Debate Topic

[TooFarGann]

No, I mean Communism. Please learn political science terms before you try to correct people and invariably come off as a know-it-all. Thanks

Sorry, I did not mean to come off like that. I seriously think you have the definitions confused is all and I truly don't mean to be personal.

[Dudeman]

To clarify further, the difference between a lack of government and anarchy is the attitude of the people. I think. In anarchy, the people actively rebel against authority and resist any establishment of a state because "I can do what I want and no one can stop me." In Communism, ideally, no one cares about a lack of government because everyone should be concerned with everyone else's well-being.

...right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

I'm sorry friend, but you're simply wrong if you think that.
You could argue that the anarchism is therefore PART of Communism, but there is far more to Communism than just the lack of a state; namely, common ownership of all means of production and thereby abolition of private property.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

To clarify further, the difference between a lack of government and anarchy is the attitude of the people. I think. In anarchy, the people actively rebel against authority and resist any establishment of a state because "I can do what I want and no one can stop me." In Communism, ideally, no one cares about a lack of government because everyone should be concerned with everyone else's well-being.

...right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sort of; anarchism is simply the lack of gov't, similar to how Atheism is a lack of religion (sorry).
There are so many different forms and flavors of Anarchism though it's nearly impossible to define. Noam Chomsky has a really good essay on it IIRC.

I think the reason this occurs is that historically, Communism has almost always dissolved into authoritarianism (if you've got any good counterexamples, I'd love to hear them). I personally don't think that's gonna change any time soon, as patterns are pretty good indicators. But who knows. I'm waiting on a benevolent Communist nation to rise up and save the world any day now.

Well, there are really 3 non 3rd world countries that are communistic; these being Cuba, China, and North Korea. I think we can all agree North Korea is out of the question. China, while somewhat lightening up on the press and protesters in the last couple of decades, is still very much authoritarian and is ironically turning somewhat capitalistic in their economy (and is seeing a huge boom as a result, along with a lot of industrialization due to companies like Nike outsourcing their jobs there), thereby going against a truly Marxist state.
Cuba, unfortunately, I cannot speak about, as I'm not educated on. But my hunch is that the Castro brothers haven't loosened any kind of grip they've had.

[TooFarGann]

I am convinced the further left you go on a two dimensional political spectrum (cartesian plane) the closer you get to a purely collectivist economy, or Communist economy, passing socialism of course.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Political spectrums aren't two dimensional, though. You can't associate liberal/conservative with libertarian/authoritarian, hence why most political compass markings will essentially look like a graph.
The placement of Communism and Fascism is also a tricky one, since they have more to do with the second spectrum than the first, and can happen under both extreme left and extreme right ideologies. Nazi Germany, for example, was a National Socialist (Fascist) regime, which was fairly far right but also at the same time provided things like universal healthcare and education for the "pure" race.

[TooFarGann]

Political spectrums aren't two dimensional, though. You can't associate liberal/conservative with libertarian/authoritarian, hence why most political compass markings will essentially look like a graph.
The placement of Communism and Fascism is also a tricky one, since they have more to do with the second spectrum than the first, and can happen under both extreme left and extreme right ideologies. Nazi Germany, for example, was a National Socialist (Fascist) regime, which was fairly far right but also at the same time provided things like universal healthcare and education for the "pure" race.

Socialism and Fascism are two different things: Socialism is Collectivism (economic ideology)  whereas fascism is authoritarianism (social ideology).

[FireArrow]

I think the reason this occurs is that historically, Communism has almost always dissolved into authoritarianism (if you've got any good counterexamples, I'd love to hear them). I personally don't think that's gonna change any time soon, as patterns are pretty good indicators. But who knows. I'm waiting on a benevolent Communist nation to rise up and save the world any day now.

There's a small successful communist society somewhere in nocal iirc. It works out though because it's a small population, I don't think you could get people to cooperate in something as vast as a nation.

[mikey]

anarchy is collapse of government

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Socialism and Fascism are two different things: Socialism is Collectivism (economic ideology)  whereas fascism is authoritarianism (social ideology).

Once again, my friend, you're labeling things completely inaccurately.

Definition of socialism:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
IE It's not a yes or no answer as to "are we a socialist nation". The question is, "to what extent?". We already have social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, NASA, etc..
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."
Pretty self explanatory.

Fascism is closer to authoritarianism, but you forget that fascism is also typically paired with extreme nationalism, as we see in places like Nazi Germany.

[E. Gadd Industries]

Ok, here are my thoughts (expect typos, I'm using a faulty keyboard. -_-) on the A-bomb thing:

No, America was not justified in using the Atomic Bomb. It wasn't worth killing millions of lives, and forcing some populations to still deal with the effects of radiation. One of the biggest reasons America dropped it was to scare/impress the USSR. Truman was meeting with Stalin during the time to sign a treaty, and when he heard about the bombs being dropped, he upped the terms of said treaty in favor of America. He claimed hat I gave him more confidence. So, aside from USSR, why else did Truman decide to go ahead and drop the atomic bomb? Well, the Manhattan project was extremely costly, and so to avoid ridicule & being accused of wasting finances, Truman was more than willing to use them instead of keeping them stored away (for when they actually might've needed to be used). Also, what about the weapon itself? Why was the atomic bomb chosen? This is a simple, yet overlooked truth. Einstein didn't have the best idea. Tesla began his career actually working for Einstein, but when Tesla broke away and started to work solo, this angered Einstein. Tesla was tired of having his ideas taken and used to give Einstein glory, and that's what pushed him over the edge: the lack of recognition/honor/whatever you want o call it. Since Tesla had left Einstein, he decided to try and overpower him in status (similarly to how big companies will bully small businesses out of an area). During the time of WWII, Tesla had heard how the US (along with other nations) needed a weapon of (essentially) mass destruction, and so he set to work on the Death Ray, a device that shot a concentrated, charged stream of air at a target, and this would vaporize the target instantly. But this weapon had something more over the atomic bomb: the ability to be focused on a target. This alone should have sold the death ray over the atomic bomb. That, and they were reusable. As opposed to having only 2 A-bombs, the Death Ray could be shot repeatedly (after recharging, of course). Still, with Einstein seeking to destroy Tesla's career, he bullied him & his Death Ray to the point that his A-bomb seemed a much better weapon of mass destruction, and ultimately, brought about the downfall of Tesla. Had people listened to Tesla and not Einstein, that particular attack would have been radically different, and maybe even nonexistent.

Citation 1
Citation 2

[MaestroUGC]

First of all, Tesla worked for Thomas Edison, not Einstein. Second of all, Tesla's work on his "death ray" predate WWII entirely. He reportedly began discussing such a device in the mid 30's. I'm also pretty sure he never actually worked on it, or at least never committed the idea to paper.

[MaestroUGC]

First of all, Tesla worked for Thomas Edison, not Einstein. Second of all, Tesla's work on his "death ray" predate WWII entirely. He reportedly began discussing such a device in the mid 30's. I'm also pretty sure he never actually worked on it, or at least never committed the idea to paper.

[Dude]

OK OK we get it, you don't need to post it twice.

[mikey]

OK OK we get it, you don't need to post it twice.