Regional Summary  Founded - 30 April 2005 Population - 165 Nations World Ranking - 61 Regional Power - High |
Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate Pidgeon Island Members of the Committee TBA World Assembly Delegate Angusp (aka Bodegraven) High General of the GRADF Joe Bobs |
| Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums! Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register. Join our Community Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system. I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way. Getting Started If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| What is the most apt punishment for being a commie | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM (1,122 Views) | |
| U-ropa | Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well. Communists are quite clearly deviants that must be punished in a fitting and particularly medieval way. For being degenerates that are a sore on humanity it is only reasonable to ask: How should we torture the little commie shits? Poll to come! |
 
|
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Verusea | Jun 5 2006, 08:01 PM Post #21 |
|
Spammer
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)
|
Um, its 2006, The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, and it was communist. Everyone calls it Russia, which is now a Federation. The USSR was Communist. Thats a fact. |
 |
|
| Hiigar | Jun 5 2006, 08:08 PM Post #22 |
Persistent
|
I am Russian, comrade. What is the first and most importned thing in communism? And Russian Federation is part of Federation like Kavkaz, Subiria, and Russia. You could say that all people in Russia are Russians. We have Oblostia and other regions in Russia and by the counstituison we are a Federacy. And again you can call a pig a dog. Yes it was called Communsim but it just was a stupid governemnt who stolled from the people. |
|
|
|
| Hiigar | Jun 5 2006, 08:11 PM Post #23 |
|
Persistent
|
And i am not a communsit. I just say that communism is imposible to create. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 6 2006, 12:47 AM Post #24 |
Make-Believe Man
|
A few things... The Soviet Union was NOT Communism. It was Socialism. They are two seperate systems. Socialism precedes Communism and follows Capitalism. Under the Socialist stage, the working class excercizes control of the state democratically as well as controls the functions of the economy also on a democratic basis. Communism is the goal of Socialism, and it is gradually achieved through Socialism. Communism is the stage where capital ceases to exist, where the classes cease to exist, and where the state (or government) ceases to exist, and essentially in that order. When capital has disintegrated, the basis for class stratification of society is gone, and without classes there can be no state. Lenin defined the state as an instrument of class dictatorship (I.E. In Feudalism, the state was a dictatorship of the Feudalists, in Capitalism, it is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and in Socialism, it will be a dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Communism is the dictatorship of the individual, or the dictatorship of no one [As Lenin said, we will become so accustomed to governing ourselves that we'll eventually become accustomed to no one governing]), so as classes disappear so will the state. So, the Soviet Union was a Socialist state, as were all Soviet-based states. However, the problem with the U.S.S.R. (and this ties in to what Hiigar said) is that the Party became like its own class. Originally, noting Russia's massive underdevelopment and high proportion of uneducated people, Lenin believed that the Communist Party (a Communist being defined as an advanced member of the working class), because it was full of working class thinkers, could lead the rest of the working class in a representative democracy through Socialism. Unfortunately, as things got more developed, the Party remained. One might note if they've ever read Khrushchev Remembers, the autobiography of the famous Anti-Stalinist and one-time premier of the U.S.S.R, Stalin himself was a VERY democratic man. He opposed a proposal that a workers' council from a local city brought to him that would rename the town after him in his honor, and constantly pushed for more involvement of the working masses and a broader campaign for democratic rights and initiatives. He brought the economy under a central plan which brought about massive achievements in education, healthcare, child-care, working conditions, national productivity, overall national wealth, food production, (ironically while the Capitalist world was reeling from the Great Depression, which a Planned Economy is immune to) and instigated massive campaigns for women's rights, environmental reclaimation and preservation, and even cultural institutions. He gave written languages to Central Asian tribes that had never before been capable of writing their native tongue. But time takes its toll, and as the old saying goes, "where you stand depends on where you sit." The Party became reactionary because of its position (having control over the means of production; half of what makes a Capitalist a Capitalist [the other half being collecting profits, which was the only thing the Party didn't do), and it became seperate of the people rather than representative of them. This corruption ran deeper and deeper, until eventually privatization occured, installing Capitalism once again, bringing about massive poverty, unemployment, and huge declines in technological infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Millions of Russians have died thanks to Capitalist reforms which have totally shut down hospitals, clinics, treatment facilities, and so on. While Soviet Socialism may have eventually failed, and could have been much better, it was better than Capitalism, and that's a fact. A good illustrative joke: What do we have now? 'A GREAT TESTAMENT TO RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY AND THE FREE MARKET!' What did we have before? 'PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, MEDICAL CARE, PENSIONS, SAUSAGE, COOKING OIL, CLOTHES...' And for those of you contending Communism cant happen: You must have a really low opinion of the human race. After all, your arguements are tantamount to what the scribes and knights said about what the American Revolution wanted to accomplish. Even if Capitalist democracy serves only the rich, its better than Feudalism, even if Feudalists constantly contended the "impossibility" of Capitalist democracy. If we don't even try, humanity will go nowhere. Change is an inevitability, or else the human race itself may in fact be doomed, if we consider the environmental implications Capitalism's continued life has on us all. |
|
|
|
| Old Zertaxia | Jun 6 2006, 12:59 AM Post #25 |
The Ex-Speaker
|
Comrade Martin, when did you make it over here? |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 6 2006, 02:15 AM Post #26 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
I've been here since yesterday, I believe. Nice to see you! |
|
|
|
| Athiestica | Jun 6 2006, 02:30 AM Post #27 |
Citizen
|
I like this guy. I really do. Communism is a great idea but the people who used it except marx of course did terrible things. Hopefully some day captialism will be die out. |
|
|
|
| Old Zertaxia | Jun 6 2006, 02:53 AM Post #28 |
|
The Ex-Speaker
|
Well, welcome to the boards. Sorry to interrupt the thread. |
|
|
|
| Verusea | Jun 6 2006, 03:32 AM Post #29 |
|
Spammer
|
After the Communism in Cuba, i dont have such a positive view of communism. Not to be mean and disrespect the fine citizens of Russia and its Oblasts and territories, but Communism wasnt a very positive thing in the eyes of the United States. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 6 2006, 04:52 AM Post #30 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
Yes, there have been mistakes and excesses and shortcomings, but this is why I look at the past flaws in the examples of Socialism much as one looked at the Apollo space shuttle project to the moon, or the Boeing 747, or the space shuttle today; they all point to the limits of humanity's achievements and accomplishments. They are, by no means, an end in themselves, and we must learn from our experience and improve upon them. After all, as a representative of the Indian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) recently said when asked a similar question, does a scientist stop after one failed experiment, or does he try again?
Ironically, I find the most inspiration in Cuba. President Fidel Castro, elected six consecutive times by the National Assembly, has been a great and inspirational leader of the Cuban people since they achieved independence from Colonialist-Imperialist domination. Cuba is on the Human Rights Council, it has assisted in massive medical undertakings across the globe where aid was needed, and has been assisting the oppressed people of the world since it gained independence from the United States. Internal democracy is magnificent, with a 97% voter turnout, democracy functions on a very localized scale. Towns and districts of cities hold meetings and nominate people they believe in, and they go to a vote in those districts and towns and those elected go on to represent them in the National Assembly, which elects a President that serves a minor role in the administration of the state and takes a more superficial role in state functions. The Cuban Communist Party is not allowed to field candidates in elections. And candidates are not allowed to use private wealth like Capitalists in the U.S. do in our "democratic" campaigns to purchase expensive billboards, radio slots, television ads, or any of that crap. They get a picture and a description of their platform at the voting house and that's what voters base their vote on. Well, that and their presentation in the small town-meeting styled events. I agree if you are saying there is no comparison between what we have in the United States and their system in Cuba; Cuba's is MUCH better. I plan to go to Cuba fairly soon. The Young Communist League USA (youth organization of the CPUSA) is connected to the Venceremos Brigade, which is essentially a group dedicated to breaking U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba. It costs about $1500, though, so I need to save up. They did it this year so I need to wait some time for their next trip. You stay in Cuba for a few weeks, and are provided food, shelter, touring, and working. You get to experience the reality of living in Cuba, not some pretty hotel with a pool. You stay in a work camp, and actually do Giant Caterpillars Batman that helps the Cuban people while learning about them at the same time. That's something of a dream of mine... But I digress.
The United States? You must mean the Capitalists in the United States. Of course they don't like Communism. They'd lose their ability to control and exploit everyone else! After all, they own the media, they can afford wide webs of online resources, they print textbooks, they own some schools, and public schools are indirectly controlled by Capitalists since they control the state. They have a class monopoly on the means of information, and as such, every fiber of their being and that structure of the enforcement of their being will be attuned most certainly against Communism. My presence here asks only that you consider the realities and facts, and don't let preconceived notions cloud your perceptions. |
|
|
|
| The Ruescher Empire | Jun 6 2006, 05:07 AM Post #31 |
Buh
|
Ok wow i didnt want to touch this, buuuuut i will. First of all communism, if ever truly initiated, would essentially regress the human race. It is only through capitalism that we have advanced so far technologically, and improved the wealth of the world. If the world has gone under communism we would not be at the technological level that we are now as there would be no need for massive research that the private industry partakes in. There would be no great expansive wealth that we enjoy today. Sure there is wealth disparity, but honestly the only people who want communism are poor people who are too lazy to get a job, work hard, and advance. |
|
|
|
| Hiigar | Jun 6 2006, 01:38 PM Post #32 |
|
Persistent
|
The Ruescher Empire is right. Only not 100%. The technology will be the saim, only not civilian, nore military. |
|
|
|
| The Ruescher Empire | Jun 6 2006, 01:43 PM Post #33 |
|
Buh
|
Actually Capitalism has allowed both military and civilian technology to advance to where it is today. Because corporations and their endless wealth research and advanced technology in the name of money. Under communism it would be a few people wishing to advance it for the sake of themselves and a few others. Capitalism allows a greater colaboration and unification of wealth to be put into research. Under communism there isnt that sort of leadership or direction. |
|
|
|
| fighter4u | Jun 6 2006, 08:41 PM Post #34 |
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
|
Hey the Communism in U.S.S.R was what is call state communism.Please don't call it socialism. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 6 2006, 11:51 PM Post #35 |
|
And of course TRE would bring in the capitalist progpaganda. Comrade that has been a very insightful bit of information on communism. My cynical nature prevents me from believing true communism nor anarchy could ever function, but the way you described it very true. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 7 2006, 06:34 AM Post #36 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
The Ruescher Empire,
Capitalism has been a necessary step in human development, just as much as Slavery and Feudalism had critical roles, even if we might, now, in retrospect, regret those as necessities for human growth and enrichment. Conversely, however, I would counterpose that similarly, following Capitalism's eventual death, we will likewise cheer as we did at the end of slavery and the end of Feudalism. People will look at the concept of wage-slavery as they do now at regular slavery. Every new step forward makes us look with our eternal human hindsight at the last, and we laugh at the primitivity and sheer barabarism of that step. We look back at our childhood, or the first time we learned important life lessons, and feel a sense of shame or embarassment regarding some things, perhaps humorously, but in an embarassed sense nonetheless. Nevertheless, that was important for our growth and development, and without it, we would never understand our position now and what it required to get there. That said, yes, Capitalism gave us many technological achievements, and I would probably agree that the Soviet system would not have given fullest expression of particular advancements, but I contend that Socialism, when not incorrectly executed as it was in the Stalin years as things got poor, would offer such expression. I'll delve more deeply in to this momentarily, but first an illustrative story! Nikita Khrushchev remarked in Khrushchev Remembers how, in the good years of Stalin, a worker from the factory floor of a steel factory that Khrushchev was manager of came up randomly one day and asked for a moment of his time to demonstrate an idea. The worker showed Mr. Khrushchev a new technique that later revolutionized the steel industry around the world. The man became an engineer as suited his interest. This was a true example of the attitude of the common man under the Soviet system when it still retained its Socialist structure. Any idea could be tested and shared with the managers. Why? Because, unlike in Capitalism, the working class has a vested, communal interest in the success of the community. Instead of the "I work, you pay me, you get richer" attitude, its, "the more we work, the more we have". It's a simple psychological reflection of the application a different economic paradigm and ownership principle.
I find most of the contentions here to be childish and rude, but I nonetheless delve in to them as if they deserve such a kind response. Firstly, private industry only partakes in technological initiatives to make profit. The goal of Capitalist production is the production of surplus values, or profits, while the goal of Socialist production is the production of use values. What is a surplus value? That is value added on to a commodity after the cost of production and wages are taken off of the price. What is use value? Use value is the highly subjective economic factor by which every individual, and society through collectively taking individuals, judges the usefulness, or necessity of purchase, of a commodity. Why does this present us with a problem? Because a Capitalist producer would sooner invent a cancer treating drug (because future need of treatment means a constant source of profits) before a cancer curing drug (one use, one-time profit per individual). Theoretically, they could make the cancer curing drug ridiculously expensive, but by that same token one can do so with the treatment as well. And if the price exceeds the use-value in the eyes of the consumer, they will not purchase it anyway (although in the case of a cancer-curing drug, this may not be so applicable for obvious reasons.) Technology, summarily, only advances in Capitalism because of the potential to increase profit or maintain the current rate of profit. Not to benefit the people. Technology, thusly, in Socialism, would advance as a means of bettering the lives of those who control that economy, the working masses. People, not profits, are the priority. Secondly, the wealth that you so casually consider part and parcel of the Capitalist system only exists in such high frequency here at the expense of the other nations of the world, those that have developed slower or generally are more backwards due to whatever objective or even subjective factors beyond their control. A brilliant young Guatemalan girl with whom I am very good friends finds my theories on this to be exquisite. She is in full concurrence, because of her clear memory of her homeland in contrast to the wealth of America, when I tell you that our wealth is our wealth not thanks to Capitalism and the lovely free market you romanticize, but due to the blood, sweat, and tears of people in Guatemala, Mexico, India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Angola, the Congo, et al, and, more recently, Russia! We are rich at the expense of millions of lives, both those that are dead and those that are so stricken by the poverty that their exceptional wage-enslavement offers that they wish they were dead! This is Capitalism at work. Don't let your surroundings confound your sensibilities. Thankfully, you may have a rude awakening sometime soon, as the march of globalization will place American workers in quite a precarious situation (the people in those countries call that massive unemployment). The export of jobs as a means of increasing the Capitalist rate of profit by the super-exploitation of foreign workers and selling the products here for the same price or a similar price as they were sold when it was made here is turning what we romantically see as the American dream in to the American fantasy; an unachievable pipe dream, perhaps, might be a better way to term it! Socialism offers the only recourse, and it is my hope that I, in some small way, help all of you to come to that realization. Thirdly, only lazy people that don't want to work want Communism or don't make money? I'll not dignify that blatantly insulting remark with any further commentary. Ironically, this will make this my smallest "paragraph." The same poster further comments,
While you may also appreciate a romanticized vision of why Capitalists perform research, I have already clarified this is extensive detail. I hope you take the burden upon yourself to read, at least, what I said. Comprehension, however, is another task to which you may consign a fellow compatriot to examine.  Yes, I'm an asshole. Don't even try to say its unmerited, however!In Communism, yes, there is no sort of leadership in that sense, but Communism is only achievable after technology has reached a point where further expedient research has become more or less unimportant. That is to say, there will come a time as technology develops that it would be redundant or silly to continue making newer methods of doing something more than adequately handled already. Star Trek: The Next Generation is a good example of Communism at work, plus aliens. Socialism provides greater incentive for all individuals to do their own research and to study to improve the means of production, while simultaenously having research institutions for that purpose much like corporations due today. There is not only the coordination you've demanded but also the collaboration of wealth and research you so expounded as a virtue of Capitalism in Socialism. Socialism, if one things about it, is like a giant corporation owned by the workers. That wealth will still exist in a centralized location like in modern day Capitalist corporations and will be coordinated similarly, but not for the sole goal of profit, particularly that kind of profit which tends to benefit the Capitalist, rather than the working people, or primarily before the working people, or at the expense of and in spite of the working people. fighter4u,
It was Socialism. That is the term chosen by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and many other historic Marxists, including myself. I'm not changing my terminology now... Besides, "State Communism" is a contradiction in terms, and its usage is not only discouraged by me but discarded as incorrect. You can't call a camel a stick of butter and demand everybody else do it too. I won't ask any differently of you than history, particular the history of this terminological question we are debating, is asking of me. Fair enough? (Wow, just realize how roundabout of a way that was to say "no.") Jonewest,
You are entitled to your own opinion, and I encourage not only cynicism but criticism as well. Without effective commentary and correction where I may indeed be wrong (for I am only human), it is hard to improve my "act", as I will colloquially refer to it. However, I would ask that, should the time ever occur that someone starts discussing Communism or at least the theoretical considerations thereof, you use what knowledge you've gleaned from me (if any at all) to correct anyone who is incorrect. Accuracy is extremely important in my eyes, no matter what the situation. I hope, though, as I do with every person with whom the debate of Communism becomes applicable, that I will one day I may call them comrade without reservation and without needing to crack a smile afterwards. The same courtesy I extend to you, just as I do with TRE. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 09:28 AM Post #37 |
|
I must admit comrade, and I say that not as your title, that I have not fully studied communism, but have seen the effects, that perhaps have been feed to me by the capitalist in this country. My own personal problem with communism, as with all else government, is there are oppertunities for corruption. I am not saying that capitalism isn't corrupt, nor hurtful; but I am saying that, as things stand, communism may never happen in my nation. It was a joke to see the 'Red Scare' occur in America, the 1950's 'Salem Witch Trials' imho. I agree that 'State Communism' is a bit of an oxymoron. Federal Community? I think not. I favor state rights over federal. State rights have a more communal aspect on them. Comrade, have you ever thought about Christian Communism? Communism based on Christian theology. (Note: I know there was a so-called 'Christian Commune' that believed in sharing sexual partners and was really a counter-Christian foundation.) |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 7 2006, 09:30 AM Post #38 |
Independant by Cynicism
|
Woa.... comrade you are my new hero..
 I'd like to add that technology is not necessarily a good thing. As well some key technological advancements such as the internet are moreso post-war products. While capitalism is faster at evolving technology it does for profit and not for people as Martin mentioned. But while capitalism does progress technology it regresses human development. The pursuit of money, and the reliance on money for survival produces negative effects within humanity and regresses it. But from my limited knowledge I find that communism fails to deal with the basic human nature of greed and selfishness. That I think is were problems arise in communism. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 09:35 AM Post #39 |
|
The thought just occured to me, there is a Christian Communism at work. The Amish! I think that is a good pictorial of communism, as you said technology isn't really necessary if there is no necessity for war.. |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 7 2006, 09:36 AM Post #40 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
Jonewest have you ever heard of Christian Anarchism? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic » |
5:53 PM Jul 13