No corruption in communism don't let me laugh - Page 4

kolpo · July 4, 2001, 04:44

JMarks, poor who are helped by rich are a very small minority. In nations where the government helps the poor are they much better of then in nations where they have to beg for help from the riches. Just compare the number of poor people in USA with nations like Sweden or Belgium. Just compare the average level of education of quite poor people in USA and nations like Sweden or Belgium. Maybe a nice theory but it has one problem: the reality isn't the theory.

The theory you are saying now is the theory of the european aristocrasy in 1850-1900. The labour class had it never worser then then ! even in the middle ages where they better of. It was with the start of left winged parties and labour unions that things suddenly improved. Strage as soon as the left winged got in power decreased the number of real poor quite suddenly.

But in fact is this whole discusion between left and right winged useless. In democrasy rules the majority. If the majority in Europe is left winged then will there come a left winged goverment, if the Americans what an extreme right goverment then vote the majority for bush. But if the Americans suddenly change there mind and all vote for let's say the Duck party then will the Ducks come in power and will Donalt Duck become president, this is democrasy, the majority rules and they are always right because they are the majority(2 basic principes of democrasy).

bertje121 · July 4, 2001, 05:25

Well. I live in the Netherlands. You could ocmpare the Netherlands very much like Belgium on social security. But I think we do TOO much for the poor in our nation. People think they don't have to work anymore.
Therefore I prefer the US system. You have to work hard for money!
Of course we should help the poorest. But social security should not be used as a permanent income.
Also, the taxes are too d#mn high around here.

Therefore, as a Dutch, I say, God Bless America!

Sientifix · July 4, 2001, 08:30

Quote:

Therefore I prefer the US system. You have to work hard for money!

Only if you are poor. So you should say :
"Therefore I prefer the US system. The poorer your parents are, the more you need to work hard for money.".

Great Britain choosed liberal economic, Germany and France choosed socialism. GB was the most important economic country in Europe, now it is Germany and France. Make your own mind!

Grumbold · July 4, 2001, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Sientifix Great Britain choosed liberal economic, Germany and France choosed socialism. GB was the most important economic country in Europe, now it is Germany and France. Make your own mind!

If this is supposed to be proof of the superiority of socialism, I have to refute it. The UK got itself into its mess for very specific reasons that the economic model had little to do with. All countries tend to cycle through highs and lows of economic production, individual wealth and national pride. Those of the UK are rarely in phase with continental Europe which is why we can sometimes be smug at your expense and vice versa.

On the whole I have to agree with Marquis de Sodaq. Europe and the US have different views on what it means to be democratic and capitalist. I don't think any system is perfect.

Oh, and whoever it was thinks that the UK has lots of privately funded schools, think again. There are a tiny number of them and they cater for the same class of people who would arrange for private tutors in any country were the schools not available. The state is doing its (not terribly good) best to improve the standard of national education.

Getting back to Civ Communism, I think the game mechanism isn't bad. There is no additional corruption because the income rates are already set so low to account for the routine skimming that goes on. It's just the same rate of skimming no matter how far you are from the capital. This sounds to me like Russian/Chinese communism, not utopian communism. Conversely Democracy, where everyone is happy, wealthy and intelligent except when their troops go abroad sounds far more like fantasy than reality. The new Nationalism, if it turns out to be a government, sounds flawed to me. Any government type should be able to go on a war footing or switch back to peacetime operations. The CtP alert status did this very effectively without having to invent a new government to do it. Nations have been calling up the reserves to fight during the campaigning season and send them home for harvest time since man discovered greed. These days the cycles just last years rather than months.

bertje121 · July 4, 2001, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sientifix

Great Britain choosed liberal economic, Germany and France choosed socialism. GB was the most important economic country in Europe, now it is Germany and France. Make your own mind!

Can you prove France and Germany are the most important economic powers?
And Germany and France choose socialism??????
I didn't knew Chiraq was a socialist! NOT.
That's real crap what you're saying there.
In Germany the CDU has always ruled. (Conservatives)
and in France social-democrats switched with liberals.

You don't know much about your own country, mate.

kolpo · July 4, 2001, 11:17

French and Germany are clearly left winged(but Germany centrum left winged) They both have a good social sytem that GB has not.
They both have stronger social laws and stronger labor unions then GB. France has the stronges labor unions of europe !

I would call Germany social democratic,French socialistic and GB conservative(but with Blair moderate conservative)

They both have a good mainly public school sytem while GB has a mainly private school system.

It is true that the left winged where no always in power but the righ winged knowed that if they destroyed the social things build by the left winged the left winged would win the next election.

And in fact was Chirac more left winged then Blair. Things are not always what they are called. We in Belgium would call the democrats right winged liberals and the USA would most likely call our conservative parties progressive.

Just look to the social sytem, the labor unions, the income equality and you would clearly see that French and Germany are clearly more left winged then GB. The biggest problem in the GB economie is the lack of education because the public education don't get's enough funds and the private is way to expensive for most people.

kolpo · July 4, 2001, 11:19

And the average income of French and germany are much higher then GB, especial that of Germany and the French economie is growing fact currently. GB is one of the poor nation of the European Union(because of there education system) !

kolpo · July 4, 2001, 11:26

40% of the European Union it's economy is created by Germany.

Rasputin · July 4, 2001, 11:27

i always thought germans leant mainly to the right !! not left

KrazyHorse · July 4, 2001, 11:28

I know that I'm one to talk, but this thread has completely diverged from any semblance of usefulness. It's gotten to the point of "Socialism is better than capitalism" "No! Capitalism is better than socialism".

Juggernaut · July 4, 2001, 11:32

hehe, let them discuss. nothing new is coming up about Civ3 anyway, so...

Rasputin · July 4, 2001, 11:42

we are all bored waiting for the civ 3 release...

KrazyHorse · July 4, 2001, 11:44

Mostly, I'm bored with the damn lack of information. How can they let us go for two months without a game update when we're getting so close to release? Update your site!

Rasputin · July 4, 2001, 11:50

oh well in the meantime we can spam here and upset the true posters !!!!

Sientifix · July 4, 2001, 12:39

Quote:

Originally posted by bertje121
Can you prove France and Germany are the most important economic powers?
And Germany and France choose socialism??????
I didn't knew Chiraq was a socialist! NOT.
That's real crap what you're saying there.
In Germany the CDU has always ruled. (Conservatives)
and in France social-democrats switched with liberals.

You don't know much about your own country, mate.

No, I do.

Chirac is from the right(republican), but he made his campaign on the "fracture sociale". A big part of our right look like the american democrate party. I look at facts (well, I almost try), not only what is shown.
But the main thing is that both in Germany and in France, the system is socialist. In France for example, 54% of the national incomes go to the state. I don't know exactly in Germany, but I think it is very near France. In both state there is a strong social security, a strong public school, a strong public research and so on...

I saw the national incomes of the main states in Le Monde or in Libération, maybe both, don't remember. Well, I've found for 1998 at www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cles/sources:
country : GNP
UK : 1.263$
Italia : 1.166$
France : 1.466$
Germany : 2.122$
US : 7.921$
Japan : 4 089$

"mate"->

I am certainly not a Marxist !

@Grumbold

Quote:

If this is supposed to be proof of the superiority of socialism, I have to refute it.

You're right, it's not a proof of superiority. The proof of superiority is that there was more equality in France and Germany than in UK for similar economical results.

Quote:

All countries tend to cycle through highs and lows of economic production, individual wealth and national pride. Those of the UK are rarely in phase with continental Europe which is why we can sometimes be smug at your expense and vice versa.

Can you be more precise please? For record, France economy just get out of troubles two years ago, in 1998-1999.

bertje121 · July 4, 2001, 12:51

I still don't think it's right to give France the name 'socialistic'
You could maybe say: mainly social-DEMOCRATIC
that word is very important. Socialism is what the Eastern European countries had under rule of de USSR.

The base of all the Western European economies still is capitalism.

kolpo · July 4, 2001, 13:32

yeah but socialism has a differnt meaning in different nations and languages. If they talk in China about socialism has it a total different meaning then in let's say Belgium.

But in English are you right French is more social democratic or human capitalistic(best word because that it what it actualy is). But UK is even under blair more pure capitalistic or free capitalistic.

I'm also against USSR communism even much more then against pure capitalism. The labour class had it in the USSR much harder then in any western capitalist country.

Oh and to let this thread go back about civ3. I hope it allows us to create new types of government, i would like to be able to create a modern time european scenario where I can give every european nation one of the 4 most used goverments in europe: conservative, social democratic, liberal and nationalistic(balkan nations, but will be already in game

). Would also be great to create very specific governments for scenarios.

bertje121 · July 4, 2001, 14:37

that indeed is a great idea!
It would be cool for scenarios.

N35t0r · July 4, 2001, 16:56

I'm here laughing at how people compare communism and capitalism from what has happened IRL.

like, put a turtle to run a 100 M race, when the turtle was chosen from a pool of 1 000 000 turtles.
when the turtle is 25 M away from the start, put a hare to do the entire race, from a pool of two randomly selected hares, including the newborns and ner-death hares.

and say that hares are slower than turtles because they lost.

bertje121 · July 4, 2001, 17:48

wow, i have to admire your comparation! NOT!!!!!

Communism didn't lose just once. It lost in every single country!

Get real, get capitalist!

LaRusso · July 5, 2001, 04:32

well, it IS true that all communist countries happened to be the poorest ones, plus they were devastated by wars. not that this is excuse for internal weakness of the so-called 'realistic socialism'

marx devised the whole system for the germans. they can pull off any socio-economic system, i bet ya

NeoBlade · July 5, 2001, 04:37

Ok,I know the flying boat dude(sorry,forgot your name) said this.It very highly offended me considering my current posistion(soon to change if I have anyting to do about it.)He said that family,friends,non profit orginizations should take care of the poor.

Lets define "The Poor",ok?

THe poor are people who often times did not get a good education but more often then not they just don't work hard enough,were never encouraged to do so.

HOWEVER,there are another group of people who can't take care of themselfs to well..like the elderly and disabled people.
Whould you say to these people to go live with there family?It sometimes work,but lets be honest....MY Family,as "loving" and "Careing" as they are whould NEVER take us in for more then 2 weeks should we get kicked out onto the streets.Friends..?Feh,yea right...,Non-Profit org....Like Social Security 'erhaps?

I hate how you right-wingers are so general.Poor encompasses quite a few diffrent kinds of people.

As for education-Personally I don't care what school I go to as long as I can go to school.Personally I wanna be sure that,as soon as I graduate from Highschool,I can get a loan and get into colledge regardless.
Public school,in my opinion is OK,the teachers do there jobs the best they can..its the KIDS who arn't doing there job.There parents arn't being hard enough on them,they arn't motivated.The kids that do bad in school almost always have little home support.Proven fact,I'v seen a million examples in my life.THe more motivated a kid is,the more he learns.Currently education is "un-cool" amongst kids.I have a unquencheable thrist for knowledge unlike my brainwashed peers.I'v been asked several times why I like to read so much....its a shame,its not the schools fault,its the kids fault damnnit,now get it straight.

Healthcare-This should be free,why should a person pay to be in good health.A good,strong,healthy workforce is a productive one too be them dumb or not.As it stands healtcare plans and all that often times exclude low wage or bad credit people...thus they get little medical help as compared to someone witha good job.My dads a vet so he gets pretty good medical care...I on the other hand get S*it because were poor because the goverment won''t let us be anything but poor.(Go read my post in the country thread.)

So,I think that Oppurtunity should be availible to even the poorest.The poor should at least get good medical care weather they young or not.Disabled people or old people unable to work should get payed middle income regardless because oppurtunity has been takein from them and should not be forced into poverty "just because".I agree that I'd like to see america encourage people to aspire to great heights but the work needs to be done at the grass roots,bottom to top,not top to bottom.Schools don't indoctrinate,society indoctrinates.I see it all the time.I know at my school the teachers are always encourageing us.

BTW-Spare me your Creationist/Evolutionist babble.Alot of the kids i know in school are not religious,and religion should be taught at HOme,by the parents,it should be reinforced at home,not at school.IT SHOULDN"T HAVE TO BE.THats how it'd always work in the old days.YOu learn science at school and religon at home and you make the descision of which is right.I'm a evolutionist myself but I belive God's a evolutionist too.He just never wanted to admit it to a bunch of just outta the stone age sinning idiots.

Also,about that lil thing about takeing money away from a atheist to fund someone eles to be a preist...why did they hafta take the money away in the first place?There should be oppurtunity for all,not just the people you happen to like.

Sientifix · July 5, 2001, 04:58

I have always seen the democrate/republican difference as a different of percent in luxe rate. I think it should stay like that.

bertje121 said

Quote:

Socialism is what the Eastern European countries had under rule of de USSR.

socialism (English): the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs
socialisme (French) : Socialist movement diversified into distinct models, the ones are called communist (URSS, China, ie), the others are called socialist(Sweden model, lot of countries in the (?)third world)(Le mouvement socialiste s'est diversifié en modèles distincts, les uns qualifiés de communistes (U.R.S.S., Chine, par ex.), les autres de socialistes (modèle suédois, nombreux pays du tiers monde). in Encyclopedia Universalis)

Since 1981, socialist party, called "parti socialiste (PS)", was 14 years at the lead of the state in France.

kolpo said

Quote:

But in English are you right French is more social democratic or human capitalistic

In fact I think you're right, the word "socialist" have not the same meaning in every country.

Sava · July 5, 2001, 11:54

So far in the history of the world, there has been corruption in every form of government in every possible form. To think otherwise is naive.

After reading many of the posts in this thread, I have this to say.

I don't think Communism is any more evil than the system of government in the United States. Which IS NOT DEMOCRACY. It is the illusion of Democracy just like the Soviet Union was the illusion of Communism. Proof is last year's presidential election, but that wasn't the starting point. At some point in the 20th Century, corporations took over America. Also, the two party system is to blame for the lack of Democracy. Let's look at the most recent candidates. Democrat, an old white male who doesn't represent any interests but that of old white males who consider themselves Democrat. I'd say that's about 20 percent of the population. Republican, an old white male who doesn't represent ... well you get the picture. Governments are extremely difficult to reproduce in games because programmers want to include the ideaology behind the types of governments but not what the governments actually function as.

Capitalism is worse than a socialist economy in my eyes. Corporations are free to price gouge consumers in this free market economy and they only care about profit. The stock market is the root of all evil, and I hope to god that there is a revolution in the United States.

I'm sorry I included my rhetoric in this post, but I wanted to make the point that governments in real life aren't what they say they are.

Sava · July 5, 2001, 11:57

NeoBlade, no offense, but if you are too unintellegent to type a coherent post, don't bother posting at all. You write at a second grade level.

Sava · July 5, 2001, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
we are all bored waiting for the civ 3 release...

THIS IS THE MOST INTELLIGENT POST EVER!!!

I'm not kidding. Rasputin hit the nail right on the head

Juggernaut · July 5, 2001, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Capitalism is worse than a socialist economy in my eyes. Corporations are free to price gouge consumers in this free market economy and they only care about profit. The stock market is the root of all evil, and I hope to god that there is a revolution in the United States.

No offense, but you got it all twisted wrong. most people just thinks that capitalism is "bad" and "evil", and don't care to listen to what it's really about.

the corporation's goal is to make money. to make money on a free market you have to satisfy your consumer. the good corporations survive, and the bad dissapear. this is only good for the consumers. eg. if one company lowers it´s prices, the others have to follow or lose clientel. this said, i don´t understand what you mean by "price-gouging".

free market is always superior,
you are free to choose.. hereby, i don't say that unethic methods to accomplish effective producing may occur, control instances wil always be needed, but as a basic concept capitalism, are and will always be, superior.

under communism, there´s no competition, there´s only one company in each bransch, monopoly, and even if you're unsatisfied with the company, there's no other alternative.

and the stock market is absolutely not evil, why should it be? the stock market gives everyone a theoretic chance to own a part of companies and make money.

besides, capitalism prevents war. just look at the people in yugoslavia. they would still have been fighting if they hadn´t been so busy making money right now. look at EU, there will propbably be no more wars between the member countries, their trade prevents it. this aspect of globalisation is astonishing. trade is GOOD!

ancient · July 5, 2001, 12:49

yes but in a communist nation (as defined by marx) the government controlls the buisiness, and the government is run democraticaly by the people, so there for the buisiness is controlled by the people, and if a majority of them are unhappy about the buisiness, they can change it.

Juggernaut · July 5, 2001, 13:03

yup, but democrazy in terms of majority/minority is not good either. it makes 50% decide over 40% what shall be done. if 50% want´s to build a gold statue of a famous football player, it will be build, with the 40%´s money.

the only way to accomplish true democrazy is to let people decide for themselves with their own money. this said, the government should be minimal, and most act as social welfare, not deciding what people want just because a majority thinks so.

besides, it will be almost impssible for innovative people to make their business ideas real, if a majority don´t believe in it, they won´t even get a chance to prove their idea is good, this is very bad for the society.

when a majority decides over a minority, it´s fascism

socialism will always be fascism. in my eyes for a good purpose (social welfare). but technically it´s nothing but fascism.

Grumbold · July 5, 2001, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by kolpo
They both have a good mainly public school sytem while GB has a mainly private school system.

The biggest problem in the GB economie is the lack of education because the public education don't get's enough funds and the private is way to expensive for most people.

I think you are confused. In England "Public Schools" are where the rich pay through the nose to send their kids, so they are essentially private schools

. These are such a tiny minority that there is absolutely no basis for your claim that we are mostly privately educated. I'm sure some rich German and French people can and do hire private tutors etc if they want to give their kids an academic advantage. The state schools are the main source of education for almost all UK children. Some of them are currently underperforming, partly because of underfunding and partly because of the legacy of government beaurocracy that siphons off time and money from the real task of actually teaching the kids. Like the EC we seem to be too good at creating new legislation and very bad at getting rid of old legislation that doesn't work properly.

Quote:

@Grumbold
Sientifix

my quote:
If this is supposed to be proof of the superiority of socialism, I have to refute it. /quote

You're right, it's not a proof of superiority. The proof of superiority is that there was more equality in France and Germany than in UK for similar economical results.

That just shows that socialism is making people more equal, not that it is superior, so socilalism is more socialist - surprise! To be superior the people would have to be better off. If everyone is penniless they are all equal but it hardly makes it a successful economy. I suppose it depends what you mean by "similar economical results" - GDP, average income?

In general terms I am a firm believer that I can spend my own money more efficiently than the government can. The welfare state is essential but it is very wasteful the way it is currently run in the UK. There certainly aren't anyt UK politicians who I would trust to spend my money wisely. Incidentally despite low rates of income tax the overall tax burden runs at around 45% so it is not that far adrift from the French model.

Quote:

my quote:
All countries tend to cycle through highs and lows of economic production, individual wealth and national pride. Those of the UK are rarely in phase with continental Europe which is why we can sometimes be smug at your expense and vice versa. /quote

Can you be more precise please? For record, France economy just get out of troubles two years ago, in 1998-1999.

One means of comparison is rate of growth of the economy. There are (recent) years where the UK has led Europe in rate of growth. There are other years where the UK economy is outperformed by the European ones. If either system was wholly superior then it would outperform the other. This doesn not seem to happen, we just go in cycles instead. This is what makes it difficult for some of us Brits to believe that joining the Euro zone will be a guaranteed success. The ERM fiasco was a shining example of what could happen.

Ugh. That's enough about RL economics and politics. I detest both subjects with equal intensity.