Democracy or Communism?

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Siren]DeathBug, you're missing the point entirely.

Others have already mentioned how communism never killed anyone. To blame an Ideal for chaos is like blaming Christianity for the Crusades, and we all know you're not that dense, lol.[/QUOTE]

I think I understand the point; your view of communism is a hypothetical situation that's never existed, despite attempts all over the world. My view is based on what actually happened when these ideas were implemented.

And I'm naive?

You want to talk about Christianity? You know why you can draw a line between "real Christianity" and misapplications in its name? Because "real Christianity" exists outside of the abuses of its ideals. You can point to it. States in the US whoe population identify themselves as majorly Christian, for example, give a proportinatly larger amount of their income to charities than those who don't.

There's a single example of real Christian ideas being practiced. Where is an example of "true communism" accomplishing great things? Point it out to me.

Wait, you can't. Because Communism has a 100% failing record.

You place faith in a theory that's never accomplished anything, and I'm the one who's naive?

[QUOTE]Now, Marx's initial idea of communism is both "true communism" and "real communism." There's no difference between the two terms there. They're one in the same.[/QUOTE]

Yes, well, Marx is dead, and his movement continued without him. It continued in a horrible and perverted way, I'll be the first to admit, but you can't keep using that as your escape from a rational argument.

Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own.

[QUOTE]The communism that you're talking about is [i]not[/i] "real communism." It's "[i]fake[/i] communism," because it's a twisting and mockery of what Marx was saying, and a [i]false and misleading[/i] application of Marx's ideas.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I don't care what you want to call it. I'll compromise and call it "Marx's communism" to avoid being judgemental, but the end result is, it's never existed, and is therefore irrelevent.

When a successful application of Marx's communism has been created and sustains itself, then I'll revise my opinion accordingly. Until then, Marx's communism is a fairy tale.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]Nothing personal DeathBug, but you being biased severely diminishes your opinion's, hm- what's the word. Your opinion's.. weight, I suppose. It doesn't mean as much if you admit to not being objective. Now, you are a very intelligent person- so I respect your opinion- I just don't really find it to be valid to agree with, as you are biased.

I have nothing further to say to you because Siren and James pretty much covered it. It's funny we're considering this as true democracy and true communism have, so far, never existed in it's purist, most idealistic form. I guess I might be implying this doesn't have much of a point- but, that's arguable.[/QUOTE]


I'm failing to follow your logic here. Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion of one of the most important issues of the past century; you're telling me you don't? What kind of plastic bubble of isolation must I be kept in to avoid bias that apparently voids my opinion? And if I'm biased against communism, why isn't Siren biased towards it?

And, you're right; as long as Marxists cling to social fairy tales and refuse to acknowledge what really happened to their movement, (it became the tool of thugs and dictators), then arguments will continue to be pointless.

The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one; Marxists refuse to do that, then wonder why people don't take them seriously.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]I think I understand the point; your view of communism is a hypothetical situation that's never existed, despite attempts all over the world. My view is based on what actually happened when these ideas were implemented.

And I'm naive?

You want to talk about Christianity? You know why you can draw a line between "real Christianity" and misapplications in its name? Because "real Christianity" exists outside of the abuses of its ideals. You can point to it. States in the US whoe population identify themselves as majorly Christian, for example, give a proportinatly larger amount of their income to charities than those who don't.

There's a single example of real Christian ideas being practiced. Where is an example of "true communism" accomplishing great things? Point it out to me.

Wait, you can't. Because Communism has a 100% failing record.

You place faith in a theory that's never accomplished anything, and I'm the one who's naive?

Yes, well, Marx is dead, and his movement continued without him. It continued in a horrible and perverted way, I'll be the first to admit, but you can't keep using that as your escape from a rational argument.

Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own.

Honestly, I don't care what you want to call it. I'll compromise and call it "Marx's communism" to avoid being judgemental, but the end result is, it's never existed, and is therefore irrelevent.

When a successful application of Marx's communism has been created and sustains itself, then I'll revise my opinion accordingly. Until then, Marx's communism is a fairy tale.

I'm failing to follow your logic here. Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion of one of the most important issues of the past century; you're telling me you don't? What kind of plastic bubble of isolation must I be kept in to avoid bias that apparently voids my opinion? And if I'm biased against communism, why isn't Siren biased towards it?

And, you're right; as long as Marxists cling to social fairy tales and refuse to acknowledge what really happened to their movement, ([b]it became the tool of thugs and dictators[/b]), then arguments will continue to be pointless.[/quote]Everything you've said here is trite and meaningless, DB, and here's why. Read and comprehend what I'm saying here, all right?

You're condemning an Ideal based on a misapplication of the Ideal. Marx would [i]freak out[/i] if he saw what vandals and sociopaths did to his idea.

Hell, even Dmitry, who lived in the USSR, was adamant about how Marx's Communism was twisted around, and how what we see there isn't anywhere close to what Marx was saying, and therefore does not reflect any aspect of Marx's Communism, making any assessment of Marx's Communism based on the misapplication brought about by sociopaths and dictators entirely null and void, because any assessment seeking to condemn Marx's Communism is based on a twisting of Marx's Communism, and not Marx's Communism itself.

You want to talk reality, DB? How about the reality that you're [i]not[/i] basing your argument on reality, just like in NCLB.

I'm going to re-iterate:

You're trying to condemn Marx's Communism based on the misapplication of it by thugs and dictators. Marx would go absolutely insane if he were to see how his idea was getting twisted around. What you're trying to base your argument on is something that [i]Marx himself[/i] would hate.

[quote]The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one; [b]Marxists refuse to do that[/b], then wonder why people don't take them seriously.[/QUOTE]I'm a [i]Marxist Pythonian[/i]. It seems to me that Marxists aren't the issue here, anyway. Seems to me that the real issue is people not wanting to hear how Marx's Communism isn't as bad as those people want to believe it is.

[quote name='DeathBug']Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own.[/quote]
Oh, ideas are certainly bound to their originators.

Say I were Immanuel Kant's teacher, and I happen to express how people ought to tell the truth whenever possible. After a few years, Kant goes out into the world and starts saying how people should tell the truth all the time, no matter what the situation may be. Should people ascribe Kant's misapplication of my idea to me, and then say, "Oh, look, because his idea became this, means his idea was always this"?

Or what about Dubya's War on Terror and Jerry Falwell? Just because Falwell is on MSNBC, talking about how we need to destroy these terrorist scum "in the name of God," obviously supporting Bush but saying something that Bush, to my recollection, has never, ever said, should people be criticizing Bush for something a nutcase like Jerry Falwell said or did?

Does Solipsism invalidate Plato's Cave, or transform it into something it never was in the first place?

Come on, lol.

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I think a perfect Athenian democracy that spanned the entire world would be impossible. One of the main edicts of [/color][/size][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Athenian democracy is that every person must have a say in the important matters of the state, or that person is a worthless human being. Since the state in a completely democratic world would span the entire world, you're going to have split decisions on every issue, and instead of pissing off 150 million people (United States) and making 150 million people happy, you get to piss of over 3 billion people, and make 3 billion people happy. On such a large scale, I think democracy is more farfetched an idea than communism. Communism is based on trying to make everyone happy, while Democracy is based on trying to piss half of everyone off.[/color][/size][/font]

[DeathKnight]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion of one of the most important issues of the past century; you're telling me you don't? What kind of plastic bubble of isolation must I be kept in to avoid bias that apparently voids my opinion? And if I'm biased against communism, why isn't Siren biased towards it?
[/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]No, I don't have a pre-existing bias. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, they preach political neutrality in their neverending rhetoric- so I had no opinion on any of this until I split from my religious upbringing a year and a half ago, lol. I've studied this extensively since then and I find both systems to be rather inefficient [especially Communism] when applied to real life nations- as has been proven over and over again through history. I find people who are biased against or for either one of these systems to be likewise foolish, lol. That's the kind of "plastic bubble" you must be kept in to avoid that bias that does void your opinion. The one that keeps you from coming off as a zealous fool.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

DeathBug and Siren, you both have valid points and I don't even think they're as mutually exclusive as you make them out to be.

Siren, you are saying that because [i]Marx's[/i] communism was never even given an attempt at implementation (umm, actually just thinking... I wonder if small societies somewhere have indeed given it a shot, or whether it does exist in some tribal form or something lol) we cannot judge it as having 100% failure because in essense its score is currently 0/0. Seems valid to me.

DeathBug is saying that any time someone has [i]strived[/i] for communism they have ended up failing miserably. Also valid to point out.

But the thing is, DeathBug, that communism never existed, in any form. It does not have a failing record because it has NO RECORD. If that is what Siren is saying, he is correct. Governments have reached for it (or pretended to, as was the case with the USSR), but never even come close to attaining it. Marx's communism, which is communism (DB are you talking about socialism? different social and economic principles apply to it, and that's really what you could even judge as it HAS been implemented and continues to be) NOT used as a misnomer, has never been tested, either to success or failure.

Conventional wisdom would say that Marx's utopia could not exist, especially if an entire nation attempted to achieve it (has anyone considered the international ramifications?), but history has no say.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Siren']Everything you've said here is trite and meaningless, DB, and here's why. Read and comprehend what I'm saying here, all right?[/quote]

You're saying the same thing you've said before: Marxist Communism isn't the communism of Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc.

I'm going to say what I've been saying: Marxist Communism never existed, and is therefore irrelevent. Until someone actually implements it, it's just an idea.

[QUOTE]You're condemning an Ideal based on a misapplication of the Ideal. Marx would [i]freak out[/i] if he saw what vandals and sociopaths did to his idea.[/QUOTE]

Again, only one form of the ideal has ever existed: the perverted demonic version. As long as that remains the only version in existance, it's the only one that matters at all. Ideas mean nothing if they're not implemented.

[QUOTE]Hell, even Dmitry, who lived in the USSR, was adamant about how Marx's Communism was twisted around, and how what we see there isn't anywhere close to what Marx was saying, and therefore does not reflect any aspect of Marx's Communism, making any assessment of Marx's Communism based on the misapplication brought about by sociopaths and dictators entirely null and void, because any assessment seeking to condemn Marx's Communism is based on a twisting of Marx's Communism, and not Marx's Communism itself.[/QUOTE]

Marx's communism never existed. I've already said that. I'm not referring to it.

[QUOTE]You want to talk reality, DB? How about the reality that you're [i]not[/i] basing your argument on reality, just like in NCLB.[/QUOTE]

You're defending an idea that's never been implemented, and that's "reality"?


[QUOTE]You're trying to condemn Marx's Communism based on the misapplication of it by thugs and dictators. Marx would go absolutely insane if he were to see how his idea was getting twisted around. What you're trying to base your argument on is something that [i]Marx himself[/i] would hate.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about Marx at all, or his version of communism. Until it's implemented, it's just an idea. I know that every other version of communism that's been implemented has been a humanitarian nightmare, and even the staunchest Marxist won't deny that.

[QUOTE]I'm a [i]Marxist Pythonian[/i]. It seems to me that Marxists aren't the issue here, anyway. Seems to me that the real issue is people not wanting to hear how Marx's Communism isn't as bad as those people want to believe it is.[/QUOTE]

It also seems to me that you're using your defense of Marx as a shield to avoid admitting that the forms of communism that have been used were disasters, and that communism attracts more barberous dictators than any ideology in history.


[QUOTE]Oh, ideas are certainly bound to their originators.

Does Solipsism invalidate Plato's Cave, or transform it into something it never was in the first place?

Come on, lol.[/QUOTE]

What about, say, democracy? The original idea and what it is today are certainly different creatures, aren't they? That's why we make distinctions like "Athenian democracy", or "Democratic republic"; because the ideas evolve and change over time as they are implemented.

If you or anyone wants to create a communist society closer to Marx's original design, you're first going to have to learn from the many failures of the system as it was implemented before. If you simply say "It wasn't real communism" and brush it off, as it seems you're doing, you're doomed to repeat history.

[quote name='DeathKnight]No, I don't have a pre-existing bias. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, they preach political neutrality in their neverending rhetoric- so I had no opinion on any of this until I split from my religious upbringing a year and a half ago, lol. I've studied this extensively since then and I find both systems to be rather inefficient [especially Communism'] when applied to real life nations- as has been proven over and over again through history. I find people who are biased against or for either one of these systems to be likewise foolish, lol. That's the kind of "plastic bubble" you must be kept in to avoid that bias that does void your opinion. The one that keeps you from coming off as a zealous fool.[/quote]

You'll concede, however, that you're unique among the population?

I don't see how anyone who isn't activly striving to be unbiased can remain totally unbiased. I'm biased against communism, and Siren's biased towards it; that's why we're arguing. My point is that his bias isn't based in reality, and his is the same regarding me.

[quote name='ScriosDarkBlade']But the thing is, DeathBug, that communism never existed, in any form. It does not have a failing record because it has NO RECORD. If that is what Siren is saying, he is correct. Governments have reached for it (or pretended to, as was the case with the USSR), but never even come close to attaining it. Marx's communism, which is communism (DB are you talking about socialism? different social and economic principles apply to it, and that's really what you could even judge as it HAS been implemented and continues to be) NOT used as a misnomer, has never been tested, either to success or failure.[/quote]

And I argue that the applications of communism, flawed as they may be compared to the original doctrine, are the [b]only ones[/b] to have ever existed, and are therefore the only ones that matter.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue']I think a perfect Athenian democracy that spanned the entire world would be impossible[/quote]
We are not talking the entire world. We want to know if you would rather live under 1 or the other.

I think in a wireless world perfect democracy is possible. If everyone has laptops, a bill to be voted on can be sent to everyone in seconds, and could give a week to decide. That would be faster than our current system.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='DeathBug]And I argue that the applications of communism, flawed as they may be compared to the original doctrine, are the [b]only ones[/b'] to have ever existed, and are therefore the only ones that matter.[/quote]
They were never "applications of communism." Only the US in its ignorance called it Communism when the rest of the world knew it was Socialism. There was a Communist Party in the USSR. That's all. The USSR "strove" for Communism (or so said the propaganda), but never pretended like what it currently had was any incarnation of it.

There were never any applications of communism. That's not what China, the USSR, Cuba, etc. have or had. It's socialism. Which is not the same thing or even close to the same thing.

[Adahn]

[quote name='Morpheus']We are not talking the entire world. We want to know if you would rather live under 1 or the other.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Thread Creator from first post]
perfectly (Athenian) Democratic [b]world[/b]
[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]...yes we are. Also, if everyone voted by computer, the voting system would be hacked. You can't rely on technology for everything.[/color][/size][/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Philippine-American War. 250k-1m civilians killed, 4 thousand and some odd number American servicemen killed in action. U.S. actions included scorched earth campaigns, torture and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".[/color][/QUOTE]

Hey, never said the US wasn't sin-free... and this example only furthers my point that the US still doesn't come close to the atrocities of other nations. I'm pretty sure the Veitnam War would have proven a better example when referring to "scorched earth" policies. But I think we got the same idea.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
The British and Americans had a reprisal to that. Research the history of Dresden, specifically in early 1945. An eye for an eye.[/color][/QUOTE]

Yeah, the firebombing was pretty rough. And in fairness Charles Portal recognized Dresden as being bombed for the sincere purpose of reducing German morale. The 35,000 killed by RAF and USAF bombers were, for the majority, innocent. Understandibly, it was a horror that accompanied a war nothing less horrific.

But how does that example oppose my claim that less american civilians perished than British civilians?

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Nothing personal, but Russia was not prepared for Operation Barbarossa. Of course the greatest death toll was their's- the Great Officer Purge damaged the army to the point they barely beat *Finland* in the Winter War- they only way they won was through outnumbering them something like 10 to 1. Stalin brought the losses onto his own army due to his paranoia and trust of Hitler- his paranoia caused the Great Officer Purge and he trusted Hitler to honor the non-aggression pact for a few more years- he had signed it in the first place to buy time for his army to grow stronger. He didn't get enough of that time- they had a Quantity > Quality army fighting a Quality > Quantity army. The two didn't cancel each other out as the Russian losses in the first two years show.
[/color][/QUOTE]

This is partly true, as it was Russia's sheer quantity of men that helped them overrun a post-stalingrad Nazi army. You claim that Russia wasn't prepared for Barbarossa.. I would claim that Germany wasn't either. They were unable to decisively break seiges in Leningrad and Moscow; they were unable to repel the Russians in Stalingrad. They overextended their supply-lines, and the winter of 1942 was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Wermacht unprepared for a Soviet winter. Let's also not forget the Armored pincer at Kursk and her star: the T-34.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Yes. American nuclear technology is focused on quality > quantity. Our nuclear capability is equal to or greater than their's because our nukes are more advanced. Sheer numbers mean nothing when you are talking about anything Russian.[/color][/QUOTE]

All in all, your point concerning nuclear warheads is that the significance between each nation's number (or quality) becomes fairly trite. When you start talking about the nuclear capabilities of the US, Russia, and possibly France+Britian you are discussing how many times over you can destroy the face of the earth, much less individual nations.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Wrong. The Anti-Cominterm pact divided the world into three sectors. Germany got Europe, Italy got Africa and Japan got Asia and the Pacific. There was no way that Japan could even try to invade America while still engaged in China.[/color][/QUOTE]

Fair enough, the US did bring itself into war with Japan through the oil embargoes that were slowly choking the growing Japanese Navy. Consider this, after the pacific is conquered, and hypothetically America's armed forces rendered usless... I doubt Japan would have wanted to leave the US on it's own... even Yamato understood the danger that our nation posed towards the survival of the newly conquered Pacific islands. I'm pretty sure some sort of peace treaty/armistace involving the US's disarmament would have followed in the wake of a Japanese victory.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Hitler didn't want war with the Allies. He had great respect for Britain and America. His goal was the destruction of what he considered to be the greatest danger to humanity- Communism. Ironically, this later became America's prime directive too. How odd history is..[/color][/QUOTE]

Perhaps I mistaken counting Poland among the "Allied" nations. As it were, despite his "respect" it would be naive to assume he didnt' anticipate a declaration of war after invading Poland. It would also be naive to think that he wasn't preparing to invade not only France, but Great Britian... research Operation Seawolf.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
You'll note that France and Britain declared war on Germany and not vice versa.
[/color][/QUOTE]

Irrelevant, Hitler had already broken Verseilles and everyone saw ware coming. The Magenot line saw it coming, Chamberlain saw it coming... it was inevitable once Hitler was in power.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']They were never "applications of communism." Only the US in its ignorance called it Communism when the rest of the world knew it was Socialism. [/quote]

Ignorance? Mao and his cronies called what he was doing Communism. As did Stalin, as did Castro, etc.

[James]

[color=#707875]Yeah. It was definitely communism -- the Chinese Communist Party has that name for a reason. lol

I'm not really arguing that communism is a good thing. Actually, I agree with both DeathBug and Alex. Communism is really unworkable in practice, as we've seen time and time again. My point is that the concept of communism is just a concept -- it's worthy of discussion. So I think it's fine (and probably healthy) to have a debate about the intellectual side of it.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Yeah. It was definitely communism -- the Chinese Communist Party has that name for a reason. lol[/color][/quote]
NO. The Chinese Communist Party and the USSR's Communist Party both had communism in their names, but that doesn't mean that's what the government was. James, do you know what Socialism IS? Because if you did, then you'd know that [i]that[/i] was what you saw in the USSR, China, etc. And trust me, that's what they called it. The Union of Soviet ... SOCIALIST... Republics = USSR.

Don't derive the type of government from the name of a political party, lol. They didn't call what they were [i]doing[/i] communism. They called what they [i]strived[/i] for, communism. That's a very significant difference, because THE REALITY was socialism. The GOAL was communism. They put it on a pedestal. They did things "in the name" of communism. But that doesn't make it the socioeconomic state.

Communism never existed. Ever.

[James]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]NO. The Chinese Communist Party and the USSR's Communist Party both had communism in their names, but that doesn't mean that's what the government was. James, do you know what Socialism IS? Because if you did, then you'd know that [i]that[/i] was what you saw in the USSR, China, etc. And trust me, that's what they called it. The Union of Soviet ... SOCIALIST... Republics = USSR.

Don't derive the type of government from the name of a political party, lol. They didn't call what they were [i]doing[/i] communism. They called what they [i]strived[/i] for, communism. That's a very significant difference, because THE REALITY was socialism. The GOAL was communism. They put it on a pedestal. They did things "in the name" of communism. But that doesn't make it the socioeconomic state.

Communism never existed. Ever.[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]That's incorrect. The USSR's name is a bit like "Democratic Republic of _____". Many countries have a name like that, but aren't exactly democracies.

Let's look at the actual dictionary meanings for each term.

[b]Communism:[/b]
[list=1]
[*]A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
[*]A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
[/list][b]Socialism: [/b]
[list=1]
[*]Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
[/list]These are obviously more general terms. The dictionary also defines Socialism as being "between" Communism and Capitalism (which is true).


So, let's look at 1b in particular. 1b is the system of Communism that both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic had adopted.


China is definitely a Communist nation, founded on Communist ideals. Again, the "Communist Party" was founded with that name for a reason.


Obviously China has made progress which has moved it closer to a Capitalist system. However, it is definitely not Socialist -- while individuals are able to own property and assets in China, the Chinese government still maintains strong controls and restrictions on such ownership.[/color]

[Break]

[size=1]To be honest I'd rather not live in either. Firstly because a democracy is never satisfying - you can never make [i]everyone[/i] happy when leaders are chosen by the people. Plato argues that the people know nothing about running a country, so why should they be allowed to choose who does? Democracies are also full of corruption: money, sex,friends, enemies... all of these would infulence a leader chosen by the electorate. Plato instead puts forward the idea of a nation-state ruled by man who knows [i]how[/i] to lead and who knows not what the people want, but what the people [i]need[/i].

As for communism? No thank you. The ideals of communism can be attractive at first, but when you see how communist countries have turned out, they seem to get uglier. Again, the governments in these are also corrupted, not participating in money sharing and often very tyrannical, for example it is extremely difficult for Cuban citizens to leave Cuba for vacation or anything like that - Mr. Castro is afraid they will not come back. There are lots of other examples, I'm sure, but this one is quite stupid.

So, to conclude, "Athenian" Democracy doesn't work and there can never be a "True" Communist nation. Both are corrupted hypocrises.[/size]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Hey, never said the US wasn't sin-free... and this example only furthers my point that the US still doesn't come close to the atrocities of other nations. I'm pretty sure the Veitnam War would have proven a better example when referring to "scorched earth" policies. But I think we got the same idea.[/quote]

[color=crimson]I don't care about atrocities and what nation has numerical superiority with them, I wasn't involved in that discussion. Nations exist and they all wish to continue existing- the 'business' they are in requires bloodshed of differing degrees. I was just tossing you another war that is questionable in nature, lol. Maybe flexing my historical muscles a bit. *flex* *flex* Yeah.. [/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']But how does that example oppose my claim that less American civilians perished than British civilians?[/quote]

[color=crimson]It doesn't. It wasn't meant to oppose your claim. I wasn't involved in that debate either, lol.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']You claim that Russia wasn't prepared for Barbarossa.. I would claim that Germany wasn't either. They were unable to decisively break sieges in Leningrad and Moscow; they were unable to repel the Russians in Stalingrad. They overextended their supply-lines, and the winter of 1942 was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Wermacht unprepared for a Soviet winter. Let's also not forget the Armored pincer at Kursk and her star: the T-34.[/quote]

[color=crimson]I said first two years for a reason. After that, the quality of the Russian army had increased substantially over a short amount of time- especially their tanks. Above average quality+quantity= a royally screwed Germany.

Only thing Germany wasn't prepared for was Winter- apparently they didn't read about Napoleon. Their supply-lines were still mostly non-motorized- I really wish I was kidding, but most of the Fatherland's supplies were being trudged around by horses. Of course their supply line was over-extended and yes, that did put them at a disadvantage in the behemoth country of Russia. But when you compare the state of the Russian army and the German army, who has the advantage? I say Germany still had a very clear advantage- they had already rolled over several other countries [their soldiers were experienced, in other words], their morale was at an all time high [especially in the SS divisions] due to the perceived 'crusade against Bolshevism' finally taking place, the air superiority of the Luftwaffe and their edge in land technology [at the time]. They took a gamble that all of this would let them take Moscow before winter- and they obviously lost that gamble.

34/85 > 34.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']All in all, your point concerning nuclear warheads is that the significance between each nation's number (or quality) becomes fairly trite. When you start talking about the nuclear capabilities of the US, Russia, and possibly France+Britain you are discussing how many times over you can destroy the face of the earth, much less individual nations. [/quote]

[color=crimson]You were implying that numerical superiority in nuclear warheads actually means something, lol. I think we might have just inadvertently agreed, hm.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Consider this, after the pacific is conquered, and hypothetically America's armed forces rendered usless... I doubt Japan would have wanted to leave the US on it's own... even Yamato understood the danger that our nation posed towards the survival of the newly conquered Pacific islands. I'm pretty sure some sort of peace treaty/armistace involving the US's disarmament would have followed in the wake of a Japanese victory.[/quote]

[color=crimson]But, there would be no invasion of the "homeland" as you put it. That is one "What if?" that can't happen.

If you think millions of Japanese citizens violently resisting an assault by US marines is bad, imagine all the PO'ed American citizens if Japan even tried to step onto the lower 48's soil.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Perhaps I mistaken counting Poland among the "Allied" nations. As it were, despite his "respect" it would be naive to assume he didn't' anticipate a declaration of war after invading Poland. It would also be naive to think that he wasn't preparing to invade not only France, but Great Britain... research Operation Seawolf.[/quote]

[color=crimson]He had gotten away with Austria, Czechoslovakia- it was already shown that, thusfar, the Allies really wanted to avoid another World War, at any cost. What was to make him think they would actually declare war? They had been pretty much push-overs prior to that, you know? They alienated both Italy and the USSR- Italy suddenly realized "Why the heck am I arguing with Germany when none of these guys are backing me up?" and the USSR, well- we all know how that turned out. That isn't exactly a good track record of standing up to Germany. Of course, he was rather blatantly crossing lines here and there, as much as possible- but he genuinely respected Britain, as noted in Mein Kampf. His enemy was Communist Russia- that is what he wanted to see destroyed. And the Fuhrer's enemy still became America's enemy.

Heh. Poland felt betrayed by the Allies- twice betrayed, actually. The alliance stated that if Poland were attacked by Germany, that there would be British and French troops helping to defend Poland within two weeks- it is partially why Poland fell. They kept pulling back and pulling back, trying to just hold out for the two weeks so that the Allied troops would come and save them- Britain and France mobilized, they were ready for war but.. the two weeks passed, and the Allies never came. The Poles held off for twice as long as that, but the British and French never showed up and fulfilled their end of the deal. Then of course there is that whole Warsaw Uprising/USSR thing.

By the way, Seawolf? That was unfamiliar to me.. I tried to look it up and didn't get any pages that were really relevant to World War 2. Did you mean Operation Sealion, perhaps?[/color]


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Irrelevant, Hitler had already broken Verseilles and everyone saw ware coming. The Magenot line saw it coming, Chamberlain saw it coming... it was inevitable once Hitler was in power.[/quote]

[color=crimson]What does the Maginot Line have to do with anything? Andre Maginot already had the idea several years before Hitler was even known of- he had been trying to get it built since the end of WW1, lol. Chamberlain? The same guy who proclaimed "Peace for our time" after the Munich Agreement? That's amusing. If you say so, good sir- if you say so.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson']I don't care about atrocities and what nation has numerical superiority with them, I wasn't involved in that discussion. Nations exist and they all wish to continue existing- the 'business' they are in requires bloodshed of differing degrees. I was just tossing you another war that is questionable in nature, lol. Maybe flexing my historical muscles a bit. *flex* *flex* Yeah.. [/color][/quote]

Looks like we got tickets to the gun show?

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
[color=crimson]It doesn't. It wasn't meant to oppose your claim. I wasn't involved in that debate either, lol.[/color] [/QUOTE]

That?s silly! I just figured since it began a debate, remained a debate, and you quoted me?. You were debating me? Maybe my meds are wearing off?

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
I said first two years for a reason. After that, the quality of the Russian army had increased substantially over a short amount of time- especially their tanks. Above average quality+quantity= a royally screwed Germany.

Only thing Germany wasn't prepared for was Winter- apparently they didn't read about Napoleon. Their supply-lines were still mostly non-motorized- I really wish I was kidding, but most of the Fatherland's supplies were being trudged around by horses. Of course their supply line was over-extended and yes, that did put them at a disadvantage in the behemoth country of Russia. But when you compare the state of the Russian army and the German army, who has the advantage? I say Germany still had a very clear advantage- they had already rolled over several other countries [their soldiers were experienced, in other words], their morale was at an all time high [especially in the SS divisions] due to the perceived 'crusade against Bolshevism' finally taking place, the air superiority of the Luftwaffe and their edge in land technology [at the time]. They took a gamble that all of this would let them take Moscow before winter- and they obviously lost that gamble. [/color][/QUOTE]

Why did you waste all those wonderful carbohydrates typing up basically expounding what I had said in my prior post? Flexing again? Just suggest Googling ?World War Two? and save us the trouble.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
[color=crimson]You were implying that numerical superiority in nuclear warheads actually means something, lol. I think we might have just inadvertently agreed, hm. [/color][/QUOTE]

And it took quoting me to figure out that was my point in the first place?

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
[color=crimson]But, there would be no invasion of the "homeland" as you put it. That is one "What if?" that can't happen.
If you think millions of Japanese citizens violently resisting an assault by US marines is bad, imagine all the PO'ed American citizens if Japan even tried to step onto the lower 48's soil. [/color][/QUOTE]

I mean, that would be wishful thinking to consider the possibility that the United States would just be left alone. While the invasion of the US, besides a few islands in Alaska, is completely hypothetical; I would wonder exactly ?what if? the Japanese [i]had[/i] destroyed the majority of our fleet at Midway? and let?s say that Germany [i]did[/i] succeed in not only invading GB, but Mother Russia. I sincerely doubt any war would have ended between Japan or the US without some sort of dynamic series of events, whether it be the atomic bomb, or some sort of massive invasion.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
[color=crimson]He had gotten away with Austria, Czechoslovakia- it was already shown that, thusfar, the Allies really wanted to avoid another World War, at any cost. What was to make him think they would actually declare war? They had been pretty much push-overs prior to that, you know? They alienated both Italy and the USSR- Italy suddenly realized "Why the heck am I arguing with Germany when none of these guys are backing me up?" and the USSR, well- we all know how that turned out. That isn't exactly a good track record of standing up to Germany. Of course, he was rather blatantly crossing lines here and there, as much as possible- but he genuinely respected Britain, as noted in Mein Kampf. His enemy was Communist Russia- that is what he wanted to see destroyed. And the Fuhrer's enemy still became America's enemy. [/color][/QUOTE]

Fair enough, Hitler hated communism. He annexed Czechoslovakia, Austria, and invaded Poland after rising to power on restoring Germany to its next golden age on anti-communist idealism? I don?t think his motives were so limited. While it is true that his intentions from the beginning included invading Russia, to say that he didn?t count on any sort of retribution from Britian and France after invading Poland would be absurd.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
By the way, Seawolf? That was unfamiliar to me.. I tried to look it up and didn't get any pages that were really relevant to World War 2. Did you mean Operation Sealion, perhaps?[/color] [/color][/QUOTE]

Way to dance around that one, Taglioni.

[QUOTE=DeathKnight]
[color=crimson]What does the Maginot Line have to do with anything? Andre Maginot already had the idea several years before Hitler was even known of- he had been trying to get it built since the end of WW1, lol. Chamberlain? The same guy who proclaimed "Peace for our time" after the Munich Agreement? That's amusing. If you say so, good sir- if you say so.[/color][/QUOTE]

I don?t know, maybe after Maurice Gamelin sent twelve divisions to fortify the Maginot line during 1937-1939 they were just riding on a ?hunch?. Please note that I never implied the original construction of the line in my post. As for Chamberlain, he was proclaiming ?Peace for our time? like he could somehow delay the inevitable. That requires two things: seeing the inevitable coming, and trying to stop it. Chamberlain wasn?t as fooled as we?d like to pretend, he was just foolish.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I sincerely doubt any war would have ended between Japan or the US without some sort of dynamic series of events, whether it be the atomic bomb, or some sort of massive invasion.[/quote]

[color=crimson]If Japan had kept the resources she acquired in the Oceania and pummeled China into total submission, then I suppose something dynamic on her part would be well within reach due to her massive industry.[/color]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I don?t think his motives were so limited.[/quote]

[color=crimson]His intelligence was marred with personal vendettas against many people [or rather, types of people], vendettas that made him make questionable decisions throughout his reign.

Heh. The relevancy of our discussion to the topic could be questioned. But, when you consider that Fascism was the third option back before Communism and Democracy teamed up to knock her down, it seems valid to me.[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]To qualify this debate here once and for all:

[quote=Source]The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

The first is easy to understand: what think you of government? Is it an object of idolatry, a positive good, necessary evil, or unmitigated evil? Obviously that forms a spectrum, with various anarchists at the left end and reactionary monarchists at the right. The American political parties tend to fall toward the middle.

Note also that both Communists and Fascists are out at the right-hand end of the line; while American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism are in about the same place, somewhere to the right of center, definitely "statists." (One should not let modern anti-bureaucratic rhetoric fool you into thinking the US Conservative has really become anti-statist; he may want to dismantle a good part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but he would strengthen the police and army.) The ideological libertarian is of course left of center, some all the way over to the left with the anarchists.

That variable works; but it doesn't pull all the political theories each into a unique place. They overlap. Which means we need another variable.

"Attitude toward planned social progress" can be translated "rationalism"; it is the belief that society has "problems," and these can be "solved"; we can take arms against a sea of troubles.

Once again we can order the major political philosophies. Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises. It appeals to "the greatness of the nation" or to the volk, and also to the fuhrer-prinzip, i.e., hero worship.

Call that end (irrationalism) the "bottom" of the spectrum and place the continuum at right angles to the previous "statism" variable. Call the "top" the attitude that all social problems have findable solutions. Obviously Communism belongs there. Not far below it you find a number of American Welfare Liberals: the sort of people who say that crime is caused by poverty, and thus when we end poverty we'll end crime. Now note that the top end of the scale, extreme rationalism, may not mark a very rational position: "knowing" that all human problems can be "solved" by rational actions is an act of faith akin to the anarchist's belief that if we can just chop away the government, man truly free will no longer have problems. Obviously I think both top and bottom positions are whacky; but then one mark of Conservatism has always been distrust of highly rationalist schemes. Burke advocated that we draw "from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues "we don't understand the purpose of this social custom; let's dismantle it," the conservative says "since we don't understand it, we'd better leave it alone."

Anyway, those are my two axes; and using them does tend to explain some political anomalies. For example: why are there two kinds of "liberal" who hate each other? But the answer is simple enough. Both are pretty thorough-going rationalists, but whereas the XIXth Century Liberal had a profound distrust of the State, the modern variety wants to use the State to Do Good for all mankind. Carry both rationalism and statism out a bit further (go northeast on our diagram) and you get to socialism, which, carried to its extreme, becomes communism. Similarly, the Conservative position leads through various shades of reaction to irrational statism, i.e., one of the varieties of fascism.

On the anti-statist end of the scale we can see the same tendency: extreme anti-rationalism ends with the Bakunin type of anarchist, who blows things up and destroys for the sake of destruction; the utterly rationalist anti-statist, on the other hand, persuades himself that somehow there are natural rights which everyone ought to recognize, and if only the state would get out of the way we'd all live in harmony; the sort of person who thinks the police no better than a band of brigands, but doesn't think that in the absence of the police, brigands would be smart enough to band together. [/quote]

[img]http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.jpg[/img]

There is your answer.[/size]

[James]

[QUOTE=Sciros Darkblade]
James don't argue with me on this. It's not incorrect. The government called itself socialist. It's not a mistake on my part nor is the USSR an improper name. How the heck can you tell me that the USSR was not socialist? [/quote]

[color=#811C3A][b]Edit:[/b] Apologies, but I clicked "Edit" on your post, rather than "Quote". V_V

If you'd like to edit and earlier post of yours with your earlier response, please feel free to do so.

Okay, let's clear this up a little bit.

Firstly, I am not trying to argue that Socialism and Communism do not overlap. Socialism and Communism have many similarities -- but they are different, physically and ideologically.

Communists essentially believe that when the working class and its allies are in a position to do so, they must fundamentally change the character of the state. That is, a "Capitalist class", which reigns over a worker class is replaced by a "worker class", which regins over the Capitalist class. The goal is to essentially destroy a Capitalist class to create a classless society.

The key here is that Communism cannot be built from existing Capitalist systems. In order for Communism to function, the old economic machinery needs to be destroyed and replaced. Critically, the old ruling class must be given no opportunity to have a voice or power in society -- that group is to be resisted wherever it rises.

Socialism is slightly different. Socialism doesn't go quite as far as Communism -- it is possible to maintain the machinery of the Capitalist state. Socialists do not tend to view Capitalism in the same way as Communists. That is, they don't tend to view it as a system where the "Capitalist class" maintain a dictatorship over the working class (where Communists do). Instead, they view Capitalism as being a reasonable system, where its resources can be directed however the ruling group at the time wishes. Under this environment, it is not necessary to go out there and crush the old Capitalist class. Instead, Socialism can work within the boundaries of a Capitalist, democratic system, to make incremental change.

Most critically, Communists applaud the Soviet Union. Why? Because they view it as the achievement of "true" Socialist ideals (as mentioned, Communism is more or less an extension of Socialism). Whereas [i]true socialists[/i] tend to condemn the Soviet Union, because it hasn't actually built the ideal kind of Socialism that they are looking for. It has, instead, moved much closer to being a Communist state (particularly during Stalin's reign -- and particularly if you compare it to states like China).

So, I think you probably could argue that the USSR never practiced Communism -- however, you could also argue the opposite. If you look at the USSR's political structure (particularly its violent system of re-education), you could argue that there was a consistent attempt to avoid the old "ruling class" from returning to power.

China is an even more clear example -- China is definitely a Communist state, with the Communist Party as its government. I don't know what Chinese you've been talking to, but any Chinese people I've ever known (and there are a hell of a lot in my country), regard China as a Communist state.

In terms of Communism and its application, you only need to look at China's revolution, [i]particularly[/i] the burning of books and the imprisonment of intellectuals. Don't forget that Communism isn't just about the application of economic principles, it also involves a political ideology that actively attempts to subvert a perceived "Capitalist class".

In all reality, this conversation could go on forever. It could go on forever because, as mentioned, Socialism and Communism are [i]almost[/i] one in the same. This is why it isn't terribly erroneous for people to use the word "Communism", even though it could be said that there are varying degrees of Communist elements in Socialist nations (and vice versa).

I just want to be that much clearer, because I'm not some ignorant fool who is spouting off without knowing my facts. This is particularly true in the case of China, which is in my own backyard -- an American from the other side of the world, telling me that China is not a Communist state, simply doesn't ring true with me.

Also, I would ask you to try and be a little less abrasive with your responses. If you're going to have a discussion with me (or anyone else), I espect a basic level of respect to be going on here. Lacing your posts with blatant rudeness is not going to serve you well here.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]China is an even more clear example -- China is definitely a Communist state, with the Communist Party as its government. I don't know what Chinese you've been talking to, but any Chinese people I've ever known (and there are a hell of a lot in my country), regard China as a Communist state.
...
I just want to be that much clearer, because I'm not some ignorant fool who is spouting off without knowing my facts. This is particularly true in the case of China, which is in my own backyard -- an American from the other side of the world, telling me that China is not a Communist state, simply doesn't ring true with me.[/QUOTE]
James I'm [i]FROM[/i] the USSR. I was born there, and my parents spent most of their life there. China was "our own backyard" even more so than it is yours. Don't try to measure credibility by proximity.

And yes, they have the Communist party ruling, just like the USSR did, but that doesn't make the state communist. Not in terms of [i]what is actually practiced[/i]. See, the important distinction to make is between what is practiced and what is preached--the act and the ideology. Whatever the professed ideology of the USSR was (and that was communist), in practice it was a socialist state. Communism (and as a socioeconomic condition there is only one kind) never existed in practice. If you want to call states that aimed for communism but had socialism in the meantime "Communist," fine, but they remain socialist in the meantime. So when someone says that China is a communist nation, they can only mean in terms of ideology and in terms of the name of the ruling party. In reality it is capitalist/socialist as far as structure goes.

The bottom line here is that communism was never practiced. The only "form" that was, was the definition (b) form, which is socialism with a communist ideology. But in practice that is socialism, not communism. Communism is a socioeconomic condition, and it is the existence of [i]that[/i] that is in question. Not the ideology.

[QUOTE]Also, I would ask you to try and be a little less abrasive with your responses. If you're going to have a discussion with me (or anyone else), I espect a basic level of respect to be going on here. Lacing your posts with blatant rudeness is not going to serve you well here.[/color][/QUOTE]
James you know there is mutual respect here. I don't know what you saw as blatant rudeness, but whatever, I can't even go back and check at this point. As for the "going to serve me well," unless you mean it as a threat don't even bother to mention it.

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]James I'm [i]FROM[/i'] the USSR. I was born there, and my parents spent most of their life there. China was "our own backyard" even more so than it is yours. Don't try to measure credibility by proximity.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]I only mention it because Australia has a very large Chinese population. And I've never heard any of them lable China as anything other than Communist -- it is commonly accepted that China is a Communist state, in this region of the world, at least.

Nobody is saying that China practices "pure Communism" or whatever you want to call it -- but no country really practices "pure Capitalism" either -- modern democracies such as Australia and the United States have some socialist elements to them, at least in ideological terms (if not direct economic terms, hence the welfare systems in both nations).

China's subversion of the "capitalist class" is part of what dictates their Communist government agenda. You only have to talk to residents of Hong Kong to get a clear indication of that.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]
The bottom line here is that communism was never practiced. The only "form" that was, was the definition (b) form, which is socialism with a communist ideology. But in practice that is socialism, not communism. Communism is a socioeconomic condition, and it is the existence of [i]that[/i] that is in question. Not the ideology.[/quote]

[color=#811C3A]As I've mentioned, Communism could be considered an extension of Socialism.

My point is that when people label China as Communist, they are [i]not[/i] incorrect -- there is a significant element of truth in that statement, particularly if you talk to dissidents who have been expelled from the country due to their "class", or their social status, particularly as it relates to being a perceived threat to the Communist Party.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkblade]
James you know there is mutual respect here. I don't know what you saw as blatant rudeness, but whatever, I can't even go back and check at this point. As for the "going to serve me well," unless you mean it as a threat don't even bother to mention it.[/QUOTE]

[color=#811C3A]It's possible to debate without being rude. I felt that some of your comments were more than a little uncalled for -- it's possible to have a substantive debate without instantly being rudely dismissive of another's point of view.

My point is that such behavior isn't compatible with what we desire to see at OtakuBoards. So, if you want to continue debating/discussing here, I expect you to demonstrate a reasonable level of respect for others. That's all I'm saying -- and it applies to everyone, not just yourself.[/color]