America in the Middle-East

[draighox]

To White Wolf

 

So you're saying Stalin counted on having humungous losses? He may have been an evil paranoid dictator, but he wasn't stupid. Any even halfway competent general prepares for losses, but doesn't count on receiving them.

Of course he was evil and not stupid. That's why he counted on having losses.

There's nothing stupid about that.

 

So I ask again - name a single form of government this argument cannot be used against.

If you ask me to name a regime, which wasn't established by war or revolution, I say - feodalism. If you ask me to name a regime, which had nothing to do with war, I'll have to think about it...

 

And the whole argument it had against communism is that communism is evil because the rules of a communist society have to be enforced.

No. It just said that the rules have to be enforced, that's all. It doesn't say that rules are evil.

[Zmid]

To White Wolf

 

So you're saying Stalin counted on having humungous losses? He may have been an evil paranoid dictator, but he wasn't stupid. Any even halfway competent general prepares for losses, but doesn't count on receiving them.

Of course he was evil and not stupid. That's why he counted on having losses.

There's nothing stupid about that.

 

Yes there is - if your enemy fights smart, and manages to simply hold their ground withoout giving you huge losses, or even retreats in order to avoid giving you huge losses, in the situation you have described, your country, and therefore your army, simply eventually collapses due to it's own weight.

 

So I ask again - name a single form of government this argument cannot be used against.

If you ask me to name a regime, which wasn't established by war or revolution, I say - feodalism. If you ask me to name a regime, which had nothing to do with war, I'll have to think about it...

 

Exactly my point - if you use this argument against communism, you have to use this argument against any other form of government this is true of, and that is all of them.

 

And the whole argument it had against communism is that communism is evil because the rules of a communist society have to be enforced.

No. It just said that the rules have to be enforced, that's all. It doesn't say that rules are evil.

 

And the whole argument is that, as these rules aren't voluntary, this is 'slavery', and therefore evil.

[draighox]

Yes there is - if your enemy fights smart, and manages to simply hold their ground withoout giving you huge losses, or even retreats in order to avoid giving you huge losses, in the situation you have described, your country, and therefore your army, simply eventually collapses due to it's own weight.

Even if he fights so, if you need to get rid of your army, you can just march straight to your enemy's cities. He will have to face you in the end.

 

Exactly my point - if you use this argument against communism, you have to use this argument against any other form of government this is true of, and that is all of them.

There's difference between communism and feodalism. Communism has to be established by revolution, feodalism wasn't.

 

And the whole argument is that, as these rules aren't voluntary, this is 'slavery', and therefore evil.

It is slavery not because the rules aren't voluntary, it's slavery because the few more productive people are forced to work for the community. The rules in general aren't evil, communist rules are.

[Zmid]

Yes there is - if your enemy fights smart, and manages to simply hold their ground withoout giving you huge losses, or even retreats in order to avoid giving you huge losses, in the situation you have described, your country, and therefore your army, simply eventually collapses due to it's own weight.

Even if he fights so, if you need to get rid of your army, you can just march straight to your enemy's cities. He will have to face you in the end.

 

Meanwhile, he attacks your supply lines, or even just ignores your army and marches to YOUR cities, thereby hastening the collapse of your armies.

 

Exactly my point - if you use this argument against communism, you have to use this argument against any other form of government this is true of, and that is all of them.

There's difference between communism and feodalism. Communism has to be established by revolution, feodalism wasn't.

 

No, it was established by war and caused wars. In this context, what's the difference between war and revolution? People are still killed and people still suffer.

 

And the whole argument is that, as these rules aren't voluntary, this is 'slavery', and therefore evil.

It is slavery not because the rules aren't voluntary, it's slavery because the few more productive people are forced to work for the community. The rules in general aren't evil, communist rules are.

 

So you would prefer that people who manage, through luck or skill, to become successful, are totally selfish and totally fail to use any of their success to benefit those less fortunate than themselves? Or to benefit those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to find success? That is the underlying principle behind communism - everyone pools their resources and this pool is divided equally amongst everyone. This results in everybody contributing to society to the best of their abilities. The fact a particular person's abilities are greater than somebody else's abilities is irrelevant.

 

 

EDIT: Not only that, if you were to apply this in the extreme, no-one would pay taxes, absolutely nothing would be free, even to the poorest of the poor, there would be no such thing as welfare and the poor and homeless would be left to die in the streets.

[draighox]

Meanwhile, he attacks your supply lines, or even just ignores your army and marches to YOUR cities, thereby hastening the collapse of your armies.

Since when did russians care about their cities more than their enemy about theirs? Stalin didn't care about his people. Of course, he cared about his industry, but germans cared about their cities more. They would have tried to stop russians.

 

No, it was established by war and caused wars. In this context, what's the difference between war and revolution? People are still killed and people still suffer.

True, there's little difference between them. But people didn't start a war to create feodalism. They fought for lands and power, not for some kind of regime.

 

So you would prefer that people who manage, through luck or skill, to become successful, are totally selfish and totally fail to use any of their success to benefit those less fortunate than themselves? Or to benefit those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to find success? That is the underlying principle behind communism - everyone pools their resources and this pool is divided equally amongst everyone. This results in everybody contributing to society to the best of their abilities. The fact a particular person's abilities are greater than somebody else's abilities is irrelevant.

People have right to keep their property for themselves. Of course, they also have right to share their wealth with others, but they mustn't be forced. Forcing to give away their money and/or work is mugging or slavery.

[Darnoc]

Forcing to give away their money and/or work is mugging or slavery.

 

No, it is called taxes. Or "personal contribution to society".

[Wookiee]

once apon a time taxes were only payed by the top 5% richest people in the country a 10th and a 5th, till poll tax came in and there was the peasents revolt led by watt tylor... in the end it amounted to nothing (with the exeption of the young king growing some gonads) but i think we need another peasents revolt :)

[draighox]

Taxes are paiment to the government for its services. That's decent regime. Communism, on the other hand, deprives people of earning money themselves. They are forced to work for the government, which is slavery.

[Abramul]

But shouldn't payment be relative to how well you make use of your abilities? In a (real-world) communism, those who are favored get more privileges. Is that not a form of payment?

 

EDIT: I mean payment to the workers, not to the government.

 

Even if the government is the only employer, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a fair pay/compensation/whatever scale. Also, taxes are unnecessary. :shocked:

[draighox]

But shouldn't payment be relative to how well you make use of your abilities?

You mean the more money I earn, the more money government takes? Certainly not.

 

In a (real-world) communism, those who are favored get more privileges.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. What do you mean by those who are favoured?