Can Someone Explain Communism?

[Impenitent]

he didn't face any opposition, why do you think america had to overthrow him? if the people of germany wanted hitler gone, he would have gone... many attempts on hitler's life were attempted, but none worked until the final one... until then he was effectively unopposed

ignoring your central point? hardly... yes I do see throngs of fools in the middle class filling churches here in america to get their "extremist" propaganda... just as I see the children of middle class suburbia reading the anarchists and communists, absorbing and turning to extremist propaganda... utopians come in many stripes... fortunately, humans mature and learn to reason... it was churchill who said something along the lines: if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, but if you are not conservative by 30 you have no brain...

if only we could kill everyone on the planet and leave it so only communist (christian/moslem/aryan) brothers remained, that would be paradise...

it's the same old story, same old song and dance, my friend...

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
There is an old Asian coinage about voting...."It only takes 50+1 to vote for a dictator."

That means if 50+1 want something, the 49% of people will be oppressed under laws they dont want, rules they dont want, and options they dont want.



Now onto your topics:

HUMANITY
How do you know somebody is slacking off? What if everyone just hates that person and votes him/her off, even if that person is working hard? At work, there was an employee nobody liked (he was too quiet, never talked to others), and everyone kept pressuring me to fire him! I obvously couldn't fire him, because I would then be sued. But what if I wasn't there? (being the greedy evil capitalistic boss) That poor guy would be fired!


GOVERNMENT
No matter who or what does the governing, there must be somebody coordinating the process. You don't tell all the factory workers from around the world to come over to Algeria just to elect a local militia. Somebody must be there distributing the weapons, etc. And whats the difference between corruption under Communism and capitalism? (see below)


PRODUCTION
Hitler never gave an order for genocide. It was his lower-subordinates who did. There is no such evidence to show Hitler deliberately gave any death order.

Who will get to debate on the Communist Forum? Will the ENTIRE WORLD get chosen? Or just an elite few? Its those elite debating on the forums who will hold the power.

In contrast, the US President who refuses to give up his power is kicked out by ORGANISED POLICE. In other words, the cops come and drag him off.

Also, how can you know whether somebody is a criminal before giving them a free AK47 or AKSU rifle? If they're planning to kill somebody for extra bread they wont be telling you....


Hitler didn't simply appeal to desperate people....he appealed to everyone, Americans included. Even Ghandi and Churchill applauded Hitler's speeches as fine speeches and policies.

On the oil well: What if a group wants to set up camp on top of an oil well? Since the land belongs to everyone, you can't just go and shoot them (like Bush is doing).


"And what need is there to save for a rainy day?"

Good question. What if crops fail this year? Locusts? Earthquake? Drought? Destroyed transportation lines? Computer failure (which eliminates all your credits)?


"Why do 99% of people under capitalism not steal from their workplace?"

People under capitalism choose not to steal because theres other ways to get more money. Under Communism, because everyone is equal, and there is no way you can get more money than anybody else, then stealing is the ONLY way.

Under capitalism, there are thousands of ways to get more money than everybody else.


"But I believe that as the population would be armed, and well experienced in war after a revolution, they would not sacrifice there new found freedom to such oppurtunists."

The Chinese population was armed and well-trained in warfare in 1949, but Mao still took dictatorship.


"I bet they do want to overthrow him, but (i'll have to check on this) I don't think the North Koreans are an armed populace."

Many are. North Korea has a huge armed force (many of whom also live in poverty). Why don't they overthrow him?

Because of human APATHY. The majority of humans prefer to live in poverty (some pain) rather than risk getting shot in a rebel war (more pain!). The same with capitalism; most people endure crap jobs, rather than risk their financial future on business or investment.



Also, you want the ENTIRE WORLD to become liberal democracy before Communism can take root? I doubt that will happen, especially when socialist protestors are supporting dictatorial regimes and opposing US democracy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

HUMANITY - How do you know someone is slacking? If suddenly the workload goes up for everyone else without a clear reason, such as a need to produce more food, then somebody down the line isn't pulling their weight. Also if someone isn't working and just hanging about someone will spot them, or more likely not see them were they are meant to be. if that became regular it could be brough up for discussion.
As for someone simply not fitting in with a workplace, if you didn't under communism you may as well move yourself to somewhere your happy. And although some people are content being quite people, they still interact with those around them, even if it isn't as boisterous as most people. And if they are someone who really doesn't want to talk to people at all, then it sounds like a sociopathic tendency to me, and they would be better off talking to a shrink than be at work.
All of this wouldn't of course be possible under capitalism. You took this job because you needed the money, not because you enjoyed the work or the people around you. You don't get on with your colleagues and it makes life miserable that kind of isolation, but still you work there because you need that money.

Government - Yes, there will be people co-ordinating, but these people will be elected and subject to recall. This has already been said. And factory workers from Bengal wouldn't be voting on the militias for Algeria, that would be the job of the council of each town in Algeria, and this council is only elected by the locals of that town. People from Bengal would only be casting votes that effect Algerians in things like international companies that affect both the Algerians and the Bengalis, such as the CEO of a company.

PRODUCTION - No Hitler may not have given direct orders, but I'm sure the anti semitism of Mein Kampf and Hitlers ravings may have influenced the Final Solution.

Who will debate in the world forum? Each region or locality depending on the scale of this forum would elect a delegate to the forum. The delegate would be subject to recall at any time. The forum would like be composed of 'elites', in that it is likely the most intelligent people would be elected by each area to represent them. But as this forum has no executive powers it would be unable to become a world government, as a government requires executive, legislative and judical powers, none of which the forum would possess. The forum is exactley as it sounds, a forum. A place for debating. To highlight ideas and possible course of action. It would still take popular support for any ideas put forward for it to become reality.

And if the councillor refuses to leave his office then the ORGANISED MILITIA would do exactley the same thing.

How do you know if someone is a criminal before arming them? How do we do it today? Then we'll do it that way.

No, Hitler appealed to the desperate. Throughout the early half of the 20's Hitlers support came from his party, the German Workers Party. It was oddly enough, not a middle class party, but a workers party. However, in order to expand Hitler began dropping the socialist facade that the party had previously maintained, best highlighted by the disollution of the SA in the night of the Long Knives. This was during the great depression, when EVERYONE in Germany was desperate. Hitler promised to protect german business's, appealing to the now terrified middle class, and create new jobs, appealing to the working class.
So yes, your right, Hitler appealed to everyone, because everyone was desperate.

I'm not surprised Churchill didn't admire Hitler in many ways, they were both demagogues obsessed with their own place in history. As for Ghandi, I'd like to see what you are basing your claim on. I know Ghandi commended Hitler on bringing Germany out of the state it was in, but I doubt Ghandi was getting all the facts on how Hitler was doing this. And considering that WWII was tying up the British elsewhere, and bankrupting its empire, I'm sure Ghandi was quite delighted.

On the oil well: you have hit the nail on the head, everyone owns that oil and no minority has a right to place any claim on it. So if they tried to expropriate the oil for personal wealth, they they would be removed.

If crops failed then saving for that rainy day would mean nothing, because there would be no crops related goods to buy anyway. However as crop failure is expected to happen somewhere in the world, all agricultural industries can produce a little more than neccesary. If it isn't needed, then everyone gets a little more. The same goes for all other such industries.

On the computer failure: I gave the idea of credit cards as one possible way of doing it. It is not the only way of doing it. There could be four or five very seperate but identical systems recording how many credits you have, so if one goes down the others still know what you have.
Its the same under capitalism. If for some reason all the banks got wiped due to, for instance a virus, they have seperate mechanisms to record what is where. And in the unlikely event that they go as well, all (responsible) governments have emergency plans. The councils could organise such plans for that unlikely circumstance.

On stealing: As everyone has everything they need, there is no benefit to stealing. You can't sell it on, who would pay for something they already have? Theres no point keeping it, you already have one of your own, or can acquire one easily enough through your work.

The Chinese population may have been well armed and well trained, but it was not well educated and spent many previous years living under a liberal democracy, both of which I specified were needed to produce a succesful revolution.

I know NK has a huge armed force, almost 10% of the country is. But that 10% have a better lifestyle than the rest. So why would they give up there position, which would be contrary to your survival instinct. But again, NK did not experience a great many years under a liberal democracy, providing the people with liberal culture and a decent education.

On apathy, I would disagree. People become apathetic when they believe that they have no way of improving their situation, or believe that 'this is already as good as it gets'. When people realise that they CAN lead a better life, and more importantly SHOULD be leading better lives, they will do what they can to do so. This is what starts all revolutions, although the expected outcome is not always achieved.
Once liberal democracies are established across the globe, the good education these people will recieve will allow them to realise that they are living in lesser conditions than they should be, and that the only way to improve their situation will be to revolt.

Yes, I want the entire world to become a liberal democracy, or many liberal democracies (though a one world government would be preferable). Don't you?

And there are few socialists or communists supporting dictatorial regimes, and the ones that do are very misled, they don't even know their socialism.

By liberal democracy I simply mean a combination of democracy and a respect for rights, it needn't be the 'most minimal' government possible. Social democracies, such as those in Scandinavia could persist, as long as the respect for individual rights remain.

[Impenitent]

Guido,
"Leni Riefenstahl is, as she always maintained, a footnote in history. She showed mobs just to convince people that resistance was futile. It was. The elite had guns & secret police & no scruples & lots of greed, the mob didn´t."

she died a couple of weeks ago... I know the minority of people didn't have the guns or the power to act against the nazi majority, that was the point... the mob is not always right, especially in communism but specifically in nazi germany...

PS. 1. I didn't define greed, the dictionary did and I was showing you what the dictionary said... greed does not mean "capitalistic" greed
2. "Also it is one of the stupidest mistakes in evolutionary theory to say that all organisms strive to survive as individual entities." is it brilliant to say all orgamisms strive to survive as group entities? is the key to evolutionary theory now to be a leech?

[G. Adams]

Organisms do not strive to survive as individuals or as a group, they simply strive to survive. If they can best do this as an individual, then they will do it, as leapords do (there wouldn't be enough food if they hunted in packs). But if they can best do it through groups, then they will do. The only way for humans to create and maintain civilisations is through the group, and civilisation is the best way for humans to survive.

[Impenitent]

civilizations?

very funny actually... civilization is the best way for SELECT humans to survive... our civilization of communists will allow you to survive if x,y, and z... but since you did 1,2, and 3, the glorious, liberal majority has voted that you need to die...

man is an animal and nothing besides...

herd him if you can... not likely, so simply kill him

that is civilization.

[G. Adams]

Why would a liberal majority vote to kill someone? I know the vast majority in Britain, which is liberal, rejects the idea of capital punishment, so why would they stoop so low as to vote someone to death?

[RebelWithanAK]

In all the democratic societies in history, the worst thing people have voted to do was expel someone, and even that was temporary.

[Impenitent]

G. "liberal" majorities have been committing genocide since the invention of majorities...

are you going to change the definition of liberal now?

or claim that a liberal majority cannot exist until the brink of communism?

AK ... you should know better... "temporary" manifest destiny? please...

[RebelWithanAK]

I was referring to the ancient Greeks and their clause that the people could vote that one citizen was to be banished for a decade, and then could return with a clean record. Now...

1) Genocide? Where the fuck have you been? We're not Fascists. We're as far, politically, as you can GET from Fascism.

2) No such thing as a liberal majority? What do you call Europe?

3) Manifest Destiny? That's not our doing.

[Impenitent]

"all the democratic societies in history" is not ancient Greece

1. genocide... yes... ask the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Mohawk, the Apache, the Chippewa, the Navaho, the Cree, the Iroquois, the Crow, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Cheyenne, the Yakima, the Hopi, not to forgetting to mention my tribe the Abenaki and 300 or so un-named tribes...

2. what do I call europe? an old sick dying former conquerer of the world who is too old and feeble to care for itself and grow...

3. manifest destiny IS the white european invader's doing...

and you claim you are a victim of manifest destiny? hah!

[G. Adams]

Impenitent, look. I said a liberal majority. By liberal, and I have specified this elsewhere, I mean a majority that was concerned and respected individual rights, regardless of the sex, race or creed of individuals. The people who committed the genocide, and maintained the oppression, of the native american tribes, were not liberals. In what way did they respect the rights of the individuals they were killing? They didn't, therefore they were not liberals.

You have a very skewed, and to be frank, wrong view of modern Europe. Europe after the cold war took apart its empires, some volutarily, some not. France was very begrudging, under De Gaulle at least, but never the less there was no press to keep the empires together. Instead, Europe came together. Determined not to allow another war to happen on its continent. This is Europe were talking about here, the bloodiest continent of all, with major wars every 30 years between its states. Yet the project succeeded. And now, while America is in spiralling deficit, we actually have a surplus. We have working public health care systems, or in some cases a mix between public and private, but it is still mainly public in those countries. Our governments do not go to war lightly, unlike some of our allies (except bloody britain, but its army being constantly at war or in active peacekeeping duties does mean it has the most experienced and well trained army in the world, except the IDF, but I don't think we want to see Brit taking that kind of route). The individual European states may mean little today, but the EU they form is one of the most important trading blocks in the world, as it is larger than the US and as a whole richer. Our continual intergration and dissolving of borders between each other demonstrate a bright future, and also a good future course for other zones. Sub saharan countries may be impotent as individual states, but how powerful would they be as a single bloc? Or Latin America? And if Europe successfully intergrates into a federal state, it will provide an alternate power to the US, and one whose strength is not based on military might, but co-operation, trade and diplomacy. Our values of humanitarianism and justice can be better spread around the world.

[castille]

HUMANITY: In other words, any Communist who refuses to work will be sent to another factory? Er....in that case I won't work, since I'm at no risk of starvation.

GOVERNMENT: The fact remains that those with guns can shoot, those without can't. The militia will become the new elite slowly, perhaps in 3 decades, perhaps in a century. "Voting" is worthless....just look at the sort of leaders we get.

Hey, didn't Le Pen get voted by millions of French citizens? If Nazism wasn't a recent European occurence, Le Pen (the French Fascist) would have become the new president.

PRODUCTION: Hitler never told people to hate Jews. Europeans always hated Jews since the Inquisition.

As for your international forum, if it has no powers, then where does the order come in?


"How do you know if someone is a criminal before arming them? How do we do it today? Then we'll do it that way."

Er....you do realise the majority of gun crimes in the US is committed by "non-criminals" with guns. We don't know if somebody is likely to use a gun for violent purposes for the next 50 years of their lives....


"No, Hitler appealed to the desperate."

No, he appealed to Germany. From the upper ranks of capitalists, to the lower ranks of liberals, his appeal was universal. He appealed to Americans; only US propaganda made people hate Hitler. He appealed to France; the French surrender was due to pro-fascist leanings. He appealed to Europe - think of the numerous anti-Stalin armies formed (ironically, that Hitler stopped).



"On stealing: As everyone has everything they need, there is no benefit to stealing. You can't sell it on, who would pay for something they already have? Theres no point keeping it, you already have one of your own, or can acquire one easily enough through your work."

That is exactly where you are wrong. You suggest "everyone has everything they need". Well, how do you know? What if they don't? What if a group of people demand MORE? For example, Communists assume dried bread and water is the only thing people want. What if somebody wants a computer? Video games? Consumer goods? CAPITALIST consumer goods?

I can predict the result: The Communist Secret Police will arrest that "troublemaker", torture him, brand him as a counter-revolutionary, and shoot him. Its happened before, and history repeats itself.



Your assumptions, ultimately, are based on so many what-ifs that I could get rich if I got a penny for every "what-if". "Communism can only work if everyone is a liberal democrat, if everyone does this and does that". What if they don't?

The answer: Shoot them.


Mao did the same. He said Communism can only work if everyone is committed. What happened to those who weren't "happy"? You just have to examine the 30 million decrease in population to know the answer.....


Ultimately, the strength of capitalism lies in preserving the status quo, and thus preventing any Hitlers from taking power. Yes, maybe some suffer (ironically, corporations are making the MOST donations to Third World countries), but as we saw with Asia, living standards under capitalism are increasing every second.

30 years ago, you couldnt buy roast duck in Communist China. Today, in capitalist China, the majority of urban, and a rapidly growing portion of country folk are getting access to clean water, good food, and a high education. All without Hitler's "kill anyone who disagrees with me" campaign.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
HUMANITY: In other words, any Communist who refuses to work will be sent to another factory? Er....in that case I won't work, since I'm at no risk of starvation.

GOVERNMENT: The fact remains that those with guns can shoot, those without can't. The militia will become the new elite slowly, perhaps in 3 decades, perhaps in a century. "Voting" is worthless....just look at the sort of leaders we get.

Hey, didn't Le Pen get voted by millions of French citizens? If Nazism wasn't a recent European occurence, Le Pen (the French Fascist) would have become the new president.

PRODUCTION: Hitler never told people to hate Jews. Europeans always hated Jews since the Inquisition.

As for your international forum, if it has no powers, then where does the order come in?


"How do you know if someone is a criminal before arming them? How do we do it today? Then we'll do it that way."

Er....you do realise the majority of gun crimes in the US is committed by "non-criminals" with guns. We don't know if somebody is likely to use a gun for violent purposes for the next 50 years of their lives....


"No, Hitler appealed to the desperate."

No, he appealed to Germany. From the upper ranks of capitalists, to the lower ranks of liberals, his appeal was universal. He appealed to Americans; only US propaganda made people hate Hitler. He appealed to France; the French surrender was due to pro-fascist leanings. He appealed to Europe - think of the numerous anti-Stalin armies formed (ironically, that Hitler stopped).



"On stealing: As everyone has everything they need, there is no benefit to stealing. You can't sell it on, who would pay for something they already have? Theres no point keeping it, you already have one of your own, or can acquire one easily enough through your work."

That is exactly where you are wrong. You suggest "everyone has everything they need". Well, how do you know? What if they don't? What if a group of people demand MORE? For example, Communists assume dried bread and water is the only thing people want. What if somebody wants a computer? Video games? Consumer goods? CAPITALIST consumer goods?

I can predict the result: The Communist Secret Police will arrest that "troublemaker", torture him, brand him as a counter-revolutionary, and shoot him. Its happened before, and history repeats itself.



Your assumptions, ultimately, are based on so many what-ifs that I could get rich if I got a penny for every "what-if". "Communism can only work if everyone is a liberal democrat, if everyone does this and does that". What if they don't?

The answer: Shoot them.


Mao did the same. He said Communism can only work if everyone is committed. What happened to those who weren't "happy"? You just have to examine the 30 million decrease in population to know the answer.....


Ultimately, the strength of capitalism lies in preserving the status quo, and thus preventing any Hitlers from taking power. Yes, maybe some suffer (ironically, corporations are making the MOST donations to Third World countries), but as we saw with Asia, living standards under capitalism are increasing every second.

30 years ago, you couldnt buy roast duck in Communist China. Today, in capitalist China, the majority of urban, and a rapidly growing portion of country folk are getting access to clean water, good food, and a high education. All without Hitler's "kill anyone who disagrees with me" campaign.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I wish these topics were spread out, its a daunting task having to reply this length two or three times a day.

HUMANITY - I never said you would be provided for without doing any work. I would, at least when the system is up and running, support something like that though. You would get basic food, shelter and warmth requirements, but not have access to luxuries, like gyms, cinemas, big sports events etc Making life livable, but not entirely enjoyable. This would allow people who want to do spiritual retreats to survive. But why not work? You get many more benefits, and because you picked your job not because it was the only one going, but partially because you enjoy the work, or your co-workers, work is not such a bad thing.

GOVERNMENT - Everyone has guns (except criminals and the insane), so everyone can shoot. And as the militia are only a small group relative to the people they protect, if they abuse their position it could be stopped.

If you look at the political situation in France you can see how this event occured. The people were dissollusioned with the two main parties, Chiracs and Lionol Jospins. They had both been switching power between themselves since world war II. France has, unlike most other European countries, modernised and liberalised, holding back its economy, causing some stagnation and rising unemployment. You can see why they were pissed right? so they wanted to vote for someone else in protest. On the left, like the left in all countries, is fractured and split. Our determination in our parties to not simply do as our leaders tell us mean we often splinter and break away. So any votes on the left, which if you count them all up were significant, were split between too many parties. On Frances right wing, you really only have two proper parties, Chirac's centre right and Le Pen le Front Nationale. So votes that went in protest to the right were concentrated on Le Pen.

That is why there was a sudden upshoot in the FN's vote. Now France has a second ballot system, in order to ensure at least a majority vote for one candidate in the presidential elections. The top two candidates from the first round go head to head in the second. Chirac came first, Le Pen second and Jospin third, knocking him out. But in the 2nd ballot Le Pen was decimated; 82.05% for Chirac and 17.95% for Le Pen, with an abstention rate of only 19%.

And you have to remember that many people in France loath Chirac, so some refused to vote for him whatever. He is after all not just a little corrupt. But then who isnt in French politics, its always dominated by an elitist bureaucracy.

Aaaand, on top of that the French President really does not hold that much sway in french politics, the real power is in its Parliament. And in the parliamentary elections the FN performed much more poorly. It has potential, the presidency, but only in international affairs, and as France is a little marginilised, the president is a bit impotent right now.

So your conclusion that if it wasn't for fascism recent phase in Europe he would have won is wrong. The French people are much more political than Americans, British or Aussies. They have always had strong left wing parties and far right activism. Did you not see on the news the millions of French people lining the streets at Le Pen's comin second in the first round?

PRODUCTION - Europeans have not always hated the Jews since the Inquisition. Your generalisation of half a billion people on the views of some are astounding. The hights of anti-semitism among the general populace were precisley around the Inquisition, which if you don't know your timelines was a loooonnnggg time ago.

Because the Jewish people in Germany were a minority, they were easy to highlight when they did have good jobs and become wealthy, making them a target for resentment when everyone else was poor. Hitler gave them false reasons to hate the Jews, based on lies and pseudo science.

International forum - what order? it is forum for debating ideas, nothing more. The ideas presented to the people can then be taken to their own councils were it will be argued there between the councillors and any interested citizens. Any action taken as a result of the debates at the international forum will be ones ratified at the local level by referendum

Gun Crime - then they arn't a criminal yet are they? And I havn't proposed to take guns away from people because they MIGHT commit crimes in the next 50 years with these weapons.

Again, Hitler DID appeal to the desperate in Germany because ALL germans were now desperate. He promised them what they wanted and many lapped it up. As far as I'm aware the propaganda in the US didn't kick in till the war. I'm sure we've all seen the footage of the US ambassador saying the fuhrer is a reasonable man who will be good for Germany, and good ally to the US. Not to mention that it was US industry, particularly Chrysler and General Motors, that supplied Germany with engines, frames and structures to allow Germany to re-arm, occupy the Rhineland and the Sudetanland. It was only around 1935 that Germany really kicked off building its own bits again.

As with Germany, just about everyone in Europe was desperate. Spain was racked with civil war, Mussolini stole power in Italy, France was still recovering from WWII and Britain's economy was in tatters after the Wall Street Crash, leading to a coalition government.

On stealing: No, I don't assume people simply want bread and water. if that is all there is to life I may as well kill myself now. But in order to enjoy the better things in life people need those basics, and that is one key area that capitalism is totally failing in.

And I never said industries such as computers and video games would end. They are not as important as those basics, but still vital. And thus they would also continue.

There would be no communist secret police.

History doesn't always repeat itself. Britain has developed the archetypal representative democracy, and the US has created the archetypal liberal democracy. Yet most people who attempt to follow in our footsteps fail, and revert to semi-democracies or right back into authoritarianism.

No, if everyone isn't a liberal democrat then the revolution would not be able to stand a chance of victory, nor would the conditions to bring about a world wide revolution exist.

But as the western world is trying to create liberal democracies around the world, I don't see this as a problem. Capitalism, by fully realising itself, is undermining itself. And if all the capitalists are right, and liberal democracy is as good as it gets, we will find out once this liberal democratic world has been built. If they are right, I can stop my red flag waving and enjoy it.

Maybe some suffer? How lightly you toss aside the misery of most of the human race. Those TNC's donate not out of kindness, but either to improve their awful reputations or to get the ears of governments, to improve their own situation rather than those donated too.

As for China and the other 'post communist' societies that are booming, yes I agree with you and I would expect nothing less (unless you have incompetant leaders like in much of eastern europe). Why? Because none of those countries were communist. They were totalitarian, or highly authoritarian, at the very least, and capitalism is a vast improvement over those two systems.

[Impenitent]

G.

I was talking historical facts, not utopian dreams...

the people of europe are guilty of exploiting the world, that is the historical truth

"I said a liberal majority. By liberal, and I have specified this elsewhere, I mean a majority that was concerned and respected individual rights, regardless of the sex, race or creed of individuals."

that is your liberal LIE... people are not made that way... you will have to re-educate and lobotomize everyone... it will not happen...

"This is Europe were talking about here, the bloodiest continent of all, with major wars every 30 years between its states." yes the EXPORTER of all the conquerors to every corner of the planet... you bloody the world...

"Yet the project succeeded. And now, while America is in spiralling deficit, we actually have a surplus" succeeded? great! we will remove all american troops and american weapons from your beloved continent... open season once again... we have kept the peace there for the last 60 years so get off your high horse... without REAGAN there'd still be a USSR and without us intervention to keep the wolves at bay from your sorry hides you would have been conquered again...

"And if Europe successfully intergrates into a federal state, it will provide an alternate power to the US, and one whose strength is not based on military might, but co-operation, trade and diplomacy. " the eu can be a state all day... without the might of the us to keep your sorry ass borders secure you'd be over run by the chinese or arabs...

"Our values of humanitarianism and justice can be better spread around the world."

we've tried that for 2000 years... never again

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G.

I was talking historical facts, not utopian dreams...

the people of europe are guilty of exploiting the world, that is the historical truth

"I said a liberal majority. By liberal, and I have specified this elsewhere, I mean a majority that was concerned and respected individual rights, regardless of the sex, race or creed of individuals."

that is your liberal LIE... people are not made that way... you will have to re-educate and lobotomize everyone... it will not happen...

"This is Europe were talking about here, the bloodiest continent of all, with major wars every 30 years between its states." yes the EXPORTER of all the conquerors to every corner of the planet... you bloody the world...

"Yet the project succeeded. And now, while America is in spiralling deficit, we actually have a surplus" succeeded? great! we will remove all american troops and american weapons from your beloved continent... open season once again... we have kept the peace there for the last 60 years so get off your high horse... without REAGAN there'd still be a USSR and without us intervention to keep the wolves at bay from your sorry hides you would have been conquered again...

"And if Europe successfully intergrates into a federal state, it will provide an alternate power to the US, and one whose strength is not based on military might, but co-operation, trade and diplomacy. " the eu can be a state all day... without the might of the us to keep your sorry ass borders secure you'd be over run by the chinese or arabs...

"Our values of humanitarianism and justice can be better spread around the world."

we've tried that for 2000 years... never again<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A minority of Europeans are guilty of exploiting the world prior to 1945. The Europe of then and now are VERY different places. People are not made that way no, they are influenced by their surroundings as they grow. if they are born into a liberal society, as Europeans are today, they will likely become liberal people themselves.

Take away your bases? Will you? Oh pretty pretty please do so. Now lets look at the map now shall we. Were not talking 20 years ago, we are talking about now. Hmm, lets see. Does Europe have any agressive neighbours? Hmm, no. Not one. So who the hell is gonna invade us? We don't NEED your airbases here.

Overrun by Chinese or Arabs? Well we'll look at the Arabs first. The only Arab country neighbouring Europe properly is Turkey. Is this the Turkey who is trying to join the EU I here you cry? Why yes! And does Turkey have a huge fucking land army, superior to all others in the middle east but Israel? It most certainly does.

Now China. China is an important trading partner of the EU's, and visa versa. China is on the whole a peaceful country, and has been growing ever more so. China does have a big military, but it has no reason to attack Europe. Not to mention that to invade Europe it would have to invade about 50-60 countries on the way. As well as this, even if the US didn't care about Europe, it would care about China expanding in anyway, since China is the only power currently close to it. So I doubt the US would allow China to do 10 000 miles of expanding its territory.

So I don't have have to worry about that either, not because the US will protect us, but because it will be protecting itself.

But as China will not be invading Europe, this does not matter.

As for us exporting our values, I was talking about exporting them as a rival to the US. We would do it through trade agreements and diplomacy, instead of toppling governments and building new ones we prefer.

[Impenitent]

G.

1. "The Europe of then and now are VERY different places." yes I know... the europe of today is old and dying... too much birth control and not enough new workers to support your socialist institutions... maybe france needs air conditioners... kill the owners of the air conditioner companies..."if they are born into a liberal society, as Europeans are today, they will likely become liberal people themselves." NOPE... people are animals... likely to do as they are biologically wired to do...

"Does Europe have any agressive neighbours?" only aggressive citizens who think they can overthrow the government... remember the kindly neighbors across the rhine in 1919? they would never do anything ever again... and the eu is admitting turkey when? how long do you think the turks will wait? and what of the africans? and since when do you need an army? a few suitcase nukes or a few vials of vx will do more for your glorious europe than you can imagine... no, you don't our protection...

"So I doubt the US would allow China to do 10 000 miles of expanding its territory." but no, you don't want us protection... china can do whatever she wants to europe... if we want to conquer the world we will but fortunately for you, most americans don't have the stomach for it... but keep pushing...

"As for us exporting our values, I was talking about exporting them as a rival to the US. We would do it through trade agreements and diplomacy, instead of toppling governments and building new ones we prefer."

you ALREADY HAVE exported your values conquering the world... reap what you have sown...

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
G.

1. "The Europe of then and now are VERY different places." yes I know... the europe of today is old and dying... too much birth control and not enough new workers to support your socialist institutions... maybe france needs air conditioners... kill the owners of the air conditioner companies..."if they are born into a liberal society, as Europeans are today, they will likely become liberal people themselves." NOPE... people are animals... likely to do as they are biologically wired to do...

"Does Europe have any agressive neighbours?" only aggressive citizens who think they can overthrow the government... remember the kindly neighbors across the rhine in 1919? they would never do anything ever again... and the eu is admitting turkey when? how long do you think the turks will wait? and what of the africans? and since when do you need an army? a few suitcase nukes or a few vials of vx will do more for your glorious europe than you can imagine... no, you don't our protection...

"So I doubt the US would allow China to do 10 000 miles of expanding its territory." but no, you don't want us protection... china can do whatever she wants to europe... if we want to conquer the world we will but fortunately for you, most americans don't have the stomach for it... but keep pushing...

"As for us exporting our values, I was talking about exporting them as a rival to the US. We would do it through trade agreements and diplomacy, instead of toppling governments and building new ones we prefer."

you ALREADY HAVE exported your values conquering the world... reap what you have sown...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well for a dying set of countries they are doing, collectively, a lot better than the US, except military wise.

People what do what they are wired to do? Well I'm a man, and i'm wired for sex. As is every other healthy male. Oddly though I don't go around raping women. Why not? It is my natural born instinct to get as many women pregnant as possible after all. Well oddly I have 'self-control'. It means I can actually think through whether I want to do something or not. And because my higher brain functions don't want to rape women, my lower brain functions can go screw themselves. See? People are not just animals, they have other things going on too.

Aggressive citizens who want to overthrow the government? I don't know how much you know about Europe but we've had internal terrorists attacking us for 100 years. And how many governments have they toppled? Erm, none? Well Spain kinda, but Franco did get the army on his side, so he's not much of a terrorist by then.

Turkey will be in within 20 years. And Turkey has a huge, young population, which will help Europe which has in general an older population.

If people are going to use a nuke in a suitcase or vial's of nerve gas, what difference is the US military going to make that we can't? Are you going to use stealth bombers on these people? Because thats the only revealed technology of yours that we don't have. Yes there will be more, but for dealing with those kind of terrorists we don't need those kind of weapons.

Africa? Haha, my god do you really think they will stand a chance? They will have to simply throw themselves at us in numbers, because they have no other advantage. Mind you, like with China, there is no particular African nation wanting to invade us. And if there was, they would have to go through friendly territories first, not only friendly ones but better armed ones than they.

Get this into your head, there is no-one waiting to invade Europe. We don't live in 400ad with the barbarians at the gates.

You couldn't conquer the world. You could destroy it but you could not conquer it. Do you really think that the nuclear armed countries (China, India, Pakistan, Israel, France and Britain) will sit back and watch you conquer them? And I hate to point this out to you but your troops are incompetant. I've talked to loads of people in the British Army, people you work most closely with in military operations, and they HATE working with you because your people arn't good enough. You have brilliant technology, but not the soldiers to use it. This is what happens when most of your soldiers only join the Army so as to get grants for University. That is, they don't have their hearts in it. Our military, smallish at around 300 000 men and women, are there because they want to be. Which means they work a lot harder at it.

No we havn't exported our values. A minority of the people who lived on this continent between 1600 and 1900 exported theres. I am talking about the Europe of today. Or are you so backwards that you believe there are set values for countries and continents, that are totally unchangable?

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But why not work? You get many more benefits, and because you picked your job not because it was the only one going, but partially because you enjoy the work, or your co-workers, work is not such a bad thing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

But the problem is not that people WON'T work. The problem is people won't work as hard. As a result, standard of living declines. Television sets short-circuit upon delivery. Cinemas have no fire safety precautions.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Everyone has guns so everyone can shoot<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What a wonderful society! 14-year-old boys armed with AK47 rifles running around. Yes, maybe a small handful of mature conservative grownups will be mature enough not to shoot anyone who pisses them off, but I doubt the other 4 billion people with guns will be as generous.

Also, how do you know someone is going to be a criminal? They could have never been caught. You're basically suggesting bringing the world back to the stone age, when everyone had a spear and could kill who they liked.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
They have always had strong left wing parties and far right activism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What about the pro-fascist candidates in Holland, Denmark, Belgium, and Luxembourg? They're running quite strong.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
International forum - what order? it is forum for debating ideas, nothing more. The ideas presented to the people can then be taken to their own councils were it will be argued there between the councillors and any interested citizens.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So the time it takes to implement ONE decision will have to go through a long, delayed process? I can't imagine what will happen when famine strikes. "Oh, we have to go through 10 levels before aid can be authorised". Again, this excessive beaucracy was actually the norm in 1960s China, resulting in corruption and delayed decisions.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, I don't assume people simply want bread and water. if that is all there is to life I may as well kill myself now. But in order to enjoy the better things in life people need those basics, and that is one key area that capitalism is totally failing in.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So you're saying, give the bum who refuses to work on the street luxury goods and fine food, at the expense of hard-working citizens?


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There would be no communist secret police.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Thats what Stalin said. Well, at least until he was in power.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Maybe some suffer? How lightly you toss aside the misery of most of the human race. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So you prefer the atrocities of Stalin and his 9 million casualties, to the occasional accidental civilian death the US causes? How naive. Yes, SOME people suffer, because they take no measures to improve their lives. Do you know why the bum on the street corner has no job? Because he doesn't look for one. Of course, liberals prefer to blame the government, god, the bible, and anyone BUT the bum.

Don't worry, humans have a thing called "throwing the blame onto someone else". Its not the bum's fault he refuses to work, its the government's fault.



History itself is true evidence of the failure of Communism. If Communism has failed thousands of times, how can we expect it to suceed?

Maybe it will suceed, somewhere along the line. Maybe in a century, maybe a thousand years, maybe when Bin Laden becomes President of the USA. But until then, Communism and Socialism will continue to murder and destroy. Communism has claimed over 30 million lives - want to risk another 30 million?