StarGateWars Forums

Do you think both are compatible?

History proved otherwise (USSR, North Korea, Cambodge, Cuba, China, USSR's satellites,...), not to mention their slogan ("dictatorship of the proletariat") but I'm curious to hear arguments that agree both are compatible. Arguments that are arguments, which means, not the kind of "arguments" provided by students supporting communism who usually answer "capitalism is evil, it leads to social classes conflict, oppresses the weak, communism supports the workers against the evil and useless-to-the-production managers. All poor and middle class people unite under communism to fight the evil greedy elites"

That's caricatural and slighty ridiculous, but I swear that's the kind of speech I hear from communist students in my university.

what's the difference between the 2, 1 is the will of the minority to take everyone's rights, and the other is the will of 51% able to take the rights of the other 49%??

same crap IMHO.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:what's the difference between the 2, 1 is the will of the minority to take everyone's rights, and the other is the will of 51% able to take the rights of the other 49%??

same crap IMHO.

The difference is that the 49% can have their revenge on the next election, or another one. The minority of a day can be the majority of another.
While in communism, it's against anything going against the "proletariat". The fight of classes is one of communism's pillars, like if there was still an identity of classes. Communism is another form of populism. Brainwashing the so called "masses" against the so called "elites" from the great capital that they enslave them & so on...

What's the system that's ok for you then? I always see you being "against" but barely ever "in favour"/"supporting".

When I read your posts, you say:
Democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy and then capitalism, imperialism, communism, socialism, fascism, corporatism (and I suppose mercantilism as well)...are all bad.

I suppose you are eternally unsatisfied with humanity use of politics and governance...

no, 49% cannot get their "revenge" without at least 2% changing their minds from the other side in which case, there will still be 49% who will have their rights taken away.

i actually agree with the American constitution...trouble is, the constitution has been trampled on and had its teeth pulled which is why you can have an institution such as the federal reserve which is expressly forbidden by the constitution0-to exist at all.

i am not in favour of democracy because as stated, 49% of the population can have their rights taken away by the smallest of majority's, and then those that have had their rights taken away have t6o wait till next election and maybe, just maybe get their rights back? show me a historical president where Govt has given people back its rights.


don't count the US when it was founded because they had to fight to gain independence.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:no, 49% cannot get their "revenge" without at least 2% changing their minds from the other side in which case, there will still be 49% who will have their rights taken away.

the point is what do you suggest as an alternative?

i edited my last post

i suggest small Govt governed by a constitution....something like the US had after Andrew Jackson and prior to 1913.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:no, 49% cannot get their "revenge" without at least 2% changing their minds from the other side in which case, there will still be 49% who will have their rights taken away.

Don't forget about the undecided, the recurring "ping pong" in election results is mainly due to this mass of people who aren't linked to a party directly or indirectly. Those people vote for who they think is the best, most convincing...

The only way most can be please are in the proportional (?) elections, where coalition governments are formed out of the top 3 or top 4 parties. But those coalitions rarely agree unless it's parties with +/- same ideology (for example, centrist and right wing parties forming a coalition; however if left wing is involved too, either nothing will come out of this, or there will be internal troubles leading to coalition's explosion).

at the end of the day, the outcome is still the same whether a coalition or group of undecided get off the fence is involved.
the fact of the matter is that just like in a communist society, there is a group in a democratic society that can take a away a proportion of the populations rights...the only instance i know of in history where this wasn't possible was between the periods of the US's history where congress issued and controlled the money supply and NOT a centralised bank...

which btw, a centralised bank is plank 5 in the communist manifesto:

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

but in the case of modern central banks, they are controlled by private for-profit bankers who are outside the control of the Govt. that is made self evident since it is the bank that sets interest rates and not the Govt, Parliament or congress.

Perhaps you should understand the difference between socialism and communism? I would choose socialism.

Democracy is a joke, none of the major so called democracies have proportional representation, the constituencies have been created over the years by political parties to gain control of areas by dividing the country up in such a away that they can get majorities in each area in first past the post systems so that if your in the 49% of people who actually bother to vote you get no representation, and the political parties themselves are funded by big business, and have to institute laws and policies that will keep big business happy in order to maintain the funding they need to outspend each other in huge marketing campaigns come election time.

A true democracy would have,

1) Proportional representation
2) Political parties funded purely through membership fees
3) Equal spending caps on elections



As for Communism, it all sounds good in theory but it is fundamentally against human nature and never works in practice. People in general are greedy, selfish and competitive. We all talk fairness and equality but when it comes to decision making people do whats best for them, their families and friends. Truth is, people dont want to be equal, they want to be on top

MEZZANINE wrote:Democracy is a joke, none of the major so called democracies have proportional representation, the constituencies have been created over the years by political parties to gain control of areas by dividing the country up in such a away that they can get majorities in each area in first past the post systems so that if your in the 49% of people who actually bother to vote you get no representation, and the political parties themselves are funded by big business, and have to institute laws and policies that will keep big business happy in order to maintain the funding they need to outspend each other in huge marketing campaigns come election time.

A true democracy would have,

1) Proportional representation
2) Political parties funded purely through membership fees
3) Equal spending caps on elections



As for Communism, it all sounds good in theory but it is fundamentally against human nature and never works in practice. People in general are greedy, selfish and competitive. We all talk fairness and equality but when it comes to decision making people do whats best for them, their families and friends. Truth is, people dont want to be equal, they want to be on top

Very good, and to add a little if I may..history has shown that in the communist way the ones on top kill off the ones making a serious run to get there in the name of "motherland" or whatever they choose to call it.

in order to brag about commie u should study it , i coe from a commie country and a dictature system, kind of the worst in all, but communism as a role cant be achieved , its an utopia , because the human is evil not the cause commie or democracy. both are at this point same **Filtered** due to ppl leading.

in commie u ve yr rights taken and in democracy u ve them manipulated when u need them.
both systems works in two different ways to achieve the same thing , control over the work hand.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill

Democracy is flawed. Every government system is, and will be flawed. There will always be a division regardless of the main principle of the government. Regardless, it is the best we've got. Also, look at democracies in countries like Canada. The system seems to work really well there.

xDaku wrote:"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill

lol I like this, that quote pretty much sums it up


I also agree with Lith & JTs comments, Democracy controls through lies and manipulation rather than force so is the least harmful form of government to it's people.

MEZZANINE wrote:I also agree with Lith & JTs comments, Democracy controls through lies and manipulation rather than force so is the least harmful form of government to it's people.

thats the same as choosing the lesser of 2 evils right?

making a choice based on which you hate (or will do the least amount of damage to you/society) the least is no choice at all mate...you should know that