[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Fair enough. I was always under the impression though that Stalin was all too eager to enter the Pacific theatre, though, and the bomb was dropped to make sure he didn't.

Russia wouldn't have joined US in war against Japan in any case as it would have created another Yalta Conference like situation. Well it all boils down to the fact that the atomic bombs had the effect that Russia kept itself confined to its Chinese sphere of influence which it later acceded after the rise of Mao. Talking of Japan's surrender, a political victory of unconditional surrender compared to conditional one can't justify the death of 0.5 million people and genetic defects in at least a million more to come. If the death of a dog sent to space by Russia is such unjustified according to some peoples' standards, then the same people must think before justifying the deaths of half a million on Japan and another half in Dresden and Hamburg. I mean, did US patent the act of mass genocide after Minto Docrine that it makes such a cry about others pirating it? Or is a license available to kill humans for political ends by one country that others can't?

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

There has never been any real communist government, they all tend to lean towards dictatorial regimes. However, there seems to be a correlation as to the downfall of nations as they become more and more state owned.

Communist single party government by nature are dictatorial as it is naive to expect every human to act in favour of higher ideals rather than being self centered. You seem to be mixing communism and socialism in one package, one can exist without the other with real examples of countries doing so. Communism is a government system while socialism is a market system.

If all businesses and industries are owned by the state then it is a bad formula because of basic incentive driven human nature. The government should have an open market but control the price and supply mechanism so that the market can't be manipulated by capitalists to raise their profits by artificial means. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are one examples of such systems, like those in Shanghai or Shenzhen which are successful models.

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Communism is a government system while socialism is a market system.

Yes, but it seems as if most communist government governments incorporate socialism into their system.

[Lt. Kettch]

Communist single party government by nature are dictatorial

Surely any single party government can be considered dictatorial.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Spammy

Yes, but it seems as if most communist government governments incorporate socialism into their system.

There are democratic and socialist systems too like India or present Russia. The current CPC government in China is somewhat inclined towards capital markets as opposed to its vehement socialism a before liberalisation.

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Surely any single party government can be considered dictatorial.

No, it depends on the situation and politics. A dictatorial government is a one man government while a normal communist system is authoritarian but not dictatorial. Dictatorial governments are those of Saudi Arabia and other West Asian countries which need more taking care of....In communist system state decisions are made after a consensus of members and implemented quickly unlike a system where everything drags on in the multi party parliament for years.

Here is a post I made a few weeks back on it. From a factual point of view both systems work when the environment is conductive to them. Except China no country was able to finish all the five stages of a social communist system.

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

Communism is a government system while socialism is a market system.

Actually kinda both.

Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Source

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

Actually kinda both.

Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Source

So how does government ownership or control of industries point to communism? India followed a complete socialist model of economic system till 1991 and still does to an extent, does that mean it is a communist country? What about Malaysia?

Economic systems and government systems are different thing and if one of them influences the other in some cases it does not mean they are the same. If your thought process is followed then US wouldn't be a democratic country but an oligarch as a lot of state decisions are influenced by powerful capitalists. And media is generally regulated by the people who give the news they decide you should hear.

Hate to point out but it is wiser to look up to terms and compare their relations before making conclusions of other based on one. Shows a lack of logical reasoning if I were to use the more polite term....

[Cyparagon]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

So how does government ownership or control of industries point to communism?

Communism: "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"

They sound similar to me.

Originally Posted by I'm Me

it is wiser to look up to terms and compare their relations before making conclusions of other based on one.

I wasn't comparing communism and socialism in my previous post (although they do have similarities), I said socialism is a government system and a market system.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

Communism: "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"

That is a very inaccurate definition, where did you get it from? Communism and production aren't very close unless socialism comes in the picture. There are communist governments which do not own anything except the government buildings like Myanmar.

Communism is a single party system of government where there is no opposition parties and members are elected and positioned on the basis of their skills and capability than how many votes they could capture or how much money they could flood in the elections. In a communist system of government all state decisions are taken and implemented after a concensus and discussion on the said policy in done unlike democratic setups where majority decisions gains mileage whether the idea is fesiable or not.

Originally Posted by Cyparagon

They sound similar to me.I wasn't comparing communism and socialism in my previous post (although they do have similarities), I said socialism is a government system and a market system.

You are wrong here, socialism is not a government system, I suggest you brush up your knowledge on this.

India and Pakistan for example, have a socialist systems of market economy while the government is democratic. The government gets elected through the election process like any democracy. The major industries like power, gas, oil, rails, telecom, military weapons development, etc. are controlled and owned by the national government.

Saying communism and socialism are the same thing is like saying democracy and capitalism are the same thing. Not very intelligent.

[Lt. Kettch]

Communism is not a system of government, it is an absence of government.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Lt. Kettch

Communism is not a system of government, it is an absence of government.

Thats is a pessimistic personal opinion without any backup using factual data or logical argument.

[Zachary Gibbons]

Observation: No, he's right. True rule-by-the-people requires everyone, and thus no-one, to be in charge.

[Muzzi]

If the story of America was a childs picture book then the last page would be a picture of a giant mushroom cloud.

[SlabumniLoviets]

Originally Posted by Zachary Gibbons

Observation: No, he's right. True rule-by-the-people requires everyone, and thus no-one, to be in charge.

Rule-by-the-people is democracy, one of the systems of government. By your comment you are apparently trying to say that only democracy is a government system, others systems are not government systems. That is an errorenous assumption. Rule-by-the-people is not very efficient on cases where the population and diversity of demographics is huge as average humans tend to get polised and fooled easily by strong hate messages and political propaganda.

[Zachary Gibbons]

Originally Posted by I'm Me

By your comment you are apparently trying to say that only democracy is a government system

Clarification: No. Really, really, no. Admittedly, I did get "by the people" and "for the good of the people" mixed up, but I said that "by the people" should be no government, and thus by extension democracy should be no government - nothing like saying it's the only true government.

[Denz]

Democracy means ruled by the people, this is a REPRESENTATIVE system, communism is suposed to have everything communal, a community where everyone does its part and it is shared.