posted 11-02-98 10:59 PM ET            

FREEDOM, LIBERTY & SMAC!!!!

posted 11-03-98 12:20 AM ET            

"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes
each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while
democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
- Alexis de Tocqueville

posted 11-03-98 09:53 AM ET            

FREEDOM, LIBERTY & SMAC!!!

posted 11-03-98 03:16 PM ET            

Americans that talk politics, never thought that was possible.

First of all, you missunderstand something. Communism is not the corresponding system to democracy! The corresponding system to Communism is Capitalism. The communistic ideas is more Democratic than the Capitalistic ideas. The Communists says that all humans are equal and therefor all humans have as much right as anyone else to say whatever they want and all should have equal power, everything is supposed to be owned by the people (except for personal stuff). The capitalistic system says that if u have more money then u have more power. That means that there is MORE democracy in a communistic country than in a capitalistic (eg. who has chosen Bill Gates?).

As it is today in the world, it is a few rich people that rules the world, not people chosen, but self chosen. These leaders have one goal: "to make as big profit as possible", even if it includes to close down factories, to fire people, not to be enviromental. Why? Simply becouse money is power, and if they can get more money they get more power, and then they can get more money... It is a bad circle. The communists doesn�t think in terms of economy, but in terms of human feelings. They think the most important goal is that everybody are happy and that, as many as possible, do what they want in their lives. Thats why schools in socialistic and communistic countries are free, everybody have the right to study what they want, and thats therefor u aren�t allowed to own a big industry, bcs if u do u will make a profit on other peoples work (stealing) and that means that the workers don�t get enough paid for their work.

Another thing that is bad aboute capitalism is that you are "forced" to read "booring" subjects in school. Eg. U want to be an artist, but as it is today you can�t, becouse you don�t paint that good and u must live, so you have to "be" something. YOu must "be" something with a high salary...

And to you all that don�t want to put down several percentages of your life on, first study somthing booring and then work with it the rest of your life, you aren�t worth as much as that person over there, that loves the subjects in school. You have no choise in the capitalistic world, no true freedom, you must do as the rich people say, bcs if u don�t u will get no salary, and u will not get any food, and then die.

In communism you will have true freedom, you will be able to study whatever you want, and then do whatever you want the rest of your life. If u don�t want to work, then you don�t have to, bcs you will survive anyway.

"But who is going to produce everything then?" Well, first of all, even if eg. all the streets are dirty, it is not right to force someone to clean it up. Besides, it will probably take several 100 years until the first country will have true communism, and then there will be much better machines for eg. cleaning, that it won�t be needed to force people to do booring jobs... And then communism will work in the real life, and all humans will be happy.

Note: This is a verry short, and maybe hard to understand model, but I hope that U will think a little aboute what I have said, and if u have any questions, u can mail me at:

[email protected]

MVH Magnus Lundstedt

posted 11-03-98 03:37 PM ET            

However, it appears that this forum is less about Communism vs. Democracy as it is about Socialism vs. Capitalism. Capitalism seems to be poorly understood. I've seen the comment made before as it was stated here, that under a Communist or Socialist government an individual wouldn't be allowed to own a factory or industry, because to do so would be to make a profit (stealing) off of other people's labor.

The idea that profit=theft is ludicrous. The owner of that industry has invested their money into that industry with no guarantee of success. They've provided jobs and pay what they believe that job is worth (to them). The worker has the option to do the work and receive that salary or go someplace else and try to earn more if he/she believes they can.
No one accuses an unproductive or underproductive worker of stealing from the owner of the industry.

Most rich people (at least in the U.S.) didn't inherit their wealth. They earned it, many starting as that worker and working their way up the ladder. Many because they were able to convince others (investors) that they had a good idea or invention.

posted 11-03-98 08:59 PM ET            

Fenris say that verry few americans has inherit their money. Ok. Then where does all money come from? the 200 million workers in USA? Nope, americans doesn�t work hardest. So where does all money come from? Well lets take a look at the poor countries. How come they haven�t got much money? Even though their country has existed for a longer period of time, and they work harder, why are they not richer? Why do they starve to death? Why? Bcs if you take a look at those countries you will see that they have enormous depts. Why? Well becouse the technology level has always been higher in west (europe etc etc), and therefore the eg. afrikans had to bye our things, but for what money? They do not sell anything to us, so to be able to bye eg. cars, they need to borrow money... So they borrow money to bye things from west, when they do that the lended money gets back to west, but the poor country still have huge depts, this means that they need to pay rent... To do this they need to borrow more money... And then the big weel of bad luck is starting to spin. Here in west though this is classified as a good thing, bcs the factories can then have a profit. Imagine that there would be no export, then the workers will bye things for their money and for those money the factory hires ppl but the boss want�s to get rich, so to get rich he needs to cut down the workers salaries, and then the workers have less money to buy things with, and then the big weel of bad luck is spinning... That means that you must, in the capitalistic system, have a buyer that looses money when he buyes the thing to make the owner of the factory rich. This means that all rich ppl (those that have more than world average, that means all ppl on this site inkl. me) have "stolen" (not in person, but the community has stolen) capital and living standard from the third world contries.

Thats why the west world (inkl usa) is rich... Not becouse we have "worked hard", but becouse we are using the third world to make the economy go around.

With communism we could solve these problems, bcs we then have people owned factiories that hires all people and then all that is produced in the whole world is equal given to all humans on earth... The west world therefor hate communists, bcs they wants to give back the things that the west has stolen from the third world.

ANd this must be a reality in the future, to guarantee the future of humankind (that all have works, that all have food, car, house, tv, etc etc).

And one more thing: Is it good in the west as it is now? lots of unemployed, lots of poor, lots of super rich, lots of needs that could be satisfied through employing all unemployed, not all teenagers are allowed to go to the school they want, companies that fight eachother instead of cooperate and make a better product together, drugs, theives, prisons with LOTS of prisoners (usa is the country that has most prisoners / capita) etc etc...

The list is long, but the time here is much and school early tomorrow, so I will go to bed now... ZzzzzzZzzzz

MVH Magnus Lundstedt

Ps. �r det Matrices p� engelska? p� svenska heter det v�l en Matris flera matriser, och p� engelska One Matrix, several Matrixes?

posted 11-03-98 09:10 PM ET            

Yes socialism and communism works where all are the same... We are all humans, and we are all the same, therefore the communism works... (I suppose that you aren�t a racist, and therefore accepts that we are all the same)

Victor Galis:
What is human nature? To live as we do today? - or cooperate? The main reason that human survived the eg. lions where that we could cooperate. It is in our genes that we should cooperate.

posted 11-04-98 01:12 AM ET            

Think about it, aren't all the great games of the world basically imperialistic in nature??? Civ, Civ II, MOO, MOO II, RTD... They're all about taking stuff that's not yours by whatever means possible (be it conquest, treachery, money, whatever) and keeping what you have aquired. Almost all the great, long lasting civilizations in history were imperialistic at the height of their power and glory. (Rome, England, Spain, French, Russian{not the USSR}, Persia, etc).

So remember, no matter what you go with, Communisism or Democracy, GO IMPERIALISM.

posted 11-04-98 02:03 AM ET            

A study of Italy (a country with a dodgy version of democracy if ever there was one) revealed that, in the north, people tended to care about other people, were relatively educated, and "liked" to work. Not surprisingly, northern italy was relatively prosperous. In the south, people had less inclination to work and more inclined to distrust others. Southern Italy has greater problems with corruption and unemployment, so much so that tax collection in some areas has been deemed uneconomical. The point being that wealth is created by the people, not the government, and so areas with an educated, cooperative workforce will generally do better, regardless of the system.

[IMPORTANT NOTE to Italians: This info comes to me second hand and I'm not sure whether I got the north/south thing right. With the obvious scope for offense my anecdote may have, I apologise for all errors in advance.]

My point is that the PEOPLE are the MOST important part of a system, and what you layer on top of that only serves to mess things up to a greater or lesser degree. Leaders in a democracy can influence stupid (and often smart) voters to the same effect as a bad decision maker in a dictatorship.

As a result, I vote CAPITALISM as the best form of government, and whatever else you put on top of that is fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with the fundamentals of trade, i.e price, supply, and demand. Democracies are just as good at messing with these things as dictatorships are - though for different reasons (usually along the lines of protecting jobs and industry, e.g farmers, whereas dictatorships... well, on second thoughts, often just because they're trying to protect jobs and industry. Hello Cuba.)

A successful system requires economic freedom (i.e the freedom to buy SMAC), but not necessarily political freedom (Sid Meier for president? You and whose army? Oh, that army...). Witness HongKong as an example. One of the (well, formerly, come to think) richest trading centres on earth, and the people can't even vote. The current progress of China will be an interesting illustration of this, whether wealth must eventually lead to polictal freedom; whether wealth can be had without democracy; or whether it is impossible for a society to become rich without control of its leaders. (The Chinese are hard working, their education is improving, and, after 10,000 years of it, they probably have a good notion of community solidarity.)

The major problem with Communism is that it seeks to make everybody, and by default, everything, equal. Given the choice between a $90,000 BMW and and $15,000 japanese import, and being allowed to choose either for free, which option is better? Now try and work in notions of supply and demand with equality. Every choice becomes a Japanese import, and you've immediately pissed off the portion of the population who love fast cars.

[Hmmm. Time to go. I must finish this rant some other time.]

posted 11-04-98 07:32 AM ET            

Magnus: "Thats why the west world (inkl usa) is rich... Not becouse we have "worked hard", but becouse we are using the third world to make the economy go around."

-- Nice stereotype, just not in line with facts. US, EU, Japan GDP: about 20 trillion $ per year. Lending to 3rd world countries: 2 trillion, built up over a lot of years. Capital flow: about 150 billion $ in interest etc, about the same amount flowing in the other direction as investment. The west is not onyl eating most of the cake, it's also baking it.

Magnus: "And one more thing: Is it good in the west as it is now? lots of unemployed, lots of poor, lots of super rich, lots of needs that could be satisfied through employing all unemployed, not all teenagers are allowed to go to the school they want, companies that fight eachother instead of cooperate and make a better product together, drugs, theives, prisons with LOTS of prisoners (usa is the country that has most prisoners / capita) etc etc... "

-- Companies fighting each other ? That's what's called competition, and it's the thing that leads to better products. Think about the teephone monoplies: state run, inefficient, lack of innovation. Your ideas sound nice, just won't work in practice. Nice weather everyday, anybody ?

posted 11-04-98 05:36 PM ET            

"Yes socialism and communism works where all are the same... We are all humans, and we are all the same, therefore the communism works... (I suppose that you aren�t a racist, and therefore accepts that we are all the same)"

posted 11-04-98 05:46 PM ET            

As an example of how communisim would work lets take an example of Mrs. Gates little boy William. Currently valued as far as I know at 25 Billion or so. So he decides he has stolen from the rest of the world to get his money. He sends you your share. $5.

People need to realise that in either system Communisim, or Capitalisim bad things will happen. The problem with Communisim is that no one is above the rest to try and do something about it. The problem with Capitalisim is that most get so lost in the rush to the top they forget that they can.

Heckler

posted 11-04-98 07:36 PM ET            

Yes there is differences, like if you are smart or so... But that shouldn�t decide if you are going to live on the streets or in a nice house. Therefor eg. schools should be free, and all hospitals, etc etc... If all schools would be free, then you can choose what ever education you want, and that is more freedom.

posted 11-04-98 09:40 PM ET            

Yes we need scientists... But if we don�t force ppl to work, that don�t mean that there will not be anymore workers. There are ppl that like their jobs, and that is what I want to do, I want all to love their jobs, what they do, and the life they have. Today many ppl are forced to work with things they don�t like, bcs their parents couldn�t afford the education he/she was interested in.

posted 11-05-98 03:40 AM ET            

Tom, that "FDR" quote you posted is actually a quote by Winston Churchill, the FULL quote is the following:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill

Magnus:
What type of moron would say that everyone is the same and you have to be racist to think otherwise? Answer: any american "liberal" (a term meaning socialist these days in the US, the exact opposite of its traditional meaning, given that socialism was a movement spawned by a rejection of liberalism) who doesn't know a damn thing.

The NEA (national education association) in the United States seems to have an obsession with trying to make everyone "equal" rather than improving education. This is done (has anyone ever read any publications by the NEA, it's rediculously communist) by forcing anyone who would make themselves better than the low end of the distribution from excelling. You see, the way the NEA (and the rest of the socialists in American society) see it, Americans can't be "equal" unless we force the people who would do well to do poorly. If everyone does poorly, then everyone is equal!

THIS is the phenomenom that Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in Democracy in America:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
- Alexis de Tocqueville

posted 11-05-98 03:49 AM ET            

Although socialism and capitalism are opposing economic systems and liberal democracy and authoritarianism are opposing political systems, the very nature of socialism is authoritarian, it forces the government to intervene in society to CREATE an equality that does not really exist. Thus political authority is forced to violate the liberty (the chief concept in liberal democracy) of those who excell in order to enforce a vision of equality of results that socialism calls for. The net result is that any society that was once a democracy, but establishes socialism, is not any longer truly "free," since the government is enforcing an artificial equality that depresses the potential of its citizens (this is VERY dangerous in the area of education, where every nation requires some students to excel in order that it may have talented and competant scientists, engineers, artists, philosophers, and political leaders).

posted 11-05-98 05:10 AM ET            

The point is, that socialism does put the smartest people on jobs that benefit by their intellect, while capitalism puts people with enough money to go to college on these positions. Children of lowly paid workers in a capitalistic nation has no chance of getting a good education, and even if they do, the living conditions they have grown up with makes them more likely to drop out and become criminals/whatever. In a socialistic nation competition is actually greter through co-operation, because everyone has the same chances to go to the best schools if they work hard enough.

posted 11-05-98 06:23 AM ET            

tOFfGI, your statement is one of "equality of opportunity," which does exist in moderately regulated liberal democratic states. equality of opportunity is not contrary to liberty because it places all people on equal footing in the education they are PERMITTED to rise to.

However, tOFfGI, most socialists (like those in the United States) believe also in "equality of results." This belief states that not only should people be PERMITTED to rise to equal levels but should ALL EQUALY OBTAIN THE SAME RESULT. When this is applied to economics, it means that everyone should have the same standard of living and economic prosperity, regardless of vocation, work ethic, efficiency, competance, or any other factor (which means society naturally evolves to a point where people have no work ethic and are inefficient: RUSSIA!)

posted 11-05-98 07:19 AM ET            

As someone who in the US would be called a socialist, though in Europe I am a centrist, I follow the equality of opportunity crowd...you are provided with the educational means with which to improve yourself, regardless of income, and it is up to you to make the most of it. Socialism isn't about making everyone the same, it's about levelling the playing field so they have the same opportunities.

posted 11-05-98 07:32 AM ET            

Following an "equality of opportunity" belief in education (which is a "moderate" view even in the United States, BTW) means that you believe EVERYONE should have AT LEAST a certain level of education that gives them enough education to compete in the job market and have the "opportunity" to be prosperous. If they blow that opportunity, that's their fault. Society bent over backwards to give them the opportunity they may not have had otherwise.

However, following an "equality of results" belief in education would make the system so that no one is permitted to exceed a certain level any more than any one else has. That way, everyone slows down to the pace of the slowest and everyone stays equal. This system, of course, is self-defeating.

When these concepts are applied to economics and prosperity in life:

Those believing in "equality of opportunity" ("moderates" or "centrists" for the most part ) would want to have educational institutions available for all that anyone can afford. They want quality PUBLIC education. Once everyone has exited their education, it is then their responsibility to make the most of their lives, not the state's.

Those believing in "equality of results" believe that once everyone has exited from their standarized public educational institutions, they DO end up in different vocations, yes, but should always have the same economic prosperity regardless of value of vocation to society, work ethic, or any other factor.

There are many in the US (the "far right" they are called) who believe in neither of the above. They do not believe in public education and don't feel it's the government's responsiblity to take care of all of those people.

posted 11-05-98 08:18 AM ET            

What's that supposed to mean ?

1. That the US national debt is the money lended to other stets ?
2. That the money owed by the US gov to creditors (banks, bond holders etc) has been used (all or most) for foreign credits ?

I hope the answer is 3. (??), as 1. and 2. are wrong.

On equality in education: Western european countries do have a public, but rather competitive (among pupils/students) education system, and it works rather well.

Arnelos: "other industrialized states, who despite socialistic economic systems,.."

What are you referring to by socialistic economic systems ?

posted 11-05-98 12:59 PM ET            

And by the way, I never said that no one in America inherits their wealth, I stated that most of the so-called rich in this country are first-generation rich and did not sit back and build someone else's fortune...

posted 11-05-98 11:45 PM ET            

There are a lot of problems in American education. Not all of them are due to teacher incompetence and/or leftist leaning. There ARE funding problems in the system, but that is (in my opinion) because we waste most of the money we spend. Left leaning people tend to look at the problem as "only x% of the money we spend on education does any good for students, so we should increase the amount of money we spend overall so we can more effectively help the students". Tight-fisted republicans like me would say "don't be silly, just beome more efficient so x is higher!".

The NEA is resistant to change simply because it is a union whose primary responsibility is keeping its members employed. Personally, I suspect that the country would be better off if teachers thought of themselves as professionals (like engineers, lawyers, etc.) rather than "workers".

posted 11-06-98 01:04 AM ET            

There is a significant amount of infrastructure involved in education: textbooks, classrooms, facilities, science labs, etc. Maybe you can argue that we are spending too much on it and that we shouldn't spend more. Saying "The answer is never more money" is patently false -- if we weren't spending ANYTHING, then at least part of the solution would be to spend more money.