Democracy or Communism?

[O-Ushi]

I come to you today to ask you a simple question. Would you choose to live in a perfectly (Athenian) Democratic world or a Perfectly (True) Communist world?

Ok, mayber not [U]that[/U] simple...

Personally, I feel that I would much rather prefer to live in a perfectly Communist society, if only it was possible. However, saying that I have a slightly cynical poinbt of view and believe it would never ever be feasible in this society.

[Brasil]

There's always something weird about asking people if they'd rather have Democracy or Communism, because so many people believe Communism to be evil. But if you were to study the history of it, the only fault with it, apart from Marx's Idealistic view of man as good and hard-working, is its application.

I think it's safe to say that Marx had a lot of good ideas, but because of Communism's chaos, he's viewed as a psychotic, more or less. He's a lot like Freud, I find, in the people's perception of him. He was a champion for the Proletariat (the working man), was critical of the sluggish, corrupt practices of Capitalism in England at the time, and believed that Capitalism was the bane of many middle and lower classes. If you were to study British history, you'd see that Capitalism was indeed a very harmful system for those lower classes. Marx's answer was Socialism, a fair and equal economic society.

Socialism is not a bad idea. It's actually a very good one, and Marx made a very astute observation there. People think Marx was some lunatic because Socialism got warped into Communism. Really, Communism is Socialism Gone Bad, and what we see as Communism today is far from what Marx envisioned. I mean, for a guy who was such a strong advocate for an equal society, would he really approve of what is going on with Communism today?

Simply, he'd go nuts. Modern Communism is a far cry from what Marx was saying with Socialism.

[i]But[/i], with that said, I'm not quite sure that Democracy and Socialism can be compared exactly. From what I've read of Marx, he was more concerned with economics, and Socialism was more economic than political. Seems safe to say that Democracy is more political than economic, so I'm not entirely sure it's a valid comparison.

If we're comparing Perfect Capitalism and Perfect Socialism, then, it's really a toss-up. In a perfect Capitalist society, everyone is hard-working and can achieve success no matter what; in a perfect Socialist society, everyone is totally equal, hard-working, and good-natured. In perfect conditions, they're both pretty nice.

I'd go with Perfect Socialism, because Capitalism is still founded on competition, while Socialism is not.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='O-Ushi']Personally, I feel that I would much rather prefer to live in a perfectly Communist society, if only it was possible.[/quote]

[color=green]Exactly, it isn?t possible.

I choose democracy over communism any day. Not only is a democratic, capitalist society more in line with human nature than a socialist or communist system, it doesn?t have a track record of abysmal failure.[/color]

[quote name='Siren']I'd go with Perfect Socialism, because Capitalism is still founded on competition, while Socialism is not.[/quote]

[color=green]Living in a society devoid of competition simply doesn?t appeal to me. It sounds all right on the surface, but it provides no incentive for hard work, innovation or excellence. The brain surgeon, who works very hard to perfect his medical skills, is treated the same as the garbage collector. In this type of society, who?d want to be the brain surgeon? With no incentive for people to fill time consuming, high stress occupations, it?d be doubtful that a society could survive.

Without competition, I think that civilization would collapse.

Socialism is a very nice concept, [b]which will never, ever work.[/b]. Human nature makes a perfect socialist society impossible, and people will find ways to exploit the system. Socialism then becomes communism, and we all know where that has lead.

A democratic, capitalist society is the closest to perfect that we?re going to get.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Boba Fett']Socialism is a very nice concept, which will never, ever work.. Human nature makes a perfect socialist society impossible, and people will find ways to exploit the system. Socialism then becomes communism, and we all know where that has lead.[/quote]
I totally agree that the actualization or realization--whoa, that's a low-flying plane right there...that was freakishly weird...sounded like an old bi-plane...wtf--of a Perfect Socialist society is nigh-impossible, because of basic human nature.

But I think Marx and Freud both have been radically misconstrued as nut-cases because of one or two of their theories and ideas being skewed out of proportion. Marx had a lot of good ideas; he unfortunately just didn't think them all the way through. Freud takes a lot of flack for the sex-crazed psychoanalysis, but there's a lot of what he says that's very, very astute, especially pertaining to the Id, Ego, and Superego and various aspects of human desire influencing what we do.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Hey Alex. It's been a while, but I just want to correct some terminology you are using.

[quote name='Siren']Socialism is not a bad idea. It's actually a very good one, and Marx made a very astute observation there. People think Marx was some lunatic because Socialism got warped into Communism. Really, Communism is Socialism Gone Bad, and what we see as Communism today is far from what Marx envisioned. I mean, for a guy who was such a strong advocate for an equal society, would he really approve of what is going on with Communism today?[/quote]
What you are making is the same mistake almost all Americans make, confusing socialism and communism and not knowing what the socialist countries out there call it. Yes, they're socialist. There's no such thing as "Communism today" because there's no communism. There never was, there never will be. Communism is NOT, I repeat NOT, Socialism Gone Bad. It is Socialism's evolution into a utopia. It's the opposite of "gone bad." Under socialism, the government controls most of everything. A lot of things are equal (like salary, more or less, unless you're talking about the government itself, where the people are filthy filthy rich). But under communism, EVERYTHING is basically shared. In fact, in a true communist society, there would be no need for a government. Its basic idea is "everyone contributes what he can, and receives what he needs." Communism is free of luxury. Socialism is not.

Basically, don't view communism as some perversion of socialism. Communism is what people living in socialist nations like the USSR "believed" in. It was the end goal. The government said it was "on the horizon" (a bit ironic considering the horizon is perpetually a good distance away). Sure, socialism can and has been "perverted," so to speak, but not into communism. Not at all.

In regards to the thread, I would say that perfect socialism is better as long as it assumes adequate resources. Because, besides corruption, that is another thing plaguing many socialist nations.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Hey Alex. It's been a while, but I just want to correct some terminology you are using.[/quote]Hehe. No worries, Dmitry. :p

[quote]What you are making is the same mistake almost all Americans make, confusing socialism and communism and not knowing what the socialist countries out there call it. Yes, they're socialist. There's no such thing as "Communism today" because there's no communism. There never was, there never will be. Communism is NOT, I repeat NOT, Socialism Gone Bad. It is Socialism's evolution into a utopia. It's the opposite of "gone bad." Under socialism, the government controls most of everything. A lot of things are equal (like salary, more or less, unless you're talking about the government itself, where the people are filthy filthy rich). But under communism, EVERYTHING is basically shared. In fact, in a true communist society, there would be no need for a government. Its basic idea is "everyone contributes what he can, and receives what he needs." Communism is free of luxury. Socialism is not.

Basically, don't view communism as some perversion of socialism. Communism is what people living in socialist nations like the USSR "believed" in. It was the end goal. The government said it was "on the horizon" (a bit ironic considering the horizon is perpetually a good distance away). Sure, socialism can and has been "perverted," so to speak, but not into communism. Not at all.[/quote]Are you treating Communism and communism as the same thing, or differently? There are differences between the two. I'm usually a stickler for proper punctuation just because I'm a hard-ss, but here, we really need to pay attention to our punctuation usage.

"Communism" with a capital C is what the USSR became. It's the actual economic system that used to be in place. Now I understand they're trying to distance themselves from the dictatorial Communism and get into a freer economy.

"communism," with a lower-case C is literally "communal society," like...hell, the Colony in The Howling: a group of people living together with no governmental controls in place.

It may not seem like a major logistics issue to capitalize or not capitalize it, but it is, because the two words refer to entirely different "systems."

[url="http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/"][u]Socialism[/u][/url] is a system run by the workers, and the Fat Cats, as it were, that dominated Capitalism have no place there. I mean, just think about it. Marx hated what these Fat Cats were doing. He couldn't stand how Capitalism was exploting the worker. Marx was an advocate for the Proletariat; he was an advocate for workers' rights. Why would he suggest a system where the workers wouldn't be in control?

At the time, too, England was in economic chaos. Sometimes (quite often), you couldn't tell the difference between the government officials and big business owners (the recent situation with Halliburton and Cheney echoes this, interestingly enough).

Communism (capital C) in the USSR was far from a utopian society. I think we can all agree that things weren't perfect, and really, they still aren't.

Socialism can go in two different directions. One is Communism, which we all know doesn't work; the second way is communism, which is the utopia you're talking about (utopia, that is, if everyone isn't a werewolf...*rimshot*).

Get what I'm saying? "communism" is the utopian Socialism. "Communism" isn't. I think Marx would be furious to see what has happened, actually. He wanted a free economy (Socialism and communism); I don't think Communism is quite a fair economy, lol.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']Hehe. No worries, Dmitry. :p [/quote]
The CGA link would do it, yeah. ^_~

I have never run into a "capital C" Communism [i]term[/i] before in this sense. I think it is particular to the U.S., because the USSR and China never ever ever referred to themselves as "communist" nations. The Communist party, not the Communist government. They referred to themselves as Socialist, never Communist. So if it is indeed an actual term referring to the [i]socialist[/i] regimes in those countries, then it is a term borne of confusion. You would still be better off just calling it socialism. At least then it would be accurate on an international basis.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I have never run into a "capital C" Communism [i]term[/i] before in this sense. I think it is particular to the U.S., because the USSR and China never ever ever referred to themselves as "communist" nations. The Communist party, not the Communist government. They referred to themselves as Socialist, never Communist. So if it is indeed an actual term referring to the [i]socialist[/i'] regimes in those countries, then it is a term borne of confusion. You would still be better off just calling it socialism. At least then it would be accurate on an international basis.[/quote]
One thing that's interesting about that, though, is how Marx's ideas have been adopted over the years. Based on what you've said, the actual "socialist" nations like China, USSR, etc, actually aren't adhering to what Marx's precise idea was. His idea was what could be called Marxist Socialism, the communal society, essentially, where everyone was equal, "put in what you can, take out what you need," and that was the utopian society that he believed in.

But, that idea has been diluted over the years to what the "Socialist" nations believe is Marxist Socialism. What Marx was suggesting wasn't what is actually in practice now. For all intents and purposes, many people high-jacked Marx's ideas and skewed them without realizing it..probably entirely unintentionally, too. It's definitely a weird little quirk about it.

What people know to be Socialism (Communism, for discussion sake), isn't really Socialism as according to Marx's ideas and principles.

Interesting, eh comrade?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']One thing that's interesting about that, though, is how Marx's ideas have been adopted over the years. Based on what you've said, the actual "socialist" nations like China, USSR, etc, actually aren't adhering to what Marx's precise idea was. His idea was what could be called Marxist Socialism, the communal society, essentially, where everyone was equal, "put in what you can, take out what you need," and that was the utopian society that he believed in.[/quote]
Of [i]course[/i] they did not adhere to Marxist principles. They [i]claimed[/i] to. To their own people, that is. "Communism is on the horizon" is an example of what they said to the public. Yes, it was propaganda. The USSR's system was by definition a socialist regime, but it was plagued by ubiquitous corruption (as Russia STILL is). It is not at all what Marx envisioned. But the USSR used the excuse of "working toward" communism. Their socialism was supposed to be temporary. A means to an end.

[QUOTE]But, that idea has been diluted over the years to what the "Socialist" nations believe is Marxist Socialism. What Marx was suggesting wasn't what is actually in practice now. For all intents and purposes, many people high-jacked Marx's ideas and skewed them without realizing it..probably entirely unintentionally, too. It's definitely a weird little quirk about it.[/QUOTE]
Oh, it was very intentional. The government skewed Marxism because it didn't make them rich. What you see in the last 80 years of Russia's history is what does. Marxism in its pure form did not fit their plans.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Of [i]course[/i] they did not adhere to Marxist principles. They [i]claimed[/i] to. To their own people, that is. "Communism is on the horizon" is an example of what they said to the public. Yes, it was propaganda. The USSR's system was by definition a socialist regime, but it was plagued by ubiquitous corruption (as Russia STILL is). It is not at all what Marx envisioned. But the USSR used the excuse of "working toward" communism. Their socialism was supposed to be temporary. A means to an end.

Oh, it was very intentional. The government skewed Marxism because it didn't make them rich. What you see in the last 80 years of Russia's history is what does. Marxism in its pure form did not fit their plans.[/QUOTE]
So only through propaganda was it Marx's Socialism, which makes Communism of the USSR...Socialism Gone Bad. If they skewed Marx's Socialism to make themselves richer, and the Proletariat suffered for it, then it does seem to be Socialism Gone Bad, true?

The government (the wealthy) lied to the people about what was really going on, hiding what Marx was really saying--and what Marx was really saying was the people should have the power.

Actually...Marx championed the worker. He advocated better wages, better conditions, etc. He sided with the workers. The government comes in, and tells the people that this ("this" referring to the corrupt Communistic system that enables the government to get filthy rich at the expense of the worker) was what Marx was saying. If Marx were around today, he'd be [i]having a fit[/i]. lol

It really is Socialism Gone Bad.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']It really is Socialism Gone Bad.[/quote]
Oh, certainly those regimes were. I did not disagree with you on that point. I simply disagreed with the terminology you used. You said "Communism" (which I said was not accurate, and I am not sure where you picked up this capital 'C' Communism term actually but like I said before I think it's improper since it's not used in the nations it refers to) was Socialism Gone Bad. I guess going by your definition of "Communism" as opposed to "communism," you were correct. I was hung up on the terminology (which you refuse to change, but heh whatever I don't care).

Oh, but to correct a point you just brought up about the government lying about what Marxism is to the people. People [i]knew[/i] what Marxism was and what true communism was. What the government told them was not that they [i]already had communism[/i] (then they'd have been lying like you said), but that they were [i]working towards[/i] it. Which was also a lie, but a different kind of lie. They did not hide Marx's message or anything.

[Lady_Rin]

I think you should table this discussion until you realize that as Americans you live in a republic, not a democrcy. Socialism works, comunism does not and there is no such thing as a democracy.

[Drix D'Zanth]

I may implement my opinion on this matter later, however... I seem to be the only person here who doesn't really concieve communism and democracy to be related at all? Last I checked, communism was an economic system, and it was perfectly possible to have a Democratic Communism? Likewise, Rin is correct, we do not live in a democracy of the direct, athenian sense. I think Russia had more of an oligarical society after Stalin was eliminated, in the form of the Kremlin? The soviets did have a president with seemingly dictator-like powe. So is this an argument of capitalism vs communism, or democracy vs dictatorship?

[DeathBug]

Crap, Drix beat me to pointing out the flaw in the question. I wanted to point out flaws...;_;

I realize I'm going to regret getting into this, because this is a subject I can speak on for hours, and I already know I don't have the time to get into debates right now. ^^;

However, communism is evil. It is evil because it restricts the natural freedoms people have. It is evil because more people have died in the name of it in the twentith century than any other cause. It is evil in the religious sense because it destroys religion. It destroy individuality, it destroys family, and placed the world on the brink of war for over three decades.

Capitalism, without government intervention, is not a nice thing. Properly moderated capitalism is the best economic system in the world. Socialism is woefully inept.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I always find it odd when people are adamant that America is a Republic and not a Democracy, when, in fact it is both and really not truly either. Obviously in a true Democracy the people dictate their own laws by popular vote, we all know that this means that people (as a collective) would have to vote on every single law that is brought up. In a true Republic, however, officials that are not monarchs act as the legislative and judicial body for the people.

A republic is quite a bit closer to the United States form of government but still doesn?t really fit due to our precarious balance of National, State, and Local government. At the Local and State level true democracy is often times realized (i.e. school bonds, local expenditure bills, zoning laws). Therefore I would probably say that America is neither a Republic nor a Democracy but a conglomerate of both.

As for the initial question, like Drix stated, you could have both, although I have no idea why anyone would want to live in a communist society. Just because you excel at something doesn?t mean you desire to do it your entire life. Obviously desire would be a problematic factor in any true communist society, and life without desire would be quite boring. At the same time, I wouldn?t want to live in a true Democracy that consisted of more than a thousand or so people because voting would end up becoming tedious, boring, and time consuming. [/color]

[Xander Harris]

Um, you mean CAPITALISM or communism? Socialism is just an extension of democratic principles into the economic sphere. Communism is when a few people in the state ends up running everything because people tried to make a socialist state and failed. Democracy and Communism are not opposites. Capitalism and communism are.

[Morpheus]

Capitalism all the way. It is simply a matter of how communism works. There is no competition, so there is no incentive to make a better product or even a good one to begin with so goods become worthless. There is no profit, so there is no incentive to make more or keep costs low. The concept solves some problems, but makes everyone live in poverty. Not cool.

Also, there is no more need for the former USSR or china to declare that they are communist than a serial killer to declare he is a serial killer. They still are.

[Endymion]

[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=1]Democracy and Communism both have their good points and their bad ones I suppose. Democracy seemed to work out in ancient Greece, mainly Athens. The United States, a republic, was based on democratic ideals. Communism, when perfectly engineered, I guess would seem nice, but there are what, 3 communist nations left? North Korea and Cuba, and then China, but China in its booming economic machine is becoming less communist. Personally, I distaste communist nations, and wouldn't mind laying some democratic values on 'em. So as for this discussion, 'Democracy or Communism?', I would have to follow a democracy. [/SIZE] [/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#707875]Again, it's really worth pointing out that communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to have a "communist democracy". Communism (as has been said) is a broad economic management principle, where democracy relates to a method of political operation/division of political power.

Unfortunately, communism has historically been tied to authoritarian dictatorships. Funny, that.

But I do think that the frequent labeling of communism as "evil" is kind of annoying, frankly. Why does everything have to be given some grand supernatural quality? It's so...gimmicky. You know? I'm so tired of bandwagons, lol.

As Siren correctly pointed out, communism itself is an ideal -- an economic principle. That principle is not necessarily "evil" -- its goal, ostensibly, is to create a broad safety net where every member of society is given security (in various senses). It is the application of this principle that has been problematic.

Many countries, including places like the United States and Australia, feature elements of "socialism". The best example would be the welfare systems in many free democratic countries. Although these countries adhere to capitalist systems, they also maintain a broader "safety net" for those who are left behind. In reality, it is probably best to seek a balance -- by all means, adhere to the principles of a free market economy, but also ensure that you create key protections for the least of those in society.[/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Siren]
If we're comparing Perfect Capitalism and Perfect Socialism, then, it's really a toss-up. In a perfect Capitalist society, everyone is hard-working and can achieve success no matter what; in a perfect Socialist society, everyone is totally equal, hard-working, and good-natured. In perfect conditions, they're both pretty nice.

I'd go with Perfect Socialism, because Capitalism is still founded on competition, while Socialism is not.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense mah boy! Competition is what keeps society moving ahead, makes technological leaps, and making people work harder. Without competition, prices of things would skyrocket, because there would be no other company to keep the price down. Without competition, people would grow complacent of their successes, rest on their laurels, and not try to better their selves.

On a personal level, in communism, there is no personal identity. You do things for the greater good of society, not worrying about yourself. I mean, it does sound good, but I also want a certain degree of individuality -- one that is no present in this government.

Besides, communism never would work anyway. Even in a hypothetical universe. Because that would mean, that the leader isn't truly a human ... they may look like one, but they certainly wouldn't act like one. For A Perfect Communism to be pulled off, the leader would have to be completely selfless, looking out for everyone else, etc. But humans aren't like that, and power corrupts, therefore communism is a bad idea.

Perfect Democracy on the other hand wouldn't work all that well either. You would have to vote on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. Whether or not to pass a certain rule in a school, whether or not abortion should be legal, whatever the case may be. Because there is no representation of people, every minor issue would need a vote to be decided by the entire nation. This means that things wouldn't ever get done in time, like a declaration of war, or a bill to feed the homeless or something.

I think that communism is a good idea, if it's perfect, and if you dont mind being a number. I mean, even people's PAY is equal. Holy crap. That means that a doctor who worked his *** off in college, medical school, etc. still gets the same pay as a cashier at McDonalds. That right there is complete crap. (IMO)

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
But I do think that the frequent labeling of communism as "evil" is kind of annoying, frankly. Why does everything have to be given some grand supernatural quality? It's so...gimmicky. You know? I'm so tired of bandwagons, lol.[/color][/QUOTE]
Well, what do you define "evil" as, then?

Communism is "evil" in the hummanitarian sense that it has killed more people than any other ideal in the past century.

Communism is "evil" in the religious sense because all religions define "evil" as what is exactly counter to their religion, and communism calls for the dissolution of religion. (The government provides your means of living; the government is your god.)

Communism is "evil" in the indivdualistic sense because it restricts the freedom of the individual to act in a way that suits them.

Communism is "evil" in the philisophical sense that it surpresses all other philosophies; it has to, in order to sustain itself.

Communism is "evil" in the historical sense that it must distort the truth of its own history; if it didn't, people might start wondering why they're applying a system that has failed in every single one of its variations.

Which definition of evil do you think applies?

[Retribution]

Probably all of the above.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson][quote name='DeathBug']Communism is "evil" in the humanitarian sense that it has killed more people than any other ideal in the past century.[/quote]

Arguable. If you follow a policy of cause and effect, it could be said fascism killed more. It's unfortunate that a system with such potential fell into the lap of Stalin, however- what horrid luck.

[quote name='DeathBug']Communism is "evil" in the religious sense because all religions define "evil" as what is exactly counter to their religion, and communism calls for the dissolution of religion. (The government provides your means of living; the government is your god.)[/quote]

Irrelevant to me as a socialist because I support the dissolution of religion anyway, lol. Does that make me "evil"?

[quote name='DeathBug']Communism is "evil" in the individualistic sense because it restricts the freedom of the individual to act in a way that suits them.[/quote]

No response to this. I would say something about Democracies covertly doing the same thing, but I would expect alot of people to call me a conspiracy theorist or some such nonsense.

[quote name='DeathBug']Communism is "evil" in the philosophical sense that it surpresses all other philosophies; it has to, in order to sustain itself.[/quote]

How is sustaining your existence evil? I suppose that if you were an extreme advocate of free speech this intrusion would seem evil. I realize this implies that Communism is obsolete and has to hide the truth from it's citizens- oh well, I don't really see it as "evil" persay. An ill omen is more like it- a sign of the failure of totalitarian-communist regimes.

[quote name='DeathBug']Communism is "evil" in the historical sense that it must distort the truth of its own history; if it didn't, people might start wondering why they're applying a system that has failed in every single one of its variations.[/quote]

If altering history is "evil" then 80 percent of the nations that exist today are "evil", lol. Alteration or not telling the full story of historical lessons/events is common- Japan is a good example of this. If they are altering history specifically to survive, then this ties in to what I said just a bit prior to this. I definitely don't agree with any nation altering history for any reason. I wouldn't go so far as to us a word like "evil"- though, perhaps I should, heh.[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I'm going to side with Alex and James on this one, because personally I agree with their point of view. Communism, or rather Socialism is in itself only an idea, no more, no less, an idea by a man Karl Marx who championed the position of the worker in society. Communism as we have seen it implemented in history is no less than the bastardisation of Marx's idea for a Utopian society, his idea was taken by other men, mostly notably Joseph Stalin and turned into a means to rule autocratically. Communism is not inherently evil, only in it's application can a label of "Good or Evil" be placed on it, of course the label is moot is the applied version of Communism is not pure as Marx would have had it.

Communism is a perfect idea on paper, only when you add the human element to the equation do problems arise, because humans are naturally greedy or rather are more motivated by greed and the acquisition of wealth than other stimuli. Morpheus and Alton put forward the idea that modern society is based on the accumulation of wealth, the idea that the product and money are the defining aspects of our lives. Alton said that it is competition which makes is seek to better ourselves, financially yes that is true, we want to earn more money to be able to afford better things and more luxuries. However what if the money element was taken out of the equation, that everyone would be able to seek to better themselves without the requirement of finance.

That is the perfect application of socialism, where everyone contributes and receives the same as everyone else, where people can seek to better themselves without needed money to do so, intellectual, spiritual, all within an arms reach. I am taking into account the fact that people would still have to work, but that is of course a necessity to the continuation of any society, and of course there would be those who wouldn't wish to work without the incentive of money hanging over them. Personally I would much rather live in the Perfect Communist society than a Perfect Democratic society, however as James said there is the possibility of having a Democratic Communist society as one is based on perfect Politics and the other is based on perfect economics.[/SIZE]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
Arguable. If you follow a policy of cause and effect, it could be said fascism killed more. It's unfortunate that a system with such potential fell into the lap of Stalin, however- what horrid luck.
[/QUOTE]

And that it also fell into the lap of Mao, and Castro? How many times does it have to fail, horribly, before the system can be said to be flawed?


[QUOTE]Irrelevant to me as a socialist because I support the dissolution of religion anyway, lol. Does that make me "evil"?[/QUOTE]

Well, by the definition of just about every religion, yes. What is "evil" to a religion is what is counter to the teachings of that religion.

[QUOTE]No response to this. I would say something about Democracies covertly doing the same thing, but I would expect alot of people to call me a conspiracy theorist or some such nonsense.[/QUOTE]

All social systems require systemic curbing of individual desires in order to avoid anarchy, but communism requires the dissolution of individualism in exchange for collectivism.

[QUOTE]How is sustaining your existence evil? I suppose that if you were an extreme advocate of free speech this intrusion would seem evil. I realize this implies that Communism is obsolete and has to hide the truth from it's citizens- oh well, I don't really see it as "evil" persay. An ill omen is more like it- a sign of the failure of totalitarian-communist regimes.[/QUOTE]

For a communist system to work, you can't have anyone who doesn't follow the system; they must be expelled. A person in America can chose to be communist and distribute their property amongst their community, but a person in Cuba can't chose to be capitalist and save their property.


[QUOTE]If altering history is "evil" then 80 percent of the nations that exist today are "evil", lol. Alteration or not telling the full story of historical lessons/events is common- Japan is a good example of this. If they are altering history specifically to survive, then this ties in to what I said just a bit prior to this. I definitely don't agree with any nation altering history for any reason. I wouldn't go so far as to us a word like "evil"- though, perhaps I should, heh.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but how many nations need to alter their entire history? Communism's history is one of horror and failure. What does history teach us about communism?

It teaches us that Churchill was right. "Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."