Print

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

[Comrade_Fregge]

Based on past experience (Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea) we can deduce that communism will fail the vast majority of times it is tried. There has never even been a reasonably successful communist state and so one can deduce that, given the large number of test samples, that communism will never prove effective on a nation wide scale.

Umm.. Most of your examples failed only because the united states did everything in their power to stop them. Russia however, is a very sad exception. Stalin was... one man in a million. If it werent for him, the world today wouldnt have many excuses to reject communism.

[Leafsnail]

Cuba is pretty battered up nowadays. Not nearly as bad (by far!) as some people would make you believe, but still, twenty years without soviet support have taken a toll

Not to mention a boycott from what would otherwise be it's largest trading partner.

I mean, it's not great, but it's not that bad either.

[Phmcw]

Based on past experience (Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea) we can deduce that communism will fail the vast majority of times it is tried. There has never even been a reasonably successful communist state and so one can deduce that, given the large number of test samples, that communism will never prove effective on a nation wide scale.

I don't believe in communism, but you're not making a point : you're giving a handful of example, all happening in the same centuries, and dutifully ignore that one is the most successful economy in today's world and possibly tomorrow's superpower.
Ussr passed, under communism and "madmanism" from the status of battered third world country to one of the world superpower.
Communism tend to turn into tyranny, but is far from inefficient.

[Shades]

Cuba is pretty battered up nowadays. Not nearly as bad (by far!) as some people would make you believe, but still, twenty years without soviet support have taken a toll

Not to mention a boycott from what would otherwise be it's largest trading partner.

I mean, it's not great, but it's not that bad either.

I don't know, considering how well they've done with practically zero non-humanitarian imports I think great could qualify. Hard to judge with that boycott there though.

[ECrownofFire]

Hey look a meta-politics thread. Yeah, I'm going to join this one, if not just to hijack it a bit for some opinions.

But first, I don't really think Communism will ever really work on a large scale. On a small scale, maybe. But too many people want power, and if that guy gives it up, then this other guy over here will try to take it. Pure Marxist Communism (the way I understand it), would technically be an anarchy, as jaked122 said. Moral guidelines. The trouble is, people want power, not morals.


Now for the hijack. State Capitalism. China uses it, but with an extremely authoritarian government. State Capitalism is pretty much a purely economic system though, you could stick almost any government on top of it (except a corporatocracy obviously ). I'm wondering how it could work with a Republic, which is my favored form of government. An elected government, restricted by a constitution, basically acting as a giant corporation, hiring everybody in the country. I'm really a Libertarian, but I recognize the need for a government and laws, and a republic is probably the one that manages to act the best in favor of the people, when not bought out by corporations. And something like that can't happen if the government is the only corporation around

Furthermore, what if, in this hypothetical country, there was no universal healthcare or anything similar? Only social security for those unable to work. Basically full out social darwinism, but you have a right to basic stuff. You pay for the healthcare you think you need, and can afford. What you can afford is based on your job, and therefore your ability.

Yeah, this is just me rambling now, but anyway, state capitalism, any thoughts on it? With a libertarian emphasis and a republic, I think it would be quite stable. I'd live in one if it was good enough. This government is pretty much the middle between capitalism (economic freedom) and socialism (economic restriction), it takes the best from both Just in case anybody is wondering, I'm a fan of personal freedom above ALL else. I'm kind of in the "corporations are a necessary evil" group, whatever that one is. I'm guessing it's the state capitalist group.

[Shades]

An elected government, restricted by a constitution

I like the ideal of a constitution but have yet to see it be sensibly done. The problem and strength of them is the point is that they provide a fundamentally hard to change set of guides, they protect a lot of what the hopefully moralistic creators wanted but also enforce the views of the same. And even then it seems different groups enjoy to slant poorly worded (or phrases that people think exist) to manipulate the 'general public' as a constitutional right.

And that mess that the EU wanted to use as a constitution was just laughable.

I'm a fan of personal freedom above ALL else.

I agree with you, on the assumption you didn't really mean above all else (freedom to kill people randomly on the street for example is not what most people mean when they say this but if you don't then your agreeing some laws are above freedom)

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm a fan of personal freedom above ALL else.

I agree with you, on the assumption you didn't really mean above all else (freedom to kill people randomly on the street for example is not what most people mean when they say this but if you don't then your agreeing some laws are above freedom)

http://xkcd.com/706/

[Shades]

I'm a fan of personal freedom above ALL else.

I agree with you, on the assumption you didn't really mean above all else (freedom to kill people randomly on the street for example is not what most people mean when they say this but if you don't then your agreeing some laws are above freedom)

http://xkcd.com/706/

Exactly

[Leafsnail]

Furthermore, what if, in this hypothetical country, there was no universal healthcare or anything similar? Only social security for those unable to work. Basically full out social darwinism, but you have a right to basic stuff. You pay for the healthcare you think you need, and can afford. What you can afford is based on your job, and therefore your ability.

Oh great, social Darwinism.  Works great until you think about it for a few seconds.  What would people who, say, have disabilities do?

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Earthquake Damage]

Social Darwinism is a misapplication of (misunderstood) theory in one field to an unrelated field.

That said, I'll go ahead and poke it with a stick:  "Fitness" is largely (if not entirely) irrelevant in Social Darwinism.  Different groups begin with advantages that are not inherent to the individual.  The influence of initial conditions (e.g. wealth, family) is huge, but they in no way reflect innate qualities.  If Richie Rich were brought to the real world, but his entire fortune and everyone he knows were left behind, he probably wouldn't end up fabulously wealthy.

[Shades]

More importantly universal healthcare is orders of magnitude cheaper per capita than any other system anyone has tried. So unless you have an epiphany regarding how to run it more efficiently your just wasting resource.

Edit:

Social Darwinism is a misapplication of (misunderstood) theory in one field to an unrelated field.

'Social Darwinism' happens anyway, whether you try to apply it or not. Although that is just called evolution.... (this is technically agreeing with your point I think)

[SalmonGod]

The thing about evolution that most people don't understand is "Survival of the fittest" was a really poor choice of words.  Everyone assumes that it means most fit as in physically fit as in the most superior species.

It's really more like "Survival of the best fit."  The most successful species are those that contribute as much or more to their environment than they take from it.  Species that turn out too much "superior" to their surroundings with the power to expand and consume without limit quickly destroy the environment they depend on.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[SalmonGod]

Actually it's the ones that are the best at fucking making sweet, tender love making babies.

To an extent.  It helps if they don't mind being cannibals or self-impose some kind of limit.  Otherwise the population explosion burns itself out in a flash, and leaves behind an environment stripped of resources, making it very difficult to rebound and harming many other species around it.