And yet, free speech is almost universally restricted in Communist nations. Why do you think that is?

Communists do not want to listen to all opinions though. Thats the problem. Show me a single exception.

I wasnt just throwing insults when I said Communists are closet aristocrats. They really are. It is a monarchy with different titles.

There is 0 (ZERO) chance of anything like that happening here. Dont hold your breath. The government doesnt gun down protesters here. Wiretaps are a long way from a fireing squad.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Think about it though? Wire taps, invading nations to create new "democracies" aka American satellites, Patriot Act enabling government to arrest anyone at anytime without needing a warrant, cutting everything inorder to fund military build up. Protestors have already had their rights cut short by police interfering demonstrations. I remember reading about the LAPD using tear-gas on demonstrators protesting the NAFTA, looking at the footage they even attacked people not demonstrating. Maybe there havent been any Tienenmen Square-like events in America but just look at everything and youll see that the American government is slowly tightening its grip on all of us. I imagine their reading this post as I type it. And 2006 becomes 1984.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois

The sad irony, young Schwarz, is that the neocons picked up these unsavory tactics from Trotsky and his ilk. Their wickedness is derived from Communist ideas, but they apply it to capitalism. Really messed up.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I'm a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act and the NSA eavesdropping and I think that we should not have invaded Iraq, but you have to put all of this in perspective. There are two major differences between the basic structure of the American government and the Soviet government that won't allow widespread suppression of dissent. First, we have real elections. In the Soviet Union, one was, at best, allowed some say in which Communist was to control the country. Second, we have a free press. It does bother me when certain people attack the actions of The New York Times and The Washington Post as treasonous, but they represent a small minority. As long as the press can report illegal and immoral actions, we are far safer than anyone in the Soviet Union was. Finally, although some people in the current administration undoubtedly see the war in Iraq as "blood for oil", Bush really does believe in bringing true democracy to the nation. I think that he went about it in the wrong way, but it is not comparable with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Is it so uncomparable, Force?
Trotsky believed that communism was the best system. He believed that the way to go about pushing it was to force it on the rest of the world through military might. Eventually the world would accept it and we'd be in Utopia. The Soviets followed that logic.
So do the neocons. Only they feel that Western demoracy is the system to be forced. The logic is the same objecively.
They speak as though the entire world would just choose the system on their own and in the meantime try to force it on everyone. Exact same thing the Commies thought they were doing.
"You will be free, even if I have to force you to be free!"

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

It would be comparable if the hard line neoconservatives (Perle, Ledeen, etcetera) were in control of the government. Fortunately, although they have had some negative influence, they are not actually running the country.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

The one small difference you missed is that the neo-cons believe the masses SHOULD have the final say...even when things dont turn out in our favor. You may notice that the neo-con government we have now hasnt attempted to dissolve the new Iraqi government even though it didnt turn out in our favor. Or even the Palestinain government for that matter.

I am sure you missed it by accident. I'm here to help.

You mean by giving them a real choice? That argument is so ridiculous sometimes I think you people are trying to parody liberals on purpose. As if the vast majority of people in the world WANT to be slaves...

How dare we make rape illegal! How do you know those women dont WANT to be raped? Who are you to make decisions for them?

I guess it is fortunate for you that the real neo-conservatives have usurped the label then.

Bush doesnt even have the option of running for another term, and even if he did, he would have to be re-elected by us. For the THIRD time.

So please stop with the Stalin comparissons...you're embarrassing yourself. The two are not remotely similar.

As opposed to the bullets and grenades that would have been used by Stalin....

If so, it is doing so with our collective consent.

The sky isnt falling. It's just rain.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Communism doesn't work, and never has.

Communism has been responsible for 100,000,000 deaths this century,

Communism's stated aim is to eliminate all religions,

Communism's stated aim is to eliminate private property,

Communism's stated aim is to incite class warfare,

Communism's stated aim is to set up a world-wide
proletariate dictatorship,

Communism's stated aim is to eliminate free speech and
other forms of opposition.

Here is the link that the original poster used.
http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/67/1/12

Communism

Communism is a form of socialism. It puts control of all property into the hands of the government directly. The results have been impressive: over 100 million people killed in the last century.

Communism is the bloodiest form of government ever conceived. It enslaves the entire population, and rules through fear. Because it destroys property rights, it makes the production of wealth almost impossible. Since the use of one's mind is no longer a method of creating wealth, communism has only one method of production: Through hard physical labor. But without the use of reason, even this is severely limited in its scope.

Since the population gets an equal share of the wealth produced, there is virtually no incentive to produce, since one's effort is of negligible benefit. To compensate for this, the government must intimidate and force the people into working hard. Since self-interest is eliminated as a motivation for production, it is replaced by its cruder sort of self-interest in the form of fear of death. The government slaughters citizens to keep the rest in line.

This is encouraged because the government policies are failures. Communism is supposed to produce limitless wealth, making all of its citizens happy and rich. But with the ability to produce impaired, the success never happens. To distract the population from its failure, the government must blame it on others. And anyone guilty enough of harming everyone in society should be killed of course. Communism lives on scapegoats.

Communism is a brutal system of government. It does not just fail to protect individual rights, it establishes a system of violence force. The results have been exactly what one would predict: starvation, poverty, and the slaughter of millions.

http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Communism.html

Java: The state is stealing form the wealthy as much as the wealthy removing there factories etc. from the community would be stealing form the workers. If 50% or more of people want everyone to own the land in community then i don't see taking it as a bad thing. The government shouldn't be able to tell the wealthy they can't own what they've got (not necessarily what they've worked for) but the people should be able to. If the people can't then power ultimately lies in the hands of the few.

People already do specialize in crappy jobs. People will get a degree then go out and be a binman. Jobs don't have to pay better than more likeable jobs for people to do them. Of course just liking jobs isn't going to be enough. We need more people for less attractive jobs than willingness alone will provide. However with a comprehensive education system this can be gotten around.
There won't be real labor shortages in communist society because of the amount of professions that should be axed (marketing and advertising, salesmen, a good deal of high up managers etc.). With a large workforce comes the opportunity to train people for allot longer that would otherwise be available (I mean in terms of post school education being free and encouraged). This is because there is no need to quickly fill gaps in the labour force. This also means that people currently in work can go and train for new more skilled labour anytime they wish (they'd have to get some work done at some point though )
That tackles how, but back to why people would want to trained to do a unattractive job. It goes back to what i said about seeing the effects on their local community. If there was a real problem with sewer maintenance then people would obviously notice it. It would be called to the attention of the community and it would be up to some to step up and train in sewer maintenance. Someone would step up. When a job needs doing, and you want it done, and others want it done, and others encourage you to get it done, you stand a good chance of doing it. While the job wouldn't appear attractive it would become more approachable as you genuinely would want to see the sewers maintained. There also isn't that sense that someone else will do it in local communities as you usually know most of the people around.

As far as welfare states go i just don't see how they can make sure everyone in society gets a equal chance in life. Even if didn't want equal wealth distribution, it still seems somewhat unfair that someone can have a better chance in life just because of who there parents were.
If you truly think the welfare policies you have in place now are working fine, then why, in the richest state in the world, is there still poverty?

It's nice to see you want the state to make sure everyone can live. The reason i want to go further and distribute wealth equally is based on the simply reasoning that not everyone in the world can be rich. Everyone can't be rich because someones needs to be making the goods that a person can get rich off. This means that two people can work equally hard and get completely different rewards from life. The only real i can see to stop this is to split everything according to a persons need. (Good point on the greed issue btw)

You've goto understand i'm not that kind of communist (it just seems the closet to what i believe). I don't really care much for communes, i just like the idea of soviets. But as for your point, capitalists would be free to vote for who they want and hence if many got together they could just vote in capitalism. Capitalism while not possible in communism society, is possible in a communist world. You say anyone can just go live in a commune. That's not true. For instance if i wanted to move to a commune but stay in area (to keep in touch with my family) how do i go about it? Type 'commune' into google? How can i set up one if i have no money? Don't communes still have to pay tax to the government as well? There is no choice without money.

Java, lets say i work a Mcdonald's. How would you, as a good employer, motivate me to work harder? No future employeer is going to care about my time working at Mcdonald's unless i'm going in for exactly the same type of job. A good reference might help but if i have no qualifications it's still not going to help.
The workers do get together to put pressure on there employers. There called unions. The fact there doing this implies to me there is no incentive there. They accept they will always be working class and want a fairer deal. They clearly don't think there ever going to get rich short of winning the lottery. If they though otherwise then workers wouldn't come out on strike. They'd just knuckle down and try to work harder so as not to get fired or get a pay rise. But capitalism doesn't work like that.

Java you state three problems. The centralized government won't solve poverty (although it could). People don't care about those less fortunate than themselves. US culture has a negative outlook on the poor. You don't cite any solutions to these problems other than saying we need to change our culture. You don't say how we should do this. My solution to all of these problems is communism. Yours appears to be lets just carry on and hope while people live and die in poverty.

Pawn shops aren't evil. Someone buying a gold bar from pawn shop profit is evil. If pawn shops were under government control there would be no profit made. A fairer deal for all people who have to pawn off what they own for rent. Some people do have to pawn of more than just luxuries too. If you can find a job and decide go busking then if you can't may rent you might have to pawn your guitar, which is your livelihood. Under communism you wouldn't have to make rent.

As for moving after jobs take a look a Brazil Java. The jobs were in the cities so everyone migrated. Now there's miles of slums and no jobs for the new migrants.

Force: I'll reply to you in a minute but i need a break from writing long pieces at the moment.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

If neo-cons think that the people's vote matters even if its nor a pro-American decision then why are they threatening Hamas? Also, our votes dont matter because we live in a two-party system where both parties are corrupt and the Electoral College decides our president not to mention that we have no choice in the Supreme Court.

__________________
“Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all.” —Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois