Communists vs Terrorists?

[John Dibble]

Giving arms to fundamentalist Muslims is NEVER a good thing.

Neither is letting communists win. Both sides were evil, and we picked what was to us the lesser one at the time.


Now, as to my opinion, based on what I know now I would have let the communists take over probably. The reason for this is that I know that the Soviet Union and the communist system it had would be doomed to collapse(though the fundamentalists could have taken over afterwards anyways, which is the real problem with these what ifs). Now, given the info they had at the time, I probably would have supported the fundamentalists because communism was the bigger threat at the time.

[John Dibble]

Communism has killed millions, so has terrorism. Heroes of both ideaologies have destoryed human dignity and human life. Though Stalin and Bin laden have been idolized by their followers, I can not say either was better. Communism tried to destroy all that was free in the world, and failed and terrorism now tries the same thing.

So I voted for no one.

Idiot.

Have you read the communist manifesto?
It was the people and their filthy governments that bastardized the name of communism, which "is only good on paper". How can you generalize that communism's bad. Just because it was wrongly enforced since its origin. IMO communism is the best type of government (besides socialism) for middle-rank to the poorest of countries.
It is ignorant to compare communism with terrorism. Terrorism could emerge from any Ideology (pronounced id as in idiot id eology). Hell, there could even be terrorists who support democracy. I suggest you take the smart course of action and read some more.

I believe my little song is done peace!

Communism always starts with the best intentions and ends up with the worst results. Do you know why? The reasons are twofold - human nature and concentration of power.

Human nature - this is really simple. Humans will want to take care of themselves and their families first and foremost, but communism asks the opposite - it asks for the people to dedicate themselves completely to everyone else in the name of the 'common good'. However, since people have desires for themselves it is a stupid thing to ask. Further, there is not much motivation in communism to produce - all your needs will be met, so why work hard? If it was only a single individual, then it would be negligible, but it builds up over many individuals. In capitalism, you occassionally get that problem, but people have to be worried about getting fired if they don't produce sufficiently - further, if they produce even more, they have the chance of attaining a reward, of advancing. Communism demands equality, and because of that there is no advancement and thusly no motivation to work to attain it.

Concentration of power - communism can not exist in anarchy, because of the above and because anarchy won't work in the first place. Because of this, government is established, and government has to control and coordinate everything. All economic power lies in the government in the communist system. It is a general principle that concentrated power leads to greater corruption(this is why the founding fathers tried to keep the powers of government seperated, to minimize corruption). The government that can give you everything can also take everything away. Of course, human nature will lead to questioning of the system - the inefficiencies are too obvious for it not to be - and the answers would obviously lead to the collapse of the system. Thusly, the leaders must squelch such questioning before it becomes a problem, so they become tyrannical.

Now, that's just some of the practical aspects of why communism is only good on paper - let's look at the philisophical. In order for communism to work, every person would have to voluntarily go along with the system - they would have to give up their property to the collective, and work for the collective. Now, we know that people aren't going to give up the fruits of their labor, so you'd have to force them to give it up, otherwise the equality communism seeks can never be attained. Communism is therefore an ideology of slavery. Capitalism on the other hand allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, trade freely, produce whatever you are capable of that you want to(rather than being assigned a job you may or may not want that you can't quit), rewards effort, ect. ect. By no means is capitalism a perfect system, but it beats communism hands down.

[John Dibble]

The reason i ABHOR capitalism is because poverty is more prone to be. Think about it. If there were a rich communist country, poverty would be unheard of. Everyone would have enough to eat, a place to live, etc. Canada is closer to this than the US or México. Reason Communism failed in Russia, is because of Human error, and corrupt politicians. Not because the people started to rebel.
Like i said in my previous posts, it is extremists, and their filthy governments that have stained the name of communism so as to be interpreted as an "evil" in the US and the rest of the western world.

"Rich communist country" is an oxymoron - rich can only be done in comparison to others, and communism does not allow anyone to aquire more than others. And Canada, socialist as it is, is nothing even remotely close to communism - they've got government healthcare and a few other things, but they are still capitalist in other aspects of their economy.

Further, you advocating communism contradicts your religion. Communism advocates there being no property for individuals, and the Bible clearly indicates that property owned by individuals is ok.

Matthew 20:1-16: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen."

Get over communism - it won't work and never will.

[John Dibble]

I was thinking of an ideal light red communism, less pink than socialism though. with free elections, freedom of religion, speech, property (to an extent) and the press. But everything is state-owned

1. Not gonna happen.

2. There can't be property when everything is state owned.

And I mean, if it works in Canada, why not the US of fu¢kin' A? eh?

It works for Canada? Ask Richius about the healthcare system, he'll set ya straight. They have a number of problems with their system, bed shortages being one of them.

[John Dibble]

19 to 1 in favor of the Communists.  I see we have a non-conformist on our hands.

I don't know whether or not anyone else hasn't voted, but I never tend to vote in these historical 'what if' polls - you honestly can have no idea what the effects of changing events like this can set off.

[John Dibble]

Personally I'd like to see them kill each other off.

Unlikely situation unfortunately - one or the other will win.