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 (1,121 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: | |
|---|---|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 09:37 AM Post #41 |
   ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)
|
No, could you describe it to me? |
 |
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 7 2006, 09:48 AM Post #42 |
Independant by Cynicism
|
I wake up at 6am and its about 5am I've been working on my manuscript and im dead tired so I really can't explain it. I hope you don't mind but im just going to paste the Wiki definition of it.
|
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 7 2006, 09:49 AM Post #43 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
In some way it seems communist because there is no leader, its communal their leader is god. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 09:54 AM Post #44 |
|
I understand your tires, I work at 9am and it's 4am..sigh..:'( I like the idea of Christian Anarchism, I may be looking further into this! 
|
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 7 2006, 10:02 AM Post #45 |
Make-Believe Man
|
Jonewest,
No one can deny that there were particular excesses and shortcomings and terrible things, but the scope and magnitude of these things has seen VERY significant magnifications. For example, "Stalin killed 20 million people" is among the most common maginifications. Actually, under Stalin, only about 900,000 executions actually took place in the Soviet Union. Is that bad? Hell yes! Is that more-than-Hitler bad? Hell no! Aside from executions, there are also deaths that occured in GULAG that were extra-executional, or, did not involve the execution process, but rather died of other causes. That number is about 1.2 million. Fatigue, cold, and hunger became common in some GULAG facilities. However, considering the context (WWII) it may fit to reason that there wasn't a lot of money (or time, or land, even) to produce the blankets, warmer clothes, food, or even basic necessities needed by either prisoners OR guards (which were included in that figure.) You may blame Stalin for these deaths, but they were by no means intentional executions. But that's it. You can't pin war casualties on him, which WERE about 20 million, because they were sort of busy fighting a massive war against Nazis with a highly underdeveloped military-industrial complex of any kind. 2 million compared to 20 million? Obvious inflation, but that still doesn't make it right. I believe, however, as I said in a previous post, in accuracy. Whether we're talking about Capitalism or Socialism a la Stalin, I will not shy away from criticizing EITHER side of the political spectrum for its employment of false figures, no matter how much I agree or disagree with them.
Marxists contend that class stratification and the conflict between those various classes generates conflicts and social problems, either directly (man loses job, robs store to feed family) or indirectly (girl commits suicide because her boyfriend broke up with her but her boyfriend broke up with her because he's being traumatized and abused by his dad who is a drunkard because he got a big pay cut last august and drinks to ease the pain), and that the struggle for the end of classes also constitutes the end of a necessity of a special group of armed people to enforce laws (I.E. police.) This view is substaintiated historically by the very fact that in pre-class societies (we call this the Primitive Communism stage, with the closest, chronologically, perhaps, being the Native Americans on a mass scale and, as someone refers later, the Amish on a "modern" small-scale) crime was virtually unknown, with all transgressions being dealt with by the community with banishment, ritual punishment, or, in less common cases, execution. Without positions of power for anyone to assume, thus being capable of reviving classes, what could exist to cause corruption? Corruption in what, I ask you?
see the region, "The Christian Communist Union". I have a puppet nation there, Marturian Jerusalem. Some time ago, I considered myself a Christian, and simultaneously a Communist. However, since, I have dropped all religion (including the religion of anti-religion, atheism) and adopted agnosticism, or secularism. I do not believe in anything that I cannot prove the truth of. VincentDantes,
Yay! I'm somebody's hero!
Good point, although on the internet, its still a Capitalist invention. Pop-up ads, banners, all that bothersome crap is e-Capitalism in action.
I think that's a fair statement.
Actually, some scientists now believe that humans are NATURALLY altruistic, and that greed is something we learn, and that actually contradicts our nature. Here are two good articles which are directly from my Secretariat on this subject: http://www.workers.org/2006/us/greedy-0223/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm |
|
|
|
| walkerstown | Jun 7 2006, 12:07 PM Post #46 |
GRADF Brevet General/Meritocratic Paternalist
|
How do you explain away the fact that the GULAG program was first started properly in the early 30's then? Would you blame the Holodomor on the Ukrainians? Were their deaths their own fault for not co-operating with Uncle Joe? What about the war casualties killed by the NKVD? I think it's perfectly possible to blame Stalin for most of the deaths in the Soviet Union whilst he was in power (Obviously excluding those killed by the Axis during the second world war). |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 7 2006, 12:15 PM Post #47 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
Thanks umm the internet was a product of war not capitalism, it was first created by the military as just a simple network for instantenous contact in case of nuclear war. [or something like that], and from there students [some of which own companies like Microsoft, Linux and Apple] played around with the idea, and they were the first true hackers they hacked at programming, learned it by just trying it without anyone actualy teaching them. Every program that was written was shared and free within the community, as long as you didn't take credit for writing it you were allowed to use it and change it free of charge. Then as the systems evolved slightly people like Bill Gates wanted to make profit from their work, and slowly this network of sharing broke down and eventualy it was all for money. So in fact it started as just a military toy, turned into a free non-capitalist toy for super geeks. And eventualy evolved to a profit-making industry. For a time there weren't even pop-ups and ads. You know for every scientists that says one thing theres a scientist that says the opposite. But I will read it in my spare time. Thanks |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 08:59 PM Post #48 |
|
This is true..ah..the good ol' days of GOPHER  I remember the days when you had to pay 10 cents per minute...on dial-up! Phew...glad those days are OVER..silly AT&T. Most people, in their ignorance, think Bill Gates invented the computer..sigh.. Maybe it is my geekness, but these people are..well yes..ignorant. Of course we all know who REALLY invented the internet, 'BIG' Al Gore.. :rolleyes: Computers went to huge-massive-room-taking-space-absorbers, to the little laptops you see to today that can work 50x's faster than the original computer..probably more..but I'm not a nerd who knows ALL the details. Anyways, that was TOTALLY a thread hijack B) Back on topic.. Hackers..yes..I have respect for the little nerds who sat in their basements with their towers of computers hooked up to various 'un-hooked' phone lines, that were in turn hooked up to multi-international corporate buildings that were in turn hooked up to systems across the worlds. My..and all on dial-up! That's like 5kbps..heh..Imagine what hacking would have become if that was all on T1 or T3 lines...The internet would be gone...But is it possible to 'delete' such a system? Scientists are working on a new technology called the 'Yoda' (sp?) bite which is 1,000 terabytes....3 Yoda bytes supposidly can hold the entire internet on them...heh. I would say the human brain is capable of maybe 2 terabytes?..much maybe? |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 7 2006, 09:30 PM Post #49 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
walkerstown,
Well, two revolutions, a civil war, world war I, and numerous nationalist sectarian groups in addition to massive foreign infiltration (from Great Britain, the United States, and, increasingly, Germany) would contribute to a very large prison system for the hosting of such persons. Here is a full record of prisons, labor colonies, and the GULAG system: http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/372dca5c.jpg Although I do not understand the differentiation between the labor colonies and the GULAGs, as the GULAGs were essentially labor colonies. I believe the actual labor colonies were self-sufficient, while the GULAGs relied on resources from the Soviet government.
Oh, a famine in the Ukraine, as if those have never happened in Russian history. This is my favorite one, because the Ukraine was prone to: Weather problems! Of course, if Stalin had a weather altering device of some kind, I'm sure then you could easily blame the government for that. And unless you're about to contend that they did, I will consider that unfortunately untrue and unduly attached to Stalin. There is historic proof that it was among the worst weather conditions the Ukraine ever faced at that time, although the coincidence of the Soviet government being in power at that time makes it a perfect scapegoat for mother nature's actions by the West. The collectivization of agrilculture did cause problems, of course, because it was forced. No one denies that. However, it occured in response to Kulak hoarding of grain. Kulaks were essentially agricultural Capitalists, hiring waged labor as a means of managing their farms. They demanded higher prices at a time when the Soviet Union was attempting to manage industrial production. This became known as the Scissors Crisis. Agricultural prices roses while industrial prices declined, making a scissors-like appearance on a graph. The Soviet government refused to pay higher prices (simply unaffordable), so Kulaks refused to sell even in spite of their already nominal profits. Starvation ensued in the cities, and hoards of citizens from the cities raided farms, until the Soviet government official stepped in and declared the collectivization program. Many farmers voluntarily joined initially, but many more, particularly Ukrainians, refused. This was met with intolerance from Soviet authorities, still requiring grain to feed the bustling cities. The Holodomar, as you call it, was most probably the fault of Ukrainian kulaks, whose stubbornness and anti-Soviet attitude resulted in the necessity of forced collectivization. Not to say that I agree with that policy, at the very least I understand how that conclusion arose out of the objective conditions beyond the control of the Soviets, with the only alternative being starvation for the cities. Do you?
War casualties killed by them? Why would those be necessary to include in our discussion? World war = casualties?
As long as you have a basis for doing so, which I have not seen here. VincentDantes,
Then as the systems evolved slightly people like Bill Gates wanted to make profit from their work, and slowly this network of sharing broke down and eventualy it was all for money. So in fact it started as just a military toy, turned into a free non-capitalist toy for super geeks. And eventualy evolved to a profit-making industry. For a time there weren't even pop-ups and ads. [/QUOTE] Well, on one level, it was a Capitalist invention. The military being a part of the state which is controlled by Capitalists. However, as you point out, it became more public as students, who actually operated on a Communistic basis, turned it over to the people. Jonewest,
Wow... This is off-topic, but wow... |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 7 2006, 09:32 PM Post #50 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
Okay, I can't figure out why the QUOTE tags aren't working. Please bear with me on that, I guess. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jun 7 2006, 09:36 PM Post #51 |
|
it's all in the flick of the wrist..:P Yes..it is quite amazing how far technology will go..sigh..I fear we are climaxing in the technological orgy, however. There isn't much point in curing every disease, stopping all wars, etc. We would all become so boring! |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 8 2006, 12:35 AM Post #52 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
Thats actualy impossible...because with every new advancement, new solution, new technology we bring in a new wave of problems. Technology is very two sided, for every good it does, it does harm too, sometimes [because its made for profit and not for human advancement] it does a lot more harm in the long run than good. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 8 2006, 05:40 AM Post #53 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
Jonewest,
I believe that for many of the "finalizing" technological advancements to occur, we may indeed require Socialism, for reasons outlined previously in the course of this discourse. VincentDantes,
While I respect such a yin-yang approach to the world, that's simply not true. Technological advancements CAN bring new problems, but historically, the continuing march of advancement has left many problems in the dust and have far outweighed in their solutions to problems any potential problems created by them. What new problem did curing polio, for example, bring?
Technology, like all things, is not outside of class conflict (have I delved in to that concept yet?). As such, in that respect, yes, because technology exists for profit and not people's benefit, it has many harmful side-effects in spite of what problem it may have assisted in solving originally. Not all technology operates this way, however, and to pretend that to be true leads us to a logic that essentially brings us to the conclusion that we should stop trying to advance technology. That would be a very big mistake, on all accounts. I hope everyone agrees with me on that! |
|
|
|
| U-ropa | Jun 8 2006, 01:05 PM Post #54 |
|
Unregistered
|
*yawn* socialism. get a new bandwagon to jump on. or is boring us to death part of the dialectic? |
|
|
|
| VincentDantes | Jun 8 2006, 01:53 PM Post #55 |
|
Independant by Cynicism
|
Curing polio but developing the vaccine, furthered the technology of vaccine development..which probably made some new process and advancements in working with viruses, disease, bacteria that weren't there before and that advencement was probably a necessary step that allows things like biological weapons. Everything affects everything else - the results of the affect can be immediate, take a day, a month, a year, a 100 years maybe more in some cases, it can be direct or indirect.. Kinda like the Chaos theory "A butterfly flaps its wings in China and theres a Hurricane in Cuba as a result." [something like that..but different countries, that sounds extreme and improbable but everything is connected.] |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 9 2006, 12:24 AM Post #56 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
U-ropa,
No, it isn't, but Socialism is still not only relevant but of increasing concern to humanity as a necessity. Capitalism is but a passing stage, and its holding us back. As such, in the interests of further advancement and progress for the entire human race, I must insist that I remain on this "bandwagon," not only out of objective historical necessity but also because all logic and reason compel us to it. Vincent Dantes,
Possibilities like that always exist, but its impossible to suggest that every advancement in medicine had a negative side-effect that equalled or outweighed the positives involved.
I agree that everything is interconnected, but it is simply ridiculous to claim that every occurence plays a part in every other occurence (at least on a noticable level) or that every event is balanced out by a counter-event. Humanity has been progressing for thousands of years, and there has been no qualitative regression. Historically, things are always progressing. Everything is in a constant state of change and motion, and that motion inevitably goes from the simple to the complex, from the old to the new, from the regressive to the progressive.
Nice philosophical-idealist thinking; too bad its entirely implausable. Scientifically, it can't possibly happen unless the entire atomic dynamic of a butterfly flapping its wings is changed in a radical way. Just think realistically about it. |
|
|
|
| The Byzantii | Jun 10 2006, 10:24 PM Post #57 |
Irritant
|
|
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 11 2006, 03:07 AM Post #58 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
|
|
|
|
| Arov | Jun 17 2006, 12:03 PM Post #59 |
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
|
Martin, the USSR was a dystopia if there ever was one, even during its "socialist days". I know people who lived in Russia and defected. You had to live in constant fear of the Cheka and there was hardly any food to eat. You communicated with the outside world by writing notes on paper and photographing them, then sending the negatives rolled up inside a radio or some other device, since contacting the outside world meant getting sent to the GULAG, which were created for the express purpose of death. You might say they were "labor camps", but why have labor camps in freezing cold Siberia, known for its inhospitality, where you were a slave under pain of outright death, in a land whose economy was based on labor? Please. Also, the USSR has its "socialist days" under Khruschev, when the leadership deviated a bit from the Marxism-Leninism that characterized the Soviet agenda, which lead to a coup. In a practical sense, socialism will never work unless it is put in place within small communities. In the case of nations, it is a well-known fact that countries cannot have economies unless strong state institutions are put in place to enforce law and order. Under socialism, which is based on taking away individual responsibilities out of fear of excess, the state must step in the place of individual responsibility on the outset of socialism, so the nation can survive in a socialist manner. Meanwhile, capitalism, by being based on rational self-interest, keeps the government from encroaching on individual responsibility unless it is really necessary for the sake of the average consumers and investors that keep the market afloat. Labor is protected by such arbitrations, such as the minimum wage, as well as wage-competition which benefits large companies that can afford to pay their workers at a higher price than others. There was no such thing as this during Marx's time. You say capitalism is a transitional stage? In what way? If what you say is true, that one day there will be a cap on the quality of commodities that will [paraphrase] "bring about socialism"; fueled by globalization, products will be so superior and factories/other industrial units will become so advanced that there won't be a need for socialism to improve the qulity of people's lives. I agree that there are problems with capitalism that need to be adressed, such as employment issues that benefit low-paying corporations, but the free-market system itself should be able and has been able, to provide for the average worker-investor by forcing the rich to harness the capabilities of their wealth in a way that benefits the entire population. Isn't that what socialism sets out to do, only by using the capabilities of an all-pervding government/other political entity that is built on the backs of everyone else's individual capabilities, which must become trimmed and marginalized in order to keep the collective afloat? |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jun 19 2006, 12:31 AM Post #60 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
Arov,
I don't respect people who generalize things so much that they lose sight of reality. The particulars, I assure you, are important. I suggest you research the topic in question, and review your methodology for the acquisition of your opinions.
People "defect" from nations all the time. Now granted, the Soviet Union was no paradise. Under no circumstances am I arrogantly and belligerently pushing such an obviously wrong premise, but 300 million or so people stayed in the Soviet Union despite whatever problems you say they encountered, and the number of "defectors" is surely outweighed by the number of people who didn't go anywhere. If it was such a terrible place, one is led to question why 70% of the people of the U.S.S.R. voted in the 1991 referendum regarding the status of the Union to keep it.
How old were these defectors, anyway? The Cheka barely existed for very long and was replaced severally over time by the OGPU, GPU, NKVD, and so on. Food was actually in a fair amount of abundance under Stalin for some time, although simply given to Russia's historic problems with poor crops due to weather conditions, this was not always so.
The GULAG facilities actually often weren't in Siberia. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn depicted them as largely being in Central Asia, which they were, and non-arctic Eastern Russia. The purpose of their locale was underdevelopment in these areas. Obviously, if you're going to build a system of labor camps you don't put them in an already industrialized area when there is much more work to be done elseware. They were not created for the "express purpose of death" but the express purpose of construction using free prison labor, which is the best usage of such resources which otherwise are wasted. Although granted, many problems arose given to lack of proper funding for maintenance and shortages due to WWII and post-war reconstruction led to many problems for GULAG prisoners.
Nikita Khrushchev's policies were of actually of a more Marxist-Leninist character than those (the majority of those anyway) of Joseph Stalin. Khrushchev's social policies were definently characteristic of true Marxism-Leninism (as we saw similar policies [but much more enhanced and in-depth] while Lenin was still alive) but his economic policies left much to be desired, and, due to their Capitalistic nature, are what led to the economic stagnation that, a few decades later, would spell collapse.
Nonsense. Socialism's success depends upon as free a democracy as possible. It doesn't take away individual responsibilities, it empowers them. It gives all people a democratic say in the function of the economy, which Capitalism does not allow. Noam Chomsky had a good quote about this, let me fetch it for you... "Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control." You speak at length about individual responsibility, but what about the rights of the individual? Those are incredibly encroached upon in order for Capitalism to function and any such things that come about only do so as a means of assuaging the working class. They're all temporary concessions. Thus we see attacks on the right to abortion, affirmative action, and any attempts at raising the minimum wage or promoting workers' unions. Statistics show that a majority of workers want to form unions, but they don't because they fear punishment from their bosses. Workers did not fear that before, yet they do now. This is clear evidence that every facet of Bourgeois society is operating at its most efficient level to demonize and to repress working class initiatives, and to curtail its established gains towards the expression of "democracy." Another good Chomsky quote I stumbled upon, "Predatory capitalism created a complex industrial system and an advanced technology; it permitted a considerable extension of democratic practice and fostered certain liberal values, but within limits that are now being pressed and must be overcome. It is not a fit system for the mid-twentieth century."
What existed or did not exist in Marx's time is highly irrelevant.
You misunderstand. You act as if every stage of social development reached some sort of empass where it stopped and could go no further. No, slavery and Feudalism were both still very much productive, and things were constantly moving forward. However, it was the antagonism between classes that led to their demise. That or some sort of intervention from a nation that had already moved ahead forced the less developed state to have its economic and social revolution. Capitalists have done a great deal utilizing their tool of the state to keep the workers contented, but we're seeing a movement away from that due to the lack of the U.S.S.R. offering the workers an alternative, albeit a poor alternative. Capitalists were constantly fearful of the potential of a Communist (workers') uprising and thus did what they could to ensure that workers would not do so. Given to the lack of a solid and powerful Socialist alternative anywhere, Capitalists feel at ease, and are persuing a policy of disintegrating the concessions they've had to make as a class. We will see Socialism arise out of Capitalism as Capitalism stops seeking to appeal to the working class.
Are you familiar with the term "understatement?"
Now we can use the term "overstatement." Even if a tiny percentage (and it almost always certainly is a tiny, insignificant percentage) of the wealth of the rich was used to assist the working people, it still cannot alleviate the problems occuring (and furthermore is an insult to the working people as a class, who become more resolved in such a problematic system despite their poverty and humuliation of requiring the charity of their exploiters to survive) nor can it prevent them. Why must we be contented with survive at the good will of Capitalists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to such a concept, when we can get off our knees and take control of the world for ourselves? The irony of that question is that the answer lies in itself. That goodwill of Capitalists only goes so far, and we're coming upon a time where that will no longer be normal to Capitalism, as it ahs always been an exception which it does not truly seek to bear.
No, that's bullshit. Socialism sets out to make everyone an owner, and make no one owned. Socialism's goal is the elevation of the working class from a position of subservience to that of the leading class. Past examples have led to problems, due to faulty design. Those models, while having initial economic success and great democratic achievements, become prone to authoritarianism and lean back towards Capitalistic policies, resulting in stagnation, depression, and complete crashes. But like any scientific experiment, we do not stop when one attempt fails, we seek to rectify the mistakes of that experiment and work off of those results in order to persue a better model. |
|
|
|
| 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