Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sonoco on 2005-07-16 at 11:26:28
QUOTE
Alright, I already know Kaizen's point of view, but I look forward to hearing what s/he has to say anyway.
Communism VS Democracy VS a totalitarian government
(pulled these definitions off dictionary.com)
com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
[I took one word out of the definition above because whoever wrote it had some biast feelings]
de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
The definition for this was clearly biased, or speaking of one situation. So my definition for you is: A government that holds all central power.
Ok, If you going to make a statement about one, I want to hear why it is better than the others, in what aspects it is a better form of government, and why the other forms lack that aspect
Communism VS Democracy VS a totalitarian government
(pulled these definitions off dictionary.com)
com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
[I took one word out of the definition above because whoever wrote it had some biast feelings]
de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
The definition for this was clearly biased, or speaking of one situation. So my definition for you is: A government that holds all central power.
Ok, If you going to make a statement about one, I want to hear why it is better than the others, in what aspects it is a better form of government, and why the other forms lack that aspect
BeeR: Next time quote what you copy from other people, http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=62301
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-16 at 11:58:52
Umm.. I thought totalitarian was when one person controled almost every aspect of the country.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-16 at 12:00:40
I thought it was like a dictatorship but MUCH more extreme.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-07-16 at 18:14:23
I think they all suck for various reasons, but democracy seems to work best, at least in richer countries.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-07-16 at 18:26:27
Isn't it worse in richer countries because you can bribe majority? And you can afford to bribe media and everything becomes a war of who has more money.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-07-16 at 18:35:44
In poor countries, its more corrupt. Look at russia, and look at indonesia, two poor democratic countries.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-16 at 18:47:46
Well would communism and totalitarianism be better for those poor countries? China has a good economy right? And they are communist.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2005-07-16 at 20:23:05
No, dictionary-definition communism hasn't been present in most to all of China for a few generations by now, replaced by capitalism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-16 at 20:29:29
The united states is a Republic. You elect someone who represents you, however, not exactly, creating a flawed system as the overall message is limited to "I want democrat" and "I want Republican".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-16 at 21:53:50
QUOTE(PCFredZ @ Jul 16 2005, 08:23 PM)
No, dictionary-definition communism hasn't been present in most to all of China for a few generations by now, replaced by capitalism.
[right][snapback]263807[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]263807[/snapback][/right]
So then what type of government is it? It's not a republic is it?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2005-07-16 at 23:29:16
QUOTE(devilesk @ Jul 16 2005, 09:53 PM)
So then what type of government is it? It's not a republic is it?
[right][snapback]263874[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]263874[/snapback][/right]
China's not a republic, but not what most people consider communist either. Communism's main idea is of everyone having the same amount of wealth, doing the same work to contribute to a community pool of ownership. That's what my parents as kids did experience, but not me when I lived in China (1990-1999).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2005-07-17 at 00:40:03
Communism does not work. Everyone with the same amount of wealth, even if it didn't happen, would not work. If everyone gets the same amount, nobody is going to work. Also, when people do work, they do so BECAUSE they want to be rewarded in some forum, usually payment.
Totalitarianism would be the best form of government, assuming the dictator was smart.
Totalitarianism would be the best form of government, assuming the dictator was smart.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-07-17 at 00:54:49
Totalitarianism all the way. Even if the dictator isn't smart, at least he can go crush whoever apposes him. Hey, its not nice, but I never said it had to be.
Communism has failed, just read Animal Farm , that's a pretty good representation of what happened in Russia.
Democracy is over-rated. It works in small situations, but after a while people realize that one person cannot plausibly represent ten thousand.
United States is a Democratic Republic, for the record; not a Republic. Oi, my history teacher'd love me for saying that. As if he didn't beat it into my head enough ><
Communism has failed, just read Animal Farm , that's a pretty good representation of what happened in Russia.
Democracy is over-rated. It works in small situations, but after a while people realize that one person cannot plausibly represent ten thousand.
United States is a Democratic Republic, for the record; not a Republic. Oi, my history teacher'd love me for saying that. As if he didn't beat it into my head enough ><
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-07-17 at 00:56:30
Stalin did manage to propell Russia from a backwards country into one of the largest super powers of the world, so I can't say it wasn't successful.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-17 at 00:59:53
While true, you have to consider the cost of the population.
This is why it all depends on what you're trying to do. To advance or to please?
This is why it all depends on what you're trying to do. To advance or to please?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-07-17 at 01:56:31
QUOTE(Kame da Sniper @ Jul 17 2005, 12:54 AM)
Communism has failed, just read Animal Farm , that's a pretty good representation of what happened in Russia.
[right][snapback]263949[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]263949[/snapback][/right]
Heh I read that in my English class
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 02:11:17
Totalitarianism: Besides the fact that it's evil to have control over innocent people, it's impossible to manage everything better than the people who own the stuff.
Communism: It's a radical leftiist economic system, but it doesn't really fit with 'forms of government'.
Democracy: It's still evil to control others even if it's the masses doing the controlling. Let individuals control themselves. This is pretty much the same as totalitarianism.
Communism: It's a radical leftiist economic system, but it doesn't really fit with 'forms of government'.
Democracy: It's still evil to control others even if it's the masses doing the controlling. Let individuals control themselves. This is pretty much the same as totalitarianism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-07-17 at 02:27:02
The only governmental theory that would work with your proposed ideas is anarchy. That means good game order, no remake. Besides, that's just asking for trouble. Who would make the rules? Oh wait, the only people making rules are the people themselves, and they don't apply to anyone else than the creators? So once you establish a set of rules for a community, you have a government. And then the only thing that binds anything together in this world is money.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-07-17 at 02:43:29
Democracy is best as far as free speech goes. The issue is, everyone needs to be educated for a democracy to work, and every person has to have their say in the government (which is hard with over a billion people to manage).
Communism is best as far as equality goes. If you were to factor out greed and a desire for power, communism would be a great government type. Problem is, the hard workers get the same amount as the lazy workers.
Totalitarianism is an absolute monarchy, or basically communism in the USSR. When the Soviet Union was around, every aspect of society was ruled by the "leader." I don't think there is any good side to this type of government at all, unless you are the dictator.
While I'm on this little rant, I feel the need to add that Theocracies, Dictatorships, and Fascists all blow.
Actually I'd say it was Lenin and Trotsky who made the huge impact on the USSR. Without them, Stalin would be nothing by a little lackey. Trotsky's red army was great and lenin's leadership and influence built up their production. But then again Karl Marx intended communism to exist in Germany, or some other technologically advanced nation. Russia at the time was so underdeveloped.
Communism is best as far as equality goes. If you were to factor out greed and a desire for power, communism would be a great government type. Problem is, the hard workers get the same amount as the lazy workers.
Totalitarianism is an absolute monarchy, or basically communism in the USSR. When the Soviet Union was around, every aspect of society was ruled by the "leader." I don't think there is any good side to this type of government at all, unless you are the dictator.
While I'm on this little rant, I feel the need to add that Theocracies, Dictatorships, and Fascists all blow.
QUOTE
Stalin did manage to propell Russia from a backwards country into one of the largest super powers of the world, so I can't say it wasn't successful.
Actually I'd say it was Lenin and Trotsky who made the huge impact on the USSR. Without them, Stalin would be nothing by a little lackey. Trotsky's red army was great and lenin's leadership and influence built up their production. But then again Karl Marx intended communism to exist in Germany, or some other technologically advanced nation. Russia at the time was so underdeveloped.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 02:44:01
Yes, I'm an archist, but not the masochist "A" drawing kind. The world should be ruled by capitalism, not by the whims of the masses.
I'm an anarchist because I realized there is no difference between the government and organized crime. Both have a monopoly on the use of force; both use it to do things they have no right doing. The whole concept of a government is pretty iffy. What makes it fair? Should the majority really have control over the minoritry (democracy)? Is that any different from mob rule? The lack of a government does not mean chaos; that is brought about by other factors.
I'm an anarchist because I realized there is no difference between the government and organized crime. Both have a monopoly on the use of force; both use it to do things they have no right doing. The whole concept of a government is pretty iffy. What makes it fair? Should the majority really have control over the minoritry (democracy)? Is that any different from mob rule? The lack of a government does not mean chaos; that is brought about by other factors.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-07-17 at 05:13:46
I too, have read Animal Farm. Too bad my teacher was lazy, and I just skipped to the end, but I did read it all eventually. She didn't even quiz us on it! GAH! Good book.
Yes, Lenin and Trotsky did play an important part in the revolution of Russia. They overthrew the Provisional Government and established peace. Though, this lead to a bloody civil war, in which citys were ransacked and destroyed. Trotsky was a great leader, but he was too aggorant of himself. Overconfident perhaps? Either way, it lead to an icepick in his head. Lenin was very important, his NEP Policy helped Russia get on it's feet, and begin production. However, his life was short-lived, and it was up to Stalin to do the rest. His 5 Year Plans focused on heavy industry, and collectization of farms, while massively exporting grain. This created a large economic boom, but the lack of consumer goods and heavy working caused death among the population. Overall, Stalin and Lenin are responsible for what Russia is today. Karl Marx believed in Socialism, did he not?
QUOTE
Actually I'd say it was Lenin and Trotsky who made the huge impact on the USSR. Without them, Stalin would be nothing by a little lackey. Trotsky's red army was great and lenin's leadership and influence built up their production. But then again Karl Marx intended communism to exist in Germany, or some other technologically advanced nation. Russia at the time was so underdeveloped.
Yes, Lenin and Trotsky did play an important part in the revolution of Russia. They overthrew the Provisional Government and established peace. Though, this lead to a bloody civil war, in which citys were ransacked and destroyed. Trotsky was a great leader, but he was too aggorant of himself. Overconfident perhaps? Either way, it lead to an icepick in his head. Lenin was very important, his NEP Policy helped Russia get on it's feet, and begin production. However, his life was short-lived, and it was up to Stalin to do the rest. His 5 Year Plans focused on heavy industry, and collectization of farms, while massively exporting grain. This created a large economic boom, but the lack of consumer goods and heavy working caused death among the population. Overall, Stalin and Lenin are responsible for what Russia is today. Karl Marx believed in Socialism, did he not?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PCFredZ on 2005-07-17 at 11:10:13
Corruption can be present in all types of government... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-07-17 at 11:13:48
Marx created the idea of communism, but as I said it was not intended for Russia. Knowing this, Lenin made a few changes stating that a brilliant leader (namely himself) would have to lead the communist revolution to help lead the masses. But that was just a fancy way of saying "everyone is equal under the dictator."
I admit Stalin did increade production and such, but his 5 Year Plan was also just another way for him to seize everyones' property. I still think its sad that Lenin didn't intend for Stalin to take his place after, and instead was leaning towards Trotsky leading the Soviets. But unfortunately Trotsky had made many enemies, and those enemies just happened to like Stalin more.
I think Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky are like the framers of the US constitution in that they laid the groundwork for an arguably successful nation throughout the 20th century. Krushchev, Brezhnev, Malenkov, and the others pretty much did nothing to help the USSR in comparison to the actions of their forefathers. The only one I can think of that can even come close to making a big impact on the USSR was Gorbachev. His perestroika and glasnost ideals were put in place knowing the USSR was coming to an end, and the the lies and deceit from previous decades should come out and be public considering it is a communist society. He knew the USSR had to begin a process of change toward the route of democracy or other such western governments. And he got a Nobel Peace Prize out of it.
I admit Stalin did increade production and such, but his 5 Year Plan was also just another way for him to seize everyones' property. I still think its sad that Lenin didn't intend for Stalin to take his place after, and instead was leaning towards Trotsky leading the Soviets. But unfortunately Trotsky had made many enemies, and those enemies just happened to like Stalin more.
I think Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky are like the framers of the US constitution in that they laid the groundwork for an arguably successful nation throughout the 20th century. Krushchev, Brezhnev, Malenkov, and the others pretty much did nothing to help the USSR in comparison to the actions of their forefathers. The only one I can think of that can even come close to making a big impact on the USSR was Gorbachev. His perestroika and glasnost ideals were put in place knowing the USSR was coming to an end, and the the lies and deceit from previous decades should come out and be public considering it is a communist society. He knew the USSR had to begin a process of change toward the route of democracy or other such western governments. And he got a Nobel Peace Prize out of it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 16:51:15
The USSR was by no means succesful. Any slave camp can churn out weapons.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-07-17 at 17:01:51
A slave camp that churns out a lot of weapons is successful.