And glad to hear it wasn't meant to be sarcastic.

Also, I'm happy to see that this thread actually turned into an interesting discussion, despite it's origins. Good job guys!

I'm not exactly the philosophy expert, but they did seem crazy to me at first. Good to know no one believes them anymore.

I know there have been exceptions to the rule of communism being imposed rather than chosen (Chile, some Indian states) but far and away it's a bloody way to get things done. Not to mention how it's irreconcilable with classical liberalism's theories on liberty and property. Oh well, the commies lost. In another fifty years people will think of communism like we think of feudalism: blatantly flawed.

i hope thats how people will view capitalism

What would replace it? Living on communes singing kumbay-ya?

Capitalism is how people naturally are. The reason everything else fails is that everything else is social engineering.

you dont think capitalism is social engineering?!

No. Capitalism is starting a business. It's investing in a company and receiving dividends. It's banking and enterprise and buying and selling. Left to their own devices, people use capitalism.

Redistributing wealth and fiddling what society is what the other ideologies do, and that's fundamentally wrong.

banking!you mean the banking that just makes the rich richer and screws over everyone else!ok im sorry for saying something then dropping out by i really dont have the patience to argue this any more, people are to small minded and selfish to bother with. That is not aimed at anyone at all just the world as a whole.

Who's small minded here? Without banking you'd have to put up front every penny needed to buy a house. Banking is necessary to any kind of economy.

yes but not to the extent that it is at the moment.anyway im staying out of this

Any conservatives out there want to roast themselves? I'm tired of the Liberals (root word "liberty") getting all the flak. I wish the extreme right wing could say the same thing about themselves.

Also, by Boden's rules of debate, if you mention Nazis or Hitler in any argument you immediately lose. I'm just saying.

What if it's a debate about Nazi's or Hitler? Does everybody lose? Or do you just have to get really really really creative about how you talk about it? That could be pretty fun to watch actually.

By the way, I notice that one of the moderators at playdiplomacy is named Diplomat. I'm going to assume it's coincidence seeing as how it's a pretty obvious name choice and all. I'd hate to think one of their mods was flaming us.

Lol. I think the answer is just to shift things over to Stalin.

The point is that it brings in these very large brush strokes over a specific topic, as if they always apply and always work the same. Gives a great idea for a forum topic, though! :-)

Heh, I just roasted my liberal self: let's hear from the "conservatives."

I use that term because I believe they really are just labels we apply to ourselves and mean virtually nothing.

# Stats:
* Total: 5
* Playing: 3 ( 60% )
* Defeated: 2 ( 40% )
# phpDiplomacy rating: Political puppet
----- Those are pretty bad stats for a possible mod.
Anyway, if it was flaming from the opposition, if I remember rightly last time we posted on their forum they got rather annoyed, but as we all seem to have turned it on him anyway think of it more as a little sport!
On the current issue - I would rather live in a perfect communist state, because in the end that is the best ideal, but every time someone strives to achieve it, the plan is taken astray by some leader or other. So, when it comes to picking a fall-back plan capitalism seems the least flawed to me. Still, I like the idea someone made of bringing back feudalism - imagine running for election with that as your key policy!

No no, we need to bring back Manorialism! (I have to admit it's been so long since I studied that I can't even really remember specifically what it was, it might not actually be all that separate from Feudalism for all I remember...)

i would vote for that person we need a change

The fact is that when push comes to shove - no population will vote to have all of their assets stripped from them. Large groups within society may view it as ideal, but they won't vote for someone to initiate the process unless 60%+ have nothing to begin with.

Well, O'bama has at least 2 years to do whatever he wants. Let's see what happens.

""Spreading the wealth around"? Isn't that the trademark of an economic communist?"

No, not if you actually know what communism is.

I'd also like to add that one of this nations greatest presidents (and I think both sides would agree) declared himself a "Liberal" does anyone know who that is?

wait... for it... wait for it...
and the answer is...
dont look if you want to guess first...
Last chance...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

He's overrated. Kennedy's been lionized because of his assassination right before the sixties went to hell. But remember he didn't have too many successes as President. He lost Cuba, got his ass handed to him by Khrushchev at the Geneva talks I believe, failed at the Bay of Pigs, and couldn't get Civil Rights passed himself. The Cuban Missile Crisis was just an exercise in lunacy by both sides. Don't forget that he supported the coup in South Vietnam that got rid of even the illusion of democracy.

Even if he lived and was reelected, I doubt Kennedy would hold the place in most Americans hearts that he does now. Maybe Nixon would have got his 49 states in '68 instead of '72.

Imagine the cuban missile crisis with W. instead of JFK...

D.

Another interesting 'what if?' scenario is what would have happened if Kennedy wasn't assassinated. One theory that I read about suggested that with his temperament the US would have actually washed its hands of Vietnam before '68 and not allowed its involvement to escalate.

@El Perro. Whatever your understanding and sensibility towards human rights (HR) is, I respect it.

Yet there are opinions and there are international treaties.

HR are a UN declaration with no legal effect. Some countries have chosen - after the experience of the WWII to enforce that declaration with international treaties. This is the case - for example of the European Charter of Human Rights and its protocol #6, that forbid death penalty (albeit only in peace time). The ECHR is presently enforced by the European Court of Human Rights.

Also: "Law, by definition, is a social agreement to give up certain rights in exchange for security." ...definition by whom? If I may ask? I certainly disagree with it (not that does not apply to some of the laws, but is so much restrictive that it has no defining power).

Finally: I did not "accuse" anybody of anything (are you?). I simply stated that saying that considering not to execute Hitler has nothing to do with rehabilitation (this was the original claim) but with the understanding of HR enforcement mechanisms... so could not get what you were talking about in the last bit.

i don't agree with communism because it can never work. in a ideal world it would be great but in this world where so many people are selfish and want more than they deserve, it can never work.

likewise i don't agree with extreme capitalism. i don't believe that people should be left to starve on the street because they are poor, and where only a select few get the opportunity to be rich.

i don't believe that people should be allowed to starve and i don't believe that health care should be expensive as this denies poor people the right to life.

Actually, the pure ideal Marxism could MABYE work someday. If we ever have robots that can do most of our menial labor and basically provide for all of our basic needs. Then we could all sit around and engage in "spontaneous creation" and such... Studying Marxism in a political philosophy class in college my friend and I realized one day while reading/discussing that what Marx really seemed to want/need for his ideal utopian society to exist was an army of robots to take care of most of our needs.

So let's get started building armies of intelligent communist robots! This plan couldn't possibly go wrong!

yes, but then the revolution would come from the Robots! They would be the new proletariat. Imagine Robot Stalin, if you thought the original stalin had no heart you're in for a big surprise.

Aye. As it is, it's the rich that can sit around and engage in spontaneous creation while we underlings are the robots. =D

I think if communism were to work we'd need a radical shift in culture. Maybe if hard workers were thought to be sexy. =)