sven: So do I get a refund for not going?

Bureaucrat Bjorn: (laughs) you're joking right? The government doesn't give refunds.

Sven: But if I had the extra money I could buy a bigger house to house my growing family. Afterall I did do all the hard work that earned me the money in the first place.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well there's nothing we can do about that, why don't you just enjoy your 2 weeks at the spa.

Sven: But I don't like the spa damnit! If I went anywhere I'd like to go to Austrailia or maybe a hiking trip in Bolivia.

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Well that sounds like fun, why don't you do that?

Sven: Because I can't afford to go there, can't the government just pay for my trip instead of me going to the spa?

Bureaucrat Bjorn: Sorry it's the spa or nothing.

<center>

</center>

 

[Jason]

Concerning Sweden

Please refer to this article for current information about Sweden

No doubt Swedish business interests will soon be few and far between. This is derived from the fact that high-income earners are taxed OVER 100% of their total earnings! What factory owner, what self-employed man would wish to live in a place in which no matter how hard he worked or how much he earned, would always have a deficit at the end of the year? There is NO incentive to produce. Wait, there is a NEGATIVE amount of incentive to produce. If a man were to produce he would lose MORE than he started with, even if he was successful.

Marx supported Socialist causes in order to set up his ideas. No Capitalist would support the initiation of force in order to achieve their goals. This is because the initiation of force is the very opposite of the system supported. The same could be said about Marx, yet he supported forceful measures.

"The people of Sweden are heavily taxed, because the government uses that money to provide them with services. In other words, the money goes back to the people."

I'm sure not all of the Swedes choose to have these services. In the business of government they still have no choice but to pay for that service. In the business of business those who wish to have a certain good or service voluntarily choose to pay. That is the difference. As I have said, political power is force.

"In a true socialist system there is no reason to fear a government monopoly as there would be no prices, and without prices on the government making goods as well, quality will be higher than any private industry can achieve."

How will a lack of prices lead to a higher quality. Further, how will a Communist country determine an activity to be beneficial without prices? Without prices there can be no knowledge of possible gains and possible losses from building or producing. It's like "let's hope we'll benefit from what we're about to do."

Economic problems with Socialist monopolies

From the link "Eliminate economic calculation and you have no means of making a rational choice between the various alternatives.

--------------
I am, therefore I think

 

[RogueLeader]

Marx believed that progress towards the communist epoch was natural, force merely sped that process up.

"I don't care how well intentioned communists are communism will ALWAYS lead to totilatarianism, the grand misconception of communists around the world is that they can do it right"
How come the ONLY communist nation to ever grace the earth (France) did not? You seem to be going out on a limb saying that though this never happened before, it aways will in the future.

I saw on the History Channel once a biograpgy of Reagan- yes he was a communist, as were many in Hollywood.

"So all businesses don't care about people and all governments do"
All businesses DON'T care about the people, and all governments ruled by the people, i.e. democracy do. The problem with out system is we arn't a democracy, the wealthy rule us.

"The silliest thing I find in this whole arguement (not just this argument with you, but the whole communist vs capitalist thing) is that communists don't trust companies any more then they can throw them, but they trust governments completely"
This prooves my point. How bad can our government be if you don't trust it? Communism is all about an uncorrupt system led by the real foundation of society, the workers.

 

[Zundfolge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Communism is all about an uncorrupt system led by the real foundation of society, the workers. [/quote]

There's your weak link. Power corrupts, you will never have a system free of corruption.


As for using the French as an example of successful communism. Please the French economy is one of the weakest in Europe and it's people live at a standard of living lower then the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, (there's quite a list here).

I also don't think the French are all that free. Their government tends to try to micromanage everything and thus you end up with many less satisfied people than if you just let the private sector take care of itself.
Free speech is dissapearing in France and Great Britain, so are privacy rights and self defense rights. I say this is a direct result of the governments of those countries taking a greater role in the day to day lives of it's people (that's how communism leads to tyrany)


Maybe Regan was a communist when he was young, but that kind of echos what Churchill said ...
"If your not a socalist by the time you're 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socalist when your 30 you have no brain." (paraphrased)

<center>

</center>

 

[RogueLeader]

Modern France isn't communistm, the 3rd Republic was. At that time, the corrupt governments of the Jaccobin's reign of terror had decimated France. Unemployment was rampant, inflation was out of control, and the economy was in shambles. One of the men who came to power in that period was a communist who implemented communist principals into the government and setup workshops for the workers. Those workshops provided employment for every French citizen, and the economy grew back. When it was back, the other man in chage (I can't remember the names of either of the two leaders) disposed of the communist system since it was assumed they could go back to capitalism. As as soon as they did, the economy crashed again. That seems like great evidence to me.

Power does corrupt, but so does money. So which is worse, a man in power, or a man in power with a lot of money? Our government has turned into one of the most totilatarian in the world. Just today in the paper I read they are trying to make it illegal to sell any food in schools that arn't nutrional. What the f*ckin hell is that? I have to disagree with the common statement that power will corrupt anyone. There are rare good people out there. It seems to me the entire the goal of human society has and always will be to find a system that lets those people rule. I believe in the natural aristocracy, as Jefferson put it, the naturally selected leaders of society, the enlightened and educated few who will eventually come to power and give order to the lesser people. Communism in its purest form is meant to make sure that happens. Capitalism is the system that puts the artificial aristocracy in power, the even fewer among us who by virtue of the incredible wealth they horde rule us, whether qualified or not.

And I wouldn't try to use Churchill as a source for a quote- he was another rich man who didn't want to lose his money, not to mention he was a murderer. Anyone willing to let over 1000 die in a sinking ship just to bring the U.S. into a war is a sick freak.

 

[IRIGHTI]

gees

So much discussion these days deals with the fact that the people arguing are so stubborn that they cannot see the others point of view. The other reason is the lack of facts being respoken and completely being construde. Everyone has there opinions and most of the time nothing will change their thoughts.

All this discussion leads in a vicious circle that never gets anywhere and never ends. Each party has their followers and they convey the facts that they would like them to hear. No one is saying they are false, it is just that they are incredibly misinformed.

I try to only make judgements when I can see all of the facts and can make my on judgement. But....this is still an opinion.

I hope everyone gets my point, but arguing is still fun, I know.

Look What You See When You Don't Have a Gun

 

[Lord_Bunker]

points to above

he should know he's the perfect example.

FEAR!
http://www.geocities.com/lord_bunker/

 

[IRIGHTI]

it depends

It depends on your definition of the person that starts the arguement. Is it the one who responds to the statement. Or is it the one who states something that he knows will get a negative response. I prefer to think it is the latter. If he knowingly sees he will get a response then he is the one that starts it.

For example: A guy walks into a german bar and calls all of them Nazi's. I don't think you would call the first guy who decks him the starter of the arguement.

Look What You See When You Don't Have a Gun

 

[RogueLeader]

Ultimatly you can't proove quantitavly that communism works in practics, or that it doesn't. Only one nation has ever utilized communism, and it was a success, but in accordance to the scientific method, more testing must be done.