quote: It seems that the interest of SE has again increased, so I am currently thinking about posting my good ol' SE system in a thread for you to comment on. Do you think I should?

Dear Joker,

I guess we all agree then about the kind of communism that ruled Russia and other parts of the world? It didn't work the way that was intended by Marx.
The only question is if ANY kind of communism would work in the way Marx predicted.
As I mentioned before, modern democratic countries put more of Marx ideas in praktice than Communist paties anywhere in the world ever did.
As Venger pointed out Marx idea of nationalizing means of production did (and IMHO too always will) kill initiative.
The worth of Marx work isn't so much his foretelling the future (as it has been proven wrong so far), but his philosophical ideas about human behavior. He was however overly optimistic in the goodness of mankind.

quote: ...it was a foolish venture, but anyone who doubts the pervasiveness of Soviet espionage in the United States and it's coordiantion with spy cells should read Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, an excellent book about Soviet cold war espionage activities in America.

And I am sure I can find some stalinistic book on how the US is actually spying on the Soviets. If all you are to read is proamerican litterature then you are only seing things from one side.

quote: Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

How about yourself? When the US only allowed the wealthies 20% (or more or less) of it's population to vote long into the 20th century then it is not a real democracy. Like the Soviet Union wasn't one.

As I can not at the moment find any primary litterature about the subject, then how about me quoting Marting Luther King:

"Why is it that the black people of our southern states can not vote, and that the ones of our northern ones do not do so?"

(I am typing this off my memory, so every word might not be correct. The essence, however, is the same)

Why would the good man Martin Luther King write that if it had nothing to do with reality? I don't care if it was in the constitution or whatever. Fact is, that if an entire ethnic minority can not vote, no matter ho it is done, then the US is not democratic.

quote: He doesn't even make the needle move on the Hitler-meter. The truly evil dictators are one of a kinds - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

Saddam has experimented on the effectivity on his nerve gas on his own people. I would call that pretty evil. Of cause, this is relative, but I would call Saddam almost as evil as Hitler.

But still, you are focusing on unimportant details and missing my point. When the US are supposed to be the great protector of democracy why did it support so many totally nondemocratic dictators? I will tell you why: Because the majority of the people in those countries wanted socialism, which the US due to the containtment policy wanted to avoid. So they supported these dictators because they maintained a capitalist system in these countries.

This policy has nothing to do with maintaining justice or acting like the good guys. It is pure security policy. Like I said: In international politics there is no good guys or bad guys. Just power. And power always justifies itself, as J. William Fullbright wrote.

quote: Examples PLEASE...

Hmm, I went to www.wto.org and tryed to find something there. Here goes (about the US):

"Notwithstanding the low overall level of tariff protection, 5% of MFN tariffs involve rates exceeding three times the overall average; such tariff "peaks" affect some agricultural and food products as well as textiles, clothing and footwear."

Of cause the third world can not compete in very high tech sectors. But in certain areas, such as clothing (very labourintensive) they can due to their low labour prices. And to protect national production they have high tarrifs on certain things. Touche?

quote: Hmmm...what does productivity buy you without consumption?

What are you talking about? Money is just a thing you use to buy things with as it is easier than bartering. The velocity of money is not important. If the velocity suddently slows down it would mean nothing more than that there would be a lack of money, which would give deflation, and we would end in the same situation as we started in after a few years of recession due to the inertia of the economic system (people need some time to figure out the new economic situation). Or at least that's what I think, because I am a neokeynesian. A classisist would say that everybody would emmidiately realise the new situation and act upon it - lower their prices and wage.

quote: I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents.

Your first argument simply suggests that you are ignorant. Your second has no relevance in this discussion what so ever.

quote: What profit? What the hell are we stealing? Raw materials? Labor? Name the sector. We are in an information age economy that doesn't rely on raw materials.

If you actually mean that we today don't need any raw materials then I see no point of continuing this discussion. We use more raw materials today than we have ever done before! The reason the information economy etc etc is coming is, that the labour needed for producing the raw materials and manufactuaring them into goods has dropped enormeously in the last 100 years due to rises in productivity. This had freed a lot of labour, that didn't have anything to do. Then they just start doing new things, like running internet companies. But all this is, and will always be, an addon to the unerlaying economic system. The underlaying system just doesn't employ as many people, and due to the relative drop in the cost of these goods and raw materials, it doesn't produce as large a part of the GNP as it used to. But it is still equally important to the society as a whole. If we have no food, no clothes and no electricity we wouldn't care about internet shopping.

First-- everyone here who's at all interested-- listen to the Communist Internationale. You can Napster the Billy Bragg version--I'm sure he wouldn't mind you hearing that song, he won't sue you. For money. Like Metallica. Like CAPITALISM!
Ever see the movie Scarface? 8)? I think Tony Montana said it pretty well and straight with 'Jou know what Capitalism is? Gettin' ****ed!'
And /this/ was a Cuban, one of the dregs of the jails sent over. I know it's fictional, but is it ever true.
In case you didn't know, Cuba is Socialist.
In case you didn't know, the Cuban people are much better provided for under Fidel.
In case you don't know, Fidel offered to send doctors to Harlem.

Capitalism is based on war.
You take, you take, you fight--and it takes your life, it becomes your life. Forget that, Vengie. Forget that, Tibby-tibby-tabtab-tabuli-buddy.
Communism doesn't take away initiative. I refuse to believe, no matter what you could EVER tell me, that pure, right, strong human emotion could be overcome by money.
Ever watch a children's cartoon, wherein the animals live in a classless, currenciless society? Wasn't that peaceful, and right, compared to the crap going on in the 'free world' now? Where the Republicans hate half the country, and a nation is collectively sighing over a pile of bills? You do not know what Communism is, Venger, Tiberius, and anyone who would speak against it like you do. Your outdated and plain evil notions of the world and human nature are sickening, and I challenge your life experience. I challenge, saying that you do not know enough, that you have not experienced enough, and that your consciousness is not human enough to comprehend peace or the vision of a happily united Earth.
I stop there, though. Regardless of your politcal ideas now, _I_ can realize the type of conditioning and propaganda that the US has done to you. Don't bring up anything about Soviet Russia--they weren't real Marxism. But I deeply respect Russian culture, and I hope that everyone here, Communist or Capitalist, can listen to the music of that land and know the beauty of its people. All people are beautiful, even Venger and Tiberius. See how passionately they persue Capitalist hate now? Just imagine if they had been raised under more supportive and peaceful conditions. They would poets, or artists, or philosophers. This is an example of the corruption that Capitalism and the subtle yet evil actions of the US brings to people. Know that whatever they say here, no matter what words they type, they are a product--and isn't that horrible? It's sickening. I'm very sure that they feel love and happiness, but just imagine that their very minds have been twisted by Capitalism into that hate and close-mindedness. They themselves are not sickening. As humans, I love them and respect them and hope they can be happy. I think it's very sad that so many otherwise beautiful people have to be so mutilated by Capitalism.
Even if racial groups are allowed to vote, the US system of it is a vile trick. It is not Representitive Democracy, but Bourgeois Democracy! It is a four-year Dictatorship! Voters have no say in policy, and are unable to recall their representitives! It is only an illision that by voting you are controlling the political process. You can talk to people on the street, I'm sure you'll find a whole lot who disagree with lots of goings ons right now. But are they able to change it? You can argue that protest allows, but you know that's not even a half-truth. I know that you will go through this, systematically taking out quotes (and destroying my literary flow in the process, but that works out better for you), and you will go through nearly every thing. But what you will say afterwards will be mindless. Insult or propaganda. You have been blocked from the truth, and I completely understand why you would think what you do. And it is to stop the hate and arrogance and evil, malignant ignorance that people like me continue.
Thank you, all, and I apologize if this is considered 'spam'.

Proudly,

quote: So we steal the raw materials so we can make it here. Are you insane? Why bring materials here to $12 an hour labor when you can get $1 an hour on site?

Becasue if we started moving all of our production out to these countries the wages there would move up, so we would end up not being able to get cheap raw materials from them any more. So in the long run it would be better to live off from them by having them produce most of the raw materials and having us manufacture them.

quote: What profit? Do you know the average margin on manufactured goods in this country? Sears doesn't make money on the stove, they make money on the repair contract for it. CompUSA doesn't make money on the computer, they make money on the software. For God's sake man, he days of stealing gold from the Natives for shipment to Spain are LONG GONE...

Do you mean that I should bring back ye ol' SE Thread? I was thinking of maybe making a new one, as all the people posting in the old one is, in an Apolyton manner, deceased.

Despotism:
I agree that despotism is a somewhat indefinit concept. I always assumed that it would describe the ancient military based, but still absolutely ruled civs. I think the absolute monarchy, the monarchies in Europe after the king took all power from the nobilities (in Denmark it happened in 1660) and therefor had absolute power.

Would you say that monarchy was the first government form or what? I would mean that something had to have come before it, but I am not sure what.

Marcel:

I think that the most significant work Marx did was his describtion of the capitalist system. No other theory can better describe the economic crisises that frequently occur in capitalism better than marxism. His work on the profitrates tendency to drop is incredible. Especcially as he is right! In all sectors of capitalism the profitrate drops always due to the increased competition. Marx thought this would end in a permanent recession in all communist countries, which in the end would leave everybody poor enough to realise how bad capitalism was.

I think (this is my own personal theory) that the reason this might not neccesarilly happend is that the technological development not only increases productivity (which was what Marx thought) but also creates new sectors, in which the competition is now so rough. This means that the size of the companies doesn't grow as fast as he thought, as the old companies are not neccesarilly good at competing in the new sectors. This keeps the economic development dynamic, and not static as Marx thought. But hey, that's just my oppinion.

Prince:

It is very interesting to hear from an actual communist. Are you a traditional marxist (meaning that you think that communism is inevitable due to the general economic development) or just a socialist (meaning you would just like us all to pay 80% tax so equality is obtained this way)? I would really like to know.

I, unlike some people here, can respect your opinion, although I miht not share it.

quote: Even if racial groups are allowed to vote, the US system of it is a vile trick. It is not Representitive Democracy, but Bourgeois Democracy! It is a four-year Dictatorship! Voters have no say in policy, and are unable to recall their representitives! It is only an illision that by voting you are controlling the political process. You can talk to people on the street, I'm sure you'll find a whole lot who disagree with lots of goings ons right now. But are they able to change it? You can argue that protest allows, but you know that's not even a half-truth.

I also believe in the ideal of direct democracy, especcially since the technological development has made it possible. However, I do fear that it would make some people, populists, that can say what the people want them to say, to influence the political process enough for the democracy to stop. I fear, that the people are not smart enough to overlook the complexity of many laws. I fear, that it might end like in Athens, where the people ended up voting on what they just felt like - like executing all of the city's generals only to vote on them being innocent the next day and start going after the people who wanted them being executed. But I do hope, that it is possible, and I do hope, that it will be done.

I hope that you will go through this thread and tell us your opinion about all that we have written. I would really like to hear your viewpoints.

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 05-24-2000 06:07 PM Dear OrangeSfwr, In my opinion you are using a very limited and rather personal definition of 'democracy', which does not help the discussion on the subject in any way. My suggestion is to use the general accepted application of the concept.

Yes I realize that Democracy has taken on those last two definitions in today's society. I used Direct Democracy for my point, but I can still argue - how can you call Greece democratic? They had Slaves, same with the US and many other countries about a century back. It's really a republic based form of government.

Today, we have billion dollar lobbyist groups who run our government, not the people. Representative government is simply a GAME for the rich and powerful. If we worked more on a direct representation government than the people would be represented better. But as long as we use this trustee-representative system in the US, we will always be a Democratic Republic.

quote: Fact is, that if an entire ethnic minority can not vote, no matter ho it is done, then the US is not democratic.

Also true, furtering my argument that no country is or has been completely democratic.

As for your socialism comment - I apologize, "Socialist Government" was really not a good way to label Sweeden's government. What you said is more accurate - that they are influenced by leaders that have socialist ideals. (Because how can you have a "socialist government" you really can't, it's an economic system, not a governmental system.) So yes I see your point, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the tax on Gas is so high because of the high taxes a socialist system brings. I'm not saying the Sweedish model is wrong, Sweeden and the US are actually very similar when it comes to facts and figures (Literacy, life expectancy, GDP/capita, etc.) But our ideologies are completely opposite. In Sweeden everyone has medical care, education, they're even GIVEN money for college by the state! So I don't see what your big "cough cough NO" venger impersenation is all about. My facts on socialism are correct.

BTW: does anyone know - what's the Denmark economy like?

Marcel - Have you (or anyone following this thread) ever read "The Time Machine"? It's a great book detailing the future of the Earth where the struggle between the Captalists and Communists forced humans to split into two species. If anyone has, I would like to make a connection. The aboveground species ("Eloi" - Captalists) seem to be the Ideal Communists why the belowground species ("Morlocks" - Communists) seem to be the ideal Capitalists.

Basically for Communism you need perfect people who always want to do what is right and never complain and always have a smile on their face, never upset. Basically - you need the infinitely stupid. For true Captalism you need the opposite. Pure Genuises (lol). The world is a mix of both types of people. So you'll never be able to implement each type of Economy in the way they were meant to be. So the world continues to represent a breeding of the two. No country is really Communist, no country is completely Captalist. We're all Socialist to a different extreme. That's the way I see it at least. So I don't see Communism on Earth...ever.

quote: Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

Damn skippy...

Stand up, all victims of oppression,
for the tyrants fear your might.
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
for you have nothing if you have no rights!

Let racist ignorance be ended,
for respect makes the empire small.
Freedom is merely privelage extended,
unless you join by one and all!

So come brothers and sisters, for the struggle carries on!
The Internationale unites the world in song!

So, comrades, come rally--for this is the time and place!
The International ideal unites the Human race!

Let no one build walls to divide us--
walls of hatred nor walls of stone.
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us,
we'll live together or we'll die alone.

In our world, poisoned by exploitation,
those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one Earth on which to live.

So, come brothers and sisters,
for the struggle carries on!
The Internationale unites the world in song!

So, comrades, come rally,
for this is the time and place
The International Ideal unites the Human race!

And so begins the final drama,
in the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
we defy their guns and shields!
When we fight, provoked by their aggression,
let us be inspired by life and love!
For though they offer us concessions,
change will not come from above.

So, come brothers and sisters, for the struggle carries on! The Internationale unites the World in song! So, comrades, come rally--for this is the time and place!

The International Ideal Unites The Human Race!

...hey, Tibby-tabby? I looked all through that song, but you know what? I didn't find a single thing about enforcing New-Speak. Isn't that weird?

Going along more with 1984 really being about Capitalism, notice the the way songs for the Proles are made. Very similiar to the MTV crap that's messing up kids' minds nowadays, I'd say. They're also kept in check by a lotto, hoping to win it big. Just like 250,000,000 out of 265,000,000 people in the US are kept in check with that same wanting and waiting and hoping for the impossible 'promises' of Capitalism now.

quote: And I am sure I can find some stalinistic book on how the US is actually spying on the Soviets. If all you are to read is proamerican litterature then you are only seing things from one side.

Pro-American literature? This book is based nearly entirely on declassified Soviet documents!!! If this is going to degenerate into "that's just American propaganda", let's all save ourselves the time...

quote: How about yourself? When the US only allowed the wealthies 20% (or more or less) of it's population to vote long into the 20th century then it is not a real democracy. Like the Soviet Union wasn't one.

Where do you pull these figures from? They are not accurate whatsoever.

quote: "Why is it that the black people of our southern states can not vote, and that the ones of our northern ones do not do so?"

Poll taxes and literacy tests were obstacles to black voting - the poor and illiterate were often black. So - when those were outlawed, did we then become a democracy in your eyes?

quote: Saddam has experimented on the effectivity on his nerve gas on his own people.

He doesn't consider the Kurds his own people.

quote: I would call that pretty evil. Of cause, this is relative, but I would call Saddam almost as evil as Hitler.

I would see them worlds apart. Saddam is still a piece of shit however...

quote: But still, you are focusing on unimportant details and missing my point. When the US are supposed to be the great protector of democracy why did it support so many totally nondemocratic dictators?

Perceived US strategic interest.

quote: I will tell you why: Because the majority of the people in those countries wanted socialism, which the US due to the containtment policy wanted to avoid. So they supported these dictators because they maintained a capitalist system in these countries.

A majority huh? In which country in particular? The Phillipines? Nope. Many small nations had communist guerilla groups which were Soviet sponsored, and against which the US government fought by supporting governments felt better autocratic than communist.

quote: This policy has nothing to do with maintaining justice or acting like the good guys. It is pure security policy.

And?

quote: Like I said: In international politics there is no good guys or bad guys. Just power. And power always justifies itself, as J. William Fullbright wrote.

I think Fulbright would disagree. Read his works and I think his criticism of US policy indicates there are good and bad guys, but that good guys do bad things. And being good or bad comes after surviving...which both the US and Soviet Union felt was at stake in the Soviet Union.

Was the US good or bad in Vietnam? Was the Soviet Union good or bad erecting the Berlin wall? Good nations do bad things. Bad nations do bad things. Nations will do nearly anything they deem vital to their national interest when engaged in a serious confrontation with an enemy.

quote: "Notwithstanding the low overall level of tariff protection, 5% of MFN tariffs involve rates exceeding three times the overall average; such tariff "peaks" affect some agricultural and food products as well as textiles, clothing and footwear."

Tariffs of low cost consumer goods. That is hardly the theft of raw materials for the creation of luxury goods AND it's hardly tariffs on manufactured goods designed to keep the third world poor. You know how has pain in the ass tariffs? Japan and Europe. The U.S. has ongoing suits, talks, etc. just trying to get goods into those markets.

quote: Of cause the third world can not compete in very high tech sectors. But in certain areas, such as clothing (very labourintensive) they can due to their low labour prices. And to protect national production they have high tarrifs on certain things. Touche?

No, because that's exactly what I've been saying. Labor is the only resource a third world nation often has. The U.S. tariffs don't protect local clothes and textile production - those goods are STILL far cheaper manufactured overseas than in the U.S. Cheap industrial and soft textile labor jobs left 20 years ago. The only cheap labor jobs in America are service jobs...

quote: What are you talking about? Money is just a thing you use to buy things with as it is easier than bartering.

Productivity doesn't mean anything without consumption. If you can produce 20 widgets a day now instead of 10, that's only important if you can SELL 10 more. Consumption comes from wealth.

quote: The velocity of money is not important. If the velocity suddently slows down it would mean nothing more than that there would be a lack of money,

What? The velocity of money creates wealth. When it slows, it slows the entire economy, removes capital from investment (in a capitalist economy), and causes contraction of production. If money doesn't move, nothing gets produced. What's the point of money other than investment and expenditure?

quote: I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents. ---- Your first argument simply suggests that you are ignorant. Your second has no relevance in this discussion what so ever.

Ignorant? Welp, you've earned it...Go here and do likewise...

quote: If you actually mean that we today don't need any raw materials then I see no point of continuing this discussion.

I actually mean our economy is not driven by extraction of raw materials.

quote: We use more raw materials today than we have ever done before!

We use more raw materials but the produciton of raw materials accounts for a smaller portion of the economy in terms of real GDP

quote: The reason the information economy etc etc is coming is, that the labour needed for producing the raw materials and manufactuaring them into goods has dropped enormeously in the last 100 years due to rises in productivity.

Agriculture is really the only sector that lives up to your statement.

quote: But it is still equally important to the society as a whole. If we have no food, no clothes and no electricity we wouldn't care about internet shopping.

But we do have those things. What's your point? That we should pay as much for bread as for a microchip?

quote: Originally posted by PrinceOfWeasels on 05-25-2000 02:01 PM Capitalism is based on war.

Capitalism is based on property.

quote: You take, you take, you fight--and it takes your life, it becomes your life. Forget that, Vengie. Forget that, Tibby-tibby-tabtab-tabuli-buddy.

What are you smoking? Is it legal to grow your own in your country?

quote: Communism doesn't take away initiative.

I'm a Soviet factory worker. I make widgets. I make 2 an hour. I can make 3 an hour. But why? I will not get a pay raise, I will not be hired by a competitor who needs someone to make 3 an hour, I will not be given a raise for it.

I'm a Soviet farmer. I grow 10 bushels of wheat per acre. I can grow 12 bushels of wheat, but it will require more work. Since the additional wheat doesn't belong to me, but to the people's of the Soviet Union, I won't realize any reward for my hard work.

I'm a Soviet worker. I have a concept for a new widget. But the new widget will not belong to me. I won't realize any reward for my creative process or work in developing it. So why bother?

quote: I refuse to believe, no matter what you could EVER tell me, that pure, right, strong human emotion could be overcome by money.

Can you pay for my child? No. Can you pay for my work? Yes. Money is a fungible medium for transactions. It allows me to keep my work in my pocket or bank instead of in gold or sheep.

They key to capitalism is wealth. Not money.

quote: Ever watch a children's cartoon, wherein the animals live in a classless, currenciless society? Wasn't that peaceful, and right, compared to the crap going on in the 'free world' now?

Now I know why we won the Cold War.

quote: Where the Republicans hate half the country, and a nation is collectively sighing over a pile of bills? You do not know what Communism is, Venger, Tiberius, and anyone who would speak against it like you do. Your outdated and plain evil notions of the world and human nature are sickening, and I challenge your life experience. I challenge, saying that you do not know enough, that you have not experienced enough, and that your consciousness is not human enough to comprehend peace or the vision of a happily united Earth.

My God. I've seen the light. The light is above the padded room you're in. Time for your dosage of Thorazine.

quote: I stop there, though. Regardless of your politcal ideas now, _I_ can realize the type of conditioning and propaganda that the US has done to you.

Yep, that crazy free press and internet, we're all BRAINWASHED.

quote: Delusion deleted

My sincere apologies on your lobotomy.

quote: Becasue if we started moving all of our production out to these countries the wages there would move up, so we would end up not being able to get cheap raw materials from them any more.

What do you think happened and is happening? How many things do you get anymore built in Japan? They moved it to Korea. Then they moved it to Malaysia. Now they're moving it to Banglasdesh. That's the nature of a global economy.

quote: About your first argument I was talking about the profit from the third world countries. Because their productive capabilities the profitrate there is higher than that in the developed countries. Sadly, the low profitrate today has been foreseen by Marx 150 years ago (the profitrate's tendency to drop).

It's a natural consequence of competition. It's not sad, it's a boon to the consumer. Who is, by the way, the proliteriat...

You are right in stating that Marx’ analysis of capitalism in its raw form was important.
IMHO he was wrong in the way he described the inevitable end to the system. As you say yourself there were reasons why this end didn’t come in the way he foresaw. Capitalism in its raw form doesn’t exist anymore, maybe partly because of Marx’work.
BTW as Venger said decreased profit marges turned out to be for the consumers’ good.
Marx didn’t foresee that industrial massproduction would inevitably lead to massconsumption, which had to lead to better wages for the workers to buy these goods. Even the owners of means of production (e.g. Henry Ford) understood their workers were also potential consumers. Instead of the gradual impoverishment of an increasing number of people, the standard of living was going up. The collapse of the system didn’t come.

Prince,

You’re overly optimistic in the nature of ‘the beast called man’. If you were right there would be no criminals or leaders like Stalin, Saddam, Pinochet or Hitler.
Some people DO abuse power and trust, some are plain egoistic. Look at the kulaki (don’t know if it’s the right translation, but I hope you know what I mean) in the Soviet Union, shortly after the revolution. They worked only a small part of the land, but for their own profit, yet they produced half of the food in the country just after the revolution. It’s just the way people are motivated first themselves then/or their families and if there is anything left they will perhaps share it with other people.
Call me cynical, but I’m 39 and I guess I’ve met enough people in my life who wouldn’t fit in your socialist paradise. So I’ll call it an utopia.
Free market may not be a perfect system but until now it has at least been effective in raising the standards of living for many citizens in the western world. Combined with a democratic government it’s the best system that has proven itself so far. I’m not talking theory (that’s for games like Civ ), but real life.

I think it's so cool how you completely dodged many points I brought up, with insults. Just like I knew you would.
Capitalism is based on war. I don't mean what I'm sure you're thinking about--I mean what is behind war. The way war works.
But this war is bigger than any war before, with the number of parties involved, and also considering the cruelty and casualties.
You have thousands of companies, hundreds of parent companies, and dozens of mega-corporations, all fighting in the market. Competition is crushed, those people loe their jobs, and while they were fighting they're so stressed that their personal lives and intellectual ability for anything besides the business and the products, however important you seem to think they are (gotta get that new Voodoo7!), are compromised and in many cases destroyed. People are twisted by Capitalism, and you fail to see it. I believe it is because you have been conditioned to be greedy, because that is what Capitalism needs. You think that your products are neccesary. Who makes the produts? The labor of the third-world countries, that are kept from true Marxism by governments claiming to be Communist, which are the things you have associated with Communism ideaoligy in all your originality and comprehension, and the forces of the US that you yourself brought up. The people of those countries have been twisted worse than you--the work is completely their life, except for the love they have for their families and the hopes they have of something better someday.
The propaganda and the forces of Capitalism are as much of you as your parents are, and that is wrong. You argue for money against peace, which is impossible for a human to do without Capitalism's greed. Anyone can /say/ that Capitalism is for property, but /prove/ it, prove it beyond any doubt or any facts that anyone else could ever bring up. I assure you that that is impossible, because Capitalism is wrong.
People still have property under Communsim. No one will come into your home, grab something of yours, and walk out like it was theirs--because they'd have their own--that example proving unarguably true even if you refuse to believe that neighbourly love and respect can exist. There are no secret police that will come steal from your house beause they can--because they're people, like you, with their own things--and with nothing to /gain/ from stealing, no one would need to steal.
I understand more debates are ahead, but eventually the only way you will ever be able to find something I and the other people here will not be able to disprove is if you become completely rhetoric or abstract.
This Soviet factory worker. First, I told you to not bother bringing up Soviets--haven't you learned from how badly you've been disproved that the Soviet Union wasn't true Marxism? Before I take the wind out of your sails again, I will bring the argument to /you/, Venger.
I am an American factory worker in Silicone valley. I am a single mother, having one daughter, aged three. When I arrive in Silicone Valley, I find a job at a software packing facility for a large corporation. But it was as a 'temp' for a sub-contrating agency. My pay of 8.25 per hour is not enough to pay for my rent, food, and day-care for my child, because the prices of all were driven up to exploit the workers of the area. I move from homeless-shelter to homeless-shelter, along with thousands of other exploited workers, until I can finally get a job out of the area.*
I am a factory worker in a Marxist America. My day is from noon till five PM. I leave the house after I have lunch, and return to have dinner with my family. I work to put sneaker shoes together, on an assembly line with many other workers. We are glad to be making quality products that we ourselves and our neighbours will end up with, since we are producing for this area. We do not want ourselves to not have shoes, so we will make quality products. My shift is the last of the day.
And if the population increases, Venger, Tabouli, then more workers or more fatories are added. What a concept. I bet it must be evil someway, though, huh? That those people can work shorter hours in conditions that they control, to make their own products? They must be wanting to do something else besides making shoes! Well, I bet the factory-full of Chinese pre-teens don't want to make more high-priced Nikes than you'll ever need a little bit more than those people I described.
Why would you want to keep your work in your pocket when you could look around your entire world to see it helping people?
Yes, I know why you won the Cold War too. Because things got to a point where money was the deciding factor in the victory. America kept things tied with the Soviet Union until the economy had matured and gone global enough for them to break the USSR through that. I know you'll go on some talk about something you read in a spy book. Go ahead. We all know that everything we read is true. If it says it's declassified on the back of the book, then that /must/ be the case.

..delusion deleted? I never typed that, but it's really cool how you replied with an insult.
I challenge again. I challenge you to henceforth reply only with what is fact. Propaganda allowed, because that's what you'll know--but an insult proves further how truly feeble your arguments are.
You can /say/ anything, Venger. 'Capitalism is based on property'. 'Communism takes away initiative.' But lets see you /prove/ that, Venger. Go through every possibility, every scenario, and do it all in a true way.
You will never be able to, because you fight on a side that is primitive.

Those here who do not support Communism, yet see past the propaganda and actually know something of it, and also see the faults in the US's Capitalism, I do not challenge or insult you. This has become about crushing ignorance. But your minds, that look into all posibilities and analyze, I respect and would gladly work with. Your ideas are progress. Ignorance is the foot-in-the-door of an evil Capitalism.

I'd like to thank Joker and Marcel for being what I have described and made my respect known for.

Marcel -
I never claimed that evil /couldn't/ exist in man. I say that under Marxism, evil would not need to. There would be nothing at all to gain from some man stopping work, and stealing. If he just puts in his five hours a day, he can have everything he needs. If he doesn't enjoy his job, then there would be people whose job it is to find jobs for people who can't do a certain type of work. Many types of factories, someday, will not even need to be manned. The technology very nearly exists now, but if it were put into place, people under Capitalism wouldn't have jobs because they'd live in ghetto-type areas where there was very little else to do, legally. Technology like that put into place under Communism would result in thos epeople being able to move over to production for recreation, literary, or postitive morale products, or becoming teachers for new subjects, or becomming farmers to make sure everyone has the food they need.
Five hours out of twenty-four. Leaves time for a far better sleep than most people in Capitalism knows, and more time with their friends, family, and intellecutal progression than anyone under Capitalism knows, except the very rich.
I believe that human behavior is shaped by conditioning and dis-orders. Someone with dis-order to be obsessive compulsive for example could, through the gene-technology we see becoming more likely and safe, be cured. He would grow up introduced to enlightened concepts and literature, and a world very friendly.
I understand you could bring up the subject of mind-control through genetic-engineering, but I will take care of that argument now.
In a world or even nation controlled by the people, why would they want to hurt themselves? There are no secretive or hidden levels of government to do this type of crime. In fact, I find it much more likely to happen under the US system of government, wherein there are levels that we either don't know of or don't know all the activited of. It would be completely within their interests to 'tweak' certain parts of a human's mind--their conditioning is proof they're still wanting those results, and the types of experiments on their own people we now know that they did during the Cold War prove that they /would/ try.
The people you've met that wouldn't fit were conditioned by Capitalism. No one who is raised in a world with Capitalism is untouched by it, except some unknown tribe in Africa that's never seen any other people for as long as it's been around. They don't have money. They produce for themselves, as much as they need and at the quality they need it. You an argue that their medical technology is basically non-existant and that they have no modern technology, and suggest that I am saying that all of man should exist that way--but I agree with you in the first part, and I am not what you might say in the second.
I believe that Capitalism was a step needed to quickly bring about technology and certain quality-of-life advancements. But soon, the time we needed it will end, and humanity can move on to much happier.
It is seeming to me like you judge quality-of-life based on material posessions and medical technology. Going with material posessions, I think we can both agree that they are not what life is all about. And sofar as medical technology, that goes along with what I said about Capitalism quickly advancing certain areas.
I believe that life is about, much more than posessions, happiness first and most importantly, free-thought, art, nature, beauty, and enough intellectual development to be progressive and content and able to handle situations and ideas. All of these would be status-quo under a Communist world or nation, somewhat ahead of America in technology (the type of technology that America will shortly achieve anyway).
What I am trying to get across to you, Marcel, is that with Capitalist conditioning, there always will be people who won't 'fit' with the Marxist nation. The Marxist nation doesn't change above the people and filter down, as the US and its type of Capitalism do. The Marxist nation's power is from the core, which is the people. I am saying that I believe that in Marxism the 'human-nature' of greed would not have enough fuel to be what many people think it has to be. I am not giving an image of a world free from all conflict to you. Two men could fall in love with the same woman. A child somewhere might 'borrow' something without asking. Accidents would still happen. And that could happen hundreds of times a day, the world over. Conflict and suffering brings about knowledge and strength, so it is important that we never forget or try to leave suffering completely. It is in human nature to bring about some suffering to oneself at points. But I hope to put up, instead, a more realistic and possible and, I think, better world, wherein everyone at least has a chance and the love to want it.

Thank you.

*Basics of story taken from article on rednet.org

For anyone here that does not support Communism as it is, but still works to leave the evils in the Amercian Capitalist 'demoracy', I give respect and praise. Orangeswrfr, Marcel, and Joker, I know of.

Things will continue to move and change on this board, and things will continue to move and change in the world. And with the very intelligent people I've seen here wanting movement in change the way they are, I've got a feeling that both will leave people like Venger behind.

This is a note to the person who deleted my first post-- even if you delete this or edit it, the message will still go to the people it needs to go to. Just because you have access to a button doesn't mean that you can limit access to truth for people.

"The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work, Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and , as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
(source: K.Marx,'Manifesto of the Communist Party',1848)

What does a general reference book say about Marxism?

'Marxism may be said to have had three sources or to have merged three national streams: French revolutionism, the British Industrial Revolution, and German philosophy. Without the massive fact of the Great French Revolution standing at the opening of the nineteenth century it is doubtful whether anyone would have developed so improbable a doctrine as the abrupt and total renovation of human affairs by the Revolution. But revolution had in fact occurred; it therefore might occur again. What the bourgeoisie class had done, the workers could do too. And Marxism, along with all early forms of socialism, saw an unredeemed promise in the French Revolution, believing that social and economic equality should follow the civil and legal equality already won. In addition, and in keeping with the general movement of romanticism, the concept of liberty began also to mean a more personal emancipation. Marx, especially in his youthful writings, developed the idea of psychological alienation, a state of mind produced when a human being becomes divorced from the object on which he works, through the historic proces of mechanization and commercialization of labor.

The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848, coming within a few weeks of the publication of the Communist Manifesto, naturally confirmed Marx and Engels in their beliefs, and the actual class war that shook Paris in the June Days was taken by them as a manisfestation of a universal class struggle. But Marx was no mere insurrectionary schemer, like the "revolution-makers", as he contemptuously called them. His mature thought was no system for producing revolution, but it showed how the future revolution must come by the operation of vast impersonal forces.

quote: Originally posted by PrinceOfWeasels on 05-26-2000 08:55 AM Venger I think it's so cool how you completely dodged many points I brought up, with insults.

I labored but found no points.

quote: Just like I knew you would.

Well aren't you the clever one.

quote: Capitalism is based on war. I don't mean what I'm sure you're thinking about--I mean what is behind war. The way war works. But this war is bigger than any war before, with the number of parties involved, and also considering the cruelty and casualties. You have thousands of companies, hundreds of parent companies, and dozens of mega-corporations, all fighting in the market. Competition is crushed, those people loe their jobs, and while they were fighting they're so stressed that their personal lives and intellectual ability for anything besides the business and the products, however important you seem to think they are (gotta get that new Voodoo7!), are compromised and in many cases destroyed.

The word you are looking for is competition, not war. Do your kids war in the junior high track meet, or do they compete?

quote: People are twisted by Capitalism, and you fail to see it. I believe it is because you have been conditioned to be greedy, because that is what Capitalism needs.

Right, I fail to see what you see - I disagree, therefore it must be due to a failure on my part to see or understand.

quote: You think that your products are neccesary.

Like my car? Yes.

quote: Who makes the produts? The labor of the third-world countries,

My car was manufactured in Normal, Illinois with parts created in the United States and Japan.

quote: that are kept from true Marxism by governments claiming to be Communist, which are the things you have associated with Communism ideaoligy in all your originality and comprehension, and the forces of the US that you yourself brought up.

If only Communism worked.

quote: The people of those countries have been twisted worse than you--the work is completely their life, except for the love they have for their families and the hopes they have of something better someday.

What countries?

quote: The propaganda and the forces of Capitalism are as much of you as your parents are, and that is wrong.

Communist hysteria is like conspiritorial delusion - any facts that don't support you are part of the plot, those who oppose you are part of the conspiracy, those who don't believe you are too blind to see. Base your argument in fact, we'll talk fact. But you don't use facts, but rather rhetoric. Example:

"You are blinded by propaganda"

That has nothing to do with communism or capitalism.

quote: You argue for money against peace, which is impossible for a human to do without Capitalism's greed. Anyone can /say/ that Capitalism is for property, but /prove/ it, prove it beyond any doubt or any facts that anyone else could ever bring up. I assure you that that is impossible, because Capitalism is wrong.

Capitalism is wrong - more rhetoric. Do you have any facts, or rational arguments to make?

quote: People still have property under Communsim. No one will come into your home, grab something of yours, and walk out like it was theirs--because they'd have their own--that example proving unarguably true even if you refuse to believe that neighbourly love and respect can exist. There are no secret police that will come steal from your house beause they can--because they're people, like you, with their own things--and with nothing to /gain/ from stealing, no one would need to steal.

That's delusional. Are you saying there is a "need" to steal?

quote: I am an American factory worker in Silicone valley. I am a single mother, having one daughter, aged three. When I arrive in Silicone Valley, I find a job at a software packing facility for a large corporation.[quote] Sounds feasible for an unskilled uneducated single mother. [quote]But it was as a 'temp' for a sub-contrating agency.

Who the company is paying $16 an hour to contract for, so they see if you know what you're doing. Since they don't want to pay $16 an hour, they offer a permanent job at $10 an hour.

quote: My pay of 8.25 per hour is not enough to pay for my rent, food, and day-care for my child,

So my Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and EIC help cover these expenses. Since the factory has co-located daycare, I can leave my child at the local facility.

quote: because the prices of all were driven up to exploit the workers of the area.

Because high demand for land and labor are creating a labor shortage and inflationary pressure on core services such as child care. Do you know anything about economics?

Exploit the workers? Who is exploiting you? The capitalists? Aren' these the same people who won't steal your property or take you away in the night if only they'd been in a communist society?

quote: I move from homeless-shelter to homeless-shelter, along with thousands of other exploited workers, until I can finally get a job out of the area.*

I am moving into a 2 bedroom apartment close to the office. Federal student aid is allowing me to take free classes at the local university, and the university provides free day care to low income workers. My child and I have a caloric intake 35% higher than that typical of the same Soviet family. As labor is tight currently, I have high hopes of quick vertical advancement in my current job. At the least, it'll pay the bills while I finish my education, and I can expect a $38,000 entry level salary in my chosen profession.

The difference between my storyline and yours is that mine actually occurs in real life.

quote: I am a factory worker in a Marxist America. My day is from noon till five PM.

That's when I stand in line for bread.

quote: I leave the house after I have lunch, and return to have dinner with my family.

The 8 of us share a 2 bedroom apartment.

quote: I work to put sneaker shoes together, on an assembly line with many other workers.

Sneaker shoes are the highest tech product we make anymore.

quote: We are glad to be making quality products that we ourselves and our neighbours will end up with, since we are producing for this area.

Nobody really needs more shoes, but we make them anyways.

quote: We do not want ourselves to not have shoes, so we will make quality products.

We are afraid the political officer will report us if we complain about working conditions. I really wanted to be an airline pilot, but the Central Planner stated we needed more shoes. We currently have a warehouse full of shoes that are not shipping due to a railroad backlog caused by the failure to account for the overabundance shoes. We need more feet.

quote: My shift is the last of the day.

I will now take public transportation home, where I will see my family, unless the truck breaks down again.

quote: And if the population increases, Venger, Tabouli, then more workers or more fatories are added.

Of course! I mean, we must make more shoes! Regardless of what people want. Sandles? No, you get shoes. Boots? No, you get shoes.

quote: What a concept. I bet it must be evil someway, though, huh?

Just foolish, and fantastically inefficient.

quote: That those people can work shorter hours in conditions that they control, to make their own products?

The products AREN'T THEIRS. They HAVE NO CHOICE. They CONTROL NOTHING.

quote: They must be wanting to do something else besides making shoes!

Some may, some may not, but that should be for the workers, the managers, and the consumers to decide on in a free market.

quote: Well, I bet the factory-full of Chinese pre-teens don't want to make more high-priced Nikes than you'll ever need a little bit more than those people I described.

Yep, you're 100% right. Those workers in COMMUNIST CHINA really don't want to make Nikes either...

quote: Why would you want to keep your work in your pocket when you could look around your entire world to see it helping people?

What?

quote: Yes, I know why you won the Cold War too. Because things got to a point where money was the deciding factor in the victory. America kept things tied with the Soviet Union until the economy had matured and gone global enough for them to break the USSR through that.

Surprisingly, that's a poorly worded and simplistic explanation, but not entirely far from the truth. The Soviet Union was bankrupted - financially, technologically, morally.

quote: I know you'll go on some talk about something you read in a spy book. Go ahead. We all know that everything we read is true. If it says it's declassified on the back of the book, then that /must/ be the case.

All part of the conspiracy against Communism. I'm a bourgeois agent taking part in the giant anti-communist apparatus.

quote: ..delusion deleted? I never typed that, but it's really cool how you replied with an insult.

I typed that, in place of the delusional words you wrote.

quote: I challenge again. I challenge you to henceforth reply only with what is fact.

Oh....my....God....

I challenge you to provide *one* fact, *one* argument based in reason, *one* pertinent point.

quote: 'Capitalism is based on property'. 'Communism takes away initiative.' But lets see you /prove/ that, Venger.

Capital: accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income.

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by by private ownership of capital goods

Nuff said on that? That was from the famous anti-communist propaganda work "Webster's Dictionary".

What is the incentive in a communist form of government? I'll allow you to answer.

What is the incentive in a capitalist form of government? To directly affect your own economic outcome.

quote: I never claimed that evil /couldn't/ exist in man. I say that under Marxism, evil would not need to.

Evil does not exist out of a need. It exists independent of wealth, status, or need.

quote: There would be nothing at all to gain from some man stopping work, and stealing. If he just puts in his five hours a day, he can have everything he needs.

No, he can't. They tried. And do you really think that someone who works more is more inclined to steal?

quote: If he doesn't enjoy his job, then there would be people whose job it is to find jobs for people who can't do a certain type of work.

Of great, someone who's job it is to find jobs for those who don't like the job the person who finds jobs gave them.

quote: Many types of factories, someday, will not even need to be manned. The technology very nearly exists now, but if it were put into place, people under Capitalism wouldn't have jobs because they'd live in ghetto-type areas where there was very little else to do, legally. Technology like that put into place under Communism would result in thos epeople being able to move over to production for recreation, literary, or postitive morale products, or becoming teachers for new subjects, or becomming farmers to make sure everyone has the food they need.

Fanatically delusional. I'll let the remaining portion of the post go - flights of fancy need no commentary.

Venger

Venger said it all.
People aren't conditioned to be evil, it's almost instinctual, it happens without a reason or a particular cause.
Who would decide which genetical defects should be cured? What behavior is unwanted? All thoughts about what is good and what is evil are determined by a peoples history and culture. How would you ever find a world wide common ground on that. Do you really think I (and I think most people in the western world) would ever want to live in a "brave new world". Because that is what you're proposing in a way.
God/Allah/jehovah (etc) help us with the people who know the only way to rescue mankind.
Educate people and let them decide what to do themselves. It won't always give the effects you'd like, but at least it keeps life interesting.

I had never opened a thread with a resonance like this before... over 100 replies, that's new for me.

Surely we shouldn't use those static government forms like in civ2 but more those flexible and esily changeable ones like in SMAC.

Also I now understand why some people want to be ranked after their post quality not quantity . So manyso large posts, this should be new even for Apolyton. I wonder how long this discussion will go on this way.

Remember guys, someone has to open a new thread when this one reaches 150 posts

And now, fellows, WOULD YOUI PLEASE RETURN TO OUR TOPIC!! NOBODY IS INTERSTED IN THE LIFE EXPECTANCE IN 1950!!! WE WANT TO DISCUSS EFFICIENCIES OF GOVERNMENT FORMS!!!!

so, please, avoid further disgressing, will you?

------------------
ENERGIE!! DU BIST DA, WIE NOCH NIE!!
- taken from the ENERGIE COTTBUS anthem

I hope you will accept my humble apoligies for posting in your thread and introducing the topics of infant mortality, life expectancy and literacy rates in 1900, 1950 and 1980. I am really sorry.

Just one question: do you know a more effective way to determine the efficiency of a given economic or political system in a verifiable and objective way?

Sincere regards,

"I challenge your life experience"?

What the hell does that mean? Does it mean anything? And even if it does mean something, how can a 15-year old challenge ANYBODY'S life experience?

I think we just got carried away
My opinion on what kind of governments should appear in Civ3:
A SE model would be more realistic and flexible. I would vote for that.
I try to give a summarization of my thoughts on the subject.

Basically I think there are four ways government can be organised politically:
 Dictatorship: speaks for itself. One person takes power on his own account.
 Oligarchy: A group of people take power on their own account
 Representative democracy: A group of people get a mandate to power by general election.
 Democracy: All people can vote directly on issues more or less important.

There are three ways production and trade can be organized:
 Planned: A goverment directs the efforts where they think they are needed
 Free market: Private companies direct their efforts where they think they are most profitable
 Public Private Partnership: A hybrid form of the former two.

Your goverment is a combination of the two groups. The second group will only be necessary after the discovery of industrialisation. That was the starting point for a accumulation of means of production and that gave relevance to the free-market or planned discussion.
IMHO there is no real need in Civ 3 for SE choices as “green” or “police state”. Those are the consequense of govermentpolicies and should be thought of in budget terms not as a choice.

Translated to the governmenttypes of Civ1 and Civ2 I think you would get something like this
 Despotism is rudimentory dictatorship and can only work in very small Civilisations. A dictator can’t be everywhere at once.
 In Monarchy the king was supported by his vasals. In fact part of his power was transfered to them, I think it fits in the category oligarchy.
 Republic would be oligarchy with free market
 Fascism Dictatorship with PPP
 Soviet Communism Oligarchy with planned.

I like to hear you people come up with some more and better suggestions.

I hope you forgive us because this discussion turned into an (almost) wrong way. I said almost because we were talking about the represantation of communism in CIV3, which in not that far from your starting point.
However, because some of the previous posts are involving me directly, I think I have the right to answer them. I'll try to be short and I hope this is the last time I'm doing this.

The Joker
You said my statement that a communist country can't be democratic is false. So far, I didn't see any democratic communist country. If you know one, please tell me.
About Orwell: HA HA HA. Isn't interesting? A communist man, describing in his book the latest days of capitalism, which in reality looked more like the latest days of communism! HA-HA-HA.

Marcel I
You have perfectly right. Communism didn't work. That's a historical fact now. The only question is if any kind of communism would work ? And, what kind of communism should be in CIV3: the one which all of us know, or the theoretical one, which some people love, others hate, but nobody knows if it can work in the real life. (I personally think it can't).
And when you say that "modern democratic countries put more of Marx ideas in praktice than Communist countries anywhere in the world ever did" you're again perfectly right.

PrinceOfWeasels

First of all, what is this Tibby-tabby, you little peace of ...?
I DON'T PERMIT YOU TO MAKE JOKES WITH MY NAME, GOT IT?

quote: I refuse to believe, no matter what you could EVER tell me, that pure, right, strong human emotion could be overcome by money.

quote: I can realize the type of conditioning and propaganda that the US has done to you

What do you think, that I don't want a better life for my family, the entire humanity, and, if you allow me, for myself? I want a better society, but I'm sure that NOT communism is the sollution. If you think that in communism won't be anymore bad, greed, evil persons, then I just can say: grow up, kid. It's not about communism or democracy. It's about human nature.

First of all I would like to say that I am currently working on a concept to end the era of Social Engineering and begin the glorious new regime of it's successor: Social Interaction. My system includes a workable way to interact with your people, and let's them have a mind of their own. I like the way it seems to be working out, but it is not yet ready for the world to see. I think I will be done with it in a few days (depending on how much time I will have to finish it in).

Now for something a little more down to earth:

Prince:

SE is short for Social Engineering. This is the replacement for Civs government types that is used in Alpha Centauri. It means that in stead of Civs governments you are now choosing the way your society works via some categories. These are: Government, Economics, Values and Future society. The first, Government, is about who is controlling your society and how it is done. The options are: Democracy, Police State and Fundamentalism. The options in Economics are: Free Market, Planned and Green Economics. The Values options are: Power, Knowledge and Wealth. The Future Society is some stuff you can choose only far into the future, and so it is not relevant in Civ3 terms. The options here are: Eudaimonia, Thought control and... what is the last one? Damn, I can't remember. But it includes that machines is now doing all the work.

The great advantage with SE compared to the Civ governments is, that you can now choose different combinations of these categories. This means that you can now have democratic communism, or a police state with a free market and so forth.

Orange:

quote: Yes I realize that Democracy has taken on those last two definitions in today's society. I used Direct Democracy for my point, but I can still argue - how can you call Greece democratic? They had Slaves, same with the US and many other countries about a century back. It's really a republic based form of government. Today, we have billion dollar lobbyist groups who run our government, not the people. Representative government is simply a GAME for the rich and powerful. If we worked more on a direct representation government than the people would be represented better. But as long as we use this trustee-representative system in the US, we will always be a Democratic Republic.

I agree that the representative democracy is not at all perfect. But the direct democracy has it's great flaws too. I think that only when the people have become more intelligent and are able to think for themselves and not just be controlled by the media will direct democracy be possible. I hope the day will come.

quote: So yes I see your point, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the tax on Gas is so high because of the high taxes a socialist system brings. [quote] But still, Sweeden is not socialist. Socialism means the state is taking over production, which is not happening in Sweden. Like I said, Sweden is what you could call a social capitalist system, which is the system that I like best. It offers the economic bonuses of capitalism without it's negative social effects on the lowest class (meaning that there are no homeless people in Skandinavia). [quote] BTW: does anyone know - what's the Denmark economy like?

Ehhhh, I think I would . It is like Sweden's.

quote: Basically for Communism you need perfect people who always want to do what is right and never complain and always have a smile on their face, never upset. Basically - you need the infinitely stupid.

I strongly disagree. In communism you just need the infinitely good, who always think about the common good and never themselves. Communism would work best if people were intelligent, so there's no need for stupid people there. Capitalism need the people that are infinitely selfish, as the system is based on that if everybody does what is best for themselves it will end up being best for everybody.

Venger:

quote: Pro-American literature? This book is based nearly entirely on declassified Soviet documents!!! If this is going to degenerate into "that's just American propaganda", let's all save ourselves the time...

Ok. I am sorry. I really am. I had no idea it was a "real" book. The title just sounded a little "hey look what the bad russians has done to us" like. I am sorry. But still, I am sure that the US spyed on the Soviets too. The main difference is, that the US secret documents haven't been declassified yet...

quote: Poll taxes and literacy tests were obstacles to black voting - the poor and illiterate were often black. So - when those were outlawed, did we then become a democracy in your eyes?

Sure! Of cause, if I was to really annoy you I could say that no american president has ever been elected without getting millions of $ to the campaign from wealthy people and the coorporations, thus seing after their interests, that the "free" media are all privately owned and financed by advertisers, so the media coorporations and the advertisers gets a huge power, and are of cause not interested in hurting themselves, the money, so that anticapitalistic viewpoints are pretty unlikely to be shown in the media, that the media are all trying to get as many viewers as possible, so they all just show what the people like and never try to approach things from another than the most popular viewpoint and such things. But as this would be pushing things to far I will not.

quote: He doesn't consider the Kurds his own people.

What a completely pointless comment!

quote: I would see them worlds apart. Saddam is still a piece of shit however...

Well, that is where we are different.

quote: A majority huh? In which country in particular? The Phillipines? Nope. Many small nations had communist guerilla groups which were Soviet sponsored, and against which the US government fought by supporting governments felt better autocratic than communist.

Many places in South America. The few free elections that has been there, and where the US supported military aren't just blocking everything has shown a great support to various socialists.

About the third world business:

We can both see that we will never agree on this. Scientists has spent years researching the matter, and they still reach different conclusions. But you must know, that this is not just something I am making up. Several recognized scientists (also other than old hippies) are reaching the same conclusion that I have, while other, equally recognized scientists are reaching your conclusions.

I will therefor stop this discussion now, in stead of just going on and on. At first it was fun to discuss this matter, but in the end it just becamse boring.

quote: Productivity doesn't mean anything without consumption. If you can produce 20 widgets a day now instead of 10, that's only important if you can SELL 10 more. Consumption comes from wealth.

You are looking at this from a microperspective and are failing to see the big picture. Your examble works if we're just talking about one company, but surely you must see, that when everybody produces more then the demand will also come.

quote: What? The velocity of money creates wealth. When it slows, it slows the entire economy, removes capital from investment (in a capitalist economy), and causes contraction of production. If money doesn't move, nothing gets produced. What's the point of money other than investment and expenditure?

Your idea is right, in the short run. A slower velocity of money will create a crisis. But as everybody continues to produce the same this situation is not stable. You must be able to see that. After a few years of crisis the value of money will have moved to a new level, where supply and demand again match. Money has no value other than what we give it. And the value we give money depends on the supply and demand (like with all other goods). So when the supply of money decreases (because of a slower velocity) the "price" of mony will decrease too.

quote: Go here and do likewise...

Wow. Thanks, Veggie! I was number 908,482 to do so. Appreciate it, dude! But still, how can you POSSIBLY state that we don't produce more today with less effort than we did in 1920???

quote: We use more raw materials but the produciton of raw materials accounts for a smaller portion of the economy in terms of real GDP

That was excactly what I said!

quote: I'm a Soviet factory worker. I make widgets. I make 2 an hour. I can make 3 an hour. But why? I will not get a pay raise, I will not be hired by a competitor who needs someone to make 3 an hour, I will not be given a raise for it.

Although I would mostly agree with you I must state that not everybody is working only for their own good. Do you know something about sociology? If so, have you heard of the 3 basic lifeforms (The Independant, The Worker and The Carreer lifeform)? If so, then you should be able to see that if everybody belonged to the carreer lifeform then communism could work.

quote: It's a natural consequence of competition. It's not sad, it's a boon to the consumer. Who is, by the way, the proliteriat...

It is sad if it will end like Marx thought it would: With contiued and severe economic crisis in all capitalist countries, as it could no longer pay off to start anything.

Marcel:

quote: Marx didn’t foresee that industrial massproduction would inevitably lead to massconsumption, which had to lead to better wages for the workers to buy these goods. Even the owners of means of production (e.g. Henry Ford) understood their workers were also potential consumers. Instead of the gradual impoverishment of an increasing number of people, the standard of living was going up. The collapse of the system didn’t come.

Yeah. I think what killed marxism was labour unions, which made the workers stand much stronger against the capitalists than Marx had ever foreseen.

Your SE system:
Hmm, I had something far more advanced in my head.

Andz:

I agree. I think we might have gone a bit too far off topic. That was why I stopped my conversation with Venger. Let's try to get back to Civ3 for a moment.

Orange (again):

I must agree with Marcel that Soviet was definately an oliarchy and not a dictatorship. Perhabs it was dictatorial under Stalin, but all later Soviet leaders were chosen and under control by the politbureau (the oligarchs).

Tiberius:

Sorry! You're right, although I still don't quite agree that you would need stupid people for communism.

Tiberius:
I think what Orwell didn't like was the "communism" of Eastern Europe. He thought it was a terrible government form, and he thought it had nothing to do with the way communism should be.

I remember the animal farm, and it is definately about Russia up to ww2. Although I don't remember it in detail, I do remember that several of the characters in the book/cartoon was metaphores for characters in Russia. Napoleon was of cause Stalin, and other characters, including Hitler and Marx, were actually in the cartoon.