Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Verjigorm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

It's particular to note that we're again, talking about Totalitarianism combined with communism, not just communism.   Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong(the two biggest culprits, quite possibly accounting for half of the killing between them) are notable in that they were states dominated by a single, authoritarian figure.

Denmark, on the other hand, can easily be considered a socialist or communist state, and they have a remarkable lack of mass killings.   

So yeah, what was your point with the link dump?

"Denmark has a diverse, mixed economy..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

Yes, and it also has free university, free health care, and extensive unemployement.  Agood friend of mine is from Denmark(Copenhagen), and he married another good friend and moved to the US, then after they seperated, went back to Denmark.   He's a good sounding board for the differences.  But try again, Teacup!

If we limit our discussion of communist to "totalitarian states built on the cult of personality of a meglomaniac sociopath", then yes, all communist states are full of mass murderers. 

[baj2235]

Sigh...
"A mixed economy is commonly defined as an economic system in which both the private sector and state direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies. Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight and governmental provision of public goods. Some mixed economies also feature a variety of state-run enterprises." [1]

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order."[2]

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. 'Social ownership' may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these." [3]

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit." [4]

And finally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_countries#List_of_current_socialist_states

It makes me frustrated when the first line of a Wikipedia article alone can tell you that you don't know the scholarly definitions of what you are talking about (read: you're neither a academic/professional authority on the subject nor have you gone through the trouble to Google them before speaking). Its like no one here is speaking the same language!!! And yes, I'll take a cup of tea (whether provided by the state or purchased in a market) if you're offering, thank you. Sugar, no milk please.

And only because it is in the news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[Verjigorm]

Ahhh, Teacup, let's go through this.  Do try to follow, will you?  [tl/dr You need to read the links you posted thoroughly, yourself]

Sigh...

"Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order."[2]

Hmmm, the USSR, Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Vietnam, and China are all excluded, as they are are States, have or had money, and had/have social Classes.   So...  I guess we could easily say "No Communist regime has ever participated in mass murder", because none of those were properly "Communist".   In fact, had you read any of the scholarly works on Communism, you would understand that the USSR at best could have been described as Socialist, as Communism is an end result that will only occur when there is no money, no state, no class distinctions.
 

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. 'Social ownership' may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these." [3]

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism."

Well, jumpin Jehosaphat, Lookit DAT!   No single definition for socialism encapsulates all socialist states, and the article continues to explain how different states can be referred to as Socialist or Not.   

"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit." [4]

show me a capitalist state.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_countries#List_of_current_socialist_states

Same article describes "Communist State" as an Oxymoron.   And the very first thing is tell you it's a "Western" term.   "Western" is a fancy way of saying "English and American schools of thought, as everything is pretty much east of Us.   But this is just a teaser, keep reading

It makes me frustrated when the first line of a Wikipedia article alone can tell you that you don't know the scholarly definitions of what you are talking about (read: you're neither a academic/professional authority on the subject nor have you gone through the trouble to Google them before speaking). Its like no one here is speaking the same language!!! And yes, I'll take a cup of tea (whether provided by the state or purchased in a market) if you're offering, thank you. Sugar, no milk please.

Perhaps you should read those links a little more indepth before crying about people reading them, or their lack of academic bones.   First lesson:

Capitalism/Socialism/Communism/Mixed Economy are not binary options, but a range of values used to describe economic activity.  As the posted link on Capitalism tells us, "Mixed Economy" is a near universal term.   I'm sure your professor, since I'm assuming you are a scholar due to your instant dismissal of my ability to read, can tell you that a country can be described as more or less Capitalist, but never "purely capitalist".   A Capitalist society, much like a Communist society, requires the abolition of the state.   The primary difference between different types of "capitalist" markets and states is the degree to which the state interferes with the economy*, and the manners in which it does so.   Ideally in both Capitalism and Communism, the State does not exist and people operate according to their own agency.  The difference is the manner in which they reach that end state(not State, however.  Big difference), not what the end state is, which is the liberation of humanity.   

Capitalism goes with the idea that you want to collect as much capital, the resources you can use to make things and be an economic agent, and that ideally a man(or woman, but as I am a man, I'll generally use male pronouns to refer to myself, sometimes.   Most of the times) should be free to pursue his life as he wishes, rather than being constrained by an outside agency to do something.   The Market is where you can exchange your time, intelligence, and skill for goods you desire, depending on the scarcity and supply of goods or services.   Go ahead and check the wiki article, dawg, it's all in there.   I can work as a laborer, or I can direct people to build a house for you.  Laborers are easy to find, but Managers are not.  A manager's time is therefore worth more than a laborers time, so the manager is able to trade his time for more valuable goods or services.  However, the only reason the manager CAN trade his time at a higher rate is because he does more for his employer.  If you suck at delegating tasks, observing your labourers and reacting to changing conditions, then you won't get tasks finished on time, or with the assigned material, and people will stop hiring you.  Then you become a laborer again. 

So, that's Capitalism and Market Economy, right there.  But the United States definitely can't claim that, because our government(the State, 'member?) has it's hands all in up in the dough.   A good example is the Clinton administration push to have banks lend to new homeowners at unsustainable prices.  The banks foudn a way to make a lot of money off this, because with the looser laws on oversight for high risk loans, they could offer people really cheap mortgages, with rapidly changing interest on the principle("Flex-rate mortgage" is banker for "ass rape") to force people to pay far more money down the road(your $500 "rent-to-own" became $800 or we take your car, to $1000 your credit is officially dipped in magma, and you lose everything).  If they paid, the bank wins, if they didn't, the bank wins(because the default on the mortgage means the bank owns the mortgaged price, and it's value goes up according to the mortgage, so it's worth more than it was before).   Except for the small problem that when all these artificially bought homes(oh, boy, was there ever an explosion of subdevelopments that now sit empty or half developed, all across the country[the only reason they could afford them were the ridiculous loans that started small and balloned out of control, forced by Clinton's administration]) all suddenly became available, no one wanted to buy them.  Who wants to buy a 70K house for 100k, and then have to sell it?    No body, that's who.   So suddenly all these banks and financial groups found themselves no longer solvent, because they all paid for these bullshit homes.  And we still have homeless people and empty homes that are not worth their value.   But the Banks made their money, and their officers are fat and happy.   Of course, Bush started a program to buy all those banks and financial groups out of debt using taxpayer debt(and since he reduced taxes on the 200K crowd to pre WW1 levels, we suddenly found ourselves in a deficit[who knew that not taxing the largest economic contributors, we would run a deficit!  Those poor people need to work harder, for less.]) to finance the whole deal.   Obama kept at it.

Oh, but the "economy" is still down, there's a "recession".  Bull fucking shit.  I manage for a fortune 500 company, a leader in our industry(hint: brown trucks), and our stock is experiencing HUGE growth.  People are shipping things left and right(I contrast this to the bad days of '09 and 10, when it was down), which means they are buying them, in huge amounts.  Our business is going up, and we're also innovating new ways of reducing production costs(if I can do with 3 what I do with 4, I make money).  The Market is there, it's just being smothered by collusion.  Or are you surprised that cane sugar, far from being economic, is bought by the State for about 4x the international asking price?  And the list of american sugar planters is pretty narrow.  Hey, you are a smart guy, I bet you could google it and find out about this.  I'm too stupid to google about sugar subsidies, because I haven't been to college, ya see?

See, that's why America get's kicked out of the "Capitalist Club":  our government meddles too much in our economy for it to actually function properly.  Unfortunately that is the result when you recognize Corporations as people and give them the same rights.   Target, for example, employees many gays who would not support their CEO's contribution to anti-gay "charities", and denying medical benefits to same-sex partners.   See, that's actually one of the reasons I am with my company:  we allow same sex partners to get spousal health insurance policies** and have pretty good rates of inclusion.   We're not the worst corporation, by far.

Say, what were you talking about Teacup?   I seem to have forgotten it in the face of all that knowledge you dropped with your links.  Good Reads, do provide more of them.   I still can't figure out this darn computer thing.  It says it has windows, but I can't find any latches.

*Interesting indeed is Somali, where a form of very pure Market/Capitalist economy emerged.  There was no state, but people did build cell phone networks and conduct trade, and it all kinda worked under their native ways, which had a pretty strict idea of property rights and law regulating trade and travel.    Of course, then you mix in weapons from foreign states to their favored power, and you get a downright fun place to live!  Dwarves would do well there, I think.    Oh, and during that "lawless anarchy time", life expectancy improved(and infant mortality went down, always a good sign).
**I can't give you specfics, but if your spouse actually works, our corporate policy is kind of crap.   In fact, I think I can probably get better coverage with obamacare than with my corporate plan.  But whateves, we still embrace the idea that a healthy employee is a happy employee.

[Drewigi]

Wow, guys, 7 pages of political ankle-biting on the Dwarf Mode discussion forum?  D:

Don't say stop, I realized that this discussion was pretty intresting, however I do wish we would talk about how it mixes with the dwarves and the challenge    .

[Koremu]

Again, I am not even the least bit hesitant to denounce the track my country (USA) has taken. (see above)

I appreciate the track that Europe has tried to take, with more progressive socialist "middle ground" sod breaking, even though pressures from the agents at work in my home nation are hard at work to cripple them, or compel them into submission via market might.

Europe just needs to not play the US's game, and keep US corporations on a tight leash, and avoid the poison of "free trade agreements". They need to safeguard their prosperity and sovereignty, and enforce restrictions on US foreign policy and corporate expansion, and not play the US's games.

If they can hold them off long enough, the inevitable conclusion of the fallacy of "endless growth" will come to fruition, and this horrible thing we americans have wrought will die of starvation or revolution. (and please, let it happen!) I would very much like to see some place left on the earth where total resource depletion has NOT happened, because of sane policy. Europe looks like a good candidate, if they can keep the UK from screwing everything up by trying to be just like the US, and if they can keep their "Council" under control of parliament.

I wouldn't be so quick to pat Europe on the back(keep in mind, I also find the current US path to a bad thing that needs to be corrected)) as there are a number of problems europe has to face in the next few years, particularly in regards to it's policies regarding immigration.  The French are the biggest example of this, but Europe is not an "inviting" place to immigrants.   The tide of history is too much:  French people, for example, have a three millennial long history, and view the changing demographics of france(more and more non franco-phones and muslims, in particular) with alarm.   There is a great deal of social tension between the natives and immigrants, and unless a change occurs, then we're going to see unrest and violence:  when the conservative French and Germans start to realize that in 50 years, Germany won't be German, but Turkic, there's going to be backlash.

Actually, the thing Europe needs to do here is to learn from the mistake the US made by turning against immigration.

Let's remember firstly that for its formative years the US was a pro-immigration nation

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Immigration drove US prosperity throughout the century until the first world war. It's only really since then that anti-immigration rhetoric has become dominant in US political culture.

The EU needs to learn from this mistake by the US and challenge the misunderstandings related to immigration, chief among them the Lump of Labour Fallacy.

Indeed, DF provides a perfect illustration of the fallacious nature of the Lump Of Labour theory - each new migrant that arrives at a Fortress creates more new jobs (for furniture, clothes, food and drink) than they could possibly themselves take away from the rest of the Dwarves. The problem here is the difference between the general overview ("This Immigrant is creating work within the economy") and the specific experience ("This Immigrant is doing a job I could do").

It is nonetheless a fact that immigration is economically beneficial, as it creates more work demand and more work supply while having no appreciable effect upon infrastructure in aggregate. Thus, from an economic standpoint immigration should be encouraged.

As to the cultural aspect - I just have to ask you if your think US immigration of Germans, Poles, Italians and so on has resulted in the US becoming any of those things 100+ years down the line? It's true that the US Founding Fathers probably wouldn't recognize the modern US culture as anything they were part of, and the same will be true in a century in Europe. Culture isn't overrun and replaced - it tends to merge and meld within a locality.

The fact that Curry is the most popular dish in the UK attests to that.

[MDFification]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

It's particular to note that we're again, talking about Totalitarianism combined with communism, not just communism.   Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong(the two biggest culprits, quite possibly accounting for half of the killing between them) are notable in that they were states dominated by a single, authoritarian figure.

Denmark, on the other hand, can easily be considered a socialist or communist state, and they have a remarkable lack of mass killings.   

So yeah, what was your point with the link dump?

"Denmark has a diverse, mixed economy..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

Yes, and it also has free university, free health care, and extensive unemployement.  Agood friend of mine is from Denmark(Copenhagen), and he married another good friend and moved to the US, then after they seperated, went back to Denmark.   He's a good sounding board for the differences.  But try again, Teacup!

If we limit our discussion of communist to "totalitarian states built on the cult of personality of a meglomaniac sociopath", then yes, all communist states are full of mass murderers.

A lot of what you're saying is communist is in fact socialist. Communism generally refers to Marxism, which is in favour of the elimination of social class, the abolition of the nuclear family, the end of the concept of ownership and private property.

I love it when flame wars sprout up and nobody bothers to read the source material. Das Capital being tl;dr for a lot of people, try the Communist Manifesto. It's only 30 pages and explicitly states what communism is about according to its founding thinkers.

In addition; I suggest moving discussion of political and economic systems to another section of the forum, and keep this thread purely for the challenge described, which is essentially a fort with severe morale issues if I'm reading the rules right.

[pisskop]

Oh man, this thing is still going on.

[Drewigi]

Oh man, this thing is still going on.

Like Rasputin (smart joke!).

[pisskop]

I have no issues with this, DF economy naturally falls towards a collective mindset due to the invisible dictator that governs everything.

I just thought this was going down in flames when I read the first page back when it started.

[☼!!Troll Fur Sock!!☼]

I'm not even going to bother with reading the whole thread because it's terrifying. Let me just say that I come from a country that was economically ruined by communism and I still think that it makes sense. As long as it's not the "communism for the poor, monarchy for the rich" type.

If it doesn't have "sacrifice puppies every week" written into it's fundaments, go hate those who only introduced it for their own benefit (and by force), not the system itself.





Running such a fortress would be really interesting. Not really a challenge, but something different. It's quite possible that it would prove as efficient as the current system with few elite craftsdwarves/soldiers and hordes of level3 peasants working their asses off for them that most of forts are using.
BTW, more russia- than communism-related, but I really want to try a fortress where every single dwarf spends at least 4 months a year at archery range, and when gobbos come, they just swarm out and welcome them with 140+ bolts per salvo.