Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, I think this would fit in the history forum? Or the general discussion, but communism caused many rebellions in Russia and other countries (the red wedge etc) And it was all linked to dictatorship, although dictatorship is still around today (In North Korea and everything), but etc. Post what you think about Dictatorships and communism etc

I think it's crap.

That's my two pence.

Originally posted by Bloigen
I think it's crap.

That's my two pence.
I think you're a dumb little unintelligent *****, That's my two-cents.
Originally posted by rickyduck
So, I think this would fit in the history forum? Or the general discussion, but communism caused many rebellions in Russia and other countries (the red wedge etc) And it was all linked to dictatorship, although dictatorship is still around today (In North Korea and everything), but etc. Post what you think about Dictatorships and communism etc
I think communism, the way they designed it is excellent, It just was never used properly, god bad press, Etc...

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
I think you're a dumb little unintelligent *****, That's my two-cents.

Originally posted by Bloigen
I think it's crap.

That's my two pence.
It really is. Sure, It may possibly sound good on Paper, but when it gets down to it..

Originally posted by Barker
It really is. Sure, It may possibly sound good on Paper, but when it gets down to it..
I'm really getting sick of his spamming, and a Matter of fact, I just reported him for it. He was talking about that the Forum is crap, Barks.

Communism is more fair than Dictatorship. It at least allows the people to own and work at the same rate.

Originally posted by Tarvos
Communism is more fair than Dictatorship. It at least allows the people to own and work at the same rate.
I wasn't aware that they were allowed to own, But I might be mistaken.

Communism is better, IMO....community vs. dictator.

Communism is a wonderful ideal, putting it into practice is damned near impossible, people just don't work together on this one, the rich don't want equality in wealth, people get power hungry and as we've seen in previous occasions, society falls apart.

Dictatorships can work, they can be extremely efficient and economically strong but at the same time, the can be the opposite, it really depends who gets in power. If things go wrong, there is always going to be trouble.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
I wasn't aware that they were allowed to own, But I might be mistaken.

They owned as much as everyone else. It was a good idea until the upper class said otherwise.

Originally posted by Barker
It really is. Sure, It may possibly sound good on Paper, but when it gets down to it..

Exactly. That's why every country ever to try it is poor as hell and everybody gets screwed. Just look at North Korea, China & all those African countries everybody fails to see.

Was there ever a communist regime that wasn't a dictatorship in disguise?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Was there ever a communist regime that wasn't a dictatorship in disguise?
the Soviet Union in many cases wan't. But you might be confusing Stalin as a Dictator because he is very well known an made the primary decisions for the country; he was no more a Dictator than FDR was.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
the Soviet Union in many cases wan't. But you might be confusing Stalin as a Dictator because he is very well known an made the primary decisions for the country; he was no more a Dictator than FDR was.

Having a council of hand-picked yes-men does not equate anything other than a dictatorship. Stalin was every bit the dictator, trust me.

Originally posted by Nevermind
Exactly, that's why democracy works much better.



I'm not clearly seeing why people are separating these two, sure you can get dictators on the opposite wing but with communism it comes with the package. Dictatorship doesn't work either. The reasoning being is much like the reason why communism does work, people get power hungry, and that's a very dangerous situation when you have one person calling all the shot. It's not effective at all really. Simply because he's calling all the shots and the people have no say whatsoever.

Sorry Spoons if it looks like I'm picking on you. I just wanted to address the situation.
No offense, But you're terribly wrong about communism. The GOVERNMENT make the decision; the government is made up of a system of delegates chosen by the president, czar, whatever.. The system chooses witch laws to pass, and what to do. Power doesn't lie in a single entity.

Originally posted by Nevermind
Exactly, that's why democracy works much better.



I'm not clearly seeing why people are separating these two, sure you can get dictators on the opposite wing but with communism it comes with the package. Dictatorship doesn't work either. The reasoning being is much like the reason why communism does work, people get power hungry, and that's a very dangerous situation when you have one person calling all the shot. It's not effective at all really. Simply because he's calling all the shots and the people have no say whatsoever.

Sorry Spoons if it looks like I'm picking on you. I just wanted to address the situation.

People are separating the two things, because they are different, A Dictatorship can be without Communism, and technically Communism can happen without a Dictatorship. Grouping the 2 together would be pretty generalised and stupid.

It's cool, I took no offence by your comeback

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
No offense, But you're terribly wrong about communism. The GOVERNMENT make the decision; the government is made up of a system of delegates chosen by the president, czar, whatever.. The system chooses witch laws to pass, and what to do. Power doesn't lie in a single entity.

Yeah, that's why Stalin gain almost total control in the 1930's after the Great Purge. However lets say you're right for a second. The government has total power over the country and it's not a representation of the people. Either way you look at it, communism sucks massive elephant balls.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
I think you're a dumb little unintelligent *****, That's my two-cents.



I think you spend to much time around Sorgo for your own good


IMO dictatorship is a horrible and greatly flawed way to rule. It sparks rebellion way to fast.

Originally posted by Blaxican_Hydra
I think you spend to much time around Sorgo for your own good


IMO dictatorship is a horrible and greatly flawed way to rule. It sparks rebellion way to fast.

Really depends on the dictator.

Last enlightened dictator I recall was... Frederick II.

Communism is great on paper, but Humanity's greed always wrecks it.

We can all thank Stalin for that.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
I'm really getting sick of his spamming, and a Matter of fact, I just reported him for it. He was talking about that the Forum is crap, Barks.

Erm... No I wasn't.

I was talking about "Communism & Dictatorships".

Originally posted by Barker
It really is. Sure, It may possibly sound good on Paper, but when it gets down to it..

I'm sorry, on paper? PAPER?
Evidently you don't mind on the idea of being the same as everyone else?

Am I the only person on these boards who can honestly say I detest the ideals of communism?

And btw what exactly is the point/purpose of this thread?

Originally posted by rickyduck
So, I think this would fit in the history forum? Or the general discussion, but communism caused many rebellions in Russia and other countries (the red wedge etc) And it was all linked to dictatorship, although dictatorship is still around today (In North Korea and everything), but etc. Post what you think about Dictatorships and communism etc

Post what you think? Thats what Blogien did!

I do stuff! w00t

Originally posted by Bloigen
Erm... No I wasn't.

I was talking about "Communism & Dictatorships".
That's why, in the beginning of the history forum, you only posted saying the forum sucks. spamming each thread in here..you're being a little *****.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
That's why, in the beginning of the history forum, you only posted saying the forum sucks. spamming each thread in here..you're being a little *****.

Yes, each thread has been spammed by me. People can barely read the threads because of the amount of damage I have done. Oh the humanity.

Wouldn't it be "Oh the inhumanity"?

Originally posted by rickyduck
So, I think this would fit in the history forum? Or the general discussion, but communism caused many rebellions in Russia and other countries (the red wedge etc) And it was all linked to dictatorship, although dictatorship is still around today (In North Korea and everything), but etc. Post what you think about Dictatorships and communism etc

Dictatorship and Communism cannot co-exist. Its a bit of an oxymoron.
This suggest greatly that Russia was never actually Communist, but a Dictatorship.

Dictatorships can certainly work - a lot of countries today use democracy as asmoke screen, but are actually engaged into Dictatorships...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Dictatorship and Communism cannot co-exist. Its a bit of an oxymoron.
This suggest greatly that Russia was never actually Communist, but a Dictatorship.

Dictatorships can certainly work - a lot of countries today use democracy as asmoke screen, but are actually engaged into Dictatorships...

Too true.

The Red Wedge w00t!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Dictatorship and Communism cannot co-exist. Its a bit of an oxymoron.
This suggest greatly that Russia was never actually Communist, but a Dictatorship.

Dictatorships can certainly work - a lot of countries today use democracy as asmoke screen, but are actually engaged into Dictatorships...
Sorry dear, But you're wrong.

Is that your answer?

''You are wrong...just because''

Wow, great one.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Is that your answer?

''You are wrong...just because''

Wow, great one.
The are pretty much innertwined with eachother. A communist government is headed by some figure, usually a president. This president has totalitarian has total control, but the government still owns everything. A nice example of this would be Cuba.

No they are not!

There was no country in the world which practiced communism. Why? Because Communism works in theory but not in practice.

Having a dictator means having a hierarchy of some kind which directly contradicts with what was supposed to be happening in Communist country, accodring to Marx theory, no?

All these countries were at large Dictatorships, or even socialist countries, but certainly not communist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No they are not!

There was no country in the world which practiced communism. Why? Because Communism works in theory but not in practice.

Having a dictator means having a hierarchy of some kind which directly contradicts with what was supposed to be happening in Communist country, accodring to Marx theory, no?

All these countries were at large Dictatorships, or even socialist countries, but certainly not communist.

You're right, Karl Marx (or whoever) believed that one day every country would be a communist country, but not one country has succesfully been communist: The alleged four stages of communism - only up to stage 2! But dictatorships are very alike to communist partys etc

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No they are not!

There was no country in the world which practiced communism. Why? Because Communism works in theory but not in practice.

Having a dictator means having a hierarchy of some kind which directly contradicts with what was supposed to be happening in Communist country, accodring to Marx theory, no?

All these countries were at large Dictatorships, or even socialist countries, but certainly not communist.
Good way of avoiding the answer. Nice use of logic on that one.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No they are not!

There was no country in the world which practiced communism. Why? Because Communism works in theory but not in practice.

Having a dictator means having a hierarchy of some kind which directly contradicts with what was supposed to be happening in Communist country, accodring to Marx theory, no?

All these countries were at large Dictatorships, or even socialist countries, but certainly not communist.

Also Marx did not like the ideal of armies BUT every major communist power relies on an army to maintain control.

It also seems for Communism to work it takes Anarchy.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Good way of avoiding the answer. Nice use of logic on that one.

What ARE you talking about?

Communism does not have a leader of any kind. People ARE the leader. Collectivly - that is what communism is about.

Have you even read Das Kapital?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What ARE you talking about?

Communism does not have a leader of any kind. People ARE the leader. Collectivly - that is what communism is about.

Have you even read Das Kapital?

Anarchy!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What ARE you talking about?

Communism does not have a leader of any kind. People ARE the leader. Collectivly - that is what communism is about.

Have you even read Das Kapital?
Really? They are the leader so much that they can't even own. All is controlled by The government. It's just a dictator with a larger-bodied base.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Really? They are the leader so much that they can't even own. All is controlled by The government. It's just a dictator with a larger-bodied base.

Please quote Marx on this, because I am really confused at to which part of his ideology you are refering to.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Anarchy!

Communism!!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please quote Marx on this, because I am really confused at to which part of his ideology you are refering to.



Communism!!


I'm really confused because the communism that is practiced is what this thread is referring to. If you want to bring up irrelevant opinions, then put 'IMO' or 'In My Opinion' in your posts.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
I'm really confused because the communism that is practiced is what this thread is referring to. If you want to bring up irrelevant opinions, then put 'IMO' or 'In My Opinion' in your posts. Communism was NEVER practiced. Ever.

They called it ''communism'' but it was never so. It might have been Socialism in some cases, and dictatorship in many, but never Communism, because by deffinition of communism no country which called itself that, was in fact communist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Communism was NEVER practiced. Ever.

They called it ''communism'' but it was never so. It might have been Socialism in some cases, and dictatorship in many, but never Communism, because by deffinition of communism no country which called itself that, was in fact communist.
Wow, I guess the rest of the world is wrong then...

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Seriously, Calvin. Don't be ridiculous.
Is that towards me? The period is separating the two sentences. Am I being ridiculous? ?The way I see it, she's dodging the facts. This reminds me of somebody named Glentract.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Have you even read Das Kapital?

You are not going to tell me that you have read "Das Kapital"...no one has read "Das Kapital".... probably Marx didn't even read it....

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not going to tell me that you have read "Das Kapital"...no one has read "Das Kapital".... probably Marx didn't even read it....
Yes I have, actually.

There was an incident with it as well. My professor has asked me few questions regarding it in the first year, and my answer (in all my attempt to lie) was ''Oh I didn't really understand it well''

My professor said ''Miss, Marx wrote Das Kapital in such way so that 19th century working class could understand what he was trying to say, and you are a University Student in 21st Century and you didn't understand it''

So yeah...that was embarrassing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes I have, actually.

There was an incident with it as well. My professor has asked me few questions regarding it in the first year, and my answer (in all my attempt to lie) was ''Oh I didn't really understand it well''

My professor said ''Miss, Marx wrote Das Kapital in such way so that 19th century working class could understand what he was trying to say, and you are a University Student in 21st Century and you didn't understand it''

So yeah...that was embarrassing.

You should have told her that the working class of the 19th century certainly didn't understand Das Kapital....

That's almost as absurd as claiming that someoe understood Heidegger....or Hegel...haha....sure.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Wow, I guess the rest of the world is wrong then...

How do you mean? Communism was ment to be put into practice but never quite made it the full way... thats why russias 'communism' fell, just like berlins and etc... but North Korea and Vietnam etc are still running with sorta communism, if you get me

Originally posted by Bardock42
You should have told her that the working class of the 19th century certainly didn't understand Das Kapital....

That's almost as absurd as claiming that someoe understood Heidegger....or Hegel...haha....sure.

Actually, I don't think Das Kapital is all that complex. The only complex things are the ''new phrases and words'' Marx decided to invent.

Besides, especailly in sociology and criminology, we use Marx ideas to compare with contemporary issues all the time - such as what would the Marxist explanation be on criminality in society, or coporate criminality, or marxist view on the public housing and Ghetto.

Obviously he never refered to Ghetto, but his ideas can be tied with such.

Plato's Prepublic is ''complex'' and hard to comprehend.

I don't understand what is so complex about his idea (apart from that it cannot be done)

He has clearly explained the inevitable change from Feaudalism, to Capitalism to Socialism to Communism, at which point everything will be nice and peachy.

I do understand Marx...now that I actually read it...

But perhaps it is complex, which parts do you deem as complex?

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Is that towards me? The period is separating the two sentences. Am I being ridiculous? ?The way I see it, she's dodging the facts. This reminds me of somebody named Glentract.
You keep saying Stalin wasn't a dictator, but the point is he was.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, I don't think Das Kapital is all that complex. The only complex things are the ''new phrases and words'' Marx decided to invent.

Besides, especailly in sociology and criminology, we use Marx ideas to compare with contemporary issues all the time - such as what would the Marxist explanation be on criminality in society, or coporate criminality, or marxist view on the public housing and Ghetto.

Obviously he never refered to Ghetto, but his ideas can be tied with such.

Plato's Prepublic is ''complex'' and hard to comprehend.

I don't understand what is so complex about his idea (apart from that it cannot be done)

He has clearly explained the inevitable change from Feaudalism, to Capitalism to Socialism to Communism, at which point everything will be nice and peachy.

I do understand Marx...now that I actually read it...

But perhaps it is complex, which parts do you deem as complex?

Actually I think you are rioght, I skipped through it and the language, which I for some reason thought of as very complex isn't that complex after all. I guess I might just have been put of by the 2000 pages reading material.....also, if any proletarian of the 19th century had enough time to actually read it...I think then there wasn't as much wrong as people claimed after all.....

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You keep saying Stalin wasn't a dictator, but the point is he was.
Ok he is. I don't know how t describe what I am trying to say.. I meant he wasn't a fascist dictator.

Only barely...

Fascism is nationalist, anti-Marxist, mass mobilising political movement, usually lead by one charismatic leader, such as Hitler or Mussolini (he might have been over inflated, but he was still charismatic - and Italian women thought he was hot), in a aim of a conquest of complete power through a single party system.

While Stalin was Marxist, he was also everything else in my definition.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Ok he is. I don't know how t describe what I am trying to say.. I meant he wasn't a fascist dictator.

Dare I say it....well....Stalin has some rather fascist ways to him....going by the Dictionary Definition: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" ...he is kind of fascist....but masked as communism, if that helps you somehow...I mean..I understand Stalin is your idol....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dare I say it....well....Stalin has some rather fascist ways to him....going by the Dictionary Definition: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" ...he is kind of fascist....but masked as communism, if that helps you somehow...I mean..I understand Stalin is your idol....

Yeah, I think fascist masked as communist pretty much explains it..

Pretty much. I can't believe Mussolini was a sex symbol. He looks like my cousin did at nine weeks, only Mussolini has a hat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dare I say it....well....Stalin has some rather fascist ways to him....going by the Dictionary Definition: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascist) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" ...he is kind of fascist....but masked as communism, if that helps you somehow...I mean..I understand Stalin is your idol.... Good explanation, but stalin's not my hero.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Good explanation, but stalin's not my hero.

Mine neither....

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Good explanation, but stalin's not my hero.

He ordered a lot of people killed...

He always striked me as an extreamly paranoid person...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He ordered a lot of people killed...

He always striked me as an extreamly paranoid person...

well I suppose people with a lot of power have a lot of power to lose.....might make them more paranoid. Caesar on the other hand should have been more Paranoid.....

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He ordered a lot of people killed...

He always striked me as an extreamly paranoid person...
He makes Hitler look like a pussy when it comes to killing people.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
He makes Hitler look like a pussy when it comes to killing people. I heard once a very true word about that. "Stalin "only" killed his own people." I think that's actually why he got less recognition for it...

Regardless, Hitler had the killing going quite good as well...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I heard once a very true word about that. "Stalin "only" killed his own people." I think that's actually why he got less recognition for it...

Regardless, Hitler had the killing going quite good as well...
The killing his own people part is why he is looked upon as Fascist by many people.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
The killing his own people part is why he is looked upon as Fascist by many people.

I thought it was the whole being a dictator and full control and such bit...but whatever.

Hitler killed lots of people from other (non-german) countries...

Well, Stalin kind of did as well....thinking aboiut it...all the Polish people and such...hmm....

Originally posted by Bardock42
well I suppose people with a lot of power have a lot of power to lose.....might make them more paranoid. Caesar on the other hand should have been more Paranoid.....
I don't know...
Im sure a lot Dictators felt paranoid, but something about Stalin just stands out when it comes to paranoia.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
He makes Hitler look like a pussy when it comes to killing people.

It is said that around 29 million died under Hitler and some 40 million under Stalin.

Not sure if those are 100% correct, but it should be around there. The differance is hauge...

Perhaps Hitler is seen as way worse because he marganalised people whom he wanted to kill, while Stalin happinly didn't discriminate.

Stalin was like : ''You're an arsehole'' *kills*,
While Hitler was more like ''You're a Jew/black/disabled/rom/etc' *kills*

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He ordered a lot of people killed...

He always striked me as an extreamly paranoid person...

He was. I read a book on him and the prewar period in Soviet Russia... He suffered from severe paranoia by all accounts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I heard once a very true word about that. "Stalin "only" killed his own people." I think that's actually why he got less recognition for it...

Regardless, Hitler had the killing going quite good as well...

It does in a certain way make sense though. Eddie Izzard said something similar.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't know...
Im sure a lot Dictators felt paranoid, but something about Stalin just stands out when it comes to paranoia.



It is said that around 29 million died under Hitler and some 40 million under Stalin.

Not sure if those are 100% correct, but it should be around there. The differance is hauge...

Perhaps Hitler is seen as way worse because he marganalised people whom he wanted to kill, while Stalin happinly didn't discriminate.

Stalin was like : ''You're an arsehole'' *kills*,
While Hitler was more like ''You're a Jew/black/disabled/rom/etc' *kills*

29 million? Are you counting wartime deaths or just K-Z ones?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't know...
Im sure a lot Dictators felt paranoid, but something about Stalin just stands out when it comes to paranoia.

Hmm, maybe...damn, I thought there was someone much more notorious for paranoia.....I can't remember....maybe I'm just thinking of MacBeth....


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is said that around 29 million died under Hitler and some 40 million under Stalin.

Not sure if those are 100% correct, but it should be around there. The differance is hauge...

Perhaps Hitler is seen as way worse because he marganalised people whom he wanted to kill, while Stalin happinly didn't discriminate.

Stalin was like : ''You're an arsehole'' *kills*,
While Hitler was more like ''You're a Jew/black/disabled/rom/etc' *kills*

I like the "own people" theory....I stick with it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It does in a certain way make sense though. Eddie Izzard said something similar.

Hmm, I might have heard it there, I think I heard some Eddie Izzard recently....

Originally posted by Janus Marius
29 million? Are you counting wartime deaths or just K-Z ones?

K-Z? Forgive my ignorance...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
K-Z? Forgive my ignorance...

Concentration Camp ...it's short for "Konzentrationslager" (KZ).

Concentration camps. I understand that a figure of about 6 million jews was introduced... I don't think I remember one for others- political criminals, homosexuals, communists and so on. But the number or 29 million is very high. So is the 40 million for Stalin. I assume you're adding military deaths as well?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Concentration camps. I understand that a figure of about 6 million jews was introduced... I don't think I remember one for others- political criminals, homosexuals, communists and so on. But the number or 29 million is very high. So is the 40 million for Stalin. I assume you're adding military deaths as well? The 6 million jews is heaviyl debated I heard....

But also I heard similar figures, but it must be some sort of military deaths added to that....

Oh I see.

Then it must be military death as well. I remember it was around that number, and I also remember the infamous 40 million from Stalin's rule.

It must be then, counting the war as well.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh I see.

Then it must be military death as well. I remember it was around that number, and I also remember the infamous 40 million from Stalin's rule.

It must be then, counting the war as well.
But I don't understand which death goes to who. I mean someone could make a strong case for adding all WWII deaths to Hitler's count...

Originally posted by Bardock42
The 6 million jews is heaviyl debated I heard....

But also I heard similar figures, but it must be some sort of military deaths added to that....

I've heard stories that even a peak 100% strength, the camps couldn't have possibly killed 6 million people in that amount of time. However, those were by history revisionists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But I don't understand which death goes to who. I mean someone could make a strong case for adding all WWII deaths to Hitler's count...

Oh absolutely...

I think its debatable, because to be honest, as far as death toll and how many died, we only know from what we read or been told.

I read that 29 million were killed under Hitler...this might well be overestimation or even deliberate over exaggeration.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh absolutely...

I think its debatable, because to be honest, as far as death toll and how many died, we only know from what we read or been told.

I read that 29 million were killed under Hitler...this might well be overestimation or even deliberate over exaggeration.

Well I read similar figures as well, but I never know how they get them....or what agenda is on their minds.....then I also heard Mao surpassed both of them....

Mao certainly had more to work with. Germany only had a population of about 85-95 million going into WWII.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Mao certainly had more to work with. Germany only had a population of about 85-95 million going into WWII.

I don't want to brag, but damn we are good.....

And, I think Hitler killed more Polish and non-german jews...since I think Germany didn't have that many.....

Mao is a glitch in the communist system. Reading about how he was in his early life would supprise you.

Wow, I go to sleep, and I wake up with 2 new pages worth of discussion....Good discussion by the way.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Mao is a glitch in the communist system. Reading about how he was in his early life would supprise you.

He suffered from Depression didn't he?

Speaking of which, doesn't Maoism focus on farmers and peasants? That was always my understanding of it.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao

If this was a perfect world communisim would work. However, this is not a perfect world and communisim does not work. Personally it's a bad idea. What right does any goverment have to tell anyone what price to sell things? Or how much to pay their employees?

Overall communisim is a horrid idea. It violates free will and the idea of free enterprise.

I wonder, is free will and free enterprise really admirable goals for government? In other words, how can we claim that our will is free and not determined or heavily influenced by commerce and the state? As for free enterprise, how can you call a system where a bunch of greedy old men (A small minority who holds the majority of the wealth in the system) run everything free?

I really think you need a balance of democratic ideals and well-instituted socialism. Communism fails, and the U.S. capitalist system fails as well.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I really think you need a balance of democratic ideals and well-instituted socialism. Communism fails, and the U.S. capitalist system fails as well.
Meh people would freak if some thing like that was ever suggested.

Of course, because those who succeed in capitalism (Or really haven't felt its bite) support it.

most people do...

If this was a perfect world capitalism would work. However, this is not a perfect world and capitalism does not work. Personally it's a bad idea. What right does any corporation to decide at what price to sell things? Or what to pay their employees?

Overall capitalismis a horrid idea. It violates principles of interpersonal dependacy and leads to the violation of human rights for profit.

Nice turn on things.

I cant let J.Mark think communism is the only system that doesn't work.

Originally posted by Alliance
I cant let J.Mark think communism is the only system that doesn't work.

Oh I'm very aware that communisim isn't the only system that doesn't work. But I do think Democracy is better.

Don't confuse democracy with American capitalism. And America is a Republic, not a democracy.

...and democracies are not necessarily capitalistic.

communism is both a form of government and an economic theory

In hindsight, the difference between democracy and a republic (an indirect democracy) is one of feasibility. Not sure why I got carried away with that. I need to pay attention when I type.

Capitalism in theory(Marxism) would work very well if it were not for greed jealousy. If the world were occupied by two governmental entities, there would be social unrest because if they don't like their system, move to the other. or if the other is worse, move there and then move back so you woulnd't complain. I'm going to call this calvinocracy.(not to be confused with calvinism)

Also, Lenin practiced the closest thing to real Marxism.

Lenin did do it best...too bad he died too early.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Don't confuse democracy with American capitalism. And America is a Republic, not a democracy.

It's both, isn't it?

I think you're missing the point- it's not a true democracy or even a real democracy because the people only elect representatives... just like they did in the ancient Roman Republic.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think you're missing the point- it's not a true democracy or even a real democracy because the people only elect representatives... just like they did in the ancient Roman Republic.

That's included in the definition of Democracy though. "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.". The thing is that Republic and Democracy are not exclusive. Actually the USSR was a Republic as well. Not a Democracy though.

With that type of lazy definition, a dictatorship is a democracy because the dictator represents the people and claims to do their will or work in their best interests.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
With that type of lazy definition, a dictatorship is a democracy because the dictator represents the people and claims to do their will or work in their best interests.

No, a dictator is not elected. Can not be removed.

On the contrary- Caesar was an elected dictator. In a sense, so was Napoleon. See, in the definition you've given, there's little that separates the direct will of the people with decisions made by appointed representatives.

See, in a direct democracy, the people ARE the government. In a republic, some of the people will vote to see that men (Who are already predetermined by the government's standards and must be men of extreme wealth) fill up offices and make all their decisions for them.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think you're missing the point- it's not a true democracy or even a real democracy because the people only elect representatives... just like they did in the ancient Roman Republic.

I was first addressing the idea of what a true democracy was. The ideals of democracy are not synonymous with a republic. You simply brought up a half of a definition and got carried away.

Please don't do that anymore.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I was first addressing the idea of what a true democracy was. The ideals of democracy are not synonymous with a republic. You simply brought up a half of a definition and got carried away.

Please don't do that anymore.

It is a true and a real democracy though. Maybe you should read the definitions of democracy again. Everything that fits that definition is a "true" democracy.

Again Democracy and Republic describe not the same thing. Something can be a Democracy and a Republic (USA, Germany, France....), something can be a Democracy and a Monarchy (England, Spain (I think)), but nothing can be a Republic and a Monarchy...for example.

In case you forgot, the electorate votes for the president, not the voter.

Also, republics often rely on democratic principles, that doesn't mean however, that they are democacies. You don't vote on every piece of legislation > thats a true democracy.

Originally posted by Alliance
In case you forgot, the electorate votes for the president, not the voter.

Also, republics often rely on democratic principles, that doesn't mean however, that they are democacies. You don't vote on every piece of legislation > thats a true democracy.

That does not matter. It doesn't need to be direct to be a democracy.

No, that's wrong, that is one form of democracy. Direct Democracy. Not "true" democracy.

one would think that the purest form of government would be the "true" form. That is an arbitrary word that you have incorrectly used to describe what people commonly consider to be a democracy.

You seem to be quoting your defintions a lot. Maybe you should read the republic definion again and see if this defintion excludes America's current form of government or not.

And the elecotrate clearly does matter.

speaking of which, are you a US citizen? your location says Deutschland.

Also, the CIA defines America's government as "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" and I doubt the CIA has it wrong.

(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

Originally posted by Alliance
one would think that the purest form of government would be the "true" form. That is an arbitrary word that you have incorrectly used to describe what people commonly consider to be a democracy.

You seem to be quoting your defintions a lot. Maybe you should read the republic definion again and see if this defintion excludes America's current form of government or not.

And the elecotrate clearly does matter.

speaking of which, are you a US citizen? your location says Deutschland.

Well i believe the "true" form is the form that fits the definition. Actually "true" is not really applicable here anyways.

Obviously it does not exclude the USA, since the USA is a Republic.

Yeah, it does matter. But not to disprove that something is a Democracy.

No, I am a citizen of Germany. I also live in Germany. May I ask you a question in return though? (Rhetorical) Does it, and if, how does it matter?

Originally posted by Alliance
Also, the CIA defines America's government as "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" and I doubt the CIA has it wrong.

(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

The CIA has it right on. USA is a Republic. A democratic one.

No, citizenship doesn't matter. I was just curious what background you were coming from. Being a US citizen, I think I might know more about the US electoral process than you. I know very little about Germany's electoral process. I was just trying to gague this.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The USA is factually both. It is a Republic, because that is the form of government they have. 3 Branches, President, blah, blah. And it is a democracy because the people elect their leaders, indirectly but they still do. Please don't argue this, it is just the way it is.

You need to be specific. You say the US is a republic, but then you also believe the US is a democracy. The US is a republic, but it is not both. "Democratic Republic" There is a noun and an adjective. The noun, republic, defines what the nation is. The adjective, democracy, modifies the noun to give more insight in to the noun. The US has democratic tendancies, but is not a "repbulican democracy." Its a Republic. It is democratic, but not a democracy.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, citizenship doesn't matter. I was just curious what background you were coming from. Being a US citizen, I think I might know more about the US electoral process than you. I know very little about Germany's electoral process. I was just trying to gague this.



You need to be specific. You say the US is a republic, but then you also believe the US is a democracy. The US is a republic, but it is not both. "Democratic Republic" There is a noun and an adjective. The noun, republic, defines what the nation is. The adjective, democracy, modifies the noun to give more insight in to the noun. The US has democratic tendancies, but is not a "repbulican democracy." Its a Republic. It is democratic, but not a democracy.

Well, I think we learn more about the US Election Process than you learn about the German one. Would make sense, since the German one isn't really to important to the US (although better).


Yes, the US is a Republic. That is true. Every piece of that statement is true. Now the next one: The US is a Democracy. Yes, also true. Bioth true statements. Clear?

No, Bardock... You're missing the point. There haven't been true democracies since the cantons of Switzerland and the era of democratic Athens. The idea of a democracy is that people have power over the government. With a republic, that's not the case; representatives represent the people- in much the same way the equestrians and senators represented the people in the Roman Republic. Likewise, in Napoleon's France, there were groups to represent the people, but the people had little to no power at all to effect government policy.

However, in a democracy, the people DO directly influence and effect the government. There is no representative or middle man in the way. The people ARE the government.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
No, Bardock... You're missing the point. There haven't been true democracies since the cantons of Switzerland and the era of democratic Athens. The idea of a democracy is that people have power over the government. With a republic, that's not the case; representatives represent the people- in much the same way the equestrians and senators represented the people in the Roman Republic. Likewise, in Napoleon's France, there were groups to represent the people, but the people had little to no power at all to effect government policy.

However, in a democracy, the people DO directly influence and effect the government. There is no representative or middle man in the way. The people ARE the government.

No, that's you rdefinition of "true" Democracy. You miss the point. That is not the real definition of Democracy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, that's you rdefinition of "true" Democracy. You miss the point. That is not the real definition of Democracy.

republic , today understood to be a sovereign state ruled by representatives of a widely inclusive electorate. The term republic formerly denoted a form of government that was both free from hereditary or monarchical rule and had popular control of the state and a conception of public welfare. It is in this sense that we speak of the ancient Roman republic. Today, in addition to the above characteristics, a republic is a state in which all segments of society are enfranchised and in which the state's power is constitutionally limited. Traditionally a republic is distinguished from a true democracy in that the republic operates through a representative assembly chosen by the citizenry, while in a democracy the populace participates directly in governmental affairs. In actual practice, however, most modern representative governments are closer to a republic than a democracy. The United States is an example of a federal republic, in which the powers of the central government are limited and the component parts of the nation, the states, exercise some measure of home rule. France is an example of a centralized republic, in which the component parts have more limited powers. The USSR, though in theory a grouping of federated republics and autonomous regions, was in fact a centralized republic until its breakup in 1991.

See F. Hermens, The Representative Republic (1958) and Introduction to Modern Politics (1959).

Simply put, the United States is not a Democracy.

Originally posted by Alliance
Simply put, the United States is not a Democracy.

That's just wrong. One of you look up Representative Democracy....and then tell me that the US is not a democracy.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
republic , today understood to be a sovereign state ruled by representatives of a widely inclusive electorate. The term republic formerly denoted a form of government that was both free from hereditary or monarchical rule and had popular control of the state and a conception of public welfare. It is in this sense that we speak of the ancient Roman republic. Today, in addition to the above characteristics, a republic is a state in which all segments of society are enfranchised and in which the state's power is constitutionally limited. Traditionally a republic is distinguished from a true democracy in that the republic operates through a representative assembly chosen by the citizenry, while in a democracy the populace participates directly in governmental affairs. In actual practice, however, most modern representative governments are closer to a republic than a democracy. The United States is an example of a federal republic, in which the powers of the central government are limited and the component parts of the nation, the states, exercise some measure of home rule. France is an example of a centralized republic, in which the component parts have more limited powers. The USSR, though in theory a grouping of federated republics and autonomous regions, was in fact a centralized republic until its breakup in 1991.

See F. Hermens, The Representative Republic (1958) and Introduction to Modern Politics (1959).

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Reading comprehension is your friend.

I was able to comprehend that very well. That doesn't change that this argumentation is wrong. Representative Democracy is what the USA is. A form of democracy. That is all there is to it.

I think you're missing the point- the term "democracy" in the most general sense can cover a LOT of things:

- Direct democracy (Which is what we're arguing about; it's the only form of democracy that's true to the ideal of "power by the people".)

- Representative Democracy (Where the power of the many is put into the hands of the few, who are free to do as they fit. Recall, particularly in the American system, is difficult at best.)

- Delegative Democracy (Where representitives act according to constituency, and recall is fairly easy)

- Anticipatory Democracy, Deliberative Democracy, Grassroots democracy, etc. These proposed alternatives to delegative and representative (And there's literally dozens of alternatives proposed at the moment) which would be closer to a real or direct democracy. If anything, representative democracy (Read: republic) is the farthest from direct democracy, being surpassed by delegative in effectively communicating the will of the people.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think you're missing the point- the term "democracy" in the most general sense can cover a LOT of things:

- Direct democracy (Which is what we're arguing about; it's the only form of democracy that's true to the ideal of "power by the people".)

- Representative Democracy (Where the power of the many is put into the hands of the few, who are free to do as they fit. Recall, particularly in the American system, is difficult at best.)

- Delegative Democracy (Where representitives act according to constituency, and recall is fairly easy)

- Anticipatory Democracy, Deliberative Democracy, Grassroots democracy, etc. These proposed alternatives to delegative and representative (And there's literally dozens of alternatives proposed at the moment) which would be closer to a real or direct democracy. If anything, representative democracy (Read: republic) is the farthest from direct democracy, being surpassed by delegative in effectively communicating the will of the people.

Yes, maybe you were missing the point that I claimed that all along?

You first posted:

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a true and a real democracy though. Maybe you should read the definitions of democracy again. Everything that fits that definition is a "true" democracy.

Again Democracy and Republic describe not the same thing. Something can be a Democracy and a Republic (USA, Germany, France....), something can be a Democracy and a Monarchy (England, Spain (I think)), but nothing can be a Republic and a Monarchy...for example.

Alliance replied:



You then went on to reply:

Originally posted by Bardock42
That does not matter. It doesn't need to be direct to be a democracy.

No, that's wrong, that is one form of democracy. Direct Democracy. Not "true" democracy.

You seem to be forgetting (Or not realizing) that democracy is true when it's directly done by the people. Of the in effect systems, representative democracy is the farthest from the ideal of democracy (Read again: rule by the people). Delegation is far closer.

I realize you think you got the world by the balls because you found the link to Dictionary.com, but you have to realize that I live in America, and I am currently taking political science classes. The idea of democracy is RULE BY THE PEOPLE. Representative government where the representatives are not bound by constituency nor are able to be recalled with ease is barely democratic in practice. Having the right to vote does not equate having a voice in the government. And the only way to circumvent the impersonal process of mass vote is lobbying. However, that is taken over by large interest groups and corporations who pay people to strictly lobby for their own private agenda. This throws the shift of power away from the people and into the hands of multimillion dollar corporations who can afford to pay tons of lobbyists and drum up support. It doesn't matter who the people vote into office out of the handful of rich, old boys club individuals they have to choose from- the companies still stick their wallet out there and sway governmental policy.

Now... Are you going to continue to argue out of your ass that representative democracy in America is a true democracy and that direct democracy is somehow not, or are you done?

It does not matter what you regard as "true" democracy. Democracy is also representative Democracy.

Therefore America is both a democracy (represantative) and a Republic. Get it?

I will give you this: America is not a direct Democracy. Also this: America is not a Democracy as Athens used to be. But the USA is a Democracy. You as a soemone taking Political Science should know that.

A government cannot have two different systems. Even the US government says its a Republic. Yes we lie a lot, but not on this.

America as a democracy was cold war propoganda sent out to solidify the US-CCCP dichotomy. Like most propoganda, its false.

Originally posted by Alliance
A government cannot have two different systems. Even the US government says its a Republic. Yes we lie a lot, but not on this.

America as a democracy was cold war propoganda sent out to solidify the US-CCCP dichotomy. Like most propoganda, its false.

But Republic and Democracy are not different or opposing Systems. They are describing different things. Republic Describes the form of governmen while democracy describes where the power is taking from (the people)

If Democracy was a special System I would agree but it isn't.

Originally posted by Alliance
Also, the CIA defines America's government as "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" and I doubt the CIA has it wrong.

(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)

Originally posted by Bardock42
The CIA has it right on. USA is a Republic. A democratic one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Republic Describes the form of governmen while democracy describes where the power is taking from (the people)

If Democracy was a special System I would agree but it isn't.

You've said it yourself repeatedly. THe US government is a Republic. It is democratic but it is NOT a democracy.

Originally posted by Alliance
You've said it yourself repeatedly. THe US government is a Republic. It is democratic but it is NOT a democracy.

It is a Republic. And a democracy. What's so hard to comprehend?

What is Great Britain in your book?

Why is the fact that the US is DEMOCRATIC and NOT A DEMOCRACY so hard to comprehend?

The UK would best be described as a constitutional monarchy.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why is the fact that the US is DEMOCRATIC and NOT A DEMOCRACY so hard to comprehend?

The UK would best be described as a constitutional monarchy.

But the US fits one of the definitions of democracy. So it is a democracy.

Yes, that is true, but at the same time it is a democracy.

Democracy has a double meaning. When you refer to the System democracy, which is basically direct democracy you are right. But there is also the meaning where democracy is popular government. And that is just as valid as a definition as the first one. So Great Britain is in fact a democracy and a constitutional Monarchy. the US is a democracy and a Republic.

You want me to use "democratic" instead of democracy while the word "democracy" applies just as well. I am sorry that the actual language does not agree with your personal definition of democracy, but that is just the way it is.

No, the word democratic is not at all the same thing as democracy. A Democracy is a type of government. End of story. A democratic government not a type of governement, but a philosophy of the government itself. The two words have very different denotations. A democratic government is one where people have some form of voting rights. Democracies are democratic, but so are many other types of government, including the UK's contitutional monarchy and the US's federal republic. Neither are democracies, both are demicratic.

The issue here is that your defintion of democracy is arbitrary. What you are describing are democratic philosphies, not a democracy. Even these governemnts say that they are not democracies, but states with democratic traditions. They know more than you, they are the government. This isn't just my interpretation. This is theirs.

Well, I know Germany for fact claims to be a democracy. (probably because it is one).

But okay, I will pretend to agree with you there for a moment. What exactly is a Representative Democracy then?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I know Germany for fact claims to be a democracy. (probably because it is one).

But okay, I will pretend to agree with you there for a moment. What exactly is a Representative Democracy then?
It is a system where the people elect Representatives to speak for them in a governmental body. A true Democracy would be like what ancient Athens had.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
It is a system where the people elect Representatives to speak for them in a governmental body. A true Democracy would be like what ancient Athens had.

I prefer the term direct democracy. But yeah, that doesn't change the fact that represantative democracy is still democracy..and nort just "democratic..."

Originally posted by Bardock42
I prefer the term direct democracy. But yeah, that doesn't change the fact that represantative democracy is still democracy..and nort just "democratic..."
No your incorrect there are differences.

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare, due to the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable of these was ancient Athens.

Representative democracy is a political system where the people vote on government members, who are then expected to make decisions in accordance with the interests of their voters. It is called representative because the people do not vote on government decisions directly, but elect representatives to decide for them. This form of government has been increasingly common in recent times, and the number of representative democracies experienced such explosive growth during the 20th century so that the majority of the world's population now lives under representative democratic regimes (which are sometimes also referred to as "republics". In turn, representative democracies may be subdivided into "liberal" and "illiberal" forms.

Liberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where the ruling government is subject to rule of law and separation of powers, while the people are guaranteed certain inviolable rights. Illiberal democracy is a type of representative democracy where there are no effective limits on the power of elected representatives to rule as they please.

So by that definition, is the US a "represantative Democracy"?


Even a Liberal one?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So by that definition, is the US a "Representative Democracy"?


Even a Liberal one?
By definition Cuba is a Democracy of sorts (although we all know Mr. Castro is just a lying ass)... an actual true Democracy is what the Greeks pioneered way before everyone else.

But yes I suppose you could say the US is a "Representative Democracy" although if anything it's a blend between a Republic and a Democracy. Saying that it is democratic is more accurate.