Long live democracy

[Iris]

You aren’t the one to decide what’s off-topic here, though.

Also quit the meta-talk; that is, discussing topics in topics. We’ve had enough of that lately.

[Dunno]

Yes sir, milord!

To get back on topic I decided to write a shorter version of my recent post because it seems not everyone understood what I meant.
Yes, democracy is a government system and communism is an economic system but only in theory. Democracy, sooner or later, dies in communist country because of a natural chain reaction. If you'd like to know what that reaction is, read my longer post.
That means I do not take back my thesis that non-communism day is a democracy day.

[Mountain_King]

Now that the brabbling is over...

I can talk about it for much longer, so just say if you'd like to hear it.

I've always been fascinated by these firsthand accounts, they're much more interesting than some of the random bather in this thread.

Me too!

Best Regards,
Mountain_King

[Often]

No, I'm not a spambot. But I'm a bit surprised that my comment caused such a hot off-topic dispute ...

I think maybe we should form a "I'm not a spam bot " support group

As far as the topic at hand, there are benefits to communism, but none that in my opinion outweigh the downside of the loss of personal freedom, liberty and self determination.

[Gambit]

but none that in my opinion outweigh the downside of the loss of personal freedom, liberty and self determination.

None of those are necessarily lost.

And it's not like we don't lose them in democracies.

I can't believe I find myself arguing on the side of communism. To be clear, I'm not doing this because I support communism. It's because I support facts.

[Often]

And it's not like we don't lose them in democracies.

A very valid and salient point, but I would still argue that the loss of freedom is intrinsic to a system where government and central planning are integral to the system and to civic identity.
In the end though this is not an argument of communism vs democracy, but perhaps more one of the role of government (elected or not) in our lives and in our communities.
I am a fan of governments being most relevant at the local level, and people being free to choose their own path.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

I can't believe I find myself arguing on the side of communism. To be clear, I'm not doing this because I support communism. It's because I support facts.

Then why are people yelling at me for doing the same thing?

Anyways, one of my relatives lived through the revolution, and can vividly describe the events they partook in. It amazes me every time I hear it.

[MRDNRA]

Without meaning to sound too negative, to me here in the UK, it seems that our governments are more of an elected dictatorship than a democracy. Didn't like the last government, don't really like this one either.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Without meaning to sound too negative, to me here in the UK, it seems that our governments are more of an elected dictatorship than a democracy. Didn't like the last government, don't really like this one either.

Well one of the main things is that people in the UK don't really believe that the monarchy set up actually does much. To me here in America, I can't see them doing much other than sitting on a throne. I'm not saying from experience, nor am I judging monarchies too much. I'm only stating from news reports and personal accounts.

[Boldek]

You can't really "prefer democracy over communism". It's sad how much the red scare still looms over some of us Americans.

Communism is an economics system. You could have a democratic + communist country, just like you could have a totalitarian government with a free market. I just can't think of any examples of the former having happened yet.

I'm sorry but I've got respond to this.

None of those are necessarily lost.

And it's not like we don't lose them in democracies.

I can't believe I find myself arguing on the side of communism. To be clear, I'm not doing this because I support communism. It's because I support facts.

No Gambit, I think you mean you support socialism. Socialism is an economic system where people play smurf. Communism was an oppressive totalitarian system that Russia spread throughout large parts of the world and mistreated or killed lots of people. Thar's a big difference. The 'red scare' looms over people because it suddenly occurred to them that America might have ended up like Russia in the 60's. (Yes, vodka and mustaches is cool, I'm talking about that shortages and prison camps)


@GMA well in my opinion, a good deal of the british monarchy vanished with magna carta, but since I never have set foot on english soil myself I don't really know much.

[Dunno]

Glad this thread returned to the land of living

Communism is a system created "for" working class, the proletariat. One of its creators, Karl Marx, thought that proletariat should unite and together create a perfect world, with one government and everyone equal. Socialism is a more general term and it can be interpreted in more ways than one. Communism is a form of socialism, but socialism is not communism. Or at least that's the way I see it.

I can't see them doing much other than sitting on a throne.

You hit a nail on it's head here, that's the whole point of constitutional monarchy. Monarchs don't rule, they reign.

[Gambit]

Communism was an oppressive totalitarian system that Russia spread throughout large parts of the world and mistreated or killed lots of people. Thar's a big difference. The 'red scare' looms over people because it suddenly occurred to them that America might have ended up like Russia in the 60's. (Yes, vodka and mustaches is cool, I'm talking about that shortages and prison camps)

You, like Grand Mage Atari, are failing to separate the economics system from the governance style.

Perhaps this is a difference in education. My economics classes all taught me that there is a sliding scale between free market (no government intervention) and communism (government controls all the things) with socialism (government gets involved where necessary/helpful) being somewhere in the middle. And so communism has nothing to do with the way a government is run. Rather it is a stance regarding the economy that a government might choose.

And my history classes taught that throughout history many governments had gotten popular support for it in their countries by at first pretending that they would use this power to benefit "everyone" instead of Only Those Rich [censored]™ like a free market

[artisticdude]

Communism is a system created "for" working class, the proletariat. One of its creators, Karl Marx, thought that proletariat should unite and together create a perfect world, with one government and everyone equal.

As I understand it, that's one of the aspects communism and socialism both share, the idea that every has to be equal at all times regardless of merit, and that that equality has to be distributed and maintained by the government. In a perfect world everyone might be exactly equal to each other all the time, but then in a perfect world government wouldn't even be necessary. Ironically, the fact that the government alone has the power to define and administer equality defeats the very purpose of providing equality, as those in government will inevitably have more power than those who are not in the government. So essentially all administrative power goes to the government. That is providing universal equality how?

[Gambit]

Ai.

In a perfect world there'd be no crime, so there'd be no laws or police.
And we would all be able to fly (without accidentally flying into each other and getting hurt) so we wouldn't need roads or the FAA.
And we'd never have anyone born defective that needed helped.
And there would be infinite land divided into plots that looked and functioned the same and could re-size themselves on demand so there'd never be anything to fight over.
And we could produce everything without ever polluting.
And either we'd never discriminate against anyone no matter how weird they were, OR we'd all be exactly identical so that there couldn't be discrimination.
And either we'd never get upset with each other, OR all our plots of land would be walled off so that interaction is impossible.
And we'd all be born with everything we ever needed to know so that we wouldn't need to educate each other.
And in fact learning should be impossible (goes back to that discrimination thing).


On second thought... a world so perfect that we never need to work together to overcome differences and collective obstacles (aka government) sounds pretty boring.


see also (Mild Language)

[artisticdude]

/me likes that video.

My point is that expecting the government (which composed of human beings, just like the governed are also human beings) to be able to define and dispense equality while remaining equal with the governed is fundamentally impossible. That in turn defeats the entire point of the system to begin with.