In the world of the past 100 years, there have been several communist states that we can all agree have not worked. I think however, that communism is not an ideal that should be scrapped as completely unworkable. Here are a couple of things which I think could alow a communist state to thrive
1)Free media.
A skewed media would tarnish a purely communist state, and citizens would eventually begin to dispise and wish to capitalize a state which controls it's media.
2)A direct democratical system
In other communist states, representative "democratical" political systems have been put into place. The bedrock idea of communism is to put everyone on an equal plain, this cannot be done with a system where some people get elected and thus are put onto a higher plain than others.
3)A cool national anthem
In my opinion, one of the downfalls of the soviet empire was it's boring national anthem. Now, if you put some words to Sandstorm by Darude, you could have a really bitchin' national anthem.

If you have any other ideas, or criticisms on this, POST!

HOmer

Please, please God, let that be sarcasm.

In any case, I'm not so hot on communism, even in theory. Of necessity, it seems to encompass the giving of all manner of shite to individuals who haven't earned it.

The last entry WAS sarcasm, but I think some of my other ideas would function.

I would hate communism as much as the next guy,I am simply theorising on how it could WORK, not on how it could not suck.

Homer

direct democracy is also unworkable. Two unworkable systems don't make one which works
free media would result in capitalist media empires...

ummmm i dunno, im accuatly not sure. a "perfect" society or system of government would be very diffifcult to obtain even impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
direct democracy is also unworkable.

---

Why?

quote:

---

free media would result in capitalist media empires...

---

Perhaps he meant lack of censorship. It's possible to have state-owned (or just strictly controlled) media without any kind of censorship.

beats capitalism any day. this whole iraq thing is cos george bush wants the oil. america wants to take over the world, but unfortunately my lil country that is england is americas bitch, so i cant talk.
communism requires people to b honest and good in order for it to work, but people are greedy, and in that it cant work. id follow the revolution any day though...until the kgb kicks my door down and drags my ass off to a gulag. everything has its ups and downs!

Direct democracy? It's impractical that every decision should be made by uninformed people by means of referenda. And relating more specifically to the idea of a direct democratic country which is communist what if the majority wants the country to become capitalist?.

quote:

---

It's possible to have state-owned (or just strictly controlled) media without any kind of censorship.

---

How so? If the state own it, then they control the content.

Yeah, the state has never been real good about not abusing its hold on the minds of the citizenry. Anybody been to a public school lately? American history is a particularly funny class, for those who've done some independent reading.

And then there's NPR...

I dont know how a free media would help anything.
And about democraty. hello democraty and communism dont go together. About the national athem of te soviet state i think its e best one outthere when u had a crowd of 3000 ppl singing it.
better then urs

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
3)A cool national anthem
In my opinion, one of the downfalls of the soviet empire was it's boring national anthem. Now, if you put some words to Sandstorm by Darude, you could have a really bitchin' national anthem.

---

Words would just destroy Sandstorm. A techno remix of the Soviet National Anthem, with words, would satisfy the masses.

-----------------------------------------------
JOHN POINDEXTER IS THE ENEMY!!!
-----------------------------------------------
-John the Altruist

Who here believes the bullshit that Communism is the opposite to Democracy? Apart from obviously kingenrage.

Now for the last 70 years, opponents to Communism used, very subtley, and you must watch for this in any speeched denouncements of Communism, Democracy as a direct opposite to Communism.(Here is an example I have made up "We should fight Communism to replace it with Democracy" It's not strictly true, a Democratically elected government could own everything in a state... and #theoretically# would then be Communist. But Communism as we know it, is often undemocratic in nature, or at least as viewed by Western eyes.Conversely, you don't have to be Democratic to be Capitalist (the actual opposite of Communism), look at Nazism.

Having said that, in a Democratic nation, all factions need to be represented, and some factions would be totally against the idea that the state should own everything. Though if you write a perpetually constitution with certain rules which can never ever be changed (a prime example would be "All industries and commerce should be owned by the elected President of Araknipus") and every thing else is decided by an elected house of representatives.

BUT

There is an argument that the model that Soviet Russia and modern China show in their parliamentary system is in fact more democratic than that model as shown by named Democracies such as the USA and France. The argument is thus, in USA and France there is an option to vote for one man or another (ultimately) as it is the leader of the parties who influence the decisions made by representatives. In a Communist house however, rather than containing one party as is suggested by Western media, there are in fact 100s of parties - ie each man represents a different party with different views and different political opinion. And even in USSR, the most oppressive Communist regime ever (and the one most often used as a reason why it is bad) had free elections for these representatives.

BBC are state owned media, they are however the most unbiased media group in the British Isles. If one day they express an opinion that is pro-government they are instantly accused of simply acting as Government propagandists. This is possibly the case concerning state owned media in Communist countries. Information we see as veing propaganda is in fact independant yet pro-Government by sheer coincedence. Although it is unlikely. But that is not to say that a Communist government cannot have a BBC style media who are state owned yet in fact express the opinion of the masses TO the government and can therefore nfluence policy in a democratic way.

-------------------------"I would hate communism as much as the next guy,I am simply theorising on how it could WORK, not on how it could not suck."-------------------

Now Homer. Do NOT EVER say something like that again. The next guy only hates Communism because he is weak minded and/or scared he will be exiled like a certain silent movie star with a Hitler tache and a penchant for pain.
You are above the next guy, if you hate Communism, hate it by all means... it is not my place to alter your opinion, but if you in fact support Communism in the slightest bit, take advantage of your 1st Amendment rights (Charlie Chaplin is long history) that you Americans bang on about so much and don't be influenced by the majority. The next guy follows the 1st guy because he doesn't know what to follow and the 1st guy seems to know what he is on about (the 1st guy is just as dumb as the next guy, but he is simply following guy number 12).

Communism is dependant on tight central control of everything, and requires a totalitarian state, with pampered high party members. If the people are voting, the aren't working right? Communism defies human nature by FORCING them to share. Any system designed to imprison the sole, body, and mind is destined to self implode.

Communism is an economic system. So it capitalist. Democracy and dictatorship are political systems. Theoretically, there can be a communist democracy (Allende's Chile before the coup), a Communist Dictatorship (take a guess), A Capitalist Democracy (The US of A) and a Capitalist Dictatorship (Batista's Cuba).

Yet despite all claims to the contrary, often by people who will respond to the following statement with predictable snorts yet no actual hard argument, most Communist cpountries have been semi-Democratic... and only semi in the fact that parties didn't exist DON'T exist. Which by my reckoning, that makes them more democratic than countries WITH parties.

Capitalism forces people to hand over money in exactly the same way as Communism, assuming there is a Government. For example, in America, the most unCommunist country period, money is taken from the people, by force, and is then given back to the people (apparently) in a different form... a form that could only be provided in such a way. The only difference is that the money is divided differently. People who earn a lot of money by arsefucking the little people in Indonesia get taxed , but the little people in America get taxed relatively more, so that the big people can be taxed less, so they can build more fuck farms.

A Capitlaist democracy such as USA, is run by two parties... only two. And they are by international standards almost identical. And to top it off, it is currently run by the one who lost. Yet is is still hailed as a democratic ideal? And China which consists of 100s of parties and it is to my knowledge (which is not infinite so I could be wrong, but I doubt it) is run by the guy who won... But he is Communist, and therefore is undemocratic, so say the commentators. The commentators are wrong. And I have to say that I am right.

quote:

---

Direct democracy? It's impractical that every decision should be made by uninformed people by means of referenda. And relating more specifically to the idea of a direct democratic country which is communist what if the majority wants the country to become capitalist?

---

Aww FOD, you dissapoint me. I expected you to know what a direct democracy is.

Ahh Chucky back at it again...

America is basically a two party system, but not by design.

Anyone can start a political party and run for political office, get supporters, get money, run campaign ads. It just so happens that the Repubs and Dems have the most political clout, supporters, and money, therefore they win. Lets not forget that in the past, other partists, such as Federalist, Whig, and a few others, had people elected president.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hp:

Aww FOD, you dissapoint me. I expected you to know what a direct democracy is.

---

Funny how you know what this is, but don't know the definition of a Coast Guard or National Guard.

Viper2002 could be the true asshole, but he brought up one good point, You can land a man on the moon, yet not be able to teach a retard to use the toliet.

No worries hp, sooner or later you will be potty trained.

I think the Soviet national anthem ruled.

quote:

---

Funny how you know what this is, but don't know the definition of a Coast Guard or National Guard

---

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

quote:

---

I think the Soviet national anthem ruled.

---

Agreed!

Chuck, I'm saying this in the manner of friendly advice - check your facts before you start spouting your mouth off. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

- Nazism and Communism were virtual twins. Check your facts. Hitler nationalized huge portions of the economy for his purposes. The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler had the sense not to nationalize the more basic consumer goods and collectivize agriculture. The heavy industries, however, were managed by a centralized economic dictator appointed by Hitler. If you had paid attention in history class, you would know that "Nazi" is short for NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party.

- The reason that communist countries occasionally have elections is because the outcome doesn't matter, you twit. For one, either way, the winner is a communist, and so you're gonna have a communist system of government no matter what. And more importantly, even if the representatives did have something to say, they do no more than offer advice to the actual ruler. They have no real power. The U.S. congress, on the other hand, can confound presidential initiatives indefinitely if they want to - and even defeat them, as was the case with Clinton's health care plan.

- If you honestly believe that state owned media can be free and unbiased, you are even stupider than I thought - and remember, I thought you were stupider than lint. A small group of people would control the entire media establishment and all sources of information. And you're saying that they would allow information to get to the masses that would be critical of their rulership? Are you familiar with Lord Acton's famous quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

- "The Next Guy" is weak-minded? It seems to me that YOU are the one bending over backwards to accomodate your own preconceived beliefs.

- Capitalism doesn't force anybody to do anything with their money. That's why it's called a FREE market. And your rant about American economics is clear proof that you don't even understand marxist doctrine, let alone economics. The government takes money from people and gives it to other people? I'm sorry, what is communism? Isn't it the FORCED redistribution of wealth? And once again, you fail to research even the most basic facts. In America we have a PROGRESSIVE taxation system. Those in the higher income brackets must pay higher tax rates. The "poor" pay little or no taxes of any kind, whereas the top earners pay roughly 48% of their income. You'll also be interested to know that the top 10% of earners pay almost 70% of all federal tax revenues. Crack a book sometime.

- The reason you think you are right it that you are an arrogant little fool who has no sense of intellectual integrity of any kind. The facts are before you. You ignore them. You are an ignorant little prick, and it is only by the slimmest bit of pity that I have the patience to explain these EXTREMELY BASIC facts to you.

fy chuk
i know more about communism then u know about your own fuckin mother.
in communism one man steps up and takes control for as long as he can. the opinion of the ppl is secondairy. First thing is the wellfare of the state... A small group of persons control everyting. Democraty gives power to the ppl. ( or at least pretends it does ) Communism is a system that could very well work... Only everone is afraid of it because it gives th power to everyone and not the rich piggys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
If the state own it, then they control the content.

---

Britain owns the BBC, Canada owns the CBC and Australia has a public broadcasting corporation as well. Most countries do, and they manage to be impartial.

In Canada, at least, if you care about anything other than what's going on in your city/Hollywood, the CBC is the only station worth watching (for news).



[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 12-28-2002).]

quote:

---

Aww FOD, you dissapoint me. I expected you to know what a direct democracy is.

---

That's my simplified version. "Direct democracy" can mean anything from a Swiss-style representative democracy with occasional referenda to a form of anarchism. Either way, it's not a particularly effective political system and doesn't work with Communism.

quote:

---

and only semi in the fact that parties didn't exist DON'T exist. Which by my reckoning, that makes them more democratic than countries WITH parties.

---

Voting for different faces with the same policies isn't very democratic...

quote:

---

Britain owns the BBC, Canada owns the CBC and Australia has a public broadcasting corporation as well. Most countries do, and they manage to be impartial.

---

If the BBC is impartial then I'm Greg Dyke.