Totalitarion Goverment, Could It Work?

[Edric O]

You cannot resist the truth - fifty million people (or 50 000 000, that's about two Romania populations now or a number of casualties of WW2) are KNOWN to be killed by communism.

You see, that's your problem. You simply don't understand that THIS WAS NOT COMMUNISM. I assumed you know nothing of Marx's works for this very reason - you don't know what true communism is about.

What we had would be better described as State Fascism.

And taking a few phrases out of context won't do you any good. I never said Marx was infallible. I don't agree with his every word. Hell, he was an atheist and I'm a Christian!

You've lived for five years in communism, so you shouldn't know much about it too.

No, I only lived under State Fascism. There has never been a communist country in the world.

[Apollyon]

[c]

[No, I only lived under State Fascism. There has never been a communist country in the world.

That's because Communism eventually becomes autocracy which is why communism won't work.

[Edric O]

That's because Communism eventually becomes autocracy which is why communism won't work.

Proof, please?

2 examples do not constitute proof. And that's all you have, 2 examples: Russia and China. All other so-called "communist" governments were put into power and more or less controled by one of those two champions of State Fascism.

So, in fact, true communism was only attempted twice. Both times it was in backwards 3rd world countries devastated by war. It's no wonder it failed.

[Davidu]

I don't think it's the type of state you're in... It matters the education and the power of the people to see the truth beyond.

Any type of state would work if there wouldn't be people who would want power only for them. But the politicians always think only to their benefits. That's sad...

//---

You know, there is something that hasn't been tried out for thousands of years: Direct Democracy (pure Athenian democracy). For this, each citizen should hase a personal terminal to vote and propose everying he/she wants. Of course there should be a high-level education rating so there wouldn't be false resolutions passed on, jokes posted as laws... and so on.

//---

Anyway, I think that a good way to rule a nation is to have some kind of a hybrid: a kind of a parliament who's members are chosen from the people.Each member can be elected once in his life time. The parliament creates laws and elects a cabinet and a leader to rule the country. The leader should be elected for life, and he shold be elected only if he is capable of taking care of what he has to do. The cabinet should help him in this tasks. He has ALL the executive power. He also has the right to vote for his succesor. It's a semi-monarchy semi-dictature.

[Warlord Ripskar]

The monarchy is just for show

No, you obviously know absolutely nothing about the role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy.

It is all about preventing an autocracy from forming. We have both a Monarch and Prime Minister one is head of the Lords, the Armed Services and Head of State. All legislation and appointments must be approved by the monarch. The other is merely head of the Commons.

The Prime Minister's role is only to make policy.

People who are ignorant of the manner in which the government opperates often make the mistake of assuming that the monarch has no real power. In reality it is the Prime Minister who has no real power as proved by the fate of the Australian Prime Minister an few years ago.

What is more Queen Elizabeth holds this power over more countries than most people who live in those countries actually realise. She is Head of State for more people than anyone else on the planet;

Antigua & Barbuda

Australia

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Canada

England

Fiji

Grenada

Jamaica

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

St. Kitts & Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent & The Grenadines

Scotland

Solomon Islands

Tuvalu

Wales

Ulster

Anguilla

Bermuda

British Indian Ocean Territoy

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Cook Islands

Christmas Island

Keeling Islands

Falkland Islands

Gibraltar

Guernsey

Isle of Man

Jersy

Montserrat

Niue

Norfolk Island

Pitcairn Islands

St. Helena

Tokelau

Turks & Caicos Islands

[Caid Ivik]

You cannot resist the truth - fifty million people (or 50 000 000, that's about two Romania populations now or a number of casualties of WW2) are KNOWN to be killed by communism.

You see, that's your problem. You simply don't understand that THIS WAS NOT COMMUNISM. I assumed you know nothing of Marx's works for this very reason - you don't know what true communism is about.

What we had would be better described as State Fascism.

And taking a few phrases out of context won't do you any good. I never said Marx was infallible. I don't agree with his every word. Hell, he was an atheist and I'm a Christian!

You've lived for five years in communism, so you shouldn't know much about it too.

No, I only lived under State Fascism. There has never been a communist country in the world.

How do you describe "state fascism"? Fascism is based on nation, communism was based on state. That was the main difference. It was trying to eliminate borders between classes by erarization of property and caring for it for common good. Fascism is trying to lower some and care only for the "High", i.e. members of ruling nation. Communism has to be done by SOMEONE. And that one (or ones - but still just limited number of politicians) might be lured by wealth they found. Then it turns to oligarchy, what was a best name for era between 1989. Risk isn't big only on the beginning, because state's (or "common") wealth must be ridden by someone until it will find some kind of automatic way.

Czechoslovakia in 1948 was nearly intact of war. I can say, it was prospering nation. But communists were legally elected (in one half just, but were supported by socdems). And also we had mess. It turned quickly into oligarchy of the Party. It's sad, but true: money are the highest succubi, and protelar leaders can not resist their seducing.

Also, Mussolini was a socialist too...

[Edric O]

No, you obviously know absolutely nothing about the role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy.

"Absolutely nothing"? Well, I haven't read the constitution of the UK, if that's what you mean. I do, however, observe the way in which the country is run, and who takes all the decisions.

And guess what? It's Tony Blair, not Queen Elizabeth. ::)

I'd also like to point out that not all constitutional monarchies are carbon copies of yours, you know...

People who are ignorant of the manner in which the government opperates often make the mistake of assuming that the monarch has no real power. In reality it is the Prime Minister who has no real power

This is a joke, right?

What is more Queen Elizabeth holds this power over more countries than most people who live in those countries actually realise. She is Head of State for more people than anyone else on the planet

Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, but all those tiny islands (and a few big countries) hardly make up more population than, say, CHINA for example.

[emprworm]

You cannot resist the truth - fifty million people (or 50 000 000, that's about two Romania populations now or a number of casualties of WW2) are KNOWN to be killed by communism.

You see, that's your problem. You simply don't understand that THIS WAS NOT COMMUNISM. I assumed you know nothing of Marx's works for this very reason - you don't know what true communism is about.

What we had would be better described as State Fascism.

And taking a few phrases out of context won't do you any good. I never said Marx was infallible. I don't agree with his every word. Hell, he was an atheist and I'm a Christian!

You've lived for five years in communism, so you shouldn't know much about it too.

No, I only lived under State Fascism. There has never been a communist country in the world.

How do you describe "state fascism"? Fascism is based on nation, communism was based on state. That was the main difference. It was trying to eliminate borders between classes by erarization of property and caring for it for common good. Fascism is trying to lower some and care only for the "High", i.e. members of ruling nation. Communism has to be done by SOMEONE. And that one (or ones - but still just limited number of politicians) might be lured by wealth they found. Then it turns to oligarchy, what was a best name for era between 1989. Risk isn't big only on the beginning, because state's (or "common") wealth must be ridden by someone until it will find some kind of automatic way.

Czechoslovakia in 1948 was nearly intact of war. I can say, it was prospering nation. But communists were legally elected (in one half just, but were supported by socdems). And also we had mess. It turned quickly into oligarchy of the Party. It's sad, but true: money are the highest succubi, and protelar leaders can not resist their seducing.

Also, Mussolini was a socialist too...

well Caid, every now and then, When Edric is quoted, I have the priveledge (?) of reading his post.

He often says "TRUE COMMUNISM" vs. communism as practiced. However you and I know that TRUE COMMUNISM doesn't exist. It is a non-existent fictional concoction that exists in someone's imagination. I can dream up a nice utopian little bubble, but it will be always and forever nothing more than some dream. So everytime you hear Edric say "TRUE COMMUNISM", just think "non-existance" Communism as it exists in reality is of paramount importance. The fictitious dream world version of communism that does not exist is of little importance.

[Edric O]

well Caid, every now and then, When Edric is quoted, I have the priveledge (?) of reading his post.

He often says "TRUE COMMUNISM" vs. communism as practiced. However you and I know that TRUE COMMUNISM doesn't exist. It is a non-existent fictional concoction that exists in someone's imagination. I can dream up a nice utopian little bubble, but it will be always and forever nothing more than some dream. So everytime you hear Edric say "TRUE COMMUNISM", just think "non-existance" Communism as it exists in reality is of paramount importance. The fictitious dream world version of communism that does not exist is of little importance.

Let's go back in time 500 years. By your logic, I would be perfectly justified to say:

You and I know that DEMOCRACY doesn't exist. It is a non-existent fictional concoction that exists in someone's imagination. I can dream up a nice utopian little bubble, but it will be always and forever nothing more than some dream. So everytime you hear those commoners with no royal blood say "DEMOCRACY", just think "non-existance". The fictitious dream world version of democracy that does not exist is of little importance.

That is what a British loyalist could have said to George Washington, too. People like you fought against the founding fathers of America. "Democracy is an impossible dream", they said. "The people are too ignorant to rule themselves", they said. "Absolute monarchy is inherent in human nature", they said. And they were proven wrong. Just as you will be.

The United States were created by visionaries who had an "impossible dream" as you would call it. They fought against people like you, and their dream became reality.

You spit in the face of your founding fathers, Emprworm.

[Edric O]

Btw, someone please quote me on that. Emprworm really needs to see it.

Now on to Caid's post:

How do you describe "state fascism"? Fascism is based on nation, communism was based on state. That was the main difference. It was trying to eliminate borders between classes by erarization of property and caring for it for common good. Fascism is trying to lower some and care only for the "High", i.e. members of ruling nation.

I merely used the word "fascism" to invoke the striking similarities between those so-called "communist" dictators and the fascist ones. I don't know about yours, Caid, but our former dictator (Nicolaie Ceausescu) was more of a nazi than a communist, judging by his actions.

Communism has to be done by SOMEONE. And that one (or ones - but still just limited number of politicians) might be lured by wealth they found. Then it turns to oligarchy, what was a best name for era between 1989.

Again, you show that you simply do not know what communism or marxism means. You only know the stalinist version of it, which is utterly wrong. Stalin supported this idea that you're talking about: That for some reason there needs to be a dictator to make the transition to communism. Obviously, this was only a fabricated lie meant to justify his blatant betrayal of marxist principles.

The transition to communism needs to be done by someone, of course. But that someone has to be a democratic government, who will account to the people for its decisions.

Czechoslovakia in 1948 was nearly intact of war. I can say, it was prospering nation. But communists were legally elected (in one half just, but were supported by socdems). And also we had mess. It turned quickly into oligarchy of the Party.

Those communists of yours were mere puppets of the Soviet Union, just like those of every other East European country. They were corrupt to begin with, and never even had the INTENTION to set up a proper communist government. It didn't "turn" to an oligarchy of the Party. It was MEANT to be like that from the very start.

Also, Mussolini was a socialist too...

Errr, no. He was one of the most radical fascists ever, and he HATED socialism.

[Caid Ivik]

Both extremes, left and right, aren't very different. Marx did not know what proletariat really is, he never even entered any factory, how said his close people ::) Also he told about violential changes, the proletar REVOLUTION, not democratic votes. No plan also cannot be led so sharply as you think. People like Trockij or Bucharin were fanatical marxists, Lenin was more deviated, and that caused all evil. Socialistic utopia is nice idea. Just there are NO people able to make it. Everyone has his own view on thing, what causes conflicts. Not saying about many western intellectualls (Shaw etc.) were fascinated, how Marx's visions are true when seeing "miracles" in Russia's 1930s.

Even if Communistic Party of Czechoslovakia was led by such pseudo-communists as Stalin, they looked like any other utopical band. People had not seen their connections to Moscow.

Also about Mussolini. His father was fanatical anarchocommunist. Same with him, just he was for more state's power. As written in his book Opera Omnia (I haven't read it, but quotes are real), Marx was for him "a father and teacher, best philosopher of class violence". He was also a member of italian socialistic party, I think from 1902 or such. He left them in 1919. Possibly he saw what war-socialism in Russia and Germany did, so he started to think about other way. Not fightning for state, but for nation. But the final result was very like that in USSR.

[Mahdi]

Edric: Look into the Revolution (pre, during, and post). Democracy wasn't exactly the main reason for it, merely the excuse. I, unfortunatly, don't ahve access to the evidence on this computer (I have a paper on it on my other). Maybe in may I'll post it up here for debate.

Also, Democracy never truly existed in this world, just as communism never truly esited. An absolute, true democracy has every citizen of a nation meeting in one area and voting on everything that concerns them. So-called democratic nations are actaully representative democracies, and in nations like Canada are much closer to dictatorships than a true democracy.

And communism is an anarchistic form. True communism has no government, therefore it is an anarchistic philosophy.

[emprworm]

i see Edric is finding inspirational quotes from a famous atheist.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."- Karl Marx

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurences it cannot understand." - Karl Marx

"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." -Karl Marx

So Edric has found his inspiration in this man eh?

Funny thing about Edric's quote is that people in the US are not oppressed, yet we hold elections every 2 years.

Marx said "God is dead".

God says, "You are."

[Edric O]

Marx said "God is dead".

Actually, Emprworm, that was Nietzche... ::)

And I don't think Marx's personal beliefs are any of your business. He was an atheist. So what? Are all atheists suddenly incapable of saying anything good? Are they evil incarnate in your view? Oh please...

Funny thing about Edric's quote is that people in the US are not oppressed, yet we hold elections every 2 years.

No, Emprworm, YOU are not oppressed. Others were not as fortunate as yourself, though, and you don't seem to give a damn about them.

Mahdi, one of the main problems of the Russian Revolution was that the Russians had NEVER known democracy. Thus, once the people found themselves in power, they didn't know what to do with it. They were confused by it. So they were easily fooled by power-hungry maniacs like Stalin.

This would obviously not have happened if the Revolution had taken place in a developed West European country, as Marx intended.

Caid, I support social change by whatever means are required. If it can be done peacefully through elections, then that's the road we should take. There's no need for a revolution unless the people are no longer allowed to decide who leads them.

[Warlord Ripskar]

Which has more power, the house of representatives or the Senate? Who holds the upper hand, Chirac or Raffarin?

You merely hear more from Blair because Blair is out to advertise himself and the Queen is not. As stated Blair makes policy, he requires the consent of the Queen to make that law. reference Magna Carta.

It is not a joke,these are facts phrased in such a way to sound insulting. The Insult advertises my presence as human emotion is far more powerful than intellectual argument. Thus you sit up and take notice because you are slave to your emotion, in this case pride.

Elizabeth is also Head of the Commonwealth, add that population and China dwindles to insignificance.

[Mahdi]

I meant the American Revolution.

[nemafakei]

Queen Elizabeth can in theory veto any law by the Commons, though the Lords can only delay the commons. However, the Queen is hardly likely to refuse to pass a law she doesn't like. The monarchy is more for diplomatic use now.

[Anathema]

No, Emprworm, YOU are not oppressed. Others were not as fortunate as yourself, though, and you don't seem to give a damn about them.

I view the American government as a dictatorship. No, not dictating their own population, of course. They rule the people of other nations by installing puppet dictators who abide by their wishes.

[emprworm]

No, Emprworm, YOU are not oppressed. Others were not as fortunate as yourself, though, and you don't seem to give a damn about them.

I view the American government as a dictatorship. No, not dictating their own population, of course. They rule the people of other nations by installing puppet dictators who abide by their wishes.

lol, that is total nonsense. we rule no one. we have bought other countries before (temporarily), but we do not rule them. latest example: turkey. we tried to buy their vote for 4 billion. 90% of the turkish people are against the war, yet the parliment actually split the vote for US troops nearly 50/50. that 4 billion almost "persuaded" them! But thats not our problem.

[Edric O]

No comment... ::)

[Miles]

I view the American government as a dictatorship. No, not dictating their own population, of course. They rule the people of other nations by installing puppet dictators who abide by their wishes.

Example?

[Anathema]

Virtually all of Latin America 20-30 years ago, when you spent mos of your foreign policy money getting dictators into power via coups and suppressing democratic revolts and elections (just look at Argentina- or Cuba!).

[Caid Ivik]

Same you can say about that before 200 years they hunted Indians like deers. But that's past. Same for Russians or Germans, which cannot be today called slaughter-nations. See nowadays course of politics.

Also, EdricO, don't say me that USSR wasn't communistic again. Do you know what flag is that in your subscribe? ;D

[Edric O]

I did not put it in my sig to reprsent the Soviet Union. I put it there to reprsent communism. It is a red flag with the hammer & sickle - there's nothing about it to indicate a certain nation.

Now, I know of course that it's also the flag of the USSR, which was nothing more than a pseudo-communist abomination. But do you know of any better communist flag to put in my sig? :)

Hey, if you've got another, non-soviet flag that represents communism, post a link to it! I'd gladly put it in my sig.

[Caid Ivik]

And what am I, a commie? ;D

So, if you want a neutral...