The Shartak Communist Party

[Che]

The Shartak Communist party is an official political party as of today. Our goals include a capitalist-free and educated public in Shartak about the wonders of Communism. I, Che, will be speaking about several topics at the Durham Ammo Hut tommorow, Friday, February 16th. If you can not make it, do not worry, as I'll soon be going to all the other Outsider towns, and hopefully soon the Shipwreck and the 3 Native villages!


Our Wiki-page is: http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/The_Shartak_Communist_Party

[FirstAmongstDaves]

My dear Che:

The 1st Imperial Privateer Regiment is a monarchist corsair unit, with loyalties to a hereditary royal head of state, Our Illustrious Queen Laura. You're on notice that your activities are illegal, immoral and an offence against a God-annointed throne, and there is with immediate effect a 20GC bounty on your head and the head of every member of your cabal, payable on every single proven death, and collectible at any bank branch from the Imperials' account.


Yours,
First Amongst Daves

[eLLa]

I am also selling overcoats that bear Che's face for 2 GCs each.

[Arminius]

We, the freedom-loving men of Shartak, will work tirelessly to stop the Shartak Communist Party's efforts. We stand for freedom and will not stand for the presence of the Red Disease on this island.

Shartak Anti-Communists.

Death to communism! 

[Keiichi]

Hey, dont drag TAOS into this, Arminius!

[Rob Zombie]

Long live the downfall of capitalism! (but not necisarily the rise of communism)

yall who dont even review the options. I'm guessing you're a relic of the cold war.

Communism is without a doubt THE BEST gouverning system. With one condition. Its not run by a dictator.
100% of the earth was communist at one point, as i've stated on other threads at some point, and it worked better than monarchies and democracies which are sexist, racist and generaly money-hungry (but not the the extent Che would have you believe)

This may be irrelevant, but I'd rather have a communist leader than George 'Im a big ****head' Bush - figure head of 'democracy'. I'll refer you the random pictures thread, to the Bush-Hitler picture. Spot on, daddy's boy, inbred, hillbilly arseface.

[Black Joe]

Long live the downfall of capitalism! (but not necisarily the rise of communism)

yall who dont even review the options. I'm guessing you're a relic of the cold war.

Communism is without a doubt THE BEST gouverning system. With one condition. Its not run by a dictator.
100% of the earth was communist at one point, as i've stated on other threads at some point, and it worked better than monarchies and democracies which are sexist, racist and generaly money-hungry (but not the the extent Che would have you believe)

It's fine to say that communism is the best governing system.  However, Simon Bolivar, liberator of much of South America, once said that it was important to choose not the best governing system, but the one that works.  Communism is a wonderful system in theory, but the problem is that it simply isn't practical.  It counts on human beings behaving in a consistently selfless way.  Human beings naturally seek to better their own position, even if it's at others' expense, and it's unrealistic to expect them to continuously act against their natures.  Therefore, communism will never work, as it denies human nature.  That's why democracies and capitalism work.  They acknowledge human beings look out only for number 1, and they use that to better society as a whole.  After all, if 51% of the population will prosper under a given law, then you're bettering a majority of your population.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out something.  There used to be a substantial number of communist governments in the world.  None of them worked.  They all became unpopular dictatorships.  Many of them, particularly in Eastern Europe, have now become democratic and capitalistic.  This tells me that people under communism are unhappy with their circumstances.  It's fine to approve of the ideals that motivate communism, but if you ignore the facts (people governed by communist governments hate communism) in favor of those ideals (communism=teh roxxors), then you're no different from President Bush, who has allowed his ideals to cloud his judgement of foreign affairs.

Additionally, communism has no method of self-correction.  A communist government will make mistakes, and without a method of self-correction, they will consistently fail to please their people.  After the fall fo the Iron Curtain, a Polish newspaper editor pointed out that democracies are inefficient and flawed, and this is why idealogues hate them.  However, he also pointed out that democracies have a built-in method of self-correction, something no other government has.  That is why many countries in Eastern Europe chose to go democratic.

And perhaps our discussion of communism should be moved to another thread to avoid spamming Che's recruitment thread? 

[Mark D. Stroyer]

Probably. But it's good to know that someone has sense around here!

Also, saying that, "Russia and China didn't/don't have real communism" is, in fact, a form of propaganda, just so no one goes there.

[lama]

After the fall fo the Iron Curtain, a Polish newspaper editor pointed out that democracies are inefficient and flawed, and this is why idealogues hate them.  However, he also pointed out that democracies have a built-in method of self-correction, something no other government has.  That is why many countries in Eastern Europe chose to go democratic.

Winston Churchill was first to point that in his quite famous quote... We had no choice, because there were no alternatives, so saying we chose democracy is, mmm, not so good way to naming things. Perhaps people are not quite familiar with modern polish history, but our version of communism resembled the things Adolf Hitler did. People in opposition to government were disappearing, everything was censored, propaganda told polish folks everything is all-right and a ok, while it wasn't. Our economy was in the state of total knock-out, mainly that is the idea behind the puny condition of polish democracy now. You cannot repai with ease something constantly being destroyed for 40 years. Killing workers on strike, demanding to be paid for their work, killing priests that were dangerous individuals... Some say that the only reason Karol Wojtyla, later known as a pope John Paul II wasn't killed, is because he was to prominent person and they couldn't cover that up not to make public opinion angry, also he was one of the most intelligent people of his times, fighting the system from inside he never named the things straight way (I'm not a roman catholic, I'm just pointing out some facts). An so on and on and on... Do you know what happend, when you could buy something else than vinegar? There were kilometer long queues to buy sausage, sugar, whatever. If you wanted to have furniture, you must had spend 2 days, waitnig in line, and usually you took what was left, ot what you wanted.

So finishing this quick polish history patchwork, saying the communism in theory is the best governing system is reasonable, but you would have to live it to see the difference

[Arminius]

Communism is a terrible form of government in theory and in practice. Giving total power and control over all aspects of society to a government which is manned by fanatics whose sole purpose in life is the destruction of human life (killing or imprisoning 'counter-revolutionary' opponents, enslaving the remainder to their despicable system) and the destruction of human values, this has to be the worst worst idea I've ever heard, the worst idea I've ever heard.

In this 5-minute video clip, staunch anti-Communist G. Edward Griffin describes communist tyranny and issues a stark warning to the free peoples of this world -- Those of you foolish enough to say that Marx was great and communism's good would be well advised to watch and listen.

[Arminius]

Socialism, by definition, means control over people. If the government owns and controls all property, all means of production, and all avenues of commerce, then it controls all people. If we're dependent upon the government for our food, our clothing, our shelter, our jobs, our medical care, then we're far more effectively controlled by those who hold political power, than if they stood over us with soldiers and weapons.

[Black Joe]

Communism is a terrible form of government in theory and in practice. Giving total power and control over all aspects of society to a government which is manned by fanatics whose sole purpose in life is the destruction of human life (killing or imprisoning 'counter-revolutionary' opponents, enslaving the remainder to their despicable system) and the destruction of human values, this has to be the worst worst idea I've ever heard, the worst idea I've ever heard.

In theory, communist systems are supposed to result in a big happy utopia in which government is unnecessary because everyone shares everything and everyone is equal.  That's what people like.  However, you're discussing what really happens whenever communism is attempted.  The average age of our two junior communists is 14.  Therefore, I'm inclined to agree with Churchill's famous statement about communism.  "He who is not a communist at 18 has no heart. He who is not a capitalist at 40 has no head."  Teenagers tend to be attracted to ideological systems like communism.

[Arminius]

In theory, communist systems are supposed to result in a big happy utopia in which government is unnecessary because everyone shares everything and everyone is equal.  That's what people like.

Even best-case-scenario utopian Communism (which as you say is not possible, so this is merely academic) is still a terrible idea, because it destroys individual liberty, promotes stagnation (no competition and the whole "why work [hard] if you can just get a hand-out") and because it is a nation-wrecking, culture-destroying ideology of mass-misery. Even in utopian communism, the fruits of my labor would still be stolen from me. If I work hard and produce 10 tons of grain on my farm, why should 9 tons of that grain be forcibly 're-distributed' to 9 lazy do-nothings who spent all season sleeping late into every day, never working, and getting drunk every night. This is unfair, it is outright Theft, and I sure as hell am not going to stand for it. I worked backbreaking labor 16 hours a day for months to grow and reap that grain, I am not going to give 90% of it away to a bunch of bums who never worked an hour in that entire time. But in communism one is not allowed to keep the fruits of his own labor, as there are 9 others with no grain at all (to each according to his need, right?). My opposition to this Injustice is quashed, though, by the threat of a bullet in the base of the skull from the Enforcers of this "utopian socialist society", or perhaps just a permanent vacation to re-education forced labor camp, as I am clearly a counter-revolutionary and a fascist for my opposition to this Injustice. So I am forced to give up the fruits of my own labor. But here's where it gets interesting- Who is going to force me? Perhaps the bums would gang up on me themselves and simply take my grain--if so this would be nothing but robbery, the rule of the jungle. Some "utopian perfect society", a gang of people simply steal what they want from someone else. That seems a major step back, not forwards. But to prevent this level of anarchy, there would need to be some sort of central means to redistribute "to each according to his need". If the State forces me to hand over 90% of my harvest, how is it going to do that without an army and a heavy state apparatus? The whole "withering away of the state" was a lie from the very beginning, just as all of Marxism was.


"The important question, though, is 'Why do the communists promote socialism?' Is it merely because they honestly believe that it's a necessary transitional stage to some higher, more perfect form of society? I don't think so. I doubt very much if the communist leaders believe their own fairy tale. And I'm sure they're not so naive as to believe that their present Super-State is ever really going to 'wither away'. But they promote Socialism just the same, because they know that Socialism, by definition, means control over people. ..." (--G. Edward Griffin)

[Gitboy]

Brain... melting...

Firstly, I'd like to point out the obvious flaw in Marxism, which is that it tries to establish an egalitarian society via the following method:
1) Overthrow government
2) Install new government
3) Wait for new government to disband itself

The question that really begs answering is why carry on after step one?

The failure of marxism was caused because it allowed a ruling elite to seize power and abuse it.  It's not inherently much worse than any other system that allows that, but it just so happens that the old eastern bloc got some of the worst leaders in recent history.

On the other hand, capitalism is hardly much better - it's just a different way of controlling the workers.  Any system that has a parasitic class, be they managers, party beurocrats, monarchs, or otherwise, is going to have the same inherent problems caused by the abuse of the producing classes.

"Anarchism is the revolutionary idea that nobody is more qualified than you to decide how your life should be lived" - Crimethinc.

(and yeah, perhaps this should be moved to another thread, to unclog Che's recruitment drive)

[Rob Zombie]

There's too much here for me to look at it all and remember enough to reply. so here's my best.

Editing my first statement; it is good, if power given to one leader is closely monitored by a dozen Vice-Leaders.
 
(I deleted an irrelevant bit here about how the perfect gouvernment would be kept in working order)

communism, true communism in its rawest and simplest form, means 'Spread the bread, tight '
Communism has a bad name because bad rulers are usualy in charge. But democracy has more than its share of dicks anyway. (by the way, who'd vote for Al Gore over Bush? - answer, everbody should have)
If a good ruler came in to a communist system then the world would be a better place for it, because that would be a utopian civilisation.
I feel i should say, American Democracy under Bush = the needs of the many, sacrificed for the wants of the rich.
Real Communism - the wants of the rich, sacrificed for the needs of the many.

Who is bigger on climate change by the way? I wathed An Inconvienient Truth the other day so i can see what the USA's plans for climate change are. China and Russia are well ahead of the US.